Most murder cases are in essence very simple
Could you please, just briefly, give me a summary of your professional experience in criminal detection, in support of this assertion you make? I'm not being facetious, I'm just very interested in this idea that murder cases are in essence very simple. I have no experience of police or investigative work whatsoever, but general life experience and common-sense would tell me that murder investigations in which the happenings are a mystery are going to be factually complex and intellectually-challenging.
No need to reveal your identity and you can keep it brief. I assume you must have worked as a detective (or in a closely-related role) on murder/manslaughter and unlawful killing investigations?
and the White House Farm murders are no different. As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila.
I agree this is
probably the case, but I disagree that it is
strictly the case. I have explained above why. I believe third party involvement is possible, but I'm not seriously advancing any theories in that regard, so it's a minor point.
In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party.
No he didn't. You, and probably almost everybody who has commented on this case - including the police and courts - are wrong on this point.
This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame.
Now you are making sense. I agree that if the farmhouse was fully locked, then third party involvement can be excluded, but then that naturally raises the question: was the farmhouse locked? We might never have the answer to that question.
However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.
I also agree with you on this point, but it doesn't prove he did.
Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered.
Excellent! Now all you need to do is tell me where the forensic evidence is. See my complaint above. If Bamber had an altercation with Nevill, there will be forensic traces of Bamber all over the place, yes? Doubtful that Bamber, having just shot five people, would be on his hands and knees, with a pair of tweezers, picking up his own hairs or that he could remove fingerprint and maybe blood traces from the items broken. Indeed, as you seem to be confirming, the crime scene was a mess. If Bamber is the killer, then forensic scruple doesn't seem to have been his strong point - he supposedly left a moderator lying around with blood in it - yet oddly, the police came up with nothing in that department on Bamber himself. Why?
A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was. In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress. In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.
I think you make this point well, but I have three observations:
First, the fact that Nevill was taller/stronger does not preclude the possibility of an altercation. Daughters do have physical 'fights' with their male immediate family members - especially brothers, but sometimes even fathers - and in their own minds, it might not matter that the man or teenage brother, or whatever, is stronger. In fact, that might add to a sense that she can 'push the envelope' a little. Isn't it true that Sheila had mental health issues, or do I have that wrong (apologies if I'm wrong on that point)?
Second, also the fact that Nevill was stronger does not preclude the possibility that, if she did carry out these killings, Sheila might have got the best of him by arming herself. For the purposes of our hypothetical scenario of Sheila as killer, we must remember that Nevill was a Magistrate, therefore he would have had to be doubly cautious for that reason and on account that Sheila had a gun. Also, like any man, Nevill would have been quite reticent, maybe even reluctant, about harming Sheila. His aim would have been to overpower her, but we go back to the fact that in our scenario she is the one with a gun. (For now, I will assume it's the only gun in the house: I did query that point above, but have not had a reply).
Maybe Sheila managed to fend Nevill off and then kill him, despite him being stronger? Maybe that explains the mess in the kitchen? Thinking about it, would an altercation between Jeremy, a strong young man, and Nevill, an elderly man, result in such a struggle? Wouldn't Jeremy be able to overpower him easily? I know when I was about the age Jeremy was at that time, I could have overpowered my late father very easily, had I wanted to, and he was only in his late 40s/early 50s.
Third, what Sheila's remains reveal is that she was shot. I see no reason why her clothing would include traces of her father's blood, given the manner in which we would presume she would have shot him - if she did (and I am NOT saying she did). And I don't see what "signs of a struggle" would entail, but let's say we can agree on that point, I don't believe the absence of superficial signs of a struggle proves she didn't struggle with her father and other individuals in the house. The lack of glass shards on her feet would only be significant if she should have had such on her feet, which in turn depends on where the glass was in the kitchen in relation to her. My point is that it's not conclusive. A different example I would come up with is the lack of torn clothing - that doesn't prove that she didn't struggle, either with Bamber (assuming he is the culprit) or with Nevill (assuming she is the culprit).
These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away.
Sorry to disagree, but this case is NOT indisputable. Bamber has not confessed or made admissions. He vigorously protests his innocence and there are points of issue with almost everything you have said here.
As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him. Either way, he is still guilty.
I am not interested in pronouncing the guilt or innocence of people. You may have some kind of personal interest in the case. If you are a member of the victims' family, then I sincerely apologise and offer you my genuine condolences.
