The rifle and bullets were there for a reason. JB says –
“As I was loading I [would] have been a side view to where Sheila was sitting. She [would] have had a good view of what I was doing. I had my back to my parents.”
The word “would” sets conditions. “I would have posted the letter but it was raining” speaks to something which would have been done but it wasn’t, and we see it was the rain which stopped it occurring. The condition was the weather. If someone is asked what they did 10 years ago on a particular day, we know that is going to be difficult for them to answer due to the length of time and the effect that will have on them being able to recall the event. The person may have to guess what they did and it’s likely we will see them use the word “would” in their account. Instead of them saying they “went” to work that day they may say I “would” have gone to work that day. That is because they are not certain so they cannot commit to what they did, and by using the word “would” they put conditions on the statement. For instance they may know where they worked at that time but are not sure if they worked that day. They could have been ill or on holiday etc… They “would” have gone to work if the conditions were right, that being they weren’t sick or on holiday etc…
JB says Sheila “[would] have been a side view” which sets conditions on his statement. He could have said Sheila “[was] at a side view” but his mind didn’t send that to his mouth. Also he says “She [would] have had a good view” instead of “she [had] a good view”. Note what he says about his parents “I [had] my back to my parents”. He didn’t say he “would” have had his back to them; he makes the strong statement “I had”. I believe him when he says that, but I don’t believe what he says about Sheila. He has put conditions on what his position was relative to Sheila and also what she could see. Here he is storytelling again, he will not commit to his words which signals deception. In a previous post I pointed out instead of saying “they” when talking about his mum, dad and Sheila, he said “all 3 of them” which shows he had a need to convince that "all 3" were in a discussion. Add that to his use of “would” as I have outlined above and it likely Sheila wasn’t even there at this point of his story.
He wants us to believe that the ammunition and gun were easily available to Sheila, and it`s true they were as he had placed them out ready, laying the table (literally) so to speak.
From America come many stories of children finding a parents gun in a drawer or other location and taking it out and killing themselves or another sibling with it by accident. Imagine the devastation the parents go through knowing that if the gun had been secured properly their child would still be alive. Many times we hear the parents blaming themselves for the tragedy and saying things like “It’s all my fault” or “They died because of me”. This is because they take full responsibility even though they weren’t there or involved in the actual shooting incident. In other instances we see family members take the blame for something that wasn’t their fault. The mother or other family member of a missing or dead child will say “it’s my fault I should have never let them go to that party” or wherever they had gone prior to the tragedy. This is human nature as we seek to protect those we love. When this behaviour is absent we question why.
Did JB take any responsibility for leaving the gun and ammunition out; did he hound the Police every day asking what progress they had made in finding the killer/s of his family? Did he interrogate workers at the farm as to what they might know about what had happened or wake up in the middle of the night and ring the police because he had thought of a scrap of information which may aid them in finding the killer/s? All these things and more are expected behaviour in such circumstances and when they are absent it signals that these things are not important to the person in question.
Adrian.
