Possible to evidence to rubber stamping. The simple process at trial:

[adam]

The prosecution at trial doesn't have to have evidence that Bamber did everything he is alleged to have done. They just needed to prove it was possible.

The prosecution had to ask & give their answers to the following questions -


Was it 'possible' for him to load a rifle pre massacre ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to assess Sheila hours beforehand  ? Yes

Was it possible for him to cycle to WHF without being seen ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to enter WHF through a window ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to re load, chamber & breach a rifle ? Yes

Was it possible for him to fire 26 bullets ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to have fought Nevill & overcome him ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to avoid facial injuries ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to stage the scene ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to exit WHF through a window ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to bang shut a window from outside ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to cycle home without being seen ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to dispose of incriminating clothes ? Yes.

                                        -------------------

All this is straight forward & proves it was possible for Bamber to committ the massacre. However as supporters will say, just because it was possible, doesn't mean he did committ the massacre. 

To go to the next stages the prosecution had the massive & 1 in a million advantage that there were only two suspects. Due to Bamber's phone call to the police.

The prosecution simply had to focus on Sheila & provide evidence that she didn't & couldn't have committed the massacre. Which the prosecution did do.

                                     -------------------

To rubber stamp things the prosecution then had to ask & answer the following questions about Bamber -

Did Bamber have an alibi ?          - No.

Did Bamber have motives ?        - Yes.

Are there witnesses supporting the prosecution case ? - Yes.

Now that Sheila has been ruled out, are there any other suspects other than Bamber ?  -  No.



It is all very straight forward.

[Angelo222]

Nothing more to be said then...

[adam]

Nothing more to be said then...

It is very straight forward -

Was it possible for Bamber to committ the massacre - Yes.

Is Bamber one of only two suspects - Yes.

Does the evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.

Did Bamber have motives -  Yes.

Did Bamber have an alibi - No.

Did Bamber's closest confidant for 18 months prior & 1 month after the massacre volunteer to be a prosecution witness - Yes.

                                 --------------

Focusing on 999 calls, calls from Nevill & suicide notes won't bring any joy.

They can focus on the evidence that it was not Sheila but there is so much of it. However saying there was an industrial frame then admits the published evidence is incriminating.

[Holly Goodhead]

The prosecution at trial doesn't have to have evidence that Bamber did everything he is alleged to have done. They just needed to prove it was possible.

The prosecution had to ask & give their answers to the following questions -


Was it 'possible' for him to load a rifle pre massacre ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to assess Sheila hours beforehand  ? Yes

Was it possible for him to cycle to WHF without being seen ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to enter WHF through a window ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to re load, chamber & breach a rifle ? Yes

Was it possible for him to fire 26 bullets ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to have fought Nevill & overcome him ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to avoid facial injuries ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to stage the scene ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to exit WHF through a window ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to bang shut a window from outside ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to cycle home without being seen ? Yes.

Was it possible for him to dispose of incriminating clothes ? Yes.

                                        -------------------

All this is straight forward & proves it was possible for Bamber to committ the massacre. However as supporters will say, just because it was possible, doesn't mean he did committ the massacre. 

To go to the next stages the prosecution had the massive & 1 in a million advantage that there were only two suspects. Due to Bamber's phone call to the police.

The prosecution simply had to focus on Sheila & provide evidence that she didn't & couldn't have committed the massacre. Which the prosecution did do.

                                     -------------------

To rubber stamp things the prosecution then had to ask & answer the following questions about Bamber -

Did Bamber have an alibi ?          - No.

Did Bamber have motives ?        - Yes.

Are there witnesses supporting the prosecution case ? - Yes.

Now that Sheila has been ruled out, are there any other suspects other than Bamber ?  -  No.



It is all very straight forward.

The prosecution have to convince 12 jurors the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  Easily done with an incompetent and negligent defence regardless of how strong/weak a case is.

JB's case was/is unique in that it is the only peacetime mass shooting not witnessed by others. 

There's no evidence the police, experts, lawyers or trial judge had any experience of managing a SoC involving a mass shooting. 

[Holly Goodhead]

It is very straight forward -

Was it possible for Bamber to committ the massacre - Yes.

Is Bamber one of only two suspects - Yes.

Does the evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.

Did Bamber have motives -  Yes.

Did Bamber have an alibi - No.

Did Bamber's closest confidant for 18 months prior & 1 month after the massacre volunteer to be a prosecution witness - Yes.

                                 --------------

Focusing on 999 calls, calls from Nevill & suicide notes won't bring any joy.

They can focus on the evidence that it was not Sheila but there is so much of it. However saying there was an industrial frame then admits the published evidence is incriminating.

There's no "industrial frame" just gross incompetence and negligence by JB's lawyers at trial and 2002 appeal:

- Geoffrey Rivlin QC
- Ed Lawson QC
- Paul Terzeon
- Michael Turner QC
- Michael Duck QC