Pros & cons of the defence scenario

[Adam]

At trial this was that Nevill rang Jeremy after his 4 bedroom shots.

Pros:

It is the most straight forward Sheila scenario.

It gives Sheila the chance to collect the rifle without being stopped. Everyone was sleeping.

It matches the bedroom bullet case crime scene.

It gives Sheila the chance to shoot Nevill 2 times in the face without being physically restrained.  From June's side of the bed. The rifle inches from Nevill's face.

It gives Sheila the chance to shoot June 5 times in bed. Which matches the crime scene evidence.

It matches the evidence of the twins not waking. June unable to make any noise after being shot 5 times. Nevill running straight downstairs.

It supports Nevill having to abruptly go downstairs. Bare footed in his sleeping attire.

It matches what Nevill said to Bamber on the phone & the shortness of the call.

Even if injured in the mouth, Nevill may be able to say 11 words to Bamber.

It matches where Nevill was found after speaking to Bamber & abruptly ending the call prior to Sheila's kitchen attack. 

It does not suggest a fully fit bare footed Nevill was out of bed & allowed things to escalate. While June and the twins slept. The defence could not suggest this.

[Adam]

Cons:

Sheila would have opened fire unprovoked. Everyone was sleeping.

There was no blood on the phone.

Nevill would have difficulty speaking after his 2 face shots.

Nevill did not have the time to start ringing Bamber's AM at 3.00am. Sheila may fire more shots at him or someone else.

Even if Bamber did answer & go straight to WHF, he would be too late and of no use. Nine shots had already been fired.

Asking Bamber to 'please come over' was putting him at risk.

If Nevill was going to ring someone, it would be 999 for an ambulance. Himself and June had been shot 9 times.

Nevill would reclaim his rifle upstairs after seeing it was Sheila.

Nevill being injured but still fit enough to ring Bamber would be able to overpower Sheila in the kitchen. The evidence is his attacker hit him multiple times & Nevill inflicted no counter injuries.

[Adam]

So a lot of pros and cons. I can see why supporters do not support the defence narrative.

But a fully fit bare footed Nevill downstairs & sleeping June upstairs allowing things to escalate to a violent murder/suicide, with the only resistance being ringing Bamber's AM, could not be submitted by the defence.

[ILB]

Cons:

Sheila would have opened fire unprovoked. Everyone was sleeping.

Why would she need provocation?

[Adam]

Why would she need provocation?

All supporter scenarios have Nevill in the kitchen with Sheila.

He couldn't calm her down & just made her more agitated. Resulting in her picking up the rifle.

[ILB]

All supporter scenarios have Nevill in the kitchen with Sheila.

He couldn't calm her down & just made her more agitated. Resulting in her picking up the rifle.

Why would she need provocation?

[Adam]

Why would she need provocation?

To kill 5 people and hit Nevill multiple times.

The defence stance is the fostering conversation Bamber witnessed hours earlier was her motivation. Although the judge disagreed.

[Adam]

Must admit I do agree with the judge.

A big leap of faith to firstly believe Bamber that such a conversation took place.

Then another big leap of faith to believe a non responsive Sheila at supper started shooting her sleeping family 6 hours later.

[ILB]

To kill 5 people and hit Nevill multiple times.

The defence stance is the fostering conversation Bamber witnessed hours earlier was her motivation. Although the judge disagreed.

Believe come Monday, it is 39 years since he was convicted.

[ILB]

Need to see a 1986 version of the defence scenario.

Or the thread is null and void.

[Adam]

Need to see a 1986 version of the defence scenario.

Or the thread is null and void.

The prosecution counter to the defence case is there was no blood on the phone and Nevill would have trouble speaking after his 4 shots.

The defence can't invent a kitchen conversation pre shooting.

[Adam]

One thing Bamber could have done as part of the stage is put footwear on Sheila. Slippers would go with her nightdress.

This would support her walking around WHF. Pre, during and post massacre.

[Adam]

Putting footwear on Nevill was a double edged sword.

It would not support the defence case or match the crime scene evidence that Nevill had to abruptly get out of bed while being shot 4 times.

However it would support supporters theories that Nevill went downstairs and was speaking to Sheila.

[Adam]

No footwear or dressing gown on Nevill or Sheila supports the prosecution case.

[ILB]

The prosecution counter to the defence case is there was no blood on the phone and Nevill would have trouble speaking after his 4 shots.

The defence can't invent a kitchen conversation pre shooting.

The prosecution bring the case against the defendant.

The defence present their case, they're case was the crown hadn't proven the case against Jeremy beyond reasonable doubt.

Need to see evidence of Rivlins shelia scenario you are purporting. Accept that it was an agreed fact between pro and def that it was either Jeremy or Shelia.