Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on June 28, 2023, 01:22:PM
-
To be given now.
-
June had only recently bought the bike.
June had bought it for herself.
Bamber could afford to buy his own second hand bike.
June and Bamber were not talking to each other. Multiple sources online.
Bike arrived 2 days before the massacre.
Reason given for bike of Julie cycling home not valid.
Julie testified Bamber planned to cycle The Sea Wall.
Bamber said relationship with Julie coming to a close. No reason to get a bike.
Driving or walking to WHF not credible options.
June likely to tell Bamber to buy his own bike even if they were speaking.
Bike easy to steal as Bamber
worked at WHF.
No point Bamber buying a bike just for 30-40 minutes of cycling on one night.
The bike arriving just before the massacre gives June less time to notice and investigate.
Bamber had committed previous crimes against his family.
June would tell Bamber to drive Julie or pay for a taxi.
Bamber had a car so could easily transfer the bike.
No other bikes available for him free of charge.
Nevill did not have a bike.
No record of Julie or Bamber using the bike after it arrived at Head Street.
-
When can we expect the confirmation?
-
That is 19 reasons to start with.
That should be the end of the matter.
-
Still no confirmation.
-
The bike was perfectly acceptable for the job.
Mountain bikes were decades away.
-
June had only recently bought the bike.
June had bought it for herself.
Bamber could afford to buy his own second hand bike.
June and Bamber were not talking to each other. Multiple sources online.
Bike arrived 2 days before the massacre.
Reason given for bike of Julie cycling home not valid.
Julie testified Bamber planned to cycle The Sea Wall.
Bamber said relationship with Julie coming to a close. No reason to get a bike.
Driving or walking to WHF not credible options.
June likely to tell Bamber to buy his own bike even if they were speaking.
Bike easy to steal as Bamber
worked at WHF.
No point Bamber buying a bike just for 30-40 minutes of cycling on one night.
The bike arriving just before the massacre gives June less time to notice and investigate.
Bamber had committed previous crimes against his family.
June would tell Bamber to drive Julie or pay for a taxi.
Bamber had a car so could easily transfer the bike.
No other bikes available for him free of charge.
Nevill did not have a bike.
No record of Julie or Bamber using the bike after it arrived at Head Street.
What you have listed is opinions not confirmation
-
What you have listed is opinions not confirmation
They are facts.
Agree that me believing walking or driving not credible is an opinion.
-
To be given now.
Lucky that June didn't report her bike stolen to the police Adam,else Bamber may have been arrested for theft before he could carry out the shooting.
Infact its lucky that Julie didn't inadvertently mention the bike being at JBs cottage,after all,it wasn't hidden away was it?
According to you Adam the bike was akin to a stolen get away vehicle,so why didn't Bamber tell Julie not to mention the fact that it was at his cottage? Apparently Julie didn't even ask JB why the bike was at his cottage,did she?
Why didn't JB say to Julie,'I have stolen my mothers bike because it will form an important part of my plan to murder my family,so for christ sake dont tell her its here,ok?' No such conversation according to Julie.
You have got to think the whole scenario through about the so called 'theft' of the bike Adam.
As Bubo says,simply claiming that JB 'stole' June's bike is unfounded and doesn't stand up very well,does it?
-
Doubtful June would report the bike had been stolen. If she had noticed that weekend.
It was a second hand bike and not valuable. Not an essential item and any robber would be long gone.
However correct for Bamber to take no chances & get the bike very shortly beforehand.
-
Doubtful June would report the bike had been stolen. If she had noticed that weekend.
It was a second hand bike and not valuable. Not an essential item and any robber would be long gone.
However correct for Bamber to take no chances & get the bike very shortly beforehand.
Lucky for Bamber that June bought a bike in the first place Adam,couldn't have been through advisement from Bamber however, he had no contact with her according to you.
-
How ironic that June bought a bike which would be used soon after in the execution of her execution.
You couldn't make it up.Could you???
-
Will have to investigate when June bought the bike.
Bamber would have bought his own bike if June didn't have one. Maybe weeks beforehand.
-
Lucky that June didn't report her bike stolen to the police Adam,else Bamber may have been arrested for theft before he could carry out the shooting.
Infact its lucky that Julie didn't inadvertently mention the bike being at JBs cottage,after all,it wasn't hidden away was it?
According to you Adam the bike was akin to a stolen get away vehicle,so why didn't Bamber tell Julie not to mention the fact that it was at his cottage? Apparently Julie didn't even ask JB why the bike was at his cottage,did she?
Why didn't JB say to Julie,'I have stolen my mothers bike because it will form an important part of my plan to murder my family,so for christ sake dont tell her its here,ok?' No such conversation according to Julie.
You have got to think the whole scenario through about the so called 'theft' of the bike Adam.
As Bubo says,simply claiming that JB 'stole' June's bike is unfounded and doesn't stand up very well,does it?
Allegedly, June bought the bike -second hand?- to make her village rounds easier. She is said not to have liked it. It's not beyond the realms of belief to suggest that JB asked If He could have it for Julie. As Julie didn't enjoy a warm and close relationship with June she'd have been very unlikely to have thanked June.
-
Believe Bamber is the only person who said June did not get on with the bike.
Guess she shouldn't have bought it.
-
Allegedly, June bought the bike -second hand?- to make her village rounds easier. She is said not to have liked it. It's not beyond the realms of belief to suggest that JB asked If He could have it for Julie. As Julie didn't enjoy a warm and close relationship with June she'd have been very unlikely to have thanked June.
Well,Adam calls this topic 'confirmation that June's bike was stolen' Jane,and claims over and over again that JB and June were not on speaking terms at the time.
-
And you are quite right Adam,just when did JB decide to carry out the crime using a bike and did this just happen to coincide with June buying her bike?
When did he tell Julie that he intended to use a bike? How did he know when Sheila and the boys would be visiting? Just when did he intend to buy the bike in preparation?
You are right,we need to know when June bought the bike and also when Bamber told Julie of his plan to use a bike in the execution of the murders.
Then see what it all suggests?
-
They are facts.
Agree that me believing walking or driving not credible is an opinion.
Again, in your opinion they are
-
OK,this is what Julie said in her statement ----- 'about June 1985''---'He said that he would use a cycle to do it and would do a trial run to see how long it would take.He thought it would take about 15 minutes one way'
So,according to Julie he had decided to use a bike by June.
Now when did June buy her bike?
-
Adam just expects people to believe what ever he says as gospel
-
At times he puts valid points across, but if I don't agree with them in my case he snipes such phrases as " you are Bambers mate" or you have been to prison "
-
Adam just expects people to believe what ever he says as gospel
That simply wont work ILB.Not if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
-
That simply wont work ILB.Not if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Agree
It also stifles sensible debate
-
OK,this is what Julie said in her statement ----- 'about June 1985''---'He said that he would use a cycle to do it and would do a trial run to see how long it would take.He thought it would take about 15 minutes one way'
So,according to Julie he had decided to use a bike by June.
Now when did June buy her bike?
Does not matter when she bought it.
He could buy his own bike if need be.
-
Does not matter when she bought it.
He could buy his own bike if need be.
Borrowed or buying a bike doesn't prove guilt.
If he had had his own bike bought by his own money at his cottage the prosecution would have used it as a prosecution narrative
-
It would be good to get dates of -
When June bought the bike.
When Bamber found out Sheila & the twins were staying.
---------
Probably similar times.
-
Apparently a neighour of Jeremy Bamber said " his car was outside his house all night "
In the theroux documentary, David Kennedy the next door neighbour of Bamber basically says " I was his neighbour at the time " then discusses about cycle routes.
He doesn't confirm he saw Bambers car there All night, so I surmise it must have been another neighbour
-
Suspect Bamber would not buy a bike until Sheila & the twins were at WHF.
Always a chance a trip will be cancelled with Sheila & two 6 year olds involved.
But he did not need to buy a bike.
-
It would be good to get dates of -
When June bought the bike.
When Bamber found out Sheila & the twins were staying.
---------
Probably similar times.
The former it depends on which way you look at it.
The latter. It all depends. She was his sister. Whether from nevill, whether overhearing June speaking to nevill. Or Shelia herself. ( I look at it from your stance of June and Bamber mute with one another at all times )
Did Colin and Jeremy have a close relationship post Shelia and Colin's divorce, meet for a drink? Speak on the telephone? Any social activity of any kind?
Colin invited him to the party
-
Now the key here may be trial run.
If the bike just appeared at JBs house a few days before the murders,wasn't the oppertunity to carry out a tril run limited? Especially in the busy harvest period? And as ILB has already pointed out which route could he possibly have done in fifteen minutes? Not the sea wall surely?
-
Suspect Bamber would not buy a bike until Sheila & the twins were at WHF.
Always a chance a trip will be cancelled with Sheila & two 6 year olds involved.
But he did not need to buy a bike.
But what about the trial run Adam,doesn't make sense to wait till Sheila has arrived to buy a bike,no way.
-
Suspect Bamber would not buy a bike until Sheila & the twins were at WHF.
Always a chance a trip will be cancelled with Sheila & two 6 year olds involved.
But he did not need to buy a bike.
By Julie's own admission Bamber came to stay with her some weekenights it's in her statment. Apparently this was regular
He of course could have took any " luggage" back to Julie in his car when on these journeys
-
Now the key here may be trial run.
If the bike just appeared at JBs house a few days before the murders,wasn't the oppertunity to carry out a tril run limited? Especially in the busy harvest period? And as ILB has already pointed out which route could he possibly have done in fifteen minutes? Not the sea wall surely?
Cycling The Sea Wall was very possible. Cycling at an above average pace.
Wilkinson cycled at a very slow pace.
Threads recently created.
-
Cycling The Sea Wall was very possible. Cycling at an above average pace.
Wilkinson cycled at a very slow pace.
Threads recently created.
Laughable
Why would a member of CID in a murder enquiry tale a slow cycle ?
-
But what about the trial run Adam,doesn't make sense to wait till Sheila has arrived to buy a bike,no way.
Who knows. But he did not need to buy a bike.
-
At times he puts valid points across, but if I don't agree with them in my case he snipes such phrases as " you are Bambers mate" or you have been to prison "
Yes,we have all noticed that ILB,it does Adam no favours whatsoever.
-
Laughable
Why would a member of CID in a murder enquiry tale a slow cycle ?
Lots of reasons already given.
You should be able to think of reasons yourself.
Over 8 minutes per mile is 20%. Average pace being 60%.
-
Suspect Bamber cycled at 70% - 90%.
On the way back.
-
Lots of reasons already given.
You should be able to think of reasons yourself.
Over 8 minutes per mile is 20%. Average being 60%.
Why would a investigative member of CID cycle slowly
You are talking bollocks here
-
Why would a investigative member of CID cycle slowly
You are talking bollocks here
Lots of reasons already given. Recently. To you.
You should be able to think of reasons yourself.
Over 8 minutes per mile is 20%. Average pace being 60%.
-
It takes 4 minutes to cycle a mile. At an average pace.
So 4.3 miles would take 17 minutes.
Suspect Bamber cycled at an above average pace.
Oh and the terrain was good and flat.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11822.0.html
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11826.0.html
I have already confirmed why Bamber could cycle 4.2 miles in around 15 minutes.
-
Believe Bamber is the only person who said June did not get on with the bike.
Guess she shouldn't have bought it.
Maybe it was a spontaneous purchase, we all make them
June had a car
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11822.0.html
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11826.0.html
I have already confirmed why Bamber could cycle 4.2 miles in around 15 minutes.
He would cycle at a normal pace.
-
Anywhere I spend 70 minutes walking to, I could definately get there in 15 minutes cycling. Going at 70%.
Espescially on good, flat terrain.
Wilkinson only cut his 70 minute walk time by 50%. So was going at a very slow pace.
-
It takes 4 minutes to cycle a mile. At an average pace.
So 4.3 miles would take 17 minutes.
Suspect Bamber cycled at an above average pace.
Oh and the terrain was good and flat.
You are just trying to tailor your account to fit the facts
-
Anywhere I spend 70 minutes walking to, I could definately get there in 15 minutes cycling. Going at 70%.
Espescially on good, flat terrain.
Wilkinson only cut his 70 minute walk time by 50%. So was going at a very slow pace.
That doesn't even make sense
-
You are just trying to tailor your account to fit the facts
Correct.
And succeeding. It's all facts.
-
Cycling 4.2 miles at an average pace is going at a similar speed as Olympic 1500 metre runners.
So you would definately cut down Wilkinson's 70 minutes walking time by over 50%.
They run fast.
-
Correct.
And succeeding. It's all facts.
No it isn't
You know this
You wasn't even born when the copper did the reconissance cycle mission
You are stating " Wilkinson went slowly "
You can't even prove Bamber cycled, let alone the pace of which
-
Please tell me now on this thread your belief of why Wilkinson cycles slowly. Don't refer me to anything please...
-
OK,June bought her bike from a man in Maldon in mid july.
So let us put it all together.Bamber told Julie in june that he hoped that Sheila and the twins would visit the farm soon,SOON! And he had decided to use a bike in the execution of the crime and would do a trial run.
Surely this would mean getting hold of a bike ASAP to carry out the trial run and have the bike revved up ready to go,he said himself that he hoped Sheila would visit soon.So with harvest fast approaching when any spare time would be limited ,surely Bamber would have seen about getting hold of a bike there and then in preparation?
The school holidays would have started long before July,so Sheila could have appeared with the boys at any time.
Yet,here's the thing Bamber did not purchase a bike in june after deciding to use one in the shooting, nor in the first half of july,now keep in mind that Sheila could have arrived with the boys at short notice at any time and the harvest was starting,yet no bike had been purchased yet roughly a month after Bamber had decided to use one.
Then,low and behold June just happens to buy a bike in the nick of time,so Bamber decides he wont need to.
But lets just think about this for a minute,June buys the bike for her own use,so why does Bamber think he can just take it? Why would he imagine that he can just take it away,do a trial run and then use it to carry out the crime? What if June simply loved using the bike and used it every day without fail,how could JB steal it from her? Or even ask her to let Julie use it?
No way could Bamber count on using Junes bike,there is no way he could have known that she would not take to it and abandon it to be pinched or loaned even to Julie. And keep in mind,the bike was only purchased three weeks before the murders anyway.
Maybe I am not making my point very clear,but just look at it this way,the prosecution wants you to believe that Bamber decided in june 1985 to use a bike to carry out the murders,yet did not purchase one.However in mid july his mum just happened to by a bike albeit a ladies bike and Bamber decided that he would somehow manage to obtain IT,to use in the crime.And luckily for Bamber,June did not take to the bike and he was free,albeit at the very last minute to either pinch the bike from under June's nose or ask her for a loan of it,JUST as Sheila and the boys are arriving at the farm.PHEW! Thats cutting it a bit fine isn't it?
Now you could argue that Bamber put off buying a bike in june or sometime before when he decided one would be needed because there was word of June buying a bike,but why would he gamble on this? June may have even changed her mind or if she did buy one take to it like a duck to water as said.
No,I think common sense tells us that as soon as Bamber decided to use a bike he would have bought one,and not waited on the off chance that June would buy one and disowen it soon after.
Poppycock! Just think the time line through from the first alleged mention of a bike by Bamber sometime in june until he finally got his hands on one just DAYS before the murders.
-
Please tell me now on this thread your belief of why Wilkinson cycles slowly. Don't refer me to anything please...
I have already done that on previous threads. Recently.
Do you have problems remembering things?
Are you not able to think of reasons yourself?
-
Please tell me now on this thread your belief of why Wilkinson cycles slowly. Don't refer me to anything please...
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11822.msg542259.html#msg542259
Reply 9. Posted a few days ago.
Please try to remember snd think of reasons yourself.
I have given you the fact that Wilkinson cycled 4 minutes per mile slower than the average time it takes cycling at an average pace to cycle a mile.
Obviously there will be reasons why.
-
OK,June bought her bike from a man in Maldon in mid july.
So let us put it all together.Bamber told Julie in june that he hoped that Sheila and the twins would visit the farm soon,SOON! And he had decided to use a bike in the execution of the crime and would do a trial run.
Surely this would mean getting hold of a bike ASAP to carry out the trial run and have the bike revved up ready to go,he said himself that he hoped Sheila would visit soon.So with harvest fast approaching when any spare time would be limited ,surely Bamber would have seen about getting hold of a bike there and then in preparation?
The school holidays would have started long before July,so Sheila could have appeared with the boys at any time.
Yet,here's the thing Bamber did not purchase a bike in june after deciding to use one in the shooting, nor in the first half of july,now keep in mind that Sheila could have arrived with the boys at short notice at any time and the harvest was starting,yet no bike had been purchased yet roughly a month after Bamber had decided to use one.
Then,low and behold June just happens to buy a bike in the nick of time,so Bamber decides he wont need to.
But lets just think about this for a minute,June buys the bike for her own use,so why does Bamber think he can just take it? Why would he imagine that he can just take it away,do a trial run and then use it to carry out the crime? What if June simply loved using the bike and used it every day without fail,how could JB steal it from her? Or even ask her to let Julie use it?
No way could Bamber count on using Junes bike,there is no way he could have known that she would not take to it and abandon it to be pinched or loaned even to Julie. And keep in mind,the bike was only purchased three weeks before the murders anyway.
Maybe I am not making my point very clear,but just look at it this way,the prosecution wants you to believe that Bamber decided in june 1985 to use a bike to carry out the murders,yet did not purchase one.However in mid july his mum just happened to by a bike albeit a ladies bike and Bamber decided that he would somehow manage to obtain IT,to use in the crime.And luckily for Bamber,June did not take to the bike and he was free,albeit at the very last minute to either pinch the bike from under June's nose or ask her for a loan of it,JUST as Sheila and the boys are arriving at the farm.PHEW! Thats cutting it a bit fine isn't it?
Now you could argue that Bamber put off buying a bike in june or sometime before when he decided one would be needed because there was word of June buying a bike,but why would he gamble on this? June may have even changed her mind or if she did buy one take to it like a duck to water as said.
No,I think common sense tells us that as soon as Bamber decided to use a bike he would have bought one,and not waited on the off chance that June would buy one and disowen it soon after.
Poppycock! Just think the time line through from the first alleged mention of a bike by Bamber sometime in june until he finally got his hands on one just DAYS before the murders.
The word here is 'hoped' they would visit.
No point Bamber buying a bike until he knows they are visiting.
Or better still when they are at WHF. Sheila & 6 year old boys would be unreliable & could cancel.
By the time he found out they were visiting or at WHF he didn't need to buy a bike as June had one.
-
Anyway the fact is June's bike arrived at Bamber's cottage 2 days before the massacre.
Julie testified Bamber planned to cycle The Sea Wall and believed it would take him 15 minutes.
Nevill, June & Bamber had cars and taxis existed in 1985. He did not steal June's bike so Julie could cycle from Goldhanger to Tolleshunt D'arcy.
-
Just did a Goldganger - Tolleshunt D'arcy route check online.
Says it would take 13 minutes to cycle via Maldon Road.
Tolleshunt D'arcy is further away than WHF. There is no way it would take 22 minutes longer to cycle from Goldhanger to WHF via The Sea Wall.
On a scale of 1-10 - 10 being 'flat out', 1 being walking pace, Wilkinson cycled at a 2.
-
I have already done that on previous threads. Recently.
Do you have problems remembering things?
Are you not able to think of reasons yourself?
I don't believe it happened
It's ludicrous
You are just on a wind up
-
Wilkinson was born in 1950
So only 35 at the time of the events.
He was born in Colchester. And more than likely if not familiar with the route. Had studied a map or coordinate before the journey
The pedometer would not need to be checked constantly. Just at the conclusion of the journey.
He was doing a reconissance mission of a suspected killers cycle run. None of this " 20 percent bollocks " he would go at a normal pace.
Doubtful he was unfit. Ainsley would have not got him to do it and got someone else instead.
Before you say source. Conduct your own research. You haven't provided sources for Wilkinsons escipades just opinions
-
I don't believe it happened
It's ludicrous
You are just on a wind up
I know you believe Bamber drove or cycled via Maldon Road.
But you have no choice but to agree Wilkinson cycled The Sea Wall at a 2/10 pace. It is a fact.
-
Wilkinson was born in 1950
So only 35 at the time of the events.
He was born in Colchester. And more than likely if not familiar with the route. Had studied a map or coordinate before the journey
The pedometer would not need to be checked constantly. Just at the conclusion of the journey.
He was doing a reconissance mission of a suspected killers cycle run. None of this " 20 percent bollocks " he would go at a normal pace.
Doubtful he was unfit. Ainsley would have not got him to do it and got someone else instead.
Before you say source. Conduct your own research. You haven't provided sources for Wilkinsons escipades just opinions
Source please.
Forth request.
-
Bit weird people don't accept facts.
People can run a mile in under 4 minutes. Wilkinson averaged over 8 minutes a mile!
Then people say he didn't cycle slowly!
-
Source please.
Forth request.
Research yourself. I'm not doing an university assignment.
Give me a source of Wilkinson doing what you claim in his cycle runs.
First request
-
Bit weird people don't accept facts.
People can run a mile in under 4 minutes. Wilkinson averaged over 8 minutes a mile!
Then people say he didn't cycle slowly!
He was on a reconissance.
Of a man ten years his junior.
-
Bit weird people don't accept facts.
People can run a mile in under 4 minutes. Wilkinson averaged over 8 minutes a mile!
Then people say he didn't cycle slowly!
Source of someone who is a none athlete. Or I will have to do my own research
-
Research yourself. I'm not doing an university assignment.
Give me a source of Wilkinson doing what you claim in his cycle runs.
First request
The source is his WS -
Surely you are not saying over 8 minutes per mile is an average or quick pace?
On a bike!
-
Research yourself. I'm not doing an university assignment.
Give me a source of Wilkinson doing what you claim in his cycle runs.
First request
So no source.
Are you Rob in disguise?
-
The source is his WS -
Surely you are not saying over 8 minutes per mile is an average or quick pace?
On a bike!
Which track is this ?
-
Not sure why ILB doesn't say -
'Yes Bamber could cycle 4.2 miles in around 15 minutes going at a fast pace. But I believe he drove or took another route'.
-
Which track is this ?
The Sea Wall is 4.2 miles.
He cycled it in 35 minutes. Which is twice as fast than what he walked it in.
Should be 5/6 times faster.
-
It is very easy to maintain a 15mph speed on a flat surface for 4.2 miles.
Which would have given Bamber a time of 16 minutes.
-
It is very easy to maintain a 15mph speed on a flat surface for 4.2 miles.
Which would have given Bamber a time of 16 minutes.
Source
-
Source
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cyclistshub.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-bike-4-miles/&ved=2ahUKEwj-rvbGhej_AhVSgFwKHZsoBjQQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2TTFGYqFk6yGHx80RzkgrT
-
Bamber cycling at a fast pace would go under 15 minutes.
-
I have just logged in and have become aware of an issue. Apologies I have not been actively moderating recently. Please give me an opportunity to liaise with ngb, as I am currently at work which is extremely busy at the moment.
-
Would call Bamber an 'intermediate' cyclist.
Not a beguinner but not advanced or a pro.
The table in my source says 16 minutes for an intermediate.
Here to help.
-
Wilkinson cycled 9 minutes slower than a beguinner!
-
If Bamber did cycle at an advanced cyclist speed, which is sustainable over 4.2 miles, he manages 11 minutes.
Wow.
-
So perfectly believable he told Julie he planned to cycle The Sea Wall and believed it would take 15 minutes.
But ILB will still disagree.
-
Well I would call Wilkinson 35 years of age in 1985 and Bamber 24 years old in 1985.
A little over a decade between them.
Both fit, the former a serving police officer tasked with doing a cycle journey. The latter only 24 and who worked long hours in a farm. Believe Bamber used the gym quite often back then as well. I know from experience he was obsessed with the gym in prison.
No difference in times. We haven't had the benefit of bamber and Wilkinson doing a marathon and comparing who would come first. Can't speak for individual fitness in terms of who was fitter than who
In any event. Again we will just have to agree to disagree
-
Well I would call Wilkinson 35 years of age in 1985 and Bamber 24 years old in 1985.
A little over a decade between them.
Both fit, the former a serving police officer tasked with doing a cycle journey. The latter only 24 and who worked long hours in a farm. Believe Bamber used the gym quite often back then as well. I know from experience he was obsessed with the gym in prison.
In any event. Again we will just have to agree to disagree
Need to see sources on Wilkinsons age & physical fitness.
Otherwise will consider him another Bews.
He said he was chosen as he knew the area a bit.
-
The OS complain Wilkinson was a different size and age to Bamber. To me that means - unfit.
Either way 4.2 miles was cycled at barely over fast walk pace by him.
-
The OS complain Wilkinson was a different size and age to Bamber. To me that means - unfit.
Either way 4.2 miles was cycled at barely over fast walk pace by him.
I have seen what the OS says
To be honest Bambers claim is that he never made a journey in the first place. So really there should be no complaint only denial !
-
Need to see sources on Wilkinsons age & physical fitness.
Otherwise will consider him another Bews.
He said he was chosen as he knew the area a bit.
You have seen footage of Bews from 2011 in the MWT programme. And in the Louie theroux documentary.
People get older, and fatter. He might have been a picture of health in 1985.
-
You have seen footage of Bews from 2011 in the MWT programme. And in the Louie theroux documentary.
People get older, and fatter. He might have been a picture of health in 1985.
Do you agree Bamber would think he could cycle The Sea Wall route in 15 minutes?
Julie's WS & court testimony says this.
-
Do you agree Bamber would think he could cycle The Sea Wall route in 15 minutes?
Julie's WS & court testimony says this.
There and back ?
-
The OS complain Wilkinson was a different size and age to Bamber. To me that means - unfit.
Either way 4.2 miles was cycled at barely over fast walk pace by him.
Adam,the whole point of timing the routes was to see how FAST they could be cycled.
The prosecution were desperate to prove Bamber phoned the police from WHF then from his cottage ten minutes later. Wilkinson would have been under orders to do the routes as fast as he possibly could.
Why else do you think they timed the routes? All the prosecution had to do was simply claim that Bamber used the bike and leave it at that. But then you know this,dont you Adam?
-
Adam,the whole point of timing the routes was to see how FAST they could be cycled.
The prosecution were desperate to prove Bamber phoned the police from WHF then from his cottage ten minutes later. Wilkinson would have been under orders to do the routes as fast as he possibly could.
Why else do you think they timed the routes? All the prosecution had to do was simply claim that Bamber used the bike and leave it at that. But then you know this,dont you Adam?
The prosecution case was to confirm the routes terrain and distance. Together on whether it passed any properties.
There case is he phoned Julie at 3am & the police at 3.26am. So time was not a big issue as Bamber did not believe it so.
-
And as for stealing the bike,this would have been very risky.Just suppose June noticed it was missing and told someone outside the family,a farm worker for example who then tells other farm workers.
In this case they would be witnesses that the bike was taken without Junes knowledge,then the games up for Bamber,proving that he stole the bike to use in the murders.
How could Bamber know who June had told about the bike being missing?
But,no one told the police that June was looking for her bike in the days leading up to the murders,so this means she either did not notice it had gone or Bamber did indeed ask for a loan of it for Julie to use.
-
In Robert Boutflours notes he makes up a scenario in which Bamber uses Junes bike,the entry is dated 11Aug,he says'bike at Bambers cottage,when did it arrive?.
So,RB knows by the 11th Aug that Junes bike is at JBs cottage,yet AE is looking for Junes bike at the WHF on 15th Aug.
Will have to check all AE and RBs evidence regarding the bike too.
Although the quote that AE was looking for the bike comes from 'Wilkes' book,so will be cautios.
-
No,its actually in AEs witness statement,looking for the bike because she didn't think the one that the police had shown her was Junes.Strange statement!
-
And as for stealing the bike,this would have been very risky.Just suppose June noticed it was missing and told someone outside the family,a farm worker for example who then tells other farm workers.
In this case they would be witnesses that the bike was taken without Junes knowledge,then the games up for Bamber,proving that he stole the bike to use in the murders.
How could Bamber know who June had told about the bike being missing?
But,no one told the police that June was looking for her bike in the days leading up to the murders,so this means she either did not notice it had gone or Bamber did indeed ask for a loan of it for Julie to use.
June didn't work on the farm. So unlikely to engage with any farm workers.
A slim chance she would notice and tell someone. Maybe told Nevill.
That is why the bike was stolen a couple of days before the massacre. Less chance of it being missed.
-
June didn't work on the farm. So unlikely to engage with any farm workers.
A slim chance she would notice and tell someone. Maybe told Nevill.
That is why the bike was stolen a couple of days before the massacre. Less chance of it being missed.
I see Adam.
Anyway,this story that June didn't take to the bike,where did that come from?
Where can I read about this?
-
I see Adam.
Anyway,this story that June didn't take to the bike,where did that come from?
Where can I read about this?
Only place I have read it is in Jeremy's police interviews.
-
Only place I have it is in Jeremy's police interviews.
Thank you.
-
OK,it is clearly stated in Robert Boutflours notes that on 11th Aug he knew that Junes bike was at Jeremy's cottage,asking the question'how long had it been there'. However on 15th Aug AE[for some reason] was pre-occupied with finding the bike and searched the farm.Sometime later both AE and RWB went to the police station with a list of written quiries,one of which was the whereabouts of Junes bike.
And low and behold on 22nd Aug AE was snooping around the back of JBs cottage and found Junes bike.
So are we to believe that RW made a mistake in his notes? And just why were the relatives looking for Junes bike,what business was it of theirs where the bike or anything else was? It wasn't their bike,yet they wanted the police to find it,why? And why didn't they simply ask JB if he knew where it was?
Why were they interfering with JBs property behind his back?
JB had apparently been selling things off from the farm or giving them away in some circumstances,why not the bike? Was it of special significance to the family?
AE even asked Barbara Wilson how much the bike cost and where it came from.Besides,June had only had the bike for three weeks before the murders,had the relatives even seen it,and if so why did it stick in their mind and need to be tracked down after her death? Didn't they have other more important things to think about?
-
Thought AE said she was looking for it at WHF but could not find it. AE was aware of the bike.
They thought Bamber may have cycled. They did not ask him about the bike as it may have alerted him about there suspisions.
-
The bike arrived the weekend before the massacre. Either Saturday or Sunday.
So at Goldhanger for 2 or 3 nights.
-
He had the option of putting the bike in his car.
Or cycling back on it via The Sea Wall - the trial run.
-
7 pages into this topic now. When will we get the confirmation?
-
7 pages into this topic now. When will we get the confirmation?
And almost 40 separate new threads, across the last three pages.
-
And almost 40 separate new threads, across the last three pages.
Being a moderator, I can only assume you wanted this since you have done absolutely nothing about it.
-
Being a moderator, I can only assume you wanted this since you have done absolutely nothing about it.
Why don't you volunteer to become a moderator?
-
Being a moderator, I can only assume you wanted this since you have done absolutely nothing about it.
This comment is so unhelpful.
-
Sorry to butt in.
But if everyone has calmed down and is happy now I would like to talk about another discrepancy regarding AE.
Now,much has been said about the time at which JB phoned Julie Mugford the second time on the night of the murders. In her first statement Julie said it was about 3.30,but then changed the time to 3.15 in later statements after checking with her flat mates.
Now heres the thing,in one of AEs statements she says that on the 8th Aug when Julie gave her first statement regarding the time of the second call, that the police asked if she was sure of the time because it was very important,so Julie phoned someone there and then and changed the time to 3.15.
Yet there is no mention of 3.15 on Julie's first statement,and just why was the time of the second call important on 8th Aug? JB wasn't even a suspect,so what possible reason would the police have to tell her that the time of the call was important and to double check?
Anyway,unless I am mistaken,AE stated that Julie changed the time from 3.30 to 3.15 the first time she was interviewed,yet this is not reflected in her first statement from 8th Aug.as far as I can see.
-
Sorry to butt in.
But if everyone has calmed down and is happy now I would like to talk about another discrepancy regarding AE.
Now,much has been said about the time at which JB phoned Julie Mugford the second time on the night of the murders. In her first statement Julie said it was about 3.30,but then changed the time to 3.15 in later statements after checking with her flat mates.
Now heres the thing,in one of AEs statements she says that on the 8th Aug when Julie gave her first statement regarding the time of the second call, that the police asked if she was sure of the time because it was very important,so Julie phoned someone there and then and changed the time to 3.15.
Yet there is no mention of 3.15 on Julie's first statement,and just why was the time of the second call important on 8th Aug? JB wasn't even a suspect,so what possible reason would the police have to tell her that the time of the call was important and to double check?
Anyway,unless I am mistaken,AE stated that Julie changed the time from 3.30 to 3.15 the first time she was interviewed,yet this is not reflected in her first statement from 8th Aug.as far as I can see.
Bamber called Julie at 3.00am in my view.
Certainly before he called the police.
-
Bamber called Julie at 3.00am in my view.
Certainly before he called the police.
Always go by a witnesse's first statement Adam.
We are told that over and over again.
-
Why don't you volunteer to become a moderator?
That would mean having to subject myself to all the inanity and indiscretion that is currently kept at bay by my ignore list settings.
Moderating a forum that does not ban disruptive and undesirable users is like trying to throw buckets of water out of a sinking boat instead of fixing the hole. What is the point?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrjR-s3XwAEsIK3.jpg:large)
-
Moderating a forum that does not ban disruptive and undesirable users is like trying to throw buckets of water out of a sinking boat instead of fixing the hole. What is the point?
Well one thing's for sure.. if a penalty of some sort is heading Adam's way, nobody can say that Adam hasn't been given a fair chance on here.
-
Adam definitely posts to goad people. I am well aware of that.
Having said that at times can post some interesting debates. But then spoils it with childish insults
-
Always go by a witnesse's first statement Adam.
We are told that over and over again.
Disagree with that.
People are often submitting new WS's. Because they forgot something or got something wrong on the original WS.
-
If the bike had arrived at Goldhanger 2 months prior to the massacre, that would have made a big difference.
Even better if Julie had actually cycled from Goldhanger to Tolleshunt D'arcy to get a bus.
Would have been much more convincing that he had been allowed to borrow the bike for a percific reason other than the massacre.
-
If at Goldhanger for 2 months, the prosecution could still say he had the chance to cycle to WHF.
However less convincing than the bike arriving 2 days before the massacre.
-
As usual Julie would be the main player here.
If she had said she had cycled to Tolleshunt D'arcy over those 2 months, that would have benefitted Bamber.
But hypothetical. The bike arrived 2 days before the massacre.
-
If at Goldhanger for 2 months, the prosecution could still say he had the chance to cycle to WHF.
However less convincing than the bike arriving 2 days before the massacre.
That bike couldn't have been at Goldhanger for 2 months Adam,June only bought it about 3 and a half weeks before the murders.
-
That bike couldn't have been at Goldhanger for 2 months Adam,June only bought it about 3 and a half weeks before the murders.
That is true.
Do you think Bamber would have bought a bike just before the massacre if June's was not available?
----------
That would have been a good new thread question.
-
That bike couldn't have been at Goldhanger for 2 months Adam,June only bought it about 3 and a half weeks before the murders.
But Bamber planned the crime for months Snow? I would like to know what he actually planned!
-
But Bamber planned the crime for months Snow? I would like to know what he actually planned!
Do you believe Bamber would have bought a bike just before the massacre if June's was not available?
-
Do you believe Bamber would have bought a bike just before the massacre if June's was not available?
No he would have walked how many more times Adam.
-
But Bamber planned the crime for months Snow? I would like to know what he actually planned!
Thats what I have been trying to get across to Adam Rob,as soon as Bamber decided to use a bike for the murders he would have bought one.not waited till Sheila and the boys arrived and nicked June's one.
And as I said,according to Julie JB had decided to use a bike long before June spoke of buying one.And how could Bamber predict that June would buy a bike berore Sheila visited or even if she would end up buying one at all?
As Adam said himself Sheila AND the boys visiting the farm was a rare occasion,so JB wouldn't want to miss his chance for want of having a bike at hand ready to go.No way he would have depended on his mum buying one surely?
-
No he would have walked how many more times Adam.
He wouldn't fancy walking.
If he could get a second hand bike & pay in cash, believe he would have bought one.
A pity this issue can't be a seperate thread. But out of my control.
-
Thats what I have been trying to get across to Adam Rob,as soon as Bamber decided to use a bike for the murders he would have bought one.not waited till Sheila and the boys arrived and nicked June's one.
And as I said,according to Julie JB had decided to use a bike long before June spoke of buying one.And how could Bamber predict that June would buy a bike berore Sheila visited or even if she would end up buying one at all?
As Adam said himself Sheila AND the boys visiting the farm was a rare occasion,so JB wouldn't want to miss his chance for want of having a bike at hand ready to go.No way he would have depended on his mum buying one surely?
I agree Snow, all this so called planning? there was none apart from making sure everyone knew!
My belief is he would have walked/run could take a more direct route and much safer.
-
He wouldn't fancy walking.
If he could get a second hand bike & pay in cash, believe he would have bought one.
A pity this issue can't be a seperate thread. But out of my control.
What do you mean he wouldn't fancy walking? He was going to kill five people walking is the least of his worries!
I believe not much slower than cycling anyway - it was dark remember!
-
I agree Snow, all this so called planning? there was none apart from making sure everyone knew!
My belief is he would have walked/run could take a more direct route and much safer.
The evidence is he cycled -
June's bike stolen 2 days before.
Julie's WS.
-----------
-
That is true.
Do you think Bamber would have bought a bike just before the massacre if June's was not available?
----------
That would have been a good new thread question.
But thats the point Adam,he didn't know WHEN the massacre would be in advance,he didn't know a date,he only HOPED that both Sheila and the boys would be visiting soon,so surely the bike would need to be bought ASAP in readiness.
-
But thats the point Adam,he didn't know WHEN the massacre would be in advance,he didn't know a date,he only HOPED that both Sheila and the boys would be visiting soon,so surely the bike would need to be bought ASAP in readiness.
You may disagree Snow but to me the bike is a total red herring, average cycling speed in total darkness would be less than 10mph, he could force walk at 4mph and take a more direct route.
-
But thats the point Adam,he didn't know WHEN the massacre would be in advance,he didn't know a date,he only HOPED that both Sheila and the boys would be visiting soon,so surely the bike would need to be bought ASAP in readiness.
Not really. He could buy a bike a couple of days before.
Suspect he knew Sheila was visiting around a week beforehand.
-
The bike was brought for Julie
-
The bike was brought for Julie
🙂
-
🙂
I believe him
You don't
That's fair enough
-
You may disagree Snow but to me the bike is a total red herring, average cycling speed in total darkness would be less than 10mph, he could force walk at 4mph and take a more direct route.
But the whole thing is Rob,we are being drawn into giving our opinion of how Bamber got to and from the farm.In reality we dont think Bamber was near the farm that night,so the whole JB scenario is a bit of a red herring really I suppose.
-
I suppose from an innocent point of view a simple way of explaining things would be,the relatives invented the JB scenario and Julie was used a month later to confirm/endorse it as FACT in her witness statement.
Simple as that!
Julie was repeating what the relatives had decided to be the way JB carried out the crime.
-
Guess there won't be any confirmation. Misleading title.
-
Guess there won't be any confirmation. Misleading title.
Do you think Julie getting a taxi would have been more normal?
-
Bamber by his own admission told June and Nevill he was borrowing the bike.
-
Bamber by his own admission told June and Nevill he was borrowing the bike.
No one told AE. She went looking for it at WHF.
-
No one told AE. She went looking for it at WHF.
What business of AE is it of Jeremy borrowing a bike from his mum ?
-
What business of AE is it of Jeremy borrowing a bike from his mum ?
She's that nebby, it's a wonder she doesn't look like Barry Manilow from the side.
-
She's that nebby, it's a wonder she doesn't look like Barry Manilow from the side.
Believe AE snapped at jeremy over his delay to sort out granny Bambers jewelry and money and he in my opinion rightly snapped back by saying " she wasn't even no relation to you "
-
What business of AE is it of Jeremy borrowing a bike from his mum ?
Would you think it more normal for a girlfriend who had stayed over to get a taxi. Either home or to the station?
If the boyfriend is surprisingly not available.
-
Would you think it more normal for a girlfriend who had stayed over to get a taxi. Either home or to the station?
If the boyfriend is surprisingly not available.
A taxi is an option.
The OS state it was for the return journey to Colchester. They mention a pub. The red lion Perhaps if the landlord at the time is still alive he could verify it? They say it was stored there.
In his police interviews Jeremy Bamber said that Julie had mentioned to him she had wanted the bike on different occasions.
-
Bamber by his own admission told June and Nevill he was borrowing the bike.
There is now only the Queen's Head in Tolleshunt D'arcy, but back then, what is now an Indian takeaway on the junction of Tollesbury Road and Maldon Road, is the Red Lion.
It has just occurred to me that I seem to recall there being on of those shed-like structures outside where people could leave their bikes. I can only think the bus JM wanted was a local Osborne's Tollesbury/Colchester bus because there'd have been no point in her cycling from Goldhanger to D'arcy when the Maldon/Colchester bus went right past the top of JB's road.
-
Has Julie ever said anything along the lines of " I never wanted the bike at all, he's talking bollocks " ?
-
Bamber by his own admission told June and Nevill he was borrowing the bike.
Adam claimed he was going to post confirmation it was stolen.
-
Has Julie ever said " I never suggested to Jeremy I wanted a bike at anytime "
-
Adam claimed he was going to post confirmation it was stolen.
Do you believe Adams sentiment that June and Jeremy were completely mute with one another at all times?
-
Adam claimed he was going to post confirmation it was stolen.
Its laughable
How many of us " have borrowed " things from put parents on a never never return basis.
June probably didn't want it back anyway. I believe Jeremy is telling the truth that he did borrow it with permission.
-
Julie's WS says she first saw the bike on Sunday 4th August.
Bamber was obviously planning the massacre on Monday or Tuesday night/morning.
Ringing Julie on Tuesday night at 10am to confirm he was going ahead.
-
What would be interesting to know is if Bamber went for supper on Monday night.
Guess only Bamber & the deceased will know. Julie was in Lewisham.
-
What would be interesting to know is if Bamber went for supper on Monday night.
Guess only Bamber & the deceased will know. Julie was in Lewisham.
I don't follow.
He probably had supper there most nights. He worked late
Saves messing around cooking at bourtree
-
Not sure what time Julie left on Sunday. Or whether it was Monday morning.
Bamber having the bike from Sunday, suspect he planned to commit the massacre on Monday. But Sheila was too alert.
-
Or he planned to do a Monday night trial cycle ride
-
The two certain things are -
The bike arrived just before the massacre. June unlikely to notice or report.
He had time to do a night time trial run. As Julie said he planned to.
-
The other certain thing is Monday night Bamber had the option of either -
Committing the massacre.
Doing a trial cycle ride.
-
If he did plan to do a Monday night massacre, he obviously changed his mind. Maybe Sheila was not docile enough.
-
Not sure what time Julie left on Sunday. Or whether it was Monday morning.
Bamber having the bike from Sunday, suspect he planned to commit the massacre on Monday. But Sheila was too alert.
Did you come to this case at the beginning with an open mind ?
-
Did you come to this case at the beginning with an open mind ?
Very much so. Case had been floating around & I was aware of it. Remember seeing Bamber in his suit & thinking how suave he looked.
Investigated online & Youtube. Which is both pro & anti. Then bought Wilkes's book. Which had the best reviews.
-
Very much so. Case had been floating around & I was aware of it. Remember seeing Bamber in his suit & thinking how suave he looked.
He was a good looking fella.
-
Think he looked best in a suit with shorter hair.
Together with when his hair was slicked back when getting into the white van. No surprise there as he had just returned from St Tropez!
-
Think he looked best in a suit with shorter hair.
Together with when his hair was slicked back when getting into the white van. No surprise there as he had just returned from St Tropez!
That does not make him gulity ?
-
I personally believe justice drakes summing up was completely biased.
Made very little mention of Jeremy Bambers evidence.
-
I personally believe justice drakes summing up was completely biased.
Made very little mention of Jeremy Bambers evidence.
What evidence?
-
I personally believe justice drakes summing up was completely biased.
Made very little mention of Jeremy Bambers evidence.
He was an ex-RAF pilot so bound to be sympathetic to Nevill. Plus the trial was held at Chelmsford and not the Old Bailey.
That's not to say the correct verdict wasn't reached: it was.
-
He was an ex-RAF pilot so bound to be sympathetic to Nevill. Plus the trial was held at Chelmsford and not the Old Bailey.
That's not to say the correct verdict wasn't reached: it was.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4911.msg251196.html#msg251196
There is a seperate thread on the judges summing up.
Better to keep to the thread topic.
Do you think Bamber stole June's bike?
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4911.msg251196.html#msg251196
There is a seperate thread on the judges summing up.
Better to keep to the thread topic.
Do you think Bamber stole June's bike?
I thought the remote possibility that the blood in the silencer could be a mixture of Nevill and June's came post-trial, but I may be wrong. As for the bicycle I have no idea whether Jeremy borrowed or stole it.
-
I thought the remote possibility that the blood in the silencer could be a mixture of Nevill and June's came post-trial, but I may be wrong. As for the bicycle I have no idea whether Jeremy borrowed or stole it.
Not asking if you know or not.
I am asking you what you think.
You were also evasive when I asked you how Bamber travelled to WHF. Of which you must have an opinion.
-
Not asking if you know or not.
I am asking you what you think.
You were also evasive when I asked you how Bamber travelled to WHF. Of which you must have an opinion.
I wasn't evasive, but told ILB that a neighbour said his car hadn't moved all night. He might well have used a bicycle but I would be guessing like everyone else.
-
I wasn't evasive, but told ILB that a neighbour said his car hadn't moved all night. He might well have used a bicycle but I would be guessing like everyone else.
Have you got more details of the neighbour?
If he had been awake all night & not heard the car, that is important.
If he had slept & the car was just in the same place the following morning, that means nothing.
-
I thought the remote possibility that the blood in the silencer could be a mixture of Nevill and June's came post-trial, but I may be wrong. As for the bicycle I have no idea whether Jeremy borrowed or stole it.
Nor I, Steve, so I've had to weigh up the probabilities of both, whilst considering how likely it was that JB and June weren't speaking at all. If they weren't -and for me, it's a very big "IF"- then it's quite likely that JB might have stolen it out of spite. However, from what we know of June, I find it more than hard to believe she'd have cut ties with her son, whatever he'd done, to the point at which conversation was zero. I think she'd have been sad and disappointed, but maintaining total silence, on a daily basis, especially when JB visited WHF regularly, if not daily. I don't think such behaviour can be applied to June. Of course, I can't vouch for JB, but there would certainly have needed to be a conversation had he asked to borrow the bike for Julie.
-
Have you got more details of the neighbour?
If he had been awake all night & not heard the car, that is important.
If he had slept & the car was just in the same place the following morning, that means nothing.
Then again if the neighbour was awake all night, he would have heard Bamber leave to meet the police.
The neighbour is of no relevance.
-
Nor I, Steve, so I've had to weigh up the probabilities of both, whilst considering how likely it was that JB and June weren't speaking at all. If they weren't -and for me, it's a very big "IF"- then it's quite likely that JB might have stolen it out of spite. However, from what we know of June, I find it more than hard to believe she'd have cut ties with her son, whatever he'd done, to the point at which conversation was zero. I think she'd have been sad and disappointed, but maintaining total silence, on a daily basis, especially when JB visited WHF regularly, if not daily. I don't think such behaviour can be applied to June. Of course, I can't vouch for JB, but there would certainly have needed to be a conversation had he asked to borrow the bike for Julie.
Do you think Bamber got the bike on Sunday to -
Commit the massacre on Monday.
Do a trial cycle run on Monday.
----------
With the bike at Goldhanger from Sunday, I don't believe Monday was slated for nothing.
-
If he planned to commit the massacre on Monday night/Tuesday morning, he would certainly just take the bike.
It would only be missing from WHF for about 30 hours.
-
The only reasons I can think for not going ahead on Monday are -
He wanted to do a cycle trial run instead.
Sheila was not docile enough.
----------
Either way he was certainly in a 'tonights the night' mode when ringing Julie on Tuesday.
-
Do you think Bamber got the bike on Sunday to -
Commit the massacre on Monday.
Do a trial run on Monday.
----------
With the bike at Goldhanger from Sunday, I don't believe Monday was slated for nothing.
Is it known if he explained his need for it to anyone? I'm guessing not, but it would surely have had to be there for Julie's use if he'd given that as a reason.
As Julie hasn't noted anything suspicious out his behaviour on Sunday, it suggests all was as it usually was.
It maybe that he wanted Julie out of the way before he took action. The last thing he'd have wanted was Julie trying to prevent his plan.
-
Julie's WS says he planned to do a trial cycle ride - Monday.
-
Julie's WS says he planned to do a trial cycle ride - Monday.
Do we know how Julie got to the station on Monday? He could have driven her to the station, come back via Goldhanger and swapped the car for the bike?
-
Have you got more details of the neighbour?
If he had been awake all night & not heard the car, that is important.
If he had slept & the car was just in the same place the following morning, that means nothing.
From memory a neighbour stated he/she had not seen the car move all night. That's all I can recall, apart from this excerpt, which I post here: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Jeremy_Bamber/H8U7AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
It's in Chapter 5: The Prosecution's Argument.
-
From memory a neighbour stated he/she had not seen the car move all night. That's all I can recall, apart from this excerpt, which I post here: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Jeremy_Bamber/H8U7AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
It's in Chapter 5: The Prosecution's Argument.
In fairness it's most likely though if he used the car the neighbour would be asleep at the time he set off.
Watch the theroux documentary. David Kennedy was Jeremy Bambers neighbour in 1985
He doesn't say much really
-
Apologies Pete Kennedy I think his name was
-
Surely Julie could have dispelled the bike myth her self?
-
Surely Julie could have dispelled the bike myth her self?
Was it relevant to the murder trial how Julie returned to Caterham Road?
-
Doubtful Bamber would be too busy to drive Julie.
Five mins - Goldhanger to TD.
Ten mins - WHF - Goldhanger - TD
-
Was it relevant to the murder trial how Julie returned to Caterham Road?
Jeremy Bamber said he got the bike for Julie's purpose
Julie could have said " I never asked for the bike at all ,"
-
What evidence?
His time in the witness box
I have the cross examination transcript.
-
Jeremy Bamber said he got the bike for Julie's purpose
Julie could have said " I never asked for the bike at all ,"
Indeed, but did she ever mention having said it would be a good idea for her to have one?
-
It was Robert Boutflour I believe, who suggested Bamber had gone on foot to White House Farm and ridden the bicycle back to Bourtree Cottage.
-
It was Robert Boutflour I believe, who suggested Bamber had gone on foot to White House Farm and ridden the bicycle back to Bourtree Cottage.
Correct Steve.
Because he once witnessed Jeremy sulking and setting off walking miles home because an argument with Shelia
-
Indeed, but did she ever mention having said it would be a good idea for her to have one?
All I can say if she never wanted one she could have mentioned it in evidence. It if anything makes the prosecution cycle theory stronger if she did mention she never wanted the cycle.
It must have been put to her on record Jeremy's reason of why he said he possessed it ?
-
June had only recently bought the bike.
June had bought it for herself.
Bamber could afford to buy his own second hand bike.
June and Bamber were not talking to each other. Multiple sources online.
Bike arrived 2 days before the massacre.
Reason given for bike of Julie cycling home not valid.
Julie testified Bamber planned to cycle The Sea Wall.
Bamber said relationship with Julie coming to a close. No reason to get a bike.
Driving or walking to WHF not credible options.
June likely to tell Bamber to buy his own bike even if they were speaking.
Bike easy to steal as Bamber
worked at WHF.
No point Bamber buying a bike just for 30-40 minutes of cycling on one night.
The bike arriving just before the massacre gives June less time to notice and investigate.
Bamber had committed previous crimes against his family.
June would tell Bamber to drive Julie or pay for a taxi.
Bamber had a car so could easily transfer the bike.
No other bikes available for him free of charge.
Nevill did not have a bike.
No record of Julie or Bamber using the bike after it arrived at Head Street.
Not sure what BuboBubo is complaining about today in another thread. Here are 19 reasons.
-
If he had bought a bike instead just before the massacre, that would have not been an advantage to him.
Julie would still say she saw a bike just before the massacre. Bamber would have to justify why he bought it.
June's bike was cheaper for the 30 - 40 minutes of cycling on one occasion.
-
What he would not be expecting was that the relatives were aware June had a bike.
Or that AE & RB would start looking for it and making suggestions to each other and the police. After eventually seeing it at Goldhanger.
-
13 pages in. Still no confirmation
-
Will have to compare Julie's WS to when Snow66! said June got a bike.
If he told Julie after June had bought the bike he planned to cycle, then June having a bike was a clincher for him.
-
Still do not believe he would have walked.
If June did not have a bike, he would have bought or stolen one beforehand.
-
A long list of conjecture, exaggerations, half truths, outright lies with a few irrelevant facts thrown in to lend credence to all the other bs listed. Is not conformation of anything.
-
Julie's WS says he said he planned to cycle in mid June.
Snow66! says June got the bike in mid July.
Hopefully Snow66! provides the source.
-
A mini time line -
Mid June.
Bamber tells Julie he hoped Sheila, Daniel and Nicholas visit WHF.
He says he would cycle and do a trial run.
Mid July
June buys a bike.
Early August
Sheila, Daniel and Nicholas visit.
Sunday 5th August 1985
June's Bike arrives at Goldhanger.
Monday 6th August 1985
Trial cycle ride.
Tuesday 7th August 1985
Massacre.
-
Need a source on when June bought the bike.
-
Need a source on when June bought the bike.
Wilkes. Page 118
-
Wilkes. Page 118
Thank you. I should have known.
-
If Wilkes and Julie's dates are correct, he must have planned to buy or steal a bike from somewhere.
Then did not need to when June got a bike.
-
If Wilkes and Julie's dates are correct, he must have planned to buy or steal a bike from somewhere.
Then did not need to when June got a bike.
Also, AE witness statement 16th sep 1985,sheet 10.
Bike bought on 13th july...
-
Also, AE witness statement 16th sep 1985,sheet 10.
Bike bought on 13th july...
Thank you.
-
An advantage of stealing June's bike is that she couldn't tell the police after the massacre it was stolen.
-
Were there other bikes at WHF?
BW says Bamber used to taunt June while riding a bike.
-
Were there other bikes at WHF?
BW says Bamber used to taunt June while riding a bike.
Now,you may have something there Adam.Didn't the police show AE a bike at WHF when she was looking for June's one?
Why didn't Bamber covertly steal IT,instead of Junes?
-
Now,you may have something there Adam.Didn't the police show AE a bike at WHF when she was looking for June's one?
Why didn't Bamber covertly steal IT,instead of Junes?
Maybe the bike June bought was an upgrade. Which is why she bought it.
Bamber intially planned to use the other one.
-
If June did have another bike beforehand, surprised Bamber did not take it back to Goldhanger for Julie.
June no longer needed it as she had a new one.
-
If June did have another bike beforehand, surprised Bamber did not take it back to Goldhanger for Julie.
June no longer needed it as she had a new one.
Maybe the bike the police showed AE wasn't a ladies bike and no use to Julie Adam.
No use Julie mounting a mans push bike and ripping her knickers.
Yes you may well have something here,if the bike that the police showed AE was road worthy,why didn't JB take that one?
Does this undermine the prosecution case Adam?
-
Maybe the bike the police showed AE wasn't a ladies bike and no use to Julie Adam.
No use Julie mounting a mans push bike and ripping her knickers.
Yes you may well have something here,if the bike that the police showed AE was road worthy,why didn't JB take that one?
Does this undermine the prosecution case Adam?
I don't understand that.
The bike AE saw at Goldhanger was a ladies bike.
Did the police show AE another bike?
-
I don't understand that.
The bike AE saw at Goldhanger was a ladies bike.
Did the police show AE another bike?
Yes,at the WHF.
-
Yes,at the WHF.
Assume that belonged to June as well.
Bamber must have planned to use that bike intially.
-
Yes,at the WHF.
Do you have a source?
-
Do you have a source?
Yes,of course Adam,but it may take a while to remember where I read it,and find it again.
-
Yes,of course Adam,but it may take a while to remember where I read it,and find it again.
Thank you.
-
It seems there was always a bike at WHF.
A bike arriving at Goldhanger only 2 days before the massacre is very suspiscious if there had been a bike at WHF for years.
-
A mini time line -
Mid June.
Bamber tells Julie he hoped Sheila, Daniel and Nicholas visit WHF.
He says he would cycle and do a trial run.
Mid July
June buys a bike.
Early August
Sheila, Daniel and Nicholas visit.
Sunday 5th August 1985
June's Bike arrives at Goldhanger.
Monday 6th August 1985
Trial cycle ride.
Tuesday 7th August 1985
Massacre.
This may be updated. Seems there may have been a bike at WHF before mid July.
-
This may be updated. Seems there may have been a bike at WHF before mid July.
For heavens sake Adam,the information about the bike is also on sheet 10 of AEs 16 sep witness statement.
Very strange,AE is apparently shown a bike by the police at WHF but knows by the condition of it that it isn't worth 40 pounds so therefore it couldn't be June's bike.What? What kind of nonsense is this?
And why did AE need to know when the bike was bought and how much it cost? Why not just look for the bike,something odd here!
-
For heavens sake Adam,the information about the bike is also on sheet 10 of AEs 16 sep witness statement.
Very strange,AE is apparently shown a bike by the police at WHF but knows by the condition of it that it isn't worth 40 pounds so therefore it couldn't be June's bike.What? What kind of nonsense is this?
And why did AE need to know when the bike was bought and how much it cost? Why not just look for the bike,something odd here!
That must have been the bike Bamber planned to use when he spoke to Julie in mid June.
By the 7th August 1985, a better bike was available.
-
That must have been the bike Bamber planned to use when he spoke to Julie in mid June.
By the 7th August 1985, a better bike was available.
No,I think there's more to it than that Adam.Will have to research further.
-
Did Julie ever comment on Jeremy's claim of him getting the bike for her?
-
Surely Julie saying " I never asked for the bike at all " puts his claim of why it was there to bed ?
-
No,I think there's more to it than that Adam.Will have to research further.
Please do and report back.
-
Please do and report back.
I will.
-
Did Julie ever comment on Jeremy's claim of him getting the bike for her?
Didn't she say that she asked for a bike the previous summer ILB,or at least hint that one would be handy.
-
For heavens sake Adam,the information about the bike is also on sheet 10 of AEs 16 sep witness statement.
Very strange,AE is apparently shown a bike by the police at WHF but knows by the condition of it that it isn't worth 40 pounds so therefore it couldn't be June's bike.What? What kind of nonsense is this?
And why did AE need to know when the bike was bought and how much it cost? Why not just look for the bike,something odd here!
It was all part of the family and EP creating a back story. As I have posted before they had to produce an accomplice or a means for JB to make both calls. There was a chance that the defence might go for a call from NB but as we know that never materialised, because West testified to his second statement not his log and the defence were too busy trying to undermine the SM evidence. They also had to fabricate the entry method and the banging of the kitchen window it to close it. This was also part of the back story for how JB manged to exit a supposedly secure building. It was AE who came up with that ploy. I hope Adam does not resurrect the AM thread
-
It was all part of the family and EP creating a back story. As I have posted before they had to produce an accomplice or a means for JB to make both calls. There was a chance that the defence might go for a call from NB but as we know that never materialised, because West testified to his second statement not his log and the defence were too busy trying to undermine the SM evidence. They also had to fabricate the entry method and the banging of the kitchen window it to close it. This was also part of the back story for how JB manged to exit a supposedly secure building. It was AE who came up with that ploy. I hope Adam does not resurrect the AM thread
Oh yes,there is no doubt it was all a back story Bubo.Why on earth would the relatives be looking into a bike being used within days of the murder? For one thing,how did they know that all other transport had been ruled out by the police investigation at that stage.As you say,once all enquiries were concluded with no witness seeing Bamber leave his house that night the police had to come up with a way that JB could get back home from the WHF in around ten minutes incase the jury believed JB was telling the truth about a call from Nevill,hence the bike was needed,walking would have taken far too long.
But as you say,when the jury were told that it was Sheilas blood only in the silencer the phone calls seemed of little importance.
-
Oh yes,there is no doubt it was all a back story Bubo.Why on earth would the relatives be looking into a bike being used within days of the murder? For one thing,how did they know that all other transport had been ruled out by the police investigation at that stage.As you say,once all enquiries were concluded with no witness seeing Bamber leave his house that night the police had to come up with a way that JB could get back home from the WHF in around ten minutes incase the jury believed JB was telling the truth about a call from Nevill,hence the bike was needed,walking would have taken far too long.
But as you say,when the jury were told that it was Sheilas blood only in the silencer the phone calls seemed of little importance.
Remember also that the families suspicions had to be earlier because they had to claim they found the SM on the 10/07/85 which had to be before an SM was sent to the lab 13/07/85.
-
Didn't she say that she asked for a bike the previous summer ILB,or at least hint that one would be handy.
Not to sure snow
Surely she was asked about it. It forms a key prosecution point.
-
Oh yes,there is no doubt it was all a back story Bubo.Why on earth would the relatives be looking into a bike being used within days of the murder? For one thing,how did they know that all other transport had been ruled out by the police investigation at that stage.As you say,once all enquiries were concluded with no witness seeing Bamber leave his house that night the police had to come up with a way that JB could get back home from the WHF in around ten minutes incase the jury believed JB was telling the truth about a call from Nevill,hence the bike was needed,walking would have taken far too long.
But as you say,when the jury were told that it was Sheilas blood only in the silencer the phone calls seemed of little importance.
Because they suspected Bamber.
-
Oh yes,there is no doubt it was all a back story Bubo.Why on earth would the relatives be looking into a bike being used within days of the murder? For one thing,how did they know that all other transport had been ruled out by the police investigation at that stage.As you say,once all enquiries were concluded with no witness seeing Bamber leave his house that night the police had to come up with a way that JB could get back home from the WHF in around ten minutes incase the jury believed JB was telling the truth about a call from Nevill,hence the bike was needed,walking would have taken far too long.
But as you say,when the jury were told that it was Sheilas blood only in the silencer the phone calls seemed of little importance.
Agree walking would take too long.
-
Another bike being at WHF before mid July supports Julie's WS - he said in mid June he planned to cycle and do a trial run.
A bike was available in mid June to commit the massacre Free of charge. Once everyone was at WHF.
-
Did Bamber do his trial run on Monday the 6th August 1985, or weeks or months before on another WHF bike?
Either were available to him.
-
Did Bamber do his trial run on Monday the 6th August 1985, or weeks or months before on another WHF bike?
Either were available to him.
No.
-
I think you are over analysing this personally.
-
Did Bamber do his trial run on Monday the 6th August 1985, or weeks or months before on another WHF bike?
Either were available to him.
Answering my own question & going by Julie's WS, Bamber had not done a trial run prior to mid June 1985.
-
Answering my own question & going by Julie's WS, Bamber had not done a trial run prior to mid June 1985.
Do you believe Julie disputed Bambers reason for getting the bike for her ?
-
Most appropriate to do a trial run once you know everyone is visiting. Which was probably late July.
-
June's new bike was at WHF prior to Bamber finding out about Sheila's visit.
It was not stolen until the 5th August 1985.
This suggests a trial cycle run on Monday 6th August 1985.
-
The two cycle trial run possibilities are -
Between mid June - mid July. On another bike.
Monday 6th August 1985.
---------
-
I do not believe Bamber took June's new bike in July, did a trial run, returned the bike to WHF, then took the bike again on the 5th August 1985.
If he had done that, then the massacre would have gone ahead on Monday 6th August 1985.
-
The only other reason the massacre would not have gone ahead on Monday 6th August 1985, is if Sheila was not docile enough.
For me it is more likely he did a trial run on the 6th August 1985.
-
Do you believe Julie rubbished Jeremy's cycle for her claim?
-
I don't agree June would have reported a stolen bike to the police. How many people do that?
However she may have told non WHF people. Once she noticed it missing.
Therefore it was in his best interests to take the bike as close to the massacre as possible.
The massacre not going ahead on Monday was either because of a trial run, or Sheila was not docile enough.
-
I don't agree June would have reported a stolen bike to the police. How many people do that?
However she may have told non WHF people. Once she noticed it missing.
Therefore it was in his best interests to take the bike as close to the massacre as possible.
The massacre not going ahead on Monday was either because of a trial run, or Sheila was not docile enough.
Think again we are stifling sensible debate here
Adam is adamant Bamber stole the bike
Without evidence to prove so
-
Supporters will agree a guilty Bamber would take the bike as close as possible to the massacre.
They just don't accept the COA forensic evidence.
-
Think it is doubtful Sheila was too alert on Monday night.
Was probably in a similar condition to Tuesday night. Bamber & the housekeeper saying she was non responsive on Tuesday.
Monday night was trial cycle ride night.
-
Supporters will agree a guilty Bamber would take the bike as close as possible to the massacre.
They just don't accept the COA forensic evidence.
COA is an independent body
-
Supporters will agree a guilty Bamber would take the bike as close as possible to the massacre.
They just don't accept the COA forensic evidence.
I would like to read DR ismails evidence
-
Borrowing a bike from June could have been done at any time during the 18 months Bamber and Julie were together.
Snow66! confirmed June had a bike prior to mid July 1985.
-
Obviously a bike arriving a day before the prosecutions aledged trial and proper bike ride is very suspiscious.
-
Obviously a bike arriving a day before the prosecutions aledged trial and proper bike ride is very suspiscious.
Just what exactly was the purpose of a trial run Adam? Julie told the police that JB planned to use the phone with the last number dialled function to secure an alibi,so why would it matter how long it took to get back home? A few minutes back or fore would be of no consequense would it?
-
Just what exactly was the purpose of a trial run Adam? Julie told the police that JB planned to use the phone with the last number dialled function to secure an alibi,so why would it matter how long it took to get back home? A few minutes back or fore would be of no consequense would it?
Preparation.
-
Doing a trial run would not take long. He will still get a good nights sleep and be ready for work.
The advantage is once he has cycled to WHF. He has to cycle back.
So is getting good cycling experience of the route. The night before.
-
A successful trial bike ride will make him more confident.
It is the only thing he can do a dummy run on. Once inside WHF it is a one off.
-
There is no evidence of him using the bike August 7th 1985 let some a trial run beforehand
-
There is no evidence of him using the bike August 7th 1985 let some a trial run beforehand
Bamber has been convicted of the massacre. There are 200 pieces of incriminating evidence. Eighty forensic in the COA document.
The bike arrived two days before the massacre. Time for a trial cycle ride and 'tonight's the night' cycle ride.
Julie said he planned to cycle and do a trial run.
What more do you want, CCTV?
-
I would have done a trial cycle ride. Won't take long.
The Sea Wall is not somewhere he farmed, drove down or walked down.
He may have never been there at night.
He was not a cyclist. So a good idea to have a work out and get into cycling mode. Both mentally and physically.
-
Regarding timelines, the judge also questioned getting a bike for Julie when he testified the relationship had been coming to a close.
Jeremy indirectly giving testimony evidence he cycled
-
Regarding forensic evidence that he cycled, The Sea Wall being available is very strong for the prosecution.
It passes no properties.
Me, Rob & Snow66! would certainly not want to pass any properties. Some of the jury would feel the same.
-
Bamber has been convicted of the massacre. There are 200 pieces of incriminating evidence. Eighty forensic in the COA document.
The bike arrived two days before the massacre. Time for a trial cycle ride and 'tonight's the night' cycle ride.
Julie said he planned to cycle and do a trial run.
What more do you want, CCTV?
I don't agree with it. But in this instance we are discussing the bike.
You have the word of Julie
Julie has not disputed Bambers claim of getting the bike for her
-
The other option for him was to buy a bike for Julie.
People say he was well off for his age. So could afford to buy a second hand bike.
I'm sure Julie would have contributed to the cost. So she did not have to get a taxi!
However no bike was purchased over 18 months.
-
A bike arriving for free a day before a trial cycle run had to be done, confirms it had arrived for one job.
An important job.
-
A bike arriving for free a day before a trial cycle run had to be done, confirms it had arrived for one job.
An important job.
Why hasn't Julie mugford disputed Jeremy Bambers bike claim for her?
-
Why hasn't Julie mugford disputed Jeremy Bambers bike claim for her?
She has -
Her WS says he planned to cycle and do a trial run.
Her testimony says he said he planned to cycle the Sea Wall.
-
She has -
Her WS says he planned to cycle and do a trial run.
Her testimony says he said he planned to cycle the Sea Wall.
I think ILB means why hasn't Julie confirmed that Jeremy brought the bicycle to Bourtree Cottage for her to use?
-
I think ILB means why hasn't Julie confirmed that Jeremy brought the bicycle to Bourtree Cottage for her to use?
Correct
-
She has -
Her WS says he planned to cycle and do a trial run.
Her testimony says he said he planned to cycle the Sea Wall.
Does her WS say " he planned to steal the bike from his mum ?
-
The other option for him was to buy a bike for Julie.
People say he was well off for his age. So could afford to buy a second hand bike.
I'm sure Julie would have contributed to the cost. So she did not have to get a taxi!
However no bike was purchased over 18 months.
The bike was probably a whimsical purchase by June Bamber.
In actual fact is was probably just kept on the farm as tool if anything. I'd garner it was used by farm workers.
You make it out June Bamber was attached to the bike. She more than likely wasn't.
-
Unless someone can say " I saw Jeremy Bamber steal the bike "
Then his claim remains valid that he borrowed it.
Julie hasn't disputed his borrowing it for her reason.
-
Unless someone can say " I saw Jeremy Bamber steal the bike "
Then his claim remains valid that he borrowed it.
Julie hasn't disputed his borrowing it for her reason.
He borrowed it without telling June.
-
He borrowed it without telling June.
You are still doing it. You now agree it was not stolen but are adding crap that you cannot possibly know and again making a statement for which you have no evidence.
I use your phrase. Source please.
-
You are still doing it. You now agree it was not stolen but are adding crap that you cannot possibly know and again making a statement for which you have no evidence.
I use your phrase. Source please.
Bamber and June were not speaking to each other. Multiple sources available.
Did you purchase a book on the case? Give you a better understanding of it.
Me and ILB recommend Wilkes.
-
Bamber and June were not speaking to each other. Multiple sources available.
Did you purchase a book on the case? Give you a better understanding of it.
Me and ILB recommend Wilkes.
I prefer real evidence where available but feel free to speculate with regard to what happened between JB leaving and the TFG entry since it is impossible to know. However we are free to interpret what we can see from the evidence we do have and the crime scene photos.
Please provide a source that JB and June were not on speaking terms during August 1985. Once again you are making unsubstantiated crap claims. Wilkes book is not evidence.
-
I prefer real evidence where available but feel free to speculate with regard to what happened between JB leaving and the TFG entry since it is impossible to know. However we are free to interpret what we can see from the evidence we do have and the crime scene photos.
Please provide a source that JB and June were not on speaking terms during August 1985. Once again you are making unsubstantiated crap claims. Wilkes book is not evidence.
Try not to be rude. We have different stances.
I have already given you Mary Mugford's court testimony. Ditto Julie.
-
Try not to be rude. We have different stances.
I have already given you Mary Mugford's court testimony. Ditto Julie.
You do not have a stance you have not produced evidence that they were not on speaking terms during the period in question. You are just using statements that were made after the event and related to weeks before the period in question. Where is the evidence that JB and June were not on speaking terms in the weeks leading up to 07/08/85.
-
You do not have a stance you have not produced evidence that they were not on speaking terms during the period in question. You are just using statements that were made after the event and related to weeks before the period in question. Where is the evidence that JB and June were not on speaking terms in the weeks leading up to 07/08/85.
They had not spoken for years.
Bamber testified MM's testimony was correct.
-
They had not spoken for years.
Bamber testified MM's testimony was correct.
Publish the trial testimony that shows they had not spoken for years and were not on speaking terms in the week before the murders.
-
Publish the trial testimony that shows they had not spoken for years and were not on speaking terms in the week before the murders.
It is in Wilkes's book. A lot of trial transcript is in it.
-
It is in Wilkes's book. A lot of trial transcript is in it.
Ok scan it and post it on the forum.
-
They had not spoken for years.
Bamber testified MM's testimony was correct.
Again you are guilty of only quoting part of what was said. You selectively only post the facts that support your thinking so as not to give the real truth of matters. JB and June did fall out but by the time of the murders they were reconciled. Even Steve uk acknowledges this. There is no evidence that were not on speaking terms at the time of the murders
-
Ok scan it and post it on the forum.
Get the book and read it.
It is a straight forward case. I have no idea why you come up with such crazy theories.
-
Again you are guilty of only quoting part of what was said. You selectively only post the facts that support your thinking so as not to give the real truth of matters. JB and June did fall out but by the time of the murders they were reconciled. Even Steve uk acknowledges this. There is no evidence that were not on speaking terms at the time of the murders
I am quoting a part of Bamber's testimony.
Bamber thought June was a religious maniac.
-
As said before, The Sea Wall was excellent evidence he cycled. As it passed no properties or people.
ILB would drive or cycle past properties, people & security cameras. I would be a lot more cautious.
The police would know not all jurors would believe Bamber would have ILB's approach.
-
I am quoting a part of Bamber's testimony.
Bamber thought June was a religious maniac.
That does not prove they were not on speaking terms at the time of the murders.
-
As said before, The Sea Wall was excellent evidence he cycled. As it passed no properties or people.
ILB would drive or cycle past properties, people & security cameras. I would be a lot more cautious.
The police would know not all jurors would believe Bamber would have ILB's approach.
You are misrepresenting ILB's position on this but because there was a sea wall does not mean he used it
-
You are misrepresenting ILB's position on this but because there was a sea wall does not mean he used it
Julie testified he used The Sea Wall.
-
Julie testified he used The Sea Wall.
Did she Adam??
Can you quote the exact testimony please?
-
Did she Adam??
Can you quote the exact testimony please?
It is in Wilkes's book.
Have you read any books on the case?
-
It is in Wilkes's book.
Have you read any books on the case?
Yes thanks… now exact testimony please, you have the book, you can quote it….
-
Julie testified he used The Sea Wall.
JM was 'full of shit' according to Taff and lied through her teeth to save her own skin. She even fingered MM which was completely wrong. She has been shown to have lied and said crazy stuff when she identified the bodies. I will not bother to detail this woman's behaviour.
-
Yes thanks… now exact testimony please, you have the book, you can quote it….
ILB will confirm this.
Not going to jump just because you want.
What is your knowledge of the Sea Wall? You claim to be an expert on the area.
-
JM was 'full of shit' according to Taff and lied through her teeth to save her own skin. She even fingered MM which was completely wrong. She has been shown to have lied and said crazy stuff when she identified the bodies. I will not bother to detail this woman's behaviour.
Do you think everyone who said anything bad about Jeremy lied?
-
ILB will confirm this.
Not going to jump just because you want.
What is your knowledge of the Sea Wall? You claim to be an expert on the area.
I lived in Tollesbury for 5 years and have a detailed knowledge of North East Essex.
-
I lived in Tollesbury for 5 years and have a detailed knowledge of North East Essex.
What is your knowledge of The Sea Wall.
Wilkinson & Gunfire Graffiti said it was very cycle friendly & passed no properties.
-
You are misrepresenting ILB's position on this but because there was a sea wall does not mean he used it
Confirmation JB was asleep that night and got a call from Nevill
Jeremy was in bed that night because his bed was in his house.
Neville rang Jeremy because there was a phone in the kitchen.
Sheila had episodes during the night time before.
Jeremy was asleep then because it was 3am.
Jeremy was asleep because it was dark when he got the call.
Jeremy usually sleeps at night.
No reason for having a bed if you don't sleep in it.
Jeremy got a call from Neville because it's in JBs WS.
- Adam's logic if he was a supporter.
-
Do you think everyone who said anything bad about Jeremy lied?
No In many ways he was his own worst enemy but that does not make him a murderer
-
What is your knowledge of The Sea Wall.
Wilkinson & Gunfire Graffiti said it was very cycle friendly & passed no properties.
There is no evidence he cycled the sea wall.
-
ILB will confirm this.
Not going to jump just because you want.
What is your knowledge of the Sea Wall? You claim to be an expert on the area.
You see the problem is Adam - I can’t see any reference to the sea wall in her statement, she speaks about a route via the back road and she talks about an unspecified route that might take 15 mins, but no mention of the sea wall.
In court she wasn’t testifying that Jeremy had said he’d done it - so why would she say he’d used the sea wall?
Of course I must be mistaken because you wouldn’t have just lied! So please show me where I missed it by quoting the words she used and when.
-
No In many ways he was his own worst enemy but that does not make him a murderer
Do you believe Mary Mugford's court testimony?
-
Do you believe Mary Mugford's court testimony?
Which bit
-
You see the problem is Adam - I can’t see any reference to the sea wall in her statement, she speaks about a route via the back road and she talks about an unspecified route that might take 15 mins, but no mention of the sea wall.
In court she wasn’t testifying that Jeremy had said he’d done it - so why would she say he’d used the sea wall?
Of course I must be mistaken because you wouldn’t have just lied! So please show me where I missed it by quoting the words she used and when.
Her WS says he planned to cycle and do a trial run. He believed it would take 15 minutes. It does not mention the sea wall. Why should it?
Her court testimony is that he planned to cycle the Sea Wall
-
Which bit
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8345.msg418700.html#msg418700
Reply 1.
-
You see the problem is Adam - I can’t see any reference to the sea wall in her statement, she speaks about a route via the back road and she talks about an unspecified route that might take 15 mins, but no mention of the sea wall.
In court she wasn’t testifying that Jeremy had said he’d done it - so why would she say he’d used the sea wall?
Of course I must be mistaken because you wouldn’t have just lied! So please show me where I missed it by quoting the words she used and when.
How would you have travelled?
Walk, drive, cycle along Maldon Road, cycle the Sea Wall?
-
How would you have travelled?
Walk, drive, cycle along Maldon Road, cycle the Sea Wall?
Your words Adam - “Julie testified he used the sea wall”
As in - he HAD travelled via the sea wall, not planned, not thought about - but actually did!
Do you stand by that?
-
How would you have travelled?
Walk, drive, cycle along Maldon Road, cycle the Sea Wall?
He was " sleeping like a log "
-
He was " sleeping like a log "
I was asking Snow66!
You & Rob have already said how you would travel.
-
I was asking Snow66!
You & Rob have already said how you would travel.
I really dont know Adam,if Bamber is guilty it was a truly remarkable feat,extraordinary.
Try reading QCs Occams Razor thread.That may give you a different perspective on the case.
-
I’m still waiting on Adam telling us if he stands by his assertion that Julie said Bamber “Used” the Sea Wall route, maybe he’s flicking through Wilkes’ book to find the quote.
-
I’m still waiting on Adam telling us if he stands by his assertion that Julie said Bamber “Used” the Sea Wall route, maybe he’s flicking through Wilkes’ book to find the quote.
Well,Julie had Bamber using a bike himself,but she also had Bamber using a hitman.
Obviously the police were covering all bases when Julie gave her first statement accusing Bamber.
JB and Brett were being questioned around the same time,and Brett I imagine was quite convincing and sincere when he claimed that JB didn't have the guts to shoot his family himself,this would have troubled the police who no doubt prompted Julie to the possibility of a hitman just incase they decided to pursue that line of enquiry,then any hitman could then be linked to JB.
In other words at that stage they had a statement from Julie which could cover two possibilities,Bamber as the killer or Bamber who hired a hitman.Very clever really.
They didn't have the guts to include the silencer evidence in Julies statement at this stage because the results probably weren't back or were inconclusive,hence if Julie did claim that JB told her about returning the silencer to the cupboard and then the silencer evidence was debunked,the whole of Julie's evidence would be seen as pure lies and fiction.Trouble is,it has been pointed out by members that JB would have had no reason to withhold the details of the silencer from Julie,not if he told her every other detail.
No,to be quite honest,I tend to believe and trust Brett when he says JB didn't have it in him to pull the trigger himself,a man in his twenties who regularly dyes his hair quite obviously has effeminate traits to say the least.
To be quite honest,both JBs and Bretts statements have a ring of truth,where as Julie's and the relative's sound like something out of fairyland with Julie giving an open ended statement comprising mostly of RWBs scenarios,including bikes,windows and hitmen.
Occams Razor?
-
The other challenge of course with Julie saying in court about the sea wall route is that in the October Wilkinson had checked all the possible routes, it’s clear from his statement that they weren’t certain which one would have been used, Julie had already given her statement and Matthew had already been cleared (otherwise why test the routes?) therefore wouldn’t the simplest thing have been to ask Julie which route was planned and been able to say for sure.
Instead Julie just says it’ll take 15 minutes, the police try various routes to find one that’ll take 15 mins, and according to Adam it magically turns out in court that Julie knew all along…
For that reason I would be very interested to see the testimony that Adams read… I’m sure there’s someone on here that keeps asking for sources to be provided - maybe he could tell us…
-
The other challenge of course with Julie saying in court about the sea wall route is that in the October Wilkinson had checked all the possible routes, it’s clear from his statement that they weren’t certain which one would have been used, Julie had already given her statement and Matthew had already been cleared (otherwise why test the routes?) therefore wouldn’t the simplest thing have been to ask Julie which route was planned and been able to say for sure.
Instead Julie just says it’ll take 15 minutes, the police try various routes to find one that’ll take 15 mins, and according to Adam it magically turns out in court that Julie knew all along…
For that reason I would be very interested to see the testimony that Adams read… I’m sure there’s someone on here that keeps asking for sources to be provided - maybe he could tell us…
For me the silencer being dismantled by RWC and no flake being found is also telling. I believe my exposing Bird's finds and producing two statements on the same day dismantles the silencer evidence. RWC dismantled AP's silencer (21/08) before JM came forward. I believe the TFG or the crime re-stagers used his SM and RWC wanted to be sure that nothing turned up to drop themselves in the shit. Why dismantle it before sending it to the lab. Surely to keep the chain of custody and the exhibit clean forensically means he should have sent it 'cold' with no intervention.
Of course if the whole truth is exposed all cases with question marks against them prosecuted by EP will be under scrutiny and all cases involving PV will be called in to question.
-
For me the silencer being dismantled by RWC and no flake being found is also telling. I believe my exposing Bird's finds and producing two statements on the same day dismantles the silencer evidence. RWC dismantled AP's silencer (21/08) before JM came forward. I believe the TFG or the crime re-stagers used his SM and RWC wanted to be sure that nothing turned up to drop themselves in the shit. Why dismantle it before sending it to the lab. Surely to keep the chain of custody and the exhibit clean forensically means he should have sent it 'cold' with no intervention.
Of course if the whole truth is exposed all cases with question marks against them prosecuted by EP will be under scrutiny and all cases involving PV will be called in to question.
Ainsley made a big mistake when he took control. He did not realise that Taff had kept all the coverup finds under Birds name but in his rush to frame JB all finds were sent to the lab DB1 - DB7 and the finding by Bird (DB1) and the fire debris (DB2) scream coverup.
-
Well,Julie had Bamber using a bike himself,but she also had Bamber using a hitman.
Obviously the police were covering all bases when Julie gave her first statement accusing Bamber.
JB and Brett were being questioned around the same time,and Brett I imagine was quite convincing and sincere when he claimed that JB didn't have the guts to shoot his family himself,this would have troubled the police who no doubt prompted Julie to the possibility of a hitman just incase they decided to pursue that line of enquiry,then any hitman could then be linked to JB.
In other words at that stage they had a statement from Julie which could cover two possibilities,Bamber as the killer or Bamber who hired a hitman.Very clever really.
They didn't have the guts to include the silencer evidence in Julies statement at this stage because the results probably weren't back or were inconclusive,hence if Julie did claim that JB told her about returning the silencer to the cupboard and then the silencer evidence was debunked,the whole of Julie's evidence would be seen as pure lies and fiction.Trouble is,it has been pointed out by members that JB would have had no reason to withhold the details of the silencer from Julie,not if he told her every other detail.
No,to be quite honest,I tend to believe and trust Brett when he says JB didn't have it in him to pull the trigger himself,a man in his twenties who regularly dyes his hair quite obviously has effeminate traits to say the least.
To be quite honest,both JBs and Bretts statements have a ring of truth,where as Julie's and the relative's sound like something out of fairyland with Julie giving an open ended statement comprising mostly of RWBs scenarios,including bikes,windows and hitmen.
Occams Razor?
Why would Bamber mention a silencer to Julie? He used it then put it away.
Nevill resisting and putting a bible on Sheila would be bigger things to divulge.
He couldn't go into too much detail as he was in bed while MM was at WHF!
-
Do you believe Mary Mugford's court testimony?
Hopefully BuboBubo answers.
I have given the statement to him. Yesterday and previously.
-
Did she Adam??
Can you quote the exact testimony please?
"She told the court part of his murder plan was to leave his car outside the cottage and make his way to WHF through the back fields and along the sea wall, avoiding the main roads".
----------
Wilkes.
-
A no brainer cycling the Sea Wall as it passes no properties or people. It was also cycle friendly.
Not sure why people suggest other transport methods or routes.
-
"She told the court part of his murder plan was to leave his car outside the cottage and make his way to WHF through the back fields and along the sea wall, avoiding the main roads".
----------
Wilkes.
Wilkes is not evidence. and there is no evidence a bike was used.
-
The bike was perfectly acceptable for the job.
Mountain bikes were decades away.
Which bike was this. There is no evidence a bike was used.
-
They are facts.
Agree that me believing walking or driving not credible is an opinion.
None of these are any more credible than a bike. There is no evidence of JB travelling to WHF.
-
None of these are any more credible than a bike. There is no evidence of JB travelling to WHF.
Well there are 80 pieces of COA incriminating forensic evidence against him.
So he got there and back somehow.
-
Going by Wilkes's book, suspect he was in court for the trial.
Either as just a journalist in 1985 or an investigative journalist which he was when writing the book.
He hasn't just got a lot of court transcript decades before the internet, he also mentions facial expressions of witnesses.
-
Which bike was this. There is no evidence a bike was used.
The only evidence missing is CCTV. Which did not exist in 1985.
There would be no CCTV on the Sea Wall anyway.
There is a mountain of evidence the bike was used.
-
Well there are 80 pieces of COA incriminating forensic evidence against him.
So he got there and back somehow.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=3469616ce3971745JmltdHM9MTY4OTI5MjgwMCZpZ3VpZD0yMGMwMWE1YS0zN2E1LTY0ZTUtMzdmNC0wODNmMzY4MjY1ODEmaW5zaWQ9NTUxMw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=20c01a5a-37a5-64e5-37f4-083f36826581&u=a1L2ltYWdlcy9zZWFyY2g_cT1odW1hbitmbHlpbmcrc3VpdCZpZD0yQjlEMTU0RTg1MEVDREI2OUFGOUVBRjU0NTE4MDZENTBGQzBCRjFDJkZPUk09SVFGUkJB&ntb=1
-
There would be no forensic evidence on the bike showing it was used.
The Sea Wall being available can be classed as forensic.
However there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence it was used.
-
The only evidence missing is CCTV. Which did not exist in 1985.
There would be no CCTV on the Sea Wall anyway.
There is a mountain of evidence the bike was used.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=4465b5d2964aec77JmltdHM9MTY4OTI5MjgwMCZpZ3VpZD0yMGMwMWE1YS0zN2E1LTY0ZTUtMzdmNC0wODNmMzY4MjY1ODEmaW5zaWQ9NTUzMw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=20c01a5a-37a5-64e5-37f4-083f36826581&u=a1L2ltYWdlcy9zZWFyY2g_cT1waWN0dXJlIG9mIHBpbGUgb2YgYmlrZXMmRk9STT1JUUZSQkEmaWQ9MTlFRkY3QTA5MDdCQkIzNkZBMkUyRjRGNDBENTcyMjExQTgwRjQ4Qg&ntb=1
-
Going by Wilkes's book, suspect he was in court for the trial.
Either as just a journalist in 1985 or an investigative journalist which he was when writing the book.
He hasn't just got a lot of court transcript decades before the internet, he also mentions facial expressions of witnesses.
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/76/6b/64/766b643530cad8ba97a16c2775b0ccf0.jpg
-
The only evidence missing is CCTV. Which did not exist in 1985.
There would be no CCTV on the Sea Wall anyway.
There is a mountain of evidence the bike was used.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E79YR1/warning-notice-about-surveillance-by-cctv-cameras-in-the-staffordshire-E79YR1.jpg
-
Why don't you just agree to disagree?
-
Why don't you just agree to disagree?
There is no evidence and Adam cannot produce any after all this time. You cannot expect an innocence supporter to throw in the towel when someone keeps making statements that are unsubstantiated. It is for him to retract his view if he cannot prove his argument. To agree to disagree means there may be substance to his argument when there is none
-
Julie's, Jeremy's & Mary Mugford's court testimonies are very strong evidence the bike was stolen and used.
This together with the bike arriving just before a trial cycle run & proper run is also very strong.
But appreciate supporters will say it was Julie to cycle to a bus stop.
-
Julie's, Jeremy's & Mary Mugford's court testimonies are very strong evidence the bike was stolen and used.
This together with the bike arriving just before a trial cycle run & proper run is also very strong.
But appreciate supporters will say it was Julie to cycle to a bus stop.
Agree to disagree.
-
The evidence that walking would take too long and driving too risky is also very strong.
But appreciate there is no CCTV of him cycling. Which is what BuboBubo wants.
-
The evidence that walking would take too long and driving too risky is also very strong.
But appreciate there is no CCTV of him cycling.
Driving is the best bet
-
Driving is the best bet
🙄
-
Julie's, Jeremy's & Mary Mugford's court testimonies are very strong evidence the bike was stolen and used.
This together with the bike arriving just before a trial cycle run & proper run is also very strong.
But appreciate supporters will say it was Julie to cycle to a bus stop.
There is no proof the bike was stolen. Stop claiming other wise. They did not claim he used the bike on the night.
-
Driving is the best bet
There is no evidence that he visited WHF. It is all speculation.
-
There is no evidence that he visited WHF. It is all speculation.
Have you not read the COA evidence?
-
Have you not read the COA evidence?
That does not make it fact. It was all circumstantial evidence presented at trial and there is no proof JB was at WHF after he left to go home and his attendance at 03.50 am on 07/08/85.
-
There is no proof the bike was stolen. Stop claiming other wise. They did not claim he used the bike on the night.
There are a lot of different things that strongly suggest the bike was stolen and used.
But appreciate June can not confirm it was stolen & there is no CCTV of him cycling.
-
That does not make it fact. It was all circumstantial evidence presented at trial and there is no proof JB was at WHF after he left to go home and his attendance at 03.50 am on 07/08/85.
I am referring to the forensic evidence in the COA.
-
I am referring to the forensic evidence in the COA.
This is not forensic evidence it is all circumstantial. There is no forensic evidence that he cycled home.
Just because June's bike was at his property does not prove he used it
149. The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard and before leaving the address called his home at Goldhanger, leaving the receiver off the hook, thus lending support to the alibi he would later rely upon. He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home.
151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;
-
This is not forensic evidence it is all circumstantial. There is no forensic evidence that he cycled home.
Just because June's bike was at his property does not prove he used it
149. The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard and before leaving the address called his home at Goldhanger, leaving the receiver off the hook, thus lending support to the alibi he would later rely upon. He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home.
151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;
I meant the forensic evidence that it was not Sheila.
Obviously that means Bamber travelled to WHF.
-
I meant the forensic evidence that it was not Sheila.
Obviously that means Bamber travelled to WHF.
Oh dear I thought we were discussing the bike. So because he was found guilty it means he stole and used the bike. On that basis because he was found guilty all the circumstantial evidence becomes forensic and 100% true, well I never.
Only if you believe him guilty and not that he was framed. I believe he was framed so I do not believe he visited WHF within the time frame outlined in my earlier post.
-
"She told the court part of his murder plan was to leave his car outside the cottage and make his way to WHF through the back fields and along the sea wall, avoiding the main roads".
----------
Wilkes.
Thanks for this Adam, I have to say that her testimony raises a few further questions.
In her statement in September she twice mentions Bamber cycling. The first time when he was apparently considering setting fire to the place and to return to the farm, and all she says is via the back road, there’s no detail around exactly where this is and there is no road route directly from Goldhangar to WHF other than through D’Arcy village. Potentially it could be an extension of Pages Lane towards the sea wall - although this does necessitate passing through another Farm yard and is only a road over part of its length - but could possibly be the back road referred to.
By June 1985 this idea has been dismissed anyway, he is now looking at shooting the family and has found another route that he thinks will take 15 minutes and he will try it to be sure. There is no further detail around this route. She says nothing further in her statement around routes.
The police then go and cycle a number of different routes to try them. They log the sea wall as 35 minutes, if Julie has mentioned the sea wall route to them as being his intended route then this instantly means it’s been disproved - otherwise why would they write it as 35 mins and make no attempt to clarify or travel faster if she says it can be done in 15 mins.
If she doesn’t tell them he plans to use the sea wall then why not? It’s an important detail if she knows it at this stage. The police also appear to be unsure of the correct route from Wilkinsons statement so she must have forgotten to tell them this important detail!
However by the time she gets to court she now knows he would have used the sea wall route, how does she know it now and not mention it before - especially when the police think it takes twice as long as she says?
There’s a bit too much inconsistency in the testimony, if she knew the sea wall was the one he would use then she would have said before - not mention it for the first time in court having lead the police to believe it would be a different route (remember the only one measured anywhere near 15 mins by Wilkinson was the Brook House track!)
-
Thanks for this Adam, I have to say that her testimony raises a few further questions.
In her statement in September she twice mentions Bamber cycling. The first time when he was apparently considering setting fire to the place and to return to the farm, and all she says is via the back road, there’s no detail around exactly where this is and there is no road route directly from Goldhangar to WHF other than through D’Arcy village. Potentially it could be an extension of Pages Lane towards the sea wall - although this does necessitate passing through another Farm yard and is only a road over part of its length - but could possibly be the back road referred to.
By June 1985 this idea has been dismissed anyway, he is now looking at shooting the family and has found another route that he thinks will take 15 minutes and he will try it to be sure. There is no further detail around this route. She says nothing further in her statement around routes.
The police then go and cycle a number of different routes to try them. They log the sea wall as 35 minutes, if Julie has mentioned the sea wall route to them as being his intended route then this instantly means it’s been disproved - otherwise why would they write it as 35 mins and make no attempt to clarify or travel faster if she says it can be done in 15 mins.
If she doesn’t tell them he plans to use the sea wall then why not? It’s an important detail if she knows it at this stage. The police also appear to be unsure of the correct route from Wilkinsons statement so she must have forgotten to tell them this important detail!
However by the time she gets to court she now knows he would have used the sea wall route, how does she know it now and not mention it before - especially when the police think it takes twice as long as she says?
There’s a bit too much inconsistency in the testimony, if she knew the sea wall was the one he would use then she would have said before - not mention it for the first time in court having lead the police to believe it would be a different route (remember the only one measured anywhere near 15 mins by Wilkinson was the Brook House track!)
Maybe because the plan was at an embryonic stage with Jeremy not specifying the exact route. I wouldn't take Wilkes' words as gospel either, and as there's no court transcript it's impossible to check.
-
Maybe because the plan was at an embryonic stage with Jeremy not specifying the exact route. I wouldn't take Wilkes' words as gospel either, and as there's no court transcript it's impossible to check.
Believe Wilkes may have been at the trial.
A lot of court interaction and facial expressions in his book.
-
Wilkes's book was 94. In 1986 he was either a reporter or investigative author.
Reasons to be at the trial.
-
Wilkes's book was 94. In 1986 he was either a reporter or investigative author.
Reasons to be at the trial.
I know, but there's no index so it's impossible to check.
-
Maybe because the plan was at an embryonic stage with Jeremy not specifying the exact route. I wouldn't take Wilkes' words as gospel either, and as there's no court transcript it's impossible to check.
Quite possible Steve, but if she didn’t know when completing her witness statement then how did she know in court? Assuming of course that Wilkes is accurate in his book on exactly what was said - if he wasn’t then what else comes into question?
-
Quite possible Steve, but if she didn’t know when completing her witness statement then how did she know in court? Assuming of course that Wilkes is accurate in his book on exactly what was said - if he wasn’t then what else comes into question?
Maybe she had reasoned by that time that he was going via the sea wall. I doubt we will ever know.
-
Wilkes's book was 94. In 1986 he was either a reporter or investigative author.
Reasons to be at the trial.
Wilkes involvement started with meeting Bamber in HMP Gartree in 1991.
He by his own admission had to do a lot of persuading to convince Bamber to meet him
-
Wilkes involvement started with meeting Bamber in HMP Gartree in 1991.
He by his own admission had to do a lot of persuading to convince Bamber to meet him
Meeting Bamber in 91 doesn't mean he was not at the trial.
Or he interviewed people who were at the whole trial.
-
Meeting Bamber in 91 doesn't mean he was not at the trial.
Or he interviewed people who were at the whole trial.
Wilkes involvement started with Jeremy Bamber in 1991.
I think Mike was the person who actually got the ball rolling.
-
Wilkes involvement started with Jeremy Bamber in 1991.
I think Mike was the person who actually got the ball rolling.
From memory Jeremy cooperated thinking the book would be a sympathetic portrayal, but withdrew his consent once the content became known.
-
Wilkes involvement started with Jeremy Bamber in 1991.
I think Mike was the person who actually got the ball rolling.
Correct
-
From memory Jeremy cooperated thinking the book would be a sympathetic portrayal, but withdrew his consent once the content became known.
What consent could he withdraw? The beauty of free legal independent journalism.
Wilkes came to the conclusion that Jeremy Bamber was gulity and gave his reasons.
The book was never meant to be Pro Jeremy. If anything though it gave Jeremy Bamber his first soundbite whilst serving life in prison
Believe Wilkes and Jeremy had a reasonable relationship and rapport
I personally prefer Wilkes book to CAL. Never read Lomaxs or Claire Powell's.
Will someday read Colin's book
-
What consent could he withdraw? The beauty of free legal independent journalism.
Wilkes came to the conclusion that Jeremy Bamber was gulity and gave his reasons.
The book was never meant to be Pro Jeremy. If anything though it gave Jeremy Bamber his first soundbite whilst serving life in prison
Believe Wilkes and Jeremy had a reasonable relationship and rapport
I personally prefer Wilkes book to CAL. Never read Lomaxs or Claire Powell's.
Will someday read Colin's book
Maybe I didn't frame my words correctly. https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20200105/282149293240572