Why would he?

[Roch]

Why would a man repeatedly apply for the right to take a polygraph test, year upon year, for 16 years?   From what I've read on here, I'm expected to dismiss these 'shallow' requests for the following reasons:

PLAN A: 'Detached psycopath' (should breeze though it).  Really?  So there is absolutley no chance whatsoever that a detached psycopath could fail?  Please imagine what the consequences of him failing such a test would be.  He is already damned in the eyes of many, to the point where he is casually compared by knowledgable posters on this forum to multiple sex / paedophile killers.  In his position, why would you risk a test?  Fail = GAME OVER.   Also, when not doing press-ups, sifting through thousands of pages of documents or manipulating fellow, highly intelligent inmates to fight his cause or others to smear shit over their cell walls in protest, I expect he also somehow kept abreast of any technical / scientific advances in polygraph testing over the intervening years, just in case one of his repeated requests is unexpectedly granted.  Wouldn't want to get get caught out by stupidly applying a 1991 dodge to a 2007 test.  Who is this cunning, detached, arch-manipulator?... 

Is it the same bloke who tells his insecure, jealous lass that he's gone ahead with his plan to wipe out his own family, then just for good measure, lets her also go and inspect terrible head and face wounds on the two angels he's killed.... and then overtly proceeds to engineer a split with her?

And what's more... where the hell is his professional psychological assessment that would indicate manipulative, detached, psycopathic tendencies?  I cant see it being withheld under PII... can you?  Or is he so manipulative that he can pull the wool over the eyes of such professionals.  It's so easy for him, it's like kicking a puppy.

[Roch]

PLAN B: It's a fix.  He who pays the piper etc etc.   I can just see his defence team now (over 16 years) 'Here, Jeremy... apply for a polygraph test!  On the off-chance it gets okay'd, we'll just 'wing it' by bribing the company that's carrying out the test... simple'. 

What a load of codswallop.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander... Where is the evidence that this test was in ANY way geared towards a positive result in support of his innocence?   

I'm not buying it.

[Jackiepreece]

Very good post!

[simong]

Hello Dolly, Just quoting you differently than normal 'Also, when not doing press-ups, sifting through thousands of pages of documents or manipulating fellow, highly intelligent inmates to fight his cause or others to smear shit over their cell walls in protest'

You seem to imagine that Jeremy strutts through the prison with everyone chanting 'free Jeremy' as he appears each morning. The fact that he has been slashed (cut) twice probably goes against that train of thought.

Can i ask, If the Polygraph test is so accurate, Why do we not use it everyday in every law case?

[Elizabeth]

Why would he indeed!

PLAN B: It's a fix.  He who pays the piper etc etc.   I can just see his defence team now (over 16 years) 'Here, Jeremy... apply for a polygraph test!  On the off-chance it gets okay'd, we'll just 'wing it' by bribing the company that's carrying out the test... simple'. 

What a load of codswallop.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander... Where is the evidence that this test was in ANY way geared towards a positive result in support of his innocence?   

I'm not buying it.

You're not the only one that doesn't buy it, count me in also. Great posts, very well said!

[Roch]

Hello Dolly, Just quoting you differently than normal 'Also, when not doing press-ups, sifting through thousands of pages of documents or manipulating fellow, highly intelligent inmates to fight his cause or others to smear shit over their cell walls in protest'

You seem to imagine that Jeremy strutts through the prison with everyone chanting 'free Jeremy' as he appears each morning. The fact that he has been slashed (cut) twice probably goes against that train of thought.

Can i ask, If the Polygraph test is so accurate, Why do we not use it everyday in every law case?

Hi Simong, I'm aware of the attacks and I dont imagine him strutting around.  It would be interesting to find out if any other prisoners have jumped on the 'bamber polygraph bandwaggon'?  I mean, if it's such a breeze to pass one then I would expect an increase in applications. Unless of course that bamber is the only prisoner whose defence team is capable of somehow not only colluding with the testers to rig the test but of also setting up the test in a non-controlled environment within the prison set-up?  Are the National Probation Service not trialing the use of similar tests with registered sex offenders out on license?  Mind you, I think I got that info from his official site.

But I ask again... why would one particular man repeatedly fight for the right to take such a test?  Is it really credible that successive members of his defence team colluded over a 16 year period, to arrange the rigging of a test which might or might not eventually take place within the prison environment?

Alternatively, Where is the prison psychiatric report which would back-up the 'cold, detached, personality disorder' get-out clause that supposedly enabled him to breeze through the test?

Isn't it a bit convenient for the some of the guilty camp to portray Bamber as 'trying to get off on a technicality' while similtaneously dissmissing his polygraph test out of hand as being inadmissable legal evidence?  Their inference being that it therefore has no worth whatsoever in determining his ACTUAL guilt.  That looks to me like 'keeping him in on a technicality'.

[Hartley]

What questions was he actually asked as part of this test?

To simply say he passed a lie detector test without any details or third party verification is nothing more than a headline grabber.

Heck for all we know the test could have been about what he'd just had for breakfast.

[Roch]

What questions was he actually asked as part of this test?

To simply say he passed a lie detector test without any details or third party verification is nothing more than a headline grabber.

Heck for all we know the test could have been about what he'd just had for breakfast.

Have the prison authorities denied it Hartley?  The article attached states they refused to comment.  I'm assuming that neither he nor his legal team can force them to comment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449643/Mass-killer-Bamber-passes-lie-detector.html

[simong]

Hello Dolly, Just quoting you differently than normal 'Also, when not doing press-ups, sifting through thousands of pages of documents or manipulating fellow, highly intelligent inmates to fight his cause or others to smear shit over their cell walls in protest'

You seem to imagine that Jeremy strutts through the prison with everyone chanting 'free Jeremy' as he appears each morning. The fact that he has been slashed (cut) twice probably goes against that train of thought.

Can i ask, If the Polygraph test is so accurate, Why do we not use it everyday in every law case?

Hi Simong, I'm aware of the attacks and I dont imagine him strutting around.  It would be interesting to find out if any other prisoners have jumped on the 'bamber polygraph bandwaggon'?  I mean, if it's such a breeze to pass one then I would expect an increase in applications. Unless of course that bamber is the only prisoner whose defence team is capable of somehow not only colluding with the testers to rig the test but of also setting up the test in a non-controlled environment within the prison set-up?  Are the National Probation Service not trialing the use of similar tests with registered sex offenders out on license?  Mind you, I think I got that info from his official site.

But I ask again... why would one particular man repeatedly fight for the right to take such a test?  Is it really credible that successive members of his defence team colluded over a 16 year period, to arrange the rigging of a test which might or might not eventually take place within the prison environment?

Alternatively, Where is the prison psychiatric report which would back-up the 'cold, detached, personality disorder' get-out clause that supposedly enabled him to breeze through the test?

Isn't it a bit convenient for the some of the guilty camp to portray Bamber as 'trying to get off on a technicality' while similtaneously dissmissing his polygraph test out of hand as being inadmissable legal evidence?  Their inference being that it therefore has no worth whatsoever in determining his ACTUAL guilt.  That looks to me like 'keeping him in on a technicality'.

Hartley has basically said what i would have said in that it is a good headline. I certainly don't agree that he would have to have a personality disorder to pass a polygraph. I also don't believe that he would have to be a psychopath to be a killer.

On the point you make about fellow inmates jumping on the polygraph bandwagon. I have just read a book about 16 convicted murderers in Portsmouth prison. 15 admitted they had committed their crime. So maybe the reason they all don't clamour to take a polygraph is the fact that they accept they are guilty.

[Hartley]

What questions was he actually asked as part of this test?

To simply say he passed a lie detector test without any details or third party verification is nothing more than a headline grabber.

Heck for all we know the test could have been about what he'd just had for breakfast.

Have the prison authorities denied it Hartley?  The article attached states they refused to comment.  I'm assuming that neither he nor his legal team can force them to comment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449643/Mass-killer-Bamber-passes-lie-detector.html

I have no idea.

But the fact that it was undertaken by his own team doesn't help, that article is also from information released by his own team.

As to why did he take the test, well it could be that he trained to pass it, or it could be if he failed it it wouldnt be released. Or maybe he is innocent.

Personally I dont think the test is convincing evidence that he is innocent, if he is to clear his name then it needs to be with real physical evidence.

[Roch]

Hello Dolly, Just quoting you differently than normal 'Also, when not doing press-ups, sifting through thousands of pages of documents or manipulating fellow, highly intelligent inmates to fight his cause or others to smear shit over their cell walls in protest'

You seem to imagine that Jeremy strutts through the prison with everyone chanting 'free Jeremy' as he appears each morning. The fact that he has been slashed (cut) twice probably goes against that train of thought.

Can i ask, If the Polygraph test is so accurate, Why do we not use it everyday in every law case?

Hi Simong, I'm aware of the attacks and I dont imagine him strutting around.  It would be interesting to find out if any other prisoners have jumped on the 'bamber polygraph bandwaggon'?  I mean, if it's such a breeze to pass one then I would expect an increase in applications. Unless of course that bamber is the only prisoner whose defence team is capable of somehow not only colluding with the testers to rig the test but of also setting up the test in a non-controlled environment within the prison set-up?  Are the National Probation Service not trialing the use of similar tests with registered sex offenders out on license?  Mind you, I think I got that info from his official site.

But I ask again... why would one particular man repeatedly fight for the right to take such a test?  Is it really credible that successive members of his defence team colluded over a 16 year period, to arrange the rigging of a test which might or might not eventually take place within the prison environment?

Alternatively, Where is the prison psychiatric report which would back-up the 'cold, detached, personality disorder' get-out clause that supposedly enabled him to breeze through the test?

Isn't it a bit convenient for the some of the guilty camp to portray Bamber as 'trying to get off on a technicality' while similtaneously dissmissing his polygraph test out of hand as being inadmissable legal evidence?  Their inference being that it therefore has no worth whatsoever in determining his ACTUAL guilt.  That looks to me like 'keeping him in on a technicality'.

Hartley has basically said what i would have said in that it is a good headline. I certainly don't agree that he would have to be psychopath to pass a polygraph. I also don't believe that he would have to be a psychopath to be a killer.

On the point you make about fellow inmates jumping on the polygraph bandwagon. I have just read a book about 16 convicted murderers in Portsmouth prison. 15 admitted they had committed their crime. So maybe the reason they all don't clamour to take a polygraph is the fact that they accept they are guilty.

So he strove for 16 years on the off-chance of possibly getting a good headline, all the while risking the disaster of a failed test?   

[simong]

Well it would hardly be a disaster if he failed the test as it would simply not be publicised. The defence arranged the test, if he failed it, we would never have heard about him taking it.

[Roch]

Well it would hardly be a disaster if he failed the test as it would simply not be publicised. The defence arranged the test, if he failed it, we would never have heard about him taking it.

And you think a test that went wrong for him, in a controlled environment, inside a maximum securitiy prison wouldn't be leaked out? 

[Hartley]

Well it would hardly be a disaster if he failed the test as it would simply not be publicised. The defence arranged the test, if he failed it, we would never have heard about him taking it.

And you think a test that went wrong for him, in a controlled environment, inside a maximum securitiy prison wouldn't be leaked out?

It's a controlled and confidential environment when hes with his legal team, so could a negative result be supressed? I would say yes it would be possible.

[simong]

What damage would it do if it was leaked out. A headline for a day in a tabloid based on a rumour. As far as i am aware the CCRC cannot make a judgement on hearsay.