I believe Whomes conceded he was in the vicinity of Rettendon on the day/time in question. This may or may not have been in relation to their dealings with the murdered trio but even it was in relation to the murdered trio does it necessarily mean Whomes was in any way responsible for the murders?
I do take your point Holly.
Without Nicholls testimony you are left with a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence, but enough to convict? I don't think so.
Even having borne in mind Nicholls undoubted history of dishonesty, I still find his account of the importations and murders utterly convincing. He was able to go into minute detail with his account matching up with call logs, others statements, etc. Some have inevitably suggested that Nicholls was fed this information by the police. Even if you believe that, I, feel sure that Nicholls would not have been able to stand up to several days of cross examination.
It was interesting that the jury believed his account of the murders and importations, whilst disbelieving his story about supplying a weapon to Steele.
Like many other cases, there is a plethora of mis information to be found about this case. However, available also are an enormous amount of transcripts taken from dozens of police interviews, statements and the trial itself. Reading through these will give you your best hope of uncovering the truth.