To do that properly, that would mean the jurors walking around for 5 or 6 miles. Looking at the different route options.
Jurors are rarely taken off site & if they are it is just to see one static thing. Most objects can be brought into court.
The jurors in this case had already been taken off site once to check rifle noise.
Yes I appreciate there are a few logistical problems when a number of routes existed. I just can't see any advantage in cycling. It is surely easier, quicker and safer in terms of operating covertly to walk/jog/run than cycle across uneven terrain in the dark on a sit up and beg style bike.
I don't really understand the purpose of taking the jury to the Fingringhoe firing range to hear the rifle fired with and without silencer. The environment is completely different to WHF:
Site Description
This is a remote area, south of Colchester, with much of the site below sea level, consisting of reclaimed wetland and marsh. The site extends out into the Colne Estuary, renowned as one of Essex’s prettiest estuaries, with attractive waterside communities and contrasting landscapes of woodland, fields and marshes.
The marshland area of Fingringhoe Ranges is part of the Colne Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is also designated a Ramsar site and a Special Protection Area (SPA). There is a Nature Reserve to the north east of the site. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-access-to-military-areas#fingringhoe-rangesSurely live firing could be simulated at WHF with dummy bullets and ballistics gel.
Why was the jury denied the opportunity to visit WHF? To inspect the windows it is claimed JB entered and exited and shown where victims sustained gunshot wounds and were found.
I have looked at a few cases where crimes took place either in part or full within residential buildings and jurors were afforded the opportunity of visits:
Sion Jenkins
Barry George
Steve Wright
Ian Huntely
Mark Bridger
If there was ever a case so deserving of a jury visit it was WHF.
