Re: An oddity about the Neil Entwistle case - he didn't try to commit suicide

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:55:59 +0100, Robert Henderson
<philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>In message <ae4g64dn2sdptkcjs9vpnceo1cg1m1br6j@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Alex Heney 
><me8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>>>unstated place).  This seems damming forensic to me.  If she had shot
>>>>herself, how did she clean the handle of the gun afterwards?
>>>
>>>
>>>Those facts could easily be explained by someone coming upon the bodies
>>>and picking up the gun. He might, for example, have cleaned the gun
>>>because it was covered in blood. RH
>>
>>And any juror who thought that possibility raised any "reasonable 
>>doubt" would need their head examining.
>>
>>Jury findings are not about asking whether there is any outlandish 
>>possibility that could explain the facts without guilt.
>
>Why outlandish? It would be a natural reaction to clean a gun if it had 
>blood on it and one had picked it up. I can assure you far more unlikely 
>scenarios have been put before juries. RH

Outlandish because that is not a remotely normal reaction.

Even if you found the gun by itself covered in blood, it would be
unlikely. If you found it alongside a dead woman and child (whether
your wife and child or not), it is just something I cannot imagine any
innocent person even contemplating.

I cannot understand why you might think anyone would do that unless
they were deliberately trying to hide evidence,.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The best substitute for experience is being sixteen.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom