If you want to make a youtube video outlining Jeremy Bambers guilt, then you need to keep it simple, to the point, and engaging. Engaging is the really difficult bit.
The Youtube users that you are looking for are people who are new to the case, or they don't have the depth of knowledge to work out that the so-called new evidence is actually completely fabricated.
In my experience, the 'evidence' that is most convincing to the uninitiated is the stuff that says that Sheila was alive in the house whilst Bamber was outside with the police.
Even people who think he's guilty say that the evidence that say's Sheila was alive in the house means there is reasonable doubt, but they don't realise that its fake evidence.
The evidence that confuses them is down to three major Bamber lies.
BAMBER LIE 1: There was movement in the house as observed by PS Bewes.
TRUTH: We know the 'movement' to have been a reflection of moonlight against a window when Bewes was doing a recce of the house in the company of Jeremy Bamber himself. Bewes has confirmed in interviews many times that the 'movement' was a trick of the light, and moving backwards and forwards he was able to recreate the visual effect.
Jeremy Bamber never mentioned this 'movement' in witness statements, or in his police interviews, or at his trial. And that's because no movement was actually seen.
BAMBER LIE 2: Firearms officers talking to Sheila in the house.
TRUTH: We know this to be fabricated evidence because Bamber has used a snippet of the firearms log along with a false narrative of that event. Very easy to disprove.
BAMBER LIE 3: The blood from Sheila's wounds were fresh and wet when the police entered the building, therefore she must have died whilst Bamber was outside the house with the police.
TRUTH: Whilst the blood from the actual wounds does look fresh and wet, the rest of the blood from the same wounds that had dripped onto Sheila's nightdress, is dark and dry. These crime scene photos were publicly published during a time (early 2000's) when Bamber was legally represented by Giovanni De Stefano, who is a career criminal currently serving 21 years in prison for a number of frauds committed whilst pretending to be a lawyer. Only Bamber's legal representation can release documents to the public, so it looks like he had the images doctored, and then published them, possibly at Bamber's request. Carol Ann Lee, the author, has confirmed that the wet blood photos have been 'doctored', and has confirmed that the original crime scene photos show dry, cracked blood.
I know that the above 3 points have been done to death in the past, but they haven't been done to death by the newbies, or casual observers. So I think they are critical points to make.
There is a 15 minute video made by the Guardian newspaper, and that video contains all of the faked evidence that is very easy to disprove (including the points outlined above), but also, the points covered, creates the most confusion to newbies.
To be honest, you could just go through that Guardian newspaper video and disprove each point that that video makes, and most of the things that tricks people into believing he's innocent will be covered.
The points made in that video also happen to be the points that interest people.
