It seems no current supporters are prepared to say what their doubts are.
I knew David wouldn't as he didn't even have the courage to admit he had changed stance. However even Holly hasn't. The only response is from Samson who referred me to a pro Bamber board.
My only doubt was there was an unprecedented intricate industrial frame involving dozens of inter relating divisions and hundreds of people. No supporters agreed with this.
It can only be assumed that supporters believe Bamber is guilty but want to support the 'Campaign for Freedom'.
I referred you to a board where people analyse any crime.
The general principal seems to be to ignore the behavioural material and analyse the crime scene.
Here is a related example from New Zealand
"An extreme low point was reached the other day in New Zealand when Nigel Latta, a man with this career highlight
Latta was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2012 Queen's Birthday Honours, for his services as a psychologistdeclared after the reconviction that Lundy certainly planned to kill his daughter also, and take a 20 year old as a new romantic partner with whom to share his vineyard."
A psychologist, like Caroline, ignoring the crime scene and arguing backwards.
Now we know Lundy is innocent, and there is a pending appeal decision bound to release him. I highlight this because the crime scene is not so different, the coming and going to the scene without trace is problematic, or commonly, a damn good alibi. Also, the plan to murder to raise cash is flawed, there are safer and more tried and true methods. In both cases we find motives are established that show other parties. In Lundy's case he was in between a bad debtor and a creditor, where he was peripherally implicated, and collectors visited his home when he was out of town, and his mother and daughter became victims when they resisted the intrusion.
In the Bamber case, Sheila was about to lose control of her children for reasons she would not buy into, and was a certified psycho coming into the scene of the crime. Unlike Bamber.
Why not consider all this, then look at the crime scene?
Consider Caroline saying a phone call and a few photographs are more important than a remarkable alibi and a motive, then consider the impossibility of predicting human manoeuvres in a massacre plan, where they must all line up to look like a murder suicide. Consider that the suicide actually was bullet trajectory consistent.