New video on the bike:

[guest154]

Jeremy is making the most of his 'Mum's baked cakes' publicity. Lots of new videos are up on Youtube.

Even this one about the bike. Even though it still puts him in a bad light. See post 7.

The video even diverts to Jeremy's video recorder and the windows to help pad it out.

Seems his campaign team are trying to work against all of the negative publicity that Bamber has received lately and of course the fact that two new books have been released highlighting Bambers guilt to the wider public.

But the campaigns illogical propaganda does more harm than good, to me anyway. If he is truly innocent- then why do the campaign team lie in their videos?

[Jan]

It would be good to see a video on the windows.

There is not much he can say really. He knows how to get and out through windows and used the found hacksaw.

Although he has never said he knew you could shut the kitchen latch from outside. He can't deny this is the case. There are 19 sources. But only Julie has said he knew about this, so he could focus on Julie (again) and say she is lying.

 do you really not care how that makes you look talking about the 19 sources ?even those who believe he is guilty know that is absolute rubbish -which is why the court of said it did not have to be proven - because it wasn't.

[scipio_usmc]

 do you really not care how that makes you look talking about the 19 sources ?even those who believe he is guilty know that is absolute rubbish -which is why the court of said it did not have to be proven - because it wasn't.

The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by which means he used to enter and exit.  The prosecution nonetheless offered evidence establishing what he most likely did.  They did such because it was extremely helpful to prove it was possible for him to get in and out for the jury to believe it happened even though there was no obligation to prove how beyond a reasonable doubt.

Take the following example.

Bank safe has a timer and it can't be opened until 9AM.
Bank safe is closed at 6PM and the money inside was counted and there.
Bank safe is opened the following morning at 9AM and is empty
Defendant is caught trying to spend money that was stolen from the bank safe

Beyond a reasonable doubt it was robbed even though it should not have been able to be robbed.  It is not necessary to prove how the person got inside beyond a reasonable doubt clearly it happened. (Sheila could not have killed herself so clearly someone entered, shot her and exited- see the comparison)

Though not necessary it still would be helpful to demonstrate how it were possible and that the person in question knew about such method to help further demonstrate it was the defendant in possession of the money.

That is why they proffered the evidence about how Jeremy knew how to use the windows to enter and exit and the evidence that suggested he most likely entered through the bathroom and exited through the kitchen.  The evidence they proffered certainly established such by a preponderance which merely requires more likely than not or as one of my law professors referred to as 50% plus anything. 

[Adam]

The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by which means he used to enter and exit.  The prosecution nonetheless offered evidence establishing what he most likely did.  They did such because it was extremely helpful to prove it was possible for him to get in and out for the jury to believe it happened even though there was no obligation to prove how beyond a reasonable doubt.

Take the following example.

Bank safe has a timer and it can't be opened until 9AM.
Bank safe is closed at 6PM and the money inside was counted and there.
Bank safe is opened the following morning at 9AM and is empty
Defendant is caught trying to spend money that was stolen from the bank safe

Beyond a reasonable doubt it was robbed even though it should not have been able to be robbed.  It is not necessary to prove how the person got inside beyond a reasonable doubt clearly it happened. (Sheila could not have killed herself so clearly someone entered, shot her and exited- see the comparison)

Though not necessary it still would be helpful to demonstrate how it were possible and that the person in question knew about such method to help further demonstrate it was the defendant in possession of the money.

That is why they proffered the evidence about how Jeremy knew how to use the windows to enter and exit and the evidence that suggested he most likely entered through the bathroom and exited through the kitchen.  The evidence they proffered certainly established such by a preponderance which merely requires more likely than not or as one of my law professors referred to as 50% plus anything.

Although they didn't have to prove the window could be latched from outside. It was.

There are 19 sources. Good sources as well. The most recent being from CAL.

You created a thread a few months ago with a statement from the police showing they tested the window.

Jan just keeps denying the kitchen window latch could be banged into place from outside. But has no sources to counter the 19 sources.

[Jan]

The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by which means he used to enter and exit.  The prosecution nonetheless offered evidence establishing what he most likely did.  They did such because it was extremely helpful to prove it was possible for him to get in and out for the jury to believe it happened even though there was no obligation to prove how beyond a reasonable doubt.

Take the following example.

Bank safe has a timer and it can't be opened until 9AM.
Bank safe is closed at 6PM and the money inside was counted and there.
Bank safe is opened the following morning at 9AM and is empty
Defendant is caught trying to spend money that was stolen from the bank safe

Beyond a reasonable doubt it was robbed even though it should not have been able to be robbed.  It is not necessary to prove how the person got inside beyond a reasonable doubt clearly it happened. (Sheila could not have killed herself so clearly someone entered, shot her and exited- see the comparison)

Though not necessary it still would be helpful to demonstrate how it were possible and that the person in question knew about such method to help further demonstrate it was the defendant in possession of the money.

That is why they proffered the evidence about how Jeremy knew how to use the windows to enter and exit and the evidence that suggested he most likely entered through the bathroom and exited through the kitchen.  The evidence they proffered certainly established such by a preponderance which merely requires more likely than not or as one of my law professors referred to as 50% plus anything.

I never said that - my only query is that the window that he used was able to be locked from the outside . the only source for that is the family - the police report was ambiguous to say the least .

[Jan]

the new video on the phones is interesting.

[Adam]

If the inside latch falls into place after being banged from outside, that is locked.

It may not be a very secure lock, like a bolt or key lock.  But an intruder would have to force entry.

If you want to call it closed, shut etc, feel free.

[lookout]

the new video on the phones is interesting.

So interesting in fact that not a word has been said about it. ??

[Patti]

Its was not a pitch black night according to Bews it was a well lit night because the moon was out.  Anybody seen walking, biking or moving would have been more likely to have been seen.

I'm sure that most people would have been sleeping, but with it being August I dare bet most people would have had windows open as did Mr and Mrs Bamber.  In the dead of the night a bike would have made a noise especially on gravel paths etc.  The risk of biking through and near other farms could have triggered dogs barking at those farms...There is no proof the bike was used. 

[Adam]

Its was not a pitch black night according to Bews it was a well lit night because the moon was out.  Anybody seen walking, biking or moving would have been more likely to have been seen.

I'm sure that most people would have been sleeping, but with it being August I dare bet most people would have had windows open as did Mr and Mrs Bamber.  In the dead of the night a bike would have made a noise especially on gravel paths etc.  The risk of biking through and near other farms could have triggered dogs barking at those farms...There is no proof the bike was used. 

DB's WS said the cycle route would not pass any dwellings.

[Patti]

DB's WS said the cycle route would not pass any dwellings.

I don't think that is right because for one he would have had to have passed his neighbours not once but twice...There are cottages north and south of Pages Lane, plus a few farms on route...Plus going via sea wall on a moonlit night is likely but unlikely.  There is no proof the bike was used. Maybe its pure speculation?

[Adam]

I don't think that is right because for one he would have had to have passed his neighbours not once but twice...There are cottages north and south of Pages Lane, plus a few farms on route...Plus going via sea wall on a moonlit night is likely but unlikely.  There is no proof the bike was used. Maybe its pure speculation?

Do you think it is a coincidence it was brought over just before the massacre ? It was certainly a big one. And strange that Jeremy would expect his girlfriend and guest to start cycling to places. Very charming.

There is no proof the bike was used. But the prosecution alleged this to the jury. He could have also walked there.

[Adam]

A well lit moonlight night will assist Jeremy in cycling to WHF.

[Patti]

Do you think it is a coincidence it was brought over just before the massacre ? It was certainly a big one. And strange that Jeremy would expect his girlfriend and guest to start cycling to places. Very charming.

There is no proof the bike was used. But the prosecution alleged this to the jury. He could have also walked there.

Not at all. June must have known Jeremy had the bike for it was at Head Street the weekend prior to the tragedies . Julie had mentioned about having a bike to Jeremy and Jeremy being Jeremy obliged her with his mothers bike. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever the bike was used on the night. It was forensically tested. The bike was introduced as a possibility by the CPS there was no evidence to back up the claim. The CPS used the bike as plot and staged it as being a possibility to the jury. 

[Adam]

Not at all. June must have known Jeremy had the bike for it was at Head Street the weekend prior to the tragedies . Julie had mentioned about having a bike to Jeremy and Jeremy being Jeremy obliged her with his mothers bike. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever the bike was used on the night. It was forensically tested. The bike was introduced as a possibility by the CPS there was no evidence to back up the claim. The CPS used the bike as plot and staged it as being a possibility to the jury. 

There is no proof June knew about the bike. A thread was created on whether he stole the bike just before the massacre.

Julie said she may have mentioned a bike a year earlier. The judge asking why Bamber would bring the bike over when he had said himself the relationship was 'coming to a close'.

There is no proof it was used. Why would there be ? Bamber was not injured and may have showered at WHF. He also had time to clean it.

The prosecution alleged to the jury the bike was used. Some of the jury may not have agreed. But could then simply believe he walked the journey.