Sequence of events surrounding the silencer.

[Adam]

Nothing's ridiculous if you don't particularly like a person. People go to great lengths to claw back what they think is, or should be theirs. Wouldn't you if you could get away with it ?

And impossible to do.

[Rob_]

Bearing in mind this wasn't just the ABO groupings, which most people have at least heard of from O level biology even if they don't know their own grouping, but enzymes and proteins too.  I mean who on planet earth know their groupings for the following: Adenylate Kinase (AK), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphtase (EAP), Haptogoblin (HP) and Phosphoglucomutase (PGM).  In fact I bet most haven't even heard of these enzymes and proteins let alone which group they fall into! 

The whole idea of the relatives contaminating the silencer is beyond ridiculous.

How the silencer was found and handled is what is ridiculous, to me whose blood is in it is not that important bearing in mind it's 1985. There could potentially have been traces of five people's blood in it if JB did the crime, which maybe would have covered something like 80% of the population?

[Rob_]

The relatives believed JB was guilty and to them they were doing justice. If you don't realize how suspiciously convenient it is them "finding" it, then you probably have some form of Asperger's syndrome.

Yes someone believed Sheila could not have done the crime, so it had to be JB and the evidence was beefed up to make sure justice in their view was done.

[Rob_]

Who else is there?

David Bird's COLP interview is interesting Adam.

[Rob_]

Do you not believe Bamber would use a silencer. In a silent massacre attempt?

Then take it off after shooting Sheila?

No because the gun was fairly quite anyway, but if he did use it then why put it in the cupboard??

He would have suspected the use of a silencer would be obvious to the Police so would have simply left it beside Sheila.

[Adam]

No because the gun was fairly quite anyway, but if he did use it then why put it in the cupboard??

He would have suspected the use of a silencer would be obvious to the Police so would have simply left it beside Sheila.

Doubt that Bamber knew the silencer (apparently) did not make much difference to the sound. He only made the claim decades later.

Besides which, a small difference is still useful.

[Adam]

No because the gun was fairly quite anyway, but if he did use it then why put it in the cupboard??

He would have suspected the use of a silencer would be obvious to the Police so would have simply left it beside Sheila.

I don't understand this.

[Rob_]

Doubt that Bamber knew the silencer (apparently) did not make much difference to the sound. He only made the claim decades later.

Besides which, a small difference is still useful.

Of course he knew it was to stop bunnies fleeing before the bullet hit them, it was not a silencer from a human ear's point of view. The effect also depended on the type of bullet used but you know all this Adam.

[Rob_]

I don't understand this.

I know nothing about guns Adam but if I put a silencer on a gun and use it at close range I would have assumed the Police would easily be able to detect this?

[guest29835]

Nothing's ridiculous if you don't particularly like a person. People go to great lengths to claw back what they think is, or should be theirs. Wouldn't you if you could get away with it ?

If they were convinced of his guilt and also believed he would turn them off their land, it is not far-fetched at all.  I imagine they would have been prepared to do just about anything, on the proviso that they could get away with it, as you say.

I must say, it is not something I could countenance, as you are framing a potentially innocent person, however I have never been in that situation or anything comparable, nor have most people; and, if they were convinced of his guilt, they may not have thought about it sensibly.

[David1819]

If they were convinced of his guilt and also believed he would turn them off their land, it is not far-fetched at all.  I imagine they would have been prepared to do just about anything, on the proviso that they could get away with it, as you say.

I must say, it is not something I could countenance, however I have never been in that situation or anything comparable, nor have most people.

Its much less farfetched than the prosecutions narrative. 

[Adam]

Of course he knew it was to stop bunnies fleeing before the bullet hit them, it was not a silencer from a human ear's point of view. The effect also depended on the type of bullet used but you know all this Adam.

Well the evidence shows he put the silencer on.

It was a 'silent' massacre attempt.

[Adam]

I know nothing about guns Adam but if I put a silencer on a gun and use it at close range I would have assumed the Police would easily be able to detect this?

Back spatter was little known then. Very doubtful Bamber knew about it.

He also never realised the silencer had scratched the aga during the kitchen fight.

[David1819]

Well the evidence shows he put the silencer on.

It was a 'silent' massacre attempt.

No, the evidence shows it was a fabrication to make it look like he put the silencer on.

[Adam]

Back spatter was little known then. Very doubtful Bamber knew about it.

He also never realised the silencer had scratched the aga during the kitchen fight.

Besides which the silencer was not part of the crime scene. It was put in a box at the back of the gun cupboard. Virtually hidden.