Narrative

[mb1]

I'm a newbie to this site, having never read any of the books about the case and only childish memories of it at the time. However, what strikes me regarding all the interpretation of evidence, disclosure or lack of etc, is the unsatisfactory narrative from both sides. An either/or is being presented that disquiets those of us just interested in seeing justice served.
Either Sheila committed the crimes then killed herself. But I am swayed by the photographic evidence, Bible, two wounds etc mentioned here that her 'death scene' is out of kilter and points to murder rather than suicide. However, nor can I be persuaded that all the police and soc officers immediately began framing someone when their senior officer clearly viewed it as a suicide/murder. Nor do I believe all successive officers/CPS/judges etc have conspired together down the years to keep an innocent man in jail.
Or JB is guilty, made a hash of staging the scene and a mistake with the silencer, and this would have been clearly proved had the force dealt with the matter with a greater degree of professional competence. However, I really struggle with the idea of them missing the silencer - surely the gun cabinet was one of the most important scenes at the site? Plus if there had been a struggle causing scratch marks on the mantlepiece, wouldn't that jacket have fallen/been pulled down and the herb (?) jars on the top been disturbed?
For me, the silencer is the key to opening up this case.
I understand JB's appeal must be about him and his case, but as has been shown in the past the scales of the law can be re-balanced by the strength and volume of public opinion. Joe Public needs an alternative story they can understand and believe.
So if's not either/or then who? And then why?
So come back HorseyDave! Not only did it set the scene, allowing people to visualise time and place, what you had to say was intriguing as well. It shouldn't be condemned just because it doesn't fit the either/or.
The planes and lights give a where that just might lead to the why and who...
And I usually hate conspiracies!

[Kaldin]

My main problem is that some of the theories have been too far fetched, and that the wrong things are being concentrated on. Also, some of the theories have been too complicated to follow and are accompanied by endless lists of documents which mean very little to me, and it doesn't seem to matter how many times they're explained, they just don't become any clearer.

However, that doesn't mean that there aren't doubts about this conviction, and I'm doing my best to find something which can clarify the matter.

[mb1]

What I'd really like to know is how much hard evidence remains? The provenance of items, chain of custody etc has been argued and failed to win the case. The implied motivations of JM and inheritors to the estate isn't tangible enough for a court. So it has to be a new finding or a review of something with fresh eyes. Clothing, bullets, shell cases, guns, silencers, bedding etc that can be subjected to recent advancements in forensic techniques. Does anyone know what remains?

[mb1]

Just two more questions - is JB officially on record as saying he believes Sheila is guilty? Is this recent? 

[Kaldin]

What I'd really like to know is how much hard evidence remains? The provenance of items, chain of custody etc has been argued and failed to win the case. The implied motivations of JM and inheritors to the estate isn't tangible enough for a court. So it has to be a new finding or a review of something with fresh eyes. Clothing, bullets, shell cases, guns, silencers, bedding etc that can be subjected to recent advancements in forensic techniques. Does anyone know what remains?

I'm not sure what evidence is left. Maybe the silencer is still around but it's been messed about with so much since the murders that any evidence found there might be limited. I know a lot of evidence was destroyed in the 90s (another huge mistake).

[SUMMER]

Yes! I could not agree more!
The destructon of the evidence
is a terrible obstacle to any
re-opening of this case.

[SUMMER]

I also agree that we need Horseydave
to come back to help us with the insights
he had access to about the Farm at the time
of the crimes.

[Kaldin]

I also agree that we need Horseydave
to come back to help us with the insights
he had access to about the Farm at the time
of the crimes.

Yes. He was there afterwards. It would be good to hear from someone who was there beforehand too, or from someone who knew any of the people involved. I think that events leading up to a murder are very important. Someone doesn't just decide to shoot four or five people for no reason.