Author Topic: Why did the police not get Jeremy's 'confessions' on audio tape?  (Read 3767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
The official narrative put forward claims that Jeremy had been open with Julie about the murders. I find it rather astonishing the police never took this opportunity to get Jeremy's 'confessions' on audio record either by wire taping Julie or Telephone tapping a conversation between Julie and Jeremy.

Had Jeremy been as open as Julie claimed the police and Julie could easily arrange setting him up for a conversation. As a result they would have acknowledgement of Jeremy's involvement.

The police have used covert audio recordings to secure convictions before for example Elliot Turner and Mick Philpott to name a few.

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/khan.htm

Why did the police not take this significant opportunity to get their smoking gun evidence? why did they miss such an easy opportunity to prove five murders?
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24074
The official narrative put forward claims that Jeremy had been open with Julie about the murders. I find it rather astonishing the police never took this opportunity to get Jeremy's 'confessions' on audio record either by wire taping Julie or Telephone tapping a conversation between Julie and Jeremy.

Had Jeremy been as open as Julie claimed the police and Julie could easily arrange setting him up for a conversation. As a result they would have acknowledgement of Jeremy's involvement.

The police have used covert audio recordings to secure convictions before for example Elliot Turner and Mick Philpott to name a few.

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/khan.htm

Why did the police not take this significant opportunity to get their smoking gun evidence? why did they miss such an easy opportunity to prove five murders?


Given the size of mobile phones back then, where would Julie have concealed such a brick?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
The official narrative put forward claims that Jeremy had been open with Julie about the murders. I find it rather astonishing the police never took this opportunity to get Jeremy's 'confessions' on audio record either by wire taping Julie or Telephone tapping a conversation between Julie and Jeremy.

Had Jeremy been as open as Julie claimed the police and Julie could easily arrange setting him up for a conversation. As a result they would have acknowledgement of Jeremy's involvement.

The police have used covert audio recordings to secure convictions before for example Elliot Turner and Mick Philpott to name a few.

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/khan.htm

Why did the police not take this significant opportunity to get their smoking gun evidence? why did they miss such an easy opportunity to prove five murders?

Probably because Bamber and Julie were together the whole time travelling around England and Europe. So impossible to know where they would be from one day to the next.

And Julie was his girlfriend who wouldn't agree to having a wire put on her. And may tell Bamber if she was approached.

Bamber was not considered a suspect by Taff Jones, who is probably the man who had to give the authority to entrapment attempts.

I doubt they ever spoke on the phone during this period as they didn't need to. Bamber was whisking her off here, there and everywhere after his three phone calls on the massacre night/morning.  When they were not together Bamber was probably too busy on his jolly ups to speak on the phone about murders. It's doubtful he would be stupid enough either.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2016, 04:14:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
well it would of been very helpfully in proving guilt so im not sure why nobody thought of doing that.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 35033
I thought that all interviews were recorded,particularly high-profile ones such as this was. There's always a recorder seen when an interview is carried out,for obvious reasons. So why didn't that happen------------or did it ?

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
was it standard police practice to do that then though.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4596
was it standard police practice to do that then though.

No.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
well it would of been very helpfully in proving guilt so im not sure why nobody thought of doing that.

The idea that the police would not consider or decide not to pursue such a conventional and simple method of authenticating evidence specially in a multiple murder case does not seem credible. Therefore its reasonable to conclude there was no confession to record in the first place and the police knew it.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
had it ever been done before at that time though.

with hinsight its seems a pretty simpland logical thing to do.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668

Given the size of mobile phones back then, where would Julie have concealed such a brick?

who said it had to be a mobile phone  ???
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24074
who said it had to be a mobile phone  ???

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was suggesting that such equipment may have been much bulkier than it now is.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
it would still have been possble to do.


Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
it would still have been possble to do.

Of course it would nugs.  It could be done by wiring Julie up discreetly (unless she always wore the skimpy clothing in the News of the world) or a recording device on phone. It wasn't done because Jeremy never said a word about murdering his family let alone doing it.

"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
Of course it would nugs.  It could be done by wiring Julie up discreetly (unless she always wore the skimpy clothing in the News of the world) or a recording device on phone. It wasn't done because Jeremy never said a word about murdering his family let alone doing it.

The answer to the thread question is in reply 2.

I doubt that it is legal to wire up an innocent party without them knowing. There was also no way they would know what clothes Julie would wear.

As you know, Bamber spent most of the post massacre time travelling around Britain and Europe after the massacre. Julie going along with him whether she wanted to or not. So impossible to pin down an appropriate place to bug them.

Even Bamber or the CT have not brought up this theory.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2016, 05:41:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
It's an interesting theory.

Any criminal not arrested within minutes of a crime, can claim they are innocent because the police did not make a covert recording of a confession.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.