Two bodies in the kitchen. A time for closure ?

[Janet ((Formerly known as Takeshi))]

I can cope with this. I can see a distinct time lag between events on the ground and what is being is relayed from HQIR. The entry you refer to states that the info is coming from the Duty Inspector at HQIR.
At 7.37 just as the Firearms Unit were entering the farm, it was relayed over the radio by CA07 that 1 dead male and 1 dead female were found. At 8.09, CA07 reported all 5 bodies found dead.

With HQIR listening in, and just 1 minute later, I can certain see how they would assume '3 more bodies found'.

There seems to be a fairly distinct radio silence from inside the house for about 30 minutes as they search the house. There was other radio chatter, but not (from what I recall) anything directly from inside the house. So this leaves a lot of time when the facts were not yet updated to HQIR.

Whilst I am not saying this IS the definitive series of events, it is not beyond belief that just prior to entering the house, they have two sightings of the same body, one identified as male, and one as female, appearing to be dead. The logs suggest they heard a noise (possibly the dog moving?), and enter house forcefully. The log now reflects 2 dead bodies found - and is being relayed to multiple other parties all whilst the actual Firearms team are inside the premises discovering only 1 body...
By the time the house is fully checked and 5 dead bodies counted, the time lag makes it seem like 2 bodies + 3 bodies, rather than 1 + 4.

Thank you TBM. I accept that this might not be the definitive series of events but I can live with it as a plausable explanation.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

These were police officers, who seemingly are never deceived or shouldn't be or they're not fit for the job. How can anyone be deceived by the appearance or non-appearance of two bodies ?

It was approx 2 hours after sunrise on that day, so light would be quite good, but they were looking at gaining entry into a potentially hostile building. The only body they could see was through a kitchen window, at a less than ideal angle, and one might reasonably assume, only for small periods of time (you do not want to be looking through a window for very long if there is the threat from a person with a gun inside the building!). Nevill's position was less than ideal to identify gender... longish grey hair, face down, bent over. Seemingly, Nevill was identified as a female at one point, and male at another. Quite who 'counted' two bodies is questionable. There is no clear evidence of an actual count. Again, it 'seems' that 1 female identified changed to 1 male identified, but that was mistakenly interpreted as 1 of each.
I accept others are more damning of the evidence, but for me, that is by far the most likely explanation.

[lookout]

It was approx 2 hours after sunrise on that day, so light would be quite good, but they were looking at gaining entry into a potentially hostile building. The only body they could see was through a kitchen window, at a less than ideal angle, and one might reasonably assume, only for small periods of time (you do not want to be looking through a window for very long if there is the threat from a person with a gun inside the building!). Nevill's position was less than ideal to identify gender... longish grey hair, face down, bent over. Seemingly, Nevill was identified as a female at one point, and male at another. Quite who 'counted' two bodies is questionable. There is no clear evidence of an actual count. Again, it 'seems' that 1 female identified changed to 1 male identified, but that was mistakenly interpreted as 1 of each.
I accept others are more damning of the evidence, but for me, that is by far the most likely explanation.

Whichever way this is viewed, and as far as I'm concerned no description of " a fair/grey haired person/body was mentioned, even if the light wasn't particularly good a fair/grey haired body would still be distinguishable. Two bodies has been described as having been seen and if that was recorded sobeit.

You can't mix up two bodies if you suddenly decided that it was a male with shoulder length hair, mistaken for a woman.Where does body number two come in ? One male mistaken for two people ??

When a person lays dead, an officer will describe every detail, including hair colour. The size/ build of Nevill should have given the officers a clue of the gender ?

[sami]

Yeah ! Just because it's " my side " doesn't mean to say I agree, unlike yourself who finds it easier to follow the crowd.

you never agree to anything thats shows you are wrong.its a trait of yours.

[lookout]

you never agree to anything thats shows you are wrong.its a trait of yours.

I won't even begin listing your traits. How can anyone be right even when the police made mistakes-----and they were there !!

[Caroline]

It was approx 2 hours after sunrise on that day, so light would be quite good, but they were looking at gaining entry into a potentially hostile building. The only body they could see was through a kitchen window, at a less than ideal angle, and one might reasonably assume, only for small periods of time (you do not want to be looking through a window for very long if there is the threat from a person with a gun inside the building!). Nevill's position was less than ideal to identify gender... longish grey hair, face down, bent over. Seemingly, Nevill was identified as a female at one point, and male at another. Quite who 'counted' two bodies is questionable. There is no clear evidence of an actual count. Again, it 'seems' that 1 female identified changed to 1 male identified, but that was mistakenly interpreted as 1 of each.
I accept others are more damning of the evidence, but for me, that is by far the most likely explanation.

Totally agree! I have seen the CS picture of Nevill, his hair was long, I guess it was combed over to hide a balding spot.

If messages were being relayed, it would be easy to get confused, obviously this would be something that could be cleared up later. It was but it has allowed the facts to be manipulated.

[Caroline]

Whichever way this is viewed, and as far as I'm concerned no description of " a fair/grey haired person/body was mentioned, even if the light wasn't particularly good a fair/grey haired body would still be distinguishable. Two bodies has been described as having been seen and if that was recorded sobeit.

You can't mix up two bodies if you suddenly decided that it was a male with shoulder length hair, mistaken for a woman.Where does body number two come in ? One male mistaken for two people ??

When a person lays dead, an officer will describe every detail, including hair colour. The size/ build of Nevill should have given the officers a clue of the gender ?

But then  you didn't view it. The officer clearly stated that there was a likely female when spotted through the window, entered the building and stated one dead male. He wasn't worried about the administration of the information at that point. He had to be alert in case he came face to face with a rifle and he certainly wouldn't be interested in describing the bodies - that wasn't his job, he was there to secure the building and make it safe.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Whichever way this is viewed, and as far as I'm concerned no description of " a fair/grey haired person/body was mentioned, even if the light wasn't particularly good a fair/grey haired body would still be distinguishable. Two bodies has been described as having been seen and if that was recorded sobeit.

You can't mix up two bodies if you suddenly decided that it was a male with shoulder length hair, mistaken for a woman.Where does body number two come in ? One male mistaken for two people ??

When a person lays dead, an officer will describe every detail, including hair colour. The size/ build of Nevill should have given the officers a clue of the gender ?

Nobody said it was mentioned, the point was a silvery, long haired male COULD appear as a female when they are face down, bent over, head in a bucket.
This is not a situation where a police office has all the time in the world to take the inside leg measurements of a body... it is a police officer poking his head above the parapet to try and see anybody inside a kitchen (at the risk of being shot should a shooter be in the kitchen!).

Imagine the following communications over a radio...

'One female dead in kitchen'
Second look...
'One male dead in kitchen'

Then HQIR who are listening in, interpret this as two dead in the kitchen. The logs we read are the intepretations of a remote listener, and relayed on to yet another party who will repeat the same, thus you get two logs with the same error, all because of the uncertainty on the ground.
Once inside the building, radio comms from inside the building would likely be nil unless there was an emergency - remember. at this point, the police could still be facing someone with a gun so a) need to focus on the task in hand and b) do not want to relay any information to the potential threat.

But let us suppose for a moment that there really were two dead bodies in the kitchen...

What possible motivation have a Firearms Unit got to move a dead female up a flight of stairs into a bedroom and pose her as a suicide victim?

Which is the more plausible to you?

[lookout]

That " dead " female might not have been dead at the time and would have made her own way upstairs before the firearms team got in. 

[Jane]

These were police officers, who seemingly are never deceived or shouldn't be or they're not fit for the job. How can anyone be deceived by the appearance or non-appearance of two bodies ?

Okay. As you're clearly so intent on absolute perfection and clearly have no room for anyone who falls even slightly short, perhaps you'd care to name one profession in which someone hasn't, at some point, got something wrong. Police are human, like the rest of us. They're not a sub-species of programmed robots.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

That " dead " female might not have been dead at the time and would have made her own way upstairs before the firearms team got in.

Absolutely she could.
However, she would then have to do the following:

1) Regain consciousness, or composure quite rapidly
2) Negotiate the door by which the Firearms Unit were about to enter, OR negotiate a very cluttered, generally unused staircase, and do so without them noticing
3) Leave no evidence of her presence post Nevill death
4) Carry out her own suicide without it being heard

Equally, the Firearms Team would also surely say 'The body we saw has gone!' - they didn't do that. The most plausible explanation why they didn't was because the single body they HAD seen was there. Nevill's body.

[lookout]

Okay. As you're clearly so intent on absolute perfection and clearly have no room for anyone who falls even slightly short, perhaps you'd care to name one profession in which someone hasn't, at some point, got something wrong. Police are human, like the rest of us. They're not a sub-species of programmed robots.

I make no excuses for SIMPLE mistakes such as not being able to count.

[Jane]

I make no excuses for SIMPLE mistakes such as not being able to count.

But it's clear you'd rather think that, than accept that a policeman say, through a window, what he thought to be the body of a woman, and on entry, rectified the mistake, was perhaps misheard and it was reported as being two bodies.

[sami]

Absolutely she could.
However, she would then have to do the following:

1) Regain consciousness, or composure quite rapidly
2) Negotiate the door by which the Firearms Unit were about to enter, OR negotiate a very cluttered, generally unused staircase, and do so without them noticing
3) Leave no evidence of her presence post Nevill death
4) Carry out her own suicide without it being heard

Equally, the Firearms Team would also surely say 'The body we saw has gone!' - they didn't do that. The most plausible explanation why they didn't was because the single body they HAD seen was there. Nevill's body.

yes that sounds reasonable ,i agree good points

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I make no excuses for SIMPLE mistakes such as not being able to count.

But it wasn't a counting mistake per se. The mistake came from listening in to radio comms, and misinterpreting the relayed information.

If i was listening in to conversation between a driver and a passenger giving instructions, and I heard 'Left, right' does that mean Left and THEN a right, or could it be that right is a correction to the left instruction?
This is almost certainly what happened in the communications error. It's not a failure to count.

We don't have access to the actual radio recordings, only the manually interpreted log. It would only take a single word to be mishead '1 dead female, no, 1 dead male' could be misheard as '1 dead female, 'n' 1 dead male' for it to be relayed as 2 dead.