Author Topic: Why the police did not attempt to get a covert audio confession from Bamber:  (Read 16866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Verywell. We have two answers from the guilt camp.

Adam sais it would be difficult or unethical and too much to ask of Julie.

Caroline said I'm like a pigeon.


Anyone else have any ideas or theories to put forward?

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
A taped confession would have made Julie's time in the witness box much easier.  

Jeremy asked Julie if she wanted anything from the house she said June's bike.  See below.

The police could arrange for Julie to call Jeremy to drop the bike off.  When he turned up she could then say she was struggling to cope knowing what had happened, keeping it to herself and was going to the doctors to get more sleeping tablets.  Followed by I wish you had drugged them like you first suggested.   I hate thinking of your parents and Sheila seeing Matthews face shooting them.  Have you paid Matthew the £2,000 yet?  

She  claims he was very loose with his tongue so they might need a  long tape.

The police could then swoop, charge and arrest Jeremy then and there while listening and recording from a nearby car or even hiding on the premises upstairs, in the loft or garden.  

There would be no Jeremy Bamber forum.  We would never of had the pleasure of meeting!    

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1932.0;attach=9664

Off to the stables before the office  ::)
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
The Mick Philpot bugging was done by bugging their hotel room and getting them to talk amongst themselves. So similar to the Eliot Turner case.

The Colin Stagg case they got a paid and professional police woman to attempt a honey trap. The case getting thrown out.

They could have bugged Bamber's cottage after Taff was taken off the case. But why bother wasting weeks and months ? They now had enough evidence and a big witness.  With Bamber and Julie separated he's never going to say anything incriminating there.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

guest2181

  • Guest
Verywell. We have two answers from the guilt camp.

Adam sais it would be difficult or unethical and too much to ask of Julie.

Caroline said I'm like a pigeon.


Anyone else have any ideas or theories to put forward?

I'm not really sure why you've got this stuck in your throat. It's a scenario which nearly 31 years ago simply didn't take place, for one reason or another.

There are numerous potential reasons why it didn't occur and its not particularly difficult to put forward such suggestions, although I doubt a single one of them would be acceptable to you.

Nevertheless, some potential reasons include, but are not limited to, in no particular order:

a) The legislation was only enacted in 1984, it may not have filtered through to become 'common practice' for Essex Police to undertake.

b) Essex Police may not have even had such equipment available to them.

c) Essex Police, or more specifically Jones, may never have utilised such tactics before and didn't even consider it's use in this case.

d) Julie approached Essex Police and Jeremy was called in and questioned the following day, from their experiences as police officers, together with the sound moderator evidence, they may have decided that the course of action they took was appropriate and the best method of furthering the investigation. With JB having now served over three decades behind bars, who would disagree.

e) Whilst Jeremy had been allegedly open about certain aspects of his actions to Julie, he also appears to have been cryptic and manipulative, there would be no guarantee that JB would implicate himself further to the extent that it would be sufficient to charge him, it may then also tip Jeremy off and damage the investigation.

f) Jones may have already been convinced of Jeremy's guilt and didn't want a person who had murdered five people including two children, out on the streets where he could endanger other people.

g) Jones may not have been convinced of Julie's information and wanted to bring JB in so that he could question him face to face.

h) Or something else.

The possibilities are almost endless and we simply don't know the actual reasons for one thing or another. The suggestion that because the police didn't set up a wire on Julie to coax a confession out of JB, indicates that Julie's claims were fictitious, is in my view a bit silly and a little bit desperate, although not entirely surprising.

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
The Mick Philpot bugging was done by bugging their hotel room and getting them to talk amongst themselves. So similar to the Eliot Turner case.

The Colin Stagg case they got a paid and professional police woman to attempt a honey trap. The case getting thrown out.

They could have bugged Bamber's cottage after Taff was taken off the case. But why bother wasting weeks and months ? They now had enough evidence and a big witness.  With Bamber and Julie separated he's never going to say anything incriminating there.

Adam, Steve posted the other day about the Blazers restaurant meeting which took place around the tim the relationship ended.  I found the statement last night.  She said she tackled him again about the killings so it seems he was always up for discussing it.  He made her promise not to kill herself.  All she needed to do was phone up and say she was feeling suicidal and needed to discuss with him as she couldn't talk to anyone else about it for obvious reasons!  

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1932.0;attach=9650
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
I'm not really sure why you've got this stuck in your throat. It's a scenario which nearly 31 years ago simply didn't take place, for one reason or another.

There are numerous potential reasons why it didn't occur and its not particularly difficult to put forward such suggestions, although I doubt a single one of them would be acceptable to you.

Nevertheless, some potential reasons include, but are not limited to, in no particular order:

a) The legislation was only enacted in 1984, it may not have filtered through to become 'common practice' for Essex Police to undertake.

b) Essex Police may not have even had such equipment available to them.

c) Essex Police, or more specifically Jones, may never have utilised such tactics before and didn't even consider it's use in this case.

d) Julie approached Essex Police and Jeremy was called in and questioned the following day, from their experiences as police officers, together with the sound moderator evidence, they may have decided that the course of action they took was appropriate and the best method of furthering the investigation. With JB having now served over three decades behind bars, who would disagree.

e) Whilst Jeremy had been allegedly open about certain aspects of his actions to Julie, he also appears to have been cryptic and manipulative, there would be no guarantee that JB would implicate himself further to the extent that it would be sufficient to charge him, it may then also tip Jeremy off and damage the investigation.

f) Jones may have already been convinced of Jeremy's guilt and didn't want a person who had murdered five people including two children, out on the streets where he could endanger other people.

g) Jones may not have been convinced of Julie's information and wanted to bring JB in so that he could question him face to face.

h) Or something else.

The possibilities are almost endless and we simply don't know the actual reasons for one thing or another. The suggestion that because the police didn't set up a wire on Julie to coax a confession out of JB, indicates that Julie's claims were fictitious, is in my view a bit silly and a little bit desperate, although not entirely surprising.

Adam started this thread not David.

f). Why let him go on holiday abroad then.  Or did Jones think it was ok if he murdered foreigners?   ::)

     He was placed under surveillance in this country.  Was he under surveillance in France?
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

guest2181

  • Guest
Adam started this thread not David.

f). Why let him go on holiday abroad then.  Or did Jones think it was ok if he murdered foreigners?   ::)

     He was placed under surveillance in this country.  Was he under surveillance in France?

You can have another gold star for missing the point.  :)

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48671
Why wasn't his passport taken off him ?

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
You can have another gold star for missing the point.  :)

At least I have a chest to pin it on unlike some  ;)
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Why wasn't his passport taken off him ?

Good question Lookout x
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Good question Lookout x
they knew he would be coming back to uk a man who has committed 5 murders for monatery gain would not leave the country for good nor would he disappear because of the inheritence.and the police knew it

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48671
they knew he would be coming back to uk a man who has committed 5 murders for monatery gain would not leave the country for good nor would he disappear because of the inheritence.and the police knew it






It wasn't a case of them knowing he would return for any inheritance at all. Do you think for one minute that they'd have allowed an alleged mass murderer out of the country ? No. The reason nobody was bothered at his leaving was to give them more time to conjure up whatever they could find,or not,that would justify his arrest on his return. 

Afterall,they all " THOUGHT " he was guilty. ::) THOUGHT got him his sentence.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 10:42:AM by lookout »

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490





It wasn't a case of them knowing he would return for any inheritance at all. Do you think for one minute that they'd have allowed an alleged mass murderer out of the country ? No. The reason nobody was bothered at his leaving was to give them more time to conjure up whatever they could find,or not,that would justify his arrest on his return.
but lookout if they let him leave to give them more time ,how could they be sure he would return and what about if  he never returned all they time buying would be wasted
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 10:48:AM by sami »

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48671
but lookout if they let him leave to give them more time ,how could they be sure he would return and what about if  he never returned all they time buying would be wasted





At that stage,EP KNEW he was telling the truth as they had NOTHING on him whatsoever,but there was that much pressure coming from all quarters that they had to justify their somewhat tin-pot investigation in getting a conviction to make it look good and of course to keep their pensions intact and room for promotion too. EP acted APPALLINGLY. What more can I say ?

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490




At that stage,EP KNEW he was telling the truth as they had NOTHING on him whatsoever,but there was that much pressure coming from all quarters that they had to justify their somewhat tin-pot investigation in getting a conviction to make it look good and of course to keep their pensions intact and room for promotion too. EP acted APPALLINGLY. What more can I say ?
you could be right but others would beg to differ