Latest Vlog _ Jeremy's Polygraph Test_2

[Caroline]

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.

That's your opinion - I certainly don't agree.

[guest2181]

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

You are (probably intentionally) missing the point.

A judge stated that:

"The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified

So clearly there is something in the psychological reports which was used to justify his Cat A status.

That simply isn't compatible with what is claimed here:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/

[David1819]

That is not relevant to this discussion.

Yes it is, Jeremy does not have to be mentally ill to be guilty.

[Stephanie]

You are (probably intentionally) missing the point.

A judge stated that:

"The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified

So clearly there is something in the psychological reports which was used to justify his Cat A status.

That simply isn't compatible with what is claimed here:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/

Here's another thing Terry Mullins polygraph test was carried out in 2007, therefore the above report makes Terry Mullins test null and void!

[guest2181]

Yes it is, Jeremy does not have to be mentally ill to be guilty.

I have not referred to his guilt or innocence, so it is not relevant to any of my posts which you have quoted.

[Stephanie]

Trudi states in her vlog that Bamber has been tested for psychopathy "back right left centre and forth" - this is not true!

Trudi has been disingenuous. Has Bamber suggested this to her? or has she made this false statement as a misunderstanding on her part?

[guest2181]

Here's another thing Terry Mullins polygraph test was carried out in 2007, therefore the above report makes Terry Mullins test null and void!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean (again  ).

Do you mean the test would be invalid due to his psychological 'wellness', or lack of?

[Stephanie]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean (again  ).

Do you mean the test would be invalid due to his psychological 'wellness', or lack of?

Oh no 

I believe Bamber is a psychopath so I believe he passed the test because of this. On the other hand there's the other fact to consider, as I've stated previously, Terry Mullins confirmed during his interview with Trudi that his (Mullins) test was ineffective because of his own confirmation bias.

If people like Trudi want to now (2016) believe in the results of the polygraph test then they have to also take into account the report referred to by the judges in 2008.

Hence why I stated the 2007 test is made null and void by the judges comments in 2008.

[Stephanie]

Trudi is not looking at the whole picture.

I'm unsure if it's due to her lack of knowledge regarding all that has gone on since Bambers conviction in the 80's or whether she is confused herself?

She certainly doesn't strike me as someone with a solid and thorough understanding of the case and what has gone on from then to now.

[Steve_uk]

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.

..and how ridiculous that was.

[guest2181]

Oh no 

I believe Bamber is a psychopath so I believe he passed the test because of this. On the other hand there's the other fact to consider, as I've stated previously, Terry Mullins confirmed during his interview with Trudi that his (Mullins) test was ineffective because of his own confirmation bias.

If people like Trudi want to now (2016) believe in the results of the polygraph test then they have to also take into account the report referred to by the judges in 2008.

Hence why I stated the 2007 test is made null and void by the judges comments in 2008.

Okay, that's what I thought you meant. Phew. 

I'd agree that there is potential for that being the case.

[David1819]

..and how ridiculous that was.

I'm not sure if he is guilty or not. But Mark Lundy getting a retrial was a joke, He used to colour code his work tools and they found the exact same two samples of paint he had on his axe the paint was found in what remains of her scull. They then found microscopic brain tissue from his wife on his boiler suit.
His second trial was guilty verdict 

[guest2181]

A judge stated that:

"The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified

So clearly there is something in the psychological reports which was used to justify his Cat A status.

That simply isn't compatible with what is claimed here:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/

David, do you disagree with the above?

Or does anybody disagree?

[David1819]

Okay, that's what I thought you meant. Phew. 

I'd agree that there is potential for that being the case.

Also the polygraph was arranged by dodgy Distefano that's enough for me to think nothing of it. wouldn't surprise me if DGS took the polygraph for him telling Mullins he was JB

[David1819]

David, do you disagree with the above?

Or does anybody disagree?

Yes I do disagree with the rationale of what you are saying. Just because a review team reject something that does not mean that what was presented to them was false. The prison board is not an unimpeachable authority on what is correct and not correct.

However I am not in favour of how the Campaign Team operates so I agree with you to some extent