I do think you have a point here. We are debating something that happened 35 years ago. In addition, a lot of evidence was, apparently, destroyed in 1996. Some witnesses have died. The books on the case were written years afterwards. Most (not all) people who have a view about the guilt/innocence of JB know very little about him, never knew his family, and are relying on what they read.
Even most of the original witness statements were written a month after the event, so are possibly less reliable than if they had been written in the week after the murders.
I don't agree that "all evidence" has been forgotten, but I don't doubt that quite a lot has.
And that, Mrswah, is without the myths and legends which have grown up around the case. Whilst great lengths are gone to to ensure that ONLY those 'facts' accompanied by cites, are posted, it eliminates those personal experiences which aren't, and not ALL of these are opposers, ie my cousin's co in-law, a vicar, doesn't believe he's guilty. Although few and far between, I know others who have doubts about his guilt. It's also an absolute that MANY of those, are no longer with us, who knew the Bambers well. Time takes an inevitable toll.
From the off, a local crime means local information will be gleaned. What's given is likely to be coloured by personal experience, which is fair enough when one considers that an suspect's behaviour is likely to have differed from person to person, ergo, each of their character assessments will be different.
I'm inclined to agree that witness statements created a month after the event maybe less reliable than those written immediately, but within that month, the whole case was turned on it's head, and had to be reassessed from an entirely different perspective.