Im sorry QC I don’t need to answer to us or anybody anything. Bamber chose the way he went for his reasons, it was suggested he did it for delaying tactics ( that could mean time of death and to compose himself etc and to distance himself from the crime scene), I’m saying it nearly worked by all accounts.
Oddly you attempt an answer of my question after telling me you don't need to answer it. Anyway, I find your reasons unconvincing.
Time of death - If he was waiting for enough time to explain dried blood, how does that tie in with his attempted alibi, in which he tried to persuade the police that Sheila is still alive? The two things stand in contradiction.
To compose himself: I thought he'd planned the whole thing? What do you suggest was the length of the delay he needed to compose himself?
Distance himself from the crime scene - He achieves this by putting himself at the crime scene? How does that make sense?
I'm afraid that, on closer scrutiny, the guilter position on this point is empty.
The case against Jeremy Bamber is a bit like noticing an attractive woman at a distance, only to find on closer view she is not what you initially thought. In other words, the case looks convincing from a distance, but starts to fall apart when you pull at the threads. Sorry.
