David Boutflour WS's.

[Adam]

This thread on DB is also worth creating. He says some interesting things.

[snow66!]

DB says Bamber said to him Nevill sounded injured on the phone.

Not sure how he could tell from 11 words.

That is because Nevill had just recovered from being beaten unconcious by the Aga,he was bound to sound shaky and hurt Adam.Makes sense to me,yes fits perfectly.

[snow66!]

Says Sheila is frightened of guns. Had never seen her hold or fire a gun.

Peter Eaton wasn't her dad,he didn't see her every day.
Probably only saw her on two or three occasions in her life time.

[Zoso]

That is because Nevill had just recovered from being beaten unconcious by the Aga,he was bound to sound shaky and hurt Adam.Makes sense to me,yes fits perfectly.

Makes none to me.

[Zoso]

Peter Eaton wasn't her dad,he didn't see her every day.
Probably only saw her on two or three occasions in her life time.

He saw her more than anyone here and certainly MORE than two or three in her life-time! He was a regular visitor to the farm from childhood. He is far better qualified to know what Sheila did or didn't do, than anyone here.

[Roch]

Makes none to me.

How does an injured person sound, in a panic, in the phone, with only seconds to speak?

[Zoso]

How does an injured person sound, in a panic, in the phone, with only seconds to speak?

I'm talking about the MASSIVE ASSUMPTION that he had just woken up from being beaten unconscious. This is purely made up stuff with no evidence to support it.

[Jane]

How does an injured person sound, in a panic, in the phone, with only seconds to speak?

But we don't know that he was injured, do we? The suggestion was one which JB slipped into conversation at some time later than when he called police. Had he believed his father to have been injured, surely he'd have said so, if only to hasten the arrival of the police to the scene?

[snow66!]

But we don't know that he was injured, do we? The suggestion was one which JB slipped into conversation at some time later than when he called police. Had he believed his father to have been injured, surely he'd have said so, if only to hasten the arrival of the police to the scene?

Yes,thats a valid point Jane.

[Roch]

I'm talking about the MASSIVE ASSUMPTION that he had just woken up from being beaten unconscious. This is purely made up stuff with no evidence to support it.

The official case is based on massive assumptions. No consideration is given to how the incident/s panned out that night. It's no good people saying 'we are not interested in finding out'.

[Zoso]

The official case is based on massive assumptions. No consideration is given to how the incident/s panned out that night. It's no good people saying 'we are not interested in finding out'.

You will never find out what happened in a house where everyone who could tell, is either dead or in prison. Words like 'maybe' or 'possibly' are increasingly missed out in favour of stating things as though they are fact. This is annoying on either side.

[snow66!]

You will never find out what happened in a house where everyone who could tell, is either dead or in prison. Words like 'maybe' or 'possibly' are increasingly missed out in favour of stating things as though they are fact. This is annoying on either side.

Once Nevills back is tied to the Aga,quite a few pieces of the puzzle fall into place Zoso.Just about enough to free Bamber in my view.Which may not be worth much I grant you.

[Adam]

The official case is based on massive assumptions. No consideration is given to how the incident/s panned out that night. It's no good people saying 'we are not interested in finding out'.

If you follow the crime scene evidence, it leads you into a straight forward scenario.

[Roch]

You will never find out what happened in a house where everyone who could tell, is either dead or in prison. Words like 'maybe' or 'possibly' are increasingly missed out in favour of stating things as though they are fact. This is annoying on either side.

If you support guilt, by default you are tied to the case '85/'86. It means you have to fight and reject new discoveries, or close yourself off to them.  You are free to choose that approach but I find it baffling.

[Jane]

If you support guilt, by default you are tied to the case '85/'86. It means you have to fight and reject new discoveries, or close yourself off to them.  You are free to choose that approach but I find it baffling.

How so, Roch? Isn't it supporters who are playing the game of "Who's Going To Be First To Find The Key To Bamber's Cell"? You forget that I, and others played it when we thought he was innocent -enthusiastically aided, abetted and encouraged by the late MT who threw porkies/red herrings into the mix like they were going out of fashion- we left no stones unturned. We even created stones which never existed.