Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on May 23, 2016, 05:26:PM
-
Bamber was travelling around and never in one place for a long period.
Julie was with Bamber virtually all the time after the massacre. So they would not have exchanged phone conversations.
Bamber is unlikely to discuss the massacre over the phone if he feels some people believe he's a suspect.
Bamber is unlikely to discuss the massacre in his cottage if he feels some people believe he is a suspect.
Taff Jones thought Bamber was innocent. Right up until Bamber and Julie split up. So would not have agreed to bugging.
Bugging someone was not common practice in 1985 and hardly ever used.
Julie was Bamber's girlfriend for a month after the massacre. The police had no idea what her feelings were. It was doubtful she would agree to be a honey trap.
Julie may tell her boyfriend at the time (Bamber), that the police had asked her to be a honey trap.
The police couldn't secretly bug Julie. She was innocent.
A honey trap had either never or hardly ever been used. It was attempted in the Colin Stagg case and resulted in the case collapsing.
It was only a month between the massacre and Bamber's arrest. So no time to plan this delicate operation.
Bugging is something done at a persons home. If there was not enough evidence to charge a suspect. There was enough evidence within a month.
Bugging is something done in someones home. However Bamber was travelling around Europe and England.
Julie went to the police after her and Bamber split up. There was no way she was going to become Bamber's girlfriend again to set up a honey trap. Bamber wanted to be a play boy.
Julie went to the police after her and Bamber had split up. There is no way Bamber would then speak about the massacre to her over the phone.
The police had enough evidence to charge Bamber within one month. So did not need to bug him.
Bugging someone takes time to set up, get the correct experts and technology.
The police felt they had enough evidence to get Bamber to confess during formal questioning. So did not need to bug him.
The police had a duty to arrest a suspect in a 5X murder when they believe they have enough evidence. The suspect would be a danger to society.
The police had nothing to force Julie to secretly turn on Bamber while she was his girlfriend. They knew nothing of her crimes.
There was no point secretly bugging Bamber's cottage after he split up with Julie. Bamber would not confide in anyone else.
A bugging attempt which did not record a confession, would hinder the prosecution case.
A covert bugging attempt could only be done by bugging a property. It can't be clothes as people wear different clothes every day. As mentioned Bamber was travelling and would not be daft enough to speak about the massacre in his cottage.
Publically, Bamber was supposed to be a grieving and officially innocent man. According to the police. News of a bugging attempt would be reported negatively in the media.
-
Adam this is ridiculous David has recently started a thread on this. Why do you always have to start your own threads.
Its obvious it could have been done legally, safely and logistically. It wasn't done because there was no confession of any sorts.
-
Hopefully these 24 reasons closes this issue.
It was very surprising that such a weak argument was brought to the table by supporters.
-
Hopefully these 24 reasons closes this issue.
It was very surprising that such a weak argument was brought to the table by supporters.
It's not a weak argument its a very strong one.
Julie said they parted on good terms. Jeremy was due to take June's bike over. Taff Jones didn't believe Julie. The police could easily have planted listening devices in Julies house or on her and all arranged for Julie to take the bike over. There would be no reason for him to suspect. Julie said he continued talking about the murders and his involvement up until the relationship ended. Steve posted yesterday about Blazers restuarant.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7592.msg361726.html#msg361726
-
Bamber was travelling around and never in one place for a long period.
Julie was with Bamber virtually all the time after the massacre. So they would not have exchanged phone conversations.
Bamber is unlikely to discuss the massacre over the phone if he feels some people believe he's a suspect.
Bamber is unlikely to discuss the massacre in his cottage if he feels some people believe he is a suspect.
Taff Jones thought Bamber was innocent. Right up until Bamber and Julie split up. So would not have agreed to bugging.
Bugging someone was not common practice in 1985 and hardly ever used.
Julie was Bamber's girlfriend for a month after the massacre. The police had no idea what her feelings were. It was doubtful she would agree to be a honey trap.
Julie may tell her boyfriend at the time (Bamber), that the police had asked her to be a honey trap.
The police couldn't secretly bug Julie. She was innocent.
A honey trap had either never or hardly ever been used. It was attempted in the Colin Stagg case and resulted in the case collapsing.
It was only a month between the massacre and Bamber's arrest. So no time to plan this delicate operation.
Bugging is something done at a persons home. If there was not enough evidence to charge a suspect. There was enough evidence within a month.
Bugging is something done in someones home. However Bamber was travelling around Europe and England.
Julie went to the police after her and Bamber split up. There was no way she was going to become Bamber's girlfriend again to set up a honey trap. Bamber wanted to be a play boy.
Julie went to the police after her and Bamber had split up. There is no way Bamber would then speak about the massacre to her over the phone.
The police had enough evidence to charge Bamber within one month. So did not need to bug him.
Bugging someone takes time to set up, get the correct experts and technology.
The police felt they had enough evidence to get Bamber to confess during formal questioning. So did not need to bug him.
The police had a duty to arrest a suspect in a 5X murder when they believe they have enough evidence. The suspect would be a danger to society.
The police had nothing to force Julie to secretly turn on Bamber while she was his girlfriend. They knew nothing of her crimes.
There was no point secretly bugging Bamber's cottage after he split up with Julie. Bamber would not confide in anyone else.
A bugging attempt which did not record a confession, would hinder the prosecution case.
A covert bugging attempt could only be done by bugging a property. It can't be clothes as people wear different clothes every day. As mentioned Bamber was travelling and would not be daft enough to speak about the massacre in his cottage.
Publically, Bamber was supposed to be a grieving and officially innocent man. According to the police. News of a bugging attempt would be reported negatively in the media.
Adam this is just a long list of things you have made up.
The answer the question adequately you will need the police to answer why they didn't and I doubt they would be honest about it.
-
Leading a suspect into a direction to say something incriminating was tried with Colin Stagg. The case collapsed because of it.
They could have bugged his cottage. But he was rarely there. And he was not considered a suspect by many, including Taff during the short one month period between massacre and arrest.
-
Adam this is just a long list of things you have made up.
The answer the question adequately you will need the police to answer why they didn't and I doubt they would be honest about it.
No it's a list of reasons I have thought up. In answer to you're question.
You did ask.
-
Leading a suspect into a direction to say something incriminating was tried with Colin Stagg. The case collapsed because of it.
They could have bugged his cottage. But he was rarely there. And he was not considered a suspect by many, including Taff during the short one month period between massacre and arrest.
That was completely different a female police officer was engaged in some sort of dirty talk to try and get a confession.
In Jeremy's case Julie claims all sorts from plots to murder to a hit man.
-
That was completely different a female police officer was engaged in some sort of dirty talk to try and get a confession.
In Jeremy's case Julie claims all sorts from plots to murder to a hit man.
all jm's claims were what jb had told her
-
Hopefully these 24 reasons closes this issue.
It was very surprising that such a weak argument was brought to the table by supporters.
The argument is that there was no confession to authenticate in the first place. given JM lack of any credibility in the first place its a rather strong argument
-
The argument is that there was no confession to authenticate in the first place. given JM lack of any credibility in the first place its a rather strong argument
but jb admitted jm was telling the truth about everything bar the incriminating stuff about him
-
Julies WS is in different parts -
Events after the massacre:
The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.
What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him
Bamber's hatred and resentment:
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
The massacre plans:
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.
Julies Feelings:
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
-
Julies WS is in different parts -
Events after the massacre:
The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.
What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him
Bamber's hatred and resentment:
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
The massacre plans:
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.
Julies Feelings:
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
None of this seems good reason for the police to decide not to grab the smoking gun evidence that would be just a phone call away solving the case then and there.
The most logical answer remains there was no confessions to authenticate in the first place.
-
None of this seems good reason for the police to decide not to grab the smoking gun evidence that would be just a phone call away solving the case then and there.
The most logical answer remains there was no confessions to authenticate in the first place.
logical only to you and other supporters
-
None of this seems good reason for the police to decide not to grab the smoking gun evidence that would be just a phone call away solving the case then and there.
The most logical answer remains there was no confessions to authenticate in the first place.
There are 24 reasons above why this was not done.
Are you saying after Julie and Bamber split up, and after she went to the police, the police should have asked Julie to get back in contact with Bamber. To coax a secret incriminating audio recording from him ?
That's asking a lot from Julie. She is an innocent witness. Not some sort of secret agent, who is supposed to live a lie and get back in contact with a former boyfriend. Putting herself in danger.
The Eliot Turner case, the police bugged the home and let Turner and the relatives talk amongst themselves. After a long period Turner said incriminating things.
Julie knowingly coaxing something incriminating from Bamber seems unethical. It was tried in the Colin Stagg case with a paid police officer going under cover. Which resulted in the case being thrown out in disgrace. Besides which the police in the Bamber case now had a lot of evidence and a willing star witness.
-
Verywell. We have two answers from the guilt camp.
Adam sais it would be difficult or unethical and too much to ask of Julie.
Caroline said I'm like a pigeon.
Anyone else have any ideas or theories to put forward?
-
A taped confession would have made Julie's time in the witness box much easier.
Jeremy asked Julie if she wanted anything from the house she said June's bike. See below.
The police could arrange for Julie to call Jeremy to drop the bike off. When he turned up she could then say she was struggling to cope knowing what had happened, keeping it to herself and was going to the doctors to get more sleeping tablets. Followed by I wish you had drugged them like you first suggested. I hate thinking of your parents and Sheila seeing Matthews face shooting them. Have you paid Matthew the £2,000 yet?
She claims he was very loose with his tongue so they might need a long tape.
The police could then swoop, charge and arrest Jeremy then and there while listening and recording from a nearby car or even hiding on the premises upstairs, in the loft or garden.
There would be no Jeremy Bamber forum. We would never of had the pleasure of meeting!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1932.0;attach=9664
Off to the stables before the office ::)
-
The Mick Philpot bugging was done by bugging their hotel room and getting them to talk amongst themselves. So similar to the Eliot Turner case.
The Colin Stagg case they got a paid and professional police woman to attempt a honey trap. The case getting thrown out.
They could have bugged Bamber's cottage after Taff was taken off the case. But why bother wasting weeks and months ? They now had enough evidence and a big witness. With Bamber and Julie separated he's never going to say anything incriminating there.
-
Verywell. We have two answers from the guilt camp.
Adam sais it would be difficult or unethical and too much to ask of Julie.
Caroline said I'm like a pigeon.
Anyone else have any ideas or theories to put forward?
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.
-
The Mick Philpot bugging was done by bugging their hotel room and getting them to talk amongst themselves. So similar to the Eliot Turner case.
The Colin Stagg case they got a paid and professional police woman to attempt a honey trap. The case getting thrown out.
They could have bugged Bamber's cottage after Taff was taken off the case. But why bother wasting weeks and months ? They now had enough evidence and a big witness. With Bamber and Julie separated he's never going to say anything incriminating there.
Adam, Steve posted the other day about the Blazers restaurant meeting which took place around the tim the relationship ended. I found the statement last night. She said she tackled him again about the killings so it seems he was always up for discussing it. He made her promise not to kill herself. All she needed to do was phone up and say she was feeling suicidal and needed to discuss with him as she couldn't talk to anyone else about it for obvious reasons!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1932.0;attach=9650
-
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.
Adam started this thread not David.
f). Why let him go on holiday abroad then. Or did Jones think it was ok if he murdered foreigners? ::)
He was placed under surveillance in this country. Was he under surveillance in France?
-
Adam started this thread not David.
f). Why let him go on holiday abroad then. Or did Jones think it was ok if he murdered foreigners? ::)
He was placed under surveillance in this country. Was he under surveillance in France?
You can have another gold star for missing the point. :)
-
Why wasn't his passport taken off him ?
-
You can have another gold star for missing the point. :)
At least I have a chest to pin it on unlike some ;)
-
Why wasn't his passport taken off him ?
Good question Lookout x
-
Good question Lookout x
they knew he would be coming back to uk a man who has committed 5 murders for monatery gain would not leave the country for good nor would he disappear because of the inheritence.and the police knew it
-
they knew he would be coming back to uk a man who has committed 5 murders for monatery gain would not leave the country for good nor would he disappear because of the inheritence.and the police knew it
It wasn't a case of them knowing he would return for any inheritance at all. Do you think for one minute that they'd have allowed an alleged mass murderer out of the country ? No. The reason nobody was bothered at his leaving was to give them more time to conjure up whatever they could find,or not,that would justify his arrest on his return.
Afterall,they all " THOUGHT " he was guilty. ::) THOUGHT got him his sentence.
-
It wasn't a case of them knowing he would return for any inheritance at all. Do you think for one minute that they'd have allowed an alleged mass murderer out of the country ? No. The reason nobody was bothered at his leaving was to give them more time to conjure up whatever they could find,or not,that would justify his arrest on his return.
but lookout if they let him leave to give them more time ,how could they be sure he would return and what about if he never returned all they time buying would be wasted
-
but lookout if they let him leave to give them more time ,how could they be sure he would return and what about if he never returned all they time buying would be wasted
At that stage,EP KNEW he was telling the truth as they had NOTHING on him whatsoever,but there was that much pressure coming from all quarters that they had to justify their somewhat tin-pot investigation in getting a conviction to make it look good and of course to keep their pensions intact and room for promotion too. EP acted APPALLINGLY. What more can I say ?
-
At that stage,EP KNEW he was telling the truth as they had NOTHING on him whatsoever,but there was that much pressure coming from all quarters that they had to justify their somewhat tin-pot investigation in getting a conviction to make it look good and of course to keep their pensions intact and room for promotion too. EP acted APPALLINGLY. What more can I say ?
you could be right but others would beg to differ
-
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 ;D ;D ;D. He claims to be a 'don't know' and I believe he is - but he MUST argue for innocence for his own ends.
-
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 ;D ;D ;D. 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D ;D ;D. 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
-
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.
-
Well done Hartley.. but You have David's approval Hartley - you must be SO proud! ;D ;D
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
It's a bit like Mikes "Chewbacca Defence". :P
-
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
:P
-
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
:P
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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
-
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 (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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ::)
-
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 ::)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ::)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? ::)
-
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. ;D ;D Takes me all my time to read one sometimes.
-
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. ;D ;D Takes me all my time to read one sometimes.
I know you haven't Lookout, that's not what I meant.
-
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?
-
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. ;D ;D 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 ;D
-
Would the police have to get a court order to wiretap etc?
very good point justice ;)
-
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.
-
it sure would help
I posted a list of things earlier. Taken from a thread already created.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;D
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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, :-\
-
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.
I can assure you it is done all the time and will be going on right now as we post ;) There are hundred of crimes carried out everyday. Most of us only take note of the high profile cases.
It doesn't usually involve a partner as most partners who commit or take part (hitman) in premediated murder don't usually confess to anyone that isn't involved.
-
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
It would depend how genuine it sounded I guess. Had it have been available to play to the jury it may have been a unanimous verdict.
-
It would depend how genuine it sounded I guess. Had it have been available to play to the jury it may have been a unanimous verdict.
If they did get an audio confession they may not even be a trial. They would arrest Jeremy play it to him and he would have plead no contest or a legal team would push an insanity defence.
It would certainly close the case. that's why its odd it was never attempted.
-
It would depend how genuine it sounded I guess. Had it have been available to play to the jury it may have been a unanimous verdict.
were there 2 female members of the jury that were in tears at the verdict
-
A warrant I think. Same sought of thing when they enter property for a search. All in a days work for the police.
You could be wrong, the police are held to a higher standard when seeking these orders than when they are seeking a normal warrant. They also have to show other avenues have been exhausted.
-
If they did get an audio confession they may not even be a trial. They would arrest Jeremy play it to him and he would have plead no contest or a legal team would push an insanity defence.
It would certainly close the case. that's why its odd it was never attempted.
have you read my post about what he would have said if there was a audio tape obtained by bugging .a few posts earlier
-
You could be wrong, the police are held to a higher standard when seeking these orders than when they are seeking a normal warrant. They also have to show other avenues have been exhausted.
just as i thought .thank you justice ;)
-
If they did get an audio confession they may not even be a trial. They would arrest Jeremy play it to him and he would have plead no contest or a legal team would push an insanity defence.
It would certainly close the case. that's why its odd it was never attempted.
Agree :-\
I wonder why prosecuting counsel were unaware Jeremy was under surveillance :-\
-
You could be wrong, the police are held to a higher standard when seeking these orders than when they are seeking a normal warrant. They also have to show other avenues have been exhausted.
I have posted links to all the relevant legislation in this thread.
-
were there 2 female members of the jury that were in tears at the verdict
I have read so. Why do you ask?
-
If they did get an audio confession they may not even be a trial. They would arrest Jeremy play it to him and he would have plead no contest or a legal team would push an insanity defence.
It would certainly close the case. that's why its odd it was never attempted.
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.
-
I have read so. Why do you ask?
because them 2 were too wrapped up flirting with jb ,to be able to do their job other wise it would have been unanimous
-
because them 2 were too wrapped up flirting with jb ,to be able to do their job other wise it would have been unanimous
How do you know the two jurors that supposedly cried returned verdicts of not guilty? Jurors often cry at the end of harrowing trials when the verdict is unanimous.
How could they flirt with Jeremy? They wouldn't be able to interact with him at all.
Never did get out on one of my two horses this evening :(
-
because them 2 were too wrapped up flirting with jb ,to be able to do their job other wise it would have been unanimous
LOL Were on earth do you get this stuff?
-
LOL Were on earth do you get this stuff?
the same place you get your crackpot idea's from
-
the same place you get your crackpot idea's from
Since the jury consisted of seven men and five women why did he only flirt with two of them? were the other three lesbians?
This must be the dumbest theory this year
-
Since the jury consisted of seven men and five women why did he only flirt with two of them? were the other three lesbians?
them two like you had already made their minds up that jb could not have done it.were some not smiling at jb and jb returning the smiles.it was in the papers
-
Stan Jones said he was not surprised two female jurors voted not guilty.
It has been said Bamber kept looking at and smiling at the jury.
-
Stan Jones said he was not surprised two female jurors voted not guilty.
It has been said Bamber kept looking at and smiling at the jury.
thank you adam ;)
-
David you said Julie's WS has nothing about the crime that she would only find out from Bamber. I listed 14 things.
Did you not notice them ?
-
David you said Julie's WS has nothing about the crime that she would only find out from Bamber. I listed 14 things. Did you not notice them ?
i did and it was a excellent post.good work :)
-
i did and it was a excellent post.good work :)
Thank you.
Hopefully David won't continue claiming that none of Julie's WS regarding the crime scene, she could have only got from Bamber.
He and other supporters are perfectly entitled to change tack and say that the police told her what to put in her WS.
Bit weird that the police would include so many things on the crime that Julie could have only got from Bamber, then introduce MM, an innocent man into her WS.
-
Since the jury consisted of seven men and five women why did he only flirt with two of them? were the other three lesbians?
This must be the dumbest theory this year
the dumbest theory of all times belongs to you david and chin up no one can take that honour away from you .we have all heard of the magic bullet theory in the jf kennedy case .well david has come up with the magic bullet case theory after sheila fired the rifle the case ejected from the right hand side hit the bedcabinet and landed 3 feetaway from her on the opposite side from where it was ejected .why the other case didnt land there david will give you the answer.you really must wake up david.totall crackpot theory
-
the bullet case was ejected with such power that it hit the deflecter first than shot forward missing sheila and hitting the bedside cabinet and still had enough power in it to travel 3 feet away.magic or what
-
Where does it say that the two jurors were women ?
-
quote author=Adam link=topic=7676.msg362504#msg362504 date=1464123913]
Stan Jones said he was not surprised two female jurors voted not guilty.
It has been said Bamber kept looking at and smiling at the jury.
[/quote] :)
-
David you said Julie's WS has nothing about the crime that she would only find out from Bamber. I listed 14 things.
Did you not notice them ?
Those '14 things' police and the public already knew about.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The media would have only covered the case for a day or two. Before it became yesterdays news. Then taken interest again a month later.
The only scenario is the police told the media all this straight away. Quite why they would do this I do not know. They didn't need to and most was nothing to do with Sheila committing the massacre.
The media then put all this information into their papers. Which is a lot of useless information at the same time.
Julie then read these papers the day after the massacre and somehow remembered everything. And was then ready to tell the police a month later.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
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]
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
Exactly and the police must have known there was no unique information in Julie's testimony so all the more reason to try and secure a taped 'confession' which would have undoubtedly made it more compelling for a jury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt130z91J1A
-
Hence JM's questionable testimony.
-
Hence JM's questionable testimony.
The cavalry has arrived 8) Nice to see you as always Lookout x
-
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.
Its not an opinion Hartley. JMs testimony contains in part the exact same false information that the police gave AE and RB. Read it for yourself
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
-
Exactly and the police must have known there was no unique information in Julie's testimony so all the more reason to try and secure a taped 'confession' which would have undoubtedly made it more compelling for a jury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt130z91J1A
they didnt need it.the jury proved that .you will have to live with it
-
Its not an opinion Hartley. JMs testimony contains in part the exact same false information that the police gave AE and RB.
Refer to my previous post.
This is now a circular argument.
-
The cavalry has arrived 8) Nice to see you as always Lookout x
yea on rocking horses :)) :))
-
they didnt need it.the jury proved that .you will have to live with it
Do you know how the jury rated Julie as a prosecution witness compared with other aspects of the proseuction case against Jeremy?
-
yea on rocking horses :)) :))
::) ::)
:)) :))
-
Do you know how the jury rated Julie as a prosecution witness compared with other aspects of the proseuction case against Jeremy?
do you ,and how.well at least you admit they are other aspects of the case showing jb's guilty. you cant blame everything on poor jm.thank you
-
Exactly and the police must have known there was no unique information in Julie's testimony so all the more reason to try and secure a taped 'confession' which would have undoubtedly made it more compelling for a jury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt130z91J1A
the police knew nothing of the sort.and were happy with what they had and that it could show jb is guilty.got to hand it to them,they done it without an audio confession.clever boys hats off to them :)
-
Poor JM------------influenced by everyone,including Jeremy,eh ? ::) ( ref: Hartley's JM Docs.)
No excuse for telling lies though.
-
do you ,and how.well at least you admit they are other aspects of the case showing jb's guilty. you cant blame everything on poor jm.thank you
No, but I didn't imply anything either way you did. I said a taped confession from Jeremy played to the jury would undoubtedly be more compelling than Julie's verbal testimony.
Based on the jury's questions to the judge it would seem the silencer was the most compelling evidence but that's an aspect of the case I know little about ;) And I don't believe the silencer or blood evidence could ever be discredited depite previous attempts. It's watertight ;) :P ::) :-X
I was at one time a bit unfair towards Julie but I now think she was placed in an untenable position by the police and coerced. Happened all the time in policing during that era.
-
No, but I didn't imply anything either way you did. I said a taped confession from Jeremy played to the jury would undoubtedly be more compelling than Julie's verbal testimony.
Based on the jury's questions to the judge it would seem the silencer was the most compelling evidence but that's an aspect of the case I know little about ;) And I don't believe the silencer or blood evidence could ever be discredited depite previous attempts. It's watertight ;) :P ::) :-X
I was at one time a bit unfair towards Julie but I now think she was placed in an untenable position by the police and coerced. Happened all the time in policing during that era.
the silencer i doubt was used but that doesnt make jb innocent
-
the silencer i doubt was used but that doesnt make jb innocent
A trial isn't about innocence. It's about 'not guilty' or 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'.
If you doubt the silencer was used and are saying you believe it was fabricated then it surely begs the question why the prosecution needed to fabricate evidence if the case against Jeremy was strong?
-
A trial isn't about innocence. It's about 'not guilty' or 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'.
If you doubt the silencer was used and are saying you believe it was fabricated then it surely begs the question why the prosecution needed to fabricate evidence if the case against Jeremy was strong?
not really,iam happy that the relatives sured up the evidence because jb made sure there would be doubt.
-
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.
David hasn't given sources that the public knew about the 14 items I mentioned in Julies WS.
Are you saying Julie didn't get these 14 pieces of information from Bamber or the media. But from 'a variety of other sources' prior to going to the police ?
-
David hasn't given sources that the public knew about the 14 items I mentioned in Julies WS.
Are you saying Julie didn't get these 14 pieces of information from Bamber or the media. But from 'a variety of other sources' prior to going to the police ?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7676.msg362603.html#msg362603
I didn't get to ride one of my two horses yesterday evening but I am determined to do so this evening. Must dash ^-^
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7676.msg362603.html#msg362603
I didn't get to ride one of my two horses yesterday evening but I am determined to do so this evening. Must dash ^-^
Have you got two horses ?
RB gave his opinion on how Bamber got Sheila to co operate.
It is no surprise Bamber told Julie that Sheila was shot last. It's common sense she would be.
-
Have you got two horses ?
RB gave his opinion on how Bamber got Sheila to co operate.
It is no surprise Bamber told Julie that Sheila was shot last. It's common sense she would be.
Its incredible how Jeremy's 'confession' to Julie happened to be many of AEs and RBs opinions and theories. Opinions and theories that don't even match the facts of the crime!
I guess Jeremy must have used his crystal ball to read his relatives minds then 'confess' to Julie all of those theories just so it would seem to everyone that RB and Julie were setting him up! ::)
-
Its incredible how Jeremy's 'confession' to Julie happened to be many of AEs and RBs opinions and theories. Opinions and theories that don't even match the facts of the crime!
I guess Jeremy must have used his crystal ball to read his relatives minds then 'confess' to Julie all of those theories just so it would seem to everyone that RB and Julie were setting him up! ::)
Yet NEITHER mentioned a hit man!
-
Its incredible how Jeremy's 'confession' to Julie happened to be many of AEs and RBs opinions and theories. Opinions and theories that don't even match the facts of the crime!
I guess Jeremy must have used his crystal ball to read his relatives minds then 'confess' to Julie all of those theories just so it would seem to everyone that RB and Julie were setting him up! ::)
Aah, now resorting to an argument of personal incredulity.
Nope, that's not going to work. ::)
-
Aah, now resorting to an argument of personal incredulity.
Nope, that's not going to work. ::)
Been through all of that too - Emperor's new clothes in reverse! :D
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7676.msg362603.html#msg362603
I didn't get to ride one of my two horses yesterday evening but I am determined to do so this evening. Must dash ^-^
you could have ridden the rocking one indoors yesterday
-
Its incredible how Jeremy's 'confession' to Julie happened to be many of AEs and RBs opinions and theories. Opinions and theories that don't even match the facts of the crime!
I guess Jeremy must have used his crystal ball to read his relatives minds then 'confess' to Julie all of those theories just so it would seem to everyone that RB and Julie were setting him up! ::)
My 14 points Julie said, are nothing to do with AE or RB.
You said each point was already public knowledge. Although there is no evidence the media wrote these things the day after the massacre.
The police would have to say these things to the media. Then the media decide to publish every fact. Then Julie read and remember it all.
Perhaps Jeremy did tell her ? Just a thought.
-
Been through all of that too - Emperor's new clothes in reverse! :D
;D
-
Yet NEITHER mentioned a hit man!
Phew! seems Mugford must be reliable after all ::)
-
Phew! seems Mugford must be reliable after all ::)
well when stan jones interviewed jb he agread that alot of what jm said was true .jb that is
-
Phew! seems Mugford must be reliable after all ::)
Scuppers your theory!
-
Scuppers your theory!
It wasn't a theory, it was a fact, he even quoted his own post to prove it. :P
-
It wasn't a theory, it was a fact, he even quoted his own post to prove it. :P
clever move :)) :))
-
It wasn't a theory, it was a fact, he even quoted his own post to prove it. :P
Oh of course, silly me! ;D
-
It wasn't a theory, it was a fact, he even quoted his own post to prove it. :P
My post contained within it the relevant parts of JMs police statements, RBs diary and AEs handwritten notes all of which substantiate the theory demonstrating it to be a factual.
-
My post contained within it the relevant parts of JMs police statements, RBs diary and AEs handwritten notes all of which substantiate the theory demonstrating it to be a factual.
factual in your mind
-
I think David may be getting over excited because Bamber wrote to him. He maybe feels he should be constantly doing something on behalf of Bamber.
Caroline used to also be very defensive of Bamber when they were exchanging messages.
-
I think David may be getting over excited because Bamber wrote to him. He maybe feels he should be constantly doing something on behalf of Bamber.
Caroline used to also be very defensive of Bamber when they were exchanging messages.
That was over two month ago now. Maybe you should write to Jeremy one of your long lists of mountains of incriminating evidence and see if he can answer them? ;D you might get a reply
-
I think David may be getting over excited because Bamber wrote to him. He maybe feels he should be constantly doing something on behalf of Bamber.
Caroline used to also be very defensive of Bamber when they were exchanging messages.
oh davids part of the inner circle or he thinks he is.jb's used many a person for his own gains
-
oh davids part of the inner circle or he thinks he is.jb's used many a person for his own gains
Your certainly helping Jeremy. Whether you realise it or not.
-
I think David may be getting over excited because Bamber wrote to him. He maybe feels he should be constantly doing something on behalf of Bamber.
Caroline used to also be very defensive of Bamber when they were exchanging messages.
Adam think you are extracting the urine I can never remember Caroline getting defensive about Jeremy whether she was writing to him or not.
-
Your certainly helping Jeremy. Whether you realise it or not.
how.help a childkiller never.
-
caroline is a little diamond.the past is the past.her knowledge, wittyness, are a bonus for this forum
-
My post contained within it the relevant parts of JMs police statements, RBs diary and AEs handwritten notes all of which substantiate the theory demonstrating it to be a factual.
Still nothing about a hit man though which just happend to be the main aspect of Julie's statement.
-
Still nothing about a hit man though which just happend to be the main aspect of Julie's statement.
when it gets hard for them they stop posting and move to another thread ;)
-
how.help a childkiller never.
That's exactly what you are doing. by posting bad illogical and sometimes embarrassing arguments to support the prosecution, It only creates more doubt it peoples mind. Likewise with Mike and lookout posting bad illogical arguments to support the defence does Jeremy no favours.
Its an interesting paradox
-
Jeremy hates this forum. I can see why !!
-
That's exactly what you are doing. by posting bad illogical and sometimes embarrassing arguments to support the prosecution, It only creates more doubt it peoples mind. Likewise with Mike and lookout posting bad illogical arguments to support the defence does Jeremy no favours.
Its an interesting paradox
embarrasing for you ,cause i dont feel that way at all ,the thing is i dont post half truths or completely impossible theorys like you do
-
Still nothing about a hit man though which just happend to be the main aspect of Julie's statement.
its only the main aspect to you as a result of your cherry picking.
RB believed Jeremy had help on the night of the murders and first suspected Brett Collins but turned out he was abroad at the time. So the idea of an accomplice was on RBs mind. He also mentions Jeremy giving someone £2000 this happens to be the exact same figure Julie said he paid for the Hitman. Then the idea of MM being a Hitman comes from none other than MM himself “this was pure fabrication but I kept it going at times because it made people think I was somebody but it was totally untrue.”
Julies entire witness testimony once dissected you can follow the leads and find out were she really got the information from and none of it leads back to Jeremy.
-
No sami,you post sweet f.a. ! Because you know jack-shit and are only picking brains for the easiest way out.
-
No sami,you post sweet f.a. ! Because you know jack-shit and are only picking brains for the easiest way out.
youre getting me confused with yourself ,getting knowledge from others is what this forum is about.i posted the theory on the bullet cases.you should lighten up
-
youre getting me confused with yourself ,getting knowledge from others is what this forum is about.i posted the theory on the bullet cases.you should lighten up
Hi Sami, good point about the bullet cases I brought this up a while back
-
Hi Sami, good point about the bullet cases I brought this up a while back
thanks justice seems the supporters cant see it or choose not to
-
My post contained within it the relevant parts of JMs police statements, RBs diary and AEs handwritten notes all of which substantiate the theory demonstrating it to be a factual.
That's not a fact David.
It's a theory backed up by information which you have interpreted in a particular way.
It's like saying that Jupiter is a planet, cows are animals, therefore grass must be green. There is no correlation between your information and your conclusion. You may be correct, in the same way that grass is indeed green, but you may equally be wrong.
By definition, that is not a fact, however much you want it to be.
The above is a fact by the way. :))
-
That's not a fact David.
It's a theory backed up by information which you have interpreted in a particular way.
It's like saying that Jupiter is a planet, cows are animals, therefore grass must be green. There is no correlation between your information and your conclusion. You may be correct, in the same way that grass is indeed green, but you may equally be wrong.
By definition, that is not a fact, however much you want it to be.
The above is a fact by the way. :))
Sometimes grass is yellow ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sometimes grass is yellow ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D
-
That's not a fact David.
It's a theory backed up by information which you have interpreted in a particular way.
It's like saying that Jupiter is a planet, cows are animals, therefore grass must be green. There is no correlation between your information and your conclusion. You may be correct, in the same way that grass is indeed green, but you may equally be wrong.
By definition, that is not a fact, however much you want it to be.
The above is a fact by the way. :))
:)) :)) :))
-
Jeremy hates this forum. I can see why !!
thats puzzling because its named after him and set up by friends of his .he has also a few supporters here ,like yourself.chin up
-
thats puzzling because its named after him and set up by friends of his .he has also a few supporters here ,like yourself.chin up
He hates it because he can't control what is being said.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,385.0.html
-
He hates it because he can't control what is being said.
and theres not enough gullable people here that can be blindfolded
-
There are no blindfolds on me !
-
There are no blindfolds on me !
i didnt say you ;)
-
i didnt say you ;)
Well that makes a change. :)
-
There are no blindfolds on me !
No, or you wouldn't be able to see out of those rose tinted glasses (JUST JOKING!!) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That's not a fact David.
It's a theory backed up by information which you have interpreted in a particular way.
It's like saying that Jupiter is a planet, cows are animals, therefore grass must be green. There is no correlation between your information and your conclusion. You may be correct, in the same way that grass is indeed green, but you may equally be wrong.
By definition, that is not a fact, however much you want it to be.
The above is a fact by the way. :))
Il repeat it as many times as necessary until it sinks in. Seems to be a difficult pill for you to swallow ;)
JMs testimony contains in part the exact same false information that the police gave AE and RB. Read it for yourself.
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
-
Il repeat it as many times as necessary until it sinks in.
You can say the capital City of Italy is Tokyo, a thousand times, it doesn't make it a fact.
Your opinion is not fact, you can't go to court and prove something to be a fact by saying that's how you interpret things.
If you can't understand that then there's no hope for you.
-
quote author=Hartley. link=topic=7676.msg362823#msg362823 date=1464278462]
You can say the capital City of Italy is Tokyo, a thousand times, it doesn't make it a fact.
Your opinion is not fact, you can't go to court and prove something to be a fact by saying that's how you interpret things.
If you can't understand that then there's no hope for you.
[/quote] ;)
-
You can say the capital City of Italy is Tokyo, a thousand times, it doesn't make it a fact.
Your opinion is not fact, you can't go to court and prove something to be a fact by saying that's how you interpret things.
If you can't understand that then there's no hope for you.
What David hasn't considered is that rather than Ann feeding Julie info, Ann may have learned some things from Julie. The bible on the chest for instance - Ann considered that it may have come from Julie.
-
What David hasn't considered is that rather than Ann feeding Julie info, Ann may have learned some things from Julie. The bible on the chest for instance - Ann considered that it may have come from Julie.
There were things reported in the news by the time Julie came forward also.
I'm certainly not asserting that Julie told the truth, I have no idea, but David likewise has no idea of her truthfulness. He can guess, he can come up with theories and opinions, but that's all they are.
-
There were things reported in the news by the time Julie came forward also.
I'm certainly not asserting that Julie told the truth, I have no idea, but David likewise has no idea of her truthfulness. He can guess, he can come up with theories and opinions, but that's all they are.
I think there is a lot in this case that could be A, B or C....and there it no way to actually tell. This being one of them.