Why didn't the police attempt to get a covert recorded confession from JB?

[Holly Goodhead]

Or did they attempt it and fail?

I've been reading some posts on Blue re the above.

I know this is something I have posted about in the past with a mute response:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=ltkrndj4jejr3cdk6aafqhd5r1&topic=6705.msg281476#msg281476

"We know for sure JB was under surveillance for a period of time.  Were the properties/phones bugged too?

For the lurkers:

Bourtree Cottage = JB's pad

Morshead Mansions = the late Sheila Caffell's pad (JB spent time there post tragedy and was arrested there on one occasion).

Caterham Road = JM's pad during her involvement with JB.  She moved into new digs late Aug.

The reason I ask is that in JM's WS of 8th Sept she claims on 7th Aug, whilst at Bourtree Cottage, she asked JB if he had carried out the murders.  She claims he replied "Matthew (MM) did it".  JB then proceeded to tell her how he had planned the murders with MM.  According to JM JB then said "We should not talk about it in the house in case the house was being bugged":

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114

Hmmm so a bit late after the horse had potentially bolted!  If JB thought the house was being bugged why fess up?

Where did this idea about bugging come from?  Did JB speak the words?  Did JM have an over active imagination?  Did EP feed this to JM to cover the fact that the norm would be to obtain a confession via bugging and as EP had been unsuccessful it provided an explanation why?

JM also claims in her WS:

"I next saw Jeremy on Friday 6th September 1985 when he came to my flat and helped with Brett to move my furniture to my present address.  We left on a reasonably happy note. I haven't seen him since".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1136

If they parted on ok terms why didn't EP arrange for JM to call or meet with JB under some pretence wire her up and get a confession?

Liz Rimmington blew the whistle early Sept but was JM already 'cooperating' with EP as they were ahead of the game and aware the relationship had broken down from bugs/listening devices and moved in swiftly?

Maybe it's all held under PII?  (shocked emoticon required)"

[scipio_usmc]

Initially Jeremy subjectively believed police were falling for his lies but was not in a position to know for sure whether police fully believed his claims or not.  He turned out to be right but was not in a position to be able to know that for sure. As such it is possible he actually did fear they might resort to wiretaps. But it takes time to get permission to do such and to actually implement such. It's not something that can happen instantly.   

It is quite possible he didn't believe they had the time or inclination to resort to wiretaps and simply used that possibility as an excuse to avoid going into more specifics about the murders with Julie.  He wanted her to believe he hired someone else to do it.  If he provided too many details it could betray his lie and let her know he did it himself. Thus he had to be careful in what he told her.

Police only investigated him in earnest after Julie came forward. They interrogated him and he knew they were trying to make a case against him.  What good would bugging his phone and pad do at this point?  Who could they expect him to admit either face to face or over the phone to committing the murders? The only one he admitted it to prior was Julie and he knew she blabbed because police told him she did during the interrogation so who would he tell after that? 

Wiretaps are useful when there are conspiracies.  You can catch the conspirators communicating. They investigated the possibility of Jeremy conspiring with MM but MM had an alibi and they came to the conclusion Jeremy carried out the murders alone. So what good would have it done to wiretap him? 

[adam]

Scipio was it illegal fod the police to ask Julie to get back in contact with Bamber, after they had split up.  And try to secretly coax a confession from him. Supporters are saying the police should have sent Julie back into Bamberdome.

This was tried years later with Colin Stagg. They used a trained and paid police woman. The court threw it out as unethical.

[Holly Goodhead]

Initially Jeremy subjectively believed police were falling for his lies but was not in a position to know for sure whether police fully believed his claims or not.  He turned out to be right but was not in a position to be able to know that for sure. As such it is possible he actually did fear they might resort to wiretaps. But it takes time to get permission to do such and to actually implement such. It's not something that can happen instantly.   

It is quite possible he didn't believe they had the time or inclination to resort to wiretaps and simply used that possibility as an excuse to avoid going into more specifics about the murders with Julie.  He wanted her to believe he hired someone else to do it.  If he provided too many details it could betray his lie and let her know he did it himself. Thus he had to be careful in what he told her.

Police only investigated him in earnest after Julie came forward. They interrogated him and he knew they were trying to make a case against him.  What good would bugging his phone and pad do at this point?  Who could they expect him to admit either face to face or over the phone to committing the murders? The only one he admitted it to prior was Julie and he knew she blabbed because police told him she did during the interrogation so who would he tell after that? 

Wiretaps are useful when there are conspiracies.  You can catch the conspirators communicating. They investigated the possibility of Jeremy conspiring with MM but MM had an alibi and they came to the conclusion Jeremy carried out the murders alone. So what good would have it done to wiretap him?

JB and JM parted on good terms.  EP never discussed the blood inside the silencer with JB.  They didn't need to say to JB, JM said this that and the other.  They could have withheld the info and arranged for JM to meet with him or telephone and lead him into a conversation whereby he incriminated himself whilst EP were covertly listening and recording.

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio was it illegal fod the police to ask Julie to get back in contact with Bamber, after they had split up.  And try to secretly coax a confession from him. Supporters are saying the police should have sent Julie back into Bamberdome.

This was tried years later with Colin Stagg. They used a trained and paid police woman. The court threw it out as unethical.

Depending on what the coaxing is, it can qualify as entrapment. You need to get the other person to go into the details as opposed to the person conducting the sting to decide the details and just get the person to say yeah or something like that.

Jeremy already knew she went to police that eliminated any hope of trying to use her for a sting on him. They let him know he was being questioned because she ratted him out and were asking him questions about what she said to them.  He didn't even trust her enough to tell her he committed the murders himself he made up the hitman story.  Why would they think he would tell her more after they broke up than before even if they had not let him know she ratted him out?  On TV you have people being taped confessing to crimes but in real life this happens virtually never. It is hard to come up with a natural conversation that gets someone to talk without giving away to them you are trying to trick them into confessing.

Moreso this happens not as a trick but when someone is an idiot blabbermouth. Gang members or wannabe thugs who brag about what they do in order to increase their stature- things along those lines. 

The only time it really works is if you give immunity to a co-conspirator who was intimately involved in the crime (but the target fails to find out his/her co-conspirator ratted him/her out) and goes to the person saying there are problems such as police getting nosy and trying to get the person to admit to being involved in the course of discussing what they need to do to avoid liability.  Julie wasn't involved in a way which would allow them to run such a kind of sting.

Pretend they investigated MM quietly and figured out he was not involved and hoped he would not tell anyone anything about being investigated for Julie's claims and instead of questioning Jeremy planned to wire Julie and have her contact Jeremy. What could she say that would be able to get him to admit that he is the one who killed everyone?   I can't think of anything she could say to trick him. In the meantime they didn't think that far ahead.  They immediately questioned him to test her claims and that ended any chance at all of trying to run a sting on him using Julie. 

[Admin]

Scipio was it illegal fod the police to ask Julie to get back in contact with Bamber, after they had split up.  And try to secretly coax a confession from him. Supporters are saying the police should have sent Julie back into Bamberdome.

This was tried years later with Colin Stagg. They used a trained and paid police woman. The court threw it out as unethical.

That particular method is called entrapment and can lead to a case being thrown out.  The thing is too, had the police sent Julie in and she ended up dead, there would have been hell to pay.

As far as survelliance is concerned the police even sent two officers to the South of France to observe him.

[scipio_usmc]

JB and JM parted on good terms.  EP never discussed the blood inside the silencer with JB.  They didn't need to say to JB, JM said this that and the other.  They could have withheld the info and arranged for JM to meet with him or telephone and lead him into a conversation whereby he incriminated himself whilst EP were covertly listening and recording.

They wanted to get his side of the story to test things. They didn't find out from the lab that Sheila's blood was inside the moderator and what this meant until late September.

She would have to agree to do the sting- how do you know she would?  In the meantime what could she say that would get him to admit he personally killed them?  He didn't trust her enough to tell her before so why would he now?   "Jeremy I need to speak to you I spoke to MM and he said you lied to me about him being paid to kill everyone. What really happened?"  He would wonder why she spoke to MM about such and not trust her so be even more careful about what he says than prior. He wouldn't admit he killed them before why would he after they broke up especially if she approached him with something like that?   

Stings like this only work when you nail a co-conspirator and offer them a deal in exchange for them working for you. Accomplices are the only ones who have a natural reason to discuss the crime and have a realistic potential to get someone to admit liability and even with that such efforts frequently fail.

[adam]

Depending on what the coaxing is, it can qualify as entrapment. You need to get the other person to go into the details as opposed to the person conducting the sting to decide the details and just get the person to say yeah or something like that.

Jeremy already knew she went to police that eliminated any hope of trying to use her for a sting on him. They let him know he was being questioned because she ratted him out and were asking him questions about what she said to them.  He didn't even trust her enough to tell her he committed the murders himself he made up the hitman story.  Why would they think he would tell her more after they broke up than before even if they had not let him know she ratted him out?  On TV you have people being taped confessing to crimes but in real life this happens virtually never. It is hard to come up with a natural conversation that gets someone to talk without giving away to them you are trying to trick them into confessing.

Moreso this happens not as a trick but when someone is an idiot blabbermouth. Gang members or wannabe thugs who brag about what they do in order to increase their stature- things along those lines. 

The only time it really works is if you give immunity to a co-conspirator who was intimately involved in the crime (but the target fails to find out his/her co-conspirator ratted him/her out) and goes to the person saying there are problems such as police getting nosy and trying to get the person to admit to being involved in the course of discussing what they need to do to avoid liability.  Julie wasn't involved in a way which would allow them to run such a kind of sting.

Pretend they investigated MM quietly and figured out he was not involved and hoped he would not tell anyone anything about being investigated for Julie's claims and instead of questioning Jeremy planned to wire Julie and have her contact Jeremy. What could she say that would be able to get him to admit that he is the one who killed everyone?   I can't think of anything she could say to trick him. In the meantime they didn't think that far ahead.  They immediately questioned him to test her claims and that ended any chance at all of trying to run a sting on him using Julie.

Thank you. I thought this sort of thing never happened. David mentioned Eliot Turner and Mick Philpot. These were totally different situations.

Yes I always thought Bamber and Julie were together for a month after the massacre. They then split up but remained on talking terms. Bamber agreed to help Julie move. Julie heard him ask another girl out and shortly after she goes to the police.

While with the police Bamber was abroad and then arrested upon arriving back in Britain.

So I don't know when Julie was supposed to get  a confession from him. Unless Bamber was not arrested when he returned to England and was also not aware Julie had gone to the police. But a slight problem here, Bamber and Julie had split up.

[scipio_usmc]

That particular method is called entrapment and can lead to a case being thrown out.  The thing is too, had the police sent Julie in and she ended up dead, there would have been hell to pay.

As far as survelliance is concerned the police even sent two officers to the South of France to observe him.

In a technical sense entrapment is someone working for the government inducing someone to commit a crime.  For example a cop offering sexual services for a fee to a mark instead of making the mark make a request.

Of a similar nature would be someone stating I know you killed him or something like that and trying to use that as a confession where the person himself is not the one saying it. The context and what they say will in large part determine whether it is of any use or not as a voluntary confession. 

Jeremy told her MM did it what could she do to get him to admit he did it himself?  There is no way to try to do that without making him suspicious.  He wouldn't say it when they were dating why would he after?

   

[Holly Goodhead]

I was trying to put together a timeline of relevant events in the week leading up to JM's police interviews which commenced on 7th Sept.

The problem is we don't have access to all the bits of the jigsaw.  Eg we don't have Elizabeth (Liz) Rimmington's (LR) WS or trial testimony. 

It's not clear when JM told LR of JB's involvement.  I can't find it in JM's WS's dated 8th/9th Sept? In CAL's book she refers to JM telling LR on 1st Sept and refers the reader to LR's WS and trial testimony.  For those that have CAL's book it's on pages 260 - 264 incl.  Here's JM's WS covering 1st Sept but there's no mention of telling LR:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1128

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1130

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1132

[Holly Goodhead]

Pure speculation on my part, tin hat firmly in-situ, but I'm inclined to see EP having something on some of the people that testified against JB.  I believe telephones/properties were being listened in on:  Bourtree Cottage, Morsehead Mansions and JM's shared house in Caterham Road.

Those that testified against JB:  JM, LR, SB, James Richard (JR) and Malcolm Waters (MW) were all connected through JM.

London

JM house shared with SB and JR.  JB took packets of cannabis to the house for JM to distribute on campus.  Were SB and JR also involved in distributing cannabis?

Essex

JM worked with LR and MW.  MW was the owner of Sloppy Joes and LR was the manageress. 

LR had relationships with MW, Charles Marsden and a one night stand with JB.

MM supplied JB with hemp seeds for growing cannabis plants.

JB also worked at Sloppy Joes.

All the above hang out at the Frog and Bean wine bar owned by MW.

JM admits to smoking cannabis.  Suzette Ford also smoked it.  MM too.  Was JB growing it and selling it via the Frog and Bean and/or Sloppy Joes?

JB grew cannabis at Bourtree Cottage.  Prior to this he grew it at WHF until NB discovered and put a stop to it.

It's possible the police said they had enough evidence on JB to secure a conviction but wanted them to testify and if they didn't they would be charged with drug offences:

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing