Some on here hide behind "false identity" when making allegations?

[grahameb]

That's a difficult one Grahame, and perhaps all about perspectives. For example, if the contents of withheld evidence do not detract from the prosecutions case put forward, or add the the defences case put forward, then a MOJ has not occurred.
The difficulty comes when people are asked to interpret any released evidence and give an opinion whether it would have assisted the defence or hindered the prosecution and ultimately have had an effect upon the Jury. Currently that interpretation is a responsibility which initially is down to the CCRC and then the Court of Appeal. Perhaps you think that the system should be different.

With regards to evidence which has been released when previously it was unavailable, it's worth noting that there hasn't actually been anything released which is indicative of a MOJ, with the possible exception of the current submission to the CCRC of course, but we'll have that answer as well in the not too distant future.

I fear that it would have to be something very significant to make any difference? But it is still very interesting why they have kept back so much material under PII? If the documents that have been released that were formerly under PII are not that significant then one is tempted to ask, why were they ever witheld under PII? It doesn't make sense.

[Hartley]

I fear that it would have to be something very significant to make any difference? But it is still very interesting why they have kept back so much material under PII? If the documents that have been released that were formerly under PII are not that significant then one is tempted to ask, why were they ever witheld under PII? It doesn't make sense.

Well that is something else which I do not trust as much as other people appear to, I think the 'It's been withheld under PII' is grossly over used.

In actual fact, PII, as it is today did not exist in 1986.

[grahameb]

I believe it's in Anns statement as well, we obviously don't have access to all of the statements and trial transcripts, but I also do not recall if I have seen Jeremy deny the incident. I don't know whether he has or hasn't.

Although as I've said above, this is a very minor issue, you could remove it altogether and it would have no bearing. The weird thing is, from what we have read about Jeremy and his arrogance, I think even you would agree that it's something which you could imagine him saying, could you not?

Well yes, to you or me it may seem minor. But when put with other statements of people who want to build a case against Jeremy it is the kind of thing that sticks in folk's minds, like the jury for instance.

[Hartley]

Well yes, to you or me it may seem minor. But when put with other statements of people who want to build a case against Jeremy it is the kind of thing that sticks in folk's minds, like the jury for instance.

How do you know it was presented to the Jury? It may well have been and it may be in one of the trial transcripts on the forum, I don't know.

[grahameb]

Well that is something else which I do not trust as much as other people appear to, I think the 'It's been withheld under PII' is grossly over used.

In actual fact, PII, as it is today did not exist in 1986.

So when and why were they witheld at all? They are or were still being witheld and certainly the police were very reluctant to release certain photos. What ever we may call it today they were certainly not presented in court and apparently the defence were not aware of them at that time?

[grahameb]

How do you know it was presented to the Jury? It may well have been and it may be in one of the trial transcripts on the forum, I don't know.

I don't know. It may very well have not been presented in court. I was just assuming that it was since it was mentioned by both RB and as you said AE?

[Chochokeira]

Again please do not try and second guess what I am going to do, but feel free to comment on what I actually do. I'm not dodging anything and have never dodged or shied away from any issue.

I have no idea why some people are capable of certain things, but I also do not think insanity or illness in the medical sense is a common indicator. If it was, then every single convicted murderer would fall foul of such diagnosis and end up in a medical institution rather than a high security Category A prison.

Let's apply this logic to other cases. Is Steve Wright insane or ill? What about Ian Brady, Dennis Nilsen, Donald Neilson, Rose & Fred West, Douglas Vinter, Ian Huntley, Robert Maudsley, Jogn Childs, etc, etc, etc. Are they all insane or ill? Or are they a product of their surroundings or are they simply warped and evil?

I'm not an expert and can only give my lay interpretation, I believe that Jeremy is guilty as convicted based on the evidence and details of the case which I have seen, it's as simple as that.

I'm not a criminology addict - despite having studied under professor Jock Young, one of the world's leading criminologists - so I cannot give you a sufficiently informed opinion on the other murderers you refer to. I have, however, studied this case in depth and my view is that Jeremy Bamber does not have the profile of a murderer, whereas Sheila, sadly did have such a profile.

Sheila was a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered a series of deep psychological disturbances and crises in the crucial developmental stages of her formative years. These crises and the damage they caused were reflected in a series of violent psychotic attacks in Sheila's teens and adulthood. There was probably a physiological element to Sheila's mental illness too.

With the exception of his adoption, Jeremy's developmental stages were not repeatedly disrupted by crises, his psychological development was therefore normal and did not follow the pathological pattern that poor Sheila's did. That's why 20 odd psychologists found that he was not mentally ill.

[Hartley]

So when and why were they witheld at all? They are or were still being witheld and certainly the police were very reluctant to release certain photos. What ever we may call it today they were certainly not presented in court and apparently the defence were not aware of them at that time?

Well that's the argument isn't it, but i believe the defence were aware of much more than is being made out, if they did not have certain things, then they most certainly should have known that they existed.

And again, to date (bar the current submission), nothing has been released which shows that a MOJ occurred.

[Hartley]

I'm not a criminology addict - despite having studied under professor Jock Young, one of the world's leading criminologists - so I cannot give you a sufficiently informed opinion on the other murderers you refer to. I have, however, studied this case in depth and my view is that Jeremy Bamber does not have the profile of a murderer, whereas Sheila, sadly did have such a profile.

Sheila was a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered a series of deep psychological disturbances and crises in the crucial developmental stages of her formative years. These crises and the damage they caused were reflected in a series of violent psychotic attacks in Sheila's teens and adulthood. There was probably a physiological element to Sheila's mental illness too.

With the exception of his adoption, Jeremy's developmental stages were not repeatedly disrupted by crises, his psychological development was therefore normal and did not follow the pathological pattern that poor Sheila's did. That's why 20 odd psychologists found that he was not mentally ill.

Which is back to what I have previously said, he did not need to be diagnosed as being mentally ill, either before or after to have carried out the murders.

Profiling and stereotyping is all well and good, but it doesn't out weigh and override other evidence.

[grahameb]

Well that's the argument isn't it, but i believe the defence were aware of much more than is being made out, if they did not have certain things, then they most certainly should have known that they existed.

And again, to date (bar the current submission), nothing has been released which shows that a MOJ occurred.

Are you privy to that information then Hartley? I thought that only the defence knew what was released?

[grahameb]

Which is back to what I have previously said, he did not need to be diagnosed as being mentally ill, either before or after to have carried out the murders.

Profiling and stereotyping is all well and good, but it doesn't out weigh and override other evidence.

I rather think that all the other evidence was entirely based on what others said that JB said or did?

[Hartley]

Are you privy to that information then Hartley? I thought that only the defence knew what was released?

It's deduction from the fact that the CCRC provisionally refused the aplication, so yes bar the current submission, it couldn't be anything else.

[andrea]

Not in my view. I dont see anything anywhere in all the evidence that points to JB being guilty.
Not a shred of credible , reliable evidence anywhere that points at JB being guilty.
And my opinion is sound and has to be better than that of those who may have a vested interest in the case in some way.

Admin note: Part of this post has been deleted to avoid a breach of forum rules.

FAO SMIFFY

Before your post above was edited, you said that your opinion is more sound than someone who has had mental problems, which is about 70 percent of the population.

Can i ask you what makes your opinion so superior and valid to, say, mine?

Are you of the opinion that the posts or ideas of someone who has had mental health problems should not be taken seriously nor any credit be attached to them? Discuss?

[grahameb]

FAO SMIFFY

Before your post above was edited, you said that your opinion is more sound than someone who has had mental problems, which is about 70 percent of the population.

Can i ask you what makes your opinion so superior and valid to, say, mine?

Are you of the opinion that the posts or ideas of someone who has had mental health problems should not be taken seriously nor any credit be attached to them? Discuss?

I didn't see what smiffy posted. But I am sure Neil dealt with it in the appropriate manner. There is of course no logic in such a statement if that was the statement that if a person who has suffered mental problems is any less sound than anyone else. In fact mental illness covers such a wide field for a start that it would be virtually impossible to take such a theory seriously.

[andrea]

Neil dealt with it very quickly Grahame and rightly so, im not easily offended, but i was offended at that.

Smiffy thoughts about people with "issues" are a disgrace, and outdated. The post and the entire contents were aimed at me.

But i suppose there will be more where that came from.