How I Iost the photo` of Sheila on the Bed...

[ngb1066]

That's fine. Mud sticks. With all the bullshit people have posted about me - I wouldn't believe me if I was in your shoes either.

But I did tell you all about the CCRC decision, I did say why it was declined. And everything I said came true when that letter was posted by NGB.

I'm just a VERY good guesser it seems.

Where have I posted a letter Mat?

[NewChilledOutHartley]

Do you mean Kerry Daynes?  She has never examined Bamber, nor is she a member of the Healthcare Professions Council or the British Psychological Society.  Bamber was tested by Dr. Vincent Egan. 


http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/ve2

He was tested for psychopathy, self deception and manipulation towards the tester.  To pass all these tests and a Lafayette Instrument polygraph but still be guilty, he would have to be some boy.  We're getting in to the realms of Dr. Hannibal Lecter.

Daynes only made her comments recently (around 2008 I think), where as Vidvic appears to be referring to the 'eve of the trial' which suggests 1986 or 2002, so perhaps he is referring to somebody else, although I confess I don't know.

Rubbishing Daynes professional standing is quite convenient and an obvious response, she must have a certain level of standing to have acted as an expert consulant on other cases.

I'm not saying that it makes any difference to the overall 'psychopath' argument and I'm not sure it really matters. 

[sagar]

That is not true.  Other evidence has come to light recently which supports Jeremy's account about this.

What evidence? all the witnesses to that particular conversation on that night are all dead.

[ngb1066]

What evidence? all the witnesses to that particular conversation on that night are all dead.

I agree in relation to the particular conversation that night, but there is evidence relating to recent and ongoing dicussions about fostering.

 

[Roch]

Daynes only made her comments recently (around 2008 I think), where as Vidvic appears to be referring to the 'eve of the trial' which suggests 1986 or 2002, so perhaps he is referring to somebody else, although I confess I don't know.

Rubbishing Daynes professional standing is quite convenient and an obvious response, she must have a certain level of standing to have acted as an expert consulant on other cases.

I'm not saying that it makes any difference to the overall 'psychopath' argument and I'm not sure it really matters. 

It might help if Vic was able to provide the professional source re the pre trial view.  I think it's come from the Wilkes book.  It might help if we could get the context for Daynes' comments.  I wasn't trying to trash her professional standing, she is a chartered forensic psychologist who has never examined Bamber.  I'm not sure what you mean by whether it matters or not.

[sagar]

So where has this evidence come from? Who has it come from?

[NewChilledOutHartley]

It might help if Vic was able to provide the professional source re the pre trial view.  I think it's come from the Wilkes book.  It might help if we could get the context for Daynes' comments.  I wasn't trying to trash her professional standing, she is a chartered forensic psychologist who has never examined Bamber.  I'm not sure what you mean by whether it matters or not.

By 'whether it matters or not', I mean that it's not definitive, Jeremy isn't required to be a psychopath in order to be guilty, and likewise he could be innocent yet still be a psychopath.

It's just background and propping up arguments, I guess in a similar way to the argument that he's never been violent before, which doesn't actually matter in terms of whether he carried out the crime or not. He doesn't have to adhere to any particular profile (although I'm not saying that he doesn't).

I don't think I've explained that very well? 

EDIT: 'Not' inserted into phrase in brackets.

[ngb1066]

So where has this evidence come from? Who has it come from?

It has not been made public yet so it would not be right for me to name the source here.  What I can say is that the evidence comes from someone who did provide witness statements for the trial (although not in relation to this) and was in a position to know about this and is a credible witness.  Obviously this does not directly corroborate Jeremy's account of the discussion at WHF the evening before the murders but it does support his assertion that this was something being discussed within the family.

 

[Nuala]

By 'whether it matters or not', I mean that it's not definitive, Jeremy isn't required to be a psychopath in order to be guilty, and likewise he could be innocent yet still be a psychopath.

It's just background and propping up arguments, I guess in a similar way to the argument that he's never been violent before, which doesn't actually matter in terms of whether he carried out the crime or not. He doesn't have to adhere to any particular profile (although I'm saying that he doesn't).

As I must disagree with you, NCOH, could I ask your grounds, for holding this view? Egap and I have previously posted detailed and compelling grounds for our view that Jeremy did not have a murderer's profile whereas Sheila did - my posts regarding this are in the Quiz for Sparks topic.

I don't think I've explained that very well? 

[NewChilledOutHartley]

One persons detailed and compelling grounds are another persons nonesense, you are however welcome to disagree.

[vidvic]

I was just about to say the same thing. Just because you find them compelling doesn't mean others would.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

I missed the word 'not' out of the phrase in brackets.

I was supposed to say (although I'm NOT saying that he doesn't). 

[lookout]

Were we aware of any reports from the inquest stating that Sheila's stomach contents included partially digested food.? Given that the family had all had their evening meal together,yet there were no stomach contents in the bodies of the other victims. Which would have meant that Sheila would have eaten just a couple or so hours before the murders.
One of many points omitted from the trial,and just as important when considering time factors.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

Were we aware of any reports from the inquest stating that Sheila's stomach contents included partially digested food.? Given that the family had all had their evening meal together,yet there were no stomach contents in the bodies of the other victims. Which would have meant that Sheila would have eaten just a couple or so hours before the murders.
One of many points omitted from the trial,and just as important when considering time factors.

Hi 'Lookout', this information is contained in the post mortem reports and were available to all parties at the original trial. If it didn't get much attention at trial, then it was because neither the defence nor prosecution used it as a point to further their case or counter an argument. There is nothing sinister or untowards, if that is what you are implying?

[lookout]

No,nothing sinister,NCOH,just a point I was making on the post-mortem, though I understand what you're getting at. All I was wondering was how long after the murders took place.