I can't think of one reason why it might have been Sheila

[Cambridgecutie]

Despite what the judge said if you can't get out without leaving a window unsecured has to be suicide.

To my mind the defence needed to take the jury to WHF to show exactly what the prosecution was alleging and how it worked in practice.

If you consider other high profile crimes the jury is regularly taken to the soc and other relevant sites.  In this case the only site visited was a shooting range to hear the rifle fired with and without a silencer.  What was the point when this was outside?  All shots fired in this case were inside.  This will totally alter the acoustics.

[Rob_]

To my mind the defence needed to take the jury to WHF to show exactly what the prosecution was alleging and how it worked in practice.

If you consider other high profile crimes the jury is regularly taken to the soc and other relevant sites.  In this case the only site visited was a shooting range to hear the rifle fired with and without a silencer.  What was the point when this was outside?  All shots fired in this case were inside.  This will totally alter the acoustics.

Exactly Cc and I would have taken them along the Sea Wall at night as well.

[Adam]

To my mind the defence needed to take the jury to WHF to show exactly what the prosecution was alleging and how it worked in practice.

If you consider other high profile crimes the jury is regularly taken to the soc and other relevant sites.  In this case the only site visited was a shooting range to hear the rifle fired with and without a silencer.  What was the point when this was outside?  All shots fired in this case were inside.  This will totally alter the acoustics.

That would highlight the window could be banged shut from outside with the latch falling into place.

Supporting the prosecution.

[Adam]

Exactly Cc and I would have taken them along the Sea Wall at night as well.

That would just highlight how easy the bike ride was for Bamber & how it avoided properties.

Supporting the prosecution.

[Rob_]

That would just highlight how easy the bike ride was for Bamber & how it avoided properties.

Supporting the prosecution.

That's for the jury members to decide, I suspect they would be thinking no way Bamber did this in 15 minutes.

[Adam]

That's for the jury members to decide, I suspect they would be thinking no way Bamber did this in 15 minutes.

No one said 15 minutes.

The defence would have visited the route. They didn't oppose that he could cycle it 

[Rob_]

No one said 15 minutes.

The defence would have visited the route. They didn't oppose that he could cycle it

Julie did

[Adam]

Julie did

That is correct.

I cycle 4 miles regulary. Takes 15-20 minutes. That is cycling at 30%. Not in a hurry & be dangerous to cycle fast in London.

Cycling at 80% would make 10 minutes.

[Rob_]

That is correct.

I cycle 4 miles regulary. Takes 15-20 minutes. That is cycling at 30%. Not in a hurry & be dangerous to cycle fast in London.

Cycling at 80% would make 10 minutes.

I can cycle quite fast as well when I can see where I am going.

I asked some serious racers at work about cycling at night with no lights, they just laughed.

[Adam]

I can cycle quite fast as well when I can see where I am going.

I asked some serious racers at work about cycling at night with no lights, they just laughed.

Wonder why Bamber has never had the cycle ride as one of his grounds to the CCRC or COA?

Seems to just be properganda from the CT.

[BarefootDanC]

That's for the jury members to decide, I suspect they would be thinking no way Bamber did this in 15 minutes.

I agree that it would have taken longer than 15 minutes, but all that demonstrates is that Jeremy couldn't have phoned his home from WHF at 3:10 and then called the local police at 3:26.

[Cambridgecutie]

I agree that it would have taken longer than 15 minutes, but all that demonstrates is that Jeremy couldn't have phoned his home from WHF at 3:10 and then called the local police at 3:26.

In 1985 there was no digital footprint.  All times are approx.  The police station clock was out by 10 minutes.  According to a witness and EP, one of JM's house shares, also had a clock 10 minutes out.  There is no reliable data.

[Adam]

I agree that it would have taken longer than 15 minutes, but all that demonstrates is that Jeremy couldn't have phoned his home from WHF at 3:10 and then called the local police at 3:26.

He didn't attempt to. Phoning Julie around 3am.

[BarefootDanC]

In 1985 there was no digital footprint.  All times are approx.  The police station clock was out by 10 minutes.  According to a witness and EP, one of JM's house shares, also had a clock 10 minutes out.  There is no reliable data.

He said that Nevill called him around 3:10, then tried calling him back, then spent around 10 minutes looking up the number for the police in the phone book. His time was recorded at 3:26.

This is all academic. Other evidence shows that he called Julie at 3am.

[Zoso]

In 1985 there was no digital footprint.  All times are approx.  The police station clock was out by 10 minutes.  According to a witness and EP, one of JM's house shares, also had a clock 10 minutes out.  There is no reliable data.

Where is it stated that the station clock was definitely out by 10 minutes? West stated that it was 'on occasion' inaccurate but on 'very FEW occasions'. Bamber made a BIG thing about West being a liar when he recorded 3:36 and that he did that on purpose. Now of course, he claims Nevill called the police so abandoned the West perjury claim and agree's he called at 3:36.  .

The other point being that the station clock was digital - how often do digital clocks run fast? West clearly either read the clock wrong or he entered the time at the end of the call and not the beginning.