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

[JackiePreece]

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

[lookout]

Hence JM's questionable testimony.

[JackiePreece]

Hence JM's questionable testimony.

The cavalry has arrived    Nice to see you as always Lookout x

[David1819]

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

[sami]

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

[guest2181]

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.

[sami]

The cavalry has arrived    Nice to see you as always Lookout x

yea on rocking horses

[JackiePreece]

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?

[JackiePreece]

yea on rocking horses

 

 

[sami]

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

[sami]

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

[lookout]

Poor JM------------influenced by everyone,including Jeremy,eh ? ( ref: Hartley's JM Docs.)
No excuse for telling lies though.

[JackiePreece]

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       

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.

[sami]

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       

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

[JackiePreece]

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?