Problems With A Jeremy Scenario

Started by Erik Narramore, January 28, 2022, 08:09:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 28, 2022, 08:09:15 PM
Why does he shoot at June first?  If Nevill is in bed (your claim), then Jeremy has all the time in the world.  Why not just stand over the bed and shoot Nevill at close range, then June?

if Jeremy is staging this as Sheila run amok, he can shoot June as many times as he likes once he has killed Nevill.

Nevill is at the other side of the bed.  How does Nevill manage to get out of the bedroom and past Jeremy?  Why doesn't Jeremy just shoot him?

Why doesn't Nevill tackle Jeremy instead?

You're still saying Nevill was shot in bed.  How come he leaves no blood on the bedclothes?

How does Nevill know Jeremy will even follow him downstairs?  He is leaving the twins in danger and Sheila.  I don't say that is impossible, but is it likely?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#1
January 28, 2022, 08:09:40 PM
It wasn't a king size bed in a Las Vegas penthouse.  It was just an ordinary brass double bed.  He could have stood over the bed and shot Nevill easily, then shot June.  Same as what he did with the twins in one of the fusillades, according to you.

Just seems a bit strange that he would focus so much on June and allow Nevill to get up.  Maybe Nevill was snoring and June was awake and propped up in bed reading her Bible?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#2
January 28, 2022, 08:10:13 PM
Jeremy lets him run away, but the prosecution say Jeremy is shooting him.  What were the injuries to Nevill before he left the bedroom?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#3
January 28, 2022, 08:10:46 PM
So we have Nevill, a 61 year old man in bed, just woke, shot twice in the face.  Where else was he shot while in the bedroom?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#4
January 28, 2022, 08:11:50 PM
I don't find the prosecution scenario very plausible, for all sorts of reasons.  Not impossible, if perhaps modified a little, just not as likely as other possibilities.

I appreciate it is a semi-automatic rifle, but I don't find it very likely that Jeremy would shoot June first in such a haphazard manner.  Again, I appreciate he needs to stage this as Sheila running amok, but he could just stand over or near the bed and shoot Nevill, then June, or June then Nevill - either works, as long as he quickly kills or incapacitates them.  He can then fire into them more once they're incapacitated.  There is no way Nevill would get up under those circumstances, or if he does, he isn't going far (as demonstrated by June).  Jeremy would then say that Sheila had done exactly that: simply walked up to the bed and killed them.  Why not?  Why take the risk of allowing people to move around the house?

I think if what the prosecution say had happened and June had been shot multiple times first instead of Nevill, there would still be blood on Nevill's side of the bed because Jeremy would immediately notice him stirring, and I think given the layout of the bedroom, Nevill would have had difficulty escaping from Jeremy.  The exit to the main landing was on the other side of the bed and Jeremy was in the way.  The only other exit was to the box room, which would have required Nevill to turn his back to Jeremy.

I accept that Jeremy does not want to be marked, but I think Jeremy would have stopped him either by firing some more or with the butt of the rifle.  Besides, according to the prosecution's own scenario, Jeremy struggles with him anyway when they're in the kitchen.

The long and short of it is that Jeremy, if he is the killer, needs to contain his parents in that room.  If Jeremy is the killer, then Nevill's escape (or Nevill already downstairs) represented the plan going awry and I think he then decided to make up the phone call.  My view is that if Jeremy did it, then Nevill was already downstairs.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#5
January 28, 2022, 08:12:26 PM
Which is it?  Nevill was woken up by being shot, or was he woke up immediately prior to being shot, thus he was shot at least twice in bed?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#6
January 28, 2022, 08:13:05 PM
If Nevill leaves that bedroom, he could go anywhere in the house and barricade himself in a room, then open a window and either attempt an escape or shout towards the cottages that were only 100 yards or so away.  If he makes it downstairs ahead of Jeremy, he could simply run through the kitchen and it's then only five yards or so to his private den or to the back staircase that leads back up to the upper floor office.

If the prosecution are saying Jeremy caught up with him, then why does Jeremy wait until the kitchen to do that?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#7
January 28, 2022, 08:13:41 PM
What is the evidence that tells the prosecution that Nevill was shot twice in the face while still in the main bedroom, even in bed?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#8
January 28, 2022, 08:14:21 PM
It can't have been when out of bed, can it.  He must have been in the bed, or the prosecution theory doesn't hang together.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#9
January 28, 2022, 08:14:49 PM
I do not believe that this evidence establishes Nevill was in the main bedroom that night at all.

The rifle with silencer attached would be something like 1150mm in length (no doubt somebody can double-check and find the precise length).   Nevill is on the other side of the bed.  That means, if we accept that these were contact shots, Jeremy has to lean over the bed.  Did Jeremy ask Nevill to stand still while he shot him?

Just because he is found in pyjamas, it does not follow that he started out in the bedroom.  Yes, looked at in isolation, it suggests he was in the bedroom - just common sense - but it doesn't necessarily quite work that way in reality because Nevill did work outside until very late and may have changed downstairs at June's insistence or whatever, and may have had a drink or two and simply had a habit of falling asleep downstairs.  Why not?

We do have the four cartridge cases recorded as found in the main bedroom, but we can't rely on that.

The most compelling evidence is that there is no blood on Nevill's side of the bed.  I see that you have changed your scenario to accommodate this and you are now saying that he was not shot in bed.  But if he was not shot in bed, then your scenario doesn't work pathologically because you say he was shot at close range, yet I assume he was running like 'lightning' (according to Munksa).

It's not hanging together.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#10
January 28, 2022, 08:15:31 PM
Some of the wounds track downwards, according to the pathologist.  In his report, Dr. Vanezis enumerates the wounds, so could you look yourself now and tell us which of the wounds were those that Nevill sustained in the main bedroom and in what order?

Also, how does the prosecution scenario fit with the conclusion of Dr. Vanezis that the head/neck wounds were inflicted "after [Nevill] had ceased to struggle"?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#11
January 28, 2022, 08:16:06 PM
Let's say that a resolution of this problem depends on Nevill bolting from the room.

The prosecution say that Jeremy shot June in the head while she was still in bed.  That means Jeremy needed to be stood at the foot of the bed, facing Nevill and June, and he would have been blocking Nevill's exit from the bedroom.

This also means that Jeremy must have shot June first, allowing Nevill to wake and escape, even though he had ample time to simply kill Nevill while he slept.  Jeremy was using a semi-automatic rifle and just needed to point the muzzle end at Nevill.  Nothing could be simpler.

Nevill has managed to get out of bed and past Jeremy, leaving no blood, despite being shot several times.

If the transfer blood mark on the wall of the landing at the door of Sheila's bedroom is from Nevill, that means Nevill has run on the opposite direction of the stairs, then stopped and run to the stairs.  He has then only left one further transfer blood mark anywhere: on the wall of the first stair landing.  All this time, Jeremy has not fired on him or caught up with him.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#12
January 28, 2022, 08:16:38 PM
If June was shot five times in bed, she's staying in bed - in my layman's opinion.  Especially if she is shot in the head.

In view of the layout of the main bedroom, if Nevill is shot in or as he is getting out of bed, he will leave blood on the bed clothes and will either tackle Jeremy there and then, or Jeremy will block him, or both.  Jeremy is in his way.  And if Jeremy shoots him in the upper head region at this stage, you can multiple the probabilities that he is not making it out of that bedroom.

I don't find the prosecution scenario very plausible (which is not to say it isn't happen - I accept it is possible).
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#13
January 28, 2022, 08:17:31 PM
I don't accept that the prosecution scenario is based on the evidence.  Important aspects of Dr. Vanezis' evidence contradict what you are saying, whereas my own Jeremy scenario is consistent with the pathological evidence.  There is no blood on Nevill's side of the bed and no blood of Nevill's in the bedroom.  Jeremy would have been in Nevill's way.  The position of the cartridge cases cannot be relied on.  It's a virtual certainty that June's body has been moved by somebody prior to photography, probably the police.

Of course, no scenario will be perfect and even the prosecution at trial could not be sure of a scenario, and Jeremy's convictions are not based on a specific scenario.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#14
January 28, 2022, 08:19:12 PM
Note, for information: blood typed to Nevill was found on the wall of the middle landing of the main stairs, and on the wall next to the door to Sheila's bedroom.  These blood results were indicative, so it is possible that the blood could be attributable to June, if justified on circumstantial grounds. I will put it like this: in either a Jeremy or Sheila scenario, these blood marks are likely to be Nevill's, with a smaller possibility that one or both were June's.  In a Jeremy scenario, Nevill and/or June left the marks; in a Sheila scenario, it is possible these are transfer blood marks from Sheila herself, but could be directly from Nevill and/or June.

I dealt with the idea of Nevill exiting through the box room in my scenario.  Nevill would not do this due to the layout of the main bedroom.  The box room is southerly to the main bedroom and therefore behind the bed.  This means Nevill would have his back to Jeremy as he exited by that route, which - in my opinion - means he would not have chosen that route, due to the vulnerability it would present for him, which he would sense intuitively; had he done, Jeremy could have easily shot him in the back.  Also, I am of the view that if Nevill escapes from that bedroom, Jeremy is in big, big trouble.  It's obvious that Jeremy can't have planned it that way (which axiomatically means that a phone call from Nevill was an improvised element, not part of the plan).  If Nevill escapes into the twins room, then he will not leave the twins.  He will stand and fight, maybe also barricade the room.  He will do whatever it takes.  As you say, he will also leave blood in there.

The prosecution have a point when they talks about Nevill rushing out of the room.  Nevill could have done this and, to emphasise, it is not my position that Adam's scenario is impossible.  I only say it is not very plausible, for a number of reasons already mentioned - opportunity to kill Nevill, absence of blood, bullet trajectories, Jeremy simply in the way, various other circumstantial factors, psychological-motivational factors. 

After 37 years, the prosecution have still not produced a scenario that matches the evidence, but I believe the main point is that if such a scenario were put in front of a jury to consider, there would have to be doubt about it.  The 1986 jury clearly did not give much thought to the matter.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions