Thank you QC Far fetched is the right word about someone without any history of violence and someone that didn’t want to go on shooting parties
Scenario 1: Here we have a young woman with paranoid schizophrenia and a history of violence and threats of violence, who is estranged from her husband and works in dead-end jobs, dislikes her mentally-ill mother who adopted her and has disturbing psychotic delusions about her own twin sons. She is disappointed by a meeting with her biological mother, who returns to Canada. She is also a recreational drug user. Her psychotropic dosage has been reduced drastically in the last month or two. She is already in the house and has access to a rifle and a loaded magazine, with more ammunition nearby. She argues with her father and she starts threatening to go upstairs with the rifle. He cannot lay his hands on her and is also concerned to keep her downstairs and away from her mother and her own sons, so he tries to calm her down in the kitchen and also rings his son (her brother) while she is present. When the son answers, she runs upstairs and starts shooting. She kills her family, all at close range, including her sons, then turns the gun on herself. She is duly found with the rifle on or by her body. She is forensically clean, but it is believed she washed herself prior to suicide, as is fairly common.
Scenario 2:Now we have a young man with no history of violence, who lives 2/3 miles away. We say that he goes out in the middle of the night to the house, enters and leaves undetected and without leaving any blood traces. He proceeds to kill his entire family, including two little boys in their beds, simply so he can have lots of money now and drink champagne and have meals at restaurants and go to St Tropez. He may also buy a smallholding in Dorset - he hasn't decided yet, let's see what happens with probate. He does this even though he already has a lot of money and a secure future with a large inheritance down the line. He also tells his girlfriend what he is planning to do and then reveals to her what has happened after he does the deed, albeit obliquely in the form of a made-up story about a hitman - in effect, he is confessing to her. She spills the beans to a friend, and this friend engages in horseplay with this mass murderer at her 21st. birthday party a few days later. Like you do. He'd planned it all out and even staged a few phone calls to put the police off the trail. The police fall for it. What can you do, eh? Except for one detective, who drives a classic car and shares a passing resemblance to Inspector Morse. Anyway, our killer spends much of his inheritance before he receives it, splashing out like there's no tomorrow. He also allows the relatives, whom he does not see eye-to-eye with, keys to the crime scene. This, after the police had offered the keys to him, which would have allowed him to easily dispose of any further incriminating evidence missed by the police. The relatives come forward with the evidence instead, which had been mysteriously overlooked by the police themselves. These same relatives stand to gain if he is convicted and imprisoned. He even dropped hints to one or two people of his murderous intentions beforehand, including a hostile uncle.
Honestly, which of these two scenarios is the more plausible?
In my view, one of these scenarios is simple and straight-forward and makes sense, the other is far-fetched and quite incredible, and frankly sounds like the script for one of those B-movies that gets broadcast late at night on Channel 5, normally starring Shannon Tweed and that bloke whose name I always forget but he's always in films like that.
