Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest2181 on March 12, 2015, 09:39:PM
-
One curiosity I have, is who pays for the research, legal expertise and experts fees?
I have no idea about legal aid, but I'd be surprised if Jeremy was entitled to it for any submissions to the CCRC, maybe only if the CCRC sent the case to the court of appeal.
So who pays?
The last person to represent Jeremy, was, I believe, working for free, perhaps with a view to potentially obtain fees through legal aid further down the line.
There were all sorts of American experts who provided opinions in the last round of submissions to the CCRC, I can't see them working for nothing.
He has no family to support him either.
Is it all funded by donations? Who would donate, has anybody on the forum done so?
As I say, it's just a curiosity, maybe I've over estimated how much these things actually cost. :-\
-
Hartley I do believe Jeremy is funded by donations only and he does receive them from his supporters quite substantial ones I believe. I am led to believe his Campaign Team are preparing submissions without legal help I read this on a site I was a member of and the guy posting the information said he was busy preparing submissions now whether things have changed since then which was late last year I don't know cannot remember his name but he is a member of the Campaign Team. I think Jeremy may have a new Legal Team since all that last year following the departure of Simon MacKay.
-
I do know that Robinson publishers paid for Herb's report as a good will gesture for Wilkes book. But Herb was limited because he was not aware of all the facts, meaning he did not have all the crime scene photographs to work on. I do believe that he had said that he had spent enough time of this and that if he was go any further he would have to be paid extra for the work.
No one works for nothing, so this makes it extremely difficult for those who are incarcerated who protest their innocence.
Money talks and if you have none then, then its not very good...
Legal aid is not available in most cases today.....the government have tightened its belt.
I don't know if anyone is funding Jeremy, I would think he is reliable on funds to help support his case and make new submissions to the CCRC. Who funds him I have no idea. I suppose if you are clever enough and in the know, then anyone can make a submission to the CCRC? I doubt you have to be a qualified solicitor these days. If a firm can gain some publicity, then that firm might take on the case pro bono. IMO....that is. ;D
-
Hartley I do believe Jeremy is funded by donations only and he does receive them from his supporters quite substantial ones I believe. I am led to believe his Campaign Team are preparing submissions without legal help I read this on a site I was a member of and the guy posting the information said he was busy preparing submissions now whether things have changed since then which was late last year I don't know cannot remember his name but he is a member of the Campaign Team. I think Jeremy may have a new Legal Team since all that last year following the departure of Simon MacKay.
I think you are right Susan...Great post btw. ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, both are good posts.
Okay, let's take it away from the Bamber case a bit, when JB put his case to the ECHR, there were two other whole life tariff convicts who were grouped together, the other two were not controversial with regards to their guilt and they were pretty nasty crimes. Who funded their bids, donations?
-
Yes, both are good posts.
Okay, let's take it away from the Bamber case a bit, when JB put his case to the ECHR, there were two other whole life tariff convicts who were grouped together, the other two were not controversial with regards to their guilt and they were pretty nasty crimes. Who funded their bids, donations?
I don't know and that is a good question. Vinter and Moore as you say have admitted their guilt...but who foot the bill????? It was nothing to do with Jeremy's solicitor, but an old friend who had represented him from the past....I cannot recall his name, but if you tell me, I will remember it..he was a young lad.
-
Supporters do Hartley. When I first joined this forum, a certain person I was close to was being asked to donate to have some U.S tests done - the fee was astronomical.
-
Supporters do Hartley. When I first joined this forum, a certain person I was close to was being asked to donate to have some U.S tests done - the fee was astronomical.
what tests where they?
-
what tests where they?
I'm not 100% sure, so I shouldn't guess - but if I had to pick something I would say I was 60% sure it was tests to prove a silencer was not fitted.
-
I have read that some tests were funded through compensation that Jeremy had received via injuries sustained after the glassing incident. That money would probably have come out of the prison funds for injuries that occur on the premises.
Jeremy was also reimbursed for the theft of a" Gameboy" or similar. He also saves so much from an allowance that prisoners receive,but that wouldn't be a great fortune. Other than that,I wouldn't know the financial side of who pays what.
-
One curiosity I have, is who pays for the research, legal expertise and experts fees?
I have no idea about legal aid, but I'd be surprised if Jeremy was entitled to it for any submissions to the CCRC, maybe only if the CCRC sent the case to the court of appeal.
So who pays?
The last person to represent Jeremy, was, I believe, working for free, perhaps with a view to potentially obtain fees through legal aid further down the line.
There were all sorts of American experts who provided opinions in the last round of submissions to the CCRC, I can't see them working for nothing.
He has no family to support him either.
Is it all funded by donations? Who would donate, has anybody on the forum done so?
As I say, it's just a curiosity, maybe I've over estimated how much these things actually cost. :-\
There is no legal aid for CCRC submissions. Simon McKay acted pro bono, both in relation to the submissions to the CCRC and the subsequent Judicial Review application. If the CCRC had rerred the case to the Court of Appeal legal aid would have been granted automatically, as it was for the 2002 appeal.
The reports from the pathologists in New York and the burns expert in Arizona were paid for using donations.
-
Yes, both are good posts.
Okay, let's take it away from the Bamber case a bit, when JB put his case to the ECHR, there were two other whole life tariff convicts who were grouped together, the other two were not controversial with regards to their guilt and they were pretty nasty crimes. Who funded their bids, donations?
The ECHR application was I believe covered by legal aid, although I am not 100% sure about that.
-
I have read that some tests were funded through compensation that Jeremy had received via injuries sustained after the glassing incident. That money would probably have come out of the prison funds for injuries that occur on the premises.
Jeremy was also reimbursed for the theft of a" Gameboy" or similar. He also saves so much from an allowance that prisoners receive,but that wouldn't be a great fortune. Other than that,I wouldn't know the financial side of who pays what.
All funded by donations.
-
All funded by donations.
Thanks for that,ngb. They must think that Jeremy's cause is worth fighting for.
-
Thanks for that,ngb. They must think that Jeremy's cause is worth fighting for.
As long as they don't ask too many questions about what the money is for! ;)
-
As long as they don't ask too many questions about what the money is for! ;)
What else could he do with the money?
-
What else could he do with the money?
He could donate it to Red Nose Day. ;D
-
He could donate it to Red Nose Day. ;D
Heroin? ;)
-
David if you were gifting a person a large amount of money surely you would be within your rights asking what it was to be used for it certainly was not going to be used for stamps or writing paper.
-
What else could he do with the money?
That's not what I meant. Sometime last year, a member of the Red Forum (Daisy) posted that after donating to the cause and supporting JB for a number of years, when she dared to ask where the money would be spent; Jeremy turned on her.
-
I suppose anything which is said to further people's hatred for Jeremy,is worth a try. :o To me,it was a typical tongue-in-cheek job.
It reminded me of those women who think they've met the " ideal partner/husband " and who is stranded abroad without funds,so these stupid women actually send money ? ::)
Would ANYONE with an ounce of sense,send a fortune to anyone not knowing what it was for ?
More money than sense,springs to mind.
Why wasn't the matter reported as a case for extortion ? The cops would have had a field day with someone already in prison.
-
I suppose anything which is said to further people's hatred for Jeremy,is worth a try. :o To me,it was a typical tongue-in-cheek job.
It reminded me of those women who think they've met the " ideal partner/husband " and who is stranded abroad without funds,so these stupid women actually send money ? ::)
Would ANYONE with an ounce of sense,send a fortune to anyone not knowing what it was for ?
More money than sense,springs to mind.
Why wasn't the matter reported as a case for extortion ? The cops would have had a field day with someone already in prison.
I'm not certain that "sense" comes into the equation where loneliness, desperation and love are concerned.
-
I suppose anything which is said to further people's hatred for Jeremy,is worth a try. :o To me,it was a typical tongue-in-cheek job.
It reminded me of those women who think they've met the " ideal partner/husband " and who is stranded abroad without funds,so these stupid women actually send money ? ::)
Would ANYONE with an ounce of sense,send a fortune to anyone not knowing what it was for ?
More money than sense,springs to mind.
Why wasn't the matter reported as a case for extortion ? The cops would have had a field day with someone already in prison.
She didn't send a fortune to him, she didn't give him the £4,000.00 that he asked for. She asked why he wanted it and he became insulting. She did exactly what you're suggesting she should have done and you're still criticising her.
She wasn't interested in Jeremy romantically, she's an older lady and is already married.
-
Hello lookout from what I know about the incident the lady and her husband had donated money to Jeremy for years on this occasion he asked for rather a large amount and she questioned him what he required the money for and he went ape and needless to say she withdrew her support. All I can add lookout I believe this incident did happen but to what degree the whole matter has been exaggerated I know not.
-
Hello lookout from what I know about the incident the lady and her husband had donated money to Jeremy for years on this occasion he asked for rather a large amount and she questioned him what he required the money for and he went ape and needless to say she withdrew her support. All I can add lookout I believe this incident did happen but to what degree the whole matter has been exaggerated I know not.
I think this may be exadurated. I'm sure if questioned Jeremy could come up with a good answer if true or not regardless
-
David how would we know I read the whole of the lady's story and she appeared very upset at the way Jeremy had spoken to her yet I have corresponded with another who was close to Jeremy and was told Daisy did not exist but to confuse matters more I spoke with another who said she did exist. So the best thing is to kinda keep an open mind about the incident.
-
David how would we know I read the whole of the lady's story and she appeared very upset at the way Jeremy had spoken to her yet I have corresponded with another who was close to Jeremy and was told Daisy did not exist but to confuse matters more I spoke with another who said she did exist. So the best thing is to kinda keep an open mind about the incident.
Do you have link to where I can read the information?
-
She didn't send a fortune to him, she didn't give him the £4,000.00 that he asked for. She asked why he wanted it and he became insulting. She did exactly what you're suggesting she should have done and you're still criticising her.
She wasn't interested in Jeremy romantically, she's an older lady and is already married.
My late husband would have gone ballistic. In fact,I wouldn't have befriended Jeremy in the first place,unless he'd been a bona-fide close family member .
I could mention it to Jeremy and ask him what his game was.
-
She wasn't interested in Jeremy romantically, she's an older lady and is already married.
Since when does that stop anyone ::)
-
My late husband would have gone ballistic. In fact,I wouldn't have befriended Jeremy in the first place,unless he'd been a bona-fide close family member .
I could mention it to Jeremy and ask him what his game was.
Jeremy is a close family member to you? ???
You're lucky to be alive!!! ;)
-
Jeremy is a close family member to you? ???
You're lucky to be alive!!! ;)
No,he isn't a close family member,nor have I ever sent money and don't intend to.Why ?
Lucky to be alive ? Why ?
-
Since when does that stop anyone ::)
It might be difficult for some to take on board - but Jeremy is NOT irresistible. Daisy and her husband BOTH supported Jeremy until he crapped on them from a great height!
-
No,he isn't a close family member,nor have I ever sent money and don't intend to.Why ?
Lucky to be alive ? Why ?
Nevermind. :P
-
My late husband would have gone ballistic. In fact,I wouldn't have befriended Jeremy in the first place,unless he'd been a bona-fide close family member .
I could mention it to Jeremy and ask him what his game was.
His game was obviously to get Daisy to contribute to the US tests and when she questioned him (I mean how dare she) he chucked his toys out of the pram.
-
David Daisy told her story on the Red forum so you would need to be a member there to read the link.
-
David,the saga is on this forum if you search for Daisy-------------it's all there.
-
David,the saga is on this forum if you search for Daisy-------------it's all there.
No, only one side of it is here, the side where she was more or less called a liar when it was clear she was no such thing.
-
hi lookout did not know her whole story was here I remember we discussed it or should I say argued about it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D we could not understand why she did not post on Blue but Aunt A was very supportive of her and brought the story over. ;D
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3187.0
Here, David.
-
Thanks for that,ngb. They must think that Jeremy's cause is worth fighting for.
Yes.
-
Supporters do Hartley. When I first joined this forum, a certain person I was close to was being asked to donate to have some U.S tests done - the fee was astronomical.
Was that a member of the forum Mat?
-
As long as they don't ask too many questions about what the money is for! ;)
To the best of my knowledge all money raised has been used to pay experts and those who have paid have done so for a specific purpose.
-
Was that a member of the forum Mat?
Yes, NGB. Last time I posted their name it was edited out - because they aren't a member here anymore so I guess it was frowned upon - but you're smart enough to work it out. :)
-
David how would we know I read the whole of the lady's story and she appeared very upset at the way Jeremy had spoken to her yet I have corresponded with another who was close to Jeremy and was told Daisy did not exist but to confuse matters more I spoke with another who said she did exist. So the best thing is to kinda keep an open mind about the incident.
She does exist Susan.
-
To the best of my knowledge all money raised has been used to pay experts and those who have paid have done so for a specific purpose.
I'm sure it has but I was referring to Daisy who when tapped for four grand and dared to ask why, was treated appallingly.
-
No, only one side of it is here, the side where she was more or less called a liar when it was clear she was no such thing.
Jeremy is a great guy so she has to be a liar...
-
Hi ngb I have since found out the person who told me she did not exist was quite wrong to say that :'( and I seem to remember I was not very nice to Daisy but I did apologise and it was accepted :)
-
Hi ngb I have since found out the person who told me she did not exist was quite wrong to say that :'( and I seem to remember I was not very nice to Daisy but I did apologise and it was accepted :)
Who told you she didn't exist? I always thought it was clear she did exist, as she had the support of AA who is closer to Bamber than most.
-
Yes, NGB. Last time I posted their name it was edited out - because they aren't a member here anymore so I guess it was frowned upon - but you're smart enough to work it out. :)
Yes, I think I know who you mean. i know that person was prepared to provide some money to fund additional tests.
-
I'm sure it has but I was referring to Daisy who when tapped for four grand and dared to ask why, was treated appallingly.
I understand.
-
i know who daisy is i wont say but its pretty obvios when you read the thread.
-
I understand that Jeremy had been fleeced a couple of times by those who were willing to cash-in on anything he'd requested to be done to help him with his fight. I'd imagine that he'd have felt ashamed at having been conned and would have been in no mood to have seen good money wasted.
I'm afraid IF that had been me on the receiving end,I'd have given him short shrift and I certainly would have demanded an explanation for such behaviour,if it had occurred.
I wouldn't have told the world and his dog before I'd thrashed the matter out with him.
-
Mat I think you are smart enough to work it out who told me :) Who was on the forum and had contact with Jeremy and I was in constant contact with ;D
-
Mat I think you are smart enough to work it out who told me :) Who was on the forum and had contact with Jeremy and I was in constant contact with ;D
Oh God, says it all!!! ;D ;D
-
Mat ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I understand that Jeremy had been fleeced a couple of times by those who were willing to cash-in on anything he'd requested to be done to help him with his fight. I'd imagine that he'd have felt ashamed at having been conned and would have been in no mood to have seen good money wasted.
I'm afraid IF that had been me on the receiving end,I'd have given him short shrift and I certainly would have demanded an explanation for such behaviour,if it had occurred.
I wouldn't have told the world and his dog before I'd thrashed the matter out with him.
HE'S been fleeced? Huh? ??? ??? ???
Have you actually read what Daisy said? She DID try and 'thrash it out with him' but he was just rude and arrogant. She came on the forum to warn others, she didn't have to but all she got for her trouble was to be denigrated. Even if you believe Jeremy is innocent, there is no escaping the shoddy way that he used this woman and then dropped her because she dared to question where HER money would be spent.
-
HE'S been fleeced? Huh? ??? ??? ???
Have you actually read what Daisy said? She DID try and 'thrash it out with him' but he was just rude and arrogant. She came on the forum to warn others, she didn't have to but all she got for her trouble was to be denigrated. Even if you believe Jeremy is innocent, there is no escaping the shoddy way that he used this woman and then dropped her because she dared to question where HER money would be spent.
Drugs?
-
What about the prosecution, how do they pay for their experts, do they get a budget, or is it just a bottomless pit?
There must obviously be some system in place to avoid abuse.
-
Drugs?
Why do you keep mentioning drugs? She knew it was being spent on the case - she wanted to know what aspect.
-
What about the prosecution, how do they pay for their experts, do they get a budget, or is it just a bottomless pit?
There must obviously be some system in place to avoid abuse.
Drugs? ;D (thought I would just hoy a random 'drugs' into the mix - seems to be the fashion ;D ;D).
-
Why do you keep mentioning drugs? She knew it was being spent on the case - she wanted to know what aspect.
Its possible maybe he owed the dealers inside 4k
Then why did he turn so sour and rude? Withdrawal symptoms!
-
Drugs? ;D (thought I would just hoy a random 'drugs' into the mix - seems to be the fashion ;D ;D).
Lol
-
Its possible maybe he owed the dealers inside 4k
Then why did he turn so sour and rude? Withdrawal symptoms!
I just told you - because she asked what it was for. Mat posted the link to her posts - it would be easier if you read them for yourself.
-
Its possible maybe he owed the dealers inside 4k
Then why did he turn so sour and rude? Withdrawal symptoms!
He may have believed that he was in control and this person was so much on HIS side that she would do anything for him . Her surprise turn around would have thrown him. It wasn't a situation he was accustomed to, he didn't know how to respond -adults would discuss and hopefully come to compromise, but emotionally, at least, he'd probably never got to be an adult- so he resorted to rude and childish behaviour. Interestingly, those are the behaviours he MAY have used on his parents when THEY questioned his need for money "loans."
-
He may have believed that he was in control and this person was so much on HIS side that she would do anything for him . Her surprise turn around would have thrown him. It wasn't a situation he was accustomed to, he didn't know how to respond -adults would discuss and hopefully come to compromise, but emotionally, at least, he'd probably never got to be an adult- so he resorted to rude and childish behaviour. Interestingly, those are the behaviours he MAY have used on his parents when THEY questioned his need for money "loans."
Or maybe he thought she didn't trust him and got offended?
-
Or maybe he thought she didn't trust him and got offended?
Is that normal behaviour for someone relying on public help and donations? Or more akin to a control freak who's nose has been pushed out of joint? She had every right to know where HER £4,000.00 pounds would be spent and he should have been more than willing to sit her down and explain.
-
David Jeremy had known the woman for years and years why would he think that.
-
Or maybe he thought she didn't trust him and got offended?
Surely then, after such a close friendship, he could have discussed it with her. Best NOT to show offence to someone who has previously been generous enough to provide one with an allowance, BEFORE finding out if one has real reason to do so, don't you think?
-
Surely then, after such a close friendship, he could have discussed it with her. Best NOT to show offence to someone who has previously been generous enough to provide one with an allowance, BEFORE finding out if one has real reason to do so, don't you think?
Well I don't think we know allot of the dynamics of the friendship they had and there are two sides to every story. Some people are more easily offended than others I don't think there is need to dig deep into this
-
Well I don't think we know allot of the dynamics of the friendship they had and there are two sides to every story. Some people are more easily offended than others I don't think there is need to dig deep into this
Do agree with you David
-
Well I don't think we know allot of the dynamics of the friendship they had and there are two sides to every story. Some people are more easily offended than others I don't think there is need to dig deep into this
Unless we start to look deeply we'll never understand WHY some take offence where others don't. It COULD put us in danger of becoming like Scipio, "who sees no reason to..................." and may rob someone of the opportunity to see the error of their ways ;) ;) ;D
-
Unless we start to look deeply we'll never understand WHY some take offence where others don't. It COULD put us in danger of becoming like Scipio, "who sees no reason to..................." and may rob someone of the opportunity to see the error of their ways ;) ;) ;D
Its not easy to discuss this in public without acknowledging who Daisy is and I don't believe that can be acceptable. :-\
-
Well I don't think we know allot of the dynamics of the friendship they had and there are two sides to every story. Some people are more easily offended than others I don't think there is need to dig deep into this
So you would give just any old con a monthly allowance? Or from his side, ask anyone for £4,000.00, to help in his campaign. The dynamics are easy to work out given his expectation of receiving four grand no questions asked - I can't find any excuse for people defending his behaviour over this. There is no excuse even if you think he's innocent.
-
Its not easy to discuss this in public without acknowledging who Daisy is and I don't believe that can be acceptable. :-\
We don't need to know 'who' she is at all and have no right to. I know that what she said is true - I'll leave others to make yet even more excuses for Jeremy Bamber.
-
We don't need to know 'who' she is at all and have no right to. I know that what she said is true - I'll leave others to make yet even more excuses for Jeremy Bamber.
Perhaps people want to still slate her, because that's better than admitting they were wrong in the first place and should be ashamed for ganging up like a pack of vultures in the first place in order to make even more Bamber excuses? :-\
-
I don't see how anyone can make excuses - because we have only heard one side of the story. Why should we assume what his side of the story is?
It is a bit like other mud slinging - it is very easy when the other side can not answer at all . Unless of course someone asks him.
-
So you would give just any old con a monthly allowance? Or from his side, ask anyone for £4,000.00, to help in his campaign. The dynamics are easy to work out given his expectation of receiving four grand no questions asked - I can't find any excuse for people defending his behaviour over this. There is no excuse even if you think he's innocent.
From what I read about Jeremy, he seems to have a similar personality to me :-\ I have upset many people but I never mean to do so and don't realise until someone tells me.
-
Perhaps people want to still slate her, because that's better than admitting they were wrong in the first place and should be ashamed for ganging up like a pack of vultures in the first place in order to make even more Bamber excuses? :-\
How can people judge if they only know half a story?
-
From what I read about Jeremy, he seems to have a similar personality to me :-\ I have upset many people but I never mean to do so and don't realise until someone tells me.
Hopefully not too similar...
How can people judge if they only know half a story?
Supporters seemed to do just that with their replies/posts about Daisy. ;D
-
Its not easy to discuss this in public without acknowledging who Daisy is and I don't believe that can be acceptable. :-\
If you go back to the first(?) page of the "Daisy" thread, when her fall out with Jeremy was initially discussed, my first post said that I'd like to hear both sides of the story.
-
We don't need to know 'who' she is at all and have no right to. I know that what she said is true - I'll leave others to make yet even more excuses for Jeremy Bamber.
Caroline you were one of his staunchest supporters and did exactly what you are accusing others of doing. Its great for you that you have "seen the light" and I think you will find that most people , even if he is innocent do not think he is a saint.
-
David I must remember not to disagree with you ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline you were one of his staunchest supporters and did exactly what you are accusing others of doing. Its great for you that you have "seen the light" and I think you will find that most people , even if he is innocent do not think he is a saint.
Fair point.
-
From what I read about Jeremy, he seems to have a similar personality to me :-\ I have upset many people but I never mean to do so and don't realise until someone tells me.
We also have to remember it is considered perfectly acceptable to publicly accuse him of death threats apparently even when he has no legal recourse.
-
Perhaps people want to still slate her, because that's better than admitting they were wrong in the first place and should be ashamed for ganging up like a pack of vultures in the first place in order to make even more Bamber excuses? :-\
Possibly! This was someone who was actively trying to help Jeremy, not just sorting through old case notes on an internet forum - someone who had put her money where her mouth was (literally). You would imagine that people would want to support her and at least acknowledge the shoddy treatment she received but then they might have to admit that there's another side to Jeremy!!
-
Hopefully not too similar...
Supporters seemed to do just that with their replies/posts about Daisy. ;D
Some probably do and on the other hand some guilters may be biased as well but whatever happened if JB is innocent it would not be the least surprising if he's a difficult person and even has developed a personality disorder. If I remember rightly AA said he was not the person he used to be when she knew him back in the early days, wouldn't think 30 years in prison improves many people behaviour.
-
I am not even sure that in most cases it is even making excuses for Jeremy - it is more looking at the evidence available and the interpretations. A lot of the character assassination is counteracted by for example Jean the family housekeeper who never saw any family arguments . Is that an excuse ? Or just looking at peoples statements and motives for their evidence?
Is it an excuse to say a phone call could have happened ( until proven otherwise) ?
Is it an excuse to point out there was no forensics linking him to the crime?
I could go on.
-
From what I understand, Jeremy Bamber is a thoroughly horrible individual.
-
Caroline you were one of his staunchest supporters and did exactly what you are accusing others of doing. Its great for you that you have "seen the light" and I think you will find that most people , even if he is innocent do not think he is a saint.
Everyone was initially sceptical because it wouldn't have been the first time that people have lied here (nor the last). However, once it was obvious that she was genuine, people still stuck the boot in and there are some here who refuse to hear anything remotely negative about Jeremy.
-
We also have to remember it is considered perfectly acceptable to publicly accuse him of death threats apparently even when he has no legal recourse.
Because he's been accused convicted of more than just 'threats'.
-
Some probably do and on the other hand some guilters may be biased as well but whatever happened if JB is innocent it would not be the least surprising if he's a difficult person and even has developed a personality disorder. If I remember rightly AA said he was not the person he used to be when she knew him back in the early days, wouldn't think 30 years in prison improves many people behaviour.
To be institutionalised for this long HAS to change anyone's behaviour. I don't care who they are. I honestly don't know how Jeremy has coped.
-
From what I understand, Jeremy Bamber is a thoroughly horrible individual.
Tsk !!?
-
I am not even sure that in most cases it is even making excuses for Jeremy - it is more looking at the evidence available and the interpretations. A lot of the character assassination is counteracted by for example Jean the family housekeeper who never saw any family arguments . Is that an excuse ? Or just looking at peoples statements and motives for their evidence?
Is it an excuse to say a phone call could have happened ( until proven otherwise) ?
Is it an excuse to point out there was no forensics linking him to the crime?
I could go on.
I made excuses in respect to the phone call - I argued that it could have happened when I had REAL doubts about it.
There is a MASS of circumstantial evidence (even if you don't believe the silencer) and it's an excuse to deny it exists because he was convicted on it.
-
Tsk !!?
Indeed.
-
To be institutionalised for this long HAS to change anyone's behaviour. I don't care who they are. I honestly don't know how Jeremy has coped.
I thought prison was intended to change peoples' behaviours :D
-
Hopefully not too similar...
Two people on separate occasions have said they can imagine me being serial killer ???
However both individuals where not the brightest of people
-
I thought prison was intended to change peoples' behaviours :D
Only if you take part in rehabilitation 0 Jeremy can't because he has never admitted to his crimes.
-
Indeed.
Yes-----------------indeed.
-
Only if you take part in rehabilitation 0 Jeremy can't because he has never admitted to his crimes.
We have increasing suicides in prison, particularly by young people, don't believe it helps them.
-
Only if you take part in rehabilitation 0 Jeremy can't because he has never admitted to his crimes.
That's a problem for those that really are innocent :-\
-
Only if you take part in rehabilitation 0 Jeremy can't because he has never admitted to his crimes.
Oh dear!!!
-
Two people on separate occasions have said they can imagine me being serial killer ???
However both individuals where not the brightest of people
There must have been a reason for a remark like that ?
-
From what I understand, Jeremy Bamber is a thoroughly horrible individual.
ive people who say that ive people who say the receverse a matter of opinion i suppose.
-
There must have been a reason for a remark like that ?
Not particularly flattering.I'd have kept my mouth shut,rather than being proud to admit something like that.
-
We have increasing suicides in prison, particularly by young people, don't believe it helps them.
I don't think you really need to remind me of this?
-
ive people who say that ive people who say the receverse a matter of opinion i suppose.
Maybe more a matter of perspective.
-
From what I understand, Jeremy Bamber is a thoroughly horrible individual.
I have also seen statements from people who say that is not true . Quite recently actually .So personally I can not comment on that .
-
I have also seen statements from people who say that is not true . Quite recently actually .So personally I can not comment on that .
I obviously have a somewhat unique perspective, but I won't argue with your point.
-
There must have been a reason for a remark like that ?
immature girls that believe TV Drama stereotypes I think
-
Jan I have heard it said he is not a very nice individual but I have also heard he is a very charming person I am wondering if he can turn on the charm when required I was recently told by a person who has been working with him and he said he did not like him but hey ho maybe Jeremy did not like him either ;D
-
I don't think you really need to remind me of this?
I hope you don't think I was being personal because that was not my intention and I apologise if my post seemed insensitive, I was thinking of the alarming rise in suicides by young men in prison since this government came to power.
-
I hope you don't think I was being personal because that was not my intention and I apologise if my post seemed insensitive, I was thinking of the alarming rise in suicides by young men in prison since this government came to power.
It's OK, I realise you weren't being personal.
-
Jan I have heard it said he is not a very nice individual but I have also heard he is a very charming person I am wondering if he can turn on the charm when required I was recently told by a person who has been working with him and he said he did not like him but hey ho maybe Jeremy did not like him either ;D
Sounds very much like a psychopath
-
Sounds very much like a psychopath
Exactly!
-
Sounds very much like a psychopath
Not necessarily.
-
Psychopaths are clever,Jeremy wasn't. Who do you know who commits 5 murders and leaves tons of evidence ?? ::)
-
Exactly!
Psychopaths can be innocent you know. If he is innocent it could well explain his behaviour after they died and why people suspected him.
For argument sake if he is innocent or guilty his behaviour at the funeral will be the same in either way as psychopaths have to play an act
-
Psychopaths are clever,Jeremy wasn't. Who do you know who commits 5 murders and leaves tons of evidence ?? ::)
I thought you said there was no evidence? ;D ;D ;D ;D Psychopaths are cunning and manipulative, they don't all have PhD's!
-
Psychopaths can be innocent you know. If he is innocent it could well explain his behaviour after they died and why people suspected him.
For argument sake if he is innocent or guilty his behaviour at the funeral will be the same in either way as psychopaths have to play an act
I think it would be a coincidence too far.
-
pschopaths are not neccasraly clever.
i guilty or innocent nothing about Jeremy behavior suggests hes that intelligent to me.
-
I think it would be a coincidence too far.
Not really. His character traits made people too suspicious, its plausible
1% of the population are on the psychopathy spectrum
-
pschopaths are not neccasraly clever.
i guilty or innocent nothing about Jeremy behavior suggests hes that intelligent to me.
I agree Nugs!
-
Psychopaths can be innocent you know. If he is innocent it could well explain his behaviour after they died and why people suspected him.
For argument sake if he is innocent or guilty his behaviour at the funeral will be the same in either way as psychopaths have to play an act
Like the Philpotts ? Aww,now they were beside themselves ,on the tv news. ::) And if you believed that,you'll believe anything !! Isn't that the way you're supposed to act,floods of tears,when you've lost all your family ?
Jeremy was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.!
-
Not really. His character traits made people too suspicious, its plausible
1% of the population are on the psychopathy spectrum
How many of the 1% have all members of their family murdered?
-
I agree Nugs!
Who was it who said that surgeons,lawyers,judges,etc etc,were psychopaths because they are clever people ?
-
How many of the 1% have all members of their family murdered?
Very few. But if he is a psychopath his behaviour would be the same after the deaths weather guilty or not
-
Who was it who said that surgeons,lawyers,judges,etc etc,were psychopaths because they are clever people ?
Psycopathy does not make mean your clever. You can have smart psychopaths and dumb psychopaths
-
Psychopaths are clever,Jeremy wasn't. Who do you know who commits 5 murders and leaves tons of evidence ?? ::)
That depends on how you're defining "clever."
-
Who was it who said that surgeons,lawyers,judges,etc etc,were psychopaths because they are clever people ?
That has more to do with their desire to get to the top of their chosen tree and the risks they may be prepared to take in order to get there.
-
Nothing clever in knowing you'll be caught. ;D
-
That has more to do with their desire to get to the top of their chosen tree and the risks they may be prepared to take in order to get there.
Didn't Jeremy think that way too-----------risks and all ?
-
Nothing clever in knowing you'll be caught. ;D
I imagine he believed himself capable of outwitting the average plod. Certainly his whole attitude to authority suggested that to be the case, "That is for you to prove" being the piece de resistance.
-
I imagine he believed himself capable of outwitting the average plod. Certainly his whole attitude to authority suggested that to be the case, "That is for you to prove" being the piece de resistance.
What do you think Dr Robert Hare would make of Jeremy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare)
-
What do you think Dr Robert Hare would make of Jeremy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare)
I think that, as a case study, Jeremy would be a tantalizing prospect for many psychologists. The problem is that Jeremy's permission may have to be sought prior to such an examination. He may not be keen to be subjected to such. A refusal might be telling, though.
-
I think that, as a case study, Jeremy would be a tantalizing prospect for many psychologists. The problem is that Jeremy's permission may have to be sought prior to such an examination. He may not be keen to be subjected to such. A refusal might be telling, though.
he might go ahead you know he has nothing to lose
-
Who was it who said that surgeons,lawyers,judges,etc etc,were psychopaths because they are clever people ?
I never heard that but Shakespeare's, "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is classic.
-
I never heard that but Shakespeare's, "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is classic.
It was a study that sais psychopaths where more likely to become Surgeons, Lawyers and Judges ect
It does not say they where all psychopaths
-
I think some of this is quite true:
"Psychopaths make their way by conning people into doing things for them; obtaining money for them, prestige, power, or even standing up for them when others try to expose them. But that is their claim to fame. That's what they do. And they do it very well. What's more, the job is very easy because most people are gullible with an unshakable belief in the inherent goodness of man.
Manipulation is the key to the psychopath's conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy, and many of them study the tricks that can be employed by the empathy technique. Psychopaths are often able to incite pity from people because they seem like "lost souls" as Guggenbuhl-Craig writes. So the pity factor is one reason why victims often fall for these "poor" people.
Psychologist Robert Hare cites a famous case where a psychopath was "Man of the Year" and president of the Chamber of Commerce in his small town. (Remember that John Wayne Gacy was running for Jaycee President at the very time of his first murder conviction!) The man in question had claimed to have a Ph.D. from Berkeley. He ran for a position on the school board which he then planned to parlay into a position on the county commission which paid more.
At some point, a local reporter suddenly had the idea to check up on the guy - to see if his credentials were real. What the reporter found out was that the only thing that was true about this up and coming politician's "faked bio" was the place and date of birth. Everything else was fictitious. Not only was the man a complete impostor, he had a long history of antisocial behavior, fraud, impersonation, and imprisonment. His only contact with a university was a series of extension courses by mail that he took while in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. What is even more amazing is the fact that before he was a con-man, he was a "con-boy." For two decades he had dodged his way across America one step ahead of those he had hoodwinked. Along the way he had married three women and had four children, and he didn't even know what had happened to them. And now, he was on a roll! But darn that pesky reporter!
When he was exposed, he was completely unconcerned. "These trusting people will stand behind me. A good liar is a good judge of people," he said. Amazingly, he was right. Far from being outraged at the fact that they had all been completely deceived and lied to from top to bottom, the local community he had conned so completely to accrue benefits and honors to himself that he had not earned, rushed to his support!
What kind of psychological weaknesses drive people to prefer lies over truth?
This may have something to do with what is called Cognitive Dissonance. Leon Festinger developed the theory of Cognitive Dissonance in the 50's when he apparently stumbled onto a UFO cult in the Midwest. They were prophesying a coming world cataclysm and "alien rapture." When no one was raptured and no cataclysm he studied the believers response, and detailed it in his book "When Prophecy Fails." Festinger observed:
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.
It seems that part of the problem has to do with ego and the need to be "right." People with a high "need to be right" or "perfect" seem to be unable to acknowledge that they have been conned. "There is no crime in the cynical American calendar more humiliating than to be a sucker." People will go along with and support a psychopath, in the face of evidence that they have and ARE being conned, because their own ego structure depends on being right, and to admit an error of judgment would destroy their carefully constructed image of themselves.
Even more amazing is the fact that when psychopaths do get exposed by someone who is not afraid to admit that they have been conned, the psychopath is a master at painting their victims as the "real culprits."
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
-
Who was it who said that surgeons,lawyers,judges,etc etc,were psychopaths because they are clever people ?
Errrm, don't think that was me!!
-
Nothing clever in knowing you'll be caught. ;D
Criminals don't commit crimes knowing they will be caught (they THINK they have crossed the t's and dotted the i's) - you always forget that you are looking at things with the benefit of hindsight!
-
Criminals don't commit crimes knowing they will be caught (they THINK they have crossed the t's and dotted the i's) - you always forget that you are looking at things with the benefit of hindsight!
So Jeremy didn't think he'd be caught with the TONS of evidence he'd left behind ? ::)
-
So Jeremy didn't think he'd be caught with the TONS of evidence he'd left behind ? ::)
He would have believed his intellect superior to that of the average Essex plod. Naturally he didn't believe he'd be caught.
-
He would have believed his intellect superior to that of the average Essex plod. Naturally he didn't believe he'd be caught.
You mean with ALL the evidence which was left behind,that he didn't believe he'd be caught ? You must be joking.
-
You mean with ALL the evidence which was left behind,that he didn't believe he'd be caught ? You must be joking.
So, too, are you, if you're implying that ANYONE commits and leaves a crime scene KNOWING they've left evidence behind. It's hindsight which produces evidence.
-
What about the prosecution, how do they pay for their experts, do they get a budget, or is it just a bottomless pit?
There must obviously be some system in place to avoid abuse.
The prosecution can instruct whatever experts they wish, In practice they are advised by prosecution counsel and they invariably take their advice.
-
You mean with ALL the evidence which was left behind,that he didn't believe he'd be caught ? You must be joking.
Muddy bike,bloody clothes,black eyes, burns,cuts and grazes,open windows,fingerprints everywhere,big muddy footprints,a file,silencer,buckled rifle,high on drugs,blood in his car,stolen jewellery hanging out of his pockets,safe opened,paintings in his car boot ready to flog,along with all the silver. Sooo greedy. ::) A thief,liar,fraud,psychopath,sociopath,murderer------------and his girlfriend didn't know as she was the innocent bystander who'd never done wrong.
Then grease round his mouth from eating a hearty breakfast of bacon,egg,sausage,mushrooms,tomatoes ( equates to a hearty breakfast in my books ),as he was interviewed by the police.
This is how I've been reading it for the past 3 years.
-
I obviously have a somewhat unique perspective, but I won't argue with your point.
Can you elaborate on that, I am quite curious? "Horrible person" can be said about a lot of people and is a very general term.
-
Can you elaborate on that, I am quite curious? "Horrible person" can be said about a lot of people and is a very general term.
I imagine Hartley means that he has met people who knew Jeremy and has heard stories we aren't party to.
-
I imagine Hartley means that he has met people who knew Jeremy and has heard stories we aren't party to.
I know. Would be interesting to hear what those people have said.
-
I imagine Hartley means that he has met people who knew Jeremy and has heard stories we aren't party to.
Harters is smart in not falling into the trap of recounting negative tales about Jeremy. Far too many Jeremy supporters want to make this a battle over whether he was a good guy unlikely to kill or a bad guy who would be likely to kill.
Basing a trial on prior bad acts and an in depth look at character is intentionally not permitted. The trial is supposed to be about the evidence itself that proves the case not one's character.
Harters has kept his analysis and opinions on the facts where they belong.
Even if he posts negative tales just to provide information not for use in debating there will be people on both sides of the aisles trying to find a way to use such accounts to their advantage and they will craft a debate around other such things instead of the evidence that matters.
-
At last a common sense post . You can not trial a man by character alone.
And there are testimonies that I have seen recently from people who know him in the past who say they feel guilty for not standing by him in the past.
But you are wrong about supporters on here thinking he is some kind of saint - because if you took the time to read posts , people will readily admit they have never met him and don't know him at all . That is not why they support him.
What they don't agree with is the constant character assassination to prove a point. Because it does nothing of the sort.