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

[JackiePreece]

very good point justice

A warrant I think.  Same sought of thing when they enter property for a search.  All in a days work for the police. 

[Adam]

it sure would help

I posted a list of things earlier. Taken from a thread already created.

[Adam]

Here are some of the things on 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.

[sami]

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

because he is cunning .he didnt tell her all .because he knew if in the future jm turned tail on him she would not be able to tell police anything that could be collabirated.he's not that stupid.common sense david

[sami]

A warrant I think.  Same sought of thing when they enter property for a search.  All in a days work for the police.

the same ,i beg to differ /all in a days work .david gave 2 examples out of hundred of thousands of cases.once again hardly common

[Adam]

Going back to the original topic. Even Mike and the CT have not claimed the police should have wired Julie up to coax a confession from Bamber.

This has never been done before. The Eliot Turner and Mick Philpot cases which David highlighted,  simply bugged a room and had no coaxing involved.

The only case similar is Colin Stagg, when the police used a paid and trained police woman as a honey trap. This case was thrown out in disgrace.

My thread post highlighting 24 reasons shows what a crazy idea this is. Hopefully David won't keep creating crazy theories to create discussion.

[David1819]

because he is cunning .he didnt tell her all .because he knew if in the future jm turned tail on him she would not be able to tell police anything that could be collabirated.he's not that stupid.common sense david

He is stupid if he revealed everything to his partner then split up with her. Your saying he confessed but with some false information just incase she goes to the police? hardly common sense at all

[David1819]

Going back to the original topic. Even Mike and the CT have not claimed the police should have wired Julie up to coax a confession from Bamber.

This has never been done before. The Eliot Turner and Mick Philpot cases which David highlighted,  simply bugged a room and had no coaxing involved.

The only case similar is Colin Stagg, when the police used a paid and trained police woman as a honey trap. This case was thrown out in disgrace.

My thread post highlighting 24 reasons shows what a crazy idea this is. Hopefully David won't keep creating crazy theories to create discussion.

crazy theories? by your own admission it was an "interesting theory". and It certainly kept you up at night 

[sami]

He is stupid if he revealed everything to his partner then split up with her. Your saying he confessed but with some false information just incase she goes to the police? hardly common sense at all

he wasnt as clever as you.that is why jm told police he said it was a hitman all to muddy the waters in case of future turncoat.wake up

[JackiePreece]

the same ,i beg to differ /all in a days work .david gave 2 examples out of hundred of thousands of cases.once again hardly common

Those cases were different.  In the Khan case the police were trying to obtain evidence without the suspects' knowledge.  I don't know what evidence they had to suspect.  They were having a private conversation in their own home.  The police actually damaged an outside wall obtaining such.  In Jeremy's case the police had already been tipped off and one party would be aware.  Either way it doesn't matter it's legal. 

Obtaining warrants are an everyday occurence in police work, forcing entry to search and seize property or covert listening/surveillance.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/human-rights/surveillance-of-private-individuals/

Jeremy was under surveillance.  It appears the prosecution were unaware of this 

278. Mr Turner complains that failure to disclose the exact details of the surveillance put the defendant as he then was at a disadvantage when drafting his proof of evidence. In particular it would have assisted him to recollect when he left the note in the office. Since the appellant knew he was under surveillance we need not consider whether there should have been disclosure of the fact but we note that the Attorney General's guidelines of December 1981 in force at the relevant time gave a discretion to withhold material where "it contains details which, if they became known might facilitate the commission of other offences or alert someone not in custody that he was a suspect, or it discloses some unusual form of surveillance or method of detecting crime".

279. In evidence the appellant stated that he had returned to the farm the night after his release or the night after that – i.e. on the 14 or 15 September. In evidence he said:

"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".

280. Had prosecuting counsel been informed that the appellant was in fact under surveillance and in London at the time a potentially devastating cross-examination followed by the calling of rebuttal evidence would have caused the defence much embarrassment. Mr Turner contends the matter could have been simply explained away as a mistake as to dates, the actual visit occurring on 16 or 17 September as in fact he had instructed his solicitors. We have seen his proof of evidence to that effect.

[sami]

jb was an expert at staging scenes and acting innocent he did it at the caravan site.after  that he had the false confidence to go for the big one and have it all

[JackiePreece]

He is stupid if he revealed everything to his partner then split up with her. Your saying he confessed but with some false information just incase she goes to the police? hardly common sense at all

David can you think of any other cases where a partner has confessed to his/her partner about committing or taking part in premeditated murder and the partner subsequently informed the police?

[JackiePreece]

Those cases were different.  In the Khan case the police were trying to obtain evidence without the suspects' knowledge.  I don't know what evidence they had to suspect.  They were having a private conversation in their own home.  The police actually damaged an outside wall obtaining such.  In Jeremy's case the police had already been tipped off and one party would be aware.  Either way it doesn't matter it's legal. 

Obtaining warrants are an everyday occurence in police work, forcing entry to search and seize property or covert listening/surveillance.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/human-rights/surveillance-of-private-individuals/

Jeremy was under surveillance.  It appears the prosecution were unaware of this 

278. Mr Turner complains that failure to disclose the exact details of the surveillance put the defendant as he then was at a disadvantage when drafting his proof of evidence. In particular it would have assisted him to recollect when he left the note in the office. Since the appellant knew he was under surveillance we need not consider whether there should have been disclosure of the fact but we note that the Attorney General's guidelines of December 1981 in force at the relevant time gave a discretion to withhold material where "it contains details which, if they became known might facilitate the commission of other offences or alert someone not in custody that he was a suspect, or it discloses some unusual form of surveillance or method of detecting crime".

279. In evidence the appellant stated that he had returned to the farm the night after his release or the night after that – i.e. on the 14 or 15 September. In evidence he said:

"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".

280. Had prosecuting counsel been informed that the appellant was in fact under surveillance and in London at the time a potentially devastating cross-examination followed by the calling of rebuttal evidence would have caused the defence much embarrassment. Mr Turner contends the matter could have been simply explained away as a mistake as to dates, the actual visit occurring on 16 or 17 September as in fact he had instructed his solicitors. We have seen his proof of evidence to that effect.

Why wasn't prosecuting counsel advised Jeremy was under surveillance?  Is part of the reason for this that they would expect some telephone tapping and/or given Julies testimony some taped evidence?

[sami]

Those cases were different.  In the Khan case the police were trying to obtain evidence without the suspects' knowledge.  I don't know what evidence they had to suspect.  They were having a private conversation in their own home.  The police actually damaged an outside wall obtaining such.  In Jeremy's case the police had already been tipped off and one party would be aware.  Either way it doesn't matter it's legal. 

Obtaining warrants are an everyday occurence in police work, forcing entry to search and seize property or covert listening/surveillance.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/human-rights/surveillance-of-private-individuals/

Jeremy was under surveillance.  It appears the prosecution were unaware of this 

278. Mr Turner complains that failure to disclose the exact details of the surveillance put the defendant as he then was at a disadvantage when drafting his proof of evidence. In particular it would have assisted him to recollect when he left the note in the office. Since the appellant knew he was under surveillance we need not consider whether there should have been disclosure of the fact but we note that the Attorney General's guidelines of December 1981 in force at the relevant time gave a discretion to withhold material where "it contains details which, if they became known might facilitate the commission of other offences or alert someone not in custody that he was a suspect, or it discloses some unusual form of surveillance or method of detecting crime".

279. In evidence the appellant stated that he had returned to the farm the night after his release or the night after that – i.e. on the 14 or 15 September. In evidence he said:

"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".

280. Had prosecuting counsel been informed that the appellant was in fact under surveillance and in London at the time a potentially devastating cross-examination followed by the calling of rebuttal evidence would have caused the defence much embarrassment. Mr Turner contends the matter could have been simply explained away as a mistake as to dates, the actual visit occurring on 16 or 17 September as in fact he had instructed his solicitors. We have seen his proof of evidence to that effect.

its hindsight .and if they did get a audio confession you and others would now be saying.jb was only playing along with jm or jm was coaxing him into saying it,he said it just to see what jm would think.cant win with you lot

[David1819]

David can you think of any other cases where a partner has confessed to his/her partner about committing or taking part in premeditated murder and the partner subsequently informed the police?

not off the top of my head,