Latest Vlog _ Jeremy's Polygraph Test_2

[Stephanie]

The 27 assessments are 'ROUTINE' assessments conducted by the prison. They are not in depth psychological examinations carried out by independent experts ( source from CAL). Exactly what some of us have said ALL along.

My question was rhetorical in response to Lookouts previous post.

As I've already pointed out previously, and as you have kindly clarified above Caroline, Bamber would be treated the same as any other prisoner. The 27 (now 30) assessments Referred to on the OS are the same as the 12 assessments completed by SH.

[lookout]

Jeremy's only hope for parole could very well be if he confesses at some point and admits his part in the killings.

It's a bit late in the day now, he'd have done that 30 years ago if he'd been guilty.

[guest2181]

From the OS

Professor Vincent Egan, BSc. (Hons).,Ph.D., D. Clin. Psy. Chartered Clinical Psychologist, Chartered Forensic Psychologist, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, University of Leicester, recently carried out a psychological assessment of Jeremy Bamber for a category A risk assessment review and he stated in his 14 page report: (test NOT for psychopathy! But is the annual test ALL prisoners have for risk assessment - Jeremy is STILL a CAT A and considered hight risk - this guy obviously didn't find him to be a pussy cat)

 “Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” He goes on to state “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.”  BUT Egan didn't use the PCL-R test, and doesn't state what he did use

Regardless of this 'expert' opinion from Egan, the courts did not accept it, they did however accept an alternative view, as can be seen in the link below.

So I'm not sure why the campaign team are clinging on to a rejected view, especially when they fail to mention what was actually accepted. 

This is an article on the BBC News from back in 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7335058.stm

The part which jumps out at me is that he was refused a downgrade in status due to his psychological reports, if I'm reading it correctly? 

[Stephanie]

Regardless of this 'expert' opinion from Egan, the courts did not accept it, they did however accept an alternative view, as can be seen in the link below.

So I'm not sure why the campaign team are clinging on to a rejected view, especially when they fail to mention what was actually accepted. 

As you'd highlighted here Hartley http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.0.html

We discussed his psychological report and how it appears to be the reason he was knocked back.

Trudi needs to see a copy of this report also.

[guest2181]

As you'd highlighted here Hartley http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.0.html

We discussed his psychological report and how it appears to be the reason he was knocked back.

Trudi needs to see a copy of this report also.

Yes, so clearly the claims that there are all these tests showing JB to be psychologically 'normal', are completely bogus.

[Stephanie]

This is what the judge said when he denied JB's application for a downgrade of prison status:

"The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.0.html

[Stephanie]

Yes, so clearly the claims that there are all these tests showing JB to be psychologically 'normal', are completely bogus.

Exactly!

[David1819]

Are you saying that whether he's guilty or innocent, for you, this is more about failings in the judicial system? As, in your view, neither guilt nor innocence can be proved, where does that leave you?

He shouldn't have his conviction upheld or at least should have been given a retrial long ago.

You only have to look at other convicts getting retrials due to some minor details that could have effected the jury.

Nat Fraiser for example convicted of killing his Wife, at his first trial police officers testified that they didn't see his Wife's wedding ring and other jewelry in the bathroom where she usually kept them. Then they managed to find footage from the forensic teams recording of the house showing the wedding ring and jewellery in the bathroom AFTER those police visited. This is what granted him a retrial.

Sion Jenkings got a retrial due to new blood spatter evidence.

Mark Lundy (New Zealand) Got a retrial because at his first trial they found a prosecution expert had misrepresented the evidence of his Wife's brain tissue found on his clothes. 

Now if you look at Jeremy's situation its a double standard. Plus they never released the COLP documents and Julies dealings with the police until after his 2001 appeal so he could never use that as evidence in the appeal. Everything new Jeremy has presented in 1989, 2001 and 2011 would have had a major impact on the outcome if he had it available in 1986.

[David1819]

Yes, so clearly the claims that there are all these tests showing JB to be psychologically 'normal', are completely bogus.

Any psychologically 'normal' personal is capable of murder in the right circumstances.

[guest2181]

Exactly!

It is not feasible that the campaign team have made all of these mistakes by accident, there is clearly an intention to spread false information to influence and mislead people.

They must therefore be trying to obtain money under false pretences. Is that legal? 

[guest2181]

Any psychologically 'normal' personal is capable of murder in the right circumstances.

That is not relevant to this discussion.

[Caroline]

My question was rhetorical in response to Lookouts previous post.

As I've already pointed out previously, and as you have kindly clarified above Caroline, Bamber would be treated the same as any other prisoner. The 27 (now 30) assessments Referred to on the OS are the same as the 12 assessments completed by SH.

They are indeed

[Caroline]

As you'd highlighted here Hartley http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.0.html

We discussed his psychological report and how it appears to be the reason he was knocked back.

Trudi needs to see a copy of this report also.

Not only see it, but mention it in her VLOGS - there is a certain amount of selectivity going on and the OS is completely misleading when it talks of the 27 tests.

[David1819]

It is not feasible that the campaign team have made all of these mistakes by accident, there is clearly an intention to spread false information to influence and mislead people.

They must therefore be trying to obtain money under false pretences. Is that legal? 

If Professor Egan concludes he is not psychopathic and they cite him as a source when they claim so then no.

If Egan concluded he was a phychopath but the campaign team just say otherwise or use an expert that's never met him or never concluded anything then yes it would be illegal to some extent

[guest2181]

It is not feasible that the campaign team have made all of these mistakes by accident, there is clearly an intention to spread false information to influence and mislead people.

They must therefore be trying to obtain money under false pretences. Is that legal? 

Maybe Trudi would like to address this in her next vlog?