Short video on goldhanger, sea wall chequers 1981

[Adam]

I believe the defence had bigger fish to fry like Julie, and blood evidence to deal with.

Whether the sea wall was discussed between Bamber and his legal team is confidential information between them.

The defence did have over a year to prepare.

Proving The Sea Wall was not possible to cycle at night would have been very effective.

They must have checked it out at night and realised that was a 'non starter'.

[ILB]

They must have checked it out at night and realised that was a 'non starter'.

Disagree

[Adam]

Won't impact the verdict on a standalone ground. Other evidence remains unaffected.

He had other transport options, such as car and walk.

It would impact the verdict. If the prosecution route was not possible to cycle at night.

But it has never been suggested in any trial or appeal.

[ILB]

Source from Wilkes at trial on the sea wall. Arlidge puts a simple question about the sea wall to Bamber met with a denial.

To be honest I can't recall when reading the cross examination transcript a sea wall reference but Wilkes is recalling it was there. Its short and Arlidge goes on to the next question.

So Bamber did deny the sea wall.

[ILB]

It would impact the verdict. If the prosecution route was not possible to cycle at night.

But it has never been suggested in any trial or appeal.

No it wouldn't, how does it effect the confession evidence and shelias blood in the silencer?

He also had other transport means.

[Adam]

Disagree

That would be unprofessional of his defence.

Not checking out the prosecution route. Day and night.

But appreciate if they did, it negates your 'non starter' stance.

[ILB]

That would be unprofessional of his defence.

Maybe Bamber or Paul Terzeon could confirm.

[Adam]

No it wouldn't, how does it effect the confession evidence and shelias blood in the silencer?

He also had other transport means.

How does it effect?

Because no one saw or recorded him cycling past hundreds of properties. His only other route  was not possible to cycle at night.

That would influence me as a juror. Although agree there was a mountain of other incriminating evidence.

[ILB]

How does it effect?

Because no one saw or recorded him cycling past hundreds of properties. His only other route  was not possible to cycle at night.

That would influence me as a juror. Although agree there was a mountain of other incriminating evidence.

That doesn't mean he didn't make the journey either by car or walking or cycling the road way. He just wasn't clocked.

Who would be on the streets at 2am in goldhanger or tollshunt D'Arcy in 1985?

Only foxes and cats would have seen him if anything.

[ILB]

How does it effect?

Because no one saw or recorded him cycling past hundreds of properties. His only other route  was not possible to cycle at night.

That would influence me as a juror. Although agree there was a mountain of other incriminating evidence.

Agree it may have had influence at trial but not enough with other evidence to contend with.

As an appeal ground to me it's weak, as it won't overturn the conviction or show in any way the conviction is unsafe. The bar is set high and it has to undermine the original verdict which it doesn't.

[Adam]

The defence would have sent people to The Sea Wall. They had over a year to.

They can check the practicality of the route. Day and night.

It would be gross negligence not to. Bamber would also insist as he 'did not know the route' & would want to know about it.

After checking the route, the defence's counter at trial was just 'no one saw him'.

[Adam]

Agree it may have had influence at trial but not enough with other evidence to contend with.

As an appeal ground to me it's weak, as it won't overturn the conviction or show in any way the conviction is unsafe. The bar is set high and it has to undermine the original verdict which it doesn't.

Every little helps.

Disputing The Sea Wall would just highlight what a great option it was for Bamber.

Jurors would know there would be enough vision in an open area to cycle a route he knew.

[ILB]

The defence would have sent people to The Sea Wall. They had over a year to.

They can check the practicality of the route. Day and night.

It would be gross negligence not to. Bamber would also insist as he 'did not know the route' & would want to know about it.

After checking the route, the defence's counter at trial was just 'no one saw him'.

You are making assumptions that they checked the sea wall.

You have no idea if they did or didn't.

Only Bamber or Paul Terzeon would confirm.

Me personally I don't believe they did.

[Adam]

You are making assumptions that they checked the sea wall.

You have no idea if they did or didn't.

Only Bamber or Paul Terzeon would confirm.

Me personally I don't believe they did.

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.

[Adam]

Appreciate why Bamber has never had 'cycling at night' as a ground in appeals.

Also appreciate that when interviewed he has to feed his supporters what they want to hear.