What Happened To The Soil Samples?

[guest7363]

I think there is a difference between a kiss and tell book and discussing a patient.
I don't believe I would be happy if my doctor or specialist discussed anything about me with anyone unless it was professionally necessary and they had my consent.
JB may be a convicted prisoner but he still has the right of privacy.

Ha Ha, like that, privacy, a man who has had numerous books written about him, been in the news for 30 odd years, his innocent family been ridiculed and accusd on here, professionals giving their opinion, psychiatrists, police,  Barristers,solicitors, and your worried what a Shrink said to me, don't make me laugh.

[maggie]

Ha Ha, like that, privacy, a man who has had numerous books written about him, been in the news for 30 odd years, his innocent family been ridiculed and accusd on here, professionals giving their opinion, psychiatrists, police,  Barristers,solicitors, and your worried what a Shrink said to me, don't make me laugh.

I'm not trying to make you laugh justice, I am just giving my opinion from a neutral position. I'm not trying to pointscore, can't see the reason for that but I do think anyone who treated Jeremy Bamber or anyone else in prison or anywhere else in the capacity of a psychiatrist should not be discussing him with anyone.  I know we have heard statements during trial from various medical staff, also we've had the odd psychologist giving their opinion on him from distant observed behaviour, which I find a bit close to the line anyway but I don't recall anyone who has treated him in a personal capacity as a patient speaking out about him or discussing his behaviour, mindset etc.
No offence it's just an observation and I may be wrong, if I am I apologise to them.

[Jane]

I'm not trying to make you laugh justice, I am just giving my opinion from a neutral position. I'm not trying to pointscore, can't see the reason for but I do think anyone who treated Jeremy Bamber in prison in the capacity of a psychiatrist should not be discussing him with anyone.  I know we have heard statements during trial from various medicall staff, also we've had the odd psychologist giving their opinion on him from distant observed behaviour, which I find a bit close to the line anyway but I don't recall anyone who has treated him in a personal capacity as a patient speaking out about him or discussing his behaviour, mindset etc.
No offence it's just an observation and I may be wrong n g, if I am I apologise to them.

Actually, I'm inclined to think that Jeremy probably couldn't care less about who says what -it's all been said before and we're just getting repeats of repeats- after all ANY publicity is better than NO publicity. ANY publicity keeps him in the public eye.

[maggie]

Actually, I'm inclined to think that Jeremy probably couldn't care less about who says what -it's all been said before and we're just getting repeats of repeats- after all ANY publicity is better than NO publicity. ANY publicity keeps him in the public eye.

That is quite likely Jane but that's not really my point, I'm not particularly trying to protect JB, I am rather giving an opinion on the behaviour of professionals, imo it's not acceptable to break what is a confidence.

[Jane]

That is quite likely Jane but that's not really my point, I'm not particularly trying to protect JB, I am rather giving an opinion on the behaviour of professionals, imo it's not acceptable to break what is a confidence.

I take your point, Maggie, but it's not as if this person has been the first one to offer an opinion on him. I also feel if Jeremy has nothing to hide, there's no reason for not allowing access to his medical file, especially as he's demanding to see Sheila's AND those allegedly held by the police. Let's have ALL cards on the table, shall we? It could be a case of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours".

[susan]

That is quite likely Jane but that's not really my point, I'm not particularly trying to protect JB, I am rather giving an opinion on the behaviour of professionals, imo it's not acceptable to break what is a confidence.

Maggie I understand where you are coming from you are not trying to protect JB but I still say he is entitled to privacy and if he gives permission for a confidence to be broken that is OK it is the profession your post is aimed at.

[guest7363]

Actually, I'm inclined to think that Jeremy probably couldn't care less about who says what -it's all been said before and we're just getting repeats of repeats- after all ANY publicity is better than NO publicity. ANY publicity keeps him in the public eye.

I think because it's about Jeremy people don't like it, you only have to look online what psychiatrists write about murderers they have worked with.  Who cares what anyone says about a murderer anyway, he put himself in this position without thought for anyone else.  Hypercritical really, they spend half their life on here for gossip and would love to know what he says and does, what's in his mind, who's writing a book, who's doing the next documentary, delve into Sheila's past, mind, medicine, drugs, what the psychiatrist said about her etc and all they are bothered about is Bamber's privacy, yet no privacy for the poor family or the deceased.

As I said, it's because it's about Bamber that it upsets them.

[maggie]

I think because it's about Jeremy people don't like it, you only have to look online what psychiatrists write about murderers they have worked with.  Who cares what anyone says about a murderer anyway, he put himself in this position without thought for anyone else.  Hypercritical really, they spend half their life on here for gossip and would love to know what he says and does, what's in his mind, who's writing a book, who's doing the next documentary, delve into Sheila's past, mind, medicine, drugs, what the psychiatrist said about her etc and all they are bothered about is Bamber's privacy, yet no privacy for the poor family or the deceased.

As I said, it's because it's about Bamber that it upsets them.

I have said I'm not protecting JB, don't know if the above post is aimed at me. Even as a mod I have a very busy life away from the forum, I don't gossip or have any interest in his private life, I was merely voicing my concern about professional behaviour.  If posters consider I am wrong, that's fine, I'm not offended by that its all a matter of opinion really.

[lookout]

Speaking of psychiatrists,did anyone read about one of the top criminal psychiatrist's being hoodwinked ? It was in last weeks Daily Mail ?

[Jane]

I think because it's about Jeremy people don't like it, you only have to look online what psychiatrists write about murderers they have worked with.  Who cares what anyone says about a murderer anyway, he put himself in this position without thought for anyone else.  Hypercritical really, they spend half their life on here for gossip and would love to know what he says and does, what's in his mind, who's writing a book, who's doing the next documentary, delve into Sheila's past, mind, medicine, drugs, what the psychiatrist said about her etc and all they are bothered about is Bamber's privacy, yet no privacy for the poor family or the deceased.

As I said, it's because it's about Bamber that it upsets them.

Yes, Justice. Why should Jeremy, as a convicted murderer, be any more entitled to more privacy than any other convicted murderer whose psychological background is up for grabs? No one seems to give a toss about "all" those police personnel and A.N.Others who allegedly give information freely -allegedly highlighting his innocence- about what allegedly transpired at WHF. Why is it different when the boot is on the other foot?

[Caroline]

It makes it as credible as informant Z.

I know for a fact he's telling the truth so nothing like the Z informant.

[Caroline]

If people don't want to consider a clue then it's a free world.  If you check my posting history for the entire time I have been on the forum, there's a heavy bias towards probable innocence.  In terms of leading on the gullible - why is it one rule for you and a different rule for others?

There is a difference with what Justice has claimed, he has told the forum what the psychiatrist said, he simply isn't revealing there name. You claim you were told/shown evidence of Sheila's guilt but won't reveal what that evidence is; no one is asking you who told/showed it to you.

[maggie]

Yes, Justice. Why should Jeremy, as a convicted murderer, be any more entitled to more privacy than any other convicted murderer whose psychological background is up for grabs? No one seems to give a toss about "all" those police personnel and A.N.Others who allegedly give information freely -allegedly highlighting his innocence- about what allegedly transpired at WHF. Why is it different when the boot is on the other foot?

I think it's unfair to make out I was doing any such thing. I still think that ethically a murderer has the right of privacy from those medical staff who treat them the same as any other person. Imo it's about a decent society which treats all human beings equally and if I have a right to medical privacy, so should everyone else.  Just because some do not behave in a civilised way doesn't mean that we should stoop to their level.

[guest7363]

Yes, Justice. Why should Jeremy, as a convicted murderer, be any more entitled to more privacy than any other convicted murderer whose psychological background is up for grabs? No one seems to give a toss about "all" those police personnel and A.N.Others who allegedly give information freely -allegedly highlighting his innocence- about what allegedly transpired at WHF. Why is it different when the boot is on the other foot?

Unbelievable, what I've seen written on here Jane about Sheila, the family and the police, all innocent people.  I could understand it if she delved into his personal prison life, his behaviour in prison how he spends his day, she never delved about his psychology in anyway or any communication with him, as I have said, it was talked about within the family,  not shouted from the roof or on a forum, it's ME that's brought it to the forum, maybe I'm the one who has broken privacy, but guess what I'm not bothered one bit. Yet Bamber sanctions books, blogs and letters and can say what he wants about others and puts himself on a pedestal, but at the same time we have to respect his privacy. 

[lookout]

 A " passing through " psychiatrist can't evaluate any condition unless a person is in their particular care and has read medical records/prison records,etc. In other words,unless the psychiatrist that knows justice saw JB in a professional capacity,the definite answer to what he/she thinks isn't one which has required a full examination. This procedure is for forensic/criminal psychiatrists.