Author Topic: Why did the police not get Jeremy's 'confessions' on audio tape?  (Read 3481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4410
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.

All they would need to do it get Julie to call Jeremy from the police station with the police listening in via a 3rd phone and a recorder. Its really that simple
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
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.

Its your answer Adam not THE answer.

I had a small tape recorder back then so I'm sure the police had discreet tape players that Julie could put in her bag.  Or they could set something up on the phone.  Or undercover police could hang around with recording equipment.  This would obviously be done after Julie's confession.  She would know.  She went to the police via her friends so the police could say ok we need a taped confession can you help us?

So what Jeremy and CT havent brought up.  I've had personal dealings with both and both are thick.

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

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
All they would need to do it get Julie to call Jeremy from the police station with the police listening in via a 3rd phone and a recorder. Its really that simple

Of course it was David and we know why it wasn't done  ;)
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
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.

Most cases dont hinge on confessions.
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17125
Most cases dont hinge on confessions.

Bamber certainly hasn't confessed.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17125
Its your answer Adam not THE answer.

I had a small tape recorder back then so I'm sure the police had discreet tape players that Julie could put in her bag.  Or they could set something up on the phone.  Or undercover police could hang around with recording equipment.  This would obviously be done after Julie's confession.  She would know.  She went to the police via her friends so the police could say ok we need a taped confession can you help us?

So what Jeremy and CT havent brought up.  I've had personal dealings with both and both are thick.

Julie was with Bamber all the time. As his girlfriend. Travelling around Britain and Amsterdam. Bamber watching her every move. She would have refused to get involved in an entrapment request.

It couldn't be done after Julie approached the police and confessed. The police had enough to arrest him.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Julie was with Bamber all the time. As his girlfriend. Travelling around Britain and Amsterdam. Bamber watching her every move. She would have refused to get involved in an entrapment request.

It couldn't be done after Julie approached the police and confessed. The police had enough to arrest him.

The police never know if they have enough until a jury delivers its verdict. Even I know that Adam!
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17125
The police never know if they have enough until a jury delivers its verdict. Even I know that Adam!

Everyone knows that. They felt they had enough to take to the DPP. The DPP agreed.

Bamber and Julie had spilt up after a blazing row. So unlikely Julie would be able to catch up with him and get a taped confession if he was travelling around Europe.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4410
Of course it was David and we know why it wasn't done  ;)

Exactly! there was nothing to record in the first place  8)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2016, 06:11:PM by David1819 »
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34058
Bamber certainly hasn't confessed.





Why confess to something you didn't do ?

Poor Stefan Kiszko confessed to something he didn't do because he was probably hounded to do so,but was sadly simple of mind to have gone along with it. The saddest case I ever read as both he and his mother died through the strain of having been accused and the name-calling that they'd both endured.
That horrendous case was the fault of the investigation team.

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2775
Bamber certainly hasn't confessed.
they are talking rubbish adam

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34058
Only the same rubbish as yours !!

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2775
Most cases dont hinge on confessions.
thats not true at all

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19148
All they would need to do it get Julie to call Jeremy from the police station with the police listening in via a 3rd phone and a recorder. Its really that simple

Well, maybe they should have had you around at the time. Just because you think it's a good idea 30 years later - doesn't mean they thought of it back then. AND tape recordings were not admissible back then
100% - No doubts!

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Well, maybe they should have had you around at the time. Just because you think it's a good idea 30 years later - doesn't mean they thought of it back then. AND tape recordings were not admissible back then

Covert listening devices were part of police operations 30 years ago.  Regina v Khan is the relevant case law based on Home Office laws 1984.
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill