Reasons why Bamber cycled to & from WHF.

[lookout]

Lomax is biased towards Jeremy's innocence because he's visited the man more than anyone else has and this is the ONLY way of getting to know what makes anyone tick, especially in the environment where he is  which would affect all of us  short-term.

Isn't it now widely known how this lockdown etc. has now affected many, mentally ? How about another 34 years of it ?

[guest29835]

Lomax is biased towards Jeremy's innocence because he's visited the man more than anyone else has and this is the ONLY way of getting to know what makes anyone tick, especially in the environment where he is  which would affect all of us  short-term.

Isn't it now widely known how this lockdown etc. has now affected many, mentally ? How about another 34 years of it ?

I'm biased towards the truth, or seeking it. 

A man can adjust to anything.  People can thrive in prison, believe it or not.  However, even if he did this, 35 years is a long time. 

I've just accidentally stumbled across photos of Colin Pitchfork enjoying a stroll around Bristol city centre.  Even I'm not sure about that.  I do wonder why we don't just hang people like him.  I suppose the problem, which I've touched on before, is that keeping people in prison for decades on end creates a dilemma because even the worst can change and will often engage with the system and better themselves.  As well as being a rapist and murderer of at least two minors, Mr Pitchfork is a talented artist:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/apr/09/colin-pitchfork-sex-murderer-art

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-this-artwork-was-made-by-a-killer-it-is-no-less-valid-for-that-1667286.html

[lookout]

Certainly not my kind/type of art !

[Steve_uk]

I think the victims' relatives should have a say in this, and I'm guessing that the parents of the two girls he killed in the 1980s would not wish for his artwork to be displayed.

[guest29835]

I think the victims' relatives should have a say in this, and I'm guessing that the parents of the two girls he killed in the 1980s would not wish for his artwork to be displayed.

I would not keep him alive in the first place, but that's not the system any more, so we're left with these practical dilemmas.  It's three-and-a-half decades later now.  Mr Pitchfork's punishment is confinement in prison.  Why should the families have any say in what he does?  What process would be involved in such?  What answer could be expected back from the families?  It seems fatuous to me.

I'd always thought of Colin Pitchfork as a rapist and murderer, and a baker of exceedingly good cakes.  Now I have to think of him as a gifted artist as well.  I think that does me some good.  It makes me think of him in a more complex way. 

To be fair to the Koestler Trust, they did not publish the name of the artist.  That information was leaked, probably by a journalist.  Yet personally I don't see the issue with knowing the name and accepting that it's Colin Pitchfork and thinking of him as a talented man, while also regarding him as a despicable murderer. He is clearly not quite irredeemable.

[lookout]

Many artists weren't/aren't the full shilling anyway. Something missing.

[Steve_uk]

I would not keep him alive in the first place, but that's not the system any more, so we're left with these practical dilemmas.  It's three-and-a-half decades later now.  Mr Pitchfork's punishment is confinement in prison.  Why should the families have any say in what he does?  What process would be involved in such?  What answer could be expected back from the families?  It seems fatuous to me.

I'd always thought of Colin Pitchfork as a rapist and murderer, and a baker of exceedingly good cakes.  Now I have to think of him as a gifted artist as well.  I think that does me some good.  It makes me think of him in a more complex way. 

To be fair to the Koestler Trust, they did not publish the name of the artist.  That information was leaked, probably by a journalist.  Yet personally I don't see the issue with knowing the name and accepting that it's Colin Pitchfork and thinking of him as a talented man, while also regarding him as a despicable murderer. He is clearly not quite irredeemable.

There is an argument for the death penalty, but with this option there's always the risk of making a mistake, as happened with Timothy Evans. Maybe we should have a referendum on the issue. As far as Colin Pitchfork is concerned it's the relatives of the victims who would be most affected by any potential release, so I don't hesitate in saying their opinions should carry the greatest weight.

As for criminals who create works of art or other practical gadgets to my mind it should be immaterial as to their length of sentence. What is Colin Caffell supposed to say when it's put to him that the killer of his sons has produced two Braille books whilst incarcerated?

[guest29835]

There is an argument for the death penalty, but with this option there's always the risk of making a mistake, as happened with Timothy Evans. Maybe we should have a referendum on the issue. As far as Colin Pitchfork is concerned it's the relatives of the victims who would be most affected by any potential release, so I don't hesitate in saying their opinions should carry the greatest weight.

As for criminals who create works of art or other practical gadgets to my mind it should be immaterial as to their length of sentence. What is Colin Caffell supposed to say when it's put to him that the killer of his sons has produced two Braille books whilst incarcerated?

Wouldn't it be the community that is most affected, if somebody is thought of as dangerous?  The families have already seen him punished through his confinement in prisons for 35 years.  It's not as if he's sprightly and young as a spring chicken, is it.  If he is released, it will be as an old man.  The issue is whether, despite appearances, he retains an underlying predatory sexual sadistic appetite.  If he does, then it's madness to release him.  If he doesn't, then at the very least, he has an arguable case that he should be released.  After all, that means prison has fulfilled its ultimate function in rehabilitating him.

[lookout]

I've always been for the death penalty, especially for terrorists who still " hold the country to ransom " with their killer cowardly behaviour/mentality. Manchester was the last straw where my step-granddaughter had been present.

[Steve_uk]

Wouldn't it be the community that is most affected, if somebody is thought of as dangerous?  The families have already seen him punished through his confinement in prisons for 35 years.  It's not as if he's sprightly and young as a spring chicken, is it.  If he is released, it will be as an old man.  The issue is whether, despite appearances, he retains an underlying predatory sexual sadistic appetite.  If he does, then it's madness to release him.  If he doesn't, then at the very least, he has an arguable case that he should be released.  After all, that means prison has fulfilled its ultimate function in rehabilitating him.

It probably would, though the guy would have to live incognito in a new community for fear of vigilantism. It's the relatives of the victims who should have the final say because it's they who have the sleepless nights when the thought of the perpetrator's release brings back those terrible memories for them.

[lookout]

That Pitchfork monster won't change ! Regardless of age. I defy anyone who thinks these monsters can change their ways----even in old age. You read about old deranged men in the newspapers, one at 92 the other week in court for sexual offences. They need putting to sleep !

[guest29835]

That Pitchfork monster won't change ! Regardless of age. I defy anyone who thinks these monsters can change their ways----even in old age. You read about old deranged men in the newspapers, one at 92 the other week in court for sexual offences. They need putting to sleep !

I totally understand what you're saying Lookout, and to be honest, if he'd killed one of my children, I'd possibly want him released - so I could find him and kill him!  I don't have any sympathy for him.

But....35 years is a very long time indeed, and it's not fatuous to consider the lapse of time since the relevant events and to ask: To what extent has he changed?  Obviously we don't know, but the people who are charged with his care and custody will know, or will have an idea.  It could be that the factors that drove him to commit these acts in the first place no longer pertain.  He may be a completely different person now. 

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that he is a different person.  Is it ethical to keep him confined?  I think it would have been ethical to hang him in the first place, but we didn't, so we're left with this more refined practical and ethical dilemma many years after the event.  Do we keep a reformed individual locked-up, just for the sake of public confidence?  Or do we acknowledge that the system has worked and he is now rehabilitated - well done, Mr Pitchfork - and he is suitable for release on some considered basis?

On a different note, I think there is a distinction to be made between men like Pitchfork, who are predators, and men like Bamber/Bain who (if, for the moment, we assume guilt in both cases) commit their acts as a result of a family cataclysm.  Obviously I have to concede to Steve to some extent here because there is a further, finer distinction to be made between Bamber and Bain in that Bamber may have been driven by gain (I don't believe he was, but I have to allow that it's on the table for discussion) and he may be a psychopath (there's no evidence to say he is, though), whereas Bain is unlikely to be a psychopath and it's clear from the Bain case that there was no gain, it was entirely deeper psychological drives to do with the family.

[JackieD]

I totally understand what you're saying Lookout, and to be honest, if he'd killed one of my children, I'd possibly want him released - so I could find him and kill him!  I don't have any sympathy for him.

But....35 years is a very long time indeed, and it's not fatuous to consider the lapse of time since the relevant events and to ask: To what extent has he changed?  Obviously we don't know, but the people who are charged with his care and custody will know, or will have an idea.  It could be that the factors that drove him to commit these acts in the first place no longer pertain.  He may be a completely different person now. 

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that he is a different person.  Is it ethical to keep him confined?  I think it would have been ethical to hang him in the first place, but we didn't, so we're left with this more refined practical and ethical dilemma many years after the event.  Do we keep a reformed individual locked-up, just for the sake of public confidence?  Or do we acknowledge that the system has worked and he is now rehabilitated - well done, Mr Pitchfork - and he is suitable for release on some considered basis?

On a different note, I think there is a distinction to be made between men like Pitchfork, who are predators, and men like Bamber/Bain who (if, for the moment, we assume guilt in both cases) commit their acts as a result of a family cataclysm.  Obviously I have to concede to Steve to some extent here because there is a further, finer distinction to be made between Bamber and Bain in that Bamber may have been driven by gain (I don't believe he was, but I have to allow that it's on the table for discussion) and he may be a psychopath (there's no evidence to say he is, though), whereas Bain is unlikely to be a psychopath and it's clear from the Bain case that there was no gain, it was entirely deeper psychological drives to do with the family.

An interesting point bearing in mind JB had his category downgraded fairly early in his sentence
What did the prison see in him ??
Although the relatives had him upgraded to a cat A prisoner again

[guest29835]

An interesting point bearing in mind JB had his category downgraded fairly early in his sentence
What did the prison see in him ??
Although the relatives had him upgraded to a cat A prisoner again

David McGreavy and Colin Pitchfork, two lurid murderers; McGreavy the killer of two children, Pitchfork the rapist and killer of two teenage girls - McGreavy now released, Pitchfork on home leaves and heading for release.  One important difference, perhaps, between them and Jeremy is that they both accepted their guilt, kept their mouths shut, and did their time without quibble or complaint.

Of course, if Jeremy really is innocent, then that's a whole different matter.

[guest29835]

There is an argument for the death penalty, but with this option there's always the risk of making a mistake, as happened with Timothy Evans. Maybe we should have a referendum on the issue.

With the exception of fundamental public issues, such as national sovereignty, I oppose the use of referenda.  The question of restoring the death penalty should be left to Parliament, in my view.  I favour it, but I am not an enthusiast for it.  I just think the courts should be allowed to consider this option whenever it can be proved that murder is premeditated.  There would then be reviews and appeals, and I assume, a plea for mercy to the relevant government minister - in other words, checks would be built into the system, in order to minimise error and recognise genuine remorse.

I wouldn't celebrate the judicial demise of a murderer like Colin Pitchfork, rather I would see it as a grim duty to be performed by the authorities as and when exceptionally necessary.  I consider the principal argument for it to be the dignity of the victims and their families.  That is why, in a sense, I agree with you Steve that the sight of a double child murderer lounging around on public benches in Bristol city centre is rather unseemly and must anger the families, but I disagree with you that it shouldn't be allowed.  I must remind you: it was decided by Parliament to do away with the proper penalty, thus pragmatically (and, ethically), we have to be consistent and accept that if he has changed, then he has fulfilled his side of the bargain and he can go shopping in Bristol city centre, or a town near you.  And the same applies to Jeremy.
Sorry.

I also agree with what you say about the risk of condemning an innocent man, but as you yourself will appreciate, that is not an argument against the death penalty, rather it is point to be considered for juries, judges and lawyers when conducting capital trials.  We need to be sure before we convict anybody of anything, no matter how trivial, but especially so if there is the prospect of capital punishment. 

Incidentally, I am not so sure that Timothy Evans was innocent, nevertheless that does not detract from the thrust of what you say.