Why the police did not attempt to get a covert audio confession from Bamber:

[Adam]

Bamber was travelling around and never in one place for a long period.

Julie was with Bamber virtually all the time after the massacre. So they would not have exchanged phone conversations.

Bamber is unlikely to discuss the massacre over the phone if he feels some people believe he's a suspect.

Bamber is unlikely to discuss the massacre in his cottage if he feels some people believe he is a suspect.

Taff Jones thought Bamber was innocent. Right up until Bamber and Julie split up. So would not have agreed to bugging. 

Bugging someone was not common practice in 1985 and hardly ever used.

Julie was Bamber's girlfriend for a month after the massacre. The police had no idea what her feelings were. It was doubtful she would agree to be a honey trap.

Julie may tell her boyfriend at the time (Bamber), that the police had asked her to be a honey trap.

The police couldn't secretly bug Julie. She was innocent.

A honey trap had either never or hardly ever been used. It was attempted in the Colin Stagg case and resulted in the case collapsing.

It was only a month between the massacre and Bamber's arrest. So no time to plan this delicate operation.

Bugging is something done at a persons home. If there was not enough evidence to charge a suspect.  There was enough evidence within a month.

Bugging is something done in someones home. However Bamber was travelling around Europe and England.

Julie went to the police after her and Bamber split up. There was no way she was going to become Bamber's girlfriend again to set up a honey trap. Bamber wanted to be a play boy.

Julie went to the police after her and Bamber had split up. There is no way Bamber would then speak about the massacre to her over the phone.

The police had enough evidence to charge Bamber within one month. So did not need to bug him.

Bugging someone takes time to set up, get the correct experts and technology.

The police felt they had enough evidence to get Bamber to confess during formal questioning. So did not need to bug him.

The police had a duty to arrest a suspect in a 5X murder when they believe they have enough evidence. The suspect would be a danger to society.

The police had nothing to force Julie to secretly turn on Bamber while she was his girlfriend. They knew nothing of her crimes.

There was no point secretly bugging Bamber's cottage after he split up with Julie. Bamber would not confide in anyone else.

A bugging attempt which did not record a confession, would hinder the prosecution case.

A covert bugging attempt could only be done by bugging a property. It can't be clothes as people wear different clothes every day. As mentioned Bamber was travelling and would not be daft enough to speak about the massacre in his cottage.

Publically, Bamber was supposed to be a grieving and officially innocent man. According to the police. News of a bugging attempt would be reported negatively in the media.

[JackiePreece]

Adam this is ridiculous David has recently started a thread on this.  Why do you always have to start your own threads.

Its obvious it could have been done legally, safely and logistically.  It wasn't done because there was no confession of any sorts. 

[Adam]

Hopefully these 24 reasons closes this issue.

It was very surprising that such a weak argument was brought to the table by supporters.

[JackiePreece]

Hopefully these 24 reasons closes this issue.

It was very surprising that such a weak argument was brought to the table by supporters.

It's not a weak argument its a very strong one.

Julie said they parted on good terms.  Jeremy was due to take June's bike over.  Taff Jones didn't believe Julie. The police could easily have planted listening devices in Julies house or on her and all arranged for Julie to take the bike over.  There would be no reason for him to suspect.  Julie said he continued talking about the murders and his involvement up until the relationship ended.  Steve posted yesterday about Blazers restuarant. 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7592.msg361726.html#msg361726

 

[David1819]

Bamber was travelling around and never in one place for a long period.

Julie was with Bamber virtually all the time after the massacre. So they would not have exchanged phone conversations.

Bamber is unlikely to discuss the massacre over the phone if he feels some people believe he's a suspect.

Bamber is unlikely to discuss the massacre in his cottage if he feels some people believe he is a suspect.

Taff Jones thought Bamber was innocent. Right up until Bamber and Julie split up. So would not have agreed to bugging. 

Bugging someone was not common practice in 1985 and hardly ever used.

Julie was Bamber's girlfriend for a month after the massacre. The police had no idea what her feelings were. It was doubtful she would agree to be a honey trap.

Julie may tell her boyfriend at the time (Bamber), that the police had asked her to be a honey trap.

The police couldn't secretly bug Julie. She was innocent.

A honey trap had either never or hardly ever been used. It was attempted in the Colin Stagg case and resulted in the case collapsing.

It was only a month between the massacre and Bamber's arrest. So no time to plan this delicate operation.

Bugging is something done at a persons home. If there was not enough evidence to charge a suspect.  There was enough evidence within a month.

Bugging is something done in someones home. However Bamber was travelling around Europe and England.

Julie went to the police after her and Bamber split up. There was no way she was going to become Bamber's girlfriend again to set up a honey trap. Bamber wanted to be a play boy.

Julie went to the police after her and Bamber had split up. There is no way Bamber would then speak about the massacre to her over the phone.

The police had enough evidence to charge Bamber within one month. So did not need to bug him.

Bugging someone takes time to set up, get the correct experts and technology.

The police felt they had enough evidence to get Bamber to confess during formal questioning. So did not need to bug him.

The police had a duty to arrest a suspect in a 5X murder when they believe they have enough evidence. The suspect would be a danger to society.

The police had nothing to force Julie to secretly turn on Bamber while she was his girlfriend. They knew nothing of her crimes.

There was no point secretly bugging Bamber's cottage after he split up with Julie. Bamber would not confide in anyone else.

A bugging attempt which did not record a confession, would hinder the prosecution case.

A covert bugging attempt could only be done by bugging a property. It can't be clothes as people wear different clothes every day. As mentioned Bamber was travelling and would not be daft enough to speak about the massacre in his cottage.

Publically, Bamber was supposed to be a grieving and officially innocent man. According to the police. News of a bugging attempt would be reported negatively in the media.

Adam this is just a long list of things you have made up.

The answer the question adequately you will need the police to answer why they didn't and I doubt they would be honest about it.

[Adam]

Leading a suspect into a direction to say something incriminating was tried with Colin Stagg. The case collapsed because of it.

They could have bugged his cottage. But he was rarely there. And he was not considered a suspect by many, including Taff during the short one month period between massacre and arrest.

[Adam]

Adam this is just a long list of things you have made up.

The answer the question adequately you will need the police to answer why they didn't and I doubt they would be honest about it.

No it's a list of reasons I have thought up. In answer to you're question.

You did ask.

[JackiePreece]

Leading a suspect into a direction to say something incriminating was tried with Colin Stagg. The case collapsed because of it.

They could have bugged his cottage. But he was rarely there. And he was not considered a suspect by many, including Taff during the short one month period between massacre and arrest.

That was completely different a female police officer was engaged in some sort of dirty talk to try and get a confession.

In Jeremy's case Julie claims all sorts from plots to murder to a hit man.

[sami]

That was completely different a female police officer was engaged in some sort of dirty talk to try and get a confession.

In Jeremy's case Julie claims all sorts from plots to murder to a hit man.

all jm's claims were what jb had told her

[David1819]

Hopefully these 24 reasons closes this issue.

It was very surprising that such a weak argument was brought to the table by supporters.

The argument is that there was no confession to authenticate in the first place. given JM lack of any credibility in the first place its a rather strong argument

[sami]

The argument is that there was no confession to authenticate in the first place. given JM lack of any credibility in the first place its a rather strong argument

but jb admitted jm was telling the truth about everything bar the incriminating stuff about him

[Adam]

Julies WS is in different parts -


Events after the massacre:

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him


Bamber's hatred and resentment:

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.


The massacre plans:

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.


Julies Feelings:

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

[David1819]

Julies WS is in different parts -


Events after the massacre:

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him


Bamber's hatred and resentment:

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.


The massacre plans:

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.


Julies Feelings:

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

None of this seems good reason for the police to decide  not to grab the smoking gun evidence that would be just a phone call away solving the case then and there.

The most logical answer remains there was no confessions to authenticate in the first place.

[sami]

None of this seems good reason for the police to decide  not to grab the smoking gun evidence that would be just a phone call away solving the case then and there.

The most logical answer remains there was no confessions to authenticate in the first place.

logical only to you and other supporters

[Adam]

None of this seems good reason for the police to decide  not to grab the smoking gun evidence that would be just a phone call away solving the case then and there.

The most logical answer remains there was no confessions to authenticate in the first place.

There are 24 reasons above why this was not done.

Are you saying after Julie and Bamber split up, and after she went to the police, the police should have asked Julie to get back in contact with Bamber. To coax a secret incriminating audio recording from him ?

That's asking a lot  from Julie. She is an innocent witness. Not some sort of secret agent, who is supposed to live a lie and get back in contact with a former boyfriend. Putting herself in danger.

The Eliot Turner case, the police bugged the home and let Turner and the relatives talk amongst themselves. After a long period Turner said incriminating things.

Julie knowingly  coaxing something incriminating from Bamber seems unethical. It was tried in the Colin Stagg case with a paid police officer going under cover. Which resulted in the case being thrown out in disgrace.  Besides which the police in the Bamber case now had a lot of evidence and a willing star witness.