Exactly - I can't see how the evidence could distinguish between Sheila and Jeremy being the perpetrator - anything Sheila could have done, could also have been done by Jeremy could it not?
The main purpose of a shooting reconstruction is to determine perp/victim location.
In this case the prosecution alleged at trial that JB entered his parents bedroom under stealth and opened fire on NB and June in bed. The defence offered no alternative scenario.
The pathological evidence and casings show NB sustained 4 gsw's upstairs 2 of which were fired within inches of his face rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter. In which case how could he have made the call to JB? And given NB's injuries to his face caused heavy loss of blood externally and internally why wasn't the handset/mouthpiece bloodstained?
What a reconstruction will do, based on all the physical evidence: blood stains to the floor and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks, is show where in the farmhouse NB was positioned when he sustained the facial wounds and where the perp was positioned when he/she inflicted them.
To date there's no expert evidence available in this regard just the prosecution alleging what I've stated above.
I believe, based on the physical evidence, a professional reconstruction will show that when NB sustained the facial wounds he wasn't lying in bed but standing on the landing stairs which immediately precede the entrance to the bedroom. And the perp was standing just inside the bedroom firing out onto the landing. If I'm proved right then this puts a complete different complexion on this aspect of the case as it lends support to JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that it could be argued if NB was on the landing he had come up the main staircase from the kitchen having just called JB.
