June Bamber, did not attend bible class evening before she was killed...

[Adam]

The fake burglar option:


He could not insinuate Sheila. Something he has been doing for 30 years. 

He would still be first on the scene anyway. Threads created. 

He would have to take something from WHF. Or several things. Taking several journeys to WHF after the massacre. Risking the chance of being seen or heard. 

Robbers are not usually killers. Especially of women and children who are sleeping.  

He could not claim Neville phoned. 

Robbers rob houses they believe are empty. 

The relatives would still suspect Jeremy. And he would still tell Julie. 

A robber had to find a quiet way into WHF. Something Jeremy liked to keep secret from the police. 

If the robber did not take anything it would look suspicious. 

Jeremy dumping valuable items means less for him. The fire plan was dropped partly for this reason. 

Dumped items may be found. 

Julie never said this was an option Jeremy considered. Even he is not that stupid. 

He could not create the siege and 'Crazy Sheila' situation. 

There would be no sightings of mysterious men in the area. As there were not any. 

Brutal farm robberies are very rare. 

[Adam]

By everything you have just written, you don't know what a psychopath is. Robert Napper is NOT a psychopath! He is a sexual sadist

Robert Napper not a psychopath ?

[Adam]

People say after having to shot Sheila twice he should have changed plans mid execution. To the fake stranger/burglar option.

But both those options were weak. Bamber must have surely considered them.

[Jane]

Reasons why the fake random stranger is a bad idea:

Jeremy could not insinuate Sheila. Something he has been doing for 30 years.

The relatives would still sniff around.

Jeremy would still be first on the scene anyway. Threads created.

I have never heard of such an incident. A stranger going to a remote farm house. Killing men women and children. Then leaving.

A psychopath is more likely to attack an individual. Probably one person he could over power. Rather than put himself up against five people.

If the police did not believe the random stranger theory, there would only be one suspect.

A psychopath is more likely to attack in open land and an environment he knows. Not enclose himself in unfamiliar surroundings.

Jeremy could not claim Neville phoned.

The relatives would still suspect Jeremy. And he would still tell Julie.

The psychopath would have to find a quiet way into WHF. Something Jeremy liked to keep secret from the police.

Julie never said this was an option Jeremy considered. Even he is not that stupid.

He could not create the siege and 'Crazy Sheila' situation.

There would be no sightings of mysterious men in the area. As there were not any.

Psychopaths usually attack women for sexual gratification, such as Robert Napper. I have never heard of one killing children and men as well in one spree.

The random stranger would have to attack using a weapon he had brought over. Such as a knife. He would not know about the guns in WHF. Or whether they were loaded.

Adam you CANNOT list, as a reason for ANYTHING being a bad idea, the fact that YOU'VE never heard of it. MOST of what you've offered simply doesn't equate and I don't think anyone BUT you has suggested the crime may have been committed by "a random stranger."

[Jane]

People say after having to shot Sheila twice he should have changed plans mid execution. To the fake stranger/burglar option.

But both those options were weak. Bamber must have surely considered them.

Other than you, I don't recall anyone else who has suggested it.

[Caroline]

Robert Napper not a psychopath ?

I've just told you, he's a sexual sadist NOT a psychopath. From your description you think 'psychopathy' means insanity - it doesn't! It's now called antisocial personality disorder and anyone diagnosed with it is NOT considered insane.

[lookout]

Just slightly crackers.

[Jane]

I've just told you, he's a sexual sadist NOT a psychopath. From your description you think 'psychopathy' means insanity - it doesn't! It's now called antisocial personality disorder and anyone diagnosed with it is NOT considered insane.

Personality disorders are neither a crime nor an illness. Those of us who aren't afflicted have to put up with or ignore those who are. THAT'S if we even recognize what's going on.

[Adam]

I repeat: he didn´t have to stage it as a suicide, that is what I am talking about. He could have walked out the door and not called the police.

[Adam]

Walking out of the door and not calling the police. Is one of two things -

Burglar, random stranger.

More likely a random stranger. Unless Bamber has hired a van.

[Mr. Gee]

I've just told you, he's a sexual sadist NOT a psychopath. From your description you think 'psychopathy' means insanity - it doesn't! It's now called antisocial personality disorder and anyone diagnosed with it is NOT considered insane.

HAHA I have to laugh at the "experts"sometimes. All these names they think up just indicates that even they don't know what a psychopath is? You just have to look at the differing opinions of those experts assessing Bamber to see that they don't really know what they're talking about. In my experience of so called psychiatrists I have come to the conclusion that most of them are loopy themselves anyway.

[Jane]

Walking out of the door and leaving it open. Is one of two things -

Burglar, random stranger.

More likely a random stranger. Unless Bamber has hired a van.

But all the police would have found was an open door -no way of telling WHY the door was open- and dead bodies, one holding a rifle. The above is just unthought through, sweeping statement.

[Caroline]

HAHA I have to laugh at the "experts"sometimes. All these names they think up just indicates that even they don't know what a psychopath is? You just have to look at the differing opinions of those experts assessing Bamber to see that they don't really know what they're talking about. In my experience of so called psychiatrists I have come to the conclusion that most of them are loopy themselves anyway.

The definition is clear, the diagnosis is perhaps not!

[Adam]

I change from time to time - I admit that freely, but I think it will be hard for me to ever have a fixed opinion on this case, too many unknown factors. Conversion is not all that likely when it comes to me. Sorry.

I don't recall you ever changing. You support Bamber as much as posters who outwardly support him.

I know you felt vulnerable after three supporters changed stance. But you need to stick to you're beliefs. Rather than suddenly  coming out and saying you are 'undecided'.

I stick to my beliefs although when I joined the board was nearly all pro Bamber. I got a lot of abuse as Bamber was being under attack from me on what used to be a pro Bamber forum.  By me following the evidence. Supporters focusing on me was a way to deflect attention from the evidence.

Several supporters who rarely post PM'd me saying they agreed with my posts. They probably rarely posted as they knew they would get abuse. People on another forum also praised my posts.

If someone had  strong beliefs it should be possible for someone to argue their case and be proud of their beliefs.

[Jane]

I don't recall you ever changing. You support Bamber as much as posters who outwardly support him.

I know you felt vulnerable after three supporters changed stance. But you need to stick to you're beliefs. Rather than suddenly  coming out and saying you are 'undecided'.

I stick to my beliefs although when I joined the board was nearly all pro Bamber. I got a lot of abuse as Bamber was being under attack from me on what used to be a pro Bamber forum.  By me following the evidence. Supporters focusing on me was a way to deflect attention from the evidence.

Several supporters who rarely post PM'd me saying they agreed with my posts. They probably rarely posted as they knew they would get abuse. People on another forum also praised my posts.

If someone had  strong beliefs it should be possible for someone to argue their case and be proud of their beliefs.

Oh Adam, if ONLY you could see yourself as others see you!!!! It isn't that you believe Jeremy is guilty that people find objectionable, it's the offensiveness of your approach. Of COURSE those with opposite views will argue -that's the nature of the beast and this is a forum- but for the MOST part, it's good natured. There appears to be VERY little that is good natured about your posts, in deed, their content is marked by sarcasm, ridicule, and a liberal dose of intolerance of other peoples' opinions.

SUCH irony that your OWN words -after saying some people rarely post because they'll get abuse- tell us "If someone had(sic) strong beliefs it should be possible for someone to argue their case and be proud of their beliefs"!!!!!!! ABSOLUTELY TRUE................ and yet YOU have to be a greater proponent of abuse than ALL the rest of the members put together. I would hazard a guess that you could be the poster they imagine they will get abuse from, even when they're on YOUR side. God help those who aren't.