The campaign against Jeremy Bamber

[lookout]

Bamber was a very naive young man and therefore very easily taken advantage of by the wolves of the family who were from the very beginning out to get him so to speak. Those wolves and other wolf packs are still out to savage him. Not content in seeing him already behind bars they continue as some kind of verocious beasts to tear away at him. He himself has said very little compared to their violent rantings. I personally am thoroughly disgusted at the behaviour of these people who parade up and down in their ivory towers. I sometimes wonder what secrets they themselves hide behind closed doors?

I agree Grahame. There's always something behind the fact where people shout the loudest. What guilt do they hide that they feel their voices must be heard above others ?
Society now is made up of too many of these type of people,,and what pisses me off is that they seem to go on and prosper at the expense of those who are decent citizens.
Treading on peoples toes wasn't the way I was brought up,neither was Jeremy,,but it gets you nowhere being honest and forthright,you get used like a doormat by those who are scrambling in a scrum to reach the top.

It was the beginning of the dog eat dog society that we have now.Nobody seems to " do " decent anymore. The bigger the shyster you are,the better thought of,it would seem.

I'll give you an example of my disillusionment. 
My g/son,who is 27,a really decent lad but not a very confident one,was confronted by his assessor at work and given marks across the board,of 2 out of 10.
Although I say it myself,he's a good-looking lad and very presentable. ( nobody likes that ! )
His co-worker never stops swearing,vanishing for a smoke and has a mouthful of rotten teeth. He gets top marks,as do a lot of others. He's a shirker and bullies my g/son for doing as he's told,calling him names.

The assessors verdict on my g/son ? He lacks confidence !! Is it any wonder ?
My daughter is going to confront this monster today. Good job I won't be !

[grahameb]

I agree Grahame. There's always something behind the fact where people shout the loudest. What guilt do they hide that they feel their voices must be heard above others ?
Society now is made up of too many of these type of people,,and what pisses me off is that they seem to go on and prosper at the expense of those who are decent citizens.
Treading on peoples toes wasn't the way I was brought up,neither was Jeremy,,but it gets you nowhere being honest and forthright,you get used like a doormat by those who are scrambling in a scrum to reach the top.

It was the beginning of the dog eat dog society that we have now.Nobody seems to " do " decent anymore. The bigger the shyster you are,the better thought of,it would seem.

I'll give you an example of my disillusionment. 
My g/son,who is 27,a really decent lad but not a very confident one,was confronted by his assessor at work and given marks across the board,of 2 out of 10.
Although I say it myself,he's a good-looking lad and very presentable. ( nobody likes that ! )
His co-worker never stops swearing,vanishing for a smoke and has a mouthful of rotten teeth. He gets top marks,as do a lot of others. He's a shirker and bullies my g/son for doing as he's told,calling him names.

The assessors verdict on my g/son ? He lacks confidence !! Is it any wonder ?
My daughter is going to confront this monster today. Good job I won't be !

Yes I have come across such people. I see it at work every day at the school. I'm not a person who likes the limelight and will often let others take the lead. But I can see that they are not the right people to take the lead.

[Jan]

That's a very poor example.

Davies attempted suicide in the past and, "was known to hear voices commanding he harm himself and  others".  He abused drugs and alcohol. He was dumped at  ahomeless shelter without any regard to making sure he stayed sober, took medicaiton to control his delusions and continued with any kind of outpatient treatment.  That he ended up attacking someone was not in the least bit surprising.

that was not the case I was talking about.

I guess you like google

[grahameb]

that was not the case I was talking about.

I guess you like google

Didn't Sheila try and kill herself as well? Also I remember Collin remarking when told about her death (and he had seen her a couple of nights before remember. So he knew what she was capable of) "She's finally done it".

[Jan]

Didn't Sheila try and kill herself as well? Also I remember Collin remarking when told about her death (and he had seen her a couple of nights before remember. So he knew what she was capable of) "She's finally done it".

was that in the statement of the young relative cousin? Where she talked about being a white witch or something similar?

[Jan]

JUST TO PROVE THE EXPERTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.


As we have to read your long posts Scipio I am sure you can take a few minutes to read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10358251/Truth-about-dangerous-mental-patients-let-out-to-kill.html

[scipio_usmc]

And you accuse ME of only using parts of a statement which work for me!!!!! There IS no ambiguity in what YOU have posted from the statement. The ambiguity lays in what I posted of it where he reveals his concerns about what she MIGHT be capable of under certain circumstances.

All you did was take a statement made right after the murders that he made after being told she murdered her family yet  was not fed details about her last days.

He assumed she did it as they claimed to her and responded, "sheila is likely to have been in a disturbed psychotic state at the time of the tragedy, although in my experience with her there has never been any issue of threats or violence towards her family"

In effect he assessed that if she committed the murders then she was likely in a disturbed psychotic state at the time.

But after he found out what other people had experienced interacting with her after her discharge and was told she might not have done it and he was to assess whether she likely he it then he assessed it unlikely for a variety of reasons including not viewing the alleged temporary daytime foster care help as losing her children..

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html

What did I twist from it?  What did he says she was capable of?

He assessed that he didn't see her as one likely to use violence or to commit suicide.  Towards the end he assesses:

"I can say neither women were disturbed in their behavior and there was no aggression in their illness.  I find it difficult to believe either women would use violence"

You are the one twisting not me.   

[scipio_usmc]

But you haven't addressed the point that shortly before she died, Sheila said "All people are evil and should be killed."

I have not been shown any reliable evidence she said such to anyone.  Niether of the alleged peopel she told it to includ such in their statements and I have found no hearsay where ANn Eaton claims thy told her that she said such to them.

99% of what Jeremy supporters claim turn out to be either lies or erroneous so before I am going to address any specious claims I want to see reliable evidence.

I used to give the benefit of the doubt and each time I did so it ended up biting me in the ass as the claims turned out to be wrong so no more.

[scipio_usmc]

JUST TO PROVE THE EXPERTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.


As we have to read your long posts Scipio I am sure you can take a few minutes to read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10358251/Truth-about-dangerous-mental-patients-let-out-to-kill.html

This is just more examples akin to Davies.  The criticism is that they dumped people they new had violent and suicidal tendencies on the street without any effort to try to make sure they kept up treatment and medicaiton to keep their problems at bay.

You need to find an example where there was no history of violence or suicide attempts, the person was diagnosed as not being at risk of hurting anyone or committing suicide, responded well to treatment so was released and was currently taking their medication yet still had a psychotice episode anyway that resulted in a severe attack on others or suicide.

That is wht you need to find to be able to suggest that there is a case that is like what you are allegeging happened to Sheila.

Good luck because an exhaustive search has turned up nothing.  I tried to see if I can find any rare cases to demonstrate how rare these circumstances are but I can't find any.

The common theme among those who do kill and commit suicide is that they demonstrate violent tendencies before, they stop taking their medication or never were in treatment in the first place, they often abuse narcotics/alcohol and often are drunk or high at the time and their mental health gets progressively worse in the days leading up to the actions as they have delusions more and more frequently.

There is no evidence of any of this with Sheila.

1) she was on her medicaiton
2) no history of vilence or suicide attempts
3)  was not high or drunk at the time of the murders
4) no evidence of delusions or deteriorating mentla condition leading up to the murders but rather evidence she was being over sedated

Worse though and most importantly there is solid evidence to establish that the examples I refer to actually did murder or commit suicide.  There was physical and witness evidence to estbalish their guilt.  In contrast here there is no physical evidence at all to establish Sheila did squat, she would indeed be unlikely to have the ability to carry out the murders and worst of all she can't have killed herself.

I started a thread challenging people to produce evidence pointing to her guilt and no supporter could come up with anything beyond the simplistic notion she had mental problems so she did it.

[grahameb]

JUST TO PROVE THE EXPERTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.


As we have to read your long posts Scipio I am sure you can take a few minutes to read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10358251/Truth-about-dangerous-mental-patients-let-out-to-kill.html

I think the "experts" are more wrong than right personally and I don't say that lightly either. Simply because treating mental illness is not an exact science. Different people react differently to the same drugs. If any expert stated that Sheila was ok on that night is really sticking his neck out too far. Usually you find medical "experts" to be far more cagey about the stability of their paients.

[scipio_usmc]

Didn't Sheila try and kill herself as well? Also I remember Collin remarking when told about her death (and he had seen her a couple of nights before remember. So he knew what she was capable of) "She's finally done it".

No one who knew her claims she attemped suicide.  Jeremy supporters claim such but have no evidence to support the claim.  It was made up so you are just repeating a grapvine claim.

In the meantime after being told she killed them he didn't say anything about thinking she was capable of murder nor did he even say he believed she did it.  In his statement the following month he stated hs initial impression was that he believed she could have done it as a result of mental illness but changed his mind.  He has made clear over the years that the more he learned the more he realized she didn't do it.  He operated under the simplistic notion early on that ill peopel can kill for no reason but after thinking baout it and hearing more fromt he dcotors and more of the evidence in the case itself he realized Jeremy did it.   

[grahameb]

No one who knew her claims she attemped suicide.  Jeremy supporters claim such but have no evidence to support the claim.  It was made up so you are just repeating a grapvine claim.

In the meantime after being told she killed them he didn't say anything about thinking she was capable of murder nor did he even say he believed she did it.  In his statement the following month he stated hs initial impression was that he believed she could have done it as a result of mental illness but changed his mind.  He has made clear over the years that the more he learned the more he realized she didn't do it.  He operated under the simplistic notion early on that ill peopel can kill for no reason but after thinking baout it and hearing more fromt he dcotors and more of the evidence in the case itself he realized Jeremy did it.

He operated not on the notion that ill people kill themselves. But on what he knew about Sheila. "She FINALLY done it". There is no evidence that he thought that every mentally ill person could kill themselves. I can't change what he said. I didn't say it, he did.

[scipio_usmc]

I'm not sure what you mean here? I think that this must represent some poor attempt by yourself to try and belittle me and my views. I know ngb's views concerning the case very well. And my using his opinion to support my argument is not some kind of "worship of him" as you said. But because he is a well respected man and a knowledgeable one. His opinions beinf a criminal barrister carry weight. But of course it is evident from what "scipio the unknown" self appointed oracle of all knowledge does not respect. NGB for your information believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice. He was introduced to this forum and to Bamber by Jackie Preece and the reason he is here is because he believes him to be innocent. That is also the reason Mike made him administrator. Jackie Preece also introduced McKay to Jeremy and he also was convinced that he is innocent and that is the reason he also represents Bamber and not for publicity as one cynic said.

1) Even if he does believe Jeremy is innocent that alone means nothing at all so far as constituting evidence that he is innocent.

2) Even if he does believe Jeremy is innocent that doesn't mena he supports every crackpot claim that is made by Jeremy supporters.

3) All that matters is the evidentiary basis and rationale of his beliefs but you have not pointed to where he has posted such.

One of my favorite examples of an authority who was dead wrong was Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman. He wrote an op-ed that various papers published where he asserted the military Commissions Act authorized trying American citizens by military commission instead of courts.  Various liberals ran wild with his claim asserting our liberty was in danger and cited his opinion as proof. 

I read the actual law and he was dead wrong.  In a debate I quoted heavily from the law and demonstrated he was wrong. I'm hardly the only one who did so even some of the most liberal leaning publications and individuals admitted he was wrong.  Instead of just accepting his unsupported opinion they actually looked at the text of the law themselves to make sure and found out he was wrong.

Those who just accepted his unsupported opinion as gospel were left with egg on their face.  Unsupported opinion is not evidence of anything EXCEPT that such is a particular person's opinion. It is not evidence that the opinion is true.

In the meantime you are declaring what someone else's opinion is without posting where the person stated such is his opinion so I don't even know it to be his opinion.   

 

[grahameb]

1) Even if he does believe Jeremy is innocent that alone means nothing at all so far as constituting evidence that he is innocent.

2) Even if he does believe Jeremy is innocent that doesn't mena he supports every crackpot claim that is made by Jeremy supporters.

3) All that matters is the evidentiary basis and rationale of his beliefs but you have not pointed to where he has posted such.

One of my favorite examples of an authority who was dead wrong was Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman. He wrote an op-ed that various papers published where he asserted the military Commissions Act authorized trying American citizens by military commission instead of courts.  Various liberals ran wild with his claim asserting our liberty was in danger and cited his opinion as proof. 

I read the actual law and he was dead wrong.  In a debate I quoted heavily from the law and demonstrated he was wrong. I'm hardly the only one who did so even some of the most liberal leaning publications and individuals admitted he was wrong.  Instead of just accepting his unsupported opinion they actually looked at the text of the law themselves to make sure and found out he was wrong.

Those who just accepted his unsupported opinion as gospel were left with egg on their face.  Unsupported opinion is not evidence of anything EXCEPT that such is a particular person's opinion. It is not evidence that the opinion is true.

In the meantime you are declaring what someone else's opinion is without posting where the person stated such is his opinion so I don't even know it to be his opinion.

Private conversations with him. He doesn't post everything as he is in possession of some very sensitive information as you will appreciate. Obviously some things he hasn't told me either. But I have represented his views fairly and truthfully.

[lookout]

Someone from the Campaign has e-mailed Panorama to get them to bring Jeremys' case to everyones' attention. It was posted on the 4th of this month. I quote :
" Please,when are you going to do a piece on the longest UK MOJ of all time ? The Jeremy Bamber trial and guilty verdict.

Below is the link to my testimony,which along with others,is posted on Jeremys' campaign team website, where if someone your end could spare half a day reading and digesting the information the information on the site,then it will be clear,that not only is Jeremy innocent,but that the police know it, Jeremys' relatives know it,the girlfriend,Julie Mugford ( now Smerchanski and living in Winnipeg ) knows it.
And--------you will read how together,for their individual purposes,they colluded and succeeded in framing Jeremy for the murder of his whole family.

http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/poppy-ann-miller

In October,Jeremy will have been in prison for 28 years--over half his lifetime.The media has vast influence,please help ensure that 2014 is the year Jeremy gains his freedom and steps are taken to bring the truly guilty to trial. unquote "

" That makes me so sad--------because that's another 14 years---of my life---that I've been made to look for the truth---but it was already there ".
                                  Jenni Hicks----Hillsborough.

                Very Sincerely.