I'm not sure I agree. We're left with the indisputable fact that no forensic evidence directly links Bamber to the scene. That is highly significant in its own right. Given the facts alleged, I think the police should have been able to produce some.
I don't rate the lawyers at trial but I'm pretty sure they were offay with whether or not sufficient 'evidence' existed to bring a case against JB. Here's the guide. Where do you think it falls short?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488508/Evidence_v3.0EXT_clean.pdfOn this point, I think I agree.
I don't see how that makes it neutral. The plain fact is that if your summary of the forensic evidence is correct, then the expert testimony does not confirm who the blood was from.
I'm not sure what you mean by "neutral"? It seems to me the lawyers at trial, and certainly the trial judge, had a poor understanding of the blood evidence. It appears inferences were made that the blood test results were exclusive to SC which isn't the case. Statistically a member of the jury would share the same test results/blood groups. Rivlin's strategy was IMO an own goal. Instead of repudiating the silencer he corregraphed it into the soc/case.
But I'm not appealing for greater attention to detail. You misrepresent my point, which was to query why he might refer to THE [rifle/firearm/shotgun]. Was there just one such weapon in the house? It's a relevant question.
I believe the shotgun was the only Bamber owned working gun.
"Obvious to you" is quite telling, suggesting that it's not obvious at all. If it were, then it would not just be obvious to you, would it. For my part, I am sure of what I have seen. No doubt in my mind. The telephone logs that I have seen are definitely written as if there were two calls from two different people. As I have been at pains to emphasise, that does not mean there were two calls, but in the absence of corroboration for only one call (see my request for this above), it is not unreasonable to take the records on the face of it. If you disagree, then produce the telephone logs on which you base your opinion. That would seem to me the way to resolve this. I will err on the side of caution and rely on your version.
I have looked at the logs in the past and IMO they are internal messages about 1 tel call from JB. As I said given how events unfolded on 7th Aug I'm pretty certain officers would be aware if NB called EP. A large number of officers were deployed to WHF including senior personnel, firearms and air response. Given this backdrop I'm sure word would get round NB called EP but not a word.
Means nothing. People get it wrong in witness statements every day of the week and on Sundays. I've already explained why he might have got it wrong. It's a reasonable point that I make.
I can understand JB getting times mixed up but to go into such detail
about looking up a number and how long it took him to do so IMO is fairly conclusive evidence that this is what he did. Whether he did or didn't I don't think it implicates him in any way.
Of course it's subjective - and that being the case, you'll see that I have pointed out how the argument can be put both ways! Yes, on the face of it, Bamber had a motive to kill. He also had a motive not to kill.
I don't see your point. You seem to be assuming things backwards. Yes, if we say Bamber killed his parents, inheritance is the obvious motive. The word there is 'if'.
I think lay witness testimony from JM and others about a taste for the finer things in life and having money whilst you're young had an effect at trial. Along with JB's conversations with police officers about a proposed purchase of a Porsche.
The point is that this idea that Sheila wasn't capable of firing a gun is groundless. She had fired guns. I take issue both with you and a commenter above on this point because, the way I read the relevant parts of your posts, you seem keen to give the impression that she couldn't or absolutely wouldn't have fired a gun. In reality, there is no basis for this conclusion.
Which part of my post leads you to this conclusion?
A 2 year old girl recently used FaceTime to summon help for her mother. Apparently she had simply observed her mother using it.
I find it difficult to envisage a situation where SC, growing up on the farm with NB and JB, wasn't able to operate the rifle as per soc. I've always said the lawyers could perhaps have tested how long it would take novices to load mag, chamber round and fire shots at close range targets to test the level of skill required.
Tell me where I have advanced a conspiracy theory here? Nowhere! What I gave you is logic. It is a mere assumption, nothing more, that Sheila must have been the killer if Bamber couldn't have been, or vice versa. That does not mean I think it was a third party. I only speculate.
I disagree with what the court said here - and I have explained why, using logic. As stated, the phone call does not exclude the possibility of a third party. What would make third party involvement improbable is if the farmhouse was secured, and my understanding is that there were no reports of any signs of forced entry, but in that regard I ask again: do we know if the farmhouse was fully locked?
Noted.
I don't believe I asserted you advanced a conspiracy? But plenty of others have eg Mike Tesko has suggested a scruffy hunched up man supposedly seen running from WHF. Bogus lawyer GDS suggested UK intelligence services were responsible.
I think the courts work on plausibility and most find claims the perp(s) was anyone other than JB or SC implausible including myself.
