Why only Neville's back was burnt:

[sherlock]

I'm no weapons expert as members already know, but I doubt I would have chosen the Anschutz rifle to kill five people, which proved to be messy. The story about the rabbits is controversial to say the least, and the sights removed suggested pre-planning and not a young woman in psychosis, whose fingerprints would have remained on the rifle as proof she was the shooter.

Whoever it was obviously saw the anschutz as the best choice ...

Rabbit shooting was a VERY regular activity on the farm ...

IF Sheila did not do it then it makes the theory MORE likely not LESS likely ...

So can you state any holes in the theory ?

If you cannot then do you accept it is at least POSSIBLE ?

[Steve_uk]

Whoever it was obviously saw the anschutz as the best choice ...

Rabbit shooting was a VERY regular activity on the farm ...

IF Sheila did not do it then it makes the theory MORE likely not LESS likely ...

So can you state any holes in the theory ?

If you cannot then do you accept it is at least POSSIBLE ?

I think the relatives were in a quandary post-murders and certainly had they been behind this massacre if that's what you're suggesting they would have planned the affair better. As for other third party involvement, there was no need to kill the twins, who presented no threat to anyone save Jeremy. It really is too awful to contemplate Hannah Arendt's quote: "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil."

[David1819]

Are you SURE you're not making all this up as you go along..

The theory of a third party being responsible is possible BUT its is extremely improbable so improbable I do not worry about it

[sherlock]

I think the relatives were in a quandary post-murders and certainly had they been behind this massacre if that's what you're suggesting they would have planned the affair better. As for other third party involvement, there was no need to kill the twins, who presented no threat to anyone save Jeremy. It really is too awful to contemplate Hannah Arendt's quote: "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil."

IF it was someone related to the Bambers how could they have planned it better ?

Seems like a perfectly executed plan to me ...

And IF it was one or more of them it worked - they got the money ...

Almost no one suspects them ...

Unless it was Sheila then the motive was most likely money ...

So why rule out the people that actually got all the money ?

I have outlined a theory that explains all the evidence against Jeremy and explains a few of the unexplained "facts" of this case ...

And NO ONE can logically state why the theory is not possible ...

I would love some one to rip holes in the theory ...

But NO ONE can ...

IF it was not Sheila and IF Jeremy is innocent then it is far and away the most likely explanation ...

It is POSSIBLE ...

[sherlock]

The theory of a third party being responsible is possible BUT its is extremely improbable so improbable I do not worry about it

Are you saying it must have been Sheila or Jeremy ?

If so please try to logically rip holes in my theory ...

I am not at all interested in whether you think it is improbable or not ...

I am however VERY interested in WHY you think it is improbable ...

So please explain your reasons ...

[Steve_uk]

IF it was someone related to the Bambers how could they have planned it better ?

Seems like a perfectly executed plan to me ...

And IF it was one or more of them it worked - they got the money ...

Almost no one suspects them ...

Unless it was Sheila then the motive was most likely money ...

So why rule out the people that actually got all the money ?

I have outlined a theory that explains all the evidence against Jeremy and explains a few of the unexplained "facts" of this case ...

And NO ONE can logically state why the theory is not possible ...

I would love some one to rip holes in the theory ...

But NO ONE can ...

IF it was not Sheila and IF Jeremy is innocent then it is far and away the most likely explanation ...

It is POSSIBLE ...

Sheila, it seemed to me, was the least money-oriented person in this whole drama. Why leave Jeremy alive anyway if the relatives or some other third party wished to inherit by default?

[David1819]

Are you saying it must have been Sheila or Jeremy ?

If so please try to logically rip holes in my theory ...

I am not at all interested in whether you think it is improbable or not ...

I am however VERY interested in WHY you think it is improbable ...

So please explain your reasons ...

What is the third parties motive?

[David1819]

Are you saying it must have been Sheila or Jeremy ?

If so please try to logically rip holes in my theory ...

I am not at all interested in whether you think it is improbable or not ...

I am however VERY interested in WHY you think it is improbable ...

So please explain your reasons ...

Jeremy said he left the gun out near the kitchen, what a coincidence the third party happened to strike on this night.

[sherlock]

What is the third parties motive?

Most likely money

[sherlock]

Jeremy said he left the gun out near the kitchen, what a coincidence the third party happened to strike on this night.

It might just be a coincidence ...

One possible person is Anthony - he also knew the gun was there ...

He knew there was a lot of ammunition for it at the farm ...

He was there days before with it at the farm ...

He was shooting an anshulz at the farm a few days before ...

He was an expert marksman - much more so than Jeremy ...

He ended up with a lot of the money ...

He was very much Neville's "second son" ...

He knew as much about the farm and the family as Jeremy ...

Why for example could it not have been Anthony ?

[sherlock]

Sheila, it seemed to me, was the least money-oriented person in this whole drama. Why leave Jeremy alive anyway if the relatives or some other third party wished to inherit by default?

The theory i outlined involved killing Jeremy ...

When that failed they simply set him up for the murders so he lost his right to inherit ...

They therefore achieved their aim - ie to inherit the money ...

If this crime was for money why suspect Jeremy more than the people who actually got the money ?

They were the ones who "found" the silencer ...

And it would not have been hard for them to persuade Julie to "confess" ...

What other evidence is there that Jeremy was involved in any way ?

None at all really ...

After hearing ALL the evidence the Jury only had 2 questions

One related to the blood in the silencer ...

The second was "if Jeremy is convicted will Robert Boutflour inherit the money ?"

The Jury were totally deceived in relation to their second question ...

And only then convicted on a 10 to 2 majority ...

Ask yourselves why after hearing ALL the evidence the Jury only wanted to know if Robert Boutflour was going to inherit the money - believe me they had their reasons for asking ...

And if they had not been totally deceived on this point then it is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that they would NOT have convicted Jeremy Bamber ...

And don't forget that Robert and Anthony basically shared the large inheritance after Jeremy was convicted as they would have done had Jeremy been killed that night along with the rest of his family ...

Why do you therefore rule out the theory ?

[lebaleb]

Sheila, it seemed to me, was the least money-oriented person in this whole drama. Why leave Jeremy alive anyway if the relatives or some other third party wished to inherit by default?

That could explain the call to bring Jeremy to WHF.

[lebaleb]

Jeremy said he left the gun out near the kitchen, what a coincidence the third party happened to strike on this night.

Wherever the gun was it was easily accessible, even from the gun cupboard. Many people testified that Neville was fastidious and would have put the gun away.

[Jane]

Wherever the gun was it was easily accessible, even from the gun cupboard. Many people testified that Neville was fastidious and would have put the gun away.

In which case, it has to mean that whoever you are thinking to throw accusations at, must have known that the space under the stairs had been turned into a gun cupboard.

[Adam]

Bamber must have taken the silencer off and burned Neville's back after shooting Sheila. As the silencer had Sheila's blood in.

He may have realised on the night, or knew beforehand the he had to take off the silencer after completing the massacre. As the rifle was too long for her.

He could have just left the silencer next to Sheila. But people were already going to ask how did Sheila know how to re load and chamber. People then also asking how Sheila knew how to remove the silencer, just made things worse for him.

Once he had decided to burn Neville's back, he had no option to put the silencer away. If the burn marks were discussed and determined they were from the rifle,  there was no way anyone would believe Sheila took the silencer off to inflict them.