1)
Colin Caffell guessed that Sheila had committed suicide when the police called to the house to tell him about the murders. If Colin really believed Sheila's state of mind was so bad around that period why is it so hard to believe she would also kill her children/family.
Someone that would appear that ill surely does think rationally and I am sure if an expert had seen her around the last time Colin was with her she would have been sectioned to somewhere where she would be safe???
I don't doubt that Sheila had serious mental problems. I suspect when Colin was told it was merely explained that she had shot her children and parents then herself. I doubt if the police went into detail about the fact her nails appeared perfectly manicured, that she must have reloaded the rifle at least twice, and furthermore gone on a killing spree in a flimsy nightie with no pockets to keep extra ammo in. Finally they may not even have said she had two bullet wounds. All of this would have put doubts in Colin's head. Though I don't doubt she could have had suicidal impulses (though how can anybody know what goes on in someone's mind?) myself and many others feel it unlikely she would have killed her children at the Bamber residence, and furthermore that she would have delivered the final blow in a different room to her children. It's not enough just to say "she wasn't thinking straight because she was mad."
2)
Supposedly the police who dealt with the murders on the day were highly experienced. I find it completely bizarre Sheila's clean condition was not questioned. As probably one of the biggest incidents most of the police had ever attended quite unbelievable ????
Not all of them did, remember, Stan Jones was doing his job properly in the face of much opposition from his colleagues. Bamber did a good job in painting the scene that the police would expect to find and the police initially saw no reason to doubt his story. Don't forget also that everyone, guilty and innocent camp alike, agrees the initial crime scene investigation was incredibly badly handled and EP were hauled over the coals for it subsequently. Anyone remember the newspaper headline showing a furious then Home Secretary Douglas Hurd stating "How did you let him fool you?"
3)
Should it be ruled out when debating the case that Neville was forced by a third party to ring Jeremy in the light of threats made to Neville by certain individuals and a panic alarm being fitted to WHF?
Could the murders have been committed by this third party and Jeremy doesn't even know and still believes it to be Sheila himself?
Yes, it can be completely ruled out. Why would a third party decide to make it look like Sheila was the killer while simultaneously framing Bamber? It makes no sense. Also there were no signs of forced entry to/exit from the property, and only Jeremy himself knew a way of getting in and out undetected
4)
Why was vital evidence destroyed from probably the biggest murder ever carried out in Essex when Jeremy made it clear from day one he would be appealing???
See answer 2, EP badly mishandled the case. Remember they even disposed of bloodstained clothing and bedding at the scene, and contrary to what we have heard on the blue forum this was done by the police following a request from Bamber which they happily complied with, it was certainly not the police's decision to do this, and one of the many acts for which EP received criticism
5)
Why did David Boutflour mislead the jury by saying Sheila had never used a gun????
Even back in 1986 it was known by most of the general public you could contaminate evidence. Why would the family remove the silencer and tamper with it and not call the police?
If EP had done their job correctly they would have found the silencer, regardless of the integrity of the exhibit it is widely believed it was Sheila's bood inside. How did this get in there? Do you really believe somebody planted it there as they had samples of her period blood (this theory has been taken seriously on the blue forum believe it or not)? While it is possible Sheila may have handled a gun in her childhood it is not likely she had done so recently, and certainly not often enough to have competently handled the rifle as the killer had clearly done. I've no idea why David would have said never though.
6)
PC mercer remains adamant his dog would have picked up firearms residue on Jeremy surely another strong point in Jeremy's favour?
Two reasons: If Jeremy himself did the shootings he certainly would have worn gloves and protective clothing and disposed of these carefully to make sure he was forensically clean. Alternatively he didn't actually do any of the shooting himself as a hitman did it for him. This is working on the assumption that the dog definitely was trained to detect firearm residue. Why would they have needed such a dog at the scene anyway given what the police were expecting to find (namely a deranged woman with a rifle who may have killed four other people?
7)
There seems to be no ACTUAL evidence that Jeremy hated Sheila/his family
Plenty of people independently stated that he expressed hate for his parents. Were any of these comments written down or recorded on tape? I doubt it, but doesn't this build up a picture of a man who had enough hate in him to have committed the murders?
8)
Jeremy had savings at the time of the murders and had a beautiful cottage furnished by his family from an expensive store in London. The landlord from the local pub where Jeremy ate most nights supported Jeremy and certainly never gave any evidence that Jeremy was unhappy with his family, job, lifestyle.
That he was comparatively well off is not in question, that he stood to be a very wealthy man eventually had he not committed the murders also is true. So what was his motive? Purely and simply his own greed and impatience. He was young at the time, the young are not universally known for their patience.Why would he have confided his innermost feelings and plans to commit the perfect murder to a pub landlord?
9)
Would Jeremy really have dumped Julie Mugford so soon after the murders if she really knew he was responsible?
He was and probably still is a very arrogant man. He simply would have taken the view that she would be seen as a woman scorned who had made up the whole thing and her word against his, and guess what? A number of people still believe this so perhaps this was not as stupid a plan as you may think.
