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

[David1819]

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.

I haven't changed the argument, its all relevant to the subject.

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?

If Julie gave information only the killer would know then Jeremy is the killer. The only way Jeremy  could defend himself would be by saying Julie was the real killer and she is trying to pin it on him.

For example and for argument sake. lets say Julie said Jeremy buried his blood soaked wet suit somewhere then police find the bloody wet suit buried in the ground. Now you have a corroborated testimony, information only someone involved in the crime would know about.

However in reality the opposite is the case. Julies testimony not only contains information the police and the news media already knew. It contains things the alleged killer did not even do, according to Julie Jeremy said to her that he shot Sheila once on the bed and left her on the bed with the bible on her chest however we know that cannot have happened, it does not corroborate the facts of the crime scene as you should know.

[guest7363]

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

Impossible David

[guest2181]

I haven't changed the argument, its all relevant to the subject.

If Julie gave information only the killer would know then Jeremy is the killer. The only way Jeremy  could defend himself would be by saying Julie was the real killer and she is trying to pin it on him.

For example and for argument sake. lets say Julie said Jeremy buried his blood soaked wet suit somewhere then police find the bloody wet suit buried in the ground. Now you have a corroborated testimony, information only someone involved in the crime would know about.

However in reality the opposite is the case. Julies testimony not only contains information the police and the news media already knew. It contains things the alleged killer did not even do, according to Julie Jeremy said to her that he shot Sheila once on the bed and left her on the bed with the bible on her chest however we know that cannot have happened, it does not corroborate the facts of the crime scene as you should know.

None of this is new. You seem to want to suggest that the police provided Julie with the information, surely the inaccuracies point towards that not being the case.

Your arguments aren't making any sense, you are trying to justify your predetermined opinion rather than arrive at a natural conclusion.

[JackiePreece]

I haven't changed the argument, its all relevant to the subject.

If Julie gave information only the killer would know then Jeremy is the killer. The only way Jeremy  could defend himself would be by saying Julie was the real killer and she is trying to pin it on him.

For example and for argument sake. lets say Julie said Jeremy buried his blood soaked wet suit somewhere then police find the bloody wet suit buried in the ground. Now you have a corroborated testimony, information only someone involved in the crime would know about.

However in reality the opposite is the case. Julies testimony not only contains information the police and the news media already knew. It contains things the alleged killer did not even do, according to Julie Jeremy said to her that he shot Sheila once on the bed and left her on the bed with the bible on her chest however we know that cannot have happened, it does not corroborate the facts of the crime scene as you should know.

The reason Jeremy only told Julie half the story is that if she went to the police they would see it was all wrong and wouldn't believe her.  This way he had someone to share with without any comeback 

[JackiePreece]

Can anyone think of any other cases in the UK where a partner has fessed up to his/her partner about carrying out a premeditated murder and the partner has subsequently informed the police?

[David1819]

None of this is new. You seem to want to suggest that the police provided Julie with the information, surely the inaccuracies point towards that not being the case.

The inaccuracies of the crime scene are the exact same inaccuracies that the police erroneously gave AE and RB

Jeremy's alleged confession happens to be allot of what RB speculates in his diary. Julie goes into as much detail as the mention Jeremy getting Sheila's fingerprints on the gun exactly how RB speculated.

I don't believe in such coincidences

Your arguments aren't making any sense, you are trying to justify your predetermined opinion rather than arrive at a natural conclusion.

The natural conclusion is Julie's testimony is not at all reliable. 

[guest7363]

The inaccuracies of the crime scene are the exact same inaccuracies that the police erroneously gave AE and RB

Jeremy's alleged confession happens to be allot of what RB speculates in his diary. Julie goes into as much detail as the mention Jeremy getting Sheila's fingerprints on the gun exactly how RB speculated.

I don't believe in such coincidences

The natural conclusion is Julie's testimony is not at all reliable.

Would the police have to get a court order to wiretap etc?

[Caroline]

The inaccuracies of the crime scene are the exact same inaccuracies that the police erroneously gave AE and RB

Jeremy's alleged confession happens to be allot of what RB speculates in his diary. Julie goes into as much detail as the mention Jeremy getting Sheila's fingerprints on the gun exactly how RB speculated.

I don't believe in such coincidences

The natural conclusion is Julie's testimony is not at all reliable.

No, that's just YOUR conclusion.

[guest2181]

The inaccuracies of the crime scene are the exact same inaccuracies that the police erroneously gave AE and RB

Jeremy's alleged confession happens to be allot of what RB speculates in his diary. Julie goes into as much detail as the mention Jeremy getting Sheila's fingerprints on the gun exactly how RB speculated.

I don't believe in such coincidences

The natural conclusion is Julie's testimony is not at all reliable.

That is simply your opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

Unsurprisingly people's opinions differ.

You are trying to force your views as facts, with little to no justification.

[Caroline]

That is simply your opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

Unsurprisingly people's opinions differ.

You are trying to force your views as facts, with little to no justification.

I wonder why David and Lookout are posting the SAME theory? 

[lookout]

I wonder why David and Lookout are posting the SAME theory? 

Mine is no theory,Caroline. I haven't read this thread as I'm on the other one.Haven't quite got the gist of reading two threads at once yet. Takes me all my time to read one sometimes.

[Caroline]

Mine is no theory,Caroline. I haven't read this thread as I'm on the other one.Haven't quite got the gist of reading two threads at once yet. Takes me all my time to read one sometimes.

I know you haven't Lookout, that's not what I meant.

[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.

Jeremy seemed ahead of the game.  After he 'confessed' to Julie on 7th Aug that he arranged for Matthew to carry out the murders he told her they shouldn't discuss it in the house in case it was bugged    This was after he had just told her 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1932.0;attach=9641

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1932.0;attach=9642

Why would Jeremy consider bugging and the police be oblivious to it?

[JackiePreece]

Mine is no theory,Caroline. I haven't read this thread as I'm on the other one.Haven't quite got the gist of reading two threads at once yet. Takes me all my time to read one sometimes.

You're doing great for a 76 yoa Lookout.  You said you're currently in your 76th year have you had your birthday yet this year?  Hope I'm a silver surfer when I'm 76 

[sami]

Would the police have to get a court order to wiretap etc?

very good point justice