Some people will lose interest as the glamour of the personage involved fades,others will try to write books and articles which sell newspapers and therefore generate profit for their organization. I think the Jeremy Bamber case parallels with David Bain are superficial,as there is just far too much forensic evidence in the latter case (if the article I quoted is accurate) which ties David in with the murders.
Why do none of these people ever have a cast-iron alibi? Why do they drive elderly aunts around until darkness arrives(Sheila Bowler), pretend they were walking the streets of Orpington for hours(Jonathan Jones),have a window of opportunity of 20 minutes in David Bain's case or can slip out of work undetected to put a noose around your wife's head(Eddie Gilfoyle)?
Or in Jeremy Bamber's case be in close proximity of the scene of the crime with the modern-day gadgets of the time to concoct a tissue of lies for Police,whom Jeremy made his alibi.
Thank you for answering Steve!
Firstly, no, the evidence in the 'blog' you posted is not exactly accurate and if you read the book I quoted you will understand why. Sometimes these things just aren't black and white and while I am less sure about Bain, I take your point about the forensics but must also stress that it also depends how the findings are presented and in the Bain case, the trial was a shambles. The evidence was ambiguous (IMO) but I will wait until you have read the book - it's worth investing in and I would be 'genuinely' interested in your NO FRILLS opinion!!
Suspects don't 'always' have a cast iron alibi because if they did, they would never be 'suspects'. It's the very fact that some of these people don't, that makes their 'guilt' questionable!! If you were going to commit murder, wouldn't you FIRST make sure you had an alibi?
I must also add that I can't believe you feel Sheila Bowler to be guilty! The rest I don't know much about .....
