JB's Recent blog about time on remand; nothing to do with his time on remand

[Stephanie]

Having read Jeremy Bamber's recent blog about his memories of time on remand I'd like to ask him why he hasn't written about his memories of time on remand and appears to have digressed, writing instead about prisoners who cannot read or write. What has this got to do with his innocence campaign/Anniversary?

Can anyone else see how he avoids the obvious?

He begins:

"Something which I have been thinking about a lot recently is the fact that while I was held on remand I was able to read through much of the very limited 'disclosed' documentation on my case. If you’re charged with a crime you’ll need to read the charge sheet and indictment, your own statement or transcripts of interviews for signing, all statements against you and forensic reports both for and against your innocence. This material might be quite extensive and require many hours of reading. Forensic and legal documents often contain technical language, which can be difficult to follow without specialist knowledge or a dictionary. I was fortunate enough to be able to do this but for many people charged with criminal offences it’s not an option because they cannot read and write.

http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/on-30th-anniversary-of-jeremys.html

No mentions again of his family members who have been murdered.
No mention of his fears regarding his forthcoming trial?
No mention of his innocence?
And no mention of reading statements by, for example Julie Mugford, and not agreeing with her statements?

He then goes on to write:

"In today’s society there’s always help available for people with disabilities such as partial vision or hearing difficulties and similarly if you can’t read or write you should be able to ask for someone to read it to you. The problem is that the vast majority of people charged with crimes who are not literate will not tell anyone about it. This means that the situation arises where many people have no idea of the detailed charges against them and this places greater difficulty on formulating a defence strategy. The bigger issue of course is that some people go through police interviews facing often very serious charges, and end up tried and convicted without really knowing the many factors of how this came about. Imagine not knowing the reasons why you were convicted, maybe wrongly, of serious crimes and imprisoned for even the shortest period or as long as whole life sentence.

Most people faced with criminal charges will have a solicitor who will explain in layman's terms the charges against them and who will also explain in layman's terms anything the person arrested doesn't understand. I therefore do not agree with what he has written.

I further would like him to explain what he means when he states 'formulating a defence strategy?' What about telling the truth? Or are these his projections?

What examples can he give of someone having been convicted, maybe wrongly, of serious crimes and imprisoned and them not knowing why they have been convicted?

I think this whole piece is yet more smoke and mirrors and only serves to show him in a poor light to people like me who believes he is a con artist.


And the following makes no sense at all:

"This can also have impact on the victims of crime because admission of guilt by the perpetrator often helps victims to understand what happened to their loved one. Many of the accused won't understand the nature of the evidence against them and will not make confessions, where as if they had been able to read they might have done. Confessions also help the prisoner to rehabilitate and work towards better prison conditions and long-term objectives of building a new life on release.

In other words Jeremy Bamber is suggesting prisoners do no confess to their crimes because they cannot read or write? What a load of twaddle.

Is this his attempt at showing empathy to the victims of crime?

He concludes:

"Being able to read and write should be one of the basic human rights, every citizen should have. Prisoners should never be prosecuted until they are literate – hold them on remand and teach them how to read and write, and hold the prosecution until they can. It’s simple, some will simply delay but the prison system has ways to encourage compliance and then the country has a chance of another 50% of prosecutions being fair. Alternatives could be providing audio transcripts of all material but this doesn’t solve the long-term problem of illiterate prisoners hoping for rehabilitation and release.

Jeremy Bamber is suggesting prosecutions aren't fair if those prisoners who committed the crimes are illiterate yet he admits to not having had any problems with reading and understanding his case papers?

I do not see the point in this blog nor do I understand it's relevance?

[Mendoza]

Having read Jeremy Bamber's recent blog about his memories of time on remand I'd like to ask him why he hasn't written about his memories of time on remand and appears to have digressed, writing instead about prisoners who cannot read or write. What has this got to do with his innocence campaign/Anniversary?

Can anyone else see how he avoids the obvious?

He begins:

"Something which I have been thinking about a lot recently is the fact that while I was held on remand I was able to read through much of the very limited 'disclosed' documentation on my case. If you’re charged with a crime you’ll need to read the charge sheet and indictment, your own statement or transcripts of interviews for signing, all statements against you and forensic reports both for and against your innocence. This material might be quite extensive and require many hours of reading. Forensic and legal documents often contain technical language, which can be difficult to follow without specialist knowledge or a dictionary. I was fortunate enough to be able to do this but for many people charged with criminal offences it’s not an option because they cannot read and write.

http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/on-30th-anniversary-of-jeremys.html

No mentions again of his family members who have been murdered.
No mention of his fears regarding his forthcoming trial?
No mention of his innocence?
And no mention of reading statements by, for example Julie Mugford, and not agreeing with her statements?

He then goes on to write:

"In today’s society there’s always help available for people with disabilities such as partial vision or hearing difficulties and similarly if you can’t read or write you should be able to ask for someone to read it to you. The problem is that the vast majority of people charged with crimes who are not literate will not tell anyone about it. This means that the situation arises where many people have no idea of the detailed charges against them and this places greater difficulty on formulating a defence strategy. The bigger issue of course is that some people go through police interviews facing often very serious charges, and end up tried and convicted without really knowing the many factors of how this came about. Imagine not knowing the reasons why you were convicted, maybe wrongly, of serious crimes and imprisoned for even the shortest period or as long as whole life sentence.

Most people faced with criminal charges will have a solicitor who will explain in layman's terms the charges against them and who will also explain in layman's terms anything the person arrested doesn't understand. I therefore do not agree with what he has written.

I further would like him to explain what he means when he states 'formulating a defence strategy?' What about telling the truth? Or are these his projections?

What examples can he give of someone having been convicted, maybe wrongly, of serious crimes and imprisoned and them not knowing why they have been convicted?

I think this whole piece is yet more smoke and mirrors and only serves to show him in a poor light to people like me who believes he is a con artist.


And the following makes no sense at all:

"This can also have impact on the victims of crime because admission of guilt by the perpetrator often helps victims to understand what happened to their loved one. Many of the accused won't understand the nature of the evidence against them and will not make confessions, where as if they had been able to read they might have done. Confessions also help the prisoner to rehabilitate and work towards better prison conditions and long-term objectives of building a new life on release.

In other words Jeremy Bamber is suggesting prisoners do no confess to their crimes because they cannot read or write? What a load of twaddle.

Is this his attempt at showing empathy to the victims of crime?

He concludes:

"Being able to read and write should be one of the basic human rights, every citizen should have. Prisoners should never be prosecuted until they are literate – hold them on remand and teach them how to read and write, and hold the prosecution until they can. It’s simple, some will simply delay but the prison system has ways to encourage compliance and then the country has a chance of another 50% of prosecutions being fair. Alternatives could be providing audio transcripts of all material but this doesn’t solve the long-term problem of illiterate prisoners hoping for rehabilitation and release.

Jeremy Bamber is suggesting prosecutions aren't fair if those prisoners who committed the crimes are illiterate yet he admits to not having had any problems with reading and understanding his case papers?

I do not see the point in this blog nor do I understand it's relevance?

I agree Stephanie, it seems he is trying to make himself look empathetic by concerning himself with other's problems. I remember when he wrote about being a "peer partner" and helping prisoners to read and write, he took pains to emphasise that he was able to do this because he showed empathy. IMO this was an attempt to persuade those who care that he was not a psychopath, because as we all know, psychopaths do not have empathy. Remember the psychiatrist called by the defence at trial who concluded that "if ever there was a psychopath, it is Jeremy Bamber".

[Stephanie]

I agree Stephanie, it seems he is trying to make himself look empathetic by concerning himself with other's problems. I remember when he wrote about being a "peer partner" and helping prisoners to read and write, he took pains to emphasise that he was able to do this because he showed empathy. IMO this was an attempt to persuade those who care that he was not a psychopath, because as we all know, psychopaths do not have empathy. Remember the psychiatrist called by the defence at trial who concluded that "if ever there was a psychopath, it is Jeremy Bamber".

Totally... However, he appears to not comprehend; or at least his conclusions are way off and/or misleading..

I've also noticed how Dr Dennis Eady is now a Patron of the JB campaign. http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/patrons-and-supporters

The same Dr Dennis Eady who wrote about SH's confession http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6640.msg301326.html#msg301326

http://thejusticegap.com/2013/09/keeping-perspective/

I learned recently that the Innocence Project; namely Dr Michael Naughton, wrote to SH after his confession and gave him (SH) 2 weeks to reply back to them about the confession; presumably also questioning the validity of the confession?

At the time of SH's confession, Dr Naughton was SH's representative. SH did not have a solicitor.

It was over a week after I'd emailed Dr Naughton about SH's confession when he telephoned me and strangely he never mentioned said letter. What he did say was that he never wanted to hear the name 'Simon Hall' again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-23630287

'Dr Michael Naughton told how he received a letter last week from Hall's wife Stephanie telling him her husband had admitted the murder and asking him to close the case down.
"We are not shocked - we are alive to the possibility that a lot of people who say they are innocent are not.
"We are looking for needles in haystacks in our project.
"It is quite sad in terms of the waste of resources and the distress to (Mrs Albert's) family members when it turns out like this."
And the "thousands of hours" Bristol law students have spent on the Hall case, said Dr Naughton, could easily have been spent on "somebody else's case".


Dr Eady may well be a Patron to the JB campaign but it does not make JB innocent nor imo does it appear Dr Eady, and people like him, have learned much since the confession of SH. To quote Dr Naughton,
"a lot of people who say they are innocent are not"


Eady writes: "Simon Hall’s confession has brought these thoughts back into focus for me. I am not saying that his confession is false, but I am saying that if it is I can just begin to understand why he may have made it. I am not suggesting that I can begin to imagine what miscarriage of justice victims really go through: the sense of injustice, the loss of freedom and life, the pressure from psychology and offender management personnel to admit guilt. We know that extreme psychological pressure can produce false confessions and even false memories.

False comfort
We know also that people who have been damaged psychologically and emotionally can self destruct and they sometimes do this just at the time things are beginning to look more hopeful for them. We know of the difficulties victims of injustice face even (some say even more so) when and if they are finally cleared – the high rates of psychological problems, drink and drug abuse and the shocking number of early deaths. Most people with serious illnesses or disabilities fight to maintain their lives; occasionally some have just had enough and literally lose the will to live. It is far from inconceivable that victims of miscarriages of justice can reach a parallel psychological position and lose the will to fight.

The confession of guilt – true or not – in such a high profile case, believed for many years by many people to be an obvious miscarriage of justice, is of course potentially immensely damaging to innocent people fighting their case, as so many do with incredible courage and tenacity. It plays into the hands of those who would wish to cover up injustice and hide behind disingenuous reasoning and it reassures the public with a false comfort that all is well, when in reality much is seriously wrong.

I hope however that no one will be deterred from supporting miscarriage of justice cases by Simon Hall’s apparent confession and that it will not be used to justify more judicial and bureaucratic intransigence.

Despite my somewhat presumptuous attempts to try to explain why this might have happened and why we must be cautious of how it is interpreted, the most important thing for everyone involved in trying to resolve miscarriages of justice is to know that this is, as far as I can see, an unprecedented event.

[Steve_uk]

I suppose Jeremy's supporters would claim that he was trying to promote understanding of and ingratiate himself with the genre of people he associates with and whom he has now known for thirty years. If he is a true psychopath he has no need to justify his crimes to himself, but did attempt a justification to others, apparently telling Julie Nevill was ill and June was mad, Sheila was mentally ill and the twins were bound to grow up damaged in their mother's care. Did Jeremy truly believe he was doing Colin a favour by disposing of his sons in order for the former to gain regular employment, did Jeremy ever think of his times of playing Lego with Suzette's children, or did this just bring everything into focus when the twins climbed up onto the tractor that last day, that these were not his children. In fact did Jeremy ever transcend the notion of sex without commitment, or was he by that stage so damaged by his upbringing that like other serial killers before him the only way out was the slaughter of his family?

[notsure]

Imo Stephanie you too have done exactly what you are accusing jb of doing. You have digressed from jb not really talking about the issues you feel he sshould be talking about when on remand to Dr m caughtons comments. .

I don't really understand what you expect from people like dr m caughton. Should we not have anyone supporting ,
miscarriages of justice .

He works hard for people like sh and jb because he believes in thier innocence. You don't . What is it you want to happen.?

[Stephanie]

Imo Stephanie you too have done exactly what you are accusing jb of doing. You have digressed from jb not really talking about the issues you feel he sshould be talking about when on remand to Dr m caughtons comments. .

I don't really understand what you expect from people like dr m caughton. Should we not have anyone supporting ,
miscarriages of justice .

He works hard for people like sh and jb because he believes in thier innocence. You don't . What is it you want to happen.?

Hi Notsure,

You cannot possibly compare me to Jeremy Bamber, I'm not a murderer, convicted or otherwise!

Furthermore I'm not aware of Michael Naughton supporting Jeremy Bamber's innocence, unless you know otherwise?

This isn't personal Notsure, though I sense from your point of view it is?

I've merely posted my opinion with regards my interpretation of the latest blog.

[lookout]

I agree Stephanie, it seems he is trying to make himself look empathetic by concerning himself with other's problems. I remember when he wrote about being a "peer partner" and helping prisoners to read and write, he took pains to emphasise that he was able to do this because he showed empathy. IMO this was an attempt to persuade those who care that he was not a psychopath, because as we all know, psychopaths do not have empathy. Remember the psychiatrist called by the defence at trial who concluded that "if ever there was a psychopath, it is Jeremy Bamber".

Who are you to disagree/argue against that of Egan who clearly found JB free from psychopathy or any other mental health issues ?

[Stephanie]

Who are you to disagree/argue against that of Egan who clearly found JB free from psychopathy or any other mental health issues ?

Professor Egan is no different from any other 'expert' in that he isn't infallible.

[lookout]

Professor Egan is no different from any other 'expert' in that he isn't infallible.

Same goes for judges in their summing up.

[Stephanie]

I don't really understand what you expect from people like dr m caughton. Should we not have anyone supporting ,
miscarriages of justice .

He works hard for people like sh and jb because he believes in thier innocence. You don't . What is it you want to happen.?

Furthermore I'm not aware of Michael Naughton supporting Jeremy Bamber's innocence, unless you know otherwise?

"The innocence movement itself has been in a state of disarray following the 2014 disbanding of the umbrella group Innocence Network UK. Its outspoken founder Dr Michael Naughton unilaterally pulled the plug on the scheme, accusing some universities of jumping on the bandwagon, using projects as “a recruiting tool” to attract students to their courses and playing lip service to its main mission of overturning convictions.
But before that, some universities had abandoned the network over concerns about a lack of democratic accountability, and a genuinely radical and exciting project had become mired in infighting.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/apr/27/university-innocence-projects-where-are-they-now

"This summer the INUK disbanded after a unilateral decision by its founder Dr Michael Naughton, and the movement is in disarray. He said: “The reality is that a lot of universities have jumped on the bandwagon because it’s sexy and they can use it as a recruiting tool.” The problems faced by INUK are many and varied – Cardiff Law School, for example, withdrew over concerns about its lack of democracy.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/11/wrongful-convictions-murder-dwaine-george-innocence-movement


I have to say I agree with Dr Naughton. It appears many people/organisations are getting involved with cases they really know nothing about (Especially in light of the fact they do not appear to be learning from past mistakes) and their motives for doing so are questionable.


"IMPORTANT NOTE: As of May 2016, Innocence Network UK (INUK) is no longer operational. However, this website will remain for the foreseeable future for the contribution that it may have in educating about wrongful convictions and in assisting efforts for wrongful convictions to be overturned.http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/

[Stephanie]

Who are you to disagree/argue against that of Egan who clearly found JB free from psychopathy or any other mental health issues ?

Professor Egan is no different from any other 'expert' in that he isn't infallible.

Same goes for judges in their summing up.

and for Jeremy Bamber...

[Stephanie]

"In today’s society there’s always help available for people with disabilities such as partial vision or hearing difficulties and similarly if you can’t read or write you should be able to ask for someone to read it to you.

Now where have I heard that before? https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/

How does someone like Jeremy Bamber (And SH) know about 'today's society." Bamber has not been a part of 'today's society' for over 30 years - yet we are taken in when he makes statements like this.

"Today's society" is full of people who think nothing of manipulating others for their own ends. These types of people exploit others for the fun of it. They enjoy causing divides and get a thrill out of the power it gives them....

For Jeremy Bamber's reference, in "Today's society" there isn't always help available for people with disabilities such as partial vision or hearing difficulties; nor if you can’t read or write is there someone immediately available to read it to you.

I'm still unsure of the point of Bamber's blog and wondered if anyone could explains this for me..?

Is he hoping the "Inside Times" magazine may pick up on it and print it so that others prisoners will see it?

[David1819]

I'm still unsure of the point of Bamber's blog and wondered if anyone could explains this for me..?

He is saying that while on remand he was fortunate enough to be able to read the material of the case brought against him.  I was fortunate enough to be able to do this but for many people charged with criminal offences it’s not an option because they cannot read and write.

He then goes on about the problems of facing charges if you cannot read or write.
The bigger issue of course is that some people go through police interviews facing often very serious charges, and end up tried and convicted without really knowing the many factors of how this came about.


He then goes onto say that prisoners who cannot read or write wont be able to understand the evidence against them, and as a result some will think its worth while protesting innocence.
Many of the accused won't understand the nature of the evidence against them and will not make confessions, where as if they had been able to read they might have done.


The whole blog post is about the importance of being able to read.

[Stephanie]

He is saying that while on remand he was fortunate enough to be able to read the material of the case brought against him.  I was fortunate enough to be able to do this but for many people charged with criminal offences it’s not an option because they cannot read and write.

He then goes on about the problems of facing charges if you cannot read or write.
The bigger issue of course is that some people go through police interviews facing often very serious charges, and end up tried and convicted without really knowing the many factors of how this came about.


He then goes onto say that prisoners who cannot read or write wont be able to understand the evidence against them, and as a result some will think its worth while protesting innocence.
Many of the accused won't understand the nature of the evidence against them and will not make confessions, where as if they had been able to read they might have done.


The whole blog post is about the importance of being able to read.

Ta David, but do you not agree that his opening statement is misleading?

But to clarify; as you and Bamber have confirmed - he had no problems reading nor understanding the charges against him.. He was clearly able to read and even had the forethought of having the opportunity to "formulate a defence strategy" prior to his trial.

[Stephanie]

He is saying that while on remand he was fortunate enough to be able to read the material of the case brought against him.  I was fortunate enough to be able to do this but for many people charged with criminal offences it’s not an option because they cannot read and write.

He then goes on about the problems of facing charges if you cannot read or write.
The bigger issue of course is that some people go through police interviews facing often very serious charges, and end up tried and convicted without really knowing the many factors of how this came about.


He then goes onto say that prisoners who cannot read or write wont be able to understand the evidence against them, and as a result some will think its worth while protesting innocence.
Many of the accused won't understand the nature of the evidence against them and will not make confessions, where as if they had been able to read they might have done.


The whole blog post is about the importance of being able to read.

So that also blows Eric Allison's 'blueprint' theory wide open https://prisonwatchuk.com/2015/11/26/guardians-eric-allison-miscarriages-of-justice/

Jeremy Bamber states:

"Something which I have been thinking about a lot recently is the fact that while I was held on remand I was able to read through much of the very limited 'disclosed' documentation on my case. If you’re charged with a crime you’ll need to read the charge sheet and indictment, your own statement or transcripts of interviews for signing, all statements against you and forensic reports both for and against your innocence. This material might be quite extensive and require many hours of reading. Forensic and legal documents often contain technical language, which can be difficult to follow without specialist knowledge or a dictionary. I was fortunate enough to be able to do this but for many people charged with criminal offences it’s not an option because they cannot read and write.