Q1. No.
Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?
Q2. NC sustained at least 1 contact gsw
But not Sheila? If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox? How did it get there?
Q3. The blood found inside the silencer was tested by way of blood serology. This type of testing was the precursor to DNA although the method used is the same. Enzymes and proteins present in blood are analysed using gel electrophoresis which measures size and charge of macromolecules. SC's blood serology groups were shared by about 8% of unrelated white British people.
It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this. What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's. A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.
Q4. In the absence of a recording we are reliant upon listening skills and memories. The most reliable seems to be:
NB: "Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun".
There are various takes in this link:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
Noted.
The gun? Did the family have only one gun in the house? Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?
Q5. If you drill down a call from NB to EP doesn't stack up.
This doesn't address the telephone logs. How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill? Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999?
Q6. Why would there be? By JB's own admission he looked up the number for the local station and dialled it.
Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked. Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did? Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points. He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented. It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.
Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility. Looks like nobody has.
Q7. JB said he was aware of the contents of the wills having looked at them although I don't believe that was recent to the murders. Broadly speaking once NB and June passed, SC and JB would inherit 50:50.
Noted. The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway? The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill. I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented. You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait. Motive is not probative anyway, of course.
Q8. Putting aside JB's remuneration for working at WHF and OCP I understand his parents helped fund his trips to Oz and NZ.
Noted.
Q9. How would anyone know SC's level of experience with firearms? She may have let off a few shots in NB's company or in the company of others over the years eg school friends etc. JB said SC had some experience. The soc is indicative of an inexperienced shooter compared with other mass shootings inside private dwellings eg Bain and DeFeo. By this I mean number of cartridges used and number of shots sustained by NB and June. JB was a marksman at Greshams so if he's responsible he went for overkill to make it look amateurish and manic.
Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself. You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms! I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.
Q10. Not really, no. JB's claims of a phone call from NB:
"Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun"
pretty much narrows it down to JB or SC.
Sorry, but again on this point I must – very respectfully – disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty.
If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle. That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it – that would just be a further assumption on your part. I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it needn’t follow. To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.
If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people? You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, that’s easy, Bamber ISN’T telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did. I’m not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard – you may well be right – but I’m saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.
It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside. That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila. But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances?