An experienced pathologist seemed to think it was possible that is why he said he was unable to confirm murder or suicide.
The job of the pathologist was to assess murder or suicide based on the wounds. The assessment was not made by looking at all the available evidence including the suppressor contianing her blood. The pathologist assessment is not the end all, be all it is common for the assessment to not be detemrinative and for all the evidence in the case to provide the key.
Sheila had a little knowledge of guns. I don't see that anyone needs to be a mastermind to load and fire the said rifle 25 times. All shots were close range so perhaps difficult to miss.
It is not a fact that she had a little knowledge about guns that was an allegation merely. The only evidence she had even a shred of knowledge about guns came from Jeremy Bamber alleging it. He alleged that her knowledge consisted of her shooting a gun with him when she was a child. He didn't say what type of gun or whether she was taught to load it herself or simply had it handed to her and told how to operate it. No one else backed up Jeremy's allegation it was uncorroborated. All other testimony was that she had no interest in guns and didn't touch them.
Is Jeremy's claim credible?
1) it was a self-serving claim, he wanted people to believe she could figure out how to operate the murder weapon so this is a reason to be suspicious
2) He already previously lied about this very issues so this is another reason to be suspicious. He initially told police who arrived at the scene that she had fired all the guns in the house and was proficient with them. Why did he lie? Among other things he wanted police to believe she was very capable of using firearms and could shoot someone.
Why did he change his account? The farm had workers and visitors (including extended family) around constantly and they all stated she had no interest in guns and didn't touch them. Jeremy didn't want to look like a liar to the jury. He would look like a liar if he claimed to the jury that she liked to go target shooting but then everyone else testified she never went target shooting and didn't even touch guns. Multiple peopel against his word when he is saying something self-serving is not good.
So he amended his account to one that these witnesses could not impeach. He said he never saw her handle a gun as an adult (thus aggreeing with the witness) but claimed she went target shooting with him as a child. The people who testified were not necessarily around when she was a child and this target shoot might have happened. They would not be able to remember anything that long ago even if any had been around then. How could they say for sure she could have gone target shooting once as a child?
By changing his story he effectively conceded he lied to police. But you had to pay close attention to notice the fact. If there were a conflict in testimony during the trial that would be a bigger deal and be obvious to jurors. Less obvious was to notice he lied to police. How did he lie? Well the guns in the house were all obtained while she was an adult. Therefore none of them could have been used the time they went target shooting together even if this actually did happen. He stipulated he had not seen her handle a gun as an adult which means he effectively stipulated he had not seen her handle and of the guns in the house at the time of the murders because all of them were obtained when she was an adult. Thus when he told police she used allo firearms in the house and was proficient with them he had no basis for making this claim it was a lie. Notice that you have to actually analyze it to see that he lied. He figured the jury would not notice this. The jury would hear that he agreed she hadn't fired weapons as an adult but had as a child and thus would believe she knew how to use a gun.
3) Even if she had gone target shooting as a child does that mean she remembered it from so long ago and knew how to use the murder weapon? No. Even if she did use a gun as a child she might not remember and worse it was not the same model. Because it was not the same model the gun she used might not have been a semi-auto. You don't just load a magazine into the gun, you must chamber a round for the gun to fire. The operation of the gun will automatically reload it till the gun is empty but the initial round must be chambered manually. She might not remember this even if she had used a sei-auto as a child and if she had never used a semi-auto before she would probably not be aware of the fact she needed to chamber around let alone figure out how to do so. Since she never used it before she would not know where the magazine release is so that she could remove the magazine to reload. Losing time to figure out how to do such would have been a problem. She didn't have multiple magazines. The magazine needed to be removed from the gun and that magazine reloaded which takes some time. Doing this for the first time under pressure would be bad enough let alone while in a crazy frenzy and with the dexterity problems assocatiaied with her medicine. Loss of time means opportunity for Nevill to disarm her.
The bottom line is this, she never used the murder weapon before, she had not used any gun as an adult and had no interest in them thus didn't make it a point to learn how to use them. There is no evidence she ever used a semi-auto before. The only evidence she ever used a gun ever was an uncorroborated allegation form Jeremy that she target shot with him as a child but the type of gun was never mentioned so even if it happened there is no evidence it had the same kind of action (the operation of the weapon is its action, semi-auto, bolt action, lever action etc) as the murder weapon. He previously lied about this very issue because he wanted police ot believe she knew how to use a gun. If she actually had used it why did he need to lie? Which suggests this was also a lie to still find a way to claim she knew how to use a gun. At the end of the day it was a naked self-seving allegation that still doesn't establish she would know how to use the urder weapon even if it were true.
I don't think anyone entered into a hand to hand fight with Nevill as he was too badly injured having received the 3 or 4 shots in the bedroom.
Quite likely, if Sheila was responsible, that she washed/showered and changed as suggested by Prof Knight at trial.
The fact you refuse to believe (or refuse to adit) Nevill's killer engaged in to hand to hand combat with him doesn't mean it didn't happen. The physical evidence proves this did occur. I already addressed this in other threads where you made the same claims.
Your account is that Nevill was so weak he simply passed out and was shot to death as he was slumped over, there was no struggle.
If that were the case then when did the killer punch and break his nose, punch his face enough additional times to give him 2 black eyes and why did the killer bash him with the rifle? He was not passed out when this occurred, he was still alert enough to block the rifle blows with his arms because he had the defensive wounds to prove he did such. Eventually though the killer did knocked him out with he rifle by hitting him repeatedly over the head with it to the point of breaking the rifle stock. Do you know the pressure necessary to break a rifle stock? He had been hit extremely hard by someone with substantial strength.
If he had been nearly passed out they why would th ekiller need to punch him in the face multiple times brekaing his nose and giving him black eyes and why would the killer need to bash him over the head? If he were near passing out the killer would have simply shot him or if the gun was empty would have reloaded and then shot him. The killer would not have resorted to close quarters combat at all.
I left out some more evidence. There is evidence that Nevill grabbed the gun and tried to wrestle it away from his killer. So much for him being near passing out. Nevill and his killer grappled over the gun and in the process they swayed all around the kitchen knocking over things. The rifle was going all over the place as each tried to gain control. It was knocking into things, knocking things over and scratched underneath the mantle leaving a pattern indicating the rifle was not simply moving in one direction but the men were fighting for control. Not only is there evidence that this did occur, it is the only explanation as to why the killer did not simply shoot Nevill upon entering the kitchen. Nevill grabbed it and that is why the killer could not fire even if the gun was loaded. The killer had to beat Nevill up to regain control and then had to bludgeon him with the rifle to incapactiate him so the killer could then step back, aim and fire or reload and then fire.
The broken stock, the wounds caused to Nevill's arms and head by the stock, his broken nose, black eyes and the various damage to the kitchen including chairs knocked over prove without a doubt this struggle occurred. Turning a blind eye and saying you don't believe it happened means little more than you are ignoring evidence that suggests Sheila didn't do it.
Washing up would not get rid of some of the wounds that Nevill would have inflicted to Sheila during the course of the struggle or that she would have inficted upon herself. Her own actions of punching his and wielding the broken stock would have resulted in abrasions to the outside and inside of her hands.
Moreover, why would she wash up before killing herself? What sense does it make to take a shower and change clothes so that there was no evidence on her hands and clothing of being the murderer? Why would she go put the supporessor away in the closet instead of just leaving it wherever she removed it? The only reason she would need to remove it would be to kill herself. Even the defense concedes the silencer was used in the crimes arguing that it was Nevill and June's blood mixed inside not Sheila's. Why would she put the silencer away and wash up? Your suggestions do not require us to make one leap they require us to make leap after leap after leap to try to find a way to suggest Sheila was the killer.
There is irrefutable evidence that Nevill
