As your external drive was a Maxtor (now defunct) one, I would not assume that it will work reliably.
According to mike he was still on the phone at 3.42. That's my original point. His latest theory ( proported to be supported by mysterious informants ) is impossible and incidentally, according to bamber's legal team, not true!
I was going by the times in the logs, which suggest that Jeremy set out at about 3:42 (perhaps 3:43 if he drove faster than my estimate of 25mph for most of the way).
I describe the open line from the scene, (3.29am to 3.42am, and beyond) as being problematic, because it was as a result of the panic alarm fitted at the scene being activated, but at some stage after this, someone at the scene, lifted the telephone handset thus creating an open line connection, and placed the handset onto the kitchen worktop, the latter was done at some stage between 3.29am and 3.42am...
That follows if the timing of 3:29am is correct (even if Jeremy's call lasted about six minutes rather than eleven minutes), but you seem to be relying on an informant for that (apparently without asking the informant how he knew this time), and there seems to be nothing in the publicly available evidence to corroborate it.
. . . it was said at trial and in the appeals that it was excepted that Jeremy made his call at 3:26 A car was called out at 3:35 and according to the IR the raid team got a message at 3:33....therefore it's impossible that Jeremy called at 3:36..... 
It's not impossible at all if Nevill called at 3:26am prior to Jeremy's call at 3:36am, but this possibility was missed until Bonnett's log was found.
As vidvic has pointed out, the paragraphs numbered paragraphs 26 and 27 in the 2002 Appeal judgement respectively contain "The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m." and "At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm." How did the court know the times 3.26 and 3.35 were recorded by Mr Bonnett unless his log was available to them? That isn't clear, but there are no other references in the judgement to what Mr Bonnett recorded.
The one being questioned clearly didn't know if he was coming or going, or if the clock was ever right. Very poor observations for a cop given the enormity of the tragedy.
He stumbled occasionally, but he stated that the clock was accurate and specifically disagreed with the suggestion that it wasn't. Unfortunately, he wasn't asked whether he had taken a call from Ralph Nevill Bamber ten minutes earlier.
Why would Nevill call the police at 3.26 and THEN activate a panic alarm, knowing the police were on their way?
No reason, but mike tesko is suggesting it was June, not Nevill, who used the panic button.
. . . Ralph made the call to Jeremy (3.25am), and the police at (3.36am)...
Isn't that last time a typing error, intended to be 3.26am, not 3.36am?
. . . the way in which the rifle was used, in a frenzied manner, the muzzle would certainly have got hot, hot enough to burn flesh
Even after 25 shots, all within a short period, it isn't hot enough to cause severe burns. That is why the televised experiments resorted to heating the rifle with a blowtorch.
. . . nobody can tell me that those children didn't wake up at some point on hearing all the noise . . .
A child can easily remain asleep whilst being transferred from one bed to another, so sleeping through gunshots in a separate room is certainly possible.
Just take it to a computer shop Mike. They can sometimes recover data from damaged drives. Easiest way.
You gotta be kidding! Most shops know next to nothing about data recovery.
I think the mark looks too wide to have been caused by a silencer?
Based on what information about how large a mark would be caused by a silencer?
Well said Tyler, totally agree - the mark looks nothing like a silencer mark.
That's not what tyler wrote, which related to the size of the mark. What photographs of silencer marks are you basing your opinion on?
If this mark is indeed from a sound moderator, . . . someone held the rifle firmly to her neck for that mark to be there.
How do you know? What mark would be caused by a rifle not held firmly?
It's outrageous to even contemplate that the police killed Sheila.
Why?
I don't believe for a second that the police shot Sheila!
That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
