Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on June 30, 2014, 02:42:PM
-
now assuming the phone call dident happen and considering theres no time of death then Jeremy has all the time he wants to commit the murders.
so he could of walked there and back he dident need a bike so why do the police and prosecution keep going about a bike.
-
now assuming the phone call dident happen and considering theres no time of death then Jeremy has all the time he wants to commit the murders.
so he could of walked there and back he dident need a bike so why do the police and prosecution keep going about a bike.
They don't.
It is not known how he travelled or what route he took.
-
all the theorys ive read involve a bike but theirs really no need for one.
-
all the theorys ive read involve a bike but theirs really no need for one.
Well maybe not, but it's more plausible than him hitching a ride with a flying saucer. :-\
-
Well maybe not, but it's more plausible than him hitching a ride with a flying saucer. :-\
I think why some of the guilty persuasion keep on mentioning a bike is that it makes everything that Jeremy did suspicious. So the more suspicious they make these things he does efore the murders the more guilty that making him look. Things like, "Oh look he ate a hearty breakfast. He must be guilty if he could do that". Or, "Yes isn't it suspicious. He borrowed his mum's bike and made out it was for Julie. Now that is suspicious isn't it? "So it gets people thinking that everything he did before the murders were to do with the murders"
But nugnug is right the times in respect of the murders aren't that important at all. In effect he had all the time in the world. Mind you, that's a jolly long walk along the sea wall and across the fields.
-
I think why some of the guilty persuasion keep on mentioning a bike is that it makes everything that Jeremy did suspicious. So the more suspicious they make these things he does efore the murders the more guilty that making him look. Things like, "Oh look he ate a hearty breakfast. He must be guilty if he could do that". Or, "Yes isn't it suspicious. He borrowed his mum's bike and made out it was for Julie. Now that is suspicious isn't it? "So it gets people thinking that everything he did before the murders were to do with the murders"
But nugnug is right the times in respect of the murders aren't that important at all. In effect he had all the time in the world. Mind you, that's a jolly long walk along the sea wall and across the fields.
I don't think that's the case at all.
Again, the simple reality, is that he had a possible way of getting to and from WHF within a sensible time frame. How he actually did it is relatively unimportant.
-
well if the phonecall dident happen then the time frame isnt improtant he had all night to do it.
-
I don't think that's the case at all.
Again, the simple reality, is that he had a possible way of getting to and from WHF within a sensible time frame. How he actually did it is relatively unimportant.
In other words the prosecution used presumption to convict him and superfluity in introducing the bike when they didn't need to do so?
-
I don't think that's the case at all.
Again, the simple reality, is that he had a possible way of getting to and from WHF within a sensible time frame. How he actually did it is relatively unimportant.
Besides, it was Julie who first mentioned the bicycle. She said that an early plan was for JB to drug the family and then return on foot or by bicycle to burn the house down.
JB confirmed the bicycle was at his house, but it was for Julie's use. I wonder if Julie denied this was the case in court? :-\
-
Besides, it was Julie who first mentioned the bicycle. She said that an early plan was for JB to drug the family and then return on foot or by bicycle to burn the house down.
JB confirmed the bicycle was at his house, but it was for Julie's use. I wonder if Julie denied this was the case in court? :-\
Well one cannot accuse her of not having much of an imagination.
-
In other words the prosecution used presumption to convict him and superfluity in introducing the bike when they didn't need to do so?
No, they ascertained that he had the means, opportunity and motive.
The conviction, was likely heavily based on the sound moderator evidence and Julie's testimony.
-
No, they ascertained that he had the means, opportunity and motive.
The conviction, was likely heavily based on the sound moderator evidence and Julie's testimony.
Also in that link you posted it says that the police had the bike tested forensically bu could not connect it to the crime. But if what you say is true, then I wonder by some of the guilty persuasion still keep banging on about it?
-
Also in that link you posted it says that the police had the bike tested forensically bu could not connect it to the crime. But if what you say is true, then I wonder by some of the guilty persuasion still keep banging on about it?
That's what I meant, I don't think they do, do they? This thread was started by Nugnug.
I hardly ever mention the bicycle, other than in the context given above, that it was one possible mode of transport.
-
Grahame think it is Adam and steve who tend to mention the bike :'(
-
well if they say no phonecall happend then jeremy could have easly walked it.
if the argument is that he phoned himself then of course walking there and back would of been impossble.
-
Besides, it was Julie who first mentioned the bicycle. She said that an early plan was for JB to drug the family and then return on foot or by bicycle to burn the house down.
JB confirmed the bicycle was at his house, but it was for Julie's use. I wonder if Julie denied this was the case in court? :-\
It was also Julie who got sleeping pills on prescription,on the pretext ? that she was stressed out with her studies and couldn't sleep.
-
as he dosent need a bike under the prosecution scenario it makes pc Wilkinsons timed bike ride seem even more strange.
-
Everyone agrees Jeremy could not drive there. He might be seen or heard.
Walking 6 miles is a long way. The longer he is outside, the more chance there is of being seen. Why not ride ?
Riding back from WHF gives him more time to clean up & get himself together. Before phoning the police.
The bike was brought to Jeremy's cottage 3 days before the massacre. Coincidence ?
-
Grahame think it is Adam and steve who tend to mention the bike :'(
That is why I said "some".
-
Everyone agrees Jeremy could not drive there. He might be seen or heard.
Walking 6 miles is a long way. The longer he is outside, the more chance there is of being seen. Why not ride ?
Riding back from WHF gives him more time to clean up & get himself together. Before phoning the police.
The bike was brought to Jeremy's cottage 3 days before the massacre. Coincidence ?
Yes I think it could be a coincidence. And as we have established, time was not a factor. He could have killed them all before he left for home after supper. No one would have been any the wiser. Why must the time be 3am. Even you sais that it could have been very early in the morning. In any case someone is more conspicuous on a bike riding along a sea wall surely?
-
Yes I think it could be a coincidence. And as we have established, time was not a factor. He could have killed them all before he left for home after supper. No one would have been any the wiser. Why must the time be 3am. Even you sais that it could have been very early in the morning. In any case someone is more conspicuous on a bike riding along a sea wall surely?
Perhaps it was one of the 'curious coincidences' the judge was referring to.
The judge did ask the jury to consider why Jeremy would bring the bike for Julie when their relationship was coming to a close.
Jeremy could not kill everyone at supper. They were awake and in the kitchen. Jeremy spoke to Julie at 10am. Telling her 'tonights the night' Four of the people were shot in bed, probably between 2am - 3am. The perfect time to carry out an execution.
I suppose he could have killed them a bit later. It depends what time they get up. Farmers are early starters. Six year olds can be hyperactive and wake early as well. It also gets light early in the morning at that time of year, so more chance of being seen. To me 2am -3am was the perfect time.
-
Perhaps it was one of the 'curious coincidences' the judge was referring to.
The judge did ask the jury to consider why Jeremy would bring the bike for Julie when their relationship was coming to a close.
Jeremy could not kill everyone at supper. They were awake and in the kitchen. Jeremy spoke to Julie at 10am. Telling her 'tonights the night' Four of the people were shot in bed, probably between 2am - 3am. The perfect time to carry out an execution.
I suppose he could have killed them a bit later. It depends what time they get up. Farmers are early starters. Six year olds can be hyperactive and wake early as well. It also gets light early in the morning at that time of year, so more chance of being seen. To me 2am -3am was the perfect time.
He could have of course asked about one more curious coincidence. Why if the relationship was coming to a close would he tell her everything about a murder he had committed.
You know Adam judges aren't some kind of infallible pope. Indeed that judge had put him in such a position where he could have been blackmailed. Have you aever read about Madam Whiplash where she refers to a "Ducky Drake".
Now I'm not saying that he was compromised in any way. But he was certainly in such a position where he could have been.
In any case I don't agree with him. He's only a man and a fallible one at that. It most certainly was not a curious coincidence. You can call anything a curious coincidence. In fact was it not a curious coincidence that Mugford told the judge before the trial that no such deal had been made between her and the NOTW. Then the very next week after the trial her story, plus a provocative picture of her appeared in the NOTW. Now that is what I call a curious coincidence. ;)
-
You mean the relatives had saucy pictures of the judge ?
Jeremy had been telling Julie for months of his plans. It is in her WS.
There is no record in the court transcripts in Wilkes's book of the judge asking Julie about her NOTW deal. Did he ask Jeremy about his NOTW deal ? Jeremy has tried and failed to negate Julie's testimony.
-
Everyone agrees Jeremy could not drive there. He might be seen or heard.
Not everyone.
Jeremy might very well have been afraid of being seen or heard and thus opted to use the bike but it is unlikely he would have been seen or heard at that hour so he coudl have used the car and I would have used a car.
Jeremy's neighbors never heard him drive to WHF to meet police though we know for a fact he did. They slept through him starting his car and driving away. Other than police no one saw him make the drive to WHF and police saw him only because he was on the side of the road waiting for them to pass or he would have beat them there and no one would have seen him make the journey.
People do not usually get out of bed or even off the couch to go look at a car passing by on the street.
People do not usually pay attention to passing cars unless they expect a visitor.
People who do see a car usually end up seeing it by simply accident as they happen to be outside or looking out a window by chance.
People conversing loudly is usually what gets people to look out a window and notice oh they are leaving or oh they arrived.
The chance of anyone seeing Jeremy drive away or arrive back home would be minimial and the chance of someone along the path being able to identify his car in the dark would be nil.
The chance of someone he knows being out at that hour to be driving on the same path and thus to encounter and also recognize him would be small as well.
Thus Jeremy could indeed have driven there. The fact he told Julie he planned to use a bike and that he took his mother's bike to use is what suggests he used abike.
But the last minute he could have potentially decided to use a car and to have scrapped the bike plan. The notion he can't have used a car is wrong.
Walking 6 miles is a long way. The longer he is outside, the more chance there is of being seen. Why not ride ?
Riding back from WHF gives him more time to clean up & get himself together. Before phoning the police.
The bike was brought to Jeremy's cottage 3 days before the massacre. Coincidence ?
Walking would be the least chance of being seen because in the dark you could not only hide if you see the lights of a car approaching the chance of anyone recognizing you even if they see you is slim. The time and effort involved in a 6 mile walk is why 1 would not want to do it.
The bike is good because JUST IN CASE a neighbor comes home very late and actually notices your car missing and remembers to tell police that can be damaging. To avoid some unlikely freak occurrence where someone actually notices your car gone you would prefer a bike.
He clearly planned to use the bike but whether he went through with the plan or just decided "ah screw it I'll use the car" we will never know.
-
Bob Miller in the CTSB video, said it would be too risky driving.
However he said no one would have seen Jeremy 'in a month of Sunday's' if he had cycled along the sea wall.
Were there not CCTV/speed cameras along the driving route ?
Have you got a source that no one heard Jeremy drive to WHF to see the police ? Thank you.
-
CCTV in a rural area in 1985? - I could be wrong, but that sounds extremely unlikely! Besides, we would have heard about it.
-
CCTV in a rural area in 1985? - I could be wrong, but that sounds extremely unlikely! Besides, we would have heard about it.
The journey was on busy roads. Mikes youtube video will show you.
-
Bob Miller in the CTSB video, said it would be too risky driving.
However he said no one would have seen Jeremy 'in a month of Sunday's' if he had cycled along the sea wall.
Were there not CCTV/speed cameras along the driving route ?
Have you got a source that no one heard Jeremy drive to WHF to see the police ? Thank you.
Bob Miller's opinion is proven wrong by simply looking at the fact that Jeremy DID ACTUALLY drive to WHF in the middle of the night and yet NO ONE saw him do it other than police who would not have been on the roads but for his call. If any other people were on the roads that night when he drove there then they either:
1) didn't recognize him or his car (either because of the dark or they didn't know him so paid no attention)
2) didn't live in the area so were not among the 500 people living in the area who were questioned by police
Jeremy might have considered it risky but objectively speaking it wasn't very risky at all. People are rarely if ever seen driving to or from a scene of a crime at all let alone at night. It is more common for criminals to get ticketed for illegal parking or a moving traffic infraction (and thus proving they were out at the time of the murders not home like they claimed) then for a witness to be able to say they saw the criminal leaving/coming home/driving around.
The claim that a car could not be used because he would definitely have been seen on the road is simply wrong.
-
Bob Miller in the CTSB video, said it would be too risky driving.
However he said no one would have seen Jeremy 'in a month of Sunday's' if he had cycled along the sea wall.
Were there not CCTV/speed cameras along the driving route ?
Have you got a source that no one heard Jeremy drive to WHF to see the police ? Thank you.
The police supposedly questioned 500 people to see if at any time of night anyo of them knew of Jeremy being on the road, leaving his house or going to his house and they found no witnesses at all.
Far from being shocking that is the norm because people don't usually pay attention to passing cars at night and unles sthere is a commotion pay no mind to the comings and goinggs of neighbors especially once they go to bed.
Furthermore, unless someone has a rare distinctive car that no one else has you can't even tell if a friend is in a car or not when the car passes by yours in the opposite direction.
-
Bob Miller's opinion is proven wrong by simply looking at the fact that Jeremy DID ACTUALLY drive to WHF in the middle of the night and yet NO ONE saw him do it other than police who would not have been on the roads but for his call. If any other people were on the roads that night when he drove there then they either:
1) didn't recognize him or his car (either because of the dark or they didn't know him so paid no attention)
2) didn't live in the area so were not among the 500 people living in the area who were questioned by police
Jeremy might have considered it risky but objectively speaking it wasn't very risky at all. People are rarely if ever seen driving to or from a scene of a crime at all let alone at night. It is more common for criminals to get ticketed for illegal parking or a moving traffic infraction (and thus proving they were out at the time of the murders not home like they claimed) then for a witness to be able to say they saw the criminal leaving/coming home/driving around.
The claim that a car could not be used because he would definitely have been seen on the road is simply wrong.
No one saw Jeremy drive to WHF after he phoned the police ? Why an earth would the police need to investigate that ? Everyone knew he drove there.
I did not say he would definitely be seen. There is a chance he would be heard or seen.
Were there not speed cameras or CCTV in 1985 ?
Anyway do you have a source please. And a source from my last post request.
-
The police supposedly questioned 500 people to see if at any time of night anyo of them knew of Jeremy being on the road, leaving his house or going to his house and they found no witnesses at all.
Far from being shocking that is the norm because people don't usually pay attention to passing cars at night and unles sthere is a commotion pay no mind to the comings and goinggs of neighbors especially once they go to bed.
Furthermore, unless someone has a rare distinctive car that no one else has you can't even tell if a friend is in a car or not when the car passes by yours in the opposite direction.
The police questioned 500 people. Do you have a source please ?
It is just proving my point that he did not drive to WHF. There is less chance of being seen or heard.
-
The police questioned 500 people. Do you have a source please ?
It is just proving my point that he did not drive to WHF. There is less chance of being seen or heard.
How does it prove your point? On the contrary it demolishes your claim that he would definitely be seen driving a car so had to use a bike.
-
I have just asked you three times for a source on three different posts. Please supply them. People do provide sources on here. Otherwise people can just say anything. Thank you.
Please also supply the post where I said Jeremy would 'definitely' be seen driving.
I said he 'might' be seen - post 17 which has not been edited.
-
I have just asked you three times for a source on three different posts. Please supply them. People do provide sources on here. Otherwise people can just say anything. Thank you.
Please also supply the post where I said Jeremy would 'definitely' be seen driving.
I said he 'might' be seen - post 17 which has not been edited.
I saw your request, you can do the leg work yourself for once. Produce evidence of testimony from someone who saw Jeremy on the road. I am not going to aid you at all in your efforts even by giving you the name of his neighbors have fun searching yourself. You would never post here again if you decided you were going to not post until you could provide evidence someone saw him leave for WHF/drive to WHF apart from the cops.
-
I saw your request, you can do the leg work yourself for once. Produce evidence of testimony from someone who saw Jeremy on the road. I am not going to aid you at all in your efforts even by giving you the name of his neighbors have fun searching yourself. You would never post here again if you decided you were going to not post until you could provide evidence someone saw him leave for WHF/drive to WHF apart from the cops.
I asked you politely for three sources of things you just claimed.
This is a discussion forum and people share information and sources upon request.
You have not provided any sources. Therefore you have not got any of the sources. Which I knew already.
I also asked you to show me the post where I said Jeremy would 'definitely' be seen if he drove. You didn't.
Me produce evidence that someone saw Jeremy on the road ? I have never claimed he drove there. So why should I ?
-
You mean the relatives had saucy pictures of the judge ?
Jeremy had been telling Julie for months of his plans. It is in her WS.
There is no record in the court transcripts in Wilkes's book of the judge asking Julie about her NOTW deal. Did he ask Jeremy about his NOTW deal ? Jeremy has tried and failed to negate Julie's testimony.
Well I believe it was ngb who mentioned the prosecution counsel asking the judge in chambers whether JM had signed up to a NOTW deal.
As for Jeremy's newspaper deal, well it was his life he was gambling on, not JM's. Correction, it is alleged by JM that he had been planning it for months. It would still be very silly of him to go on talking to her about how he had done it when the relationship was nearing its end. Sorry mate, it doesn't make any sense to me that he would have told her.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5222.0.html
Lots of reasons why Jeremy would tell Julie.
-
Not everyone.
Jeremy might very well have been afraid of being seen or heard and thus opted to use the bike but it is unlikely he would have been seen or heard at that hour so he coudl have used the car and I would have used a car.
Jeremy's neighbors never heard him drive to WHF to meet police though we know for a fact he did. They slept through him starting his car and driving away. Other than police no one saw him make the drive to WHF and police saw him only because he was on the side of the road waiting for them to pass or he would have beat them there and no one would have seen him make the journey.
People do not usually get out of bed or even off the couch to go look at a car passing by on the street.
People do not usually pay attention to passing cars unless they expect a visitor.
People who do see a car usually end up seeing it by simply accident as they happen to be outside or looking out a window by chance.
People conversing loudly is usually what gets people to look out a window and notice oh they are leaving or oh they arrived.
The chance of anyone seeing Jeremy drive away or arrive back home would be minimial and the chance of someone along the path being able to identify his car in the dark would be nil.
The chance of someone he knows being out at that hour to be driving on the same path and thus to encounter and also recognize him would be small as well.
Thus Jeremy could indeed have driven there. The fact he told Julie he planned to use a bike and that he took his mother's bike to use is what suggests he used abike.
But the last minute he could have potentially decided to use a car and to have scrapped the bike plan. The notion he can't have used a car is wrong.
Walking would be the least chance of being seen because in the dark you could not only hide if you see the lights of a car approaching the chance of anyone recognizing you even if they see you is slim. The time and effort involved in a 6 mile walk is why 1 would not want to do it.
The bike is good because JUST IN CASE a neighbor comes home very late and actually notices your car missing and remembers to tell police that can be damaging. To avoid some unlikely freak occurrence where someone actually notices your car gone you would prefer a bike.
He clearly planned to use the bike but whether he went through with the plan or just decided "ah screw it I'll use the car" we will never know.
Yes I would agree with most of what you have said. A good point about people not noticing cars driving about. Hey mate, I saw someone nick your bike last night and rode off in the direction of the sea wall. He had flippers and a wet suit on. ;D
-
I asked you politely for three sources of things you just claimed.
This is a discussion forum and people share information and sources upon request.
You have not provided any sources. Therefore you have not got any of the sources. Which I knew already.
I also asked you to show me the post where I said Jeremy would 'definitely' be seen if he drove. You didn't.
Me produce evidence that someone saw Jeremy on the road ? I have never claimed he drove there. So why should I ?
Adam even when someone supplies sources you contradict them and say something to the effect that it's not in Wilkes book so it can't be true.
-
Who is mentioning a wet suit and flippers ?
Do you think Jeremy was very unlucky that the bike arrived at WHF three days before the massacre.
AE & Robert Boutflour immediately became more suspicious. The police felt Jeremy rode there & Julie said Jeremy was planning to cycle to WHF.
Bet Jeremy wishes he had not put his mothers bike into the back of his car and taken it back to his cottage. Three days before the massacre.
-
Adam even when someone supplies sources you contradict them and say something to the effect that it's not in Wilkes book so it can't be true.
No I don't.
A source is a source. I will think again about asking you for one. The last few requests were not supplied. The very last one you said f___ you and called me a d___head.
-
Who is mentioning a wet suit and flippers ?
Do you think Jeremy was very unlucky that the bike arrived at WHF three days before the massacre.
AE & Robert Boutflour immediately became more suspicious. The police felt Jeremy rode there & Julie said Jeremy was planning to cycle to WHF.
Bet Jeremy wishes he had not put his mothers bike into the back of his car and taken it back to his cottage. Three days before the massacre.
I bet you're right too. But who's to know what other innocent things the relatives would pick on in order to make Jeremy look guilty?