By George you finally got it.
Where is the evidence SC had dexterity problems. Do you have any expert evidence to this effect? Or is it based on AE's claims that SC was unable to pour tea in a cup; put beans on test and learn to drive? Look at the photo of SC with the rifle and note the manicured/varnished nails, plucked eyebrows and shaved legs. All these tasks require manual dexterity. Look at other photos and see full face make-up skilfully applied. SC was mother to two just turned 6 year old sons who would require help with dressing eg buttons, zips, tying shoelaces which again require manual dexterity.
Hand eye coordination/depth perception required to drive and shoot accurately is not quite the same as applying makeup. Though we have no idea if she pained her own nails or not even someone with Parkinson's can do that it simply will take longer and be more messy than the average woman.
My sister-in-law didn't help her kids do any of the things you mentioned ever and not because she was unable she was just too lazy and made my nieces and nephew fend for themselves early on in life. You seem to be assuming she did more than we know (though these menial tasks could be accomplised by someone with dexterity issues since time is not of the essence, trying to laod a gun before someone comes to while in a rage very queckly shaking and doing so without chipping nails is hard to imagine for anyone honest) If we go by what the boys told Colin she didn't help them much and they felt neglected. How much of that they made up we don't know though the part about her being vacant and ignoring people and the like seems to be a common observation.
Her odd behavior was diagnosed as being over sedated. We don't have much of a frame of reference to assess how she was with her kids before she was in such condition.
In any event the hand eye coordination of shooting is far different and if you have tremors like is typical of patients on Haldol it simply is going to be worse.
What is most amusing to me is how the wealth of information about how schizophrenics are unable to plan and carry out killings like this is completely ignored though you care so much supposedly about the health issues. All you really care about is broadcasting your silly psychology theories and that requires the pretense Sheila did it.
The shots were all close range with many near contact or contact. Difficult to miss. Where does Dr V say she would need to be skilled with firearms?
People can and often do miss at close range. Particularly people who never fired a gun before or the particular gun before. People with dexterity issues only makes it even worse. Nevill was moving around during some of the shots and 2 such shots were fired several feet away.
Only one wound was determined to be a contact wound- Sheila's fatal shot. Only one wound on each of the parents was assessed to even possibly have been close enough to result in drawback though even each of these wounds was seen as not likely to have been fired so close. Most wounds were not as close as you want to pretend. How is it that people firing wildly into crowds right next to them manage to miss so much? Firing wildly often results in misses even if you are close.
Firing wildly is not going to result in tight groupings like in the head of the twins and Nevill. Vanezis is the one who assessed the wounds and noted that even based on the distance of the shots someone would need to be skilled with the wepaon.
There is no evidence Sheila ever fired a gun period, no evidence Sheila ever fired a gun like the murder weapon let alone the murder wepaon. The first semiauto weapon ever on the farm was the murder weapon which was purchase November 30, 1984 so only months before the murders.
She would not know she needed to chamber a round let alone know how, that alone woudl have floiled her liek it did Lynette Fromme when she tried to kill US president Ford. She would not know how to release the magazine. She certainly would not have known how to load 11 rounds in the magazine. The killer went into the master bedroom with it loaded to capacity (11 rounds) shooting June 7 times and Nevill 4. Shooting wildly in a rage she would not have been able to hit every time.
You want to live in some fantasy land to pretend using a gun is just easy and instictive and she did it instead of actually looking at all the evidence.
The shots were close enough that she would have had high velocity spatter on her clothing and body though and of course would have had medium velocity spatter from Nevill's beating.
No problem you say she washed and changed her clothes though such woudl make no sense at all, there are no examples of that happeneing ever outside of ritualistic killings and there are no clothes with spatter and GSR that she could have changed out of. That alone means you ar esunk because the clothes woudl have to be there that she change dout of. To prove this you need the clothes that have spatter and GSR. She would have needed to be wearing gloves to avoid leaving her prints in blood somewhere and to avoid damage to her hands. Why would she wear them and where are they if she did?
What about the broken glass from the lampshade and broken crockery on the floor did she have magic feet?
The only way you can pretend she did it is by inoring all the evidence and making up things that make no sense and are not supported by any evidence at all.
Also ignoring the moderator evidence and insisting there was a giant conspiracy without any evidence and ignoring how her body had been moved and the bible opened and closed in her blood by the killer.
All so you can pretend she did it and then tell people about your silly psychology claims.
Nails are made of keratin which is one of the toughest biological properties. SC was a young mother living alone in a busy city. In the course of her everyday activities eg childcare, housework, cooking, shopping, travelling on public transport in London she would have subjected her nails/vanish to just as many hazards as loading and firing a weapon. Are you able to provide any evidence from ballistics to confirm that had SC fired the said weapon 25 times she would have caused damage to her nails/vanish?
Another straw argument. That seems all that Jeremy defenders are capable of. I explain how her nails would break from during the struggle, especially when beating someone with a rifle and would chip from loading the magazine unless a female is very careful in how she did such and you talk about the firing of the gun.
As I mentioned on the blue board I know someone who broke her nail wile firing a gun. Such happened only because she was careless and messing aorund. Her finger slipped and she pulled the trigger with her nail instead of finger. It broke. If a female pushes her figer against the trigger guard hard enough it could break too. If Sheila were wildly firing could she have chipped or broken her nails in one of these ways? Yes. How likely? I don't know it depends on how wild and out of control she would be.
I care about the braeing because that is where she would have been left with cuts and scratches that would have for sure been found on her dead body and would have resulted in broken nails. It is well documented that women chip and break nails during physical altercations but especially when wielding objects like the rifle.
For some reason Jeremy supporters keep imagining someone grabbing the gun by the barrel and swinging it like a sledge hammer.
1) the knurled end of the moderator would have scraped the killer
2) the iron sights would have scratch or cut the killer eithe rby the victim grabbing the weapon and pulling it in which case it would slide until the sights were against the hand of the killer and/or from the gun sliding and moving as the killer bashed it against something. The barrel provides a poor grip.
3) the gun would be top heavy holding it from the barrel with would make it unwieldy that not only would make it easy to fall out of the killer's hand when swinging it around worse it makes it easier to take away from the killer.
4) Had this actually happened then the stock would not have broken in the manner it did. The stock broke by the wood stock being pushed against the metal receiver. A piece sheered off because of the pressure between the buttplate and the metal receiver. If wielded in the manner claimed then the side of the stock would have been hit. Had the side been used instead of the buttplate then it would not have broken the way it did. Teh most likely break when using it in such manner is for it to break from the inside out.
The stock is only held on with a screw. If you remove the trigger guard scre you can pull the stock off. The receiver had a metal conical projection sticking off the rear. The stock has a hole cut in it so it can slide onto this projection. The trigger guard screw keeps it from coming off on its own. When the side of the stock is used as a hammer where is the pressure? The pressure and tension is the wood around the hole being forced against the metal projection. So it will crack the stock from the hole outward hole. It's not going to sheer a piece off the way it sheered. That is indicative of the motion from real of the stock to front.
5) Instead of the stock breaking there would be a chance of the barrel being damaged or breaking away from from the rifle. The gun breaks down here is the barrel:
The barrel slides into the receiver. Note the small portion of the barrel that slides in.
Wielding it like a sledge hammer has a good chance of ripping it out of the receiver. If it is not ripped out it could instead warp the barrel or bend it which could be catastrophic if you then try to fire the weapon afterwards.
Since the barrel was not damaged, did not come free from the receiver and the stock did not break from the inside out it is obvious it was not wielded like a bat. The damage indicates the back of the stock was being used when the stock broke and the person wielding it would have hand their hand in the narrow area of the stock in order to use the rifle in such manner and would have been damaged unless gloves were worn.
Jeremy knew the gun broke down and how fragile the barrel was and also would not have gottena good grip from the barrel and his father could then have taken it away so he would not have used it as a hammer he would have used a butt stroke against his father and hat is how it broke- a butt stroke. If he really did lose his glove as he told Sheila then the most likely time for that would have been when the stock broke that would be what yanked it off.
