Guardian re Boyce findings

[lookout]

This isn't a game RJ, I've been deadly serious from day one, regardless of the thoughts of others. I'm my own person and have never been party to following others.
On the contrary, the information about the murders/suicide was there for all to see when we joined and those who were first adamant about his innocence are now adamant about his guilt so it's certainly not me personally who's " playing games ".

[Roch]

You forget one big thing, we all three came on here with a view he might be innocent, it’s a game you play too often.

Not sure about game, but yes. You three (as you put it) have painted yourselves in a corner.  And that means that you have to dismiss things like police officers being ordered to re-write incident logs.

'But but... Jeremy is guilty!' 'and there are no facts changed anyway and anyway he is a psychopath!'

[guest7363]

Not sure about game, but yes. You three (as you put it) have painted yourselves in a corner.  And that beans that you have to dismiss things like police officers being ordered to re-write incident logs.

'But but... Jeremy is guilty!' 'and there are no facts changed anyway and anyway he is a psychopath!'

No corner here, not trapped not boxed in, free to move and speak whenever and if I want.  Yep I believe he is a psychopath, if I believe he killed then yes I believe he is in one.

[Roch]

No corner here, not trapped not boxed in, free to move and speak whenever and if I want.  Yep I believe he is a psychopath, if I believe he killed then yes I believe he is in one.

And the police were attempting to re-write logs for what reason? Fun? Handwriting practice?

[David1819]

No corner here, not trapped not boxed in, free to move and speak whenever and if I want.  Yep I believe he is a psychopath, if I believe he killed then yes I believe he is in one.

“Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.”

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/medicine/people/vincent.egan

I have much more confidence in this guys opinion, than some mysterious quack who allegedly told Rivlin that Jeremy's memory had fallen out his head.

[Jane]

In a scenario where Jeremy is culpable, his changing views on calls has limited relevance.

In a scenario where Jeremy is not culpable, he would effectively be an innocent person being questioned, then snared and harrassed by 1980's police interviewing techniques. He would be trying piece together events from his cell. In such circs, it is perfectly acceptable for Jeremy to question and change his approach re the calls, in accordance with subsequently disclosed evidence or in accordance with the persuasive opinions snd interpretations of those around him.

There's a bunch of people on here who seem so emotionally attached to him bring genuinely guilty, that they are unable to view the case in a detached way.  Even to the point where the re-writing of logs is summarily dismissed because there were apparently no change in facts.

If JB is the guilty  psychopath that changes his tune re calls out of necessity, then why would police need to re-write an incident log?

There's more than a little pot/kettle here, Roch. One might call it projection. There seems very little detachment in continually wittering on about re-written logs which, unless it's proved to the contrary, exist only in your imagination. You seem to forget that we once supported Jeremy's innocence. Having looked at it, studied it, and believed it for a long time, there were things which simply no longer added up. For a time I shared Lookout's "Poor confused Jeremy" view but that alleged call from Nevill, and his response to it, kept right on nagging. Add to that his APPALLING behaviours that I could no longer dismiss as grief and he no longer looked quite so innocent.

[guest7363]

“Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.”

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/medicine/people/vincent.egan

I have much more confidence in this guys opinion, than some mysterious quack who allegedly told Rivlin that Jeremy's memory had fallen out his head.

A bit like Di Stefano 👍

[Roch]

There's more than a little pot/kettle here, Roch. One might call it projection. There seems very little detachment in continually wittering on about re-written logs which, unless it's proved to the contrary, exist only in your imagination. You seem to forget that we once supported Jeremy's innocence. Having looked at it, studied it, and believed it for a long time, there were things which simply no longer added up. For a time I shared Lookout's "Poor confused Jeremy" view but that alleged call from Nevill, and his response to it, kept right on nagging. Add to that his APPALLING behaviours that I could no longer dismiss as grief and he no longer looked quite so innocent.

Really? I provided the attachment, already on this forum, which discusses and illustrates the differences. I provided the page numbers 27-35. Nobody has to agree that the conclusions of the document are correct. But everyone should consider the ESDA testing argument in its own right.  And if they don't agree to the ESDA testing argument, they should attempt to explore what other possible reasons there could be.

I wonder if the deceased police officer husband of
your friend knew that the police officers involved in the investigation of JB attempted to re-write the incident log?  If he did then he was bent, like Stan Jones.

[Jane]

Really? I provided the attachment, already on this forum, which discusses and illustrates the differences. I provided the page numbers 27-35. Nobody has to agree that the conclusions of the document are correct. But everyone should consider the ESDA testing argument in its own right.  And if they don't agree to the ESDA testing argument, they should attempt to explore what other possible reasons there could be.

I wonder if the deceased police officer husband of
your friend knew that the the police officers involved in the investigation of JB attempted to re-write the incident log? If he did then he was bent, like Stan Jones.

Would you like to get a little more personal with your snide, below the belt jibes. I HAD credited you with greater intelligence. There is little by way of objectivity or detachment in the above comments.

[Roch]

Would you like to get a little more personal with your snide, below the belt jibes. I HAD credited you with greater intelligence. There is little by way of objectivity or detachment in the above comments.

Well go and ask your friend If she understands the significance of them doing so?

[guest7363]

Would you like to get a little more personal with your snide, below the belt jibes. I HAD credited you with greater intelligence. There is little by way of objectivity or detachment in the above comments.

Oh yes, rattled 😂😂😂😂 in a bit you get the abusive language

[Roch]

Oh yes, rattled 😂😂😂😂 in a bit you get the abusive language

Not from me. I'll just sit back wait for you to respond. But what we'll get is 'but but Bamber changed his version of events.. He is guilty' or 'my friend's cousin's uncle suspected Jeremy early on.. and believes he is a psychopath'.

[Caroline]

Not sure about game, but yes. You three (as you put it) have painted yourselves in a corner.  And that means that you have to dismiss things like police officers being ordered to re-write incident logs.

'But but... Jeremy is guilty!' 'and there are no facts changed anyway and anyway he is a psychopath!'

I’m afraid you painted yourself into the corner when you posted that document which has Bamber changing his story to coincide with a call from Nevill, having previously arguing the opposite to hide the fact he called Julie before the police. Where is your evidence that ‘officers’ were ‘ordered’ to rewrite logs?

[Jane]

Not from me. I'll just sit back wait for you to respond. But what will get is 'but but Bamber changed his version of events.. He is guilty' or 'my friend's cousin's uncle suspected Jeremy early on.. and believes he is a psychopath'.

Sneer as much as you like but Bamber DID change his version of events, and based on that which"'my friend's cousin's uncle'" knows, he's quite entitled to have "suspected Jeremy early on" and believe him to be a psychopath. Rather more in the way of hypocrisy, is perhaps, the suggestion that changing his story about events is of minimal relevance, whilst screaming from the rooftops that "officers in the incident room attempted to re-write the logs".

[lookout]

I was speaking to a close associate on Monday gone as after hearing some very sad news in which she relayed to me, one thing which she said that stuck in my mind was that on hearing the news herself her sudden but unexplainable thought was " to laugh !!?"
She has no idea why she felt the urge to laugh but my guess is that it's an anxiety thing and is unconsciously done to relieve stress as in a defence mechanism. This cannot be classed as bad behaviour !!