Suggested reasons the straight forward Bamber scenario does not work:

[Adam]

Which route did he take?  Was it across fields?

Believe there were 3 routes. These would be on footpaths. Not across fields.

[guest29835]

Believe there were 3 routes. These would be on footpaths. Not across fields.

How does he see where he's going?

[Steve_uk]

Believe there were 3 routes. These would be on footpaths. Not across fields.

https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle

[JackieD]

Interesting

Jeremy Bamber detailed television programmes that he watched before he went to sleep and these were accurate. Police checked his video tapes to see if he had recorded them and watched them later but there were no such recordings made by Jeremy Bamber and that’s because he watched the T.V programmes just as he said and went to sleep where he stayed until his father called him.

Personally I don’t think Jeremy had the brains to study what TV programmes had been on like putting the silencer back in the cupboard and handing the keys over of WHF

Master criminal he was not

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8605.msg411697.html#msg411697

Here is another diagram.

The gap between WHF & Head Street Bamber will be well aware of. Having lived & worked in the location most of his life. So will know the easiest route to cycle.

This may involve going off the footpaths. It depends if he could cycle on other terrain. Over the 3 mile diistance there must have been some other terrain he could use. Nothing wrong with short cuts. Or he may have decided to just keep on the footpaths.

[guest29835]

Interestingly, Adam and other guilters seem mad keen on this bike. 

If we start from the premise that Jeremy is guilty, to me it just seems so obvious that he walked there and back.  A bike is too complicated and would cause too many problems.  Walking is ideal. 

Why are guilters not pursuing the line of least resistance?  It's a golden rule that you 'keep it simple stupid'.  I'm intrigued by this now.  Is this just a case of mindlessly shoehorning all the evidence in to the case?  Or is there some fundamental problem with him walking to and from the farmhouse that I have not surmised?  It certainly would be risky and difficult as it is, and I'm perplexed as to why he would want to make it still more risky and difficult by going on a ladies' push bike.

[Adam]

Interestingly, Adam and other guilters seem mad keen on this bike. 

If we start from the premise that Jeremy is guilty, to me it just seems so obvious that he walked there and back.  A bike is too complicated and would cause too many problems.  Walking is ideal. 

Why are guilters not pursuing the line of least resistance?  It's a golden rule that you 'keep it simple stupid'.  I'm intrigued by this now.  Is this just a case of mindlessly shoehorning all the evidence in to the case?  Or is there some fundamental problem with him walking to and from the farmhouse that I have not surmised?  It certainly would be risky and difficult as it is, and I'm perplexed as to why he would want to make it still more risky and difficult by going on a ladies' push bike.

Why is a bike complicated?

There are several advantages already mentioned.

Do you believe it was a 'curious coincidence' that he brought over June's bike just before the massacre?

[guest29835]

Why is a bike complicated?

There are several advantages already mentioned.

Do you believe it was a 'curious coincidence' that he brought over June's bike just before the massacre?

The complications are very obvious and can be worked out by anybody with the barest common sense.  A mere child could figure it out and see that it would be better for him to walk.

I'm really interested now in why you're keen on this bike.  Either you're being dense or there's some factor here that I'm not aware of that would make walking greatly difficult.

[Adam]

The complications are very obvious and can be worked out by anybody with the barest common sense.  A mere child could figure it out and see that it would be better for him to walk.

I'm really interested now in why you're keen on this bike.  Either you're being dense or there's some factor here that I'm not aware of that would make walking greatly difficult.

What are the complications of Bamber cycling on footpaths or bike friendly terrain to/from WHF?

[lookout]

If JB had been insane and on a rampage he'd have achieved a swift bike-ride back to his home but as it happened he'd have been drained and ready for his bed after 10pm that night. A bit of TV to wind down and that was his days end-----it didn't include tearing around killing people.

[guest29835]

What are the complications of Bamber cycling on footpaths or bike friendly terrain to/from WHF?

I'm not here to explain obvious things to do you Adam.  It's very very obvious.  I'm busy actually.  Give your brain muscles some exercise and think it through yourself. 

If you can't, and if you keep repeating your mantra, then I'm going to get suspicious.  I'm already wondering why you're keen to shoehorn that bike into this.

Just off hand, I can straight-away think of about 20 problems that could arise if he goes by bike, whereas if he walks the only issue he has - as far as I can tell - is that, for forensic reasons, he probably needs to change clothes at the farmhouse and then change back again, then change again when he is back at Bourtree Cottage; but this would depend on if it's muddy in places.  I assume he scouts a route and since it's summer, it'll be dry. 

Maybe this is down to life experience.  I won't go into my own experiences, but I can see immediately that if he is guilty he would have walked there and back. 

You claim it's a coincidence that the bike was there, but it needn't be because - as I've explained above - he could have used the bike on scouting missions and it's already established that Julie used the bike.

Did Julie mention the bike in her statements in any incriminating context?  I don't believe so, since she had Matthew Macdonald as the killer.  Doesn't that suggest to you that possibly the bike wasn't used on the night and Julie had a genuine purpose for the bike?

[lookout]

As Mrs Foakes had said in her statement after having known the family, including Jeremy, for years, that he didn't have the gumption to have murdered anyone.
Where is that statement anyway ?

[Adam]

I'm not here to explain obvious things to do you Adam.  It's very very obvious.  I'm busy actually.  Give your brain muscles some exercise and think it through yourself. 

If you can't, and if you keep repeating your mantra, then I'm going to get suspicious.  I'm already wondering why you're keen to shoehorn that bike into this.

Just off hand, I can straight-away think of about 20 problems that could arise if he goes by bike, whereas if he walks the only issue he has - as far as I can tell - is that, for forensic reasons, he probably needs to change clothes at the farmhouse and then change back again, then change again when he is back at Bourtree Cottage; but this would depend on if it's muddy in places.  I assume he scouts a route and since it's summer, it'll be dry. 

Maybe this is down to life experience.  I won't go into my own experiences, but I can see immediately that if he is guilty he would have walked there and back. 

You claim it's a coincidence that the bike was there, but it needn't be because - as I've explained above - he could have used the bike on scouting missions and it's already established that Julie used the bike.

Did Julie mention the bike in her statements in any incriminating context?  I don't believe so, since she had Matthew Macdonald as the killer.  Doesn't that suggest to you that possibly the bike wasn't used on the night and Julie had a genuine purpose for the bike?

What scouting missions?

So there are no complications. Just advantages which I have already listed in reply 28. 

He may have walked if it was a 10 minute walk. But 45 minutes.

[Steve_uk]

As Mrs Foakes had said in her statement after having known the family, including Jeremy, for years, that he didn't have the gumption to have murdered anyone.
Where is that statement anyway ?

He had to steel himself for the murders by practising on rats. It all fits in..

[lookout]

He had to steel himself for the murders by practising on rats. It all fits in..

Steve, I don't know about you but I see a vast difference in the size of a rat and a human being. In fact a whole difference.