Author Topic: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:  (Read 14063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #150 on: January 07, 2017, 10:30:AM »
The first involved hard work. The second, involving a few minute's work, meant never having to work again.




In your mind. The killer was already in-situ at WHF,locked,bolted and shuttered in.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #151 on: January 07, 2017, 10:35:AM »



In your mind. The killer was already in-situ at WHF,locked,bolted and shuttered in.

Except I've turned this around every which way, Lookout -AND been ridiculed for so doing- whilst you made up your mind in 1985 and appear to have never looked at any other possibility.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #152 on: January 07, 2017, 10:41:AM »
Except I've turned this around every which way, Lookout -AND been ridiculed for so doing- whilst you made up your mind in 1985 and appear to have never looked at any other possibility.




So ? I didn't feel the need to study possibilities.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #153 on: January 07, 2017, 11:08:AM »



So ? I didn't feel the need to study possibilities.

Not according to what you have said in the past. You thought he was innocent from day one and have stuck to your guns.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #154 on: January 07, 2017, 11:13:AM »



So ? I didn't feel the need to study possibilities.

A really open minded person WOULD have examined it fully if only to ensure that there were no other possibilities. Not doing so, suggests fear of finding such.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #155 on: January 07, 2017, 11:20:AM »
Which could all be part of the motive like I said Jane?

This resonates with me Justice

"Most of their crimes are considered 'instrumental' - meaning they are committing the act for a specific reason. It tends to be planned, calculated and purposeful. They are not typically the group who will mindlessly commit a crime in a blind disorganised rage. They plotted, planned and possibly even stalked their victim. Getting away with it, cleaning up, and setting their alibi tends to be a part of such plans as well. Many of them will get away with their crimes. Quite a few can manipulate juries into believing their story and setting them free.

For instance a violent psychopath would easily commit violent crimes for the purpose of punishing and domonstrating power over their non psychopathic partner. There have been individuals who have killed their own children as a means of punishing their spouse. Her offence was filing for divorce and requesting sole custody. In his mind the lesson was necessary. He punished her for slighting him. He regained his power position and hurt her in the process. You might wonder where is his guilt for killing his own children. There will be none. It was the lesson taught to his wife that was important. The children were tools to convey his message and teach a lesson.

This is the coldness associated with a psychopathic crime. http://neuroinstincts.com/violent-psychopaths-and-crime/
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #156 on: January 07, 2017, 11:27:AM »
A really open minded person WOULD have examined it fully if only to ensure that there were no other possibilities. Not doing so, suggests fear of finding such.

Speaking of which, I've just posted the following.

This resonates with me Justice

"Most of their crimes are considered 'instrumental' - meaning they are committing the act for a specific reason. It tends to be planned, calculated and purposeful. They are not typically the group who will mindlessly commit a crime in a blind disorganised rage. They plotted, planned and possibly even stalked their victim. Getting away with it, cleaning up, and setting their alibi tends to be a part of such plans as well. Many of them will get away with their crimes. Quite a few can manipulate juries into believing their story and setting them free.

For instance a violent psychopath would easily commit violent crimes for the purpose of punishing and domonstrating power over their non psychopathic partner. There have been individuals who have killed their own children as a means of punishing their spouse. Her offence was filing for divorce and requesting sole custody. In his mind the lesson was necessary. He punished her for slighting him. He regained his power position and hurt her in the process. You might wonder where is his guilt for killing his own children. There will be none. It was the lesson taught to his wife that was important. The children were tools to convey his message and teach a lesson.

This is the coldness associated with a psychopathic crime. http://neuroinstincts.com/violent-psychopaths-and-crime/

And recall a post made by Steve in response to one of my posts where I suggested Bamber would have been raging at the time of the murders.

I take this back.

And for anyone who may be interested; I'm also now of the opinion SH stalked his victim prior to murdering her that morning. He never disclosed this following confession but I had confirmed from other disclosures his crime was pre-meditated.

I'd asked SH why JA. How did he know he wouldn't get caught. He told me she was always on her own. I had assumed he knew this from his mother. But he hardly spent any time with his mother. Therefore he must have stalked her in order to put his plan into action.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 11:33:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #157 on: January 07, 2017, 11:28:AM »
A really open minded person WOULD have examined it fully if only to ensure that there were no other possibilities. Not doing so, suggests fear of finding such.




I fear nothing and nobody,least of all being fearful of JB losing this time around. Maybe if it was a relative of mine,I might be concerned,though I can't say that for sure.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #158 on: January 07, 2017, 11:34:AM »



I fear nothing and nobody................................

That says much about you, Lookout...............

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #159 on: January 07, 2017, 11:41:AM »
That says much about you, Lookout...............




Good.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #160 on: January 07, 2017, 11:53:AM »



I fear nothing and nobody,least of all being fearful of JB losing this time around. Maybe if it was a relative of mine,I might be concerned,though I can't say that for sure.

Why do you always make things about you? You fear nothing and no one? so? What makes you think the rest of us do? Why would you be 'fearful' of JB losing? This won't affect you other than it would challenge your perceptions of his innocence (once again). The idea that you aren't 'concerned' when you defend him so vehemently is a contradiction.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #161 on: January 07, 2017, 12:00:PM »
Why do you always make things about you? You fear nothing and no one? so? What makes you think the rest of us do? Why would you be 'fearful' of JB losing? This won't affect you other than it would challenge your perceptions of his innocence (once again). The idea that you aren't 'concerned' when you defend him so vehemently is a contradiction.





It's not a contradiction at all,it was in answer to a very stupid term of me being " emotionally " involved-------which I'm not !! Yes,I hope all goes well for him,but I won't have an hysterical outburst if it doesn't.

As for being " all about me ",you're obviously blind to the fact that it's certainly NOT all about me.  ::)

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #162 on: January 07, 2017, 12:06:PM »




It's not a contradiction at all,it was in answer to a very stupid term of me being " emotionally " involved-------which I'm not !! Yes,I hope all goes well for him,but I won't have an hysterical outburst if it doesn't.

As for being " all about me ",you're obviously blind to the fact that it's certainly NOT all about me.  ::)

I know it's not about you! We'll have to disagree about your level of emotionality. However, I don't think it has to do with how you see Bamber, I just don't think you like being wrong and that is what you're defending.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #163 on: January 07, 2017, 12:17:PM »
I know it's not about you! We'll have to disagree about your level of emotionality. However, I don't think it has to do with how you see Bamber, I just don't think you like being wrong and that is what you're defending.





Can you blame me when I've studied 4 large cases in the past and been right about them ?
This one would be the icing on the cake--------for ME,not anyone else.

Cases studied : Lindy Chamberlain.

                       Eddie Gilfoyle.

                       Joanne Woodward.

                       Madeleine McCann.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #164 on: January 07, 2017, 12:29:PM »




Can you blame me when I've studied 4 large cases in the past and been right about them ?
This one would be the icing on the cake--------for ME,not anyone else.

Cases studied : Lindy Chamberlain.

                       Eddie Gilfoyle.

                       Joanne Woodward.

                       Madeleine McCann.

This post suggests x xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xx xxxx

Remind me which cases have been solved?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 12:29:PM by maggie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"