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

[sami]

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

i should rephrase that, lookout is not fanatical at all just firm in her belives

[guest2181]

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

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

David, your arguments are baseless and irrational and your conclusions are illogical bordering on the absurd. Simply repeating them will not improve their quality.

I don't need to lecture Caroline on anything.

You requested that people respond to your strange conclusions regarding a course of action that the police didn't pursue nearly 31 years ago.

I believe I have now done that.

[David1819]

David, your arguments are baseless and irrational and your conclusions are illogical bordering on the absurd. Simply repeating them will not improve their quality.

In other words you have no answer as to why Jeremy's alleged confessions to Julie does not corroborate the facts of the crime (which Jeremy should have all the details) and that Jeremy's alleged confessions consist in parts of the same erroneous information the police gave Ann Eaton and Robert Boultflour.

Claiming my arguments are baseless and irrational is just you creating an excuse not to answer them 

[guest2181]

In other words you have no answer as to why Jeremy's alleged confessions to Julie does not corroborate the facts of the crime (which Jeremy should have all the details) and that Jeremy's alleged confessions consist in parts of the same erroneous information the police gave Ann Eaton and Robert Boultflour.

Claiming my arguments are baseless and irrational is just you creating an excuse not to answer them

Your post above has no relevance to the original question, nor indeed does it make sense in relation my replies.

You have claimed that:

The idea of fixing a wire to Julie in an attempt to obtain a confession from JB was an easy and obvious method of solving the case.

That is a wild assumption on your behalf, there is no evidence that the above is true. There is no evidence that the method was thought of, available or even possible at the time and in the circumstances. The option may not have been available to them for a whole multitude of different reasons which you nor I could not even hope to contemplate given the limited amount of information available.

Ignoring the above assumptions, you are somehow able to then conclude that:

As the police did not set up a wire on Julie to try and coax a confession out of Jeremy, that must mean that there was no confession to coax out of Jeremy.

The lack of logic in that conclusion is so clear that it's ridiculous. It does not pass the test for soundness in any way.

[JackiePreece]

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.

Is all evidence admissible?

In criminal proceedings, all relevant evidence presented by the parties is prima facie admissible as the UK courts have adopted an inclusionary approach towards evidence in order to favour the victim and ensure a fair trial. In a case in 1861 it was confirmed evidence is admissible even if it were stolen. The rationale for this approach is that the court considers the primary aim of the justice system to be the discovery of the truth and the unearthing of guilt. This is prioritised above the protection of the accused’s right to private life. Nevertheless the courts have discretion under s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude evidence which lacks relevance and which might, by its admission, endanger trial fairness. This contrasts with the exclusionary approach of the courts of the USA to illegally obtained evidence, which prioritises the need to deter the police from unconstitutional behaviour. Although the UK courts do not wish to encourage illegally methods to obtaining evidence on the part of the police, discovering guilt is prioritised.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/illegally-obtained-evidence/

[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.

b) Nip down the road and borrow one from the Met.  I think you'll find they were routinely used in every force.

[David1819]

Your post above has no relevance to the original question, nor indeed does it make sense in relation my replies.

You have claimed that:

The idea of fixing a wire to Julie in an attempt to obtain a confession from JB was an easy and obvious method of solving the case.

That is a wild assumption on your behalf, there is no evidence that the above is true. There is no evidence that the method was thought of, available or even possible at the time and in the circumstances. The option may not have been available to them for a whole multitude of different reasons which you nor I could not even hope to contemplate given the limited amount of information available.

Ignoring the above assumptions, you are somehow able to then conclude that:

As the police did not set up a wire on Julie to try and coax a confession out of Jeremy, that must mean that there was no confession to coax out of Jeremy.

The lack of logic in that conclusion so clear that it's ridiculous. It does not pass the test for soundness in any way.

I am not using the fact there was no audio record in itself as reason to conclude Julie's testimony was false.

But combined with all the other unreliable circumstances around JMs testimony it certainly adds more reason to doubt the credibility.

If one looks at the linguistics of JMs testimony and the notes of RBs diary and AEs written notes compared to the facts of the situation that in itself is damning enough to discard it as evidence.

For Julies testimony to have any significance it needs to include something only the killer would know and not the police or anyone else. The fact of the matter is Julies testimony contains things the alleged killer didn't even do. 

[Adam]

I am not using the fact there was no audio record in itself as reason to conclude Julie's testimony was false.

But combined with all the other unreliable circumstances around JMs testimony it certainly adds more reason to doubt the credibility.

If one looks at the linguistics of JMs testimony and the notes of RBs diary and AEs written notes compared to the facts of the situation that in itself is damning enough to discard it as evidence.

For Julies testimony to have any significance it needs to include something only the killer would know and not the police or anyone else. The fact of the matter is Julies testimony contains things the alleged killer didn't even do.

It doesn't need to have something only the killer would know. Maybe Bamber just told him of his raw deal and then didn't give away much about the crime.

Anyway I created a thread on this.

[Adam]

Here are some of the things in Julie's WS:

There was a valuble pidgeon clock, valuable china and silver at WHF.

The outside doors were locked every night.

There was a downstairs window which latched shut when exiting.

There was a kitchen fight during the massacre.

Neville received seven shots.

The twins were shot in their sleep.

Sheila had a bible by her chest.

There was going to be a phone call from WHF to Bamber's cottage from MM.

There was a phone at WHF which had a last number redial record.

Bamber had started conversations at supper about fostering.

Sheila was shot last.

June was shot in her bed.

Everyone was asleep. Except Neville.

Sheila was shot under the chin.


Surely she didn't read and remember all this in the papers.

[guest2181]

I am not using the fact there was no audio record in itself as reason to conclude Julie's testimony was false.

But combined with all the other circumstances around JMs testimony it certainly adds more reason to doubt the credibility.

If one looks at the linguistics of JMs testimony and the notes of RBs diary and AEs written notes compared to the facts of the situation that in itself is damning enough to discard it as evidence.

For Julies testimony to have any significance it needs to include something only the killer would know and not the police or anyone else. The fact of the matter is Julies testimony contains things the alleged killer didn't even do.

Hey, where did the goal posts go?
You've just completely changed your argument.

With regards to a 'wire tap confession', simply put, there wasn't one, so that has no bearing, it is not beneficial or harmful to any particular argument.

Julie was placed before the Jury as a witness, it was for the Jury to decide how much they believed and to what extent it impacted upon the possible guilt of Jeremy.

Your claim that: For Julies testimony to have any significance it needs to include something only the killer would know .....  , is simply not true.

I'm also struggling with the logic there, because if only the killer and Julie knew, wouldn't it just be her word against his?

Whilst you and I may or may not believe certain aspects of Julies testimony, it simply boils down to being our own personal opinions.

[Caroline]

David, your arguments are baseless and irrational and your conclusions are illogical bordering on the absurd. Simply repeating them will not improve their quality.

I don't need to lecture Caroline on anything.

You requested that people respond to your strange conclusions regarding a course of action that the police didn't pursue nearly 31 years ago.

I believe I have now done that.

I love the way he is using his OWN POST as proof.

[guest2181]

I love the way he is using his OWN POST as proof.

Heck I don't really mind if there is a sensible discussion to be had, but posting utter rubbish (which it was in my opinion) and then shouting about it, trying to goad people in to responding .......... well he just came across as a bit of a banana. Never mind, no harm done.

[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.

c) Which Jones?  DS Jones was simply a low ranking officer and never advanced further than sergeant.

The officer with overall responsibility for day-to-day operations was Chief Superintendent Harris with 30 years service.  23 years spent in CID.  9 years deputy head of Essex police CID.  And yet he and those reporting to him were completely oblivious to covert listening devices in the mid 80's 

[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.

d) There's no evidence Julie approached the police via Liz Rimmington first.  The police may well have had earlier (after her statement of 8th Aug and before her second statement 8th Sep) conversations with Julie.

The flake/results were not made available until 12th Sep

Nothing much cooking here.  I'm off to ride one of my two horses 

[David1819]

It doesn't need to have something only the killer would know. Maybe Bamber just told him of his raw deal and then didn't give away much about the crime.

Anyway I created a thread on this.

it sure would help