Author Topic: June's bike being forensically tested:  (Read 2736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21095
Re: June's bike being forensically tested:
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2015, 04:33:PM »
talking about the jury i think i read somewhere that 2 jury members were crying when the others found him guilty,  was that true doex anyone know
Yes I think two young female jurors had been taken in by his stage presence.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: June's bike being forensically tested:
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2015, 04:48:PM »
I've never seen proof that there were two women crying. If they were,it could well have been caused by the overwhelming overtures of the case in general.
What about the guy in the jury who'd fallen asleep ? I bet that was true and brushed aside !

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44325
Re: June's bike being forensically tested:
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2015, 10:34:AM »
18:

The village of Goldhanger is some 3 to 3½ miles from White House Farm. By car it would take some five minutes to travel between the two. On a bicycle it would take about fifteen minutes by the shortest route.


This is from the 2002 appeal.

Three and a half miles is a long way. From where I live it would take me to places I would never dream of walking to. And would take me well over an hour to get there.

Bamber having to  leave his cottage a lot earlier risks him being seen. If things took longer than expected at WHF, he may have to get back quickly, to continue his plan and avoid being seen by early rising farmers. He was also lazy and didn't want to walk seven miles in one night.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2015, 10:37:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: June's bike being forensically tested:
« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2015, 08:19:PM »
so you are saying the absence of forensics on the bike , because he could have cleaned it ,is forensic proof the bike was used?

and Julie admitted she had mentioned in the past about having a bike at the house to use.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44325
Re: June's bike being forensically tested:
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2015, 12:03:PM »
Well as my thread post says, supporters claim there is no proof Bamber cycled to WHF as the bike was forensically tested. A month later. But there is no reason why anything should be found.

It may even be one of those situations when the circumstantial evidence outweighs the forensic evidence.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: June's bike being forensically tested:
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2015, 12:33:PM »
Well as my thread post says, supporters claim there is no proof Bamber cycled to WHF as the bike was forensically tested. A month later. But there is no reason why anything should be found.

It may even be one of those situations when the circumstantial evidence outweighs the forensic evidence.


There was NO forensic evidence re the bike. There was no way of saying there ever MAY have been.