Television documentary material

[Sparkfilms]

One would like to think that the police covered every possible angle, I really don't see how they could have missed a dead body.

If Shelia died when the police were in the house, could they possibly have been covering for themselves? Was this the reason why all the 'extras' ( from London? ) put in an appearance?

I find it hard to believe that a cover up of this magnitude could have occured, and yet, there is always that nagging doubt. A doubt that is shared by Bob Woofinden and many others it seems.

If it was a cover up ( and for the sake of everyone concerned, let's hope it wasn't ) murder and suicide, or murder, would clear the police of any responsibilty for the death of Shelia Caffell - not that anyone could have blamed them for her death though.

[dsf]

I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.

Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.

First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.

If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.

Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.

But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.

On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?

As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?

[Tricksy]

Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.

 I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.

I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.

Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less

Newsman.

I agree with what you say here. As far as I am aware, isn't it a big no-no for someone who was in her position to have sold her story?

I always thought that doing that (and I'm talking in general here, not just about JM) automatically would lead the courts to question someone's testimony and credibility as a witness?

[Tricksy]

If I may, I will return to the reference to the CPS in the case of The Suffolk Murders.

I watched a television interview by Michael Crimp of the CPS where he was making a statement about the accused. I know that what he said in this statement was incorrect and said as much in my book that was released on the first of February.

There was nothing sinister in what Mr Crimp implied, he just didn't know what he was talking about in this particular instant.

So mistakes can be made, though to be fair to Michael Crimp it made very little difference in general terms.

It is worrying though, that senior people that we put our trust in can be so wide of the mark.

I am very interested in reading your book, as I know that case fairly well and would like to read your opinions on it.

Could you tell me where it can be bought from please? Or the name of it, so I can seek it out please?

[mike tesko]

I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.

Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.

First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.

If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.

Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.

But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.

On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?

As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?

-------------------------------------------------------

The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?

Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?

The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?

To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?

[dsf]

I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.

Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.

First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.

If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.

Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.

But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.

On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?

As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?

-------------------------------------------------------

The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?

Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?

The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?

To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?

So, I take it that what you're saying is that the supposedly scratched area was indeed hidden behind the jacket.

But have you actually seen pictures that were taken after the jacket was moved? If so, were they close-ups?, and can you post them?

[mike tesko]

I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.

Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.

First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.

If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.

Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.

But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.

On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?

As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?

-------------------------------------------------------

The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?

Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?

The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?

To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?

So, I take it that what you're saying is that the supposedly scratched area was indeed hidden behind the jacket.

But have you actually seen pictures that were taken after the jacket was moved? If so, were they close-ups?, and can you post them?

----------------------------------

The area that was later scratched was behind where the blue and white striped jacket was hanging down on the morning in question, yes...

Yes, I have seen pictures taken at the scene on the morning in question, after the jacket was removed?

[dsf]

I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.

Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.

First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.

If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.

Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.

But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.

On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?

As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?

-------------------------------------------------------

The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?

Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?

The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?

To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?

So, I take it that what you're saying is that the supposedly scratched area was indeed hidden behind the jacket.

But have you actually seen pictures that were taken after the jacket was moved? If so, were they close-ups?, and can you post them?

----------------------------------

The area that was later scratched was behind where the blue and white striped jacket was hanging down on the morning in question, yes...

Yes, I have seen pictures taken at the scene on the morning in question, after the jacket was removed?

Have you got any photos without the jacket to post?

[mike tesko]

I am interested in that blue and white jacket for a number of different reasons - but chiefly because if the silencer was fitted to the gun as alleged, blood from the end of the silencer would have become transferred onto that jacket when the end of the weapon came into contact with it, during the supposed struggle...

Now what are Essex police doing covering up and disposing of a crucial piece of evidence, of this nature, whilst at the same time arguing that the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time of an alleged struggle in the kitchen, where the end of the silencer makes these supposedly deep scratch and gouge marks on the aga surround?

That jacket was a key piece of evidence, that Essex police, and the DPP just took it upon themselves to get rid of - so conveniently, just like that...

Abracadabra, it was there one moment, and then in the blink of an eye, it was gone forever...

[mike tesko]

I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.

Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.

First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.

If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.

Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.

But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.

On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?

As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?

-------------------------------------------------------

The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?

Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?

The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?

To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?

So, I take it that what you're saying is that the supposedly scratched area was indeed hidden behind the jacket.

But have you actually seen pictures that were taken after the jacket was moved? If so, were they close-ups?, and can you post them?

----------------------------------

The area that was later scratched was behind where the blue and white striped jacket was hanging down on the morning in question, yes...

Yes, I have seen pictures taken at the scene on the morning in question, after the jacket was removed?

Have you got any photos without the jacket to post?

--------------------------------------------------------

A couple that I might add sometime tomorrow if I can lay my hands on them in time...

[Sparkfilms]

For Tricksy,

My book about the Suffolk Murders is called 'Ipswich Zero 6' and is up on the Amazon site & pretty much available at any online outlet.

You should read the synopsis ( Amazon ) first, the book is very different in format / style.

Apologies for advertising one of my titles.

[Jackiepreece]

In the judges summing up VERY IMPORTANT the judge said you either believe jeremy or julie.  Were the police so desperate to notch up a conviction that they let someone that was implicated in the murder of 5 people before the murder, the day of the murder, the night of the murder and weeks after the murder.  This person could have prevented the murders happening.  This person perverted the course of justice after the murders while forensic evidence was being removed from the scence of the murders.  This person put on an oscar winning performance at the funeral of the people she knew were going to be murdered. This person went on holiday with Jeremy twice the month after the murders.This person managed to persuade a jury that they should believe her side of the story rather than Jeremys. This person managed to gain immunity from prosecution for giving evidence against her boyfriend.

Do you think the jury would have believed her if they knew she had sold her story.

Do you think this women would be allowed to work with children if people thought she was implicated in a murder of five people

Would you trust this star witness at a murder trial
This person went on to sell her story to a national newspaper for £25,000.


Julie Mugford  by Scott Lomax




 Once he ended their relationship she went to the police with information that led to his initial arrest. The evidence was not thought to be credible and he was released without charge. Yet at trial she provided testimony that formed a part of the prosecution’s case.

She told the court that Jeremy had plotted to kill his family for many months before their deaths.

On the eve of the shootings Jeremy told Mugford, "Tonight's the night", she claimed.

He later phoned to tell her that everything was going well. It was shown Mugford had become incredibly hurt and upset with the breakdown of the relationship. At one point in time she had tried to smother Jeremy with a pillow, by her own admission, stating "If I can't have you, nobody can."

Mugford named a man who she alleged was hired by Jeremy to carry out the crime.

 That man was found to have an alibi and he was quickly eliminated from the investigation.

 There was no evidence to support Mugford’s ‘hit man’ story.

 When Mugford was shown to be wrong, the police eventually came to the conclusion that the ‘hit man’ story was simply a veiled confession by Jeremy who, they argued, commited the murders himself.

Mugford’s evidence was exceptionally controversial
Julie Mugford was Jeremy’s girlfriend at the time of the deaths.

Article from 2001 about Julie Mugford saying how great her life is now!!!!!!!!!!!!

I PUT BAMBER IN PRISON ... AND THAT'S WHERE HE SHOULD STAY
| Sunday Mirror, Apr 1, 2001 | by ANNETTE WITHERIDGE in Winnipeg

THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.

Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.

Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.

Bamber, 39, was given five life sentences for the killings. At the trial, Julie's evidence that he had bragged to her about committing the perfect murder and phoned her before the slaughter to say: "It's tonight or never" was vital in securing a guilty verdict.

He is now relying on DNA evidence not available 15 years ago to fight his conviction, and if successful could be free by Christmas.

Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.

"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.

"At this stage the appeal process is so sketchy that I have no idea what is going on."

A friend added: "It is something Julie has never really recovered from. Ultimately it was her evidence that put him behind bars and it is something she still has nightmares about. She still grieves for his family and wonders if she could have averted the murders by telling the police about his scheming beforehand."

Julie now fears she could be called to give evidence at the appeal - and last week she consulted Canadian lawyers for advice.

"She dreads having to face Bamber again in court. And she's afraid he could come after her and her family if he is freed. It's tragic. She has been so happy here in Canada."

Initially, police accepted Bamber's claim that ex-model Sheila, suffering from depression in the wake of her marriage break-up, killed the family then turned the gun on herself.

But as he attracted attention by spending his pounds 500,000 inheritance on champagne, drugs and a lavish lifestyle, police pressed his girlfriend of three years to tell them what she knew.

Julie, who stood alongside Bamber at the family funeral as he cried what prosecutors called "crocodile tears," finally gave in when he humiliated her by asking out another girl in front of her.

After giving her evidence, Julie fled Britain to travel the world.

In Australia in 1990 she met Canadian Glen Smerchanski.

"They fell in love but it was a long, long time before she could bring herself to tell him about her life," the friend said. "It was only after he asked her to marry him and move to his home town of Winnipeg that she began to open up.

"He knew she was running away from something but it took her a long time to tell him. Gradually Glen coaxed it out of her and, bit by bit, the whole sorry story came out.

"Glen reassured her constantly, telling her the past didn't matter. Even so, she didn't want his family to know. He even kept it from his mother."

When Julie first left Britain in 1986 she promised her mother Mary she would return for a big white wedding. So after briefly setting up home with Glen in Winnipeg, the couple married in Essex in July 1991. The following month they had an church blessing in Canada.

Julie worked as a special needs teacher while Glen built up a career as a computer salesman, then she also began doing volunteer work for a charity for sick children and helping Glen collect money door-to-door for the Salvation Army.

Five years ago the couple's son Benjamin was born, followed by Hannah, now two.

Julie continued working and was recently appointed vice-principal at John M King Elementary, an inner- city junior school. Only two weeks ago they moved into a detached house with its own swimming pool in one of Winnipeg's best suburbs.

"Julie is a pillar of the community - you would never believe she was once tangled up in a mass murder," her friend said.

"The Bamber case was kept a complete secret. Only Glen and a handful of people knew about it."

Sandy-haired Glen, 40, said: "I've known about this for many years, but we only told a few family members and very close friends. Julie just wishes it would all go away and we could get on with our lives.

"We just can't believe this man could be freed. We are worried about our kids. We hope it never happens."






Everyone on hear can make their own mind up if they thought she made the whole thing up to frame Jeremy because he didnt want to be with her anymore or she all of a sudden developed a concience

[crooner1]

If we can go back to the original topic? who could we possibly get to play the JB role because it would have to be an oscar winning performance of Richard Burton class.  First this guy has to cycle from Goldhanger to WHF, shoot dead his mother father nephews and his sister and try to make it look like a suicide and murder, wipe clean the silencer and return to the cupboard,escape from the farm on cycle back home.  Also not to be seen whilst doing all this.  Then contact police and arrange to meet at the farm half an hour later!  He has got to show no sign of stress, panic, blood, sweating, nerves,emotion ect. He has got to convince every police officer he comes into contact with he had nothing to do with also all the press ect. Then this guy has to pass a lie detector test and prove that he is not a crazy. Can anyone imagine what state you would be in after doing all this, i no there are people out there that can do this BUT they dont after ring the police and meet them just after? My own personnel opion he just could not have done all this, and before anyone gets on their high HORSE, are you a townie yes, have you ever worked on a caravan site in that area yes, 10 years, do you understand the minds and how caravan site owners work yes, have you ever met a certain family yes, have you ever seen A CERTAIN fire arms police team in operation in recent years and make not a very good job in which they had all day to plan YES, did you get caught up in it yes was it frightening my god was it it took 24 hours to come down, this is why i just dont think he could have done it someone would have noticed.   mike you are doing a fantastic job mate lol thats essex talk if it wasnt for people like you the bakewell murder conviction would never have got over turned. ps kaldin you have been a breath of fresh air to this forum you and mike would make a good team, credit due to you both.

[Pete0001]

hey Crooner1

When you put it like that, yes, it's all very hard to believe... it also makes me wonder what the hell JB's original defense team were doing?!?!?
I know that a theory of what he would have to have done is not evidence but by christ it's a starter for ten at the very least.

[Newbury1]

If we can go back to the original topic? who could we possibly get to play the JB role because it would have to be an oscar winning performance of Richard Burton class.  First this guy has to cycle from Goldhanger to WHF, shoot dead his mother father nephews and his sister and try to make it look like a suicide and murder, wipe clean the silencer and return to the cupboard,escape from the farm on cycle back home.  Also not to be seen whilst doing all this.  Then contact police and arrange to meet at the farm half an hour later!  He has got to show no sign of stress, panic, blood, sweating, nerves,emotion ect. He has got to convince every police officer he comes into contact with he had nothing to do with also all the press ect. Then this guy has to pass a lie detector test and prove that he is not a crazy. Can anyone imagine what state you would be in after doing all this, i no there are people out there that can do this BUT they dont after ring the police and meet them just after? My own personnel opinion he just could not have done all this, and before anyone gets on their high HORSE, are you a townie yes, have you ever worked on a caravan site in that area yes, 10 years, do you understand the minds and how caravan site owners work yes, have you ever met a certain family yes, have you ever seen A CERTAIN fire arms police team in operation in recent years and make not a very good job in which they had all day to plan YES, did you get caught up in it yes was it frightening my god was it it took 24 hours to come down, this is why i just don't think he could have done it someone would have noticed.   mike you are doing a fantastic job mate lol that's Essex talk if it wasn't for people like you the bakewell murder conviction would never have got over turned. ps kaldin you have been a breath of fresh air to this forum you and mike would make a good team, credit due to you both.

The first part of your post ties in with a previous post of mine.

Previous post - One point that concerns me over whether Jeremy committed the murders, which the act in itself is an incredibly highrisk undertaking, is that if he had entered the house alone with murder on his mind he would have dispatched Nevill (the strongest first) and in my view would not have allowed him to get downstairs (basically emptying the whole magazine in Nevill if required).

If JB had killed the children first (even with a silencer) his movements in the house and shots would have risked him being detected by Nevill / June/ Sheila, allowing their escape or JB being overpowered.

If JB had killed his parents first (including struggle with Nevill in Kitchen) this would almost certainly have alerted Sheila and the children (and the children, I believe, died in their sleep). Sheilas bed was not slept in – where was she? - maybe saying goodbye to the children?

Therefore, if JB has shot Nevill first (and failed to kill him) he finishes off June in the bedroom. He surely cannot afford to let Nevill escape so immediately follows him downstairs to finish him off.

There then follows the alleged struggle in the kitchen between JB and Nevill leaving no discernable marks on JB? The infamous (and pivotal) mark on the kitchen mantelpiece being allegedly made by the silencer now under serious doubt!

All this time there is a risk of SC and the children waking and escaping or SC attacking JB to protect her parents and children - there is no evidence of this.

All through this hectic slaughter of 5 people JB has to quickly reload the magazine at least twice leaving time for someone to escape (i.e. no body was found near a door / window) or stop him - no evidence of this.

For SC (the last to die) to remain passive all this time and then to lie / sit down and let JB kill her is very difficult to believe.

And then JB decides to hide the silencer, rather that take it with him to dispose of (as previously posted)?

JB now probably has blood on him and has to get out through a small window leaving no blood traces on any exit surface, the window or outside – highly implausible 

He then cycles home in bloody clothing – again very high risk, unnoticed by anyone (okay it's dark and late) and at some stage cleans the bike so thoroughly that no blood traces remain – again difficult to believe.

I believe the prosecution case was based on the use of his mothers bicycle to get to and from the murder scene. 

He then disposes of all his bloody clothing so that no item is ever found!!

We are also led to believe that having just killed 5 people JB then calls the police, joins them at WHF and, in their company, appears reasonably calm and normal under the circumstances (as reported by at least one officer at the scene)  and helps the police in their efforts to assess the situation at WHF – JB is 24 years old and not an experienced killer – I cannot believe he would act this way! 

Quite a sequence of events to believe!

New - In my opinion JB either did this with an accomplice or it was Sheila!

I find it hard to believe it could have been all third party (over drugs) as this does not tie in with JB's 3.26am call to the police, unless he was invloved (this call being one of the rare facts of this case that I think everone agrees with).

Of couse the Jury at the time believed JB did all this alone!!

Quote -it also makes me wonder what the hell JB's original defense team were doing?!?!? - cross over from Pete0001