The COA confirms the prosecution went on the basis that Nevill would only call after being shot 4 times -
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
----------
There is nothing about the defence suggesting Nevill could have called before shots were fired.
Probably because of what Nevill is supposed to have said. Together with the likelihood Nevill would have disarmed Sheila instead.