If confronted with a similar amount of incriminating evidence -

[Adam]

Sorry Adam but your talking rubbish. My gp won't give me a sick certificate for my injured arm untill he's examined me. That's because he's an ethical proffesional. Kerry daines had to apologise for her diagnosis on the grounds that she was being paid by the documentary makers and the fact that it's wrong to comment on someone she had never met. By the way .. I think tony Blair is a psychopath and I've never met him... Wrong isn't it!

Sorry Keepers, you are talking rubbish.

Experts talk on documentaries all the time. Whether they were involved in the issue or not.

I suspected she had never met him. But it's easy for her to research the case and find out about him. Then give an opinion, as an expert.

Please provide the source where she apologised and was paid. I thought documentary makers don't pay people to comment.

[keepers]

Research her and you'll see. No so called expert can give a qualified opinion on research alone. Why do you think the trial judge threw out the case against Colin stagg? The reason being the so called expert was talking total rubbish and doing what his paymasters were asking of him!

[Adam]

You are supposed to provide the source. As it is you're claim.Not do what Lookout does and tell me to 'find it yourself'.

She was an expert. Which is why she was asked to contribute. She gave her opinion after researching the case. And her views suggest Jeremy is a psychopath
 

[Stephanie]

Well how on earth can that psychologist state that Jeremy is a psychopath when she's never met him ?
Same goes for those on here who've never met the man.

What would you call a man who murdered five members of his family; including to little boys?

[Stephanie]

What would you call a man who murdered five members of his family; including two little boys?

[lookout]

Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.

Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.

The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a mountain of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.

June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.

There is the silencer evidence which shows beyond doubt it was Bamber.

There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night.

There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. 

No one can explain how Sheila could have committed the massacre to match the crime scene.

I can't believe that you said that Jeremy's prints will be everywhere---------------he lived there.

[Jane]

I can't believe that you said that Jeremy's prints will be everywhere---------------he lived there.

No, he visited.

[keepers]

Adam... Why did they not ask the expert that actually examined jeremy? Why did they not ask the expert that conducted the lie detector test? Answer is , it didn't provide for the documentary they were making. As for my source.. It's the Internet. Your assuming that I'm a supporter of Jeremy's innocence. I'm just a supporter of the truth being proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you can convince me I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong. The fact is you can't!

[lookout]

No, he visited.

Lived,being in the past tense.

[Adam]

Adam... Why did they not ask the expert that actually examined jeremy? Why did they not ask the expert that conducted the lie detector test? Answer is , it didn't provide for the documentary they were making. As for my source.. It's the Internet. Your assuming that I'm a supporter of Jeremy's innocence. I'm just a supporter of the truth being proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you can convince me I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong. The fact is you can't!

They interviewed De Stefano. I thought the lie detector test was after 2005.

[Jane]

Lived,being in the past tense.

And they had a regular cleaner. Jeremy hadn't been in residence there for several years. I imagine prints would have been limited to certain areas. Your meaning would have been clearer had you said he HAD lived there.

[lookout]

And they had a regular cleaner. Jeremy hadn't been in residence there for several years. I imagine prints would have been limited to certain areas. Your meaning would have been clearer had you said he HAD lived there.

I know I should have said had lived there. There was still " his room " where EP could have had the time of their lives gathering prints,etc.

[Caroline]

Wether he is guilty or not we must stick to the facts. Kerry daines the phscologist that confirms he's a psychopath later had to admit that she had never met jeremy or examined him. A very unethical thing to do. What we need to do is ask ourselves this. If this case was tried today and you were a member of the jury confronted with circumstantial evidence only... Would you convict, I'm guessing the answer would be NO

Kerry Daynes didn't give the impression that she had met or examined Jeremy Bamber nor was it implied. Knowing what I know now, I would most certainly convict - without question.

[Adam]

Kerry Daynes didn't give the impression that she had met or examined Jeremy Bamber nor was it implied. Knowing what I know now, I would most certainly convict - without question.

There is no law that an expert has to meet someone before giving an opinion on a documentary. Although Keepers is complaining about Daynes.

[Jane]

Kerry Daynes didn't give the impression that she had met or examined Jeremy Bamber nor was it implied. Knowing what I know now, I would most certainly convict - without question.

I wonder how many of those experts who made pronouncements on the psychopathy of other infamous prisoners, had the dubious pleasure of being in their company.