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

[Caroline]

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.

All exceptionally reasonable reasons BUT none will be acceptable to David since he has become a fanatic. He has evidence to show Julie was fed information from the relatives and the police - it doesn't matter that such evidence is in the form of his OWN post  . He claims to be a 'don't know' and I believe he is - but he MUST argue for innocence for his own ends.

[sami]

All exceptionally reasonable reasons BUT none will be acceptable to David since he has become a fanatic. He has evidence to show Julie was fed information from the relatives and the police - it doesn't matter that such evidence is in the forum of his OWN post  . He claims to be a 'don't know' and I believe he is - but he MUST argue for innocence for his own ends.

iam so glad david and half a dozen of his mates were not on that jury or jb would be walking the streets today .THANK GOD

[JackiePreece]

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.

Lol and you said Scopio's posts were long 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7494.msg353467.html#msg353467

I'm answering the above as and when I can squeeze it in.  I'm on my lunch break and need to nip down to the stables to check on my two horses 

Anyway in answer to your point a) above

Was the legislation new or an amendment?

Training is provided to cover any new operations and procedures as a result of updates and changes in legislation prior to implementation. 

If the Home Office and different police forces across the country all sang from different hymn sheets  law and order and the criminal justice system would be in chaos.

[David1819]

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.

Well done Hartley.. but

a) Covert wiretapping has been used by the police even before WW2. It was used against IRA in 60s and 70s

b) Your saying Essex didn't have a telephone and a cassette recorder at their disposal even thou they managed to get an audio recording from the kitchen phone on the night of murder's

c) Why would Jones not realise the significance of an audio confession?

d) The significance of the sound moderator was not realised until a week or so after Julie came forward.

e) there would be no guarantee but why not try?

f) Then why was he allowed out on bail and allowed to travel abroad.

g) That's not a reason at all

h) Or something else like there was no confession for the record in the first place.

[David1819]

All exceptionally reasonable reasons BUT none will be acceptable to David since he has become a fanatic. He has evidence to show Julie was fed information from the relatives and the police - it doesn't matter that such evidence is in the form of his OWN post  . He claims to be a 'don't know' and I believe he is - but he MUST argue for innocence for his own ends.

Your saying I am a Fanatic?

Your on this site every day without fail going on about Jeremy's guilt without providing any credible evidence, that's what I call a fanatic.  Your like the guilt version of lookout

[Caroline]

Your saying I am a Fanatic?

Your on this site every day without fail going on about Jeremy's guilt without providing any credible evidence, that's what I call a fanatic.  Your like the guilt version of lookout

So are you David - you really are so transparent though. Other people will see that in time. I think you are here for your own benefit, I don't think you care if Jeremy is guilty or innocent.

[Caroline]

Well done Hartley.. but You have David's approval Hartley - you must be SO proud!

a) Covert wiretapping has been used by the police even before WW2. It was used against IRA in 60s and 70s  So what?

b) Your saying Essex didn't have a telephone and a cassette recorder at their disposal even thou they managed to get an audio recording from the kitchen phone on the night of murder's Did they?

c) Why would Jones not realise the significance of an audio confession? Why would he?

d) The significance of the sound moderator was not realised until a week or so after Julie came forward. And?

e) there would be no guarantee but why not try? Because they didn't

f) Then why was he allowed out on bail and allowed to travel abroad. They couldn't stop him

g) That's not a reason at all - Neither are any of the above

h) Or something else like there was no confession for the record in the first place. There was, only Jeremy would have mentioned MM and it is ludicrous to suggest that the police would use RB theories to forum Julies statement

[sami]

Well done Hartley.. but

a) Covert wiretapping has been used by the police even before WW2. It was used against IRA in 60s and 70s

b) Your saying Essex didn't have a telephone and a cassette recorder at their disposal even thou they managed to get an audio recording from the kitchen phone on the night of murder's

c) Why would Jones not realise the significance of an audio confession?

d) The significance of the sound moderator was not realised until a week or so after Julie came forward.

e) there would be no guarantee but why not try?

f) Then why was he allowed out on bail and allowed to travel abroad.

g) That's not a reason at all

h) Or something else like there was no confession for the record in the first place.

wiretapping ira was done to find out what they are up to  and it never was used in court to convict people.no doubt you will quicky google it to prove me wrong .lookout out is not fantical as you 

[David1819]

So are you David - you really are so transparent though. Other people will see that in time.

Few people will share your misconceptions

I think you are here for your own benefit,

On the contrary, The amount of time I spend on the site studying the case actually causes me to neglect my business.

I don't think you care if Jeremy is guilty or innocent.

Your right I don't 'care' because emotions cloud ones judgement. The only thing that interests me is the uncertainty of the case and the unanswered questions.

[guest2181]

Well done Hartley.. but

a) Covert wiretapping has been used by the police even before WW2. It was used against IRA in 60s and 70s

b) Your saying Essex didn't have a telephone and a cassette recorder at their disposal even thou they managed to get an audio recording from the kitchen phone on the night of murder's

c) Why would Jones not realise the significance of an audio confession?

d) The significance of the sound moderator was not realised until a week or so after Julie came forward.

e) there would be no guarantee but why not try?

f) Then why was he allowed out on bail and allowed to travel abroad.

g) That's not a reason at all

h) Or something else like there was no confession for the record in the first place.

As I said, not a single one would be acceptable to you.

I must admit, I wasn't expecting you to try and give a rebuttal to each suggestion and fear you may have rather missed the point.

Clearly there is a reason why your 'listening device' tactic was not adopted nearly 31 years ago, even if that reason was that it was simply not even contemplated (which is likely).

There is no basis to conclude that something was not because there was no evidence that it was.

You are simply forming 'negative arguments' by trying to prove that something is true because there is no evidence that it is not. Logical fallacy.

Playing games me thinks. 

[guest2181]

It's a bit like Mikes "Chewbacca Defence". 

[guest2181]

Mike
    ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Hartley
    Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!

Mike
    Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm defending a multiple murderer, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rest

 

[Caroline]

Mike
    ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Hartley
    Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!

Mike
    Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm defending a multiple murderer, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rest

 

 

[lookout]

Your saying I am a Fanatic?

Your on this site every day without fail going on about Jeremy's guilt without providing any credible evidence, that's what I call a fanatic.  Your like the guilt version of lookout

What do you mean by that ?
 Because,to you,I haven't provided any "  credible evidence " means that you can't " find " evidence from an innocent person,you have to use your expertise in other ways in order to rely on what that person ( JB ) tells you is the truth. Why should I make up evidence to justify and please everyone else ? You see,I prefer to read and study about the person in question and form my own opinion than go with the flow of those who follow hearsay and gossip regardless of all the accusations that have been spewed out.
I think I've made enough posts for everyone to at least get the gist of why I say he's innocent.



Don't for one minute think you're better than anyone else,because you're not.

[David1819]

As I said, not a single one would be acceptable to you.

I must admit, I wasn't expecting you to try and give a rebuttal to each suggestion and fear you may have rather missed the point.

Clearly there is a reason why your 'listening device' tactic was not adopted nearly 31 years ago, even if that reason was that it was simply not even contemplated (which is likely).

Your saying its likely the police never contemplated such an easy and obvious method that could solve the case then and there? I doubt it

Perhaps you should read this.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html

There is no basis to conclude that something was not because there was no evidence that it was.
You are simply forming 'negative arguments' by trying to prove that something is true because there is no evidence that it is not. Logical fallacy.

You need to lecture Caroline on logical fallacy not me, She's the one who uses no proof of innocence as proof of guilt.