why does jeremy need a bike.

[nugnug]

now assuming the phone call dident happen and considering theres no time of death then Jeremy has all the time he wants to commit the murders.

so he could of walked there and back he dident need a bike so why do the police and prosecution keep going about a bike.

[No-Bits]

now assuming the phone call dident happen and considering theres no time of death then Jeremy has all the time he wants to commit the murders.

so he could of walked there and back he dident need a bike so why do the police and prosecution keep going about a bike.

They don't.

It is not known how he travelled or what route he took.

[nugnug]

all the theorys ive read involve a bike but theirs really no need for one.

[No-Bits]

all the theorys ive read involve a bike but theirs really no need for one.

Well maybe not, but it's more plausible than him hitching a ride with a flying saucer. 

[grahameb]

Well maybe not, but it's more plausible than him hitching a ride with a flying saucer. 

I think why some of the guilty persuasion keep on mentioning a bike is that it makes everything that Jeremy did suspicious. So  the more suspicious they make these things he does efore the murders the more guilty that making him look. Things like, "Oh look he ate a hearty breakfast. He must be guilty if he could do that". Or, "Yes isn't it suspicious. He borrowed his mum's bike and made out it was for Julie. Now that is suspicious isn't it?  "So it gets people thinking that everything he did before the murders were to do with the murders"
But nugnug is right the times in respect of the murders aren't that important at all. In effect he had all the time in the world. Mind you, that's a jolly long walk along the sea wall and across the fields.

[No-Bits]

I think why some of the guilty persuasion keep on mentioning a bike is that it makes everything that Jeremy did suspicious. So  the more suspicious they make these things he does efore the murders the more guilty that making him look. Things like, "Oh look he ate a hearty breakfast. He must be guilty if he could do that". Or, "Yes isn't it suspicious. He borrowed his mum's bike and made out it was for Julie. Now that is suspicious isn't it?  "So it gets people thinking that everything he did before the murders were to do with the murders"
But nugnug is right the times in respect of the murders aren't that important at all. In effect he had all the time in the world. Mind you, that's a jolly long walk along the sea wall and across the fields.

I don't think that's the case at all.

Again, the simple reality, is that he had a possible way of getting to and from WHF within a sensible time frame. How he actually did it is relatively unimportant.

[nugnug]

well if the phonecall dident happen then the time frame isnt improtant he had all night to do it.

[grahameb]

I don't think that's the case at all.

Again, the simple reality, is that he had a possible way of getting to and from WHF within a sensible time frame. How he actually did it is relatively unimportant.

In other words the prosecution used presumption to convict him and superfluity in introducing the bike when they didn't need to do so?

[No-Bits]

I don't think that's the case at all.

Again, the simple reality, is that he had a possible way of getting to and from WHF within a sensible time frame. How he actually did it is relatively unimportant.

Besides, it was Julie who first mentioned the bicycle. She said that an early plan was for JB to drug the family and then return on foot or by bicycle to burn the house down.

JB confirmed the bicycle was at his house, but it was for Julie's use. I wonder if Julie denied this was the case in court? 

[grahameb]

Besides, it was Julie who first mentioned the bicycle. She said that an early plan was for JB to drug the family and then return on foot or by bicycle to burn the house down.

JB confirmed the bicycle was at his house, but it was for Julie's use. I wonder if Julie denied this was the case in court? 

Well one cannot accuse her of not having much of an imagination.

[No-Bits]

In other words the prosecution used presumption to convict him and superfluity in introducing the bike when they didn't need to do so?

No, they ascertained that he had the means, opportunity and motive.

The conviction, was likely heavily based on the sound moderator evidence and Julie's testimony.

[grahameb]

No, they ascertained that he had the means, opportunity and motive.

The conviction, was likely heavily based on the sound moderator evidence and Julie's testimony.

Also in that link you posted it says that the police had the bike tested forensically bu could not connect it to the crime. But if what you say is true, then I wonder by some of the guilty persuasion still keep banging on about it?

[No-Bits]

Also in that link you posted it says that the police had the bike tested forensically bu could not connect it to the crime. But if what you say is true, then I wonder by some of the guilty persuasion still keep banging on about it?

That's what I meant, I don't think they do, do they? This thread was started by Nugnug.

I hardly ever mention the bicycle, other than in the context given above, that it was one possible mode of transport.

[susan]

Grahame think it is Adam and steve who tend to mention the bike

[nugnug]

well if they say no phonecall happend then jeremy could have easly walked it.

if the argument is that he phoned himself then of course walking there and back would of been impossble.