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

[JackiePreece]

Please provide the newspaper sources that told the public these.

Why would the media mention these things ? It was murder/suicide. There is no reason to mention lockable windows, doors and clocks. Or any of the other things.

David has already given you an example of something that might have shown Jeremy confided in Julie eg a bloody wetsuit buried somewhere that the police discovered as a result of Julie tipping them off.

The list you provided was information that was known to a variety of people from a variety of sources.

I dont know if the police employed family liaison officers then or similar but the police would have some sort of duty of care to Colin and Jeremy as next of kin to the victims to impart certain information.

[sami]

David has already given you an example of something that might have shown Jeremy confided in Julie eg a bloody wetsuit buried somewhere that the police discovered as a result of Julie tipping them off.

The list you provided was information that was known to a variety of people from a variety of sources.

I dont know if the police employed family liaison officers then or similar but the police would have some sort of duty of care to Colin and Jeremy as next of kin to the victims to impart certain information.

jb would never tell jm infomation like that he's no fool .he also spun julie a few tales of what happened that morning.he would never give anyone let alone jm absolute proof that woulld show he is guilty,would you

[JackiePreece]

Bamber was abroad when Julie approached the police. They had a big row after she heard Bamber ask another woman out. There was no way he would want Julie back in his life. She had become an irritant.

As mentioned, it is unethical to ask a witness to attempt to coax a secret confession from Bamber. It had never been attempted before. The police had enough to convict and keep Bamber behind bars. As proven.

Jeremy wasn't abroad when Julie was interviewed by the police.  Read the dates on the statements.

No one needed to coax anything out of Jeremy.  Julie said he talked for months about his plans and intentions of murdering his family.  He continued to talk about it post murders.  I have already posted the face-to-face conversation they had in Blazers restaurant and the telephone conversation regarding the bike.  Julie said they parted on good terms.  Having interviewed Julie the police were clearly able to identify opportunities for taping a meeting or telephone conversation and allow Jeremy to hang himself. It rather begs the question why they didn't dont you think?

When the police are dealing with a mass murder all tactics will be deployed to catch the perpertrator(s) save torture. 

Can you identify for me please any other case of premediated murder where the perpertrator has confided in a signficant other who wasn't involved?  The significant other has then tipped off the police without the perpertrators knowledge and the significant other is still in communication and on friendly terms with the perpertrator.  How have the police gone about dealing with the witness?

[JackiePreece]

jb would never tell jm infomation like that he's no fool .he also spun julie a few tales of what happened that morning.he would never give anyone let alone jm absolute proof that woulld show he is guilty,would you

Hopefully Adam will read this and realise that Julie didn't have any info that wasn't known to others.

[sami]

Hopefully Adam will read this and realise that Julie didn't have any info that wasn't known to others.

thats not true and its not what i said .he spun jm several tails which he did not tell anyone else

[JackiePreece]

thats not true and its not what i said .he spun jm several tails which he did not tell anyone else

Julie claimed Jeremy made various claims which either couldn't be corroborated, such as catching rats for strangling to test his metal for murdering his family, or that were proved untrue such as hiring a hitman.  Everything else was know by others and by default available to Julie.

If you disagree identify something that falls outside the above.

[sami]

Julie claimed Jeremy made various claims which either couldn't be corroborated, such as catching rats for strangling to test his metal for murdering his family, or that were proved untrue such as hiring a hitman.  Everything else was know by others and by default available to Julie.

If you disagree identify something that falls outside the above.

my point is jb would not tell anyone where they could find evidence to prove he comited the murders .work the rest out yourself

[JackiePreece]

my point is jb would not tell anyone where they could find evidence to prove he comited the murders .work the rest out yourself

And my point is are you able to identify any information that Julie provided to the police that could be corrobroated and was unknown to others? 

[sami]

And my point is are you able to identify any information that Julie provided to the police that could be corrobroated and was unknown to others?

the 3am call

[JackiePreece]

the 3am call

Do you mean the call Jeremy claimed he received from Nevill or the call Jeremy made to Julie?

Either way this doesn't fall outside the parameters I set you in post #125 as it was information already known to others. The police obviously knew about Jeremy's claim of a call from Nevill and Julie's housemates knew about the call she received from Jeremy.

I'm looking for information that can be corroborated and wasn't known to others?

[sami]

Do you mean the call Jeremy claimed he received from Nevill or the call Jeremy made to Julie?

Either way this doesn't fall outside the parameters I set you in post #125 as it was information already known to others. The police obviously knew about Jeremy's claim of a call from Nevill and Julie's housemates knew about the call she received from Jeremy.

I'm looking for information that can be corroborated and wasn't known to others?

there was no call from nb its in your head.nb would not have been able to talk after the first shots to his face .and the last person he would call is jb.that she and jb robbed the caravan site was that known to everyone

[guest2181]

And my point is are you able to identify any information that Julie provided to the police that could be corrobroated and was unknown to others?

the 3am call

Hi Sami, I fear you have been sucked in to one of the usual styles of irrelevant arguments.

Jackie, like David are challenging people to come up with a unique piece of information which Julie was in possession of and which would show Jeremy to be guilty (we had 'the location of bloody clothes example').

That is an irrelevant argument because it is well known that no such piece of information was used to convict Jeremy.

The way to view Julies testimony, is simply as a character witness which the jury could choose to either believe or not.

Jackie and David are attempting to claim some sort of victory by arguing a point which we already know to be true, but the point has no impact either fore, or against the actual argument in hand.

[David1819]

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.

On the contrary its not an opinion at all.

Read the primary sources of evidence such as the testimony the notes and diary's of those involved. The claim that JMs statement does not corroborate the facts of the crime and contains the identical false information that RB and AE were given is unquestionable and irrefutable

Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!



The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below

Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"[/i]

RWB's Diary


So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.

[sami]

Hi Sami, I fear you have been sucked in to one of the usual styles of irrelevant arguments.

Jackie, like David are challenging people to come up with a unique piece of information which Julie was in possession of and which would show Jeremy to be guilty (we had 'the location of bloody clothes example').

That is an irrelevant argument because it is well known that no such piece of information was used to convict Jeremy.

The way to view Julies testimony, is simply as a character witness which the jury could choose to either believe or not.

Jackie and David are attempting to claim some sort of victory by arguing a point which we already know to be true, but the point has no impact either fore, or against the actual argument in hand.

thanks hartley.wont engage in this pointless argument anymore

[guest2181]

On the contrary its not an opinion:

I'm not arguing with you.

You have formed an opinion. That opinion may be based on a number of premises which may or may not be accurate, which has led you to a conclusion which in turn, may or may not be accurate.

Clearly others have been through a similar process and arrived at a different answer.