Reasons why Bamber cycled to & from WHF.

[guest29835]

Evening everybody. I haven’t posted for some time due to various commitments but have been following from a far. Just reading through this thread, seems a little disappointing that Jeremy Bamber seems to have been relegated to about 4th or 5th priority behind playground infighting!

When I get chance, would be interested to post up on causal affects of crime and looking into Social Harm outcomes and Zemiology as advocated by Hillyard, Pemberton et al and the relation they could have to the JB case.

For what it’s worth. Pete (LLB, LPC, MSc, PhD (ongoing!)

Would you agree that if people lie about Jeremy Bamber, it should be corrected?

Would you agree that this is relevant to his case?  Not of vital importance necessarily, but relevant.

This is not 'infighting'.  I am not in the same camp as anybody here.  I am neutral. If somebody calls me 'bogus' or implies I am a liar, it's only natural to take issue with them about this.  Wouldn't you do the same?  If she continues to repeat it, then what am I supposed to do?  Thank her?

Also, as far as I can see, you're free to post anywhere on the Forum.  So why not start a thread of your own?  I've tried to myself and I have tried to discuss things civilly and constructively, but it seems some people around here don't appreciate other people asking questions and want to drag you down to their level.

Thanks.

[Caroline]

Evening everybody. I haven’t posted for some time due to various commitments but have been following from a far. Just reading through this thread, seems a little disappointing that Jeremy Bamber seems to have been relegated to about 4th or 5th priority behind playground infighting!

When I get chance, would be interested to post up on causal affects of crime and looking into Social Harm outcomes and Zemiology as advocated by Hillyard, Pemberton et al and the relation they could have to the JB case.

For what it’s worth. Pete (LLB, LPC, MSc, PhD (ongoing!)

Hi Petey,

Look forward to it.

[Jane]

You have lied about me repeatedly.  I have said, at least twice, that I have no qualifications and I am not a lawyer.  'QC' relates to me personally, not to any professional title. 

This means that, at the very least, you are dangerously stupid, if not outright dishonest and toxic.  I think it is both.

You have also invented a fantasy world for yourself in which you have some sort of connection to people involved in the case, when in fact you don't.  You lied and stated that you knew somebody who knew the defence psychiatrist, when in fact you don't.

You have lied to blacken a man in prison, just for your own amusement.  Who needs to go for a lie down?  Me or you?

It is not an overreaction in those circumstances to, quite simply, call you a liar.  That is what you are.  I'm simply naming the beast.  There is nothing childish about that.

But you are right about one thing - I am angry!  It is righteous anger.

I said I knew somebody who knew the psychiatrist who assessed him, AND I DO. At the time of the assessmest the trial was nearly a year away.

Surely it was you who decided that the person of whom I spoke wasn't the same one Wilkes mentioned. The person I spoke of DID assess Bamber and DID conclude that he was a narcissist, a fantasist and a psychopath. The words were said. I fail to see what difference it makes which psychiatrist said them. Why do you appear to think your opinion supercedes that of a professional?

Just how is it possible to blacken the name of a man who is serving a life sentence for murdering his entire family? He's managed to do that all on his own.

You might do better spitting out your selfrighteous rants from a pulpit.

[petey]

Would you agree that if people lie about Jeremy Bamber, it should be corrected?

Would you agree that this is relevant to his case?  Not of vital importance necessarily, but relevant.

This is not 'infighting'.  I am not in the same camp as anybody here.  I am neutral. If somebody calls me 'bogus' or implies I am a liar, it's only natural to take issue with them about this.  Wouldn't you do the same?  If she continues to repeat it, then what am I supposed to do?  Thank her?

Also, as far as I can see, you're free to post anywhere on the Forum.  So why not start a thread of your own?  I've tried to myself and I have tried to discuss things civilly and constructively, but it seems some people around here don't appreciate other people asking questions and want to drag you down to their level.

Thanks.

To be honest, I’m more interested in posting about Zemiology or dissecting the works of Hillyard, Pemberton, Tombs at al and how theories of Social Harm could relate to JB.

On an Internet forum where the vast majority of posters use a forum pseudonym, it is often (in my opinion) difficult to prove what is 100% true and what is 100% a lie. There are often grey areas and posts or statements or claims are very often open to subjective interpretation. Equally, different posters have different posting styles or techniques. Without knowing the person, it can be difficult to gauge body language and the true meaning behind the post.

An emotive subject such as this often leads to emotive posts.

[guest29835]

I said I knew somebody who knew the psychiatrist who assessed him, AND I DO. At the time of the assessmest the trial was nearly a year away.

Surely it was you who decided that the person of whom I spoke wasn't the same one Wilkes mentioned. The person I spoke of DID assess Bamber and DID conclude that he was a narcissist, a fantasist and a psychopath. The words were said. I fail to see what difference it makes which psychiatrist said them. Why do you appear to think your opinion supercedes that of a professional?

Just how is it possible to blacken the name of a man who is serving a life sentence for murdering his entire family? He's managed to do that all on his own.

You might do better spitting out your selfrighteous rants from a pulpit.

I knew that this would be how you worm your way out of it, by claiming it was an earlier psychiatrist. 

Let's get into specifics.  Your claim was that you knew the secretary (or knew somebody who knew the secretary) of the psychiatrist who assessed him.  On that basis alone, I suppose we can dismiss everything you say about it.  It's gossip and can't be taken seriously.  The only reason I take an interest is that you specifically claimed this was the defence psychiatrist, which it can't have been because you now admit (as you did in that PM to me) that the evaluation happened just after he went into police custody.  For those who don't know, the defence psychiatrist was only appointed much later (and in fact, there's even some dispute about that - I have reason to question the whole incident as related by Wilkes).

This is why I question your honesty, because what you have done is represented that this was the same psychiatrist as Wilkes mentions, which it can't be, for good reasons that you know.  You just omit to mention this now. 

Also, you seem to lack the basic discernment or common-sense to realise that no psychiatrist would conduct an evaluation of somebody in custody in this way.  People aren't just instantly declared psychopaths or narcissists after one meeting in a police cell.  I even doubt that the person you know was secretary to a psychiatrist.  It's much more likely that the professional who assessed Jeremy was a nurse or general practitioner from a community medical team, but in any event, the anecdote doesn't stand up.  What you've received is either a pack of lies or the verdict of an unprofessional idiot who has got carried away with himself and started boasting to people how he 'touched a murderer'.  Or the whole thing is simply the product your own imagination, invented out of thin air.

Why don't you tell us who this 'psychiatrist' was, or pass the information to NG1066?

[guest29835]

To be honest, I’m more interested in posting about Zemiology or dissecting the works of Hillyard, Pemberton, Tombs at al and how theories of Social Harm could relate to JB.

On an Internet forum where the vast majority of posters use a forum pseudonym, it is often (in my opinion) difficult to prove what is 100% true and what is 100% a lie. There are often grey areas and posts or statements or claims are very often open to subjective interpretation. Equally, different posters have different posting styles or techniques. Without knowing the person, it can be difficult to gauge body language and the true meaning behind the post.

An emotive subject such as this often leads to emotive posts.

Well that just states the obvious.  In reality, and indeed in this virtual reality, if people say I'm a liar, shouldn't I ask them to be specific and point to my lies?  And isn't it understandable that I then point to the lies of one of those same people?  Mote in eye and all that.  And isn't it also understandable if I resent people who get on their high horses and tell me I shouldn't be accusing other people of lying when I was the one being lied about in the first place?

Of course, we can't be 100% sure of what is truth or what is a lie, especially, if - as you say - we're communicating in a virtual environment, but we can be reasonably sure if something isn't true and if somebody should have known that.  If we try to be 100% about everything, we just end up impotent, don't we?  Ultimately, all knowledge is provisional (or empirical), is it not?

[Jane]

I knew that this would be how you worm your way out of it, by claiming it was an earlier psychiatrist. 

Let's get into specifics.  Your claim was that you knew the secretary (or knew somebody who knew the secretary) of the psychiatrist who assessed him.  On that basis alone, I suppose we can dismiss everything you say about it.  It's gossip and can't be taken seriously.  The only reason I take an interest is that you specifically claimed this was the defence psychiatrist, which it can't have been because you now admit (as you did in that PM to me) that the evaluation happened just after he went into police custody.  For those who don't know, the defence psychiatrist was only appointed much later (and in fact, there's even some dispute about that - I have reason to question the whole incident as related by Wilkes).


Here I'm answering your pm. It sounds as if it was you, rather than I, who was trying to make the link with Wilkes' psychiatrist and the one I'm referring to.

"Regarding the psychiatrist, it sounds like you're referring to a psychiatrist or doctor who assessed him as a matter of routine when he was first remanded. It seems like this because you refer to the assessment taking place when he was first taken into custody and as part of a medical team, whereas Jeremy had been in custody for many months by the time Wikes claims the defence assessed him. It was an expert opinion not a medical matter. Thus I can assume the person you are referring to was not the defense psychiatrist referred to by Wilkes in his anecdote."

Exactly where have I tried to imply that it was a defence psychiatrist who assessed him when I'd already made it clear that this assessment occured when he was first in custody, something you acknowledge in the pm. Where have I disagreed with what you say?

This is why I question your honesty, because what you have done is represented that this was the same psychiatrist as Wilkes mentions, which it can't be, for good reasons that you know.  You just omit to mention this now. 

Also, you seem to lack the basic discernment or common-sense to realise that no psychiatrist would conduct an evaluation of somebody in custody in this way.  People aren't just instantly declared psychopaths or narcissists after one meeting in a police cell.  I even doubt that the person you know was secretary to a psychiatrist.  It's much more likely that the professional who assessed Jeremy was a nurse or general practitioner from a community medical team, but in any event, the anecdote doesn't stand up.  What you've received is either a pack of lies or the verdict of an unprofessional idiot who has got carried away with himself and started boasting to people how he 'touched a murderer'.  Or the whole thing is simply the product your own imagination, invented out of thin air.

Why don't you tell us who this 'psychiatrist' was, or pass the information to NG1066?

[JackieD]

I knew that this would be how you worm your way out of it, by claiming it was an earlier psychiatrist. 

Let's get into specifics.  Your claim was that you knew the secretary (or knew somebody who knew the secretary) of the psychiatrist who assessed him.  On that basis alone, I suppose we can dismiss everything you say about it.  It's gossip and can't be taken seriously.  The only reason I take an interest is that you specifically claimed this was the defence psychiatrist, which it can't have been because you now admit (as you did in that PM to me) that the evaluation happened just after he went into police custody.  For those who don't know, the defence psychiatrist was only appointed much later (and in fact, there's even some dispute about that - I have reason to question the whole incident as related by Wilkes).

This is why I question your honesty, because what you have done is represented that this was the same psychiatrist as Wilkes mentions, which it can't be, for good reasons that you know.  You just omit to mention this now. 

Also, you seem to lack the basic discernment or common-sense to realise that no psychiatrist would conduct an evaluation of somebody in custody in this way.  People aren't just instantly declared psychopaths or narcissists after one meeting in a police cell.  I even doubt that the person you know was secretary to a psychiatrist.  It's much more likely that the professional who assessed Jeremy was a nurse or general practitioner from a community medical team, but in any event, the anecdote doesn't stand up.  What you've received is either a pack of lies or the verdict of an unprofessional idiot who has got carried away with himself and started boasting to people how he 'touched a murderer'.  Or the whole thing is simply the product your own imagination, invented out of thin air.

Why don't you tell us who this 'psychiatrist' was, or pass the information to NG1066?

She can’t and she won’t be able to.  It’s part of the lies and deception she cooks up with Ann Eaton

Jane continues to put her slant on everything without any facts

[Jane]

I knew that this would be how you worm your way out of it, by claiming it was an earlier psychiatrist. 

Let's get into specifics.  Your claim was that you knew the secretary (or knew somebody who knew the secretary) of the psychiatrist who assessed him.  On that basis alone, I suppose we can dismiss everything you say about it.  It's gossip and can't be taken seriously.  The only reason I take an interest is that you specifically claimed this was the defence psychiatrist, which it can't have been because you now admit (as you did in that PM to me) that the evaluation happened just after he went into police custody.  For those who don't know, the defence psychiatrist was only appointed much later (and in fact, there's even some dispute about that - I have reason to question the whole incident as related by Wilkes).

This is why I question your honesty, because what you have done is represented that this was the same psychiatrist as Wilkes mentions, which it can't be, for good reasons that you know.  You just omit to mention this now. 

Also, you seem to lack the basic discernment or common-sense to realise that no psychiatrist would conduct an evaluation of somebody in custody in this way.  People aren't just instantly declared psychopaths or narcissists after one meeting in a police cell.  I even doubt that the person you know was secretary to a psychiatrist.  It's much more likely that the professional who assessed Jeremy was a nurse or general practitioner from a community medical team, but in any event, the anecdote doesn't stand up.  What you've received is either a pack of lies or the verdict of an unprofessional idiot who has got carried away with himself and started boasting to people how he 'touched a murderer'.  Or the whole thing is simply the product your own imagination, invented out of thin air.

Why don't you tell us who this 'psychiatrist' was, or pass the information to NG1066?

Truly, I really don't give a toss what your amateur assessement is. I simply told you what I'd been told. I didn't give the third degree to the person who told me, and I didn't expect that I'd be given the third degee when I related it.

 One thing I'm certain of is that whoever assessed him was far more qualified than are you to give their opinion, if only because they were with him and you weren't. Your opinion of who it may have been who did the assessment and their capability of carrying it out, is of no value, but for someone claiming to be 'neutral' there appears to be way too much "Don't be nasty to poor Jeremy" going on.

Oh! and another thing. I won't be sharing information. I can't. I have no idea what the psychiatrist's name was. Why would it have occured to me to ask?

[guest29835]

Truly, I really don't give a toss what your amateur assessement is. I simply told you what I'd been told. I didn't give the third degree to the person who told me, and I didn't expect that I'd be given the third degee when I related it.

 One thing I'm certain of is that whoever assessed him was far more qualified than are you to give their opinion, if only because they were with him and you weren't. Your opinion of who it may have been who did the assessment and their capability of carrying it out, is of no value, but for someone claiming to be 'neutral' there appears to be way too much "Don't be nasty to poor Jeremy" going on.

Oh! and another thing. I won't be sharing information. I can't. I have no idea what the psychiatrist's name was. Why would it have occured to me to ask?

I think we need to end it there.  I think that sentence I have emboldened above just sums up this whole farce. 

I am convinced you have made the whole thing up out of thin air.  I accept I can't prove it, in so many words, and I have no wish to pursue this, but I believe you are lying.  The reason I am sure is that what you claim (or what the idiot you spoke to claims) doesn't comport with what happened when Jeremy was in police custody.  Jeremy was fit to be interviewed and the police have no vested interest in raising doubt about a criminal suspect's mental capacity. 

Of course, I can't exclude the possibility completely that the police did bring in a psychiatrist in this case.
 It does occasionally happen, and Stan Jones did reputedly say to Jeremy words to the effect that he was sick in the head. 

Maybe Stan had been speaking to Lookout about me and thought Jeremy needed a lie down in a dark room too?

But in all seriousness, it's rather unlikely that a psychiatrist was called, given that Jeremy was immediately interviewed and nobody apart from you has ever made the claim.  A nurse or a police doctor, yes I can believe that, but they are hardly qualified to be offering specific diagnoses of personality disorders, and if that is what happened, then your contact just knew some idiot who was mouthing-off and you have dishonestly spun it to make it fit Wilkes' anecdote.

You've lied.  It's embarrassing.  It's wrong to further blacken the character of a man who is already punished because it promotes a faulty understanding of events.  It doesn't serve any proper purpose.  It's just for your own amusement - whatever titillates that tiny ignorant mind of yours.

But let's leave it now and move on.  I think the real villain here is Roger Wilkes.  I have a bone or two to pick with him and that unsourced book of his. 

[David1819]

I think we need to end it there.  I think that sentence I have emboldened above just sums up this whole farce. 

I am convinced you have made the whole thing up out of thin air.  I accept I can't prove it, in so many words, and I have no wish to pursue this, but I believe you are lying.  The reason I am sure is that what you claim (or what the idiot you spoke to claims) doesn't comport with what happened when Jeremy was in police custody.  Jeremy was fit to be interviewed and the police have no vested interest in raising doubt about a criminal suspect's mental capacity. 

Of course, I can't exclude the possibility completely that the police did bring in a psychiatrist in this case.
 It does occasionally happen, and Stan Jones did reputedly say to Jeremy words to the effect that he was sick in the head. 

Maybe Stan had been speaking to Lookout about me and thought Jeremy needed a lie down in a dark room too?

But in all seriousness, it's rather unlikely that a psychiatrist was called, given that Jeremy was immediately interviewed and nobody apart from you has ever made the claim.  A nurse or a police doctor, yes I can believe that, but they are hardly qualified to be offering specific diagnoses of personality disorders, and if that is what happened, then your contact just knew some idiot who was mouthing-off and you have dishonestly spun it to make it fit Wilkes' anecdote.

You've lied.  It's embarrassing.  It's wrong to further blacken the character of a man who is already punished because it promotes a faulty understanding of events.  It doesn't serve any proper purpose.  It's just for your own amusement - whatever titillates that tiny ignorant mind of yours.

But let's leave it now and move on.  I think the real villain here is Roger Wilkes.  I have a bone or two to pick with him and that unsourced book of his.

She has.

[JackieD]

Truly, I really don't give a toss what your amateur assessement is. I simply told you what I'd been told. I didn't give the third degree to the person who told me, and I didn't expect that I'd be given the third degee when I related it.

 One thing I'm certain of is that whoever assessed him was far more qualified than are you to give their opinion, if only because they were with him and you weren't. Your opinion of who it may have been who did the assessment and their capability of carrying it out, is of no value, but for someone claiming to be 'neutral' there appears to be way too much "Don't be nasty to poor Jeremy" going on.

Oh! and another thing. I won't be sharing information. I can't. I have no idea what the psychiatrist's name was. Why would it have occured to me to ask?

Hilarious QC was right
That’s cleared that up then

[JackieD]

She has.

Of course David we all knew and QC called her out on it

[Jane]

I think we need to end it there.  I think that sentence I have emboldened above just sums up this whole farce. 

I am convinced you have made the whole thing up out of thin air.  I accept I can't prove it, in so many words, and I have no wish to pursue this, but I believe you are lying.  The reason I am sure is that what you claim (or what the idiot you spoke to claims) doesn't comport with what happened when Jeremy was in police custody.  Jeremy was fit to be interviewed and the police have no vested interest in raising doubt about a criminal suspect's mental capacity. 

Of course, I can't exclude the possibility completely that the police did bring in a psychiatrist in this case.
 It does occasionally happen, and Stan Jones did reputedly say to Jeremy words to the effect that he was sick in the head. 

Maybe Stan had been speaking to Lookout about me and thought Jeremy needed a lie down in a dark room too?

But in all seriousness, it's rather unlikely that a psychiatrist was called, given that Jeremy was immediately interviewed and nobody apart from you has ever made the claim.  A nurse or a police doctor, yes I can believe that, but they are hardly qualified to be offering specific diagnoses of personality disorders, and if that is what happened, then your contact just knew some idiot who was mouthing-off and you have dishonestly spun it to make it fit Wilkes' anecdote.

You've lied.  It's embarrassing.  And it's wrong to further blacken the character of a man who is already punished because it promotes a faulty understanding of events.  It doesn't serve any proper purpose.  It's just for your own amusement - whatever titillates that tiny ignorant mind of yours.

But let's leave it now and move on.  I think the real villain here is Roger Wilkes.  I have a bone or two to pick with him and that unsourced book of his.

In your determination to label me, and my informant, liars, you are making some wild and extravagent claims. Having never been taken into custody, I have no idea what is the procedure. You appear to be totally au fait with it. Unless, of course, you just happened to be there when Jeremy was taken in? Are you trying to say that a desk clerk or lowly duty PC has the authority to say whether or not a prisoner is fit for interview. I imagine Jeremy was seen fit for interview AFTER assessment. It wouldn't take a professional, practiced at it, to come to a conclusion.

I imagine you're using the fact that I have no idea what the psychiatrists name is -and I can think of no good reason why I should have been told, or why I should have asked. It's tantamount to calling someone a liar, which is exactly what you're using it to do.

I didn't lie. All the claims made were yours. I never disagreed -as shown in the except from one of your pms to me- and from what your sideswipes at Wilkes suggest you're attempting to prove him wrong by twisting what I've said.

From the levels you've dragged this forum down to since your arrival, I see a particularly nasty and twisted individual. The person who's hurling out insults at everyone who disagrees with him is VERY different from the person who hid behing the mask of good manners, open mindedness, and conviviality when they first joined.

[David1819]

Of course David we all knew and QC called her out on it

Just like when Jane claimed to "know DC Clark personally"