Did it though - I thought RB tried very hard to prove there was mud from the fields on it and even checked to see if he could find tracks - guess what nothing .
Robert Boutflour it is said tried his hardest to find evidence of tyre tracks along the "muddy" sea wall and every other short cut but found none. Also the mud on the bike was tested forensically by the police and was found to be completely different from mud either on the sea wall or the other supposed short cuts. So unless someone is dead set on believing Bamber to have used that bike without any evidence whatsoever, then that is up to them. But neither Robert Boutflour or the prosecution were able to find any evidence whatsoever. So by deduction anyone who suggests that he used the bike is totally prejudiced and no amount of evidence will convince them. It also declares very clearly indeed that those particular people cannot be reasoned with, so it is a total waste of time to argue with them.
Note: We rely entirely upon FACTS and not whimsical fairytails like this silly suggestion that Bamber stol his mother's bike.
