Suggested reasons the straight forward Bamber scenario does not work:

[lookout]

It's Julie who would have been doing the trial run as it was she who was going to use the bike between houses.

[Jane]

It's Julie who would have been doing the trial run as it was she who was going to use the bike between houses.

Why would she need to, Lookout? North Essex Growers was in entirely the opposite direction, as was the Queen's Head bus stop. Unless you're suggesting she did a reccie for Jeremy?

[lookout]

Why would she need to, Lookout? North Essex Growers was in entirely the opposite direction, as was the Queen's Head bus stop. Unless you're suggesting she did a reccie for Jeremy?

I understood that the reason Julie borrowed the bike was to go and see Jeremy while he was working at WHF when she stayed at Goldhanger ?

[guest29835]

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

Another one for the archives.  Thanks Special Steve.

I've looked again at her statement and the part about the bike.  Then she is lying or (if she is telling the truth) she has misconstrued him, because he wouldn't use a bike for a trial run.  He would go on foot.  He would quickly realise that, just thinking about it for five seconds.  He would use the bike to scout routes, if at all.

I'm not the idiot.  You are.   The fact she mentions the bike in that way just increases my suspicion.  It's not realistic.  It sounds like the bike is being shoehorned into this, by Julie and/or the police - for reasons I explore on another thread.  It also conflicts with her evidence that Matthew Macdonald did this.  Maybe Jeremy originally planned this himself but if so, why does he then tell her he used a hitman?  That doesn't make sense.  He'd already, according to Julie, gone on and on about how he was planning to kill his family, so why not just tell her he'd done it, if indeed he is guilty?

Apart from all that, what she says in that statement doesn't change my belief that if he did this, he must have gone on foot.

[Jane]

I understood that the reason Julie borrowed the bike was to go and see Jeremy while he was working at WHF when she stayed at Goldhanger ?

You may be right. I thought it was to get her to North Essex Growers where she had a holiday job, and the bus stop outside the Queen's Head where she could leave it when she went to Colchester. I guess one's as good as another in this case.

[lookout]

You may be right. I thought it was to get her to North Essex Growers where she had a holiday job, and the bus stop outside the Queen's Head where she could leave it when she went to Colchester. I guess one's as good as another in this case.

It was a means of transport to wherever she went as she didn't drive.

[guest29835]

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.

By all means, you carry on thinking he went by bike.  I won't say it's impossible, but it's rather odd that he would create difficulties for himself when a much simpler and less risky option was available.

Thanks.

[lookout]

The bike was tested for mud from the fields and other traces from whichever terrain was suspected. Blood too but nothing was found.

[guest29835]

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

See: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10348.0.html

[Adam]

Another one for the archives.  Thanks Special Steve.

I've looked again at her statement and the part about the bike.  Then she is lying or (if she is telling the truth) she has misconstrued him, because he wouldn't use a bike for a trial run.  He would go on foot.  He would quickly realise that, just thinking about it for five seconds.  He would use the bike to scout routes, if at all.

I'm not the idiot.  You are.   The fact she mentions the bike in that way just increases my suspicion.  It's not realistic.  It sounds like the bike is being shoehorned into this, by Julie and/or the police - for reasons I explore on another thread.  It also conflicts with her evidence that Matthew Macdonald did this.  Maybe Jeremy originally planned this himself but if so, why does he then tell her he used a hitman?  That doesn't make sense.  He'd already, according to Julie, gone on and on about how he was planning to kill his family, so why not just tell her he'd done it, if indeed he is guilty?

Apart from all that, what she says in that statement doesn't change my belief that if he did this, he must have gone on foot.

You said he would use the bike to scout routes. Now you are saying he would go on foot.

He would do a trial run on a bike if that was how he intended to get there on the night.

Bamber told her he planned to cycle. Then told her it MM. He's entitled to do both. Julie did not stay with him on the massacre night.

Julie is lucky she had a ready made piece of evidence arriving just before the massacre to lie about - June's bike.

[guest29835]

You said he would use the bike to scout routes. Now you are saying he would go on foot.

He would do a trial run on a bike if that was how he intended to get there on the night.

Bamber told her he planned to cycle. Then told her it MM. He's entitled to do both. Julie did not stay with him on the massacre night.

Julie is lucky she had a ready made piece of evidence arriving just before the massacre to lie about - June's bike.

I have said both things from the start of this discussion.  They are not in conflict.

He would go and return on foot, because that's the simplest and least risky way.  He would not cross fields on a bike in the pitch dark - not unless he's stupid, as well as having a screw loose.

He may - I only say may - have scouted routes beforehand with the help of a bike (as well as scouting on foot, of course, and keeping an eye out when he is out in the fields working).

I'm not sure what about all that you don't understand, Adam?

I appreciate there is no necessary contradiction between June's mention of the bike and her later account of Matthew Macdonald, but it seems inconsistent because, if she is telling the truth, it means that he started by telling her he would do it, then he told her he got somebody else to do it, then it turns out (according to you) that he did it himself and he was lying about somebody else doing it.  It's possible, of course, but it raises its own questions.

It does look to me like you, Julie and the police are shoehorning the bike into it, simply because it's there, especially as it wouldn't make sense for him to use a push bike in farmer's fields in the dark.  There again, maybe he was training for the Tour de Yorkshire and that would have been his excuse for Stan?  I suppose it fits in with the bacon breakfast, so it has that going for it.  And you did say he might carry the bike too.  Well it certainly takes the yellow jersey.  Nice one.  Thanks Adam. 

[Adam]

By all means, you carry on thinking he went by bike.  I won't say it's impossible, but it's rather odd that he would create difficulties for himself when a much simpler and less risky option was available.

Thanks.

The only difficulties was if Julie turned on him & remembered the bike. And AE turned on him after seeing the bike at his cottage. He didn't beleive these would happen.

On the night he didn't want to waste time & energy getting there & back. He was looking for 'the easy way', which is the main reason he committed the massacre.

[guest29835]

The only difficulties was if Julie turned on him & remembered the bike. And AE turned on him after seeing the bike at his cottage. He didn't beleive these would happen.

On the night he didn't want to waste time & energy getting there & back. He was looking for 'the easy way', which is the main reason he committed the massacre.

I appreciate that, Adam, and of course it's a valid point as far as it goes, but you can't just consider the bike as a method in isolation, you have to compare its advantages and disadvantages with simply moving on foot.  You also have to put yourself in the shoes of a criminal.  That seems to be an easy task for me, which is not to my credit, but it means I can see straight-away that he very likely went on foot (I would say he must have done).  There are lots and lots of reasons for this, all of them obvious.

I think, really, the difficulty for you here is that without the bike, you have him on foot under strict time conditions and it looks that bit less plausible (it looks difficult as it is, even far-fetched).  As a result, you have to studiously ignore all the problems that a push bike would present in those circumstances.

[Adam]

I have said both things from the start of this discussion.  They are not in conflict.

He would go and return on foot, because that's the simplest and least risky way.  He would not cross fields on a bike in the pitch dark - not unless he's stupid, as well as having a screw loose.

He may - I only say may - have scouted routes beforehand with the help of a bike (as well as scouting on foot, of course, and keeping an eye out when he is out in the fields working).

I'm not sure what about all that you don't understand, Adam?

I appreciate there is no necessary contradiction between June's mention of the bike and her later account of Matthew Macdonald, but it seems inconsistent because, if she is telling the truth, it means that he started by telling her he would do it, then he told her he got somebody else to do it, then it turns out (according to you) that he did it himself and he was lying about somebody else doing it.  It's possible, of course, but it raises its own questions.

It does look to me like you, Julie and the police are shoehorning the bike into it, simply because it's there, especially as it wouldn't make sense for him to use a push bike in farmer's fields in the dark.  There again, maybe he was training for the Tour de Yorkshire and that would have been his excuse for Stan?  I suppose it fits in with the bacon breakfast, so it has that going for it.  And you did say he might carry the bike too.  Well it certainly takes the yellow jersey.  Nice one.  Thanks Adam.

He would cycle on the footpaths. Which will take around 15 minutes. Maybe go across some fields if possible. Not a problem.

A bike was available. Free of charge. Which arrived at Bamber's cottage just before the massacre. Either to do scouting, cycling there on the night. Or both.

He could have walked as it would take 45 minutes (twice). But the bike arriving just beforehand is too much of a coincidence.

[guest29835]

He would cycle on the footpaths. Which will take around 15 minutes. Maybe go across some fields if possible. Not a problem.

A bike was available. Free of charge. Which arrived at Bamber's cottage just before the massacre. Either to do scouting, cycling there on the night. Or both.

He could have walked as it would take 45 minutes (twice). But the bike arriving just beforehand is too much of a coincidence.

Steve called me an "idiot" because I said that Julie doesn't mention the bike in her statements.  In fact, I was right.  She doesn't.  She is not referring to a specific bike. and I find it very suspicious that a bike comes up in her statement in that way in view of what you say about Jeremy borrowing a bike shortly before the tragedy.

Steve is the idiot.  He doesn't engage his brain and think, and if anything, he makes Julie look more suspicious, not less.

As for you Adam, I have explained my position.  I believe I am being reasonable.  You are free to think what you like, but I find it hard to picture Jeremy on a bike in the middle of a pitch black night with no lights pedalling across fields, rough paths and bridleways, with all the inherent problems using a push bike involves.  It's much easier to simply go by foot, as this allows him not to require the aid of a torch/light, he can take the most direct route and cross fields easily, it's less noisy, he doesn't run the risk of having to carry or abandon the bike somewhere, he doesn't leave cycle tracks, and he can explain himself if the worst happens and he is caught around Bourtree Cottage.

It's simple.  Criminals who plan things like simple.