Problems with Jeremy moving to and from the farmhouse

[Erik Narramore]

Ainsley has him cycling along Maldon Road about a mile to the farm track that leads to Brook House Farm.  That's still two miles in all that he cycled out on a public road on his way to and from a mass murder.  Those two miles must have felt like 20.  In addition, if Ainsley is right, this means Jeremy has cycled over rough farm and field tracks, again at night.  You suggest he may have done this without lights.

Then there's the problem of how to get in and out of the environs of the cottage and Goldhanger without being seen.  That's risky enough if just going on foot.  The bike had a squeak when shown to Barbara Wilson a week or two before, but we'll err on the side of the prosecution and assume this had been sorted out.  We'll also give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt and say that, on the public road, Jeremy could have worn dark clothing and a balaclava under a hood, and on seeing a car, he could have put his head down and taken other simple precautions.  The only risk he then takes is that someone later reports seeing a cyclist out in the middle of the night.  Even if that happened, the witness would not be able to positively identify Jeremy.

Or would they?  The fact is that even when someone is disguised, you can still identify them.  Somebody may have recognised the bike or Jeremy's clothing.  Not that such an identification would be reliable or assist the prosecution much, but here we are considering not the legal case, but the risk calculations that Jeremy might take.  You would need only one driver, other road user, farmer or neighbour - anyone - to see him, and potentially, suspicion then falls on Jeremy and he faces questions and inquiries.  People who plan things like this tend to do so with minimising risk in mind.  A bicycle complicates things.  It means noise.  It can slow him down.  It forces him to run into vehicles and maybe pedestrians who will all see him, albeit he may be disguised.  What if a puncture or mechanical fault develops?  Surely it's simpler and less risky to go by foot?

[Erik Narramore]

Both foot and bicycle were possible, either or both ways.  The issue is plausibility.  The risks involved in one are much greater than the other, though the risks are still great in either case, and there are further issues when we bring the timings and phone calls into it.

[Erik Narramore]

In order for the prosecution case to work, Jeremy must have gone to and from the scene using a quick method, such as a bicycle or car.  We can rule out a car.  The bicycle method is just about possible but fraught with risk and danger that diminishes its plausibility.

[Erik Narramore]

DI Wilkinson managed it in 16 minutes, but in daylight over dry ground on a men's bike, whereas Jeremy would have had to cycle on a ladies' sit-up-and-beg bike, on muddy ground, and in the middle of the night.  And you say he went both ways by this method.

[Erik Narramore]

The bike is essential if Jeremy staged the call - and even then, it would have been very difficult.  If you search back through recent posts, you will find I had Adam all over the place with times.

Staging the call would also have required an answering machine, but Jeremy did not have one before the incident.  This is now established on a logical basis: i.e. no evidence he had one before, no-one remembers one despite staying at the cottage, and he could not have planned the call as there was no phone by the bed in the main bedroom.  It is only Adam who chooses to ignore all this.