Time scale of massacre:

[Adam]

No, it was an old tramp----who, might I add, was stopped by police and questioned but we heard nothing more about it even though he came from the direction of WHF ?

The old tramp myth.

Anyone who could have seen something , it could only have been Bamber they saw. He was the only one outside of WHF.

[Adam]

What do you think of the reason given why June's bike was brought to his cottage, just before the massacre -

So Julie could cycle to the station when going home.

Question open to everyone. QC did not reply.

[lookout]

Freddie Emami was also arrested and taken to Epping police station for questioning on the 8th of August 1985, then taken to Witham to be interviewed. An Irish chap was with him whose name was Norman.
Someone must have given EP the nod about Freddie ?

[lookout]

The above was an extract from DC Barlow's COLP notes.

[lookout]

How do any of us know that there wasn't a late-night caller ? We don't do we ? Or who Sheila might have rang that night ? Nor do we know that. So like EP, most went for the easiest option provided that they could all build up a case against Jeremy to which they nit-picked their way through. Absolutely shocking.

[Adam]

How do any of us know that there wasn't a late-night caller ? We don't do we ? Or who Sheila might have rang that night ? Nor do we know that. So like EP, most went for the easiest option provided that they could all build up a case against Jeremy to which they nit-picked their way through. Absolutely shocking.

All cases are decided on  facts, evidence and witnesses.

Not knowing whether there was a late night phone call would not be discussed.

Besides which, no one has come forward to say they rang WHF or were rang. So we do know.

[guest29835]

Question open to everyone. QC did not reply.

Do you believe June, that she was going to use the bike to "see nature"?  I don't.  I think she was planning on knocking-off local post offices.  Think about it.  All she needed was a gun.  Plenty of those about.  She's now got a bike.  I think she was going to disguise herself as Julie.

It's the quiet, church-going ones you need to watch.

[lookout]

All cases are decided on  facts, evidence and witnesses.

Not knowing whether there was a late night phone call would not be discussed.

Besides which, no one has come forward to say they rang WHF or were rang. So we do know.

And where are these " facts, evidence and witnesses ?"

[lookout]

Do you believe June, that she was going to use the bike to "see nature"?  I don't.  I think she was planning on knocking-off local post offices.  Think about it.  All she needed was a gun.  Plenty of those about.  She's now got a bike.  I think she was going to disguise herself as Julie.

It's the quiet, church-going ones you need to watch.

Annie get your gun style ?

[guest29835]

Arguably, he COULD have, sans lights. He wouldn't have needed to go for many yards, on the main road, before taking a right turn and doing a detour cross country, using farm tracks.

Ainsley has him cycling along Maldon Road about a mile to the farm track that leads to Brook House Farm.  That's still two miles in all that he cycled out on a public road on his way to and from a mass murder.  Those two miles must have felt like 20.  In addition, if Ainsley is right, this means Jeremy has cycled over rough farm and field tracks, again at night.  You suggest he may have done this without lights.

Then there's the problem of how to get in and out of the environs of the cottage and Goldhanger without being seen.  That's risky enough if just going on foot.  The bike had a squeak when shown to Barbara Wilson a week or two before, but we'll err on the side of the prosecution and assume this had been sorted out.  We'll also give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt and say that, on the public road, Jeremy could have worn dark clothing and a balaclava under a hood, and on seeing a car, he could have put his head down and taken other simple precautions.  The only risk he then takes is that someone later reports seeing a cyclist out in the middle of the night.  Even if that happened, the witness would not be able to positively identify Jeremy. 

Or would they?  The fact is that even when someone is disguised, you can still identify them.  Somebody may have recognised the bike or Jeremy's clothing.  Not that such an identification would be reliable or assist the prosecution much, but here we are considering not the legal case, but the risk calculations that Jeremy might take.  You would need only one driver, other road user, farmer or neighbour - anyone - to see him, and potentially, suspicion then falls on Jeremy and he faces questions and inquiries.  People who plan things like this tend to do so with minimising risk in mind.  A bicycle complicates things.  It means noise.  It can slow him down.  It forces him to run into vehicles and maybe pedestrians who will all see him, albeit he may be disguised.  What if a puncture or mechanical fault develops?  Surely it's simpler and less risky to go by foot?

[Steve_uk]

So he goes on foot. The main point is that it's possible. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle

[Jane]

Ainsley has him cycling along Maldon Road about a mile to the farm track that leads to Brook House Farm.  That's still two miles in all that he cycled out on a public road on his way to and from a mass murder.  Those two miles must have felt like 20.  In addition, if Ainsley is right, this means Jeremy has cycled over rough farm and field tracks, again at night.  You suggest he may have done this without lights.

Then there's the problem of how to get in and out of the environs of the cottage and Goldhanger without being seen.  That's risky enough if just going on foot.  The bike had a squeak when shown to Barbara Wilson a week or two before, but we'll err on the side of the prosecution and assume this had been sorted out.  We'll also give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt and say that, on the public road, Jeremy could have worn dark clothing and a balaclava under a hood, and on seeing a car, he could have put his head down and taken other simple precautions.  The only risk he then takes is that someone later reports seeing a cyclist out in the middle of the night.  Even if that happened, the witness would not be able to positively identify Jeremy. 

Or would they?  The fact is that even when someone is disguised, you can still identify them.  Somebody may have recognised the bike or Jeremy's clothing.  Not that such an identification would be reliable or assist the prosecution much, but here we are considering not the legal case, but the risk calculations that Jeremy might take.  You would need only one driver, other road user, farmer or neighbour - anyone - to see him, and potentially, suspicion then falls on Jeremy and he faces questions and inquiries.  People who plan things like this tend to do so with minimising risk in mind.  A bicycle complicates things.  It means noise.  It can slow him down.  It forces him to run into vehicles and maybe pedestrians who will all see him, albeit he may be disguised.  What if a puncture or mechanical fault develops?  Surely it's simpler and less risky to go by foot?

Mmm. Thus far, little has been said of how JB may have felt whilst en route to the mission which would see his fortunes change. Having never done such, I'm hazarding a guess that anticipation might have come higher on the list than, say, fear. I say this because whilst we, here, and now, concern ourselves on his behalf, I feel certain he'd have believed that he'd worked out everything to the finest detail. Surely, he wouldn't have been foolhardy enough to take the risk had he not? I truly don't believe he anticipated anything going wrong, and that he was equipped to cope. Although everything you put forward is valid.

[guest29835]

So he goes on foot. The main point is that it's possible. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle

Both foot and bicycle were possible, either or both ways.  The issue is plausibility.  The risks involved in one are much greater than the other, though the risks are still great in either case, and there are further issues when we bring the timings and phone calls into it.

[Adam]

We have to go by the evidence & Julie's WS. Together with the extremely weak reason Bamber said he took June's bike.

The prosecution believe he cycled. Several possible routes for him.

[Steve_uk]

Both foot and bicycle were possible, either or both ways.  The issue is plausibility.  The risks involved in one are much greater than the other, though the risks are still great in either case, and there are further issues when we bring the timings and phone calls into it.

..yes and they are damning to Jeremy Bamber.