You think he should have been acquitted even though you claim to know that he killed four members of his family?
Yes, on the footing that he did not receive a fair trial, because of the fact that he did not harm or shoot dead his sister, which was the main plank of the prosecutions case against him during the trial. If he didn't harm or shoot dead his sister (bear with me) it cannot be right that the crown got him convicted of all five murders by a reliance upon such 'a mistruth' and undeniably (totally) 'dishonest evidence'...
There does not exist, any evidence that was relied upon during Jeremy Bambers trial that he shot and killed any of the other four victims!
'Albeit by reference to Julie Mugfords account which told of the involvement in the massacre of a hired hitman, who she named as 'Mathew McDonald). I concede that if Jeremy Bamber did hire someone to shoot dead his family, that this of course would be sufficient to legally justify his conviction for the other four murders, but that even in the eventuality that this is correct, any as yet unprosecuted hitman did not kill Sheila Caffell...
He got convicted of killing all five members of his family, because the prosecution relied solely upon 'a false premise that Sheila could not have killed herself with a sound moderator fitted to the end of a rifles barrel', superimposed by comments / directions given to the jury in Mr Justice Drakes summing up speech, where he told the jury, that there was no evidence presented to the court that there was, or had been any third party involvement in these murders, and that the jury had no option but 'to decide the outcome of the trial by choosing between Sheila Caffell or Jeremy Bamber', as the only ones who could have been responsible for the massacre!
We now know that the silencer evidence is at best 'a bogus piece of evidence'. Blood in and upon one of two sound moderators, and red coloured paint in the knurled end of the other one! (Bear with me please), a silencer/ sound moderator handed over to police by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August 1985 (with as it turns out blood upon and inside of it) and the second silencer handed over to police by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, which in point of fact, did not even get submitted to the Lab' at Huntingdon, until the 20th September 1985...
This being the case, there now exists clear evidence and proof, that the contaminated second silencer which was found to be the host for the red paint from the scratched kitchen aga ( also bear in mind that the very first photograph which captured evidence of any scratch marks upon the surface of that kitchen aga, were not taken by SOC until the 14th September 1985, a month or so, after the original sets of crime scene photographs showing no evidence of any scratch marks in that location when two independent teams of SOCO photographed that area of the crime scene) - add to this, the existence of a crime scene video which has never been made available to Jeremy Bambers defence team, pre-trial, or since, with no information concerning who took the said footage, and was the specific time this crime scene video was in fact recorded!