The curious case of the Sheila's last two bullets.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

OK - some logical thinking for this one:


Assumptions: Sheila's killed everybody, and now it's time to kill herself (and NO remaining bullets found in the gun after she's found dead)...

- Sheila shoots herself, and it fails.
WHY is there a spare bullet in the gun for her to shoot herself again? (pure luck? did she load with two bullets 'just in case' ?

- Sheila shoots herself, and it fails.
There is NO spare bullet - she now has to go and GET ONE!!!! and come back to the same resting place to shoot herself again?

- Jeremy shoots her, and it fails.
He has to load the gun with another bullet (or there are still bullets remaining), so he shoots her for the second time then makes sure the gun is empty <----- MISTAKE here

For the gun to be empty when found, Sheila either got very lucky and it just happened to have two bullets left, OR she had to get up from the first shot, retrieve and load a new bullet, and then move back to the same place to shoot herself again


I think Jeremy made a mistake leaving the gun empty and didn't consider this strange situation.

Thoughts?

[Kaldin]

I know! The fact that the gun had no more bullets has puzzled me too.

[Kaldin]

It also puzzles me why Dr Craig only saw one gunshot wound

Maybe he didn't look very closely. If he did only see one, he managed to miss the other one because according to Mike, by the time Dr Craig saw Sheila she had been shot twice.

[Hartley]

It also puzzles me why Dr Craig only saw one gunshot wound

Maybe he didn't look very closely. If he did only see one, he managed to miss the other one because according to Mike, by the time Dr Craig saw Sheila she had been shot twice.

Or three times in other pathologists notes.

[Kaldin]

It also puzzles me why Dr Craig only saw one gunshot wound

Maybe he didn't look very closely. If he did only see one, he managed to miss the other one because according to Mike, by the time Dr Craig saw Sheila she had been shot twice.

Or three times in other pathologists notes.

Or possibly even four times!

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Back on topic....



Any confirmation that the gun had zero bullets left?
The police 'made it safe' but did this include removing bullets. I'd always got the impression they checked it was safe, and it already was (therefore empty), but this could be just my mind making assumptions.

[Kaldin]

Back on topic....



Any confirmation that the gun had zero bullets left?
The police 'made it safe' but did this include removing bullets. I'd always got the impression they checked it was safe, and it already was (therefore empty), but this could be just my mind making assumptions.

DI Cook said at the trial that the gun was checked for bullets, but he didn't actually say whether any were found or not.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,185.0.html

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Back on topic....



Any confirmation that the gun had zero bullets left?
The police 'made it safe' but did this include removing bullets. I'd always got the impression they checked it was safe, and it already was (therefore empty), but this could be just my mind making assumptions.

On that evidence alone then, I personally would say we don't know. There could well have been, and so the zero bullets theory might be interesting but holds little water.

A bit remiss of him to not say if bullets were there, but I think (from memory) the context of the questioning was more about the reasons for moving the gun, so he was just clarifying the gun was made safe. There might have been more detail if questioned about his inspection of the gun.

DI Cook said at the trial that the gun was checked for bullets, but he didn't actually say whether any were found or not.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,185.0.html

[Kaldin]

It also puzzles me why Dr Craig only saw one gunshot wound

Maybe he didn't look very closely. If he did only see one, he managed to miss the other one because according to Mike, by the time Dr Craig saw Sheila she had been shot twice.

Strangely, Dr Craig did say he saw one gunshot wound 'at this stage'

I got the impression that Dr Craig didn't look at the bodies very closely. He doesn't seem to have been asked about the time of death or anything, he was just there to certify death. Is that correct?

[ngb1066]

Back on topic....



Any confirmation that the gun had zero bullets left?
The police 'made it safe' but did this include removing bullets. I'd always got the impression they checked it was safe, and it already was (therefore empty), but this could be just my mind making assumptions.

The statement that the police "made it safe" would necessarily involve removing any bullets remaining in the rifle.  This is particularly important with a semi-automatic rifle such as the one here.  However although they should have done the police may not have recorded whether or not bullets were removed and if so how many. On the other hand this may be included in police notebooks which have yet to be disclosed.

 

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

Back on topic....



Any confirmation that the gun had zero bullets left?
The police 'made it safe' but did this include removing bullets. I'd always got the impression they checked it was safe, and it already was (therefore empty), but this could be just my mind making assumptions.

DI Cook said at the trial that the gun was checked for bullets, but he didn't actually say whether any were found or not.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,185.0.html

His testimony is quite waffley really isn't it? He seems to answer a question without actually answering it.

So continuing with the scenario we are working with, assuming Sheila wasn't the killer. What reason would the police have for being cagey about how many bullets if any were left in the rifle?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Back on topic....



Any confirmation that the gun had zero bullets left?
The police 'made it safe' but did this include removing bullets. I'd always got the impression they checked it was safe, and it already was (therefore empty), but this could be just my mind making assumptions.

DI Cook said at the trial that the gun was checked for bullets, but he didn't actually say whether any were found or not.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,185.0.html

His testimony is quite waffley really isn't it? He seems to answer a question without actually answering it.

So continuing with the scenario we are working with, assuming Sheila wasn't the killer. What reason would the police have for being cagey about how many bullets if any were left in the rifle?

I can't really see a reason for the police to be cagey on it...

The way I'm thinking though is that zero bullets lets feels strange... Sheila couldn't KNOW she'd need two to kill herself. She she was very lucky to have two left, or she had to get up and fetch another bullet!

[Hartley]

I can't really see a reason for the police to be cagey on it...

The way I'm thinking though is that zero bullets lets feels strange... Sheila couldn't KNOW she'd need two to kill herself. She she was very lucky to have two left, or she had to get up and fetch another bullet!

Is there any mileage in the possibility that Sheila wasn't originally planned to be the suicide scapegoat, it's just that the way things unfolded that the opportunity presented itself to blame her?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I can't really see a reason for the police to be cagey on it...

The way I'm thinking though is that zero bullets lets feels strange... Sheila couldn't KNOW she'd need two to kill herself. She she was very lucky to have two left, or she had to get up and fetch another bullet!

Is there any mileage in the possibility that Sheila wasn't originally planned to be the suicide scapegoat, it's just that the way things unfolded that the opportunity presented itself to blame her?

Possible I suppose. He might just have been going for the robbery scenario. In which case, he'd need a way to carry some valuables, and in doing so, would immediately initiate a murder hunt.

The suicide works better for him, but as you say, he could have reached that conclusion mid crime.

I don't believe so though. I think whilst not meticulously planned, it was reasonably well plotted (just my opinion)

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Back on topic....



Any confirmation that the gun had zero bullets left?
The police 'made it safe' but did this include removing bullets. I'd always got the impression they checked it was safe, and it already was (therefore empty), but this could be just my mind making assumptions.

DI Cook said at the trial that the gun was checked for bullets, but he didn't actually say whether any were found or not.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,185.0.html

His testimony is quite waffley really isn't it? He seems to answer a question without actually answering it.

So continuing with the scenario we are working with, assuming Sheila wasn't the killer. What reason would the police have for being cagey about how many bullets if any were left in the rifle?

I can't really see a reason for the police to be cagey on it...

The way I'm thinking though is that zero bullets lets feels strange... Sheila couldn't KNOW she'd need two to kill herself. She she was very lucky to have two left, or she had to get up and fetch another bullet!

But you don't know there were no bullets left, do you?

No we don't which is why we've said it holds no water as evidence.

In the meantime we can speculate what it would mean IF we can find the documents telling us what was found.