Reasons why Bamber cycled to & from WHF.

[guest29835]

How odd -No, actually it fits well- that you should feel questioned. Challenged, perhaps? I questioned the claims your post lays out, not who you see yourself as being. That you "prefer not to engage in further discussion" could quite easily be seen as being because you don't have the answers, which is entirely unconnected to you not liking my attitude. I accept that you've put "great effort" -and you have the temerity to accuse me of having "a superior attitude?!!!!- into contributing your thinking -so too did Chairman Mao- but how your thinking is accepted is out of you hands.

Thank-you for comparing me with Steve. He has very high standards which I entirely approve of. You flatter me with your label of superiority. I do indeed have a very high opinion of myself and my acheivements, all of which I've worked hard for. If you feel talked down to, it's your problem, not mine.

You should feel proud of anything you have accomplished, but that's not the point I am making, as you well know.  The problem here is your attitude.

I have the answers to your questions.  I have my own views about why Jeremy might have done this and it is based on what I have read of criminology and psychology and my understanding of the evidence.  It does not involve premeditation.  It does not involve an inheritance motive.  And it does not involve him being a psychopath.  Simply because somebody kills five people, it does not follow that he is a psychopath, believe it or not.  But I am not forced to share my ideas with you.  I have shared enough already.  Go and figure it for yourself, Aunt Sally.

I don't mind being questioned.  I am neutral in the case and open to both points of view and others.  What I do mind is your attitude, which I think is all wrong, but this is like talking to empty space.  You take no notice. Let the posts in the thread speak for themselves, including the ones where you falsely accuse me of dishonesty, and then pretend you didn't, and then you and others fall over like maiden aunts when I - rightly - accuse you of lying. Apparently, I overreacted.  Of course!  I have shown that you have lied about Jeremy Bamber, which is embarrassing for you and also for the Forum as well. A discussion forum should be a place for learning and facts, not disinformation and misinformation and arrogant bombastic liars.

Every time people like you post on here, you just show yourselves up for what you are.  Keep doing it.  You weaken your own case with every post.

[guest29835]

What achievements???
Jokes
You spend all your time jumping between forums making stuff up about JB without any proof or substance
Your moniker should be
I believe?
Or
I think
You know xxxx all about anything
The sad life spent on forums attacking anyone who questions JB ‘s conviction who already in prison on a full life tariff

The really funny thing is you don’t fool a single person because if you didn’t think there’s a chance JB’s conviction couldn’t be overturned you wouldn’t be on here

You've heard of Walter Mitty.

Now we've got Wendy Mitty.

https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Secret_Life_of_Walter_Mitty

[Jane]

You should feel proud of anything you have accomplished, but that's not the point I am making, as you well know.  The problem here is your attitude.

I have the answers to your questions.  I have my own views about why Jeremy might have done this and it is based on what I have read of criminology and psychology and my understanding of the evidence.  It does not involve premeditation.  It does not involve an inheritance motive.  And it does not involve him being a psychopath.  Simply because somebody kills five people, it does not follow that he is a psychopath, believe it or not.  But I am not forced to share my ideas with you.  I have shared enough already.  Go and figure it for yourself, Aunt Sally.

I don't mind being questioned.  I am neutral in the case and open to both points of view and others.  What I do mind is your attitude, which I think is all wrong, but this is like talking to empty space.  You take no notice. Let the posts in the thread speak for themselves, including the ones where you falsely accuse me of dishonesty, and then pretend you didn't, and then you and others fall over like maiden aunts when I - rightly - accuse you of lying. Apparently, I overreacted.  Of course!  I have shown that you have lied about Jeremy Bamber, which is embarrassing for you and also for the Forum as well. A discussion forum should be a place for learning and facts, not disinformation and misinformation and arrogant bombastic liars.

Every time people like you post on here, you just show yourselves up for what you are.  Keep doing it.  You weaken your own case with every post.

Thank-you, but I'm sure you know I don't require permission to feel proud of my accomplishments. Thank-you too, for providing your opinions which appear to be based only"on what I have read of criminology and psychology and my understanding of the evidence"

So you believe in neither premeditation, an inheritance motive, nor psychopathy? For one who maintains that he's probably guilty, in one fell stroke, you appear to have ruled out every possible motive, unless you're prepared to accept that he "simply killed five people" because he felt like it, or thought it might be fun? I'm not certain such 'madness' could be cured by incarcerating him in a psych unit for 10 years, though, and as I fail to discern, in your arguments enough neutrality to make a difference, it brings me back to a line of thinking that you may not ever have believed him "probably guilty" when you spend so much time defending him and haranguing those who do.

Be very assured that you've not caused me a moment's embarrassment. You've proved nothing, other than it's your own opinion, delivered like a puffed up Mr Blobby, that I'm lying. Necessary to allow you to squirm out of the reason you used a particular user name -and even ACTED it!- and construct an emotional one. Thank God you didn't accompany the Wesley brothers!! You'd have turned the whole nation to drink!

[guest29835]

Thank-you, but I'm sure you know I don't require permission to feel proud of my accomplishments. Thank-you too, for providing your opinions which appear to be based only"on what I have read of criminology and psychology and my understanding of the evidence"

So you believe in neither premeditation, an inheritance motive, nor psychopathy? For one who maintains that he's probably guilty, in one fell stroke, you appear to have ruled out every possible motive, unless you're prepared to accept that he "simply killed five people" because he felt like it, or thought it might be fun? I'm not certain such 'madness' could be cured by incarcerating him in a psych unit for 10 years, though, and as I fail to discern, in your arguments enough neutrality to make a difference, it brings me back to a line of thinking that you may not ever have believed him "probably guilty" when you spend so much time defending him and haranguing those who do.

Be very assured that you've not caused me a moment's embarrassment. You've proved nothing, other than it's your own opinion, delivered like a puffed up Mr Blobby, that I'm lying. Necessary to allow you to squirm out of the reason you used a particular user name -and even ACTED it!- and construct an emotional one. Thank God you didn't accompany the Wesley brothers!! You'd have turned the whole nation to drink!

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

[Jane]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

Every time people like you post on here, you just show yourselves up for what you are.  Keep doing it.  You weaken your own case with every post.

Out of your own mouth. I couldn't have put it better.

[guest29835]

Every time people like you post on here, you just show yourselves up for what you are.  Keep doing it.  You weaken your own case with every post.


Out of your own mouth. I couldn't have put it better.

You are a dreary bore.  I mostly skip your posts, stopping to reply only when one of your patronising screeds is directed my way, informing me that I am not quite sucking those eggs in the right way.  You and Caroline have a long record on here.  You're like two pantomime dames, ganging up on whoever you decide you don't like.  I am reading through some of the forum's historic threads, and there are periods when barely a thread pops up that doesn't contain one of you having a go at somebody.

[Jane]

You are a dreary bore.  I mostly skip your posts, stopping to reply only when your of your patronising screeds is directed my way, informing me that I am not quite sucking those eggs in the right way.  You and Caroline have a long record on here.  You're like two pantomime dames, ganging up on whoever you decide you don't like.  I am reading through some of the forum's historic threads, and there are periods when barely a thread pops up that doesn't contain one of you having a go at somebody.

Thank-you. My observation of you reveals you as an angry, puffed up little man with an overblown sense of his own worth, and a leaning towards pugilism, willing to label anyone a liar who disagrees with you. Do you really believe anyone has benefitted from wading through your musings? I'm willing to bet that in the short time you've been here you've managed to rachet up a ratio of more insulting posts than have I since I joined.

[David1819]

You are a dreary bore.  I mostly skip your posts, stopping to reply only when one of your patronising screeds is directed my way, informing me that I am not quite sucking those eggs in the right way.  You and Caroline have a long record on here.  You're like two pantomime dames, ganging up on whoever you decide you don't like.  I am reading through some of the forum's historic threads, and there are periods when barely a thread pops up that doesn't contain one of you having a go at somebody.

Believe it or not, they both once had a rather factually coherent view on this case. But that all changed when Caroline had an “exchange of ideas” with the “honest and honourable” Paul Harrison.

[JackieD]

You are a dreary bore.  I mostly skip your posts, stopping to reply only when one of your patronising screeds is directed my way, informing me that I am not quite sucking those eggs in the right way.  You and Caroline have a long record on here.  You're like two pantomime dames, ganging up on whoever you decide you don't like.  I am reading through some of the forum's historic threads, and there are periods when barely a thread pops up that doesn't contain one of you having a go at somebody.

Spot on

She should have been banned numerous times, she thinks it’s clever to bully people. Such an ugly angry personality
29,000 posts in and not a single post of any value. Just a complete embarrassment

[guest29835]

Believe it or not, they both once had a rather factually coherent view on this case. But that all changed when Caroline had an “exchange of ideas” with the “honest and honourable” Paul Harrison.

His book is atrocious and most of it must have been invented.  It's so bad, I'm not sure it we can consider it part of the canon.

I don't believe a really excellent factual book has been written on the case.  Probably such a book could only be written by an obscure researcher who actually does the spadework to understand the case and is disciplined enough to present the evidence neutrally from a 'reasonable doubt' position without bringing ego into it.

The necessary caveat is that Colin's book stands out a mile for its literary merit, humility and insight, and I can genuinely say that I will be re-reading his book again and again for years to come, but it is intended as personal/experiential rather than factual, so perhaps doesn't weigh in.

I think we have now had four major books:

Wilkes (1994) - solid book overall and strives to be neutral, but unsourced and some of his claims are open to question.  Strong on explaining forensic evidence. [They have re-published a paperback edition this year, but just to warn you all, I bought it for research and it looks like it's the exact same as the 1994 hardback.
The only bits added are in Wilkes' own Introduction].

Powell (1994) - underrated book, but unsourced and mostly a soap-operatic style overview for a mass market readership.  Strong on Sheila's background.  The first writer to interview Jeremy in custody, and in view of this, the book, while better than expected, is a disappointment overall in that it lacks the 'beef' you'd expect from somebody with the initiative to speak to him.  Affects to be impartial, but clearly adopts a pro-guilt position.

Lomax (2008) - good book, but very biased towards Jeremy.  Strong on certain details like the phone calls and telephone logs, but the position put across is somewhat outdated now.  Will Lomax update this book?

Carol Ann Lee (2015) - similar to Powell's book, a novelesque/soap-opera style book for the mass market, just longer.  Like Powell, affects to be impartial, but clearly leans towards guilt. 

[David1819]

His book is atrocious and most of it must have been invented.  It's so bad, I'm not sure it we can consider it

You can read all about it here.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6891.msg321068.html#msg321068

The guiltards all fell for it. Then, gradually one by one they realised what a load of drivel it was.

[guest29835]

You can read all about it here.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6891.msg321068.html#msg321068

The guiltards all fell for it. Then, gradually one by one they realised what a load of drivel it was.

To be fair, it's obvious the man has mental health issues, so let's change the subject.

Back to Jane/April.  I found this comment about her by Campion in 2013:

  Susan, Honey bunny girl,  Why does April use 'Z' in recognise? What planet be 'er on? By Jove!
  Will you kindly interpret her post, pleeeeease? By 'worm' does she mean as in 'screw'?

  BTW Good post to Martian STEVE.

He also makes a similar observation about Steve:

  Bambergate,  Your post #2 :-
  Is there some significance in that said Steve uk spells 'reailiZed with a 'Z'? ....cf - 'I spell Sierra'!
  Dare I suggest that 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells', has changed his 'monikker' to 'Salacious Steve of Slough', the ubiquitous home of MARS.

 Good Morning 'Early Bird' April,  I consider it more than probable and most likely, that which Sheila is alleged
 to have said, is a 'Chinese Whisper', machinated by AE to Muggy.
  Remember, it took 4 prompts for the 'knowledgeable' Steve' to acknowledge that Jeremy worked at the 'Little Chef', alongside the A12, and NOT the A10. He/she is disaillusionally disorientated.

The context of the latter quote is that somebody called Bambergate had amusingly asked what planet Steve is from:

I want to know what planet Steve is on or from?

Campion's observations stood out for me because I had already noticed the same thing myself.  It's the sort of little detail I take note of.  It's nice when it's independently noticed by somebody else.

I've also noted in one thread Jane/April uses an Americanism, referring to a 'state college'.

There's a user in the archive called Scipio, who I've taken to calling the Latin Macho Man.  He says he's American, claims to be an attorney there and was once in the U.S. Marine Corps - he says. 

To repeat a question I've asked once before: I do wonder if the Smerchanskis have American relatives?

It is interesting that Steve has a username that includes 'UK', as if he is trying to emphasise that he resides here in Britain.  Could that suggest he doesn't?

He is or was in the teaching profession.

I also have a strong suspicion that Steve is female.  I think Steve is a 'she'.

I draw no conclusions, however.  We must remember that whoever these people really are, it's their own business and it's no crime to comment on a forum.

Another one is our friend, Petey, who I surmise is a guilter.  He used 'LPC' in his academic titles, but LPC is not a post-nominal.  It should be something like P.g.Dip.L.P.  He also doesn't appear to understand what zemiology is, despite using the term and telling us he is a criminologist undertaking a doctorate. I freely admit I lack any qualifications and have never set foot in a university.  My university is life. 

But I do read - quite a lot.  And I notice these little things.

[petey]

To be fair, it's obvious the man has mental health issues, so let's change the subject.

Back to Jane/April.  I found this comment about her by Campion in 2013:

He also makes a similar observation about Steve:

The context of the latter quote is that somebody called Bambergate had amusingly asked what planet Steve is from:

Campion's observations stood out for me because I had already noticed the same thing myself.  It's the sort of little detail I take note of.  It's nice when it's independently noticed by somebody else.

I've also noted in one thread Jane/April uses an Americanism, referring to a 'state college'.

There's a user in the archive called Scipio, who I've taken to calling the Latin Macho Man.  He says he's American, claims to be an attorney there and was once in the U.S. Marine Corps - he says. 

To repeat a question I've asked once before: I do wonder if the Smerchanskis have American relatives?

It is interesting that Steve has a username that includes 'UK', as if he is trying to emphasise that he resides here in Britain.  Could that suggest he doesn't?

He is or was in the teaching profession.

I also have a strong suspicion that Steve is female.  I think Steve is a 'she'.

I draw no conclusions, however.  We must remember that whoever these people really are, it's their own business and it's no crime to comment on a forum.

Another one is our friend, Petey, who I surmise is a guilter.  He used 'LPC' in his academic titles, but LPC is not a post-nominal.  It should be something like P.g.Dip.L.P.  He also doesn't appear to understand what zemiology is, despite using the term and telling us he is a criminologist undertaking a doctorate. I freely admit I lack any qualifications and have never set foot in a university.  My university is life. 

But I do read - quite a lot.  And I notice these little things.

Well spotted

I didn’t think we needed a an academic list of qualifications, more a general overview.
LPC is the generic term used for the Legal Practice Course, the prerequisite for starting a training contract to qualify as a solicitor in England. Of course, for arguments sake, technically this is a Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice qualification.

I write in depth about the causal effects of Social Harm from a zemiological outlook in my ongoing thesis, largely but not entirely based on the works of Hillyard, Tombs and Pemberton. Feel free to disagree should you choose, or to challenge my background, but please be assured I am well versed in the criminological meaning of zemiology, which as I have previously explained, is highly contested.

To save you the effort of reading back through my posts, I joined the forum many years ago thinking JB was probably innocent, largely based on information I had covered at university. As things have changed over the years my views have changed somewhat, although I clearly haven’t seen all the evidence and to be honest don’t have the time to follow the nuances of the case too closely. You will probably have seen that I have made a number of posts regarding the Hillsborough disaster, a subject of which I have far more in depth knowledge and understanding. This is further relevant to me now as my thesis is looking at critical victimology and holding organisations to account following the Hillsborough disaster.

[guest29835]

Well spotted

I didn’t think we needed a an academic list of qualifications, more a general overview.
LPC is the generic term used for the Legal Practice Course, the prerequisite for starting a training contract to qualify as a solicitor in England. Of course, for arguments sake, technically this is a Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice qualification.

I write in depth about the causal effects of Social Harm from a zemiological outlook in my ongoing thesis, largely but not entirely based on the works of Hillyard, Tombs and Pemberton. Feel free to disagree should you choose, or to challenge my background, but please be assured I am well versed in the criminological meaning of zemiology, which as I have previously explained, is highly contested.

To save you the effort of reading back through my posts, I joined the forum many years ago thinking JB was probably innocent, largely based on information I had covered at university. As things have changed over the years my views have changed somewhat, although I clearly haven’t seen all the evidence and to be honest don’t have the time to follow the nuances of the case too closely. You will probably have seen that I have made a number of posts regarding the Hillsborough disaster, a subject of which I have far more in depth knowledge and understanding. This is further relevant to me now as my thesis is looking at critical victimology and holding organisations to account following the Hillsborough disaster.

I apologise.  I think I was a bit harsh there and I did not mean to cause offence.

However, anybody can say they are anything on here, and with maybe one or two exceptions, we have no way of knowing.  Not that it matters really, except there are noticeable agendas on here.

I've never known a case in which the two sides are so entrenched, apart from the McCanns - which I'm staying out of.

[JackieD]

His book is atrocious and most of it must have been invented.  It's so bad, I'm not sure it we can consider it part of the canon.

I don't believe a really excellent factual book has been written on the case.  Probably such a book could only be written by an obscure researcher who actually does the spadework to understand the case and is disciplined enough to present the evidence neutrally from a 'reasonable doubt' position without bringing ego into it.

The necessary caveat is that Colin's book stands out a mile for its literary merit, humility and insight, and I can genuinely say that I will be re-reading his book again and again for years to come, but it is intended as personal/experiential rather than factual, so perhaps doesn't weigh in.

I think we have now had four major books:

Wilkes (1994) - solid book overall and strives to be neutral, but unsourced and some of his claims are open to question.  Strong on explaining forensic evidence. [They have re-published a paperback edition this year, but just to warn you all, I bought it for research and it looks like it's the exact same as the 1994 hardback.
The only bits added are in Wilkes' own Introduction].

Powell (1994) - underrated book, but unsourced and mostly a soap-operatic style overview for a mass market readership.  Strong on Sheila's background.  The first writer to interview Jeremy in custody, and in view of this, the book, while better than expected, is a disappointment overall in that it lacks the 'beef' you'd expect from somebody with the initiative to speak to him.  Affects to be impartial, but clearly adopts a pro-guilt position.

Lomax (2008) - good book, but very biased towards Jeremy.  Strong on certain details like the phone calls and telephone logs, but the position put across is somewhat outdated now.  Will Lomax update this book?

Carol Ann Lee (2015) - similar to Powell's book, a novelesque/soap-opera style book for the mass market, just longer.  Like Powell, affects to be impartial, but clearly leans towards guilt.

As you know there is a big demand for anything to do with true crime and I am surprised there has been nothing commissioned for Netflix yet on the Whitehouse Farm Murders.
There needs to be an up to date factual book followed by a full length factual series.
After every part of the recent series (partly based on the poor CAL book) I used to read thousands of comments on twitter and that’s what the public want the factual content