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 long-running inquest. There is no evidence Private Cheryl James was unlawfully killed at Deepcut army barracks, a coroner has found following a three-month inquest.
More follows... 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.