Jeremy Bamber Forum

OFF TOPIC => Off Topic => Topic started by: Harvey on August 01, 2012, 09:55:AM

Title: starryian
Post by: Harvey on August 01, 2012, 09:55:AM
I have been reading posts from someone called starryian on the lamberton forum.Who is this twerp?
He is a jumped-up lecturing know-it-all that clearly knows - well nothing.
He regards himself as such an expert on psychopaths that Im starting to wonder if he is actually one himself,for if he were an expert,he would not keep stating as fact that Jeremy Bamber is one.
Bamber has undergone numerous tests that have determined that he is NOT a psychopath.You can bet your bottom dollar that if the tests had proved otherwise,it would have somehow been leaked to the media.Starryian needs to realise that not every murderer,innocent or guilty,is a psychopath.Who can forget Ian Huntley when he denied the murders of poor Holly and Jessica.He tried to fool the authorities that he was insane,but after assessment at Rampton,he was found to be faking it?These experts are competent at their jobs and they have concluded that Jeremy Bamber is NOT a psychopath.But starryian - well this amateur twerp knows best  ::)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 10:42:AM
Ooohh somebody else trying to impersonate me, I'm almost flattered.  ::)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 10:46:AM
I have been reading posts from someone called starryian on the lamberton forum.Who is this twerp?
He is a jumped-up lecturing know-it-all that clearly knows - well nothing.
He regards himself as such an expert on psychopaths that Im starting to wonder if he is actually one himself,for if he were an expert,he would not keep stating as fact that Jeremy Bamber is one.
Bamber has undergone numerous tests that have determined that he is NOT a psychopath.You can bet your bottom dollar that if the tests had proved otherwise,it would have somehow been leaked to the media.Starryian needs to realise that not every murderer,innocent or guilty,is a psychopath.Who can forget Ian Huntley when he denied the murders of poor Holly and Jessica.He tried to fool the authorities that he was insane,but after assessment at Rampton,he was found to be faking it?These experts are competent at their jobs and they have concluded that Jeremy Bamber is NOT a psychopath.But starryian - well this amateur twerp knows best  ::)
I have just read a few of starryian's posts. I cannot find anywhere where he states that he is some kind of expert on psychopaths. Where did you get this? I may not agree with his opinion but I would call him a 'twerp' either. There are some good posters on that site that have valid opinions - just as valid as yours Hartley, just as there are on here. I really dislike people who denigrate the opinions of others. I think they must have low self-esteem themselves.
Oh, and before you accuse me of being starryian.........I can assure you that I am not.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 01, 2012, 11:22:AM
I have just read a few of starryian's posts. I cannot find anywhere where he states that he is some kind of expert on psychopaths. Where did you get this? I may not agree with his opinion but I would call him a 'twerp' either. There are some good posters on that site that have valid opinions - just as valid as yours Hartley, just as there are on here. I really dislike people who denigrate the opinions of others. I think they must have low self-esteem themselves.
Oh, and before you accuse me of being starryian.........I can assure you that I am not.

He certainly portrays him self as an expert on psychopaths.  His posts on that forum are sermonising in style.  If he wants to genuinely debate on this forum under another user-name then that's fair enough but he should be aware that running back to the other forum scoffing at everything on here is a bit too obvious.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 11:54:AM
I have just read a few of starryian's posts. I cannot find anywhere where he states that he is some kind of expert on psychopaths. Where did you get this? I may not agree with his opinion but I would call him a 'twerp' either. There are some good posters on that site that have valid opinions - just as valid as yours Hartley, just as there are on here. I really dislike people who denigrate the opinions of others. I think they must have low self-esteem themselves.
Oh, and before you accuse me of being starryian.........I can assure you that I am not.
Moe, I think Hartley was saying that starryian is not an expert, I totally agree with Hartley although we are from different sides of the argument. Jeremy Bamber has been found on 27 occasions to show no sign of psychopathy or any associated personality dissorder or mental illness, it's so arrogant of people to assume that they know better and that he is a psychopath etc..  This is just people trying to manipulate to prove some sort of point.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 12:00:PM
Moe, I think Hartley was saying that starryian is not an expert, I totally agree with Hartley although we are from different sides of the argument. Jeremy Bamber has been found on 27 occasions to show no sign of psychopathy or any associated personality dissorder or mental illness, it's so arrogant of people to assume that they know better and that he is a psychopath etc..  This is just people trying to manipulate to prove some sort of point.

Can I just point out that the Hartley in this thread is not me.

Just in case anybody thought it was.  :-\
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 12:05:PM
Can I just point out that the Hartley in this thread is not me.

Just in case anybody thought it was.  :-\
Now I'm confused ???
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 12:07:PM
Now I'm confused ???

It's just somebody who has signed up with that name, I can't quite work out why a moderator hasn't removed him, yet Rochy has actually commented on the thread.

Weird, but hey ho.  :P
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 12:09:PM
It's just somebody who has signed up with that name, I can't quite work out why a moderator hasn't removed him, yet Rochy has actually commented on the thread.

Weird, but hey ho.  :P
Oh, okay, there was I thinking I was agreeing with you!!  :o
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 12:15:PM
Oh, okay, there was I thinking I was agreeing with you!!  :o

I know, I was shocked too.  ;D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 12:15:PM
I know, I was shocked too.  ;D
Just shows what a reasonable person I am Hartley :D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 12:24:PM
Just shows what a reasonable person I am Hartley :D

It does indeed.  :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Harvey on August 01, 2012, 01:52:PM
It's just somebody who has signed up with that name, I can't quite work out why a moderator hasn't removed him, yet Rochy has actually commented on the thread.

Weird, but hey ho.  :P
As I have explained before,when I signed up the name was available.I am not trying to impersonate anybody and I was free to choose any username that was available.
Why should I be removed? I haven't broken any of the forum rules and my opinion is as valid as yours or anybody elses.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: ngb1066 on August 01, 2012, 01:54:PM
As I have explained before,when I signed up the name was available.I am not trying to impersonate anybody and I was free to choose any username that was available.
Why should I be removed? I haven't broken any of the forum rules and my opinion is as valid as yours or anybody elses.

Please change your username to avoid confusion.

Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Jane on August 01, 2012, 02:35:PM
The person from the other side doesn't need to be an expert in psychopathy. Most would be psychologists can find a wealth of info on line which is certain to apply to someone!!!
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 02:51:PM
Please change your username to avoid confusion.
I agree NBG, Although Harters and I have had a falling out, he is an intellegent poster.  but I knew that this was not the real Hartley.
These posters have come in different guises. I suppose the the real Hartley is flattered by this.
Starryian is the same as the dim infection on the other side, neither are equiped with a brain. They all come up with the same chestnut[ Julie was brave, bah].
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 03:03:PM
I agree NBG, Although Harters and I have had a falling out, he is an intellegent poster.  but I knew that this was not the real Hartley.
These posters have come in different guises. I suppose the the real Hartley is flattered by this.
Starryian is the same as the dim infection on the other side, neither are equiped with a brain. They all come up with the same chestnut[ Julie was brave, bah].

I'm mildly amused, rather than flattered I guess, it's just a bit odd, unless it's an attempt to try and irritate me, then I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of doing this.

Perhaps I should welcome extra Hartleys, I'm usually outnumbered.  :-\
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 03:23:PM
I'm mildly amused, rather than flattered I guess, it's just a bit odd, unless it's an attempt to try and irritate me, then I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of doing this.

Perhaps I should welcome extra Hartleys, I'm usually outnumbered.  :-\
I don't know what you are on about! I clearly responded to a post about Hartley and not you.
Why would I try and irritate you, unless of course you are posting as Hartley. If not then it it has nothing to do with you, so butt out.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 03:29:PM
The person from the other side doesn't need to be an expert in psychopathy. Most would be psychologists can find a wealth of info on line which is certain to apply to someone!!!
That is my point April. Starryian's points seem to be backed up by evidence. It would be utter folly to be dismissive of them. I have it on good authority that he may have been a psychologist? I am undecided about Bamber's guilt this is why I have debated with him and I am telling you he is one tough cookie. In all the time I debated with him he never once said anything bad about any of the usual posters here and in fact defended Mike on several occasions. However, he does seem to have a problem with Mike's theories.
This Harley Mark II seems to think he can use the names of others (I wonder why he has done that?)and flippantly dismiss the views of others. I smell a rat here!
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 03:29:PM
I don't know what you are on about! I clearly responded to a post about Hartley and not you.
Why would I try and irritate you, unless of course you are posting as Hartley. If not then it it has nothing to do with you, so butt out.

Lol.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 03:32:PM
Lol.
Seems Buddy has lost the plot too and there he is casting aspersions about the intelligence others...........unbelievable. ::)

Anger management leaflet anyone? ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 03:35:PM
Seems Buddy has lost the plot too and there he is casting aspersions about the intelligence others...........unbelievable. ::)

Anger management leaflet anyone? ;)
Get knotted, I know more about this case than you infants.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 03:38:PM
Get knotted, I know more about this case than you infants.

Buddy, I am Hartley, Susan chose my name for me on the forum (a twist on Hartleys Jam), it was better than some which could have been suggested.

I'm sorry if you are offended or have been misled in any way.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: ngb1066 on August 01, 2012, 03:39:PM
Seems Buddy has lost the plot too and there he is casting aspersions about the intelligence others...........unbelievable. ::)

Anger management leaflet anyone? ;)

Please do not goad forum members.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 03:42:PM
Buddy, I am Hartley, Susan chose my name for me on the forum (a twist on Hartleys Jam), it was better than some which could have been suggested.

I'm sorry if you are offended or have been misled in any way.
The real Hartley would not have even responded to my post, so you are a fraud. I have seen you come and go for ages. Hartley is a factual poster, and would never become involved in this. FACT.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 03:44:PM
Please do not goad forum members.
I can handle him Neil, but thanks.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 03:46:PM
The real Hartley would not have even responded to my post, so you are a fraud. I have seen you come and go for ages. Hartley is a factual poster, and would never become involved in this. FACT.

Well I'm not sure what else I can say whilst standing on these eggshells, so I'll say nothing for a change and leave it at that.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 03:53:PM
Well I'm not sure what else I can say whilst standing on these eggshells, so I'll say nothing for a change and leave it at that.
I concur :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 03:53:PM
Well I'm not sure what else I can say whilst standing on these eggshells, so I'll say nothing for a change and leave it at that.
hartley would not have let me get away with that, so I suggest you give up this pretence.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Harvey on August 01, 2012, 04:02:PM
That is my point April. Starryian's points seem to be backed up by evidence. It would be utter folly to be dismissive of them. I have it on good authority that he may have been a psychologist? I am undecided about Bamber's guilt this is why I have debated with him and I am telling you he is one tough cookie. In all the time I debated with him he never once said anything bad about any of the usual posters here and in fact defended Mike on several occasions. However, he does seem to have a problem with Mike's theories.
This Harley Mark II seems to think he can use the names of others (I wonder why he has done that?)and flippantly dismiss the views of others. I smell a rat here!
Dont be so ridiculous - this starryian character can't even spell psychologist!
I have no problem with his views or opinions,but he is stating it as a FACT that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath and a proper EXPERT has concluded that he is NOT.That is the only point that I was trying to make.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 01, 2012, 04:04:PM
Hi Buddy just logged in but I can confirm myself and egap1 decided The Jam was a good name infact I wanted Jammy Dodgie but egap took charge and hartley became the jam (think I liked harters the best) but as they say what is in a name and who cares who is who ;) ;) ;) Don,t know who starryian is and quite frankly don't give a damn :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 04:12:PM
Dont be so ridiculous - this starryian character can't even spell psychologist!
I have no problem with his views or opinions,but he is stating it as a FACT that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath and a proper EXPERT has concluded that he is NOT.That is the only point that I was trying to make.
Whoa! wait a minute Harvey. I dont think it's fair of you to judge somebody on a typo - that's a pretty low thing to do. I would argue for everyone on this forum should anyone deserve it.
I argued with him about this and he has stated that..'an eminent psychologist called in by the DEFENSE at Bamber's original trial examined Bamber and concluded thus; In my opinion Jeremy Bamber certainly displays psychopathic traits. He adds 'If ever there was a psychopath, Jeremy Bamber is it'I have checked starryian's assertion and he is correct.  Moreover, I cannot remember anywhere where he states that it was a FACT that Bamber was a psychopath. It is merely his opinion.
I suspect Harvey that you have a problem with his viewpoint. I did at first, but many of his arguments made sense to me as do many others on here.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 04:13:PM
I concur :)
Who are you anyway?
Are you from across the way, determined to cause havoc?
Sadly you will fail.
I have noticed we have more than 40 guests at the moment, and the other side swear they never come here.
It is quite clear you do, but lack the courage to admit it. I on the otherI hand openly admit that I view your pages. I do so to balance the debate, and do not hide my identity. In fact I have asked the Mods here that if they object I will delete my account over there, but it will be a shame if I have to.
Surprisingly I have a few mates there, but we have differing views and that is fine by me.
The difference is I do not want to  disrupt the forum.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 04:25:PM
Who are you anyway?
Are you from across the way, determined to cause havoc?
Sadly you will fail.
I have noticed we have more than 40 guests at the moment, and the other side swear they never come here.
It is quite clear you do, but lack the courage to admit it. I on the otherI hand openly admit that I view your pages. I do so to balance the debate, and do not hide my identity. In fact I have asked the Mods here that if they object I will delete my account over there, but it will be a shame if I have to.
Surprisingly I have a few mates there, but we have differing views and that is fine by me.
The difference is I do not want to  disrupt the forum.
I am sorry but you are labouring under the misapprehension that I am from the other forum. You are quite wrong. I only belong to this one. I have no problem with anyone and do not cause disruption anywhere. Have you actually seen your last few comments??? Why would you say something like that knowing that you are being abusive to others... Why?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 04:26:PM
Hi Buddy just logged in but I can confirm myself and egap1 decided The Jam was a good name infact I wanted Jammy Dodgie but egap took charge and hartley became the jam (think I liked harters the best) but as they say what is in a name and who cares who is who ;) ;) ;) Don,t know who starryian is and quite frankly don't give a damn :)
Hi Sue, I may be going through a thick moment [senior moment] but failed to understand your post. It was probably me, but can you explain please.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 04:31:PM
I am sorry but you are labouring under the misapprehension that I am from the other forum. You are quite wrong. I only belong to this one. I have no problem with anyone and do not cause disruption anywhere. Have you actually seen your last few comments??? Why would you say something like that knowing that you are being abusive to others... Why?
I am sorry if you think I am abusive, as I try not to be, I am however fiercly defensive here. I do not think I am abusive, but if the mods think I am I will appolgise. Sorry mods, roped you in again.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 01, 2012, 04:37:PM
Hi Buddy  I don't understand my post either so put it down to me being without electricity all day and no internet or coffee.  When I logged on I saw The Jam saying I choose his name from the newchilled hartley  and it was egap and myself who suggested jam from hartley's jam so he changed it to Mr. Jam. I did notice another hartley posting who did not have the intelligence of The Jam.  Hope I am making sense if not just get me banned as a complete idiot :)  Hope you are keeping well Buddy and your doggie is good :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 01, 2012, 04:44:PM
Hi Buddy  just been reading posts and now I am confused is what you are saying The Jam is not hartley or The Jam is starryian.  Please put me out of my misery and forgive me for the mix up.  I have never found you abusive Buddy passionate yes but never abusive :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 01, 2012, 05:38:PM
Hi Moe  sorry I don't know Pipkins perhaps I'm too young still confused over hartley jam starryian :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 05:38:PM
Hi Buddy  just been reading posts and now I am confused is what you are saying The Jam is not hartley or The Jam is starryian.  Please put me out of my misery and forgive me for the mix up.  I have never found you abusive Buddy passionate yes but never abusive :)
Hi sue, thanks for that. I never abuse posters as I believe that they are entitled to thereviews.
Haryley is Hartley and only posts under his true name. Jam is not Hartley, but a pretender
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 01, 2012, 05:40:PM
Funny I always thought he got his name from the hare character in 'Pipkins'............Hartley the hare. Does anyone remember this?
I guess I am showing my age.  :(

Moe, I concur re your Pipkins theory.  For a long time I held the image of Hartley Hare in my mind. 

I cant work out whether you are Shona or John. 

Anyway, re harvey aka 'hartley' but not the real one, I can confirm I pm'd them when they first posted (re the name they had taken) but never received a response and they never posted again, until this thread.

Buddy I can confirm that Jam is the real hartley.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 01, 2012, 05:54:PM
Hi Buddy one thing I really like about you Buddy whatever forum you are posting on you always use the name Buddy you do not hide behind other silly names.  Well done :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 01, 2012, 06:14:PM
Moe, I concur re your Pipkins theory.  For a long time I held the image of Hartley Hare in my mind. 

I cant work out whether you are Shona or John. 

Anyway, re harvey aka 'hartley' but not the real one, I can confirm I pm'd them when they first posted (re the name they had taken) but never received a response and they never posted again, until this thread.

Buddy I can confirm that Jam is the real hartley.

It was actually after a little village in Kent where I played cricket once, Jam works just fine and Hartley was better than Tiptree.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 01, 2012, 06:22:PM
Mr. Jam  or indeed Tesco's Finest ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 07:41:PM
That is my point April. Starryian's points seem to be backed up by evidence. It would be utter folly to be dismissive of them. I have it on good authority that he may have been a psychologist? I am undecided about Bamber's guilt this is why I have debated with him and I am telling you he is one tough cookie. In all the time I debated with him he never once said anything bad about any of the usual posters here and in fact defended Mike on several occasions. However, he does seem to have a problem with Mike's theories.
This Harley Mark II seems to think he can use the names of others (I wonder why he has done that?)and flippantly dismiss the views of others. I smell a rat here!
Moe, unless starryian has met Jeremy, tested him and come to educated conclusions he can have no more idea than anyone else what Jeremy's mental situation is.  We do know that he has b een tested many times by highly qualified psychologists/psychiatrists. 
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Bridget on August 01, 2012, 07:59:PM
Moe, unless starryian has met Jeremy, tested him and come to educated conclusions he can have no more idea than anyone else what Jeremy's mental situation is.  We do know that he has b een tested many times by highly qualified psychologists/psychiatrists.

You might say the same thing about the theories regarding Sheila's mental health.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 08:04:PM
Moe, unless starryian has met Jeremy, tested him and come to educated conclusions he can have no more idea than anyone else what Jeremy's mental situation is.  We do know that he has b een tested many times by highly qualified psychologists/psychiatrists.
Yup I understand that. But please also remember that a lot of people are judging Jeremy and they haven't met him either. We can only go by what we read or hear about this case and I think that goes for most of us on here. From reading about a person it is loosely possible to buiuld up a psychological profile..............we all do it. Have you actually met him?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 01, 2012, 08:04:PM
You might say the same thing about the theories regarding Sheila's mental health.

Not really.  There is a wealth of information available relating to Sheila's mental health, pre-incident.   None relating to Jeremy.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 08:05:PM
You might say the same thing about the theories regarding Sheila's mental health.
Hi Bridget, except that Sheila was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who had psychotic episodes, and at extreme risk of suicide.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 08:10:PM
Yup I understand that. But please also remember that a lot of people are judging Jeremy and they haven't met him either. We can only go by what we read or hear about this case and I think that goes for most of us on here. From reading about a person it is loosely possible to buiuld up a psychological profile..............we all do it. Have you actually met him?
No I haven't met him but even if I had, I don't believe I would be in a position to judge whether he is a psychopath/sociopath etc.  They can only be diagnosed  using highly sophisticated tests by highly qualified people.  No one can tell by looking at someone or having a conversation as these people are very cunning and clever at hiding their disorder.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Bridget on August 01, 2012, 08:18:PM
Hi Bridget, except that Sheila was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who had psychotic episodes, and at extreme risk of suicide.


I don't think that's a particularly accurate summary of what her doctor (who knew her) said.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 08:21:PM

I don't think that's a particularly accurate summary of what her doctor (who knew her) said.
Bridget, Sheila was dagnosed as a paranoid schizophrnic.  We know Sheila had psychotic episodes.  Any one who knows anything about schizophrenics knows there is a high risk of suicide, that is fact. 
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Bridget on August 01, 2012, 08:22:PM
Not really.  There is a wealth of information available relating to Sheila's mental health, pre-incident.   None relating to Jeremy.

Yes there is, which is why I wonder why people who have never met her and are not psychiatrists feel qualified to decide 27 years later that her doctor was wrong.

I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they're no better (or worse) than starryian.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Bridget on August 01, 2012, 08:23:PM
Bridget, Sheila was dagnosed as a paranoid schizophrnic.  We know Sheila had psychotic episodes.  Any one who knows anything about schizophrnics knows there is a high risk of suicide, that is fact.

It's not what you said, it's what you left out - such as the doctor's opinion that she would never harm her children and looked to ralph for support.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 08:33:PM
It's not what you said, it's what you left out - such as the doctor's opinion that she would never harm her children and looked to ralph for support.
Well bridget I think you are splitting hairs.  I cannot see the comparison between a ley person  stating that someone was a psychopath when highly qualified people had stated the opposite 27 times and a ley person stating that a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who had known psychotic episodes, who would be at risk of suicide because of the nature of her illness was probably capable of a psychotic episode in a house with guns and ammunition lying round and in such a situation may have killed the other people in the house.  I wouldn't suppose Dr Fergusson would have envisaged such a scenario.  However, no doctor could ever say in certain situations what anyone may or may not do.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: elliehickman on August 01, 2012, 08:38:PM
Hi Maggie I am new to this forum but I am already hooked on this case and I believe you are right about Sheila, my friends mother had an identical illness and sadly took her own life. People are too quick to make assumptions that Sheila was not that ill. She was and I know a lot about people with mental health problems. I have recently started to write to Jeremy and I would like to learn more about her state of mind that last week
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 08:45:PM
Hi Maggie I am new to this forum but I am already hooked on this case and I believe you are right about Sheila, my friends mother had an identical illness and sadly took her own life. People are too quick to make assumptions that Sheila was not that ill. She was and I know a lot about people with mental health problems. I have recently started to write to Jeremy and I would like to learn more about her state of mind that last week
Hi ellie, good to meet you. It is true that schizophrenia is a very unpredicatable and cruel mental illness.  I had a relative who was schizophrenic, he tried to commit suicide for the first time when he was about 20, in fact that's when his illness was discovered. We have heard some of what Sheila's mood was like the week before the deaths and it seems Sheila was becoming more and more dissasociated and withdrawn which is quite often a sign of the onset of a psychotic episode. 
I think Jeremy is far more clued up about his sister's illness now than he was all those years ago and hopefully will be able to give you some insight.  I have been told he enjoys getting letters and is friendly and quick to reply. ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 01, 2012, 08:47:PM
Yes there is, which is why I wonder why people who have never met her and are not psychiatrists feel qualified to decide 27 years later that her doctor was wrong.

I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they're no better (or worse) than starryian.

I'm not getting you at all on this one I'm afraid.  Starryian takes it upon himself to wax lyrical about Jeremy's psychopathy without any evidence whatsoever, other than an excerpt from the Wilkes book relayed to this forum by Vic, which was then seized upon by ex members of this forum, such as Shona / Andrea etc.  Now I'm not downplaying the Wilkes book... but that anecdote is hardly the same as what has now become known about Sheila caffell, re her mental health. 
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: elliehickman on August 01, 2012, 08:52:PM
Thank you Maggie I have lots of questions I need to ask him. Sheila's state of mind that final week is so important when you consider the lead up to the murders. I don't think anyone was close enough to Sheila to notice how desperate she had become.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Bridget on August 01, 2012, 08:55:PM
Well bridget I think you are splitting hairs.  I cannot see the comparison between a ley person  stating that someone was a psychopath when highly qualified people had stated the opposite 27 times and a ley person stating that a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who had known psychotic episodes, who would be at risk of suicide because of the nature of her illness was probably capable of a psychotic episode in a house with guns and ammunition lying round and in such a situation may have killed the other people in the house.  I wouldn't suppose Dr Fergusson would have envisaged such a scenario.  However, no doctor could ever say in certain situations what anyone may or may not do.

I'm not splitting hairs at all, I'm simply pointing out that your summary only included those elements that support your stance and ignored the others. Of course a lay person is ill eqipped to judge, which is the point I'm making. This thread was started to attack starryian for doing exactly what people here do day in day out.

I'm not getting you at all on this one I'm afraid.  Starryian takes it upon himself to wax lyrical about Jeremy's psychopathy without any evidence whatsoever, other than an excerpt from the Wilkes book relayed to this forum by Vic, which was then seized upon by ex members of this forum, such as Shona / Andrea etc.  Now I'm not downplaying the Wilkes book... but that anecdote is hardly the same as what has now become known about Sheila caffell, re her mental health. 

Nothing more has become known about Sheila's mental health - she's dead, it's all just theories. Of course she might have had a psychotic episode etc., that was hardly a ground breaking discovery in the world of scizophrenic research even in 1985, but there's no evidence that she did.

I haven't read Wilkes book yet, what excerpt?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 08:56:PM
Moe, I concur re your Pipkins theory.  For a long time I held the image of Hartley Hare in my mind. 

I cant work out whether you are Shona or John. 

Anyway, re harvey aka 'hartley' but not the real one, I can confirm I pm'd them when they first posted (re the name they had taken) but never received a response and they never posted again, until this thread.

Buddy I can confirm that Jam is the real hartley.
Call Sue Barker, and the bazooka ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 08:57:PM
I'm not getting you at all on this one I'm afraid.  Starryian takes it upon himself to wax lyrical about Jeremy's psychopathy without any evidence whatsoever, other than an excerpt from the Wilkes book relayed to this forum by Vic, which was then seized upon by ex members of this forum, such as Shona / Andrea etc.  Now I'm not downplaying the Wilkes book... but that anecdote is hardly the same as what has now become known about Sheila caffell, re her mental health.
The fact is roch, that psychopathy/sociopathy etc is incredibly difficult to recognise in someone without highly sophisticated tests.  It's unlikely that anyone would have the faintest idea if someone they knew was a psychopath, it is part of their condition that they hide it so well. No one could ever tell a psychopath b y just assessing from a distance eventhough some people like to say they can.  The majority of psychopaths don't kill anyway, they are too clever to waste themselves like that. Only failed psychopaths kill if you see what I mean.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Jane on August 01, 2012, 09:00:PM
Buddy, I am Hartley, Susan chose my name for me on the forum (a twist on Hartleys Jam), it was better than some which could have been suggested.

I'm sorry if you are offended or have been misled in any way.
[/quote)


The Jam, perhaps you should award yourself an upgrade to Wilkins, definitely "The" Jam.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 09:03:PM
I'm not splitting hairs at all, I'm simply pointing out that your summary only included those elements that support your stance and ignored the others. Of course a lay person is ill eqipped to judge, which is the point I'm making. This thread was started to attack starryian for doing exactly what people here do day in day out.

Bridget, that's not true that I only included elements that support my stance.  I don't believe anything is set in stone and have often stated there are many areas to this case that we'll never know eventhough people like to suppose all sorts of things.  Anyone knowing her medical history would suspect she was responsible.  Ok, we don't know for definite that she did it but you seem to think you can be definite that Jeremy did it....so what's the difference.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Buddy on August 01, 2012, 09:08:PM
Buddy, I am Hartley, Susan chose my name for me on the forum (a twist on Hartleys Jam), it was better than some which could have been suggested.

I'm sorry if you are offended or have been misled in any way.
OK harts. you have not offended me in the least. Nice to cross swords again. ;D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 09:12:PM
Thank you Maggie I have lots of questions I need to ask him. Sheila's state of mind that final week is so important when you consider the lead up to the murders. I don't think anyone was close enough to Sheila to notice how desperate she had become.
Yes, ellie I agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems Sheila was all alone or felt all alone with no one understanding her predicament.  Very possibly her illness would isolate her as schizophrenics find it so difficult to have relationships due to their inability to trust and interact.  Good luck with Jeremy.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Bridget on August 01, 2012, 09:20:PM
Bridget, that's not true that I only included elements that support my stance.  I don't believe anything is set in stone and have often stated there are many areas to this case that we'll never know eventhough people like to suppose all sorts of things.  Anyone knowing her medical history would suspect she was responsible.  Ok, we don't know for definite that she did it but you seem to think you can be definite that Jeremy did it....so what's the difference.

Well I pointed out 2 elements that you left out. I'm saying that I believe Jeremy did it, I'm not saying he's a psychopath. I have no idea whether he is, I've never met him and I'm not a psychiatrist. Knowing Sheila's medical history and suspecting that she did it is one thing, but proclaiming that she must have done it because of her illness is a completely different kettle of fish.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 09:55:PM
Well I pointed out 2 elements that you left out. I'm saying that I believe Jeremy did it, I'm not saying he's a psychopath. I have no idea whether he is, I've never met him and I'm not a psychiatrist. Knowing Sheila's medical history and suspecting that she did it is one thing, but proclaiming that she must have done it because of her illness is a completely different kettle of fish.
Are you speaking to me or is that a general comment, I find it very hard to believe that Jeremy did it for many reasons.  I suspect strongly that it was Sheila, it may even have been a third party. To claim anyone MUST have done it is a mistake we have no proof at this point in time. 
I wonder what your reasoning is that makes you so sure that Jeremy did it, rather than Sheila, apart from the fact that he was found guilty eventhough you are aware of many miscarriages of justice.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 10:53:PM
Well I pointed out 2 elements that you left out. I'm saying that I believe Jeremy did it, I'm not saying he's a psychopath. I have no idea whether he is, I've never met him and I'm not a psychiatrist. Knowing Sheila's medical history and suspecting that she did it is one thing, but proclaiming that she must have done it because of her illness is a completely different kettle of fish.
Bridget if you think Bamber did it............this means that he has lied, manipulated  and murdered his own family including two six year old boys for which he showed no guilt or remorse. Now if he did do it.........you do not need a psychiatrist to tell you that he is a psychopath. He would be a  textbook version..........IF he did it.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 11:00:PM
Are you speaking to me or is that a general comment, I find it very hard to believe that Jeremy did it for many reasons.  I suspect strongly that it was Sheila, it may even have been a third party. To claim anyone MUST have done it is a mistake we have no proof at this point in time. 
I wonder what your reasoning is that makes you so sure that Jeremy did it, rather than Sheila, apart from the fact that he was found guilty eventhough you are aware of many miscarriages of justice.
Maggie may I point one fact out that you are probably aware of. It was Jeremy Bamber who phoned police to say that his father had phoned him and told him that his sister 'had gone crazy and has got the gun' This effectively means that there can be no third party involvement and it effectively means that it the culprit can be ONLY Sheila or Jeremy.
There is no third way here Maggie. The culpriit was certainly one of these two.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 11:09:PM
Maggie may I point one fact out that you are probably aware of. It was Jeremy Bamber who phoned police to say that his father had phoned him and told him that his sister 'had gone crazy and has got the gun' This effectively means that there can be no third party involvement and it effectively means that it the culprit can be ONLY Sheila or Jeremy.
There is no third way here Maggie. The culpriit was certainly one of these two.
Actually Moe, eventhough I'm not particularly advocating a third party there are possibilities.  For a start do we know that Jeremy waking from a deep sleep accepted that it was his father who rang him in a state of anxiety asking for help.  There is a possibility that Jeremy heard words from a voice which was like his father saying words he recognised would only come from his father convincing him it was Ralph on the phone...it may not have been, the power of suggestion is very strong.  Lots of people as witnesses swear they saw things that they couldn't have possibly seen. 
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 11:12:PM
Bridget if you think Bamber did it............this means that he has lied, manipulated  and murdered his own family including two six year old boys for which he showed no guilt or remorse. Now if he did do it.........you do not need a psychiatrist to tell you that he is a psychopath. He would be a  textbook version..........IF he did it.
But as they say he isn't where does that leave you.  I find it impossible to believe that a peson who didn't have a personality dissorder of some kind could coldly carry out such a crime.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 11:15:PM
I'm not getting you at all on this one I'm afraid.  Starryian takes it upon himself to wax lyrical about Jeremy's psychopathy without any evidence whatsoever, other than an excerpt from the Wilkes book relayed to this forum by Vic, which was then seized upon by ex members of this forum, such as Shona / Andrea etc.  Now I'm not downplaying the Wilkes book... but that anecdote is hardly the same as what has now become known about Sheila caffell, re her mental health.
Roch from what I gather, starryian bases it on the notion that he is guilty (which I am not sure about). If he did I would bet my bottom dollar Bamber definitely is..
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 01, 2012, 11:17:PM
Quote
Nothing more has become known about Sheila's mental health - she's dead, it's all just theories. Of course she might have had a psychotic episode etc., that was hardly a ground breaking discovery in the world of scizophrenic research even in 1985, but there's no evidence that she did.

I haven't read Wilkes book yet, what excerpt?

So there is absolutely nothing that has come to light in relation to Sheila's mental health, that was not already disclosed or known about in 1985/6?  Is that your argument?

Apparently Rivlin was depressed going in to trial because an eminent shrink had assessed Bamber as being a psychopath.  I think he referred to Bamber as being convinved he had no involvement.  Perhaps the shrink in question was told by Stan that there definitely hadn't been a phone call from WHF to Goldhangar?  (I'm being flippant).
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 11:21:PM
Roch from what I gather, starryian bases it on the notion that he is guilty (which I am not sure about). If he did I would bet my bottom dollar Bamber definitely is..
Well this is the point Moe, if he isn't a psychopath as has been proved he has no personality dissorder unless he has something which has never come to light before he can't be guilty because I cannot see that a person of warmth, love and feeling could possibly perpitrate such a horrendous crime to the people who had cared for him since he was a tiny baby.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 01, 2012, 11:21:PM
Im actually still a member here, roch.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 11:32:PM
Actually Moe, eventhough I'm not particularly advocating a third party there are possibilities.  For a start do we know that Jeremy waking from a deep sleep accepted that it was his father who rang him in a state of anxiety asking for help.  There is a possibility that Jeremy heard words from a voice which was like his father saying words he recognised would only come from his father convincing him it was Ralph on the phone...it may not have been, the power of suggestion is very strong.  Lots of people as witnesses swear they saw things that they couldn't have possibly seen.
Maggie you cannot be serious? I had to read what you wrote several times as I thought you had made a mistake. The statement absolutely beggars belief in terms of sheer implausibility.
Have you read what Bamber actually said to the police that night over the phone? 'My father sounded reallly terrified' I tried to ring him back but I couldn't get through'. This isnt a dream or hearing voices that werent his father's. Maggie this was a very lucid description. There was no vagueness or misunderstanding. He told PC West exactly what his father had said. He cannot now start to change the goalposts.
That phone call is something that during his trial the prosecution said was Bamber's 'fatal mistake'
Nothing can ever hide this. He told police that his father phoned him, and he knows it. He cannot ever plausibly retract that, not now or ever.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 11:41:PM
Maggie you cannot be serious? I had to read what you wrote several times as I thought you had made a mistake. The statement absolutely beggars belief in terms of sheer implausibility.
Have you read what Bamber actually said to the police that night over the phone? 'My father sounded reallly terrified' I tried to ring him back but I couldn't get through'. This isnt a dream or hearing voices that werent his father's. Maggie this was a very lucid description. There was no vagueness or misunderstanding. He told PC West exactly what his father had said. He cannot now start to change the goalposts.
That phone call is something that during his trial the prosecution said was Bamber's 'fatal mistake'
Nothing can ever hide this. He told police that his father phoned him, and he knows it. He cannot ever plausibly retract that, not now or ever.
I know he told the police and I know he believes it was his father, I didn't say he was trying to change the goal posts, I'm just saying that anything is possible and he may have made a mistake.  Surely sometimes thinking outside the box is good.  It is a possibility to wake from a deep sleep, answer a phone call and still be trying to wake up.  I'm  not saying Jeremy has doubts but I am talking about possibilities.  If you work from facts but the first fact is flawed then ther whole thinking which eminates from that is flawed.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 11:48:PM
Well this is the point Moe, if he isn't a psychopath as has been proved he has no personality dissorder unless he has something which has never come to light before he can't be guilty because I cannot see that a person of warmth, love and feeling could possibly perpitrate such a horrendous crime to the people who had cared for him since he was a tiny baby.
Strange you should say that because on his first arrest in 1974 Ted Bundy was also examined by psychiatrists numerous times and declared to be 'not psychopathic' In 1989 some 11 years after his arrest Ted Bundy was given a lie detector test and passed. However a psychiatrist was incredulous that he was not diagnosed psychopathic many years before. But he also stated how easily it is for these people to fool them. Ted Bundy was sent to the electric chair some months later short after to confessing to some 15 murders.
I dont know much about psychopaths but it is clear that Bundy was a psychopath. This doesn't mean Bamber is. I am merely pointing out that psychologists can be easily fooled by them. You are=gument about Bamber being a 'person of warmth, love and feeling' really doesnt help decide his innocence or guilt. It is logical evidence that will.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 01, 2012, 11:50:PM
I know he told the police and I know he believes it was his father, I didn't say he was trying to change the goal posts, I'm just saying that anything is possible and he may have made a mistake.  Surely sometimes thinking outside the box is good.  It is a possibility to wake from a deep sleep, answer a phone call and still be trying to wake up.  I'm  not saying Jeremy has doubts but I am talking about possibilities.  If you work from facts but the first fact is flawed then ther whole thinking which eminates from that is flawed.  Just a thought.
OK Maggie I accept that. However, I have grave doubts an appeal court would even entertain that one. It is just not provable in his case.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 01, 2012, 11:56:PM
OK Maggie I accept that. However, I have grave doubts an appeal court would even entertain that one. It is just not provable in his case.
I accept an appeal court wouldn't look at it but it is a possibility.  Jerremy has to prove he didn't do it...who did is a different question. :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 02, 2012, 12:06:AM
Night all. :D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Bridget on August 02, 2012, 12:35:AM
Are you speaking to me or is that a general comment, I find it very hard to believe that Jeremy did it for many reasons.  I suspect strongly that it was Sheila, it may even have been a third party. To claim anyone MUST have done it is a mistake we have no proof at this point in time. 
I wonder what your reasoning is that makes you so sure that Jeremy did it, rather than Sheila, apart from the fact that he was found guilty eventhough you are aware of many miscarriages of justice.

I apologise Maggie, it was a general comment but I have aimed it at you. I hate it when people do that to me so I should know better.

My reason for believing that Jeremy did it is not so much evidence that it was him, but the total lack of evidence that it was Sheila. She had no opportunity to conceal any such evidence, and he did - that's the very simplified version!
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Martin on August 02, 2012, 07:32:AM
I agree NBG, Although Harters and I have had a falling out, he is an intellegent poster.  but I knew that this was not the real Hartley.
These posters have come in different guises. I suppose the the real Hartley is flattered by this.
Starryian is the same as the dim infection on the other side, neither are equiped with a brain. They all come up with the same chestnut[ Julie was brave, bah].



Starryian wrote the following in reply to Andrea. He said he considers Julie Mugford to be an accessory before the fact. This looks like a big about face for Admin as he is also known. You don't really buy it that Starryian is a newbie do you?
Quote

Quote from: Andrea on June 04, 2012, 01:29:15 PM

    Excellent post Ian, thanks for that. 8((()*/

    Do you think it possible that Bamber could have had an accomplice?

To be honest with you Andrea I do not think so. Like all narcissistic psychopaths Bamber probably congratulated himself on his own abilities on carrying out this crime. I strongly suspect that he revelled in his own ingenuity. The closest we are ever going to get to an accomplice is Julie Mugford. I realise that this is not a popular idea, but I have to state it. I believe that Mugford was an accessory before the fact. She had knowledge of Bambers intentions some 8 months before the actual killings.
She has openly stated that he used her as a 'sounding board' for ideas on killing his family. On one such occasion she stated that Bamber had asked her to obtain some powerful tranquilisers from her own doctor so that he could drug his family and burn down the house with them inside it. Alarm bells should have started ringing here! I know she was probably blindly in love with this man and was somewhat taken by surprise that he has actually gone through with his threats, but when you analyse the whole thing, Mugford had the power to have prevented this appalling massacre from ever happening simply by picking up the phone. I believe that this formed a great part of her guilt later when she finally came forward and told her story to the police. She could may well have prevented it. She defends herself from this notion that she claims 'it was just idle talk' I beg to differ. A person who constantly and continually talks about murdering his family and then tries out different ideas and methods to accomplish that should have set the alarm bells ringing, and ringing loudly. I am not in any way suggesting Mugfords complicity in the actual murders themselves but I am suggesting that she had prior knowledge and this was overlooked in order to obtain a conviction. This is also not to say that her evidence was in any way faulty, untruthful or misleading. I think she told the truth in court. I believe that she was very lucky that she was not charged with being an accessory before the fact. We must take it into consideration and remember that before we heap gushing praise on this lady.

My guess is that this was not so much a change of opinion as a policy change. Admin felt that too much sympathy for Julie was making them look morally stupid. Just a guess.

 
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 02, 2012, 08:55:AM
Starryian is NOT admin, he is a newbie. Just thought i would say.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 02, 2012, 02:24:PM
Starryian is NOT admin, he is a newbie. Just thought i would say.

So is your admin John then ?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 02, 2012, 04:18:PM
Starryian wrote the following in reply to Andrea. He said he considers Julie Mugford to be an accessory before the fact. This looks like a big about face for Admin as he is also known. You don't really buy it that Starryian is a newbie do you?
My guess is that this was not so much a change of opinion as a policy change. Admin felt that too much sympathy for Julie was making them look morally stupid. Just a guess.
I have debated with starry on this and he stands by his view that Mugford was an accessory after the fact - technically. He said that does not make Mugford a less credible witness - maybe? I am not sure. Maybe some here can enlighten me on this?
He is not admin but he is a full member. Nice guy and willing to debate with you sensibly. I have not got any problem with the man. He has helped clear up some points I had, along with some posters on this forum.  :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 06, 2012, 07:10:PM
I have debated with starry on this and he stands by his view that Mugford was an accessory after the fact - technically. He said that does not make Mugford a less credible witness - maybe? I am not sure. Maybe some here can enlighten me on this?
He is not admin but he is a full member. Nice guy and willing to debate with you sensibly. I have not got any problem with the man. He has helped clear up some points I had, along with some posters on this forum.  :)
If Bamber is guilty then JM is an accessory after the fact and should have stood trial for that offence. I have always held that view. Because she did not, this makes the police guilty of obstructing the course of justice in that they refused to charge her for this crime and they should set up an enquiry into that.

If on the other hand Jeremy is innocent, then JM should be charged with pergery. Plus obstructing the course of justice, as she had drawn the police away from their original investigations.

Note: There is nothing and no one to back up JM's story. It is her word against Bamber. It is the argument of the anti Bambers that because JB was found guilty in a court of law then that should be termed a fair trial and therefore he is rightfully in prison. But one must remember that even if a 1000 people believe in a wrong thing. It is still a wrong thing. There have been so many doubts regarding this case among members of the public. MP's, Law students and even barristers and solicitors and so many who find the so called evidence troubling, that this alone should force a general inquiry concerning the evidence and more disturbing the lack of evidence. I believe myself that even if there is the smallest of doubts about JB's guilt, that this should be enough to stir everybody's conscience to ask within themselves whether this man is in fact innocent. For if he is innocent, then that surely is not true British justice?

Title: Re: starryian
Post by: mertol22 on August 06, 2012, 07:36:PM
If Bamber is guilty then JM is an accessory after the fact and should have stood trial for that offence. I have always held that view. Because she did not, this makes the police guilty of obstructing the course of justice in that they refused to charge her for this crime and they should set up an enquiry into that.

If on the other hand Jeremy is innocent, then JM should be charged with pergery. Plus obstructing the course of justice, as she had drawn the police away from their original investigations.

Note: There is nothing and no one to back up JM's story. It is her word against Bamber. It is the argument of the anti Bambers that because JB was found guilty in a court of law then that should be termed a fair trial and therefore he is rightfully in prison. But one must remember that even if a 1000 people believe in a wrong thing. It is still a wrong thing. There have been so many doubts regarding this case among members of the public. MP's, Law students and even barristers and solicitors and so many who find the so called evidence troubling, that this alone should force a general inquiry concerning the evidence and more disturbing the lack of evidence. I believe myself that even if there is the smallest of doubts about JB's guilt, that this should be enough to stir everybody's conscience to ask within themselves whether this man is in fact innocent. For if he is innocent, then that surely is not true British justice?
This is just my point grahame as i said recently, if JM had a clean sheet even i might just believe what she said, she was a crook, and she was lying, the evidence that sent JB to a life sentence must also be seen as having no opt outs,JB could not prove then or now what JB has supposed to have said, she can always come forward with proof anytime.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 06, 2012, 07:38:PM
If Bamber is guilty then JM is an accessory after the fact and should have stood trial for that offence. I have always held that view. Because she did not, this makes the police guilty of obstructing the course of justice in that they refused to charge her for this crime and they should set up an enquiry into that.

If on the other hand Jeremy is innocent, then JM should be charged with pergery. Plus obstructing the course of justice, as she had drawn the police away from their original investigations.

Note: There is nothing and no one to back up JM's story. It is her word against Bamber. It is the argument of the anti Bambers that because JB was found guilty in a court of law then that should be termed a fair trial and therefore he is rightfully in prison. But one must remember that even if a 1000 people believe in a wrong thing. It is still a wrong thing. There have been so many doubts regarding this case among members of the public. MP's, Law students and even barristers and solicitors and so many who find the so called evidence troubling, that this alone should force a general inquiry concerning the evidence and more disturbing the lack of evidence. I believe myself that even if there is the smallest of doubts about JB's guilt, that this should be enough to stir everybody's conscience to ask within themselves whether this man is in fact innocent. For if he is innocent, then that surely is not true British justice?
Thing is Grahame,
that the law courts and the appeal courts believe him to be guilty beyond any doubt. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Whether you can prove otherwise is an entirely different matter. You say there are doubts? - two failed appeals say there isn't. The smalles of evidence? that is not the way courts work. In order for them to spend a considerable sum of the taxpayers money you better be darn sure and the appeal court say not.
This is the hard truth - accept it or provide fresh evidence to prove otherwise. This is the ONLY route left to Jeremy Bamber.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 06, 2012, 07:53:PM
Thing is Grahame,
that the law courts and the appeal courts believe him to be guilty beyond any doubt. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Whether you can prove otherwise is an entirely different matter. You say there are doubts? - two failed appeals say there isn't. The smalles of evidence? that is not the way courts work. In order for them to spend a considerable sum of the taxpayers money you better be darn sure and the appeal court say not.
This is the hard truth - accept it or provide fresh evidence to prove otherwise. This is the ONLY route left to Jeremy Bamber.
Whilst I agree with you that that is the only option open to JB, nevertheless my concerns still stand. Just because a court rules him guilty there are so many doubts among vertain qualified people that there is every chance that this may actually be a MOJ? After all MOJ's are very common in British law. Much more common than we may think. The courts and appeal courts etc have also been equally certain of many other cases that have in the end turned out to be MOJ's.
My post was about the case itself and the very dodgy evidence put forward by the prosecution, whilst at the same time deliberately witholding or minimising the importance of evidence at the time to the effect that the jury were asked to convict on entirely circumstantial evidence. I think the words of the judge that finally lead the jury to convict JB was "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence. No one should ever be convicted on cicumstantial evidence no matter how seemingly overwhelming.

By the way, I don't go with that old chesnut "taxpayers money". Especially when the government are using taxpayers money to kill and maim innocent people abroad at this time and spend millions on defence and less and less on the health of the nation each year. I believe the life and freedom of one innocent man is much more precious than "taxpayers" money, of whom I am one.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Steve_uk on August 06, 2012, 10:09:PM
I have been reading posts from someone called starryian on the lamberton forum.Who is this twerp?
He is a jumped-up lecturing know-it-all that clearly knows - well nothing.
He regards himself as such an expert on psychopaths that Im starting to wonder if he is actually one himself,for if he were an expert,he would not keep stating as fact that Jeremy Bamber is one.
Bamber has undergone numerous tests that have determined that he is NOT a psychopath.You can bet your bottom dollar that if the tests had proved otherwise,it would have somehow been leaked to the media.Starryian needs to realise that not every murderer,innocent or guilty,is a psychopath.Who can forget Ian Huntley when he denied the murders of poor Holly and Jessica.He tried to fool the authorities that he was insane,but after assessment at Rampton,he was found to be faking it?These experts are competent at their jobs and they have concluded that Jeremy Bamber is NOT a psychopath.But starryian - well this amateur twerp knows best  ::)

From the little I know of him I have found starryian's posts to be informing and entertaining. As for the psychopath argument,I am beginning to think how little we really know of the human mind and its workings,as demonstrated by the case of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 06, 2012, 10:33:PM
From the little I know of him I have found starryian's posts to be informing and entertaining. As for the psychopath argument,I am beginning to think how little we really know of the human mind and its workings,as demonstrated by the case of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway
Yes I agree Steve,
his posts are quite good, he is obviously well educated (some of the words he uses had me reaching for my dictionary) and he writes interesting points and I have learned a lot reading his posts. I agree with your points about how little we do actually know about the human mind. A complex and tricky area to try to understand.
Incidently Steve your posts are just as good too! Really interesting and a refreshing approach with some good angles.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Harvey on August 07, 2012, 01:48:AM
Yes I agree Steve,
his posts are quite good, he is obviously well educated (some of the words he uses had me reaching for my dictionary) and he writes interesting points and I have learned a lot reading his posts. I agree with your points about how little we do actually know about the human mind. A complex and tricky area to try to understand.
Incidently Steve your posts are just as good too! Really interesting and a refreshing approach with some good angles.
hahaha this is the funniest set of posts i ever did read.moe cassani biggin yourself up.why dont you just admit to the forum that you are the one and the same starryian from the other forum?
Go on i dare ya haha
and that rhodes is the pensioner robbing lamberton  >:(
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 01:55:AM
hahaha this is the funniest set of posts i ever did read.moe cassani biggin yourself up.why dont you just admit to the forum that you are the
Go on i dare ya haha
and that rhodes is the pensioner robbing lamberton  >:(
What is it with you Harvey? You paranoid or something? I told you already. I do not know the guy. I have spoken to him on several occasions. If you think we are the same person then you are as stupid as you sound. Maybe you are trying to project what you have done yourself onto someone else. If you have......I'll find you and expose you........got that?
Have a nice day
  :) :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Harvey on August 07, 2012, 02:00:AM
What is it with you Harvey? You paranoid or something? I told you already. I do not know the guy. I have spoken to him on several occasions. If you think we are the same person then you are as stupid as you sound. Maybe you are trying to project what you have done yourself onto someone else. If you have......I'll find you and expose you........got that?
Have a nice day
  :) :) :) :) :) :)
are you threatening me starry?you have started to show your true colours both on the other forum and here i see.trolls from the other forum should not be allowed to post here.end of.
and i have had a lovely day thanks  ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 02:10:AM
are you threatening me starry?you have started to show your true colours both on the other forum and here i see.trolls from the other forum should not be allowed to post here.end of.
and i have had a lovely day thanks  ;)
You'd like to think so wouldnt you? Love that huh?
If you go around openly accusing people of being other people you can expect to get some stick son. Stop being a prat.
You can call me starry as long as you like  erm...'harvey'  :) :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Harvey on August 07, 2012, 02:20:AM
You'd like to think so wouldnt you? Love that huh?
If you go around openly accusing people of being other people you can expect to get some stick son. Stop being a prat.
You can call me starry as long as you like  erm...'harvey'  :) :) :) :) :) :)
you are filling up the other forum with your ridiculous ramblings and now you are doing the same here.
as far as you are concerned Bamber is guilty and a psychopath so if you've got this case all worked out then what ya doing here?why dont ya just stay on the other forum where they are happy to soak up your rubbish.
goodnight starry  :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 02:32:AM
you are filling up the other forum with your ridiculous ramblings and now you are doing the same here.
as far as you are concerned Bamber is guilty and a psychopath so if you've got this case all worked out then what ya doing here?why dont ya just stay on the other forum where they are happy to soak up your rubbish.
goodnight starry  :)
What a complete moby you are pal. You dad must have really regretted that night on the drink.
Here's some advice.............stay away from a keyboard. You are not mature enough to cope with one yet and you get all confused.
Now ask mummy to read you a story and tuck you in with a nice glass of milk.
Night Night Moby. :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 09:21:AM
What is it with you Harvey? You paranoid or something? I told you already. I do not know the guy. I have spoken to him on several occasions. If you think we are the same person then you are as stupid as you sound. Maybe you are trying to project what you have done yourself onto someone else. If you have......I'll find you and expose you........got that?
Have a nice day
  :) :) :) :) :) :)
What a childish twat. Who are you? Superman? hahaha. What a lune.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 09:25:AM
you are filling up the other forum with your ridiculous ramblings and now you are doing the same here.
as far as you are concerned Bamber is guilty and a psychopath so if you've got this case all worked out then what ya doing here?why dont ya just stay on the other forum where they are happy to soak up your rubbish.
goodnight starry  :)
And this is the one who boasts about having an "open" mind. hahaha He should be in straight jacket. Going around threatening people like he has. Obviously escaped from Broadmoor. Oh no I just remnembered. He's got a certificate from the shrinks confirming that he is now sane. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 09:26:AM
What a complete moby you are pal. You dad must have really regretted that night on the drink.
Here's some advice.............stay away from a keyboard. You are not mature enough to cope with one yet and you get all confused.
Now ask mummy to read you a story and tuck you in with a nice glass of milk.
Night Night Moby. :) :) :) :)
Hmm. Obviously a childish lune. Piss of you monkey. You obnoxious turd brain.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 10:00:AM
Hmm. Obviously a childish lune. Piss of you monkey. You obnoxious turd brain.
Oh dear are we cross again Grahame? I told you dont get your knickers in a twist. We want you to remain on here. Now try to take some deep breaths and use your calming exercises.
I know this we come as a big shock to you but you really need to switch off your computer and and go and lie down in darkened room and count sheep. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 10:04:AM
Moe you are deliberately trying to goad and it should not be allowed by the Mods.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 10:08:AM
Moe you are deliberately trying to goad and it should not be allowed by the Mods.
Moe, you are certainly showing your true colours now, it is quute obvious that grahame is right and you are from the other forum. You should be banned like rhodes.Absolutely right Susie/Patti/april1.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 10:09:AM
Moe you are deliberately trying to goad and it should not be allowed by the Mods.
Don't worry Susan he stated all this. I can handle him. He's just a little tyro in a grown-up world. He's small fry believe me. A dog without teeth a wasp without a sting. Trying to make you think I'm in some kind of temper. But what I do is carefully calculated.. Isn't it Tim Bennett. ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 10:10:AM
Moe, you are certainly showing your true colours now, it is quute obvious that grahame is right and you are from the other forum. You should be banned like rhodes.Absolutely right Susie/Patti/april1.
Maggie. That is my whole purpose in all this. To expose these Lamberton lovers for what and who they are. But dear old Moe here hasn't cottoned on yet. haha ;D Soon you will see what he is really like.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 10:12:AM
Don't worry Susan he stated all this. I can handle him. He's just a little tyro in a grown-up world. He's small fry believe me. A dog without teeth a wasp without a sting. Trying to make you think I'm in some kins of temper. But what I do is carefully calculated.. Isn't it Tim Bennett. ;)
;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 10:18:AM
Hi all.  Just wanted to point out that the Mods know from a very early stage whether somebody is from the other forum.  If you can be bothered it is also possible to work out who that member is on the other forum. There are many signs.  No offence to well meant enterprises but at present, this thread isn't really helping matters. It would be helpful if everyone, other forum or otherwise, ceased knocking lumps out of each other.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 10:21:AM
Roch  I think it maybe helpful if certain members are not allowed on this forum some members are here to cause disruption the person I am talking about has had 4 forum members complain already this morning and it is early days yet.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 10:26:AM
Susan, I understand your frustrations and I have discussed the issue recently regarding a course of action, soon to be initiated.  However, attacking these posters full on tends to aid them in their purpose, in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 10:30:AM
Hi all.  Just wanted to point out that the Mods know from a very early stage whether somebody is from the other forum.  If you can be bothered it is also possible to work out who that member is on the other forum. There are many signs.  No offence to well meant enterprises but at present, this thread isn't really helping matters. It would be helpful if everyone, other forum or otherwise, ceased knocking lumps out of each other.
With all due respect Roch if the mods knew who these characters were from the start then why have they been let off from introducing themselves in the foyer? Also This is not just any old war of words. But Moe started it all by accusing me without foundation of abusing people on the other forum. Furthermore he has refused to investigate for himself what some on the other forum have said about my family and my daughter in particular. Therefore his accusation is not backed up by facts and yet he is allowed to get away with it by moderators on this forum.

I ask you is that fair. He has unjustly and without foundation accused me of something that I have not done and if I have done it, it was in defence of my daughter. Therefore he is not just and cannot be interested in justice. What has happened with the moderation of this forum when they will not even defend their long standing members, but would rather cuddle up to known abusers from the other forum?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 10:33:AM
Roch  I agree I would never engage in any kind of abuse to a member of any forum.  I  do not respond to their posts as I don't think they deserve air time and if everyone else did the same they would either answer their own posts or go elswhere.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 10:45:AM
With all due respect Roch if the mods knew who these characters were from the start then why have they been let off from introducing themselves in the foyer? Also This is not just any old war of words. But Moe started it all by accusing me without foundation of abusing people on the other forum. Furthermore he has refused to investigate for himself what some on the other forum have said about my family and my daughter in particular. Therefore his accusation is not backed up by facts and yet he is allowed to get away with it by moderators on this forum.

I ask you is that fair. He has unjustly and without foundation accused me of something that I have not done and if I have done it, it was in defence of my daughter. Therefore he is not just and cannot be interested in justice. What has happened with the moderation of this forum when they will not even defend their long standing members, but would rather cuddle up to known abusers from the other forum?

They are directed to the foyer in a rather pointless (in their case) exercise.  Grahame, if you have come back to once more engage in 'back seat moderation', I'm not interested in discussing the matter.  You are not the only person on this forum who has banned these muppets before.  They always come back in somne form or guise.  And your suggestion of cuddling up to them is quite frankly ludicrous and insulting.  You think that the only way to deal with these people is to launch blundering all out attacks in to them.  And then demand the mods pick up the pieces.  :-\
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 10:55:AM
They are directed to the foyer in a rather pointless (in their case) exercise.  Grahame, if you have come back to once more engage in 'back seat moderation', I'm not interested in discussing the matter.  You are not the only person on this forum who has banned these muppets before.  They always come back in somne form or guise.  And your suggestion of cuddling up to them is quite frankly ludicrous and insulting.  You think that the only way to deal with these people is to launch blundering all out attacks in to them.  And then demand the mods pick up the pieces.  :-\
Roch. Why have you not addressed any of my points. Moreover I'm not interested in being a moderator. But I do expect the moderators to judge "JUSTLY". You my completely ignoring moes accusations towards me have not done so. What on earth has this forum come to? Why do you not address any of the points I have made. You certainly do behave as if you are sucking up to those from the other side thats a fact. You knew who they were yet have done NOTHING.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 10:59:AM
ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL MODERATION ON THIS FORUM. DISGRACEFUL. HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BACKSEAT MODERATION. OPEN YOU EYES FOR ONCE AND STOP SUCKING UP TO THESE CREATURES. iF YOU HAD BANNED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PICK UP THE PIECES.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 11:17:AM
Grahame, Roch cant ban people for having a differing opinion.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 07, 2012, 11:24:AM
Grahame, Roch cant ban people for having a differing opinion.
I suppose he can do what he likes.  :-\

He can definitely ban people for being disruptive though.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 11:25:AM
Yes, i agree.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 11:25:AM
Harts, does rising damp exist?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 11:30:AM
What about for threatening to expose people?
And what about accusing people without foundation? He won't even defend me. this forum stinks now I'm afraid. Soon it will be called the Bamber Lamberton foundation.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 07, 2012, 11:41:AM
Harts, does rising damp exist?

It does.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 11:43:AM
It was something i saw on QI lastnight, there is some debate about it though?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 11:52:AM
Just a message,
I have tried to be as polite as I can and offer an alternative opinion so as to get to the truth. I have been shamelessly attacked by Grahame who seems to believe that this forum belongs to him and the only views to be expressed are the one's he himself subscribes to.
Most of the posters on here are very accepting and decent people and will debate without resorting to the kind of foul language and abuse I have suffered from him. Most who have read Grahame comments will know what I mean here.
I can honestly say I am NOT here to cause any kind of disruption, nor cause any trouble. This only arises when Grahame gets involved in a debate and starts kicking off and using foul language. I seek the truth. As anti-Bamber as some of my posts may sound I have still left open other possibilities and enjoy a good, honest debate. Posters such as Patti, Buddy and Roch seem to have some good and thoughtful ideas. I can also assure people that my name is, in fact Maurice and I am from Essex regardless of what some others are saying I am not a person called Lamberton or Tim or Starryian or Rhodes of anyone else I have been accused of being.
If you would like to debate please do with me, if not I ask you kindly please do not subject me to a tirade of abuse.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 11:54:AM
I suppose he can do what he likes.  :-\

He can definitely ban people for being disruptive though.

Can you please clarify your top comment?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 11:59:AM
Grahame, Roch cant ban people for having a differing opinion.
Andrea you seem to have a sensible point of view, where do you stand on the Bamber issue?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 07, 2012, 12:00:PM
It was something i saw on QI lastnight, there is some debate about it though?

I did wonder what you were going on about, I thought I was being thick.  :-[

I didn't see IQ (Edit: QI even  :-[ ), but I'm guessing that it referred to a book called 'The myth of rising damp'.

All I know is that I've renovated many old buildings which were damp, after putting DPC's, DPM's, injecting brickwork etc, they dried out. Of course it might have just been the contractors relieving themselves.  :-\

Very random Andi.   :D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 12:00:PM
I think he's guilty, Mo.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 12:01:PM
Maggie. That is my whole purpose in all this. To expose these Lamberton lovers for what and who they are. But dear old Moe here hasn't cottoned on yet. haha ;D Soon you will see what he is really like.
I think that is really unfair Grahame. You dont know me at all and you are assuming that you do. That is way out of order. Please stop judging me.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 12:01:PM
I did wonder what you were going on about, I thought I was being thick.  :-[

I didn't see IQ, but I'm guessing that it referred to a book called 'The myth of rising damp'.

All I know is that I've renovated many old buildings which were damp, after putting DPC's, DPM's, injecting brickwork etc, they dried out. Of course it might have just been the contractors relieving themselves.  :-\

Very random Andi.   :D


I know, Harts. I get a bit random at times.  :D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 07, 2012, 12:03:PM
Can you please clarify your top comment?

You mean about doing what you like?  ???

If so then I meant exactly what I typed, why?  :-\
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 12:05:PM
I think that is really unfair Grahame. You dont know me at all and you are assuming that you do. That is way out of order. Please stop judging me.
I'm afraid it was you who were judging me unjustly in the first place Moe. That is what started all this. Now you are crying unfair because you think I'm judging you. You accused me of abusing members of the other forum for no reason but on their sayso alone. Instead of doing what you should have done by researching the facts first. This you did not do. Moreover Roch was at fault for not picking you up on it. But instead he accused me of backseat moderation. That too was unfair. If he had done his job this would not have escalated into what it is now.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 12:06:PM
I think he's guilty, Mo.
OK thanks Andrea,
I almost believe that too. I just need clarification on a few points. Some things just dont add up to me about this case. I am quite new to it so I have to find my way around it, I just cant get my head around Sheila beating her dad to unconsciousness and the lack of evidence on her nightie. If it wasn't Sheila it had to be Jeremy. Am I right in saying this or have I missed something here?
Thanks again!
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 12:09:PM
Just a message,
I have tried to be as polite as I can and offer an alternative opinion so as to get to the truth. I have been shamelessly attacked by Grahame who seems to believe that this forum belongs to him and the only views to be expressed are the one's he himself subscribes to.
Most of the posters on here are very accepting and decent people and will debate without resorting to the kind of foul language and abuse I have suffered from him. Most who have read Grahame comments will know what I mean here.
I can honestly say I am NOT here to cause any kind of disruption, nor cause any trouble. This only arises when Grahame gets involved in a debate and starts kicking off and using foul language. I seek the truth. As anti-Bamber as some of my posts may sound I have still left open other possibilities and enjoy a good, honest debate. Posters such as Patti, Buddy and Roch seem to have some good and thoughtful ideas. I can also assure people that my name is, in fact Maurice and I am from Essex regardless of what some others are saying I am not a person called Lamberton or Tim or Starryian or Rhodes of anyone else I have been accused of being.
If you would like to debate please do with me, if not I ask you kindly please do not subject me to a tirade of abuse.
Wrong this started only when you attacked me by accusing me of abuse and other stuff on the other forum. And now you are playing the victim.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 12:13:PM
OK thanks Andrea,
I almost believe that too. I just need clarification on a few points. Some things just dont add up to me about this case. I am quite new to it so I have to find my way around it, I just cant get my head around Sheila beating her dad to unconsciousness and the lack of evidence on her nightie. If it wasn't Sheila it had to be Jeremy. Am I right in saying this or have I missed something here?
Thanks again!


You're right, Moe. Due to the alleged phone call from neville it puts bamber and Sheila in the frame. Evidence points to Bamber IMO.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 01:01:PM
You mean about doing what you like?  ???

If so then I meant exactly what I typed, why?  :-\

So you are having a dig?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 01:06:PM
And what about accusing people without foundation? He won't even defend me. this forum stinks now I'm afraid. Soon it will be called the Bamber Lamberton foundation.

Who wont defend you?  Me?  Am I your baby-sitter?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 01:07:PM
Andrea you seem to have a sensible point of view, where do you stand on the Bamber issue?

Isn't it a bit stupid for you to ask another person well known to you on the other forum, what her opinions are on the case?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 01:22:PM
Who wont defend you?  Me?  Am I your baby-sitter?
No. You are supposed to be a modarator. But obviously you are as thick as thieves with Andrea and Shona. Perhaps that is why you didn't rebuke moe for his attack on me?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 01:24:PM
No. You are supposed to be a modarator. But obviously you are as thick as thieves with Andrea and Shona. Perhaps that is why you didn't rebuke moe for his attack on me?

Yes, you're right.  I confess.  I am thick as thieves with Andrea and Shona.  My cover has been blown.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 01:26:PM
Hi Grahame I recall Patti posted up early this morning that she thought Moe was on this forum to be disruptive I added the same sentiments so did april1 and Maggie we can't all be reading things the wrong way.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 01:28:PM
Hi Grahame I recall Patti posted up early this morning that she thought Moe was on this forum to be disruptive I added the same sentiments so did april1 and Maggie we can't all be reading things the wrong way.
Of course he is. He and most of the rest. I didn't think I was going mad?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 01:29:PM
Hi Grahame I recall Patti posted up early this morning that she thought Moe was on this forum to be disruptive I added the same sentiments so did april1 and Maggie we can't all be reading things the wrong way.
In what way have I been disruptive Susan? I just want to debate and read other debates.
I cast aspersions on no-one.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 07, 2012, 01:29:PM
So you are having a dig?

No, how the hell do you get to that conclusion?  :o

I'm not having a dig at all, quite the opposite in fact.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 01:33:PM
No, how the hell do you get to that conclusion?  :o

I'm not having a dig at all, quite the opposite in fact.

I apologise for my paranoia H.  It's the 7th Aug and I hope forum members can bear this in mind, as I'm sure you agree.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 01:38:PM
Moe  it is very unusual for Patti to call any posters disruptive but she did state this morning that she thought you were on the forum to be disruptive  I have stopped reading your posts now but did find them aggressive, self opinionated and patronizing maybe it is just the way you express yourself and I should be more understanding.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 07, 2012, 01:40:PM
I apologise for my paranoia H.  It's the 7th Aug and I hope forum members can bear this in mind, as I'm sure you agree.

I don't understand what you mean.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 01:44:PM
Hi Grahame I recall Patti posted up early this morning that she thought Moe was on this forum to be disruptive I added the same sentiments so did april1 and Maggie we can't all be reading things the wrong way.
I have posted with Moe on a few occasions and have to say he has been polite but I saw a very different side to him when interacting with Grahame.  For a new poster he became extremely aggressive and knowledgeable about the other forum.  He accused grahame of stuff he couldn't have known of as an innocent newbie and sounded oddly familiar to anyone who has ever read the dreadful stuff posted on the red forum about Grahame and his family.  I do think Moe should discover what Grahame has had to put up with particularly as his daughter has been and still is very, very ill.  Moe, if you haven't , maybe you should read the filth on the other forum and then maybe you will have a better understanding. 
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 01:47:PM
I don't understand what you mean.

Merely that an absence of bickering in general wouldn't go amiss.  It was not aimed at you personally.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 01:57:PM
I have posted with Moe on a few occasions and have to say he has been polite but I saw a very different side to him when interacting with Grahame.  For a new poster he became extremely aggressive and knowledgeable about the other forum.  He accused grahame of stuff he couldn't have known of as an innocent newbie and sounded oddly familiar to anyone who has ever read the dreadful stuff posted on the red forum about Grahame and his family.  I do think Moe should discover what Grahame has had to put up with particularly as his daughter has been and still is very, very ill.  Moe, if you haven't , maybe you should read the filth on the other forum and then maybe you will have a better understanding.
I understand that Maggie,
but why are you including me in with this 'filth'? I know nothing of it, did not take part in it and have not read it. I am confused by your statements. Which stuff am I 'oddly familiar with' Do explain because I am totally at a loss to know what you are talking about?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 02:00:PM
I understand that Maggie,
but why are you including me in with this 'filth'? I know nothing of it, did not take part in it and have not read it. I am confused by your statements. Which stuff am I 'oddly familiar with' Do explain because I am totally at a loss to know what you are talking about?
Moe. She is suggesting that you DO read it to get a better perspective og things. You read up on other things. So why not this?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: -Harters- on August 07, 2012, 02:02:PM
Merely that an absence of bickering in general wouldn't go amiss.  It was not aimed at you personally.

I agree although I don't think the date has anything to do with it, and I never took it personally nor am not being defensive.

Obviously you took my comment that 'you could do what you like' differently to how it was intended. My whole intention was to indicate that as a moderator, you have the authority and responsibility to moderate as you see fit, regardless whether other people agree with your approach or not.

It was actually a supportive comment, not a dig at all.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 02:05:PM
Moe. She is suggesting that you DO read it to get a better perspective og things. You read up on other things. So why not this?
and where would i Find it?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 02:12:PM
Hello Mr.Jam I took your comment to Roch as supportive and not a dig ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 02:15:PM
I understand that Maggie,
but why are you including me in with this 'filth'? I know nothing of it, did not take part in it and have not read it. I am confused by your statements. Which stuff am I 'oddly familiar with' Do explain because I am totally at a loss to know what you are talking about?
I am not including you but I am suggesting that you should maybe learn about it and then you should have a better understanding. imo
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 02:16:PM
I agree although I don't think the date has anything to do with it, and I never took it personally nor am not being defensive.

Obviously you took my comment that 'you could do what you like' differently to how it was intended. My whole intention was to indicate that as a moderator, you have the authority and responsibility to moderate as you see fit, regardless whether other people agree with your approach or not.

It was actually a supportive comment, not a dig at all.

Yes my initial misunderstanding H.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Moe Cassani on August 07, 2012, 02:41:PM
I am not including you but I am suggesting that you should maybe learn about it and then you should have a better understanding. imo
I wouldnt even know where to look. I am here to debate about the case I dont want to get involved in personal attacks or immature behaviour on both sides. I am not interested. It is astonishing how this can drag a forum down to gutter level. Let us now concentrate on the matter in hand.
This is my last word on the subject.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: guest154 on August 07, 2012, 03:02:PM
ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL MODERATION ON THIS FORUM. DISGRACEFUL. HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BACKSEAT MODERATION. OPEN YOU EYES FOR ONCE AND STOP SUCKING UP TO THESE CREATURES. iF YOU HAD BANNED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PICK UP THE PIECES.

Nice to see that you're back in full swing, Grahame! I have missed you whilst I have been away.

Ever drama around here, isn't there? ;D ;D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 03:03:PM
I wouldnt even know where to look. I am here to debate about the case I dont want to get involved in personal attacks or immature behaviour on both sides. I am not interested. It is astonishing how this can drag a forum down to gutter level. Let us now concentrate on the matter in hand.
This is my last word on the subject.
Moe, I saw you late one night with Rhodes and I think Eric, Andrea was hanging about and you three guys were all bullying Mike, Andrea did not seem to object  That was pretty unpleasant and I actually complained about it,so don't pretend you don't go in for such things.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 04:25:PM
Hi Maggie  just in from the garden  "Time to say goodbye" is that what you sang to Moe.  Yes I remember that night when Rhodes Moe and Eric were hunting in a pack but Mike took them all on as he is so much clever than them.  Poor Margot was terrified of them and went into hibernation :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 04:49:PM
Hi Maggie  just in from the garden  "Time to say goodbye" is that what you sang to Moe.  Yes I remember that night when Rhodes Moe and Eric were hunting in a pack but Mike took them all on as he is so much clever than them.  Poor Margot was terrified of them and went into hibernation :)
What dyou think susie, will Margot be won over by Mat's charm?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 04:53:PM
Hi Mags  I am sure Mat will be getting an invitation to the cottage for an overnight stay Margot will love Mat wish she would come out of hiding and meet him. :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 05:01:PM
Hi Mags  I am so happy the forum is a nice place again :) I must remember to tell Mat Margot is very shy and timid and does not like nasty postings ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 05:04:PM
I wouldnt even know where to look. I am here to debate about the case I dont want to get involved in personal attacks or immature behaviour on both sides. I am not interested. It is astonishing how this can drag a forum down to gutter level. Let us now concentrate on the matter in hand.
This is my last word on the subject.
Maybe not Moe and that would have been ok. Until you made sarky remarks about me about what the other forum thought about me. You then accepted those accusations from that other forum as true without trying even to find out if they were true.
This of course indicated to me that your mind was predisposed into thinking untrue things about me even when I informed you that I was defending my daughter. I couldn't give a monkeys what they say about me. But my family I will defend.
Now that you have been informed not only by me, but by others on the forum. The ones who count and have their heads screwed on right, I am willing to let bygones be bygones on the condition that you make no more goading remarks like the ones that you have done.
I accept that you did it in ignorance and for that reason I am willing to let it go. I also will refrain from any derogatory remarks against yourself.

note: Lamberton and Bennett I will not let off. They have a lifetime ban here and if the moderators know who they are, then I can only think it fair that they also lift the ban on Jackie Preece.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 05:09:PM
Hi Maggie  just in from the garden  "Time to say goodbye" is that what you sang to Moe.  Yes I remember that night when Rhodes Moe and Eric were hunting in a pack but Mike took them all on as he is so much clever than them.  Poor Margot was terrified of them and went into hibernation :)
Don't be afraid of them. Bullying Mike should be off the agenda. I can't see the same people bullying Lamberton and objecting to his abuse campaign againsts innocent people. I will always defend Mike. It doesn't matter who the mods are. He is the owner of the forum and he deserves respect.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 05:11:PM
Hi Mags  I am so happy the forum is a nice place again :) I must remember to tell Mat Margot is very shy and timid and does not like nasty postings ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D..Susie, you old cupid.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 05:13:PM
Maybe not Moe and that would have been ok. Until you made sarky remarks about me about what the other forum thought about me. You then accepted those accusations from that other forum as true without trying even to find out if they were true.
This of course indicated to me that your mind was predisposed into thinking untrue things about me even when I informed you that I was defending my daughter. I couldn't give a monkeys what they say about me. But my family I will defend.
Now that you have been informed not only by me, but by others on the forum. The ones who count and have their heads screwed on right, I am willing to let bygones be bygones on the condition that you make no more goading remarks like the ones that you have done.
I accept that you did it in ignorance and for that reason I am willing to let it go. I also will refrain from any derogatory remarks against yourself.

note: Lamberton and Bennett I will not let off. They have a lifetime ban here and if the moderators know who they are, then I can only think it fair that they also lift the ban on Jackie Preece.

Hark the back-seat moderator.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: ngb1066 on August 07, 2012, 05:29:PM
Maybe not Moe and that would have been ok. Until you made sarky remarks about me about what the other forum thought about me. You then accepted those accusations from that other forum as true without trying even to find out if they were true.
This of course indicated to me that your mind was predisposed into thinking untrue things about me even when I informed you that I was defending my daughter. I couldn't give a monkeys what they say about me. But my family I will defend.
Now that you have been informed not only by me, but by others on the forum. The ones who count and have their heads screwed on right, I am willing to let bygones be bygones on the condition that you make no more goading remarks like the ones that you have done.
I accept that you did it in ignorance and for that reason I am willing to let it go. I also will refrain from any derogatory remarks against yourself.

note: Lamberton and Bennett I will not let off. They have a lifetime ban here and if the moderators know who they are, then I can only think it fair that they also lift the ban on Jackie Preece.

You are too late Grahame, "Moe" was banned a while ago.  You are correct about Lamberton and Bennett.

I know you mean well but it is not helpful to tell the mods publicly what you think they should do.  By all means provide advice by PM or email.  There is a lot of discussion behind the scenes about individual cases which are handled with a lot of care and detailed consideration of all factors.  As you know permanent bans are only imposed in extreme circumstances and the mods have been in complete agreement on the decisions that have been taken on these.

Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 05:38:PM
Hi Grahame  Mike has dedicated so much of his life to trying to free Jeremy and as the owner of this site should command respect off forum members even if we don't agree with what he says.  Some remarks I have seen made towards Mike are an out and out disgrace and the majority of the forum members do have respect for him. Well Done Mike.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: ngb1066 on August 07, 2012, 05:39:PM
Hi Grahame  Mike has dedicated so much of his life to trying to free Jeremy and as the owner of this site should command respect off forum members even if we don't agree with what he says.  Some remarks I have seen made towards Mike are an out and out disgrace and the majority of the forum members do have respect for him. Well Done Mike.

I totally agree Susan.

Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 05:41:PM
Grahame you missed the going away party that Margot arranged :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 05:43:PM
I totally agree Susan.
So do I Susie, they certainly were having a go at goading and bullying Mike and that is unacceptable, certainly when it's late at night with no mods around.  Bad news and so disrespectful imo.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 05:50:PM
Margot  glad to see you have overcome your shyness and started posting again.  Try making pancakes for a change.  Mat is looking forward to meeting you he is interested in breakfast :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Margot on August 07, 2012, 05:54:PM
I was rather shaken when that brute Lamberton started verbally abusing me. Bunty had to stay another night. I was so distraught Susan I really was.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 06:00:PM
Margot my dear  you will have to stop posting his picture up then he will leave you alone. :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 06:02:PM
Margot my dear  you will have to stop posting his picture up then he will leave you alone. :)
I do have to agree with Susie, Margot.  You are rather taunting him. ;D
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2012, 06:20:PM
You are too late Grahame, "Moe" was banned a while ago.  You are correct about Lamberton and Bennett.

I know you mean well but it is not helpful to tell the mods publicly what you think they should do.  By all means provide advice by PM or email.  There is a lot of discussion behind the scenes about individual cases which are handled with a lot of care and detailed consideration of all factors.  As you know permanent bans are only imposed in extreme ciorcumstances and the mods have been in complete agreement on the decisions that have been taken on these.
Why not? We all do that with the government all the time. What is the difference? I am not a back seat moderator as Roach suggests. Neither do I desire to be one. I apologise to Roach for my offensive words to him. I was extremely angry. But I am quite possibly the oldest person on the forum, a long standing member as well and I think that age deserves respect as it always used to in this country, don't you? Again I apologise for my outbursts. But I am really surprised at some of the things that are happening on the forum. We have lost some excellent posters on the forum and it was not my doing. It was as a direct result of John Lamberton and his phobia about Jeremy Bamber. Unfortunately he has dragged others along with him.
But I accept what you say ngb. In future I will email or pm my concerns. But I am not interested in being a moderator. Let me make that clear.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: elliehickman on August 07, 2012, 06:31:PM
Margo is your name Craigie and is it true you are a convicted murderer, if you are I suggest the girls that are exchanging posts with you could be in grave danger

Maybe you can tell us about your crime and how long you spent in prison and if you regret the pain you have caused and why in the circumstances you would not like to live quietly rather than spending time on forums


I am researching several murderers at the moment and I could include you if you would like to unveil yourself
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 07, 2012, 06:47:PM
ellie  we believe Margot to be a genuine lady who enjoys her cottage and baking and is to timid even to post when the badies are on the forum I do hope you have not upset her.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 09:34:PM
Moe, I saw you late one night with Rhodes and I think Eric, Andrea was hanging about and you three guys were all bullying Mike, Andrea did not seem to object  That was pretty unpleasant and I actually complained about it,so don't pretend you don't go in for such things.


Care to expand on that comment, maggie?
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 07, 2012, 09:42:PM
Why not? We all do that with the government all the time. What is the difference? I am not a back seat moderator as Roach suggests. Neither do I desire to be one. I apologise to Roach for my offensive words to him. I was extremely angry. But I am quite possibly the oldest person on the forum, a long standing member as well and I think that age deserves respect as it always used to in this country, don't you? Again I apologise for my outbursts. But I am really surprised at some of the things that are happening on the forum. We have lost some excellent posters on the forum and it was not my doing. It was as a direct result of John Lamberton and his phobia about Jeremy Bamber. Unfortunately he has dragged others along with him.
But I accept what you say ngb. In future I will email or pm my concerns. But I am not interested in being a moderator. Let me make that clear.

The problem we have had is that these pests are relentless.  As soon as they are binned, they re-register in different guises.  There has been a discussion about this issue yesterday and we will adjust our approach on this.  I am always happy for members to pm me with concerns or suggestions.  We've not wanted to shoot from the hip with bans.  But it's reached the stage where any suggestion that we are trying to silence opinions from the other side of the fence is just ridiculous.  There's no credence in it. so I may have to take Grahame's former line 'No more. Mr. Nice Guy'  ;)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 10:00:PM

Care to expand on that comment, maggie?
Theres nothing to expand on Andrea I was just telling as it was. You didn't say anythi.g to Mike but you were posting a bit to Rhodes and Moe and Eric and they were being heavy with Mike....thats all. I was just describing what I saw. Wasnt really commenting on you but that was the situation that I saw. There was no one else posting.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: andrea on August 07, 2012, 10:17:PM
Why bring my name into it maggie? I didnt say anything as you said, so why?

Your first posts to me on here were quite rude, you said that you looked more like me than i do, i just feel that youre having a dig thats all.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 10:35:PM
Why bring my name into it maggie? I didnt say anything as you said, so why?

Your first posts to me on here were quite rude, you said that you looked more like me than i do, i just feel that youre having a dig thats all.
No I was just telling it like it was. I was saying that there was only the three...Rhodes, Moe and Eric...all leaning on Mike (who I am well aware can look after himself) and you were there too just that. If it was the day before I went on my hols it was probably because I had taken my first does of anti anxiety tabs for flying. They can make me talk rubbish .Sorry if I was rude.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: mertol22 on August 07, 2012, 10:39:PM
Maybe not Moe and that would have been ok. Until you made sarky remarks about me about what the other forum thought about me. You then accepted those accusations from that other forum as true without trying even to find out if they were true.
This of course indicated to me that your mind was predisposed into thinking untrue things about me even when I informed you that I was defending my daughter. I couldn't give a monkeys what they say about me. But my family I will defend.
Now that you have been informed not only by me, but by others on the forum. The ones who count and have their heads screwed on right, I am willing to let bygones be bygones on the condition that you make no more goading remarks like the ones that you have done.
I accept that you did it in ignorance and for that reason I am willing to let it go. I also will refrain from any derogatory remarks against yourself.

note: Lamberton and Bennett I will not let off. They have a lifetime ban here and if the moderators know who they are, then I can only think it fair that they also lift the ban on Jackie Preece.
As much as i dont like it grahame i dont think jackie is coming back, her guts and feisty  debate style has gone and i  the forum lost that, as to guilty posters coming back i often wonder why, given their crystal clear view that jeremy is guilty im at a loss, some guilty posters are ok, the truth is mike can take a couple of his greenhouse windows broken because no one can say mike is not fair a unique forum allowing debate for and against , this is one forum where you dont have a pistol pointing at your temple if you dont tow the line , and for that i think mike dererves high credit .
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: maggie on August 07, 2012, 10:45:PM
As much as i dont like it grahame i dont think jackie is coming back, her guts and feisty  debate style has gone and i  the forum lost that, as to guilty posters coming back i often wonder why, given their crystal clear view that jeremy is guilty im at a loss, some guilty posters are ok, the truth is mike can take a couple of his greenhouse windows broken because no one can say mike is not fair a unique forum allowing debate for and against , this is one forum where you dont have a pistol pointing at your temple if you dont tow the line , and for that i think mike dererves high credit .
Im not so sure Mertol. Jackie doesn't give up that easily....oneday when you're not expecting it she could just turn up. :o
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: mertol22 on August 07, 2012, 10:49:PM
Im not so sure Mertol. Jackie doesn't give up that easily....oneday when you're not expecting it she could just turn up. :o
hi maggie i would welcome jackie back now , the forum missed a valuable lesson, to supress or control debate can sometimes backfire, nothing said on the forum will release jeremy law will not us, we are supposed to live in a free society in general, i view i dont share .
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: grahame on August 08, 2012, 09:50:AM
The problem we have had is that these pests are relentless.  As soon as they are binned, they re-register in different guises.  There has been a discussion about this issue yesterday and we will adjust our approach on this.  I am always happy for members to pm me with concerns or suggestions.  We've not wanted to shoot from the hip with bans.  But it's reached the stage where any suggestion that we are trying to silence opinions from the other side of the fence is just ridiculous.  There's no credence in it. so I may have to take Grahame's former line 'No more. Mr. Nice Guy'  ;)
I know I've sent you a pm Roch. But I feel this needs to be made public as I publicly humiliated you.
I apologise for my unfortunate behaviour and that I appeared to be a backseat moderator. It is a very difficult thing to do to moderate a forum and I think you do it admirably. Both you and ngb are honourable men and are just trying to be fair in your judgment. This I know from painful experience is like walking on a knife edge. I will in future express my concerns in pm's rather than on open forum.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: susan on August 08, 2012, 09:52:AM
Grahame  very well put ngb and Roch are the tops and indeed so are you. :)
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 08, 2012, 10:04:AM
Thanks Susan... and Grahame, it's ok... we will move on  :)  Must have lost me thick skin yesterday.  I'm sure there'll be more cause for debate around the corner... there usually is.  And like I say I will take on board concerns, suggestions and advice, as I know ngb will also.
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: ngb1066 on August 08, 2012, 03:51:PM
Thanks Susan... and Grahame, it's ok... we will move on  :)  Must have lost me thick skin yesterday.  I'm sure there'll be more cause for debate around the corner... there usually is.  And like I say I will take on board concerns, suggestions and advice, as I know ngb will also.

Yes I will.

Title: Re: starryian
Post by: Roch on August 09, 2012, 09:06:PM
Theres nothing to expand on Andrea I was just telling as it was. You didn't say anythi.g to Mike but you were posting a bit to Rhodes and Moe and Eric and they were being heavy with Mike....thats all. I was just describing what I saw. Wasnt really commenting on you but that was the situation that I saw. There was no one else posting.

I think Eric is ok. 
Title: Re: starryian
Post by: nugnug on March 15, 2018, 12:36:PM
I have been reading posts from someone called starryian on the lamberton forum.Who is this twerp?
He is a jumped-up lecturing know-it-all that clearly knows - well nothing.
He regards himself as such an expert on psychopaths that Im starting to wonder if he is actually one himself,for if he were an expert,he would not keep stating as fact that Jeremy Bamber is one.
Bamber has undergone numerous tests that have determined that he is NOT a psychopath.You can bet your bottom dollar that if the tests had proved otherwise,it would have somehow been leaked to the media.Starryian needs to realise that not every murderer,innocent or guilty,is a psychopath.Who can forget Ian Huntley when he denied the murders of poor Holly and Jessica.He tried to fool the authorities that he was insane,but after assessment at Rampton,he was found to be faking it?These experts are competent at their jobs and they have concluded that Jeremy Bamber is NOT a psychopath.But starryian - well this amateur twerp knows best  ::)

starryian is a teacher from Portsmouth currently living in Vietnam.

he wrked in the british internathionol school hanoi but no longer does.