Short video on goldhanger, sea wall chequers 1981

[Adam]

He threw the kitchen sink at the 2002 COA. Ditto the 2021 CCRC submission.

He may have suggested to his lawyers about cycling in the dark, not knowing the route etc as a ground. 

They told him that is too weak to be included. Which is saying something.

[Adam]

The prosecution spent a day checking out various routes.

The defence would do the same. They would also do it at night to check on vision. The Sea Wall being an open area would have seen them return to there offices empty handed.

[ILB]

Appreciate you have to believe that. Otherwise Bamber's own defence negates your 'non starter' stance.

It would be gross negligence to not spend a day on location during a period of over a year.

Bamber's travelling was an important aspect.

No it wouldn't, you are being ridiculous now.

The defence negated this at trial by saying Jeremy Bamber wasn't seen.

You have a habit of claiming things without any proof of them happening. If you find a source that the defence did a sea wall run il stand corrected.

Gross negligence, haha.

[Adam]

One of the first things on the defence's agenda would be to check the prosecution route. Day and night.

At court they didn't even say it was difficult.

Making it a ground for the 89, 2002, 2012 or 2021 appeals were non starters. 

[ILB]

To access the sea wall he has to go to fish street.

Cycling past properties.

For a round trip journey of an 1 hour ten may as well just jump in the car and bomb it.

[Adam]

Appreciate ILB will continue to say people cannot see in open areas in the dark.

As said I feel he is going too far with his support.

Bamber, his defence, CT & lawyers do not believe this. Ditto EP, the DPP, prosecution and the media.

[Adam]

To access the sea wall he has to go to fish street.

Cycling past properties.

For a round trip journey of an 1 hour ten may as well just jump in the car and bomb it.

He would access it via his back garden & the adjoining field.

Only 200 metres.

I have said this before.

[ILB]

Me and Jez and people with common sense know that the idea of a man travelling over land in the middle of the night on a ladies bicycle without lighting is madness and a none starter.

Suspect Adam is fully aware of this also but can't resist the opportunity to use it troll and goad.

[Adam]

Thistley Close was not there in 1985.

So his back garden route to the Sea Wall entrance would be easier.

[ILB]

He would access it via his back garden & the adjoining field.

Only 200 metres.

I have said this before.

He can't access the sea wall from the rear of 9 head street.

As the neighbour confirmed in the theroux documentary.

He would have to cycle down fish street to the sea wall entrance.

[Adam]

He can't access the sea wall from the rear of 9 head street.

As the neighbour confirmed in the theroux documentary.

He would have to cycle down fish street to the sea wall entrance.

Why?

It was a bike, not a lorry.

[Adam]

Me and Jez and people with common sense know that the idea of a man travelling over land in the middle of the night on a ladies bicycle without lighting is madness and a none starter.

Suspect Adam is fully aware of this also but can't resist the opportunity to use it troll and goad.

So why did his defence not say so ?

And why has Bamber never had it as a ground in 4 applications?

[Adam]

Agree 6 months earlier access to the field may not have been easy.

The solution - hedge trimmers.

[Adam]

'Non starter'. A big phrase.

Any prosecution narrative that is a 'non starter' the defence would be all over it.

They weren't.

[ILB]

Why?

It was a bike, not a lorry.

No access.

The neighbour will be telling the truth.