Suggested reasons the straight forward Bamber scenario does not work:

[guest29835]

He doesn't read my posts so I suppose I can write what I like. He reminds me of a young man with Special Needs at my local church who keeps asking me to watch a film about a girl kidnapped by a snake charmer. I'm running out of excuses not to go.

Another one for the archives.  Thanks Comedian Steve.

[guest29835]

You remind me of that Victoria Wood joke when she comes on stage with her coat on and announces to the audience: "I won't take my coat off..I'm not stopping.."

As I said, I might start a thread on it.  But it will need to be a bit more than just "Well, it's rather unlikely that Jeremy went by bike because [it meant using paths and there's a chance he would have been seen/he would need to have lights on/more noise than going on foot/he might have got a flat tyre/oil on his hands/the chain might have come off/difficult to explain if caught, as there was no Tour de Yorkshire back then for him to train for]."

I do like to assume a certain level of intelligence among our readers - though in your case, perhaps we do need to spell things out, so please refer to the above.  We are of course left with the difficulty that if it is unlikely he went by bike either there or back or both, then could he really have managed it on foot, allowing for the time sensitivity he was under and also the assumption he may have made that all phone calls could be time-logged by the phone company?  That would have been a wrong assumption, but that's not the point.  That's why I wanted to start a thread, though it may be a bit too technical for you.

I am, however, encouraged to hear that you are making contact with the special needs community, and I hope you make friends with people you like and with whom you have something in common.  Good luck with it Steve and let us know how you get on!

[David1819]

He might be better looking than Tom Cruise

Here I am today (on 15mg of ritalin   ) Not quite better looking than the 1986 Tom Cruise. But 10 years ago when my eye brows where darker and my hair was brighter along with my juvenile hairline maybe. 

[guest29835]

Here I am today (on 15mg of ritalin   ) Not quite better looking than the 1986 Tom Cruise. But 10 years ago when my eye brows where darker and my hair was brighter along with my juvenile hairline maybe. 

I think you should front the CT, David.  You look incredibly telegenic. 

[JackieD]

Here I am today (on 15mg of ritalin   ) Not quite better looking than the 1986 Tom Cruise. But 10 years ago when my eye brows where darker and my hair was brighter along with my juvenile hairline maybe. 

I thought so

[JackieD]

 

I think you should front the CT, David.  You look incredibly telegenic.

 

[Adam]

it meant using paths and there's a chance he would have been seen/he would need to have lights on/more noise than going on foot/he might have got a flat tyre/oil on his hands/the chain might have come off/difficult to explain if caught, as there was no Tour de Yorkshire back then for him to train for"

--------

That is what paths are for.

More chance of being seen if outside travelling for longer.

Flat tyre/chain coming off was possible but didn't happen. They were 15 minute journeys. He can carry the bike if he needs to.

Bikes make minimal noise.

[guest29835]

it meant using paths and there's a chance he would have been seen/he would need to have lights on/more noise than going on foot/he might have got a flat tyre/oil on his hands/the chain might have come off/difficult to explain if caught, as there was no Tour de Yorkshire back then for him to train for"

--------

That is what paths are for.

More chance of being seen if outside travelling for longer.

Flat tyre/chain coming off was possible but didn't happen. They were 15 minute journeys. He can carry the bike if he needs to.

Bikes make minimal noise.

Thanks Adam.  Lucky you're here to set me back on the right [bicycle] path, or bridleway, as the case may be.

[Adam]

Thanks Adam.  Lucky you're here to set me back on the right [bicycle] path, or bridleway, as the case may be.

What is your opinion of this from the OS? -

'The bicycle belonged to Jeremy's mother, but it had been brought to Jeremy’s house for Julie Mugford to use, so that she could cycle from Goldhanger to Toleshunt D'arcy, leaving the bike at the Red Lion Pub. She would then get the Osbourne's bus which runs from Tollesbury to Colchester.'

[lookout]

You're a lovely young man David. To think I have grandchildren your age      Look after yourself.

[JackieD]

I think I know now why you need him to have used the bike.  It's clicked in my head.  He can't have done it by car, and you need him to have worked quickly.  I think this could be another potential flaw in the prosecution case.  I'll probably start a thread on this, but don't have time right now.

QC Could you give us some more information about the above flaw in the  prosecution case

[guest29835]

What is your opinion of this from the OS? -

'The bicycle belonged to Jeremy's mother, but it had been brought to Jeremy’s house for Julie Mugford to use, so that she could cycle from Goldhanger to Toleshunt D'arcy, leaving the bike at the Red Lion Pub. She would then get the Osbourne's bus which runs from Tollesbury to Colchester.'

My opinion of it is:

(i). Jeremy has provided a plausible reason for having the bike.

(ii). The reason for the bike involves Julie.  Let us note that Julie makes no mention of the bike in relation to the incident.  (I appreciate that Julie wouldn't do so because she said the killer was Malcolm Macdonald, but that being the case, where does that leave us with Julie?  Doesn't that suggest she was indeed a constructive accomplice, as I have theorised?).

(iii). (Assuming Jeremy is guilty) obviously neither of us know for sure how he did this, but even if he did use the bike on the night, my point is that I don't find it very likely that he did use it.  I find it more likely he went on foot (mixture of walking, jogging, running), so I'm going to say he went on foot.  In other words, I'm applying the most simple and reasonable solution against the available evidence, rather than complicating things needlessly by shoehorning in an isolated piece of evidence just for the sake of it. 

(iv). Notwithstanding what I have said above, the bike may well have been a factor in some other way.  For example, if you take the view that Jeremy planned all this, then Jeremy may have used it to scout routes and he may have deliberately done this some months before.  Jeremy may also have wanted the bike available either at Bourtree Cottage or White House Farm as a back-up and last resort, just in case he needed to move with greater haste some of the distance between the two locations.

I do intend to start a thread to look at this further, as I believe the topic ties in with the incident sequencing and phone calls.  I think you know this yourself, Adam, and that's why you and lots of other guilters are keen on this bike.

Not all guilters agree with you.  I'm a guilter myself and I disagree with you on this.

[Steve_uk]

My opinion of it is:

(i). Jeremy has provided a plausible reason for having the bike.

(ii). The reason for the bike involves Julie.  Let us note that Julie makes no mention of the bike in relation to the incident.  (I appreciate that Julie wouldn't do so because she said the killer was Malcolm Macdonald, but that being the case, where does that leave us with Julie?  Doesn't that suggest she was indeed a constructive accomplice, as I have theorised?).

(iii). (Assuming Jeremy is guilty) obviously neither of us know for sure how he did this, but even if he did use the bike on the night, my point is that I don't find it very likely that he did use it.  I find it more likely he went on foot (mixture of walking, jogging, running), so I'm going to say he went on foot.  In other words, I'm applying the most simple and reasonable solution against the available evidence, rather than complicating things needlessly by shoehorning in an isolated piece of evidence just for the sake of it. 

(iv). Notwithstanding what I have said above, the bike may well have been a factor in some other way.  For example, if you take the view that Jeremy planned all this, then Jeremy may have used it to scout routes and he may have deliberately done this some months before.  Jeremy may also have wanted the bike available either at Bourtree Cottage or White House Farm as a back-up and last resort, just in case he needed to move with greater haste some of the distance between the two locations.

I do intend to start a thread to look at this further, as I believe the topic ties in with the incident sequencing and phone calls.  I think you know this yourself, Adam, and that's why you and lots of other guilters are keen on this bike.

Not all guilters agree with you.  I'm a guilter myself and I disagree with you on this.

It's on Sheet 5 here, idiot. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10043.0.html

[Adam]

My opinion of it is:

(i). Jeremy has provided a plausible reason for having the bike.

(ii). The reason for the bike involves Julie.  Let us note that Julie makes no mention of the bike in relation to the incident.  (I appreciate that Julie wouldn't do so because she said the killer was Malcolm Macdonald, but that being the case, where does that leave us with Julie?  Doesn't that suggest she was indeed a constructive accomplice, as I have theorised?).

(iii). (Assuming Jeremy is guilty) obviously neither of us know for sure how he did this, but even if he did use the bike on the night, my point is that I don't find it very likely that he did use it.  I find it more likely he went on foot (mixture of walking, jogging, running), so I'm going to say he went on foot.  In other words, I'm applying the most simple and reasonable solution against the available evidence, rather than complicating things needlessly by shoehorning in an isolated piece of evidence just for the sake of it. 

(iv). Notwithstanding what I have said above, the bike may well have been a factor in some other way.  For example, if you take the view that Jeremy planned all this, then Jeremy may have used it to scout routes and he may have deliberately done this some months before.  Jeremy may also have wanted the bike available either at Bourtree Cottage or White House Farm as a back-up and last resort, just in case he needed to move with greater haste some of the distance between the two locations.

I do intend to start a thread to look at this further, as I believe the topic ties in with the incident sequencing and phone calls.  I think you know this yourself, Adam, and that's why you and lots of other guilters are keen on this bike.

Not all guilters agree with you.  I'm a guilter myself and I disagree with you on this.

Julie does mention the bike in her WS. Saying Bamber planned to do a trial run.

Plausible? Strangest thing I have heard a boyfriend expect his visiting girlfriend to do.

Believe he would know the routes already. But as Julie said,  he planned to do a trial run, which is a form of scouting.

[Adam]

It's on Sheet 5 here, idiot. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10043.0.html

Sheet 9 mentions the trial run.