When was Neville shot ?

[sherlock]

Does EVERYONE agree that Neville could not possibly have been shot even once when he (allegedly) phoned Jeremy - (unless he was forced to make the call ?)

It seems totally clear that had he been shot (or even heard a shot) that he would have phoned 999 and not Jeremy ... (unless he was forced to make the call)

IF he did phone Jeremy then this would mean (unless he was forced to make the call) that he was :

1) In the kitchen to start with - and phoned Jeremy
2) Returned upstairs - getting shot say 4 times
3) Returned to the kitchen - getting shot 4 times again and beaten badly ...

The logic to the above is that either

a) 1) 2) and 3) are the correct sequence of events     OR
b) he was forced to make the call    OR
c) the call did not happen ...

All I am trying to do here for now is to see if we ALL agree that only a) b) or c) are possible and that there is no other even remotely possible sequence of events ...

If you agree with the above please just reply with a simple short "yes I agree" post
If you disagree and think there is any other possible sequence of events apart from a) b) or c) then please reply with a short post outlining your reasons ...

Lets not have a debate in this thread about whether a) b) or c) are more likely - lets just see if we can for now at least ALL agree that these are the ONLY 3 possibilities ...

[Caroline]

He didn't make any call.

[lookout]

He didn't make any call.

So you keep saying,Polly.

[Jane]

So you keep saying,Polly.

Can you prove he did? Ooops, I forgot. A negative can't be proved, can it?

[lookout]

Can you prove he did? Ooops, I forgot. A negative can't be proved, can it?

Can you prove he didn't ? This is what it's all about,proving Jeremy's innocence for a change.

[Jane]

Can you prove he didn't ? This is what it's all about,proving Jeremy's innocence for a change.

In isolation it's no more possible to prove that he did or didn't, but before you start thinking you've scored a point here, NOTHING about the case can be taken in isolation, there's a bigger picture and the bigger picture here is Jeremy's behaviour AFTER the alleged call. The CIRCUMSTANCES are what's important and you can make all the excuses you like for Jeremy's behaviour, but for all the sense of urgency implied by the alleged call, Jeremy's reaction was such that he might just as well have NOT bothered to phone the police, other than he needed them to be there so he could push the notion of Sheila's insanity.

[lookout]

In isolation it's no more possible to prove that he did or didn't, but before you start thinking you've scored a point here, NOTHING about the case can be taken in isolation, there's a bigger picture and the bigger picture here is Jeremy's behaviour AFTER the alleged call. The CIRCUMSTANCES are what's important and you can make all the excuses you like for Jeremy's behaviour, but for all the sense of urgency implied by the alleged call, Jeremy's reaction was such that he might just as well have NOT bothered to phone the police, other than he needed them to be there so he could push the notion of Sheila's insanity.

You keep talking about Jeremy's " behaviour ". What about Sheila's behaviour too,including her expulsion from school-----------onwards ?

[Jane]

You keep talking about Jeremy's " behaviour ". What about Sheila's behaviour too,including her expulsion from school-----------onwards ?

Well, if she managed to get herself expelled from school -for the heinous crime of being unhappy there?- she must be a murderer.........................apologies to any members who may have been expelled.

[guest2181]

Well, if she managed to get herself expelled from school -for the heinous crime of being unhappy there?- she must be a murderer.........................apologies to any members who may have been expelled.

The other thing, is that in the 'Sheila did it' scenario, it is her mental state that is being cited as her reason/motive.

So her prior behaviour, which in any event doesn't suggest anything untowards, is somewhat irrelevant.

That isn't the case in the 'Jeremy did it' scenario.

[Caroline]

So you keep saying,Polly.

And I will keep saying it.

[lookout]

Well, if she managed to get herself expelled from school -for the heinous crime of being unhappy there?- she must be a murderer.........................apologies to any members who may have been expelled.

Most can turn their lives around after expulsion and go on to be successful from knowing exactly what they want in life,so your remark was rather childish and uncalled for particularly adding murder and a rather patronising  and "inflammatory" apology.

I'm afraid I'd have said that Sheila had begun a downward spiral from that point onwards,knowing what we know of her short life. Did her mother help her through the traumatic teen years ? Is it the way you'd have been,courting disaster ?
   

[Caroline]

The other thing, is that in the 'Sheila did it' scenario, it is her mental state that is being cited as her reason/motive.

So her prior behaviour, which in any event doesn't suggest anything untowards, is somewhat irrelevant.

That isn't the case in the 'Jeremy did it' scenario.

Exactly!

[Jane]

Most can turn their lives around after expulsion and go on to be successful from knowing exactly what they want in life,so your remark was rather childish and uncalled for particularly adding murder and a rather patronising  and "inflammatory" apology.

I'm afraid I'd have said that Sheila had begun a downward spiral from that point onwards,knowing what we know of her short life. Did her mother help her through the traumatic teen years ? Is it the way you'd have been,courting disaster ?
   

My "childish" remark was in response to your own childish labelling of Sheila's expulsion as a mark of her "behaviours." Whilst it's your opinion that it was a "marker" for her future, I don't believe it heralded the making of a murderer.

[lookout]

The other thing, is that in the 'Sheila did it' scenario, it is her mental state that is being cited as her reason/motive.

So her prior behaviour, which in any event doesn't suggest anything untowards, is somewhat irrelevant.

That isn't the case in the 'Jeremy did it' scenario.

So Sheila's behaviour,particularly as a mother,was " normal "?

[Jane]

So Sheila's behaviour,particularly as a mother,was " normal "?

Normal is relative to each of us. According to how you read SOME of us, you're the only one who fits the criteria