Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[Stephanie]

Hardly, Your armchair psychoanalysis is rather illogical and baseless

You are projecting again David!

My research and experiences can hardly be described as arm chair based.

By all means attempt to suggest my posts are illogical and baseless but at least give examples of this and support your argument with evidence... 

[David1819]

I know what you're saying, but Jeremy could just have easily repeated the tale which was circulating on that first morning at Goldhanger, content with any version which did not incriminate himself.

Your saying "Jeremy could have" which puts you in realm of speculation, At least you realise JMs statement cannot be accepted with certainty.

Its not just the crime scene that does not add up. There is a whole range of things, for example Robert boutflour's theory about the fingerprints is also what Julie said he had confessed to her.

[Stephanie]

Your saying "Jeremy could have" which puts you in realm of speculation, At least you realise JMs statement cannot be accepted with certainty.

Its not just the crime scene that does not add up. There is a whole range of things, for example Robert boutflour's theory about the fingerprints is also what Julie said he had confessed to her.

No David, it is you who suggests JM's statement cannot be accepted with certainty - I say it can!

Steve has already answered you regarding RB but again you are choosing to dismiss it.

You need to look at the evidence combined as opposed to cherry picking..

[Stephanie]

Your saying "Jeremy could have" which puts you in realm of speculation, At least you realise JMs statement cannot be accepted with certainty.

"Deception constitutes a very entertaining game for psychopaths. They use one victim to lie to another. They use both victims to lie to a third. They spin their web of mind-control upon all those around them. They encourage antagonisms or place distance among the people they deceive, so that they won’t compare notes and discover the lies. Often they blend in aspects of the truth with the lies, to focus on that small grain of truth if they’re caught. The bottom line remains that psychopaths are malicious sophists. It really doesn’t matter how often they lie or how often they tell the truth. Psychopaths use both truth and lies instrumentally, to persuade others to accept their false and self-serving version of reality and to get them under their control.

[David1819]

You are projecting again David!

My research and experiences can hardly be described as arm chair based.

By all means attempt to suggest my posts are illogical and baseless but at least give examples of this and support your argument with evidence... 

psychoanalysis (or psychodynamic theories in general) Are just theories they are not factual science.

If you want to study people's posts on the internet and put those people in little boxes based on your perceived "personality disorder" it doesn't work, you have to at least meet the person.

You don't know me, or anything about me or my background. Thus your perceptions will be very inaccurate.

[David1819]

"Deception constitutes a very entertaining game for psychopaths. They use one victim to lie to another. They use both victims to lie to a third. They spin their web of mind-control upon all those around them. They encourage antagonisms or place distance among the people they deceive, so that they won’t compare notes and discover the lies. Often they blend in aspects of the truth with the lies, to focus on that small grain of truth if they’re caught. The bottom line remains that psychopaths are malicious sophists. It really doesn’t matter how often they lie or how often they tell the truth. Psychopaths use both truth and lies instrumentally, to persuade others to accept their false and self-serving version of reality and to get them under their control.

As I have already pointed out several times to you, Jeremy has never been diagnosed as such.
Professor Vincent Egan a chartered forensic psychologist has concluded he not a psychopath. So can you please stop filling the forum with baseless quotes about psychopaths its completely irrelevant.

[Stephanie]

psychoanalysis (or psychodynamic theories in general) Are just theories they are not factual science.

If you want to study people's posts on the internet and put those people in little boxes based on your perceived "personality disorder" it doesn't work, you have to at least meet the person.

You don't know me, or anything about me or my background. Thus your perceptions will be very inaccurate.

Where have I suggested you are personality disordered?

Where have I suggested I know you and your background?

I am merely responding to the posts you make David.

[Stephanie]

As I have already pointed out several times to you, Jeremy has never been diagnosed as such.
Professor Vincent Egan a chartered forensic psychologist has concluded he not a psychopath. So can you please stop filling the forum with baseless quotes about psychopaths its completely irrelevant.

And as I've pointed out to you as a fact, it's not unusual for prisoners to fall under the radar or indeed for mistakes to be made.

You are wrong David! Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath by the psychiatrist engaged by his defence team!

"He has professed his innocence ever since. However, the psychiatrist engaged by Bamber’s defence team said that his very real belief that he had not committed the murders was a prime reason for diagnosing him as a psychopath.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html#ixzz467nv9aiK

So you see, Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath pre-trial. He's been retested by Professor Egan since then and part of that assessment was a self assessment. Meaning Bamber completed a series of questions and
Professor Egan based his findings on Bambers own answers.

So it's not difficult to see how easy it would have been for Bamber to answer the questions however he wanted in order to produce the results he wanted.

[David1819]

And as I've pointed out to you as a fact, it's not unusual for prisoners to fall under the radar or indeed for mistakes to be made.

You are wrong David! Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath by the psychiatrist engaged by his defence team!

"He has professed his innocence ever since. However, the psychiatrist engaged by Bamber’s defence team said that his very real belief that he had not committed the murders was a prime reason for diagnosing him as a psychopath.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html#ixzz467nv9aiK

So you see, Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath pre-trial. He's been retested by Professor Egan since then and part of that assessment was a self assessment. Meaning Bamber completed a series of questions and
Professor Egan based his findings on Bambers own answers.

So it's not difficult to see how easy it would have been for Bamber to answer the questions however he wanted in order to produce the results he wanted.

I have read this before. I cannot find the name of this psychiatrist nor any documentary proof he examined Jeremy. Diagnosing him as a psychopath because he protests his innocence is hardly the result of a thorough examination.

As I have already said, I focus on the physical and circumstantial evidence that is the basis of the case. Psychopathy or not does not establish guilt or innocence, to me its rather irrelevant.

[lookout]

Not only is the " psychopathy " argument irrelevant,it's also a very hollow and shallow description of a person unknown to any of us. It's just another slight on his character to add to all the other unfounded descriptions of him.

[John]

Not only is the " psychopathy " argument irrelevant,it's also a very hollow and shallow description of a person unknown to any of us. It's just another slight on his character to add to all the other unfounded descriptions of him.

Well his own defence team referred to him as a classic psychopath.   By the way lookout, it is known that some young men who display psychopathic tendencies or are diagnosed as psychopatic can lose the condition by the time they reach mid life or later.

It is not always a case of, 'once a psychopath, always a psychopath'.

[lookout]

Well his own defence team referred to him as a classic psychopath.   By the way lookout, it is known that some young men who display psychopathic tendencies or are diagnosed as psychopatic can lose the condition by the time they reach mid life or later.

It is not always a case of, 'once a psychopath, always a psychopath'.

Good morning John. Yes I'm aware that psychopathy fizzles out as you age,but it still doesn't mean to say that it had developed in his younger years. Jeremy was a prize show-off as a young man because of his position as a wealthy farmers son. It's a very immature part of human nature generally.

How many Lotto millionaires have " lost friends " because of attitudes of having wealth and suddenly splashing out on all kinds of fripperies saying it " hasn't changed them  ?"  This ISN'T an indication of psychopathy because of their behaviour. It's childish immaturity which makes them appear to have a split personality,as well as perceptions of others who display jealousy because of their fortunate position.

[Stephanie]

I have read this before. I cannot find the name of this psychiatrist nor any documentary proof he examined Jeremy. Diagnosing him as a psychopath because he protests his innocence is hardly the result of a thorough examination.

As I have already said, I focus on the physical and circumstantial evidence that is the basis of the case. Psychopathy or not does not establish guilt or innocence, to me its rather irrelevant.

Maybe when you write to Bamber again you can ask him why he's sat on that 'golden nugget' and not allowed anyone to see the assessment report carried out at the request of his defence team - pre trial.

It's not me who hasn't looked at this case thoroughly David. You have publicly stated you do not believe JM's evidence, therefore on that basis you are choosing to ignore all the other evidence that points to guilt.

You have to put the blinkers on in order to appease your confirmation bias; that's hardly looking at the case in its entirety.

[Stephanie]

Good morning John. Yes I'm aware that psychopathy fizzles out as you age,but it still doesn't mean to say that it had developed in his younger years. Jeremy was a prize show-off as a young man because of his position as a wealthy farmers son. It's a very immature part of human nature generally.

How many Lotto millionaires have " lost friends " because of attitudes of having wealth and suddenly splashing out on all kinds of fripperies saying it " hasn't changed them  ?"  This ISN'T an indication of psychopathy because of their behaviour. It's childish immaturity which makes them appear to have a split personality,as well as perceptions of others who display jealousy because of their fortunate position.

Psychopathy does not fizzle out as you age.

"As psychopaths age, they are not able to continue their energy-consuming lifestyle and become burned-out and depressed while they look back on their restless life full of interpersonal discontentment. Their health deteriorates as the effects of their recklessness

- See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psychotic-affective-disorders/hidden-suffering-psychopath#sthash.qH8ZC7o8.dpuf

The life histories of psychopaths are often characterized by a chaotic family life, lack of parental attention and guidance, parental substance abuse and antisocial behavior, poor relationships, divorce, and adverse neighborhoods.4 These persons may feel that they are prisoners of their own etiological determination and believe that they had, in comparison with normal people, fewer opportunities or advantages in life.

Despite their outward arrogance, psychopaths feel inferior to others and know they are stigmatized by their own behavior. Some psychopaths are superficially adapted to their environment and are even popular, but they feel they must carefully hide their true nature because it will not be acceptable to others. This leaves psychopaths with a difficult choice: adapt and participate in an empty, unreal life, or do not adapt and live a lonely life isolated from the social community. They see the love and friendship others share and feel dejected knowing they will never be part of it.

Psychopaths are known for needing excessive stimulation, but most foolhardy adventures only end in disillusionment because of conflicts with others and unrealistic expectations. Furthermore, many psychopaths are disheartened by their inability to control their sensation-seeking and are repeatedly confronted with their weaknesses. Although they may attempt to change, low fear response and associated inability to learn from experiences lead to repeated negative, frustrating, and depressing confrontations, including trouble with the justice system.

[lookout]

I think JB's behaviour under the circumstances is exemplary considering he'd had the carpet pulled from under him. In other words,the prospect of wealth for the rest of his life-----------then nothing. He'd lost everything that he'd dreamed of. I wonder how many of us would cope under the same circumstances,of being innocent but accused of murder and not having anyone believe you ?

I've been in such a situation ( not of an accused murderer ) but of having the world and its wife disbelieving you in favour of the " law ". It's horrible and as much as I stood my ground, I could feel myself cracking but daren't have shown it for fear of appearing weak and worst of all in case anyone saw it as a sign of admission. You HAVE to remain strong to enable to fight on or you've lost and this is what the baying wolves want.
Until anyone has been in a situation where the law THINKS that they're the winners,then nobody knows what it's like to be accused of something that you didn't do. At least we as a family fought tooth and nail,whereas JB didn't have that,just people who were itching to get him " out of the way " by whatever means it took.