Reasons why Bamber cycled to & from WHF.

[Steve_uk]

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.

This is typical of your posts, though not wishing to make ad hominem attacks let's stick to what you've written. You (or any professional in the psychiatric or recidivist field) cannot possibly be 100% certain that a prisoner will not reoffend. It's one thing to sit in an armchair and give an expert opinion and quite another to live daily with the consequences either physical or mental of an inmate's release.

How Jeremy Bamber cannot be classified as a predator beats me. Both men were predators and both crimes were premeditated. Though David Bain did not stand to inherit the amount Bamber would have done had he not been convicted Bain's parents did own some property and there was a motorcycle accident in which $6500 was owed, rather like the £2000 sum Jeremy Bamber owed Nevill. This could well have been the catalyst in each case.

As for psychopathy, I quote the American psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley, quoted by the late James McNeish in his book The Mask of Sanity:

The surface of the psychopath..gives no hint at all of a disorder within. His mask is that of robust mental health. Yet he has a disorder that often manifests itself in conduct far more seriously abnormal than that of a schizophrenic.

Of course this is just one man's professional opinion.

[Jane]

This is typical of your posts, though not wishing to make ad hominem attacks let's stick to what you've written. You (or any professional in the psychiatric or recidivist field) cannot possibly be 100% certain that a prisoner will not reoffend. It's one thing to sit in an armchair and give an expert opinion and quite another to live daily with the consequences either physical or mental of an inmate's release.

How Jeremy Bamber cannot be classified as a predator beats me. Both men were predators and both crimes were premeditated. Though David Bain did not stand to inherit the amount Bamber would have done had he not been convicted Bain's parents did own some property and there was a motorcycle accident in which $6500 was owed, rather like the £2000 sum Jeremy Bamber owed Nevill. This could well have been the catalyst in each case.

As for psychopathy, I quote the American psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley, quoted by the late James McNeish in his book The Mask of Sanity:

The surface of the psychopath..gives no hint at all of a disorder within. His mask is that of robust mental health. Yet he has a disorder that often manifests itself in conduct far more seriously abnormal than that of a schizophrenic.

Of course this is just one man's professional opinion.

Indeed Steve. Barely a month goes past that we don't hear news of a released convict, deemed to be safe by a parole board, reoffending in an horrendous way -murder, rape, kidnap, paedophilia- to the point where the competency of parole boards is called into question.

Of course, there will be those who are safe to be released -but it must always be remembered that the trial judge said of Jeremy that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be considered that it was safe to release him. Probably the reason that he was sentenced to a minimum of 25yrs- but prisoners have easier access to psychiatrists and counselors than do many on the outside. Those with intelligence will pick up on the buzz words and expressions used and turn them to advantage. I doubt that it's ever any more than a 50/50 chance about whether or not a convicted prisoner reoffends.

[guest29835]

This is typical of your posts, though not wishing to make ad hominem attacks let's stick to what you've written.

I hardly need to add any more.  Your entire career on this Forum is summed-up in that self-contradictory, self-serving sentence.

Just to add, briefly: you have not understood a single thing I have said.  You just plough on with your own narrow-mindedness because it suits you, listening to nobody and ignoring everything.

I wish you weren't here.  Not because of your views and opinions, but because of your attitude. 

I think you're horrible. 

Unless provoked, I will not respond to you further.  You are clearly emotionally-vested in the case and any sort of serious discussion with you is next-to-impossible.

[Steve_uk]

I hardly need to add any more.  Your entire career on this Forum is summed-up in that self-contradictory, self-serving sentence.

Just to add, briefly: you have not understood a single thing I have said.  You just plough on with your own narrow-mindedness because it suits you, listening to nobody and ignoring everything.

I wish you weren't here.  Not because of your views and opinions, but because of your attitude. 

I think you're horrible. 

Unless provoked, I will not respond to you further.  You are clearly emotionally-vested in the case and any sort of serious discussion with you is next-to-impossible.

I don't mind some of your musings, such as Jeremy shooting Sheila in her bed and then doing the laundry, because obviously you're thinking out loud and feeling your way around the site, wondering what the boundaries are and what drivel you may or may not get away with.

What I don't like is you attacking members personally and discouraging those who have ideas but may not be the best at expressing them orthographically. You have deprived this site of their knowledge since you came on board, whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not.

It's also hard enough for me to engage with those Bamberettes who believe him to be innocent, but they have every right to hold that opinion and if they do they might well not see Jeremy Bamber as a predator.

You, on the other hand, believe firmly in his guilt (even on a bad day you're 96% certain, which would surely be enough for you to convict), yet you persist in some dogged, twisted optimism that this mass murderer is not a predator.

I'm sorry but to my mind a line has been crossed.

[lookout]

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.

Many real guilters will usually confess their guilt within or just over 10 years of incarceration, usually knowing that 9 times out of 10 their sentence could be reduced. Jeremy will no doubt have known about this but he's not going to admit guilt knowing himself to be innocent is he, even if it had meant him being released on licence ? It's become a stalemate situation where police have probably been waiting and still are, for a confession and Jeremy fighting on to prove his innocence. Not the best situation.

[guest29835]

I don't mind some of your musings, such as Jeremy shooting Sheila in her bed and then doing the laundry, because obviously you're thinking out loud and feeling your way around the site, wondering what the boundaries are and what drivel you may or may not get away with.

What I don't like is you attacking members personally and discouraging those who have ideas but may not be the best at expressing them orthographically. You have deprived this site of their knowledge since you came on board, whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not.

It's also hard enough for me to engage with those Bamberettes who believe him to be innocent, but they have every right to hold that opinion and if they do they might well not see Jeremy Bamber as a predator.

You, on the other hand, believe firmly in his guilt (even on a bad day you're 96% certain, which would surely be enough for you to convict), yet you persist in some dogged, twisted optimism that this mass murderer is not a predator.

I'm sorry but to my mind a line has been crossed.

That statement I have put in bold has to rank among the most hypocritical drivel you have come out with - and it's a tough contest, because virtually everything you say on here is for show. 

Your entire persona is a mawkish, venomous, hypocritical sham, right down to that avatar you use, which is thoroughly in bad taste and disrespectful to the victims.

As I have made it clear, I attack people who attack me, I insult people who insult me.  In other words, I do what anybody would do in the same situation.  Virtually every single person on this site does the same, including the moderators themselves.  One moderator has commented about you in very similar terms that I do.

Everything I have directed at you is in response to your own behaviour.

I can't even comprehend what goes on in your mind.  You are either connected to the case in some way, or you're just some weirdo who adopts the vicarious grief of others.

Either way, I really would prefer to have nothing to do with you.  I think you're toxic and just bad news all round.  I think you have destroyed this Forum as a lively place for critical discussion of the case and I believe you did so intentionally.

And I really must take exception to your inaccurate inference that I have done the same.  Before I came here, there were few posts to the Forum each day.

Again, just a word to the moderators:

I would prefer not to engage this weirdo.  I did give it a go, but he can't help himself.  I will refrain from engaging unless he provokes me.

[JackieD]

I don't mind some of your musings, such as Jeremy shooting Sheila in her bed and then doing the laundry, because obviously you're thinking out loud and feeling your way around the site, wondering what the boundaries are and what drivel you may or may not get away with.

What I don't like is you attacking members personally and discouraging those who have ideas but may not be the best at expressing them orthographically. You have deprived this site of their knowledge since you came on board, whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not.

It's also hard enough for me to engage with those Bamberettes who believe him to be innocent,

but they have every right to hold that opinion and if they do they might well not see Jeremy Bamber as a predator.

You, on the other hand, believe firmly in his guilt (even on a bad day you're 96% certain, which would surely be enough for you to convict), yet you persist in some dogged, twisted optimism that this mass murderer is not a predator.

I'm sorry but to my mind a line has been crossed.

Name a bamberette on this forum you useless waste of space

[guest29835]

I don't mind some of your musings, such as Jeremy shooting Sheila in her bed and then doing the laundry, because obviously you're thinking out loud and feeling your way around the site, wondering what the boundaries are and what drivel you may or may not get away with.

What I don't like is you attacking members personally and discouraging those who have ideas but may not be the best at expressing them orthographically. You have deprived this site of their knowledge since you came on board, whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not.

It's also hard enough for me to engage with those Bamberettes who believe him to be innocent, but they have every right to hold that opinion and if they do they might well not see Jeremy Bamber as a predator.

You, on the other hand, believe firmly in his guilt (even on a bad day you're 96% certain, which would surely be enough for you to convict), yet you persist in some dogged, twisted optimism that this mass murderer is not a predator.

I'm sorry but to my mind a line has been crossed.

I am sorry, but I really, really, really, really strongly object to everything in this post.  It's all lies, but especially the statement in bold.  It's outrageous.  It's also deeply, deeply hypocritical because it is actually Steve who is the one responsible for making things toxic.

Please post up a list of people I have offended on here.  When you do, I am confident that it will be people who insulted or attacked me first.  If people can't take it, then they should not dish it out.

I am sorry but I hate hypocrites. 

And I hate this forked-tongued, mawkish, lying, hypocritical weirdo.

[guest7363]

Indeed Steve. Barely a month goes past that we don't hear news of a released convict, deemed to be safe by a parole board, reoffending in an horrendous way -murder, rape, kidnap, paedophilia- to the point where the competency of parole boards is called into question.

Of course, there will be those who are safe to be released -but it must always be remembered that the trial judge said of Jeremy that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be considered that it was safe to release him. Probably the reason that he was sentenced to a minimum of 25yrs- but prisoners have easier access to psychiatrists and counselors than do many on the outside. Those with intelligence will pick up on the buzz words and expressions used and turn them to advantage. I doubt that it's ever any more than a 50/50 chance about whether or not a convicted prisoner reoffends.

He claims to have been seen and examined by over 27 different psychologists, none of them have found him to have a personality disorder of any variety, nor any mental illness, nor any indication of psychopathy.  Ok I get that, the Psychologist would evaluate each year his mental health, how life in prison was affecting him.  What you have to remember a psychologist is not a Psychiatrist, a Psychologist does about 6 years trying, mainly in the field of anxiety, depression, learning difficulties ect, a Psychiatrist does 11 years training and a Is classed as a Medical Doctor and treats more severe mental disorder. 

[lookout]

All the years I've been here, it's true to say that there's never been so much side-tracking-----from the guilters. Strange that.
 Is it done because something can't be answered in an acceptable and thought out way as to avoid answering altogether, or what ?
 " People who fear the effects of an answer can begin to employ unobvious ways of getting round a requirement to provide that answer "

If all else fails, use abuse----and you've lost !

[guest29835]

All the years I've been here, it's true to say that there's never been so much side-tracking-----from the guilters. Strange that.
 Is it done because something can't be answered in an acceptable and thought out way as to avoid answering altogether, or what ?
 " People who fear the effects of an answer can begin to employ unobvious ways of getting round a requirement to provide that answer "

If all else fails, use abuse----and you've lost !

They deliberately side-track the threads by stirring up arguments.  They have been doing it on here for years.

[JackieD]

All the years I've been here, it's true to say that there's never been so much side-tracking-----from the guilters. Strange that.
 Is it done because something can't be answered in an acceptable and thought out way as to avoid answering altogether, or what ?
 " People who fear the effects of an answer can begin to employ unobvious ways of getting round a requirement to provide that answer "

If all else fails, use abuse----and you've lost !

Absolutely 100% spot on Lookout in fact the posting from the guilters seems to have dried up in fear of the posts being dissected

[Steve_uk]

I'll name the people you have offended when you pick three posts of mine where I have told lies.

[guest29835]

I'll name the people you have offended when you pick three posts of mine where I have told lies.

I did.  Both I and somebody else pointed to a post on the very same thread in which you lied.  You've also lied in this thread, about me.  Virtually everything you post on here is untrue/fiction.  You are evidently a dissembler by nature and I have no need to elaborate.  I certainly don't need to meet your demands further.

When I last asked you to specify the people I have offended, you spammed the relevant thread with copies of out of context posts.  Please give us the list and I will explain each one.  Not that it matters, but I see that triviality is important to you, so let's humour you.  If you don't or won't, then I will assume your claims are hot air, like everything else you say on here.

[Steve_uk]

This might surprise you, but I quite enjoy some of your posts. As Jackie herself said you have certainly made the Forum more stimulating since you joined. I don't wish to pursue a personal vendetta against you. I enjoyed your contribution on Colin Pitchfork, I enjoyed your contribution to the lie detector thread. It's the personal attacks on other members where I do draw the line, just as Jackie herself often oversteps the mark. They are my friends and we have all been here for many years. But I have to admit the Forum would be duller without you two as members.