New silencer tests set to cast serious doubt upon safety of convictions...

[Caroline R]

But it DID have a long white hair which clearly wasn't Sheila's.

Yeah, forgot about the hair - which suddenly went missing but was still mentioned in evidence!!

[Caroline R]

If the house was, is as it appears to have been; a farm / house that had been within the extended family for many years, who is to say how many sets of keys existed? Although of course, it only takes one key.

I'm pretty sure the Bamber parents wouldn't come and go via a window either, despite how Jeremy may (or may not) have gone in and out.

WHF wasn't owned by either the Bambers or the extended family.

[lookout]

Post 96 from me.   Possibly a hair from Nevilles' arm where he was prodded and it would have stuck to blood and skin.

[maggie]

Yeah, forgot about the hair - which suddenly went missing but was still mentioned in evidence!!

Wonder whose hair that was, could have been any ones, highly unlikley it was Nevill's  imo.

[grahameb]

Yeah, forgot about the hair - which suddenly went missing but was still mentioned in evidence!!

Could have come from anywhere. Even from the carpet. I get problems with my daughter's hair on my flannel sometimes. Wish she'd comb her hair somewhere else.

[Jane]

Post 96 from me.   Possibly a hair from Nevilles' arm where he was prodded and it would have stuck to blood and skin.

Lookout, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to ignore you. I think we may have differing ideas of what constitutes "long" and body hair has a slightly different composition to head hair which comprises sheath, cortex and medulla. Arm hair certainly lacks medulla making it very much "downier" than head hair, it also has a shorter anogen cycle meaning it will never grow to great lengths.

[mrstiggywinkle]

WHF wasn't owned by either the Bambers or the extended family.

Where did I say it was owned by them?

Maybe I should have said 'used'.

Still, it just goes to show that people don't read things properly and its better to look at actions and mannerisms.

[Jane]

Where did I say it was owned by them?

Maybe I should have said 'used'.

Still, it just goes to show that people don't read things properly and its better to look at actions and mannerisms.

I would agree with that 100% but from this distance it's impossible to say. You're painting this picture in a way that suggests furtiveness behind certain actions, but IS this what it was or is it that it's the way you see it and this is transference in action?

[mrstiggywinkle]

I would agree with that 100% but from this distance it's impossible to say. You're painting this picture in a way that suggests furtiveness behind certain actions, but IS this what it was or is it that it's the way you see it and this is transference in action?

What I am pointing out (but either I'm not doing it very well, which surprises me; or people are blind to it for whatever reason) is that none of us know jacksh*t about what really happened.

We can have as much evidence guaranteed to be correct or simply a load of rubbish; but whatever there is in existence will prove very little to any of us, other than the police investigation was seriously flawed and nothing else.

Yes, I definitely opine furtiveness is an intruder throughout the incident and thereafter; but we can do no more that have our own opinions, some of which are possibly credible; some maybe; and some pure idiocy.

What disturbs me the most is that instead of ideas and conclusions being considered; they are all too readily shot down by those that have already made their minds up that their conclusion (scenario) is the only one and thus can't be wrong.

There needs to be a much less dogmatic attitude to ideas of what may have taken place.

[Caroline R]

What I am pointing out (but either I'm not doing it very well, which surprises me; or people are blind to it for whatever reason) is that none of us know jacksh*t about what really happened.

We can have as much evidence guaranteed to be correct or simply a load of rubbish; but whatever there is in existence will prove very little to any of us, other than the police investigation was seriously flawed and nothing else.

Yes, I definitely opine furtiveness is an intruder throughout the incident and thereafter; but we can do no more that have our own opinions, some of which are possibly credible; some maybe; and some pure idiocy.

What disturbs me the most is that instead of ideas and conclusions being considered; they are all too readily shot down by those that have already made their minds up that their conclusion (scenario) is the only one and thus can't be wrong.

There needs to be a much less dogmatic attitude to ideas of what may have taken place.

You can say whatever you like 'within reason' there are certain laws which you need to abide by or the forum could be in trouble. Accusing or insinuating that David Boutflour was accomplice could get us all in trouble and then no one can debate anything.

[Jane]

What I am pointing out (but either I'm not doing it very well, which surprises me; or people are blind to it for whatever reason) is that none of us know jacksh*t about what really happened.

We can have as much evidence guaranteed to be correct or simply a load of rubbish; but whatever there is in existence will prove very little to any of us, other than the police investigation was seriously flawed and nothing else.

Yes, I definitely opine furtiveness is an intruder throughout the incident and thereafter; but we can do no more that have our own opinions, some of which are possibly credible; some maybe; and some pure idiocy.

What disturbs me the most is that instead of ideas and conclusions being considered; they are all too readily shot down by those that have already made their minds up that their conclusion (scenario) is the only one and thus can't be wrong.

There needs to be a much less dogmatic attitude to ideas of what may have taken place.

You're doing just fine in the pointing out stakes AND you're correct in saying that none of us know what happened. We don't even know if the evidence we have is correct. I suspect much of it isn't. Long held beliefs, be they credible or idiocy will be harder to shift for some, than others, but by all means, throw any amount of new thoughts into the mix and open out the debate.

[susan]

mrstiggywinkle  I agree with you we all have our own ideas of what happened at WHF and we should respect each others views and not dismiss them as ridiculous as you rightly stated nobody knows exactly what happened think the police are the ones who will have the the best case scenario they were at the scene shortly after the dreadful events and could piece things together by the evidence evident to them position of the bodies rifle and the bible and slippers/canvas shoes and much much more I feel here lies the answers.

[mrstiggywinkle]

You can say whatever you like 'within reason' there are certain laws which you need to abide by or the forum could be in trouble. Accusing or insinuating that David Boutflour was accomplice could get us all in trouble and then no one can debate anything.

Once again - something misread.

Where did I accuse David Boutflour of anything untoward?

[lookout]

Once again - something misread.

Where did I accuse David Boutflour of anything untoward?

Mrs T,,if I remember rightly,,it was me who made such a remark about DB,possibly yesterday or the day before.

[Caroline R]

Once again - something misread.

Where did I accuse David Boutflour of anything untoward?

In a response to a post by Lookout's in which she said she couldn't think of an accomplice you posted "I can. Who found or directed someone to find the silencer?" I then said that David Boutflour found the silencer, to which you replied "Let's just suppose it was Jeremy and DB regardless of who pulled the trigger(s) and which gun(s) were used.

Jeremy would know full well that if he dobbed DB in, he himself would never get out.

As it is, if Jeremy maintains innocence and it is shown to be a completely unsafe conviction, then all those people that have grabbed WHF and the cash will have to get out and repay the inheritances.

That IMO is why they are in fear and dread Jeremy's release.

Fair enough, you did say 'suppose' but 'we' do need to be careful about accusations