Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on September 14, 2021, 09:47:PM
-
Is/Was Jeremy a predator? Steve prompts this question, so let's consider it.
In what follows, we assume Jeremy is guilty because we are trying to work out what makes him tick as a killer and this only makes sense on the predicate that he did it. If the predicate turns out to be false, then this thread will just have been a potentially interesting intellectual exercise (or not, as the case may be).
To say that Jeremy committed the killings because he was/is a predator is to espouse a theory. We'll call it the Predation Theory. For a number of reasons, I am sceptical of the Predation Theory.
I don't have the time to compose a lengthy thought piece about it, which ideally I would have liked, and most of this will be fairly summary, but I will do my best. The first thing to look at is a definition of 'predator' and ensure we have a shared understanding of what criminal predation is.
I will try to keep it simple and say that a predator in the non-sexual criminal sense is someone who commits whatever crime for gain. The gain could be non-monetary, such as the criminal attempting to change his general situation in life or end certain relationships, but I would assume we are mostly concerned here with monetary and financial gain in the broadest sense.
1. I believe the first factor to consider is that Jeremy has been assessed by prison psychologists as non-psychopathic. I am heavily sceptical of psychology itself as a discipline (at least in its claims to be scientific) and of psychopathy (anti-social personality disorder) as a discrete concept, but the fact is that Jeremy has sat in front of somebody with experience of evaluating violent criminals and this expert says Jeremy does not have the collection of personal attributes that go to make up the 'psychopath'-type personality disorder. Even if you can dismiss the exercise as not particular rigorous, would you expect someone with a psychopath-type personality to be able to fool experts with direct experience of the personality type? This, on its own, undermines the Predation Theory because a predatory killer is, by definition, a psychopath. That is not to say that criminal psychopathy and criminal predation are synonymous, but it is hard to imagine the latter without the former. Thus, we are left with a more complex picture because the question of what Jeremy's motives could have been remains open, and how much his motives were guided or influenced by monetary considerations is unclear.
It may of course be true that just because Jeremy is not a psychopath now, that does not mean that the killings were non-predatory, as Jeremy could have changed psychologically over the years and may have outgrown psychopathy and developed greater conscience and empathy. Who knows? Yet psychologists tell us that psychopathy is deeply-ingrained psychically: in effect, genetically-determined. Let us also consider the fact that Jeremy has now spent the majority of his life in high security prisons, a very unpleasant environment in which it is unlikely he will have grown any healthy empathy.
2. The second factor to consider is that Jeremy put himself through a polygraph examination and in the opinion of the polygraph examiner, he was truthful. Again, this is awkward because I am sceptical about polygraphology. Yet I am not an expert, and experts across the criminal justice system seem to give polygraphs credence. It is also awkward because if you are not sceptical as I am, then you have to be honest with yourself and ask how a guilty man could pass such a test with flying colours.
What we can say is that, at the very least, Jeremy has been able to present himself as a truthful person to an expert with experience of making a precise assessment of an offender's physical responses to a high stress situation in which his truthfulness is being examined, using micro-physiological measurements. Given that we already know Jeremy is not a psychopath (see 1 above), we can exclude that as an explanation for Jeremy's coolness under pressure. That leaves us with the need to explain how a non-predatory offender could pass such an examination. I think the explanation can only be either he was telling the truth but the questions were deliberately-designed in such a way to allow him to pass, or he was lying in response to whatever he was asked that could be incriminating.
The problem with the former explanation is that, whatever one thinks about the science underpinning it, the test itself was bona fide. The polygraph examiner is, it appears, an honest man who is knowledgeable and credible within his profession. This further undermines the idea of Jeremy as a predator. Predators are calculating and would not typically allow themselves to be put in an ad hoc and unpredictable scenario in which their dubious narrative is stress-tested. A non-predatory offender, on the other hand, might take his chances and just lie to see if he can get away with it: what does he have to lose? A lot, but does he think it through?
3. The third factor is to do with what I see as the flaws in the inheritance motive for the killings. Jeremy was not a potential rocket scientist, but equally we cannot say he was stupid or uncouth. He must have known that farmers are not passively wealthy. Nevill Bamber was only nominally a country gentleman: in reality, he was a working farmer and the value of the estate depended on work. Jeremy must have known this and would have had some idea about what inheriting an estate of that size involved, and he showed this in the aftermath of the death when he was busying selling-off items of value so as to raise cash. He must have known that in killing his entire family, he would have to do the following:
- commit himself to farming to the satisfaction of the trustees, or lose the main farm;
- commit himself to farming anyway, otherwise the farm's value would rapidly decline due to loss of goodwill, and could be difficult to sell. A farm has less value idle or neglected, sometimes even nil value where, as here, there was no main freehold asset;
- live at the farmhouse, a boring life with Julie, forgoing nightclubbing and there would be less socialising with Brett. Must keep up appearances;
- share control of the holiday park with the relatives. It was a close company, so it would not have been easy to dispose of his shares;
- work with and liaise with other business partners and interests, such as North Maldon Growers;
- dispute and argue over the estate with relatives, who would want to contest aspects of it, something Jeremy must have anticipated.
There is no such thing really as a passive asset or passive wealth. All asset wealth involves a degree of management, and in the case of farming and residential landlording, there is work to be done, risks to be taken, and insight and commercial judgement are needed. Are we saying Jeremy killed off his family so that he could become a hard working farmer and businessman in Nevill's stead? Or do we accept that the inheritance motive is not as compelling as it looks at first glance?
4. Supporters of the Predation Theory may argue for a more sophisticated version of the inheritance motive: that Jeremy was not necessarily killing just for money and wealth, what he really wanted was freedom from his family. It was a change of scene he wanted. In this idea, the money is just a means for freedom but not the real motive in itself, and enough was needed to buy a smallholding in Dorset (as Jeremy discussed with somebody). Jeremy really just wanted rid of his family. This idea, and its variations, make no sense because if Jeremy wanted his freedom, it was easy: he just had to leave. There was no need to kill anybody. If he needed money to leave, he could have come to an arrangement at some point with his father and mother. The idea of killing his family does not square with it.
5. Finally - for now - I believe certain factors about the execution of the killings point to a lack of considered premeditation on Jeremy's part (what I call 'counter-rationalisation'). I don't have time to go through all the points, and I did this before on a previous thread, but one of the obvious ones is the phone calls. That looks like a planned aspect, but I would argue it only seems planned in retrospect and is in fact the result of Jeremy's lack of planning, which may in turn indicate that the killings were not premeditated.
-
It was the women involved who were the predators.
-
From what I have read, Bamber was a bit of a ladies man. Although nothing spectacular for a man in his 20's.
He didn't have the free time, finances or status to be classed as a play boy.
This resulted in him being with Julie for 18 months. A plain looking woman who he met at work. Rather than someone glamourous from a London disco.
He wanted to change the above & quickly set about doing it after the massacre.
-
On the contrary, he was ( ironically ) going to enjoy his freedom from the shackles of the women who had their claws in him.
-
On the contrary, he was ( ironically ) going to enjoy his freedom from the shackles of the women who had their claws in him.
I think it’s his biggest problem now Lookout, there are still women who have their claws in him, they’re driven on by the fact of his notoriety, Some believe they can change a mass murderer, others probably see him as the handsome playboy type little boy he once was and are still besotted with him, some would hope to have a relationship with him, hoping this would give them the media spotlight attention they’ve always craved.
Take that bit part actress Paula Williamson who married Charles Salvador (Charles Bronson) she couldn’t make it as an actress so she married him, gained her media attention and then split up, how the hell was that going to work in the first place.
But some do genially want to help him in the fact they think it’s a MOJ, but some think they actually own him once they’ve been in contact with him?
-
I think it’s his biggest problem now Lookout, there are still women who have their claws in him, they’re driven on by the fact of his notoriety, Some believe they can change a mass murderer, others probably see him as the handsome playboy type little boy he once was and are still besotted with him, some would hope to have a relationship with him, hoping this would give them the media spotlight attention they’ve always craved.
Take that bit part actress Paula Williamson who married Charles Salvador (Charles Bronson) she couldn’t make it as an actress so she married him, gained her media attention and then split up, how the hell was that going to work in the first place.
But some do genially want to help him in the fact they think it’s a MOJ
There wasn’t a bigger Predator than Ted Bundy, he even had these Groupies turn up at his trial, in my view they must have had a Sexual interest in him and probably got turned on by what he’d done, because he was as guilty as hell, yet they still supported what he’d done. I cannot think of any other reason in his case?
-
The predator was Mugford. She made it crystal clear that if she was dumped she would make sure no one would have Jeremy
Who on earth tries to smother there boyfriend because they have been dumped
Totally unhinged
-
From what I have read, Bamber was a bit of a ladies man. Although nothing spectacular for a man in his 20's.
He didn't have the free time, finances or status to be classed as a play boy.
This resulted in him being with Julie for 18 months. A plain looking woman who he met at work. Rather than someone glamourous from a London disco.
He wanted to change the above & quickly set about doing it after the massacre.
I think it is indisputable that Julie was plain by any objective-normative standard of beauty. That is not an insult of her really. Male sexuality is a bit more complex than often acknowledged. Men tend to be most attracted to the plain types. The subjectivity comes in how that alchemic attraction is combined and formed into a credible relationship. It could be instantaneous or gradual. It could be a glance, a look, a word. It could be a sublimation of feelings or longings for someone or something else. Some men try to turn it into a 'science' or other rigorous process - the Pick Up Artist phenomenon, certain therapeutic schools, aspects of sex science. The idea is to somehow simulate attraction based on the pure 'sex' of a person, but that is getting things the wrong way round. It can't be simulated. Attraction has to come first, and attraction is - I repeat - deeply subjective, alchemic, and sometimes, mysterious and inexplicable.
How did it happen with Julie?
One thing that is bothering me is that if we say Jeremy was a predator (and thus, probably a psychopath), why would he go with a plain girl and build a serious/semi-serious relationship with her? That doesn't really 'fit' with the idea that is being popularised about him and makes me further question the idea of Jeremy as a predator.
Or maybe it does fit? Maybe Julie was part of Jeremy's plan? But is that just too far-fetched?
I prefer to believe the attraction was genuine, but perhaps the unconscious drive behind the attraction to Julie was June, and Jeremy's antagonistic relationship with his adoptive mother bent him towards girls he thought June might approve of. Jeremy was still at the age when he might have wanted to impress June in order to placate her and pour cool water on her hot judgementalism, especially if this then presented a more favourable contrast to the wayward Sheila. Julie was June and June was Julie - only not in a strictly Freudian sense.
6. A further point I did not mention above but will now is that, in their early assessment of Jeremy, the prison authorities decided that his prison security category should be lowered. This was partly on the basis that his crime was seen as a 'one-off', so to speak, and he was considered not to be a predatory offender. I assume at this stage the closed decision by the Home Secretary to keep him in for the rest of his natural life had not been communicated to the relevant people. Relatives protested the re-categorisation, thus he has served out his term in high security prisons, a decision that seems not to take account of his presumed risk to the community.