Guardian re Boyce findings

[lookout]

Who knows how anyone's going to react given bad news or attending a funeral ?

Not that this is ever going to be relevant in another appeal !

[lookout]

I think many at the age of 24 who'd lost all their family would feel like a fish out of water having to attend the funerals, something they'd never done before and on top of that, the world and its wife right there in your face ! C'mon, have some feeling for goodness sake for at that stage he hadn't been charged with anything.

[Jane]

I think many at the age of 24 who'd lost all their family would feel like a fish out of water having to attend the funerals, something they'd never done before and on top of that, the world and its wife right there in your face ! C'mon, have some feeling for goodness sake for at that stage he hadn't been charged with anything.

Never mind that he applied make up to appear more sad -why would he NEED to appear sad? If he'd felt sad he wouldn't have needed to appear to be, and are funerals really the occasions at which sexual innuendo is appropriate. You've previously said of him that you'd have been proud of him had he been your son. I wonder how much pride you'd ACTUALLY have experienced if someone had behaved in such a way at the funeral of one of your close relatives?

[Roch]

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".

I think attempting to re-write an incident log in a case that you're investigating is a pretty serious matter. The normal reaction to discovering this took place, would be 'alarm bells'. I said IF he is culpable, his change in version of events would be of minimal relevance or something like that. In other words, nobody would be that bothered in what order calls happened.

[lookout]

Never mind that he applied make up to appear more sad -why would he NEED to appear sad? If he'd felt sad he wouldn't have needed to appear to be, and are funerals really the occasions at which sexual innuendo is appropriate. You've previously said of him that you'd have been proud of him had he been your son. I wonder how much pride you'd ACTUALLY have experienced if someone had behaved in such a way at the funeral of one of your close relatives?

Well it's plain to see that I have far more knowledge of psychiatry than you have. It's all about understanding an individual----something, where it seems, that you remain utterly clueless about. You appear to have a clone-like image of everyone.
I don't have a bad mind when it comes to various behaviours, nor would I judge if someone attended a funeral and laughed. I have understanding !!
however anyone acted or behaved I'd naturally put it down to " the mask they were wearing at the time " which as I've already said is their way of a defence mechanism. Who knows what their thoughts are but one thing for sure I'd add it to their way of handling grief.

 

[Jane]

I think attempting to re-write an incident log in a case that you're investigating is a pretty serious matter. The normal reaction to discovering this took place, would be 'alarm bells'. I said IF he is culpable, his change in version of events would be of minimal relevance or something like that. In other words, nobody would be that bothered in what order calls happened.

You're trying to make a HUUUUUGE deal of what you allege as "officers being ordered to rewrite logs". As for the order in which the calls occurred? I think of more importance may be the content of those calls. He used the word "panicked" or "terrified" to describe how his father sounded, yet Jeremy's actions suggest he he really wasn't too bothered. He allegedly rang Julie "to hear a friendly voice" -why would that be necessary? Who had been UNfriendly?- but he actually gave her very little time to say anything much, and at silly o'clock, who could blame her?

[Jane]

Well it's plain to see that I have far more knowledge of psychiatry than you have. It's all about understanding an individual----something, where it seems, that you remain utterly clueless about. You appear to have a clone-like image of everyone.
I don't have a bad mind when it comes to various behaviours, nor would I judge if someone attended a funeral and laughed. I have understanding !!
however anyone acted or behaved I'd naturally put it down to " the mask they were wearing at the time " which as I've already said is their way of a defence mechanism. Who knows what their thoughts are but one thing for sure I'd add it to their way of handling grief.

 

Yeah, yeah, we all know you took a few weeks course in mental nursing at a time when people were still kept in chains. STOP the attempts at oneupmanship. I won't be asking -or needing- any advice from you when I counsel my next client. You accusation of my supposed "clone-like image of everyone" is risible, given that it's your own. "ALL psychopaths do/say/are.............." "ALL liars are................." Ring any bells, does it? It should. They're YOUR claims, not mine, and never have been. Believe me, I'm FULLY aware of Jeremy's mask -in fact, you're the only one who seems not to be- it slipped at the funeral.

[lookout]

She was too spaced-out to give anything like a sensible answer to his call !

[Jane]

She was too spaced-out to give anything like a sensible answer to his call !

There you go again. ANOTHER sweeping statement with nothing but your resentment of her to back it up. You weren't there. You can't possibly know what she smoked or how much, ergo you're not qualified to make such a claim. It's only your opinion.

[Roch]

You're trying to make a HUUUUUGE deal of what you allege as "officers being ordered to rewrite logs". As for the order in which the calls occurred? I think of more importance may be the content of those calls. He used the word "panicked" or "terrified" to describe how his father sounded, yet Jeremy's actions suggest he he really wasn't too bothered. He allegedly rang Julie "to hear a friendly voice" -why would that be necessary? Who had been UNfriendly?- but he actually gave her very little time to say anything much, and at silly o'clock, who could blame her?

No. I haven't made a huge deal of anything of the sort. Show me where I have posted that? Your emotive stance on the case has made you so removed from reality, that police re-writing an incident log is no big deal.

[lookout]

There you go again. ANOTHER sweeping statement with nothing but your resentment of her to back it up. You weren't there. You can't possibly know what she smoked or how much, ergo you're not qualified to make such a claim. It's only your opinion.

Neither were you there to deny it. Yet it clearly says that she was with a bunch of friends who'd been drinking and smoking cannabis.

[Jane]

No. I haven't made a huge deal of anything of the sort. Show me where I have posted that? Your emotive stance on the case has made you so removed from reality, that police re-writing an incident log is no big deal.

I don't recall you posting anything other than someone's opinion on it. You're working very hard to try to make it look like concrete proof. As for your claim that you haven't "made a huge deal of anything of the sort", it's rather more about how others perceive it, than what you believe. I see it as you having lost touch with reality.

[Jane]

Neither were you there to deny it. Yet it clearly says that she was with a bunch of friends who'd been drinking and smoking cannabis.

Which is a very long stretch from her being "too spaced-out to give a sensible answer to his call". See, now I want to know where is the Lookout who has such empathy and understanding. I really don't see any evidence of it..................unless you save it all for Jeremy.

[lookout]

Which is a very long stretch from her being "too spaced-out to give a sensible answer to his call". See, now I want to know where is the Lookout who has such empathy and understanding. I really don't see any evidence of it..................unless you save it all for Jeremy.

What a childish reply.

[Roch]

I don't recall you posting anything other than someone's opinion on it. You're working very hard to try to make it look like concrete proof. As for your claim that you haven't "made a huge deal of anything of the sort", it's rather more about how others perceive it, than what you believe. I see it as you having lost touch with reality.

Have you not got eyes, cognitive ability and literacy skills?