Confirmation June's bike was stolen.

[Adam]

Julie's, Jeremy's & Mary Mugford's court testimonies are very strong evidence the bike was stolen and used.

This together with the bike arriving just before a trial cycle run & proper run is also very strong.

But appreciate supporters will say it was Julie to cycle to a bus stop.

[ILB]

Julie's, Jeremy's & Mary Mugford's court testimonies are very strong evidence the bike was stolen and used.

This together with the bike arriving just before a trial cycle run & proper run is also very strong.

But appreciate supporters will say it was Julie to cycle to a bus stop.

Agree to disagree.

[Adam]

The evidence that walking would take too long and driving too risky is also very strong.

But appreciate there is no CCTV of him cycling. Which is what BuboBubo wants.

[ILB]

The evidence that walking would take too long and driving too risky is also very strong.

But appreciate there is no CCTV of him cycling.

Driving is the best bet

[Adam]

Driving is the best bet

🙄

[Bubo bubo]

Julie's, Jeremy's & Mary Mugford's court testimonies are very strong evidence the bike was stolen and used.

This together with the bike arriving just before a trial cycle run & proper run is also very strong.

But appreciate supporters will say it was Julie to cycle to a bus stop.

There is no proof the bike was stolen. Stop claiming other wise. They did not claim he used the bike on the night.

[Bubo bubo]

Driving is the best bet

There is no evidence that he visited WHF. It is all speculation.

[Adam]

There is no evidence that he visited WHF. It is all speculation.

Have you not read the COA evidence?

[Bubo bubo]

Have you not read the COA evidence?

That does not make it fact. It was all circumstantial evidence presented at trial and there is no proof JB was at WHF after he left to go home and his attendance at 03.50 am on 07/08/85.

[Adam]

There is no proof the bike was stolen. Stop claiming other wise. They did not claim he used the bike on the night.

There are a lot of different things that strongly suggest the bike was stolen and used.

But appreciate June can not confirm it was stolen & there is no CCTV of him cycling.

[Adam]

That does not make it fact. It was all circumstantial evidence presented at trial and there is no proof JB was at WHF after he left to go home and his attendance at 03.50 am on 07/08/85.

I am referring to the forensic evidence in the COA.

[Bubo bubo]

I am referring to the forensic evidence in the COA.

This is not forensic evidence it is all circumstantial. There is no forensic evidence that he cycled home.
Just  because June's bike was at his property does not prove he used it

149. The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard and before leaving the address called his home at Goldhanger, leaving the receiver off the hook, thus lending support to the alibi he would later rely upon. He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home.

151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;

[Adam]

This is not forensic evidence it is all circumstantial. There is no forensic evidence that he cycled home.
Just  because June's bike was at his property does not prove he used it

149. The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard and before leaving the address called his home at Goldhanger, leaving the receiver off the hook, thus lending support to the alibi he would later rely upon. He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home.

151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;

I meant the forensic evidence that it was not Sheila.

Obviously that means Bamber travelled to WHF.

[Bubo bubo]

I meant the forensic evidence that it was not Sheila.

Obviously that means Bamber travelled to WHF.

Oh dear I thought we were discussing the bike. So because he was found guilty it means he stole and used the bike. On that basis because he was found guilty all the circumstantial evidence becomes forensic and 100% true, well I never.

Only if you believe him guilty and not that he was framed. I believe he was framed so I do not believe he visited WHF within the time frame outlined in my earlier post.

[Kestrel19]

"She told the court part of his murder plan was to leave his car outside the cottage and make his way to WHF through the back fields and along the sea wall, avoiding the main roads".

----------

Wilkes.

Thanks for this Adam, I have to say that her testimony raises a few further questions.

In her statement in September she twice mentions Bamber cycling. The first time when he was apparently considering setting fire to the place and to return to the farm, and all she says is via the back road, there’s no detail around exactly where this is and there is no road route directly from Goldhangar to WHF other than through D’Arcy village. Potentially it could be an extension of Pages Lane towards the sea wall - although this does necessitate passing through another Farm yard and is only a road over part of its length - but could possibly be the back road referred to.
By June 1985 this idea has been dismissed anyway, he is now looking at shooting the family and has found another route that he thinks will take 15 minutes and he will try it to be sure. There is no further detail around this route. She says nothing further in her statement around routes.

The police then go and cycle a number of different routes to try them. They log the sea wall as 35 minutes, if Julie has mentioned the sea wall route to them as being his intended route then this instantly means it’s been disproved - otherwise why would they write it as 35 mins and make no attempt to clarify or travel faster if she says it can be done in 15 mins.
If she doesn’t tell them he plans to use the sea wall then why not? It’s an important detail if she knows it at this stage. The police also appear to be unsure of the correct route from Wilkinsons statement so she must have forgotten to tell them this important detail!
However by the time she gets to court she now knows he would have used the sea wall route, how does she know it now and not mention it before - especially when the police think it takes twice as long as she says?
There’s a bit too much inconsistency in the testimony, if she knew the sea wall was the one he would use then she would have said before - not mention it for the first time in court having lead the police to believe it would be a different route (remember the only one measured anywhere near 15 mins by Wilkinson was the Brook House track!)