This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/deepcut-inquest-cheryl-james-was-not-unlawfully-killed-coroner-rules-a7064156.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Deepcut inquest: Cheryl James was not unlawfully killed, coroner rules | Deepcut inquest: Cheryl James was not unlawfully killed, coroner rules |
(35 minutes later) | |
There is no evidence Private Cheryl James was unlawfully killed at Deepcut army barracks, a coroner has found following a three-month inquest. | |
The army recruit was found dead in 1995, at the age of 18, with a gunshot wound to her head. | |
An assumption that Pte James’s death was self-inflicted led to unanswered questions and a lack of evidence, Brian Barker QC said as he delivered his verdict. | |
“When I ask myself if there is sufficient evidence with which I can properly reach a conclusion of unlawful killing the only answer I have is 'no',” said Mr Barker. | |
Pte James was one of four recruits who died at Deepcut barracks in Surrey over seven years between 1995 and 2002. | |
Bullying was commonplace at Deepcut at the time, and the general culture at the barracks was “far below the standard expected,” said Mr Barker. | |
The place of her death was not treated as a crime scene, as army officers and the emergency services were all quick to assume that Pte James' death was suicide. | |
This meant potential evidence was missing, such as her clothes, which were burned, and bullet fragments, which were disposed of. | |
Some of those who examined the scene agreed “with hindsight” there should have been a fuller examination, said Mr Barker. | |
Ballistics tests were not carried out to see if the bullet was fired by Pte James’s rifle, and there was no post-mortem examination. | |
“Although some steps were taken to limit disturbance at the scene, it was not treated as a scene of crime might be. It was not preserved,” said Mr Barker. | |
“Almost from the outset the impression from the Army and the emergency services was that this was a self-inflicted injury. | |
“This has left unanswered questions which understandably fuelled speculation as to how Ms James died,” he said. |