What more would you want than -
One alive suspect.
A mountain of forensic evidence.
A mountain of circumstantial evidence.
A big witness.
Several motives.
An opportunity.
No alibi.
-------------
It has been suggested that a forensic industrial frame department was set up. Not sure why EP would do this. If they did, this could not include the circumstantial evidence, no alibi, one alive suspect, motives & opportunity. These were already in place.
On the forensic evidence, what is it that places Bamber in WHF at the time of the murders. There is a mountain of suggested forensic evidence, but again, does any of it prove that Bamber was the shooter.
Ms Mugford isn't a witness to the crime, she is a witness to Bamber's alleged statements, threatening to kill his family, but none of her evidence has been corroborated.
Alibi,motive, opportunity all are irrelevent if you haven't enough proof to convict somebody. Circumstantial evidence is subjective to say the least.
Bamber was a suspect, but is it right that he should be found guilty because he had the motive, no alibi and the opportunity and that he fits the profile but yet there is no hard core evidence to prove his guilt.