Vic - You have set out fairly the main factors which have convinced you of Jeremy Bamber's guilt. Others have already posted responses but I would like to deal with the points which you have made relating to the rifle and silencer, because there is a genuine contrary argument which can be advanced in relation to each of your points. I apologise to other members of the forum who will have read earlier posts of mine dealing with several of the points but I do believe that it is important that Vic's points are answered. I will deal with the points briefly following the order in Vic's post.
1. The "arc of bullets" fired into the head of one of the twins is not indicative of anything. The rifle was light in weight and semiautomatic with a light trigger pull. Anyone, whether or not experienced in the use of firearms, could fire a sequence of shots very rapidly. The "arc" of shots could easily be the result of the end of the barrel moving slightly during the course of the shots being fired. The number of shots strongly suggests to me that the murderer of the twins was involved in a frenzied attack rather than a cold calculated execution. A single shot to the head of each of the twins at close range would have been sufficient to cause death. It would also have been the natural method to be used by a calm and calculating murderer in that there would have been more rounds left in the rifle to deal with the remaining victims. JB had never shot another human being as far as I'm aware. In the cold light of day, as you rightly state, a single bullet would be enough. I'm not so sure JB would have been prepared to take that chance. He also had to shot one twin before the other possibly woke and I think he would have had to kill both of them as quickly as possible.
2. It is not hard to load the magazine of a .22 Anschutz rifle. At the trial evidence was given that it became progressively harder to load bullets the nearer the magazine came to be full. The final round (the 10th) required some effort and the jury were invited to experiment themselves with loading bullets into the magazine. However the first 6 or 7 rounds are very easy to load. It is only as the spring within the magazine becomes more compressed that loading requires more pressure to be applied. It is likely in my view that the rifle at WHF was reloaded several times during the course of the shootings, with perhaps 4 or 5 bullets loaded each time. I have also explained on an earlier thread the ease with which individual rounds can be loaded and fired, by placing a round directly into the breach of the rifle rather than into the magazine. i believe that it is likely that this happened with some of the shots to Nevill and possibly to June. This assumes a knowledge of the rifle which I simply don't believe Sheila had.
3. It is perfectly possible to use the Anschutz rifle to shoot rabbits without the telescopic sights being fitted. The rifle had what are known as "iron sights" fitted as standard (the photographs of the rifle show these clearly) and the telescopic sights are an optional attachment. The standard "iron" sights enable the rifle to be fired accurately and quickly, particularly at close or moderate range. The telescopic sights assist with shooting accurately particularly at longer range, but only if they have been properly "zeroed". There is no evidence about whether the telescopic sights had been properly and recently zeroed. If this had not been done, the telescopic sights would have been an impediment to shooting rabbits. If therefore on the evening before the killings at WHF Jeremy Bamber saw rabbits near the house, he may have found it more convenient to remove the telescopic sights and rely on the standard "iron" sights. There would be nothing sinister in this.I agree to a point. To set up the sights took time and so they were almost always on the rifle. In JB's statements he never said that he had removed them prior to 'rushing out' of the back door.
4. There is evidence that weapons security was lax at WHF. This was not unusual at the time, particularly for farmers. Now the accepted practice is for both shotguns and rifles to be stored when not in use unloaded in approved steel cabinets, firmly secured to the premises and in an area of the house where the cabinet cannot easily be seen. The situation in the mid 1980s was very different. Shotguns and rifles at WHF were not stored in secure cabinets. If Jeremy Bamber left the rifle on the settle in the scullery at WHF I do not believe it can be said with any degree of confidence that Nevill would have moved it.I believe that with the twins there, he would of.
5. The evidence is that the ammunition used was Eley hollowpoint subsonic. Even without the silencer fitted the noise of shots being fired would not have been great. There would not have been the "crack" generated by standard supersonic ammunition. It would have been perfectly possible for the shootings at WHF to have been carried out without a silencer being attached to the rifle. In addition we have no way of knowing the order in which each person was shot so I do not accept that the evidence indicates that a silencer was attached to the rifle at any stage.I have to accept your greater knowledge of guns, but find it incredibly hard to accept you could fire that rifle, whatever the amo, inside a house, at the dead of night, without alerting everyone in the house imediately. Would not the twin who was alive last, have jumped out of his skin with a rifle going off in the same room?
Vic - I respect your views and accept that many people share them. However it is important to point out the contrary views on the points above which are at least as credible as the views you have expressed. It is also important to remember that if there are two alternative credible conclusions which may be drawn from proven facts, the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt
But, with the greatest of respects, a criminal defence will attack individual points, create doubt in the mind of a jury and move to the next point. Like bricks in a wall, rattle them and try and make them loose, so to speak. But in this case, there are too many bricks.
Thank you for taking the time to write what you did and for showing my views as much respect as I hold yours.
