Police interviews - The real Bamber in 1985:

[Adam]

I have not read them all but I have not seen anything I would regard as damaging, and as David said if JB did say something damaging I think the police would have jumped all over it at trial.

He would have been under immense pressure accused of five murders, and he probably suspected the police were trying to stich him up (bible on table) etc.

They may have brought things up at trial. Have you got Bamber's testimony?

Did you not read my earlier posts in this thread? There is more. I'll have to have another read.

Even the CT have not tried to salvage the interviews although they have been available for years.

[Adam]

Bamber was offerring  information to the police early on as if there was no tomorrow.

However once the interview started he rarely said more than 5 words in a row.

[Rob_]

You thought wrong.

The bible was discussed in the police interview.

Ok well your knowledge is greater than mine, I think it was in a podcast? SJ put the bible on the table with the implication being he was hoping JB would pick it up and put his prints on it? I could be mistaken?

[Adam]

Ok well your knowledge is greater than mine, I think it was in a podcast? SJ put the bible on the table with the implication being he was hoping JB would pick it up and put his prints on it? I could be mistaken?

  The treacherous Stan Jones.

[guest7363]

Ok well your knowledge is greater than mine, I think it was in a podcast? SJ put the bible on the table with the implication being he was hoping JB would pick it up and put his prints on it? I could be mistaken?

It’s a bit vague, he is shown one and he says his Mother has one similar not it is the Bible that his Mother had? I think He could have been shown one similar to the one his Mother had.  Anyway it didn’t matter about prints He covered the fact his prints could have been on the bible by saying he used to pick it up to threaten the dog with it!


Here’s the link anyway.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=18315;image

[Adam]

'When would this have been'?

'No comment'

--------

All he had to say was, 'when I was at WHF'.

[guest7363]

'When would this have been'?

'No comment'

--------

All he had to say was, 'when I was at WHF'.

When he was interviewed Adam.  Either the 8th or 9th under caution.

[Rob_]

It’s a bit vague, he is shown one and he says his Mother has one similar not it is the Bible that his Mother had? I think He could have been shown one similar to the one his Mother had.  Anyway it didn’t matter about prints He covered the fact his prints could have been on the bible by saying he used to pick it up to threaten the dog with it!


Here’s the link anyway.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=18315;image

Thanks for the info I knew I had read / seen something somewhere, I find it strange that a bible was put in front of him. If his prints were found on the bible he had a natural reason for them being their anyway.

[guest7363]

Thanks for the info I knew I had read / seen something somewhere, I find it strange that a bible was put in front of him. If his prints were found on the bible he had a natural reason for them being their anyway.

Its probably a tactic they used for the interview, he’s asked if he had ever picked it up etc, if he used it to frighten the dog, his prints wouldn’t be inside it?  Obviously he never read it so he wouldn’t have opened it up, Bamber replies “it depends how it was picked up”

[lookout]

I know you've read his police interviews.

Why do you think Bamber was so unhelpful?

Unhelpful ? It's difficult answering questions to something you haven't done other than repeating " I didn't do it, or it wasn't me ", or------"That's for you to find out ".
How can anyone answer questions about something they know nothing about ? Try it sometime.

[arthur]

On the "no comment" er..comment. Solicitors often advise clients to reply no comment to almost every question. Athough I'm convinced Bamber is guilty, the interviews don't really prove to much.

He's uncooperative rather than evasive. Vague and certainly unconvincing, but it could be said, that's due to mistrust of the Police, rather than proof of guilt.

[mike tesko]

On the "no comment" er..comment. Solicitors often advise clients to reply no comment to almost every question. Athough I'm convinced Bamber is guilty, the interviews don't really prove to much.

He's uncooperative rather than evasive. Vague and certainly unconvincing, but it could be said, that's due to mistrust of the Police, rather than proof of guilt.

Thanks,' a well thought out' analysis..

[Adam]

On the "no comment" er..comment. Solicitors often advise clients to reply no comment to almost every question. Athough I'm convinced Bamber is guilty, the interviews don't really prove to much.

He's uncooperative rather than evasive. Vague and certainly unconvincing, but it could be said, that's due to mistrust of the Police, rather than proof of guilt.

Often an accused will answer every question with 'no comment'.

Bamber would give vague answers to some questions, then say 'no comment' to others which were just as easy.

The questions were softball questions which he could give comprehensive answers to. The police were only going to ask questions they knew Bamber could give an answer to.

Agree he was 'unhelpful' after contacting the police & spending several weeks volunteering information.

[Adam]

The police interviews were a middle ground.

In between Bamber being very co-operative with the police, to then having to create a 36 year innocent persona to the public. 

He didn't care about the police interviews. So let his guard down.  The police knew he was guilty & he was not going to attempt to change their minds. While simultaneously refusing to admit guilt.

All that mattered now was the trial. He rightly believed the interview transcripts would never be made public. 

In other words, the police interviews were - the real Bamber.

[Adam]

The interview transcripts are over 70 pages.

Plenty for the CT to dissect. But even they have never mentioned them.