Question Re 'Firearms Team Are In Conversation'

[EnquiringMind]

05.25               Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm

05.29               From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response

I was just wondering what the opinion is of those comments from the police radio logs

I originally thought when I read this a few days ago that it meant a proper two way conversation was being held with someone inside the farmhouse but it strikes me now that the logs are very ambiguous.

One one hand it *could* mean that & on first glance it seems to suggest that they were, but then the addition of the next line seems to suggest that the firearms team called out but their attempts at contact met with no response.

The two lines seem to cancel each other out in some respects.

Realistically, could it have been that the Firearms Team spoke to Jeremy?

Do we have any logs from the Firearms team specifically? I assume they exist, they must do, even only in the form of written reports after the scene was contained. Surely those logs will say whether they were ever in a two way conversation with someone from inside the farmhouse?

I understand that the telephone lines were open within the farmhouse as well & someone was listening in. Where are the reports from that? Even just to say 'the lines were open, but no sounds heard until police broke in'

Wouldn't it be basic policing 101 for reports to be made, transcripts from audio recordings made etc?

If this has already been discussed at length I would be very grateful if someone could point me in the direction of the thread 

[Jane]

05.25               Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm

05.29               From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response

I was just wondering what the opinion is of those comments from the police radio logs

I originally thought when I read this a few days ago that it meant a proper two way conversation was being held with someone inside the farmhouse but it strikes me nice that the logs are very ambiguous.

One one hand it *could* mean that & on first glance it seems to suggest that they were, but then the addition of the next line seems to suggest that the firearms team called out but their attempts at contact met with no response.

The two lines seem to cancel each other out in some respects.

Realistically, could it have been that the Firearms Team spoke to Jeremy?

Do we have any logs from the Firearms team specifically? I assume they exist, they must do, even only in the form of written reports after the scene was contained. Surely those logs will say whether they were ever in a two way conversation with someone from inside the farmhouse?

I understand that the telephone lines were open within the farmhouse as well & someone was listening in. Where are the reports from that? Even just to say 'the lines were open, but no sounds heard until police broke in'

Wouldn't it be basic policing 101 for reports to be made, transcripts from audio recordings made etc?

If this has already been discussed at length I would be very grateful if someone could point me in the direction of the thread 

EnquiringMind, I raised the same point because a "conversation" is, by definition, a two way thing. Came to the conclusion it was poor use of the English language

[EnquiringMind]

EnquiringMind, I raised the same point because a "conversation" is, by definition, a two way thing. Came to the conclusion it was poor use of the English language

Exactly, it is a two (or more) way verbal exchange & that first bit suggests that's what they were having.

The second line just seems to cancel that out though, which makes me wonder if they were actually talking to Jeremy & maybe asking him what guns were in the house etc, which would seem logical 

[lookout]

Exactly, it is a two (or more) way verbal exchange & that first bit suggests that's what they were having.

The second line just seems to cancel that out though, which makes me wonder if they were actually talking to Jeremy & maybe asking him what guns were in the house etc, which would seem logical 

EM,,there are supposed to be 6 video/recorded tapes still in the hands of either EP or PII,,so I would assume they'll have all the answers.Though why 6 if there was no answer or conversation going on,I don't know.
I'm aware that they would also contain conversations between officers inside the farmhouse to those outside,,but it would have been nice to have heard what was on them after all these years.

[Jane]

Exactly, it is a two (or more) way verbal exchange & that first bit suggests that's what they were having.

The second line just seems to cancel that out though, which makes me wonder if they were actually talking to Jeremy & maybe asking him what guns were in the house etc, which would seem logical 

Except that they specify "..........with a person from inside the farm" and Jeremy was standing beside them. On the other hand because their use of language is so poor they MAY have meant "..........with a person ASSOCIATED with the farm"

[Patti]

05.25               Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm

05.29               From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response


You could read it two ways. Firstly that there were a conversation with a person inside. Secondly 4 minutes later this person was challenged to come out and that they had no response.....

[EnquiringMind]

EM,,there are supposed to be 6 video/recorded tapes still in the hands of either EP or PII,,so I would assume they'll have all the answers.Though why 6 if there was no answer or conversation going on,I don't know.
I'm aware that they would also contain conversations between officers inside the farmhouse to those outside,,but it would have been nice to have heard what was on them after all these years.

What or who is EP?  Sorry, I'm new to the case mostly & don't know what that acronym is.

Can someone explain the whole PII thing to me as well? Is it just evidence that is exempt from the freedom of information act? As in that the general public is not allowed access to it ever?  I'm seeing things on various JB sites that seem to suggest that anything held under PII is not even made available to the defence team which I find astounding!

[EnquiringMind]

05.25               Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm

05.29               From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response


You could read it two ways. Firstly that there were a conversation with a person inside. Secondly 4 minutes later this person was challenged to come out and that they had no response.....

Yes & this is exactly why it's so ambiguous.  I assume though that the Firearms team are required by law to write extensive reports of operations they are involved in for reasons of accountability etc. Do we know if they exist as they surely should?

[lookout]

What or who is EP?  Sorry, I'm new to the case mostly & don't know what that acronym is.

Can someone explain the whole PII thing to me as well? Is it just evidence that is exempt from the freedom of information act? As in that the general public is not allowed access to it ever?  I'm seeing things on various JB sites that seem to suggest that anything held under PII is not even made available to the defence team which I find astounding!

Sorry,,EM. EP is short for Essex Police. It saves always typing these things out in full. Such as COLP==City of London Police.  SOCO====Scene of Crime Officer.

Yes,,PII is Public Interest Immunity.

[Patti]

Yes & this is exactly why it's so ambiguous.  I assume though that the Firearms team are required by law to write extensive reports of operations they are involved in for reasons of accountability etc. Do we know if they exist as they surely should?

I'm not sure its required by law, its certainly a procedure within their guidance policy to keep records.  The raid team gave statements, not all of them are in our archives.  I am not sure of what you are asking, is it the logs? 

[Patti]

What or who is EP?  Sorry, I'm new to the case mostly & don't know what that acronym is.

Can someone explain the whole PII thing to me as well? Is it just evidence that is exempt from the freedom of information act? As in that the general public is not allowed access to it ever?  I'm seeing things on various JB sites that seem to suggest that anything held under PII is not even made available to the defence team which I find astounding!

PII is agreed in court or at trial by the judge, CPS and defence. It is agreed that delicate things like that of the children in the Bamber case should be protected and not made public.  I don't think there is a list of what is held under PII therefore it is not known what is held there.  I have always believed that its the children's details that has been protected.  Any other details I am not sure. 

[lookout]

Patti,,that's what the police want everyone to think,,,that the information held is of a delicate nature,,but I don't believe it all is given the way the investigation went.

[Jane]

PII is agreed in court or at trial by the judge, CPS and defence. It is agreed that delicate things like that of the children in the Bamber case should be protected and not made public.  I don't think there is a list of what is held under PII therefore it is not known what is held there.  I have always believed that its the children's details that has been protected.  Any other details I am not sure. 

Patti, I wonder what happened to all the notes taken during the 33 days they believed it to be a case of 4 x murders and 1 x suicide. One presumes, at this point, that Jeremy didn't come into the equation and they were satisfied that it was Sheila.

[lookout]

Patti, I wonder what happened to all the notes taken during the 33 days they believed it to be a case of 4 x murders and 1 x suicide. One presumes, at this point, that Jeremy didn't come into the equation and they were satisfied that it was Sheila.

April,,are they not all with EP.? This'll be the documents that they're withholding.

[Patti]

Patti,,that's what the police want everyone to think,,,that the information held is of a delicate nature,,but I don't believe it all is given the way the investigation went.

I would imagine sooner or later that all will be revealed, they can only keep restricted for so long.  I'm not sure if the 30 year rule applies....Maybe NGB will be better off explaining this one...