Facts

[Stephanie]

So he took an interest in the family lampshades, did he? It's a rather unusual hobby, but I guess he MUST have looked up at it prior to the murders in order for him to know that it hadn't previously been damaged.

Many of his answers during interview have been rehearsed.

I find this quite telling Jane especially given in the context to which he brought it up during the questioning of how his father died. He refused to answer how he thought his father died preferring instead to introduce the broken shade.

"Jean mentioned it and I noticed it and it wasn't broken before my parents died

If he left his parents home at around 10pm ish how did he know it wasn't broken before they died? How did he know for example his Dad hasn't knocked it when changing the light bulb at 10.15pm for example?

He appears too sure of himself and too sure of the murder scene. His reasoning's for why the lamp shade broke sound rehearsed. As though he's gone over his answers time and time again. But what kind of answer is  the lamp shade could have broken naturally?

This 'reasoning' isn't isolated. Like when asked how his fingerprints could have got on the bible.

I wonder whether he broke the lamp shade after the murders. During his come down from the adrenaline high he most likely experienced?

[Roch]

There wouldn't have been any reason 'to show a hand' if Nevill was around. Unfortunately, someone made sure he wasn't.

Yes, that was part of the point I was making. Another way of looking at it is that Robert Boutflour would not have been presented with the opportunity in the first place, if somebody hadn't killed Nevill.  I do feel that they were opportunists.

[Caroline]

Yes, that was part of the point I was making. Another way of looking at it is that Robert Boutflour would not have been presented with the opportunity in the first place, if somebody hadn't killed Nevill.  I do feel that they were opportunists.

You and other see them as opportunists and I guess if you see Bamber as innocent, that maybe a given. I thought something similar once over. However, if you believe he is guilty, you can understand that they wouldn't want him to 'get away with it', I wouldn't either.

[Roch]

You and other see them as opportunists and I guess if you see Bamber as innocent, that maybe a given. I thought something similar once over. However, if you believe he is guilty, you can understand that they wouldn't want him to 'get away with it', I wouldn't either.

I might be mistaken but I think you suspect the silencer evidence is either bogus or at the very least, highly questionable.  If a group people are prepared to become involved in introducing a questionable exhibit - how much of it was not wanting him to get away with it and not wanting the Bamber estate to get away from them?  I think their motives were blurred.

[Stephanie]

I might be mistaken but I think you suspect the silencer evidence is either bogus or at the very least, highly questionable.  If a group people are prepared to become involved in introducing a questionable exhibit - how much of it was not wanting him to get away with it and not wanting the Bamber estate to get away from them?  I think their motives were blurred.

Sadly Roch what we will never have are statements from June and Nevill about their son. However have you ever considered the possibility the contents of such statements may not be as supportive as you would like to believe and may indeed support those of the extended family?

Although SH's mother gave evidence to support her son during his trial and indeed publicly campaigned for his release, her statements didn't contain what one might expect them to have contained. Much of her evidence couldn't be used in court as it couldn't be supported either way but it did give away clues as to how she perceived her son and indeed showed the comparison between one son and the other.

What is your definition of a questionable exhibit?

SH's mother brought to court a black velour jacket she said she believed could be the origin of the flock fibres - the main circumstantial evidence that convicted SH.

The silencer evidence could have been a genuine human error, a cognitive distortion. The relatives may have honestly believed it was used during the murders.

[JackiePreece]

I might be mistaken but I think you suspect the silencer evidence is either bogus or at the very least, highly questionable.  If a group people are prepared to become involved in introducing a questionable exhibit - how much of it was not wanting him to get away with it and not wanting the Bamber estate to get away from them?  I think their motives were blurred.

Perfect it's just been a catalogue of errors and cover ups

[Caroline]

I might be mistaken but I think you suspect the silencer evidence is either bogus or at the very least, highly questionable.  If a group people are prepared to become involved in introducing a questionable exhibit - how much of it was not wanting him to get away with it and not wanting the Bamber estate to get away from them?  I think their motives were blurred.

I don't believe the silencer evidence, that doesn't mean I believe the family were at the heart of that.

[Roch]

I don't believe the silencer evidence, that doesn't mean I believe the family were at the heart of that.

If we take that line, is there not a danger we are also 'making excuses' for them? I think they made their intentions very clear to police, very early on.

[Caroline]

If we take that line, is there not a danger we are also 'making excuses' for them? I think they made their intentions very clear to police, very early on.

No, I think there is a lot of that with Bamber though - explaining his behaviour away in favour of condemning the relatives. I have no admiration for them either, but in their position, I'd have wanted him caught too.

[Adam]

Sadly Roch what we will never have are statements from June and Nevill about their son. However have you ever considered the possibility the contents of such statements may not be as supportive as you would like to believe and may indeed support those of the extended family?

Although SH's mother gave evidence to support her son during his trial and indeed publicly campaigned for his release, her statements didn't contain what one might expect them to have contained. Much of her evidence couldn't be used in court as it couldn't be supported either way but it did give away clues as to how she perceived her son and indeed showed the comparison between one son and the other.

What is your definition of a questionable exhibit?

SH's mother brought to court a black velour jacket she said she believed could be the origin of the flock fibres - the main circumstantial evidence that convicted SH.

The silencer evidence could have been a genuine human error, a cognitive distortion. The relatives may have honestly believed it was used during the murders.

I don't think the relatives believed much with the silencer. They just handed it into Stan Jones, who then handed it in for testing.The results came back several weeks later.

[Steve_uk]

I don't believe the silencer evidence, that doesn't mean I believe the family were at the heart of that.

Well it has to be one or the other surely?

[Caroline]

Well it has to be one or the other surely?

I don't think the idea came from the family so no, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

[lookout]

To my way of thinking,Sheila had handled the silencer by trying to fix it to the rifle thinking it may dull the sound of firing and because of her erratic temperament,scratched the silencer,as DB had pointed out the mark on it,but she wouldn't have put it back in the cupboard. Was that fingerprinted ??
This is not to say that Sheila used the silencer,but it wouldn't have been her blood on it at this point,nor at any point,so it's a mystery as to how the blood got there if allegedly it was Sheila's. How would Sheila's blood have got on the silencer ? Always supposing it was hers ?

[Caroline]

To my way of thinking,Sheila had handled the silencer by trying to fix it to the rifle thinking it may dull the sound of firing and because of her erratic temperament,scratched the silencer,as DB had pointed out the mark on it,but she wouldn't have put it back in the cupboard. Was that fingerprinted ??
This is not to say that Sheila used the silencer,but it wouldn't have been her blood on it at this point,nor at any point,so it's a mystery as to how the blood got there if allegedly it was Sheila's. How would Sheila's blood have got on the silencer ? Always supposing it was hers ?

So she thought about shooting the family before going crazy? 

[Adam]

To my way of thinking,Sheila had handled the silencer by trying to fix it to the rifle thinking it may dull the sound of firing and because of her erratic temperament,scratched the silencer,as DB had pointed out the mark on it,but she wouldn't have put it back in the cupboard. Was that fingerprinted ??
This is not to say that Sheila used the silencer,but it wouldn't have been her blood on it at this point,nor at any point,so it's a mystery as to how the blood got there if allegedly it was Sheila's. How would Sheila's blood have got on the silencer ? Always supposing it was hers ?

One of Sheila's shots was a contact shot. So drawback went into the silencer. There was no blood on the end of the rifle.

Bamber took the silencer off either because he realised the rifle was too long for Sheila with it on. Or he wanted to burn Nevill's back with the rifle end.

Sheila would not bother putting the silencer on as Nevill was already awake.