Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on May 02, 2015, 05:19:PM
-
https://youtu.be/bcTvqLk0MWU
-
Thanks Adam, LOTS of new photgraphs - I am copying them for the archives. :)
-
Thanks Adam, LOTS of new photgraphs - I am copying them for the archives. :)
Wont let me watch it on this browser, will have to swap over....
-
WOW so many new pictures, it´s a lot of work... wonder where they came from.
-
It's pretty cringey in places,especially when you know,or can see that it's a strained effort on the parts of the interviewees at times. A few porkies thrown in for good measure too.
-
I always knew there was a video which said Jeremy grinned at everyone after getting back into the funeral car.
There is also a video which says more about Jeremy's fight with Neville and his cycle journey home.
-
Have only just watched a couple of minutes but interesting - Is that Bews at the beginning ? Jeremy was begging them to go in? And he would not because there would be a lot of dead people or dead people and someone with a gun?
Why would he think that ? Jeremy never said a shot had been fired or that his sister could have shot them ?
Also interesting they thought NB had been forced downstairs hence the marks on his back - but on the forensics I have seen there were no corresponding marks on his pyjama top?
-
Good to see Stan Jones interviewed.
Surprising to see the Sun journalist interviewed. But good that he confirms Jeremy tried to sell pictures to the Sun.
-
Have only just watched a couple of minutes but interesting - Is that Bews at the beginning ? Jeremy was begging them to go in? And he would not because there would be a lot of dead people or dead people and someone with a gun?
Why would he think that ? Jeremy never said a shot had been fired or that his sister could have shot them ?
Also interesting they thought NB had been forced downstairs hence the marks on his back - but on the forensics I have seen there were no corresponding marks on his pyjama top?
Jan you have to stop supporting Jeremy.
That was the only thing said that supported Jeremy. Although it strangely said at the end there was only Julie and the silencer which convicted Jeremy. This is not the case which the programme highligted.
Di Stefano did his drama queen act at the end supporting Jeremy. Unconvincingly.
-
Di Stefano wasn't the only one acting !
-
JM looked soooo uncomfortable-----------which wasn't surprising.
-
Excellent docu and interesting to note that the highly respected Consultant Forensic Psychologist Kerry Daynes; agrees that he's a psychopath and the dodgy pretend solicitor thinks it's a conspiracy. I know who I'm backing. Well said kerry.
-
Have only just watched a couple of minutes but interesting - Is that Bews at the beginning ? Jeremy was begging them to go in? And he would not because there would be a lot of dead people or dead people and someone with a gun?
Why would he think that ? Jeremy never said a shot had been fired or that his sister could have shot them ?
Also interesting they thought NB had been forced downstairs hence the marks on his back - but on the forensics I have seen there were no corresponding marks on his pyjama top?
Because he was mulling over the 'possible' scenario's of what 'might' be waiting for them. It was his job to do so.
-
i found it a very intresting documentry.
-
i found it a very intresting documentry.
So did I.
-
Excellent docu and interesting to note that the highly respected Consultant Forensic Psychologist Kerry Daynes; agrees that he's a psychopath and the dodgy pretend solicitor thinks it's a conspiracy. I know who I'm backing. Well said kerry.
I would say that what the psychologist said refers to lots of people who aren't psychopaths.
Myself for instance-------who can shut off. That actually comes about from the discipline of training to be a nurse where you have to learn to shut off as soon as you leave a ward,etc.
A lot depends on the background of a person too as to how they react in given situations. I was also brought up in a strict household with the stiff upper-lip attitude to most things.
The trouble being,when you're let out of that atmosphere to go to a club,etc,you really let your hair down,so it comes as no surprise that both Sheila and Jeremy acted the way they did.It was a great adventure to see the nightlife after the stifling enclosure called home. The more you saw of it,the more you wanted.
-
I would say that what the psychologist said refers to lots of people who aren't psychopaths.
Myself for instance-------who can shut off. That actually comes about from the discipline of training to be a nurse where you have to learn to shut off as soon as you leave a ward,etc.
A lot depends on the background of a person too as to how they react in given situations. I was also brought up in a strict household with the stiff upper-lip attitude to most things.
The trouble being,when you're let out of that atmosphere to go to a club,etc,you really let your hair down,so it comes as no surprise that both Sheila and Jeremy acted the way they did.It was a great adventure to see the nightlife after the stifling enclosure called home. The more you saw of it,the more you wanted.
She wasn't talking about you or people that can shut off, she was talking about Psychopaths and Jeremy being a 'classic case'. Someone who fits almost ALL of the criteria.
-
Because he was mulling over the 'possible' scenario's of what 'might' be waiting for them. It was his job to do so.
I understand that - however having like you - read a lot - I was under the impression it was well into the night that Jeremy asked them to go in . Much later on.
He is making it clear it was when they got there - so before even they had had much time to evaluate the situation.
So we have JB trying to delay them getting there ( allegedly) then when they got there he is begging them to go in ? Which would then show immediately that they had not just been shot ?
-
This is not new.
This was first broadcast on sky2 in 2005. that's When I first heard of the case.
Jeremy complained to Ofcom lol
-
I understand that - however having like you - read a lot - I was under the impression it was well into the night that Jeremy asked them to go in . Much later on.
He is making it clear it was when they got there - so before even they had had much time to evaluate the situation.
So we have JB trying to delay them getting there ( allegedly) then when they got there he is begging them to go in ? Which would then show immediately that they had not just been shot ?
After telling them his sister was a nutter, that the house was full of guns and that she knew how to use them. It's pretty certain that they weren't going to storm on in there.
-
This is not new.
This was first broadcast on sky2 in 2005. that's When I first heard of the case.
Jeremy complained to Ofcom lol
Yes, I know, because Kerry Dayner considers him a psychopath. He did like it, I think she struck chord! I think he should volunteer to her her test him. ;)
-
This is not new.
This was first broadcast on sky2 in 2005. that's When I first heard of the case.
Jeremy complained to Ofcom lol
It's new to most people on here.
Posted on Youtube a few hours ago. With only 14 views.
-
This is not new.
This was first broadcast on sky2 in 2005. that's When I first heard of the case.
Jeremy complained to Ofcom lol
i thought that when i watched the end he sacked destefono years ago.
-
After telling them his sister was a nutter, that the house was full of guns and that she knew how to use them. It's pretty certain that they weren't going to storm on in there.
So how long after that did it take the firearms team to arrive and storm the place ?
-
So how long after that did it take the firearms team to arrive and storm the place ?
Well, Bews didn't indicate a time but the Raid team didn't hold back longer than usual in this case. Sieges can take a hell of a lot longer than it took in this instance.
-
the Dickinson report says there was a delay in communication that could not be explained - apparently the raid team should have got there earlier.
I think ( and I may be wrong) that JB denied he called her those names on the night he used the medical term . And I did not see that word used in the original note books - only September statements .
Not that it matters that much because I am sure that as we all know those kind of words were more used then - a bit like the words that the police used in derogatory terms about Brett and Jeremy - they are not PC now either .
I may have seen extracts of this video - I have not seen it all the way through.
-
Excellent docu and interesting to note that the highly respected Consultant Forensic Psychologist Kerry Daynes; agrees that he's a psychopath and the dodgy pretend solicitor thinks it's a conspiracy. I know who I'm backing. Well said kerry.
HAHAHA, I just knew you would say that- was waiting for it. I always know what you will say! ;D
I have added some photos to the photo thread (still need to add a lot). I don´t know if I am going mad, but there is a "new" photo of Sheila´s bloodied hand, a clearer one than the ones we had, but when I was about to put it in the archives, it was already there! Did someone else put it there, or am I doing things without knowing it!?
I deleted the one that was already there, so I can´t see when it was put there.
-
I understand that - however having like you - read a lot - I was under the impression it was well into the night that Jeremy asked them to go in . Much later on.
He is making it clear it was when they got there - so before even they had had much time to evaluate the situation.
So we have JB trying to delay them getting there ( allegedly) then when they got there he is begging them to go in ? Which would then show immediately that they had not just been shot ?
Excellent point!
-
Just want to add, there are a lot of new pictures, Jeremy as a child, a picture of one of the bathrooms, I don´t know which one, upstairs or downstairs. Photos of June and Nevill, Colin, a lot, Will add them some at a time, so keep an eye on the photo thread.
-
I felt really chocked when I saw David trying to hold back the tears when he was telling his story. I like Kerry Dayner, I have seen and watched her a lot over the past couple of years. However, her opinion is her opinion based on the fact that Jeremy is guilty and what she has been told.
I think the documentary was made is 1995 because the narrator mentioned 20 years on and Bamber is still protesting his innocence.
The other point I picked up on was the baby rats and how cutely small they were and that Jeremy had put the baby rats in his pocket and asked his mother to put her hand in the pocket. BW said this shocked her. So the rats were not placed in a bag on the back seat of her car at all.
The story tells of Bamber going off to buy a semi automatic rifle this was not the case his father bought the rifle for Jeremy his fathers name was on the licence.
Bews states that Jeremy was begging them to go in and based on what Bamber had told them about the guns he said there was no way he was going in. He also said that Bamber was worried.
David said there were tears at the funeral and I have always believed they were.
Many mistakes in the doco...but interesting nonetheless.
This is the hand shot they portrayed of Sheila at first I did not think it was her hand but it is. Her nails were very long indeed.
-
I felt really chocked when I saw David trying to hold back the tears when he was telling his story. I like Kerry Dayner, I have seen and watched her a lot over the past couple of years. However, her opinion is her opinion based on the fact that Jeremy is guilty and what she has been told.
I think the documentary was made is 1995 because the narrator mentioned 20 years on and Bamber is still protesting his innocence.
The other point I picked up on was the baby rats and how cutely small they were and that Jeremy had put the baby rats in his pocket and asked his mother to put her hand in the pocket. BW said this shocked her. So the rats were not placed in a bag on the back seat of her car at all.
The story tells of Bamber going off to buy a semi automatic rifle this was not the case his father bought the rifle for Jeremy his fathers name was on the licence.
Bews states that Jeremy was begging them to go in and based on what Bamber had told them about the guns he said there was no way he was going in. He also said that Bamber was worried.
David said there were tears at the funeral and I have always believed they were.
Many mistakes in the doco...but interesting nonetheless.
This is the hand shot they portrayed of Sheila at first I did not think it was her hand but it is. Her nails were very long indeed.
Yes it was made in 2005 I remember it first braodcast
David Boultflour mentions finding the moderator after the funeral? I thought they found it just a few days after the massacre ?
-
Yes it was made in 2005 I remember it first braodcast
David Boultflour mentions finding the moderator after the funeral? I thought they found it just a few days after the massacre ?
I meant 2005 David sorry. Did he say that? Must watch it again then. ;)
-
Yes it was made in 2005 I remember it first braodcast
David Boultflour mentions finding the moderator after the funeral? I thought they found it just a few days after the massacre ?
thats what i thought as well.
-
Here is the bathroom.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40873;image)
-
I felt really chocked when I saw David trying to hold back the tears when he was telling his story. I like Kerry Dayner, I have seen and watched her a lot over the past couple of years. However, her opinion is her opinion based on the fact that Jeremy is guilty and what she has been told.
I think the documentary was made is 1995 because the narrator mentioned 20 years on and Bamber is still protesting his innocence.
The other point I picked up on was the baby rats and how cutely small they were and that Jeremy had put the baby rats in his pocket and asked his mother to put her hand in the pocket. BW said this shocked her. So the rats were not placed in a bag on the back seat of her car at all.
The story tells of Bamber going off to buy a semi automatic rifle this was not the case his father bought the rifle for Jeremy his fathers name was on the licence.
Bews states that Jeremy was begging them to go in and based on what Bamber had told them about the guns he said there was no way he was going in. He also said that Bamber was worried.
David said there were tears at the funeral and I have always believed they were.
Many mistakes in the doco...but interesting nonetheless.
This is the hand shot they portrayed of Sheila at first I did not think it was her hand but it is. Her nails were very long indeed.
Kerry is a professional and highly respected in her field so it slightly more than simply a bog standard opinion. Plus 20 years on from 1985 is 2005 which is the year (our) David mentioned the docu was made.
-
Here is the bathroom.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40873;image)
I guess this is the downstairs bathroom Alias?
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40869;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4307;image)
For comparison, There seems to be more blood on the top picture, puzzling.
-
I guess this is the downstairs bathroom Alias?
Must be a damp patch under the window.
-
I felt really chocked when I saw David trying to hold back the tears when he was telling his story. I like Kerry Dayner, I have seen and watched her a lot over the past couple of years. However, her opinion is her opinion based on the fact that Jeremy is guilty and what she has been told.
I think the documentary was made is 1995 because the narrator mentioned 20 years on and Bamber is still protesting his innocence.
The other point I picked up on was the baby rats and how cutely small they were and that Jeremy had put the baby rats in his pocket and asked his mother to put her hand in the pocket. BW said this shocked her. So the rats were not placed in a bag on the back seat of her car at all.
The story tells of Bamber going off to buy a semi automatic rifle this was not the case his father bought the rifle for Jeremy his fathers name was on the licence.
Bews states that Jeremy was begging them to go in and based on what Bamber had told them about the guns he said there was no way he was going in. He also said that Bamber was worried.
David said there were tears at the funeral and I have always believed they were.
Many mistakes in the doco...but interesting nonetheless.
This is the hand shot they portrayed of Sheila at first I did not think it was her hand but it is. Her nails were very long indeed.
Notice how clean her hands were. No blood or staining.
-
That's how they talk around here. Didn't notice anything wrong with his eyes.
I did however notice the 'smirk' by JB on occasions. The one at the funeral was so obvious and his hand gesture was so blatantly put on...
I always like to look at things both ways and yes he looks uncomfortable - however he is 24 and the only member of his family left and has to acknowledge all the people who have attended to pay their respects - he probably did not know how to behave , how to greet people , how to thank them . He knew the cameras were there as well which does not normally happen at a funeral. Colin said at the time he noticed nothing unusual except he was odd in the car on the way back - he put it down to valium and possibly pot. In retrospect you can look at it both ways.
If those police were telling the truth and they were so sure he was acting odd and acting they should have spoken up immediately.
The doctor on the night was very concerned for Jeremy - he said at one stage he was in shock and he was not sure he should be interviewed - so take your pick.
-
A well-polished clip with an overview of events of the period,but anyone looking for more than the conventional truth will come away disappointed. Jeremy the psychopath,Colin the penniless arts student,June the psychotic and Sheila the paranoid schizophrenic.. in fact all depicted as hapless apart from the victors,who find the silencer conveniently in situ:no mention of the trick of the light, the bible suicide note and the photograph of Sheila added hurriedly as an afterthought to provide the balance which was surely lacking,as the white prison van speeds off to Wormwood Scrubs with Jeremy behind those iron grilles which always did exist in his mind,whether at the White House,Full Sutton or the dormitory of Gresham's School and provoking his bravado response in all of those locales as life continues unyieldingly for those left behind.
-
A well-polished clip with an overview of events of the period,but anyone looking for more than the conventional truth will come away disappointed. Jeremy the psychopath,Colin the penniless arts student,June the psychotic and Sheila the paranoid schizophrenic.. in fact all depicted as hapless apart from the victors,who find the silencer conveniently in situ:no mention of the trick of the light, the bible suicide note and the photograph of Sheila added hurriedly as an afterthought to provide the balance which was surely lacking,as the white prison van speeds off to Wormwood Scrubs with Jeremy behind those iron grilles which always did exist in his mind,whether at the White House,Full Sutton or the dormitory of Gresham's School and provoking his bravado response in all of those locales as life continues unyieldingly for those left behind.
you should write the prologue to Jeremys book when he gets out ;)
-
A well-polished clip with an overview of events of the period,but anyone looking for more than the conventional truth will come away disappointed. Jeremy the psychopath,Colin the penniless arts student,June the psychotic and Sheila the paranoid schizophrenic.. in fact all depicted as hapless apart from the victors,who find the silencer conveniently in situ:no mention of the trick of the light, the bible suicide note and the photograph of Sheila added hurriedly as an afterthought to provide the balance which was surely lacking,as the white prison van speeds off to Wormwood Scrubs with Jeremy behind those iron grilles which always did exist in his mind,whether at the White House,Full Sutton or the dormitory of Gresham's School and provoking his bravado response in all of those locales as life continues unyieldingly for those left behind.
I thought about all the misfits too.
-
Lol...
Do you think it is right that these officers appear in these films ? Personally I am surprised they contribute . They believe he is guilty , they have done their job - why on earth fuel the fire ?
-
I meant 2005 David sorry. Did he say that? Must watch it again then. ;)
what date was the funeral? Just wondered if they said it was after ,it might tie up with the document that Mike posted about reporting it in Sept ?
-
Do you think it is right that these officers appear in these films ? Personally I am surprised they contribute . They believe he is guilty , they have done their job - why on earth fuel the fire ?
I don't find it too strange. These are the men that proved Bamber guilty, their intelligence and honour is often brought into disrepute by supporters and Bamber in a public fashion - they have a story to tell, they were there, I find it interesting to be honest. The Yorkshire Ripper officers tell their stories too, not uncommon really.
-
Well they were criticised by the Dickinson report as well . But to remain professional I think they should just keep quiet and not glamorise the case . IMO of course.
-
I may of course re-assess that opinion when I have watched the whole video . :)
-
what date was the funeral? Just wondered if they said it was after ,it might tie up with the document that Mike posted about reporting it in Sept ?
Was it the 16th August?
-
not sure . well if it was then the silencer was found before then and already handed in.
-
Was it the 16th August?
Yes it was the 16th
-
Looks psychopathic ? More soft in the head to me,not altogether with us,in that last pic.
-
Looks psychopathic ? More soft in the head to me,not altogether with us,in that last pic.
Oh he was very much 'with us' he was smiling at the guy who took the picture in an arrogant defiant manner. To me, he certainly has the cold stare of a psychopath in many of his pictures.
-
Oh he was very much 'with us' he was smiling at the guy who took the picture in an arrogant defiant manner. To me, he certainly has the cold stare of a psychopath in many of his pictures.
Arrogance and defiance====Confidence. Something which nobody liked to see as it got their backs up.
Psychopathy has got nothing whatsoever to do with how a person looks. Going back a couple of hundred years,I have a pic of my mum's grannie's family and if ever you saw it,you'd think they'd all " escaped ".
Talk about the Adams family. Yet mum had told me that they were the lovliest and kindest people that she grew up with as a child. There are 8 of them with the same stare.It's like a horror film.
I remember as a child,an aunt of mine who resembled Ethel Barrymore,the actress,and she had " mad staring eyes " that put the fear of God into me as an 8 year old.
So looks are nothing to go by. Jeremy looks quite normal against the old pics that I've got.
-
I don't read much into those so-called professionals who can " see " psychopathy.
After the Professor Sir Roy Meadows debacle,I have a certain amount of mistrust for those who call themselves professionals. Meadows had been responsible for sending innocent women to prison,who,he'd said,had murdered their babies/children.
The pathologist in the Ian Tomlinson case,again,was supposedly a trusted and accredited forensic pathologist.
Both these men were struck off the medical register.
-
Thread now open.
-
Question for Harters: Is this the downstairs or the upstairs bathroom at WHF?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40873;image)
-
Must be downstairs, window and curtains correspond with this:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37229;image)
A strange placement of the toilet - the door cant open properly.
-
It was interesting that the narrator said 'despite all the evidence, he continued to protest his innocence'.
This suggests criminals who have a similar amount of incriminating evidence against them will confess.
There are lots of reasons he has not confessed. Being innocent the least likely.
-
Good to see Kerry Daynes agreeing that he's a classic case psychopath. Not sure why this comment was removed as it's part of the discussion on this video?
-
Good to see Kerry Daynes agreeing that he's a classic case psychopath. Not sure why this comment was removed as it's part of the discussion on this video?
Those comments will be placed back Caroline.
-
Good to see Kerry Daynes agreeing that he's a classic case psychopath. Not sure why this comment was removed as it's part of the discussion on this video?
It was also good to see Professor Sir Roy Meadows ( top paediatrician, influential and highly respected man of letters ) jailing those poor women " for murdering their children " .
Being struck off the medical register---------for being such an expert. ::)
-
It seems Jeremy would not have had a problem cycling to WHF.
He was used to June's bike as he used to cycle around her and taunt her on it.
What an appalling thing to do by Jeremy.
-
Professionals don't always get it right. Even after a life-time of medical practice.
-
It seems Julie could be right about Jeremy strangling rats to build up courage pre massacre.
He had no problems getting them. As BW testified and (an alive) June would testify.
What an appalling thing to do by Jeremy to his mother.
-
It seems Julie could be right about Jeremy strangling rats to build up courage pre massacre.
He had no problems getting them. As BW testified and (an alive) June would testify.
What an appalling thing to do by Jeremy.
BW also lied in her first statement - or her second - she said he was like a son to her - so which one is true and why did she change her mind?
-
It was interesting that Jeremy spent £6,000 in hotel bills straight after the massacre.
No wonder he then went straight to The Sun and tried to sell pictures of Sheila and sell his life story.
What an appalling thing to do by Jeremy.
-
Stan Jones was not convinced by Jeremy trying to be sick after hearing everyone was dead.
Julie said Jeremy was sometimes able to make himself sick by thinking about his dead dog.
-
As I said, I find it interesting that Stan Jones called Julie Mugford a fantastic witness because she "stuck to her story."
What did he mean by that?
-
I didn't know the police were spying on him in St Tropez.
I don't see the reason why. It was obvious why he was there. He was not going to do a runner as there was too much to sort out back in England.
-
The psychopathy talk was interesting. And suggests he is a psychopath.
Another psychiatrist in another video said he has Narcacisstic Immunity. Believing that by sheer force of personality he will make it work.
-
As I said, I find it interesting that Stan Jones called Julie Mugford a fantastic witness because she "stuck to her story."
What did he mean by that?
And because Jeremy doesn't " stick to his story ",he's the criminal.
-
I didn't know Jeremy told the police he had a very loving relationship with his family. The relatives heard this and knew that was not the case.
The relatives also heard him say unpleasant things about June. AE thinking Jeremy was going OTT.
-
It seems Julie could be right about Jeremy strangling rats to build up courage pre massacre.
He had no problems getting them. As BW testified and (an alive) June would testify.
What an appalling thing to do by Jeremy to his mother.
where is that bit then? Or do you mean just because he had pet rats? And played jokes on his mother ?
-
If I'd been Jeremy,I'd have drowned the damned things. That would have got the tongues wagging too.
-
Those comments will be placed back Caroline.
Ok cheers!
-
where is that bit then? Or do you mean just because he had pet rats? And played jokes on his mother ?
Yes. As I said he had no trouble getting and using them.
So perfectly believable what Julie said.
-
Yes. As I said he had no trouble getting and using them.
So perfectly believable what Julie said.
Try asking her husband how believable she was.
-
Just watched part of the video again and it's not David Boutflour that said they found the silencer after the funeral, it was the narrator and such programmes are notorious for getting things wrong. However, this is the first time I have heard him suggest that the silencer was 'sticky'!!
-
where is that bit then? Or do you mean just because he had pet rats? And played jokes on his mother ?
Where does it state that he had 'pet rats'? The video simply said 'baby rats' not that they were pets?
-
The reconstruction of the police passing Jeremy was amusing.
'If it had been going any slower, it would have stopped' said Bews.
-
Whenever I hear about Jeremy´s teasing his mother, I think about my cousins and my aunt (my mother´s sister). They kept taunting her, for instance, some holding her and two others sticking their bare toes in her face!!!
She was such a nice lady, I couldn´t understand why they were doing this, I thought it was horrible. We would never have dared to do anything like that to our mother.
All her children grew up to be "pillars of community", highly educated, highly successful, they were just weird teens!
-
Bews says the farmhouse is totally in darkness.
No wonder the police mistook Neville for a woman.
-
It says Jeremy drew a map for the police. With possible hiding places where Sheila could be waiting with a gun !
What a helpful chap.
-
Just watched part of the video again and it's not David Boutflour that said they found the silencer after the funeral, it was the narrator and such programmes are notorious for getting things wrong. However, this is the first time I have heard him suggest that the silencer was 'sticky'!!
Yes Caroline. I picked that up and wondered what he meant by it, especially as he went on to stress how tiny was the amount of blood. What would have caused it to be "sticky"?
-
Jones confirms with the 2002 appeal that Neville had shocking injuries.
And agrees with the judge that Neville put up a terrific struggle.
But Sheila was not marked.
-
Bews says the farmhouse is totally in darkness.
No wonder the police mistook Neville for a woman.
That does not correspond with other officers´ accounts, so this is confusing and unclear.
-
Just watched part of the video again and it's not David Boutflour that said they found the silencer after the funeral, it was the narrator and such programmes are notorious for getting things wrong. However, this is the first time I have heard him suggest that the silencer was 'sticky'!!
Quite strange actually.
Wouldn´t Jeremy have noticed how sticky it was before he packed it away?
-
Jones says the marks on his back suggest he had been forced downstairs.
But he had his pyjama top on. Which had no marks.
I suspect Jeremy lifted a part of the top after all 8 shots and the beating. To make sure he was dead.
-
Jones says the marks on his back suggest he had been forced downstairs.
But he had his pyjama top on. Which had no marks.
I suspect Jeremy lifted a part of the top after all 8 shots and the beating. To make sure he was dead.
I also think Stan Jones was mistaken in this assumption, but I don´t want to guess how Nevill got those burns. Nobody knows.
-
Jones says the first shot to Sheila would have knocked her out.
-
Bews says Jeremy was quite laid back when told the news. But forcing himself to look more upset.
-
Jones says the first shot to Sheila would have knocked her out.
Maybe it did and maybe not, but she must at least have come about, you can tell from the blood on her right arm and hand that she held her hand or wrist to the first wound.
-
Jones says the first shot to Sheila would have knocked her out.
Which would preclude her from eluding the police by doing disappearing acts AND -as she hadn't taken the first shot- making an attempt at a second.
-
Jones says the marks on his back suggest he had been forced downstairs.
But he had his pyjama top on. Which had no marks.
I suspect Jeremy lifted a part of the top after all 8 shots and the beating. To make sure he was dead.
If Jeremy staged the burns then it was done with the intention of conveying Nevill had been forced somewhere or to do something- mostly likely to convey he was forced to make the call to Jeremy. He could have hoped police would think that Sheila forced him to make the call so she could kill Jeremy as well. Jeremy presented such a scenario to Ann Eaton.
If he did stage the burns he clearly did it after Nevill was dead. He was already lying down with his shirt pulled away from his body.
Another possible reason for staging them could have been to make it look like Sheila was going crazy and torturing him.
Instead of being staged he could have done the burns for practical reasons such as to test whether Nevill was dead or faking.
-
Bews says Jeremy was quite laid back when told the news. But forcing himself to look more upset.
So you believe everything that's told to you. Like the moon is made of cream cheese. ::)
Why not have a mind of your own instead of " following the crowd ?" Or do you feel that there's safety in numbers ? ::)
-
RB says Jeremy used to verbally abuse June quite a lot of the time. Which matches what BW says in the same video.
-
Which would preclude her from eluding the police by doing disappearing acts AND -as she hadn't taken the first shot- making an attempt at a second.
April, I think it is quite clear that Sheila was conscious after the first shot (see above about the blood on her arm). That said, personally I don´t think she moved about, just sat.
-
Bews would have to have said that to fit in with his own scenario. It wouldn't have sat very well if he'd said that the man was hysterical with shock.
Yet I read that while Jeremy was in the car he sobbed uncontrollably.So which one are we to believe ?
The one before he was charged,or the one after ??
-
The narrator says Jeremy never forgave June for sending Jeremy to boarding school.
This matches Mary Mugford's testimony.
-
The psychiatrist says an interesting point.
That his psychopathy started at an early age. Which I never considered.
She is also attractive. I will have to cook her a meal.
-
So you believe everything that's told to you. Like the moon is made of cream cheese. ::)
Why not have a mind of your own instead of " following the crowd ?" Or do you feel that there's safety in numbers ? ::)
But are you not doing exactly that in reverse? I have yet to see you mention an expert in whom you have any trust, nor do you appear to know of ANY of the many who get it right, naming only those who get it wrong and using them as a yardstick against which you judge others. We can ALL produce pictures of long dead rellies who look like psychopaths, indeed it's possible that some MAY have been!!!! but the formal and artificially/unnaturally posed pictures of yesteryear are very different from those we take now.
-
I also think Stan Jones was mistaken in this assumption, but I don´t want to guess how Nevill got those burns. Nobody knows.
I'm not even convinced they happened on the same night.
-
CC says she had a loving relationship with the twins. Who were the most important thing to her.
-
I'm not even convinced they happened on the same night.
There is no way of knowing, so that is a possibility.
-
CC says she had a loving relationship with the twins. Who were the most important thing to her.
She was also ill, which cannot have been ideal for the poor boys. I don´t doubt she loved her sons very much, but she could not take proper care of them. The last half year, Colin and his girlfriend were the main caregivers, they lived with them.
-
The psychiatrist says an interesting point.
That his psychopathy started at an early age. Which I never considered.
She is also attractive. I will have to cook her a meal.
Which leads to the question, when DID you think psychopathy started and what had you previously thought/ do you think to be the cause?
-
The narrator said Jeremy's friends were much richer than him.
This is believable as I assume some of his friends were from Gresham's, where the parents are the rich and famous.
If Jeremy's friends parents were giving their sons a rich lifestyle, why wouldn't Neville ?
-
If Jeremy staged the burns then it was done with the intention of conveying Nevill had been forced somewhere or to do something- mostly likely to convey he was forced to make the call to Jeremy. He could have hoped police would think that Sheila forced him to make the call so she could kill Jeremy as well. Jeremy presented such a scenario to Ann Eaton.
If he did stage the burns he clearly did it after Nevill was dead. He was already lying down with his shirt pulled away from his body.
Another possible reason for staging them could have been to make it look like Sheila was going crazy and torturing him.
Instead of being staged he could have done the burns for practical reasons such as to test whether Nevill was dead or faking.
Scip what makes you think NB was dead when he received those burns?
-
I'm not even convinced they happened on the same night.
I had previously suggested that they could have been pre cancerous areas or simply moles which had been rubbed by his clothes which had been surgically removed.
-
RB says Jeremy was living way beyond his wages. Which backs up the fact he owed Neville at least £2,000p.
At least the caravan break in kept him going. Until August 1985.
-
So Jeremy was growing and selling cannabis. According to RB.
Julie is not the only 'Tony Montana' in town then.
-
I am surprised Jeremy dressed in new romantic gear.
I have only really ever seen him in smart suits.
-
So Jeremy was growing and selling cannabis. According to RB.
Julie is not the only 'Tony Montana' in town then.
I always wondered why Nevill didn´t spot that, you´d think he knew his farm?
-
I always wondered why Nevill didn´t spot that, you´d think he knew his farm?
As far as I know, Jeremy grew it in his own garden.
-
RB confirms with Julie that Jeremy resented Sheila's free lifestyle in London.
-
The narrator said Jeremy pressurised his parents for more money. But they refused.
This was after Sheila was bought a flat. So must have been after his extensive jaunts abroad.
Luckily the caravan site kept him going. Until August.
-
As far as I know, Jeremy grew it in his own garden.
Didn´t know that. His garden was tiny! Cannot have been too lucrative.
-
It says Jeremy bought a semi automatic rifle. Is this true ?
Why was it at WHF then ?
-
Neville telling BW he thought his 'life would be cut short in a shooting accident'.
Best not invite Sheila to stay then.
-
Jones says 'there is no doubt what so ever that Sheila's long finger nails would have broken' when re loading.
-
CC said Sheila had never used a gun.
-
Jones says 'there is no doubt what so ever that Sheila's long finger nails would have broken' when re loading.
He cannot possibly know that!
-
CC said Sheila had never used a gun.
He also said that Sheila didn´t allow them to have toy guns. A toy gun was found in the living room at WHF.
-
I didn't know Jeremy had a beano in Burnham directly after the jolly up in Amsterdam.
-
I didn't know Jeremy had a beano in Burnham directly after the jolly up in Amsterdam.
Funny thing is that Colin had parties and travelled, went to concerts and restaurants, but no one finds that strange.
-
It says Jeremy trying to sell pictures of Sheila and his story to the Sun sealed his fate.
Not sure about that. But being on the front cover of the Sun did him no favours. And it would have made the police, relatives and everyone else even more suspicious.
-
'Despite all the evidence, Jeremy still maintained he was innocent'.
The narrators voice seems to raise when saying this. As if it was unbelievable.
The narrator says this twice.
-
'Despite all the evidence, Jeremy still maintained he was innocent'.
The narrators voice seems to raise when saying this. As if it was unbelievable.
The narrator says this twice.
He´s a narrator, an actor. He probably didn´t know a bit about the case.
-
Jones says Jeremy was not prepared to wait to inherit the family business.
However there was no guarantee this was going to even happen.
-
But are you not doing exactly that in reverse? I have yet to see you mention an expert in whom you have any trust, nor do you appear to know of ANY of the many who get it right, naming only those who get it wrong and using them as a yardstick against which you judge others. We can ALL produce pictures of long dead rellies who look like psychopaths, indeed it's possible that some MAY have been!!!! but the formal and artificially/unnaturally posed pictures of yesteryear are very different from those we take now.
This is just the trouble,I've yet to hear of an expert who is 100% right in their field. It takes years of the practical side of work as well as attending college/uni and studying books. Passing a few exams doesn't equate to being a fully-fledged anything,it's experience that counts,and someone in their late 20's or even 30's can't possibly be experts when it comes to diagnosing mental illnesses just by either looking at them or reading about certain traits in that person. MANY people " look " like psychopaths,also MANY people have the same idiosyncracies as Jeremy,but I certainly wouldn't like to bluntly say,without having met that person or had a face to face conversation, that anyone was a psychopath.
As for photographs,I'd say that the " sitters " are far more relaxed and comfortable than of years gone by when I think they were possibly told not to smile back then,this is why I find the one where Jeremy is smiling,is of a self-confidant young man who thought he could get one over on everyone. Sadly,it went all wrong,for I feel sure that he,himself,because he'd told the truth,thought that things would be alright.
Then again,if he'd appeared solemn,it would have spelled admission too,as anyone who is,and happens to hang their head,or hide from the crowd,usually are guilty as that's how they display their shame.
-
At the end the attractive psychiatrist says Jeremy ticks a lot of the boxes for a psychopath.
-
Di stefano says about the blood on Sheila's neck.
This obviously just dried glossy. As some blood does.
-
Who deleted my post?...and why?
-
Di Stefano always suggest someone other than Sheila and Jeremy carried out the massacre.
So why did Neville tell Jeremy 'Sheila had gone crazy' ?
-
At the end the attractive psychiatrist says Jeremy ticks a lot of the boxes for a psychopath.
She is not a psychiatrist, she is a consultant forensic psychologist
-
Question for Harters: Is this the downstairs or the upstairs bathroom at WHF?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40873;image)
Yes it is the downstairs toilet.
The door on the left is just a cupboard, the shower is located opposite the cupboard door on the other side of the window.
-
In conclusion the video is a mountain of 'primary' sources which highlight Bamber's guilt further.
Jeremy's supporters must change stance.
-
Who deleted my post?...and why?
Probably just got zapped as part of the clean up. What was your post about?
-
Yes it is the downstairs toilet.
The door on the left is just a cupboard, the shower is located opposite the cupboard door on the other side of the window.
Thank you.
Myster from the UK Justice forum has that door open the other way in his floorplan (very good floorplan, I might add.)
I am sure this would interest him.
-
Thank you.
Myster from the UK Justice forum has that door open the other way in his floorplan (very good floorplan, I might add.)
I am sure this would interest him.
See this plan:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4557.0;attach=33322;image)
-
See this plan:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4557.0;attach=33322;image)
Yes, I can see it is just a cupboard on this drawing.
-
Thank you.
Myster from the UK Justice forum has that door open the other way in his floorplan (very good floorplan, I might add.)
I am sure this would interest him.
I thought we had exchanged a few PM's about the floor plans a while back.
The floor plan posted above is accurate.
-
I thought we had exchanged a few PM's about the floor plans a while back.
The floor plan posted above is accurate.
I mean the photo will interest him.
-
I didn't know the police were spying on him in St Tropez.
I don't see the reason why. It was obvious why he was there. He was not going to do a runner as there was too much to sort out back in England.
Wonder what 'interesting' things they learned about him whilst he was under surveillance? Very much doubt this evidence was used in court and very much doubt JB will ever disclose the findings to his supporters either.
-
I mean the photo will interest him.
Oh okay.
-
Who deleted my post?...and why?
It quoted an earlier post which was removed as unacceptable. There was nothing wrong with your post itself.
-
The psychopathy talk was interesting. And suggests he is a psychopath.
Another psychiatrist in another video said he has Narcacisstic Immunity. Believing that by sheer force of personality he will make it work.
Many experts on the subject often suggest the two are inter linked. Where there's psychopathy there's narcissism, goes without saying I guess.
-
This is just the trouble,I've yet to hear of an expert who is 100% right in their field. It takes years of the practical side of work as well as attending college/uni and studying books. Passing a few exams doesn't equate to being a fully-fledged anything,it's experience that counts,and someone in their late 20's or even 30's can't possibly be experts when it comes to diagnosing mental illnesses just by either looking at them or reading about certain traits in that person. MANY people " look " like psychopaths,also MANY people have the same idiosyncracies as Jeremy,but I certainly wouldn't like to bluntly say,without having met that person or had a face to face conversation, that anyone was a psychopath.
As for photographs,I'd say that the " sitters " are far more relaxed and comfortable than of years gone by when I think they were possibly told not to smile back then,this is why I find the one where Jeremy is smiling,is of a self-confidant young man who thought he could get one over on everyone. Sadly,it went all wrong,for I feel sure that he,himself,because he'd told the truth,thought that things would be alright.
Then again,if he'd appeared solemn,it would have spelled admission too,as anyone who is,and happens to hang their head,or hide from the crowd,usually are guilty as that's how they display their shame.
I have yet to meet anyone who is believed to be 100% right in their field of expertise, especially when they views don't correspond with those who disagree with them. I concur entirely that a degree -on its' own- won't equip but MOST are required, as part of their course work, to spend time working with skilled professionals to gain practical experience.
I have had past experience of a psychopath of the non murdering type and with hindsight it's easy enough to see. In the video the smile Jeremy gave from inside the car chilled me to the bone. The last time I'd seen that shot was when it happened -and I had no experience- and I thought he was smiling at someone he knew. Seeing it now I can see that he wasn't. The smile was put on like a mask. Too big to be real, it didn't reach his eyes and was cold as ice. Like you, I don't think it any more possible to tell a psychopath from a picture that it is to tell a criminal from bumps on their skulls but I DO believe it's possible to make an educated guess when you know someone's MO.
-
The attractive woman says Jeremy is -
Grandious
Arrogant.
Very little emotion.
Any emotion is shallow and fake.
He manipulates other people.
He uses people to meet his own needs.
He is able to put on a mask when appropriate.
He is able to shut off emotion due to his percieved childhood rejection.
-
The attractive woman says Jeremy is -
Grandious
Arrogant.
Very little emotion.
Any emotion is shallow and fake.
He manipulates other people.
He uses people to meet his own needs.
He is able to put on a mask when appropriate.
He is able to shut off emotion due to his percieved childhood rejection.
Well anyone can be wise after the event, can't they?
-
The video says psychopaths have -
Very little fear or empathy.
They do not understand morality.
Killing their own family is easy for them.
-
It says Jeremy drew a map for the police. With possible hiding places where Sheila could be waiting with a gun !
What a helpful chap.
I picked up on this also. Obviously he could have been asked by the police for possible hiding places but....
-
Jones confirms with the 2002 appeal that Neville had shocking injuries.
And agrees with the judge that Neville put up a terrific struggle.
But Sheila was not marked.
Another good point. I don't recall JB ever having been checked over by a doctor or the police to look for recent bruises/signs of a struggle - immediately after the massacre. He had plenty of time to heal, if indeed he did receive any injuries.
-
The video says psychopaths have -
Very little fear or empathy.
They do not understand morality.
Killing their own family is easy for them.
You've been disagreeing with me for months about him being psychopathic but anyone capable of this kind of crime - who doesn't have remorse, is CLEARLY a psychopath.
-
I am surprised Jeremy dressed in new romantic gear.
I have only really ever seen him in smart suits.
Was it 'new romantic' gear or was it linked to his psychopathy.
-
Funny thing is that Colin had parties and travelled, went to concerts and restaurants, but no one finds that strange.
Colin wasn't a murder suspect
-
It says Jeremy trying to sell pictures of Sheila and his story to the Sun sealed his fate.
Not sure about that. But being on the front cover of the Sun did him no favours. And it would have made the police, relatives and everyone else even more suspicious.
Yes, the journalist from 'the sun' gives a bit of detail regarding the story JB wants to sell and the types of photos. Not the sort of thing a loving brother would do, ESPECIALLY after her death.
-
Another good point. I don't recall JB ever having been checked over by a doctor or the police to look for recent bruises/signs of a struggle - immediately after the massacre. He had plenty of time to heal, if indeed he did receive any injuries.
Hello Steph
think if he had any injuries to his body Julie would have noticed and included it in her statement
-
Hello Steph
think if he had any injuries to his body Julie would have noticed and included it in her statement
Good point Susan though she may not have seen any bruises/injuries if he'd kept himself covered.
-
Hello Steph
think if he had any injuries to his body Julie would have noticed and included it in her statement
Julie didn't come forward until a month after the murders, plenty of time for small injuries to heal - mentioing them would have been pointless because they may not have been there any more; or (given the time lapse) it couldn't be proven when they occurred or how.
-
Julie didn't come forward until a month after the murders, plenty of time for small injuries to heal - mentioing them would have been pointless because they may not have been there any more; or (given the time lapse) it couldn't be proven when they occurred or how.
Is it also possible that he simply didn't have any injuries?
-
Yes, the journalist from 'the sun' gives a bit of detail regarding the story JB wants to sell and the types of photos. Not the sort of thing a loving brother would do, ESPECIALLY after her death.
Julie said Jeremy was supremely confident he could not be touched.
This is highlighted by his immediate post massacre party lifestyle and that he tried to sell pictures and his life story to The Sun soon after the massacre.
Together with not making a big effort to keep Julie.
-
Is it also possible that he simply didn't have any injuries?
Hartley I think your suggestion is more likely.
-
Julie said Jeremy was supremely confident he could not be touched.
This is highlighted by his immediate post massacre party lifestyle and that he tried to sell pictures and his life story to The Sun soon after the massacre.
Together with not making a big effort to keep Julie.
It sounds as though the description of the photos were pretty sick- x-rated it suggests
-
Is it also possible that he simply didn't have any injuries?
It certainly is, but if he did have any, it wouldn't have made much difference by the time he was interviewed. We shall never know.
-
Is it also possible that he simply didn't have any injuries?
Particularly since he was wearing shoes and gloves and the best opportunity to be injured during the commission of the crime would have been to his hands and feet had they been bare.
-
Particularly since he was wearing shoes and gloves and the best opportunity to be injured during the commission of the crime would have been to his hands and feet had they been bare.
Just something that is down to speculation but not really something relevant unless he was battered and bruised and it was noticed the day after. Hod he been a suspect from day one, there may have been marks but we simply don't know.
-
Jeremy would be confident.
Until someone told him about the silencer ! Wonder when and who broke the good news to him.
Although there was a lot of other forensic and circumstantial evidence against him. He just assumed that would never be looked into or was not enough.
-
Just something that is down to speculation but not really something relevant unless he was battered and bruised and it was noticed the day after. Hod he been a suspect from day one, there may have been marks but we simply don't know.
The video implied that a rat was smelled from the off but it also implied several other things that may only have been evident with the advantage of hindsight, ie BW seems to be speaking of someone entirely different. She showed no sign of fear in her first interview, however it may be that now he's behind bars she feels safe to sat it.
-
Another good point. I don't recall JB ever having been checked over by a doctor or the police to look for recent bruises/signs of a struggle - immediately after the massacre. He had plenty of time to heal, if indeed he did receive any injuries.
Jeremy would have been covered up. OJ had gloves and a balaclava. Jeremy would have had the same.
Jeremy may have also had a wet suit under his clothes. That would protect him even more as they are thick.
It is likely he didn't have any injuries. Certainly not from Sheila, June or the twins. Neville had been shot four times before resisting.
-
I also read that he wore about 6 sweaters. Must have looked like the Michelin man,but how he got through windows dressed like that I'll never know.
-
Jeremy would have been covered up. OJ had gloves and a balaclava. Jeremy would have had the same.
Jeremy may have also had a wet suit under his clothes. That would protect him even more as they are thick.
It is likely he didn't have any injuries. Certainly not from Sheila, June or the twins. Neville had been shot four times before resisting.
We don't know what he wore or didn't wear but I don't believe for one moment he went anywhere near a wet suit that night.
-
I also read that he wore about 6 sweaters. Must have looked like the Michelin man,but how he got through windows dressed like that I'll never know.
He had several layers of clothes when meeting the police.
Whatever he wore he would have been protected. Especially the face.
-
Planned massacres often do not go to plan.
OJ was never expecting Ronald Goldman to turn up. Jeremy was not expecting Neville to get downstairs.
-
He had several layers of clothes when meeting the police.
Whatever he wore he would have been protected. Especially the face.
Adam the way I see it the only person who may have attacked Jeremy and marked him would have been Ralph and IMO he was too badly injured with gunshot wounds to put up any resistance to the beating :(
-
He had several layers of clothes when meeting the police.
Whatever he wore he would have been protected. Especially the face.
I guess there'd have been an outlet from the Aga when half his wardrobe was burned ? Along with anything else that he may have been caught with.
Did EP look in the ashes tray by any chance ?
-
We don't know what he wore or didn't wear but I don't believe for one moment he went anywhere near a wet suit that night.
Caroline probably wore very little that way less to dispose of. Do you think his clothes would have been really badly stained.
-
Speaking of clothes, it is strange that Jeremy didn´t think about Sheila´s clothes and appearance, but I guess he couldn´t think about everything.
-
Speaking of clothes, it is strange that Jeremy didn´t think about Sheila´s clothes and appearance, but I guess he couldn´t think about everything.
Alias Sheila's clothes and her hands were far too clean irrespective of who committed the murders if Jeremy had committed the murders she was too clean but also if she committed them she was too clean if you get my meaning. Had Jeremy's clothes been badly stained in his own mind he should have accepted Sheila's would have been in the same state.
-
Caroline probably wore very little that way less to dispose of. Do you think his clothes would have been really badly stained.
You may be right, who knows - but perhaps that's why he worse so many clothes later to warm up? I doubt that they would be covered in blood, but they would certainly be splattered.
-
You may be right, who knows - but perhaps that's why he worse so many clothes later to warm up? I doubt that they would be covered in blood, but they would certainly be splattered.
Caroline the point I was trying to make to Alias but don't think I did it too well Jeremy would see the splatter on his own clothes so if he was expecting people to believe that Sheila committed the murders she would have the same splatter on her but it appears she did'ent. Guess EP were smarter than he was expecting.
-
Did EP ever contact immigration to question why he left the Antipodes in such a hurry with " stolen " goods ? ( he'd never have got past customs with expensive watches )
-
The video says psychopaths have -
Very little fear or empathy.
They do not understand morality.
Killing their own family is easy for them.
In my opinion I don't think Jeremy has Psychopathy its more likely he has Malignant Narcissism (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) They have overlapping traits but they are different.
-
Did EP ever contact immigration to question why he left the Antipodes in such a hurry with " stolen " goods ? ( he'd never have got past customs with expensive watches )
Hello lookout do we know he had stolen watches or is this just hearsay.
-
In my opinion I don't think Jeremy has Psychopathy its more likely he has Malignant Narcissism (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) They have overlapping traits but they are different.
In my opinion I think he does have psychopathy because he fits almost all of the criteria.
-
In my opinion I don't think Jeremy has Psychopathy its more likely he has Malignant Narcissism (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) They have overlapping traits but they are different.
It applies to all criminals,or they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place.
-
Hello lookout do we know he had stolen watches or is this just hearsay.
He apparently gave one of the Cartier watches to Angie and kept one for himself. I didn't believe it until recently when there was a list of stuff posted on the forum, things taken from his house. One of those things was .......... a Cartier watch! ;)
-
It applies to all criminals,or they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place.
No it doesn't because people commit crimes for all sorts of reasons.
-
In my opinion I think he does has psychopathy because he fits almost all of the criteria.
They are similar conditions.
-
Hello lookout do we know he had stolen watches or is this just hearsay.
Hi Susan, I've only read on various sites that he left in a hurry due to a robbery,namely of 2 Cartier watches ( I don't think ) He'd have been stopped at customs.
The watch of his father's was a Seiko---------no Cartier.
If this had been common knowledge,then I'm sure EP would have contacted immigration.
-
He apparently gave one of the Cartier watches to Angie and kept one for himself. I didn't believe it until recently when there was a list of stuff posted on the forum, things taken from his house. One of those things was .......... a Cartier watch! ;)
That would have been easy to verify if true. He couldn't have got them/it from Australia or New Zealand.
-
They are similar conditions.
I know
-
That would have been easy to verify if true. He couldn't have got them/it from Australia or New Zealand.
Of course he could! Lookout, he had a Cartier watch among his possessions and that's a fact, it's on a list of stuff taken by EP from his house.
-
Hello lookout do we know he had stolen watches or is this just hearsay.
I think its hearsay.
Its been alleged that Jeremy and Brett Collins done an armed robbery at a Jewellers in New-Zealand and they killed someone in the store.
You can now see how rumors get out of hand ;D
-
Of course he could! Lookout, he had a Cartier watch among his possessions and that's a fact, it's on a list of stuff taken by EP from his house.
We'd have soon known about it if it had been stolen.
-
Caroline wonder what happened to all his possessions? they were removed from his house as it would no longer be his home.
-
We'd have soon known about it if it had been stolen.
How would you (we) know Lookout? But now you come to mention it - it has already been said that he DID steal them so you could say it IS KNOWN.
-
How would you (we) know Lookout? But now you come to mention it - it has already been said that he DID steal them so you could say it IS KNOWN.
I mean on the list of convictions along with the site robbery and drugs.
-
Caroline wonder what happened to all his possessions? they were removed from his house as it would no longer be his home.
Didn't Aunt Agatha take a lot of his possessions?
-
Caroline wonder what happened to all his possessions? they were removed from his house as it would no longer be his home.
Unless have gave permission for someone to have them after the trial, they may still be in the possession of EP.
-
Didn't Aunt Agatha take a lot of his possessions?
Stuff from the house, not from EP.
-
I know it was a wetsuit she had,but don't know of anything else.
-
I know it was a wetsuit she had,but don't know of anything else.
I seem to remember there was some other stuff as well. :-\
-
Maggie think AA had his possessions stuff that came from Grannie Speakman I wondered what happened to his furniture and clothes did he have any close friends that kept them for him.
-
Maggie think AA had his possessions stuff that came from Grannie Speakman I wondered what happened to his furniture and clothes did he have any close friends that kept them for him.
I thought she had a fair bit of his stuff, can't remember where from but am sure she will tell us next time she is on the forum..
-
Maggie did AA know him way back when he was convicted.
-
Maggie did AA know him way back when he was convicted.
I cannot remember what AA has told us but I know she definitely knew him after his conviction because she spent a lot of time supporting him at that time and was a true friend to him.
-
I cannot remember what AA has told us but I know she definitely knew him after his conviction because she spent a lot of time supporting him at that time and was a true friend to him.
Hi Maggie I am sure she told us she has a rifle as well as a wetsuit and other things. :-\
-
Hi Maggie I am sure she told us she has a rifle as well as a wetsuit and other things. :-\
Or one part of a wetsuit as far as I remember.
-
Or one part of a wetsuit as far as I remember.
Yeah I remember one part oddly enough. I might send her a PM and ask her about the rifle....think I will. ;)
-
Or one part of a wetsuit as far as I remember.
In one of the books it says one part of the wetsuit was at the White House and another part at Bourtree Cottage. Clare Powell's I think.
-
Can't believe that wet suit is being discussed again ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Maggie I am sure she told us she has a rifle as well as a wetsuit and other things. :-\
I am agree, that's what I remember.
-
She is not a psychiatrist, she is a consultant forensic psychologist
Forensic psychology is not regarded highly by most actual scientists. It has no credibility and it should be self evident to anyone that personality traits and/or personality disorders cannot be diagnosed using such nonsense.
Paul Britton was perhaps the "forensic psychologist" that made the subject seem as if it was a new tool in crimefighting. The TV series "Cracker" was based on Paul Britton and it was seen by many as credible.
What followed was the Colin Stagg debacle and the aftermath of that including disciplinary and misconduct hearings.
Most people then realised that clinical psychology is a load of old bollocks and learnt to lend the pronouncements of forensic psychologists the same level of credibility usually reserved for Tarot card readers.
-
Forensic psychology is not regarded highly by most actual scientists. It has no credibility and it should be self evident to anyone that personality traits and/or personality disorders cannot be diagnosed using such nonsense.
Paul Britton was perhaps the "forensic psychologist" that made the subject seem as if it was a new tool in crimefighting. The TV series "Cracker" was based on Paul Britton and it was seen by many as credible.
What followed was the Colin Stagg debacle and the aftermath of that including disciplinary and misconduct hearings.
Most people then realised that clinical psychology is a load of old bollocks and learnt to lend the pronouncements of forensic psychologists the same level of credibility usually reserved for Tarot card readers.
I think there is some truth in this. However it will not stop the speculation as to why a well-heeled young man with apparently everything going for him gambled as he did and ended up throwing it all away.
-
Forensic psychology is not regarded highly by most actual scientists. It has no credibility and it should be self evident to anyone that personality traits and/or personality disorders cannot be diagnosed using such nonsense.
Paul Britton was perhaps the "forensic psychologist" that made the subject seem as if it was a new tool in crimefighting. The TV series "Cracker" was based on Paul Britton and it was seen by many as credible.
What followed was the Colin Stagg debacle and the aftermath of that including disciplinary and misconduct hearings.
Most people then realised that clinical psychology is a load of old bollocks and learnt to lend the pronouncements of forensic psychologists the same level of credibility usually reserved for Tarot card readers.
Most people realised nothing of the sort, they didn't generalise as you're doing, they simply aimed their criticisms towards Paul Britton.
-
I think there is some truth in this. However it will not stop the speculation as to why a well-heeled young man with apparently everything going for him gambled as he did and ended up throwing it all away.
The speculation as to whether or not that is true is better when it focuses on real evidence rather than the pronouncements of practitioners of discredited pseudosciences as I am sure you will agree Steve.
-
The speculation as to whether or not that is true is better when it focuses on real evidence rather than the pronouncements of practitioners of discredited pseudosciences as I am sure you will agree Steve.
You mean like the real evidence that points to a phone call to the police from Nevill? That kind of evidence? ;)
-
Most people realised nothing of the sort, they didn't generalise as you're doing, they simply aimed their criticisms towards Paul Britton.
Google forensic psychology and pseudoscience and you will find that they did.
It is clearly and self evidently nonsense and given that you were relying on graphologists previously for your diagnosis of psychopathy, perhaps you are behind the curve on what is regarded as credible.
-
Google forensic psychology and pseudoscience and you will find that they did.
It is clearly and self evidently nonsense and given that you were relying on graphologists previously for your diagnosis of psychopathy, perhaps you are behind the curve on what is regarded as credible.
That's utter crap gringo but coming from you not surprising - point me in the direction of where I suggested Jeremy was a psychopath because of his handwriting? I'm certainly not behind any curve ball because I certainly don't give your posts ANY credibility. Perhaps you would be better served by posting credible arguments in support of why Jeremy is innocent instead of playing the Innocent team's answer to Scipio (badly).
-
Google forensic psychology and pseudoscience and you will find that they did.
It is clearly and self evidently nonsense and given that you were relying on graphologists previously for your diagnosis of psychopathy, perhaps you are behind the curve on what is regarded as credible.
Just in case you missed it, this was my reply to the last time you suggested this!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.msg300615.html#msg300615
And this one;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.msg300611.html#msg300611
-
Just in case you missed it, this was my reply to the last time you suggested this!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.msg300615.html#msg300615
And I do believe it was me who humoured Gringo regarding this.
Just for record, I do not believe someone is a psychopath based on their handwriting or the date on which they were born.
I do however believe JB ticks every box regarding psychopathic traits. I guess you could say his handwriting is the cherry on top.. No humour intended.
-
And I do believe it was me who humoured Gringo regarding this.
Just for record, I do not believe someone is a psychopath based on their handwriting or the date on which they were born.
I do however believe JB ticks every box regarding psychopathic traits. I guess you could say his handwriting is the cherry on top.. No humour intended.
Someone told me today that the full moon tonight would be affecting their behaviour. I didn't stop to chat.
-
Someone told me today that the full moon tonight would be affecting their behaviour. I didn't stop to chat.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The study of psychopathy is a relatively new science, if you can call it a science. In my opinion its a study of peoples behaviour and past experiences with a fancy name given to it.
Its a science that is still in its infancy and should not be used as a forensic tool to justify who is and who isn't a psychopath just because they have ticked a few boxes. I believe that many of us could tick some of the boxes, but we are not psychopaths. Its believed that 3% of people living in England have this trait and just as many of us on a scale 1 to 10 have some psychopathy in us.
Some say Jeremy has no empathy or feelings, but this is not true. He was deeply upset and cried buckets when Brambles his dog died so when did he become detached?
Saying he is a psychopath when none of us has met him, chatted to him, or seen him is a perfect example of what we are led to believe by reading stuff on the internet, books, television programs etc. Its not that there is no truth in it, its a fascinating subject, but is it the bees knees way of categorising people for how they have lived in the past or present?
-
Just in case you missed it, this was my reply to the last time you suggested this!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.msg300615.html#msg300615
And this one;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.msg300611.html#msg300611
Do you consider forensic psychology to be a credible science?
In the discussion you link to you also appear to not even understand that graphology and analysing handwriting to establish the identity of the writer are entirely different things. Do you still think that there are "some quite impressive results" that you "have read"?
-
The study of psychopathy is a relatively new science, if you can call it a science. In my opinion its a study of peoples behaviour and past experiences with a fancy name given to it.
Its a science that is still in its infancy and should not be used as a forensic tool to justify who is and who isn't a psychopath just because they have ticked a few boxes. I believe that many of us could tick some of the boxes, but we are not psychopaths. Its believed that 3% of people living in England have this trait and just as many of us on a scale 1 to 10 have some psychopathy in us.
Some say Jeremy has no empathy or feelings, but this is not true. He was deeply upset and cried buckets when Brambles his dog died so when did he become detached?
Saying he is a psychopath when none of us has met him, chatted to him, or seen him is a perfect example of what we are led to believe by reading stuff on the internet, books, television programs etc. Its not that there is no truth in it, its a fascinating subject, but is it the bees knees way of categorising people for how they have lived in the past or present?
I believe he is a psychopath because he killed 5 members of his family in cold blood and he has no remorse. I also studied psychology for 4 years so I know what it thanks!
-
I believe he is a psychopath because he killed 5 members of his family in cold blood and he has no remorse. I also studied psychology for 4 years so I know what it thanks!
But is he not confessing because he is a psychopath or because he believes he has not done it,or are these two linked?
-
Do you consider forensic psychology to be a credible science?
In the discussion you link to you also appear to not even understand that graphology and analysing handwriting to establish the identity of the writer are entirely different things. Do you still think that there are "some quite impressive results" that you "have read"?
Yes I do! I also know the difference between hand writing analysis and graphology what I'm not sure about, is your obsession with it - let me say again NO ONE THINKS THAT BAMBER IS A PSYCHOPATH BECAUSE OF HIS WRITING STYLE!
-
But is he not confessing because he is a psychopath or because he believes he has not done it,or are these two linked?
That's the very reason.
-
Ofcom has rejected a complaint from convicted killer Jeremy Bamber that a documentary about him infringed his privacy and treated him unfairly.
Bamber was convicted of murdering his adopted parents, his sister and her six-year-old twin sons in 1986.
He has always protested his innocence and claims his schizophrenic sister shot her family in their remote Essex farmhouse before shooting herself.
He complained to the watchdog after Sky broadcast a documentary about the case.
Killing Mum And Dad: The Jeremy Bamber Story examined the police investigation into the crimes, featuring archive footage and photographs of Bamber.
It also included contributions from family members, acquaintances, journalists who covered the case and forensic psychologist Kerry Danes.
The communication watchdog's report said Bamber complained Ms Danes "unfairly and inaccurately portrayed him as a psychopath" despite never having met him.
He also complained that the programme "discussed at length, and ridiculed, intimate details about his sexual orientation which had no relevance to the offence of which he was convicted".
Ofcom concluded that the broadcaster's right to freedom of expression and the genuine public interest in examining the evidence against Bamber, and the possible motivation for the murders, "outweighed the intrusion into his privacy".
Bamber is serving a whole-life term for the murders.
-
The stuff on the tractor portraying JB dressed up like a member of Spandau Ballet was ludicrous, and the way they got the actor to drive the tractor with hands out splayed to hammer home he was wearing red nail polish!
Even if true, what the hell was this supposed to prove? That he experimented with make up like thousands of other boys did at the time? Or that he dressed like this to piss off his parents like thousands of other boys and girls did? So much heresay and after the event condemning of JB's character. I was half expecting someone to come on and say that they knew he was a wrong 'un as his library books were overdue. As well as that how does anyone know for a fact how they would behave if their entire family had been murdered?
-
He was working on the farm in his 20's. A bit old to dressing up in new romantic gear.
-
He was working on the farm in his 20's. A bit old to dressing up in new romantic gear.
It's the same age that most other people were wearing it.
-
It's the same age that most other people were wearing it.
You can explain it away as "most other people were wearing it" or you could consider it to be another psychopathic trait of sexual promiscuity. A possible indication of a gender identity disorder ultimately leading to psychopathy.
http://maritalhealing.com/conflicts/genderidentitydisorder.php
-
He was working on the farm in his 20's. A bit old to dressing up in new romantic gear.
Are you one of those who shuns transgender then ? Does it matter to you like it did to RWB and the rest of the narrow-minded crew ? Those who have a flamboyant nature like Jeremy had at the time,liked to be " in with the in crowd " .Do you see that as a crime ?
-
He was working on the farm in his 20's. A bit old to dressing up in new romantic gear.
How very judgemental.
-
Are you one of those who shuns transgender then ? Does it matter to you like it did to RWB and the rest of the narrow-minded crew ? Those who have a flamboyant nature like Jeremy had at the time,liked to be " in with the in crowd " .Do you see that as a crime ?
It has nothing to do with 'shunning transgender' or being homophobic or being 'narrow minded' this behaviour along with other behaviours can be a trait of pyschopathy.
-
Are you one of those who shuns transgender then ? Does it matter to you like it did to RWB and the rest of the narrow-minded crew ? Those who have a flamboyant nature like Jeremy had at the time,liked to be " in with the in crowd " .Do you see that as a crime ?
By definition transgender people have problems. A transgender person is one who is unhappy with the gender they were born with and wants to live out the delusion they are the opposite gender. I doubt Jeremy falls into this category. Instead of therapy to get people to come to grips with their gender it seems like the politically correct thing to do is to treat them as the gender they wish they had been born which frankly is absurd.
If someone wants to be recognized by others as being of the opposite gender then they should get a gender reassignment.
People who are gay have issues as well. Many need therapy to deal with their sexuality adequately but don't get it and that results in depression, lashing out, suicide and other things that could be avoided if they would deal with things through therapy instead. One of my cousins in gay and while he admits he is not normal he doesn't outwardly do anything destructive. What goes on in his mind who knows, he could be severely tortured but if that is the case he doesn't let it show. He might not need any therapy and might be fine with his situation. He might be simply not outwardly revealing his problems and not allowing the to interrupt his life. When it interferes with life then help is needed.
We don't know jack about Jeremy to be able to assess whether he had some mental issues that need help because of sexuality conflicts, he surely wasn't transgender though.
-
Why don't you all write and ask him to take a brain scan ( PET scan) in order to detect any abnormality,as it WILL show activity of neurons within the brain------------FACT.
-
I am not surprised Jeremy complained to offcom about their programme.
His 'Campaign for Freedom' is so public, he has to complain in public about something so damning.
The programme seemed fine to me. Interviewing primary witnesses Bews, Jones, RB & BW. Together with interview clips from JM and CC.
An extra bonus was Fielder and Jeremy's former headmaster.
The psychiatrist said some interesting points. De Stefano just made things worse for Jeremy.
-
It's long been known that Bill Clinton is a psychopath.
"Psychopaths can tell unlikely but convincing stories"------------interesting !
-
There are more psychopaths within an impoverished society than not.
-
By definition transgender people have problems. A transgender person is one who is unhappy with the gender they were born with and wants to live out the delusion they are the opposite gender. I doubt Jeremy falls into this category. Instead of therapy to get people to come to grips with their gender it seems like the politically correct thing to do is to treat them as the gender they wish they had been born which frankly is absurd.
If someone wants to be recognized by others as being of the opposite gender then they should get a gender reassignment.
People who are gay have issues as well. Many need therapy to deal with their sexuality adequately but don't get it and that results in depression, lashing out, suicide and other things that could be avoided if they would deal with things through therapy instead. One of my cousins in gay and while he admits he is not normal he doesn't outwardly do anything destructive. What goes on in his mind who knows, he could be severely tortured but if that is the case he doesn't let it show. He might not need any therapy and might be fine with his situation. He might be simply not outwardly revealing his problems and not allowing the to interrupt his life. When it interferes with life then help is needed.
We don't know jack about Jeremy to be able to assess whether he had some mental issues that need help because of sexuality conflicts, he surely wasn't transgender though.
You raise an interesting point. I was close to someone who'd been born indecently soon after his brother. Rather than take her wrath out on her husband she took it out on the son who MAY have escaped it had he been a girl. Perhaps he thought that if he became a girl his mother would accept him so he started wearing her clothes -dull and frumpy- which caused even greater problems. Outwardly, he had all the trappings of a successful life. Career, girlfriend, superb house, money no object...................inwardly he was an unhappy mess.
-
It's long been known that Bill Clinton is a psychopath.
"Psychopaths can tell unlikely but convincing stories"------------interesting !
-
Like MM the hitman------------but it takes an even bigger idiot to believe it.
-
You raise an interesting point. I was close to someone who'd been born indecently soon after his brother. Rather than take her wrath out on her husband she took it out on the son who MAY have escaped it had he been a girl. Perhaps he thought that if he became a girl his mother would accept him so he started wearing her clothes -dull and frumpy- which caused even greater problems. Outwardly, he had all the trappings of a successful life. Career, girlfriend, superb house, money no object...................inwardly he was an unhappy mess.
Vying for attention or love of parents is another can of worms. Such takes shape in a lot of different ways and contexts.
There can indeed be pressure brought to bear though from loved ones with regard to sexuality. Not just people who don't want to accept their kids are gay but I personally know of an instance where a lesbian did everything in her power to make sure her daughter would be a lesbian as well and the daughter ended up breaking off all contact. They had other issues regarding the mother being controlling but that was one of them.
-
You might as well include the majority of the public when it comes to sussing out a psychopath,because most of the " traits " are an every day occurrence in the normal person.
-
Vying for attention or love of parents is another can of worms. Such takes shape in a lot of different ways and contexts.
There can indeed be pressure brought to bear though from loved ones with regard to sexuality. Not just people who don't want to accept their kids are gay but I personally know of an instance where a lesbian did everything in her power to make sure her daughter would be a lesbian as well and the daughter ended up breaking off all contact. They had other issues regarding the mother being controlling but that was one of them.
How wise and comprehending are those lilting words of Larkin:-
They f$$k you up your mum and Dad
They may not mean to but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra just for you.
-
Most kids say that of their parents at some time in their lives. Nothing unique about it.
-
You can explain it away as "most other people were wearing it" or you could consider it to be another psychopathic trait of sexual promiscuity. A possible indication of a gender identity disorder ultimately leading to psychopathy.
http://maritalhealing.com/conflicts/genderidentitydisorder.php
I wasn't trying to 'explain' anything away, it was just fashionable at the time. Do you honestly think wearing the fashions of the day shows psychopathic tendencies and/or gender disorder?
-
Whatever phase of dress/style/make-up is in at the time,it's copied.Nothing unusual in that. It happens more today with people copying what the celebrities wear,or don't half the time.
I wonder how RWB would have reacted to Grayson Perry ?
-
I wasn't trying to 'explain' anything away, it was just fashionable at the time. Do you honestly think wearing the fashions of the day shows psychopathic tendencies and/or gender disorder?
Show me photos of people who wore what JB wore back then.
Also, I am not considering his sexual promiscuity alone, he has a wealth of other traits which suggest psychopathy. By all means explain them away as 'just fashionable at the time" or any other excuses you wish to make for his behaviours but I see a manipulative man who is guilty.
-
I refuse to parttake in the discussion about Jeremy´s clothing. It was the fashion back then, can´t see the problem.
Would like to mention another thing, which always makes me sad. The reporter who claimed Jeremy wanted to sell x-rated pictures of Sheila to him talked about the Bambers having "provided a home for him."
He would never have said that about a biological child, I loathe that way of thinking.
-
He was working on the farm in his 20's. A bit old to dressing up in new romantic gear.
why?
Colin says in his book the family were spreading rumours that Jeremy was going round dressed as a woman. unsubstantiated of course ;D.
New romantic gear and music was very popular. People used to worry about mods and rockers as well. Its a generational thing.
-
"Other men were obsessed by what they perceived to be the unfairness of their sentence and proclaimed their innocence. Most men denied the seriousness of their offences, according to the official sources of information. A sub-group of these men spent long periods writing to lawyers, outside organisations, and pressure groups. Their campaigns frequently brought them into conflict with the prison authorities."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LSiBsdxcGigC&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=miscarriages+of+justice+and+psychopathy&source=bl&ots=nnT3vk9i6V&sig=7PyhSU8EhFWasS_ymjsqOGvGDbw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pKsvVZjFBoKhPdaKgeAC&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=miscarriages%20of%20justice%20and%20psychopathy&f=false
-
I used to see quite a few guys back in the 80's dressed and made-up to look like Adam Ant. As I said,it was a phase at the time and I see nothing sinister attached to it at all.
-
What about the Mohican haircuts ? Coloured hair on the men as well as the women. Jeremy could only manage black,a shade darker than he normally was,so a chicken in that respect. And that was suspicious. ::)
-
Show me photos of people who wore what JB wore back then.
Also, I am not considering his sexual promiscuity alone, he has a wealth of other traits which suggest psychopathy. By all means explain them away as 'just fashionable at the time" or any other excuses you wish to make for his behaviours but I see a manipulative man who is guilty.
Again I'm not explaining anything away, it was the fashion at the time and has nothing to do with supposed psychopathy. Plus do you really need photographic evidence that people dressed up in new romantic gear???its like asking for proof that people once wore flares or miniskirts
-
What about the Mohican haircuts ? Coloured hair on the men as well as the women. Jeremy could only manage black,a shade darker than he normally was,so a chicken in that respect. And that was suspicious. ::)
I've seen JB referred to as a 'chicken' and a 'coward.' We can't understand psychopaths because we evaluate them through the lens of our own motivations, values and emotions. This is a fundamental mistake.
Psychopaths aren't cowards, they are just hungry. Like a lion is to their prey.
-
Again I'm not explaining anything away, it was the fashion at the time and has nothing to do with supposed psychopathy. Plus do you really need photographic evidence that people dressed up in new romantic gear???its like asking for proof that people once wore flares or miniskirts
I am not getting the point either ? He dyed his hair and wore fashionable clothes? Lots of people did that and do that now ?
-
I've seen JB referred to as a 'chicken' and a 'coward.' We can't understand psychopaths because we evaluate them through the lens of our own motivations, values and emotions. This is a fundamental mistake.
Psychopaths aren't cowards, they are just hungry. Like a lion is to their prey.
So whose descriptions are you willing to believe and accept?
And whose will you ignore?
The house keeper for example said the whole family got on and she never saw an argument. Colin expresses the problems between Sheila and her mother - but not anything substantial about Jeremy and his family - only that he had problems at school ( that probably applies to 50% of the population)
-
I am not getting the point either ? He dyed his hair and wore fashionable clothes? Lots of people did that and do that now ?
Good job it wasn't in the 70's he would have had a flower in his hair ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Good job it wasn't in the 70's he would have had a flower in his hair ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
Or he could have been a punk - crikey the family would have had a field day.
-
I am not getting the point either ? He dyed his hair and wore fashionable clothes? Lots of people did that and do that now ?
You seems to be looking at one behaviour at a time as opposed to looking at the overall picture.
-
Or he could have been a punk - crikey the family would have had a field day.
In America the word punk is used to describe someone who is worthless.
-
Good job it wasn't in the 70's he would have had a flower in his hair ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
How about a teddy-boy ? DA haircut and drainpipe trousers. He'd have been a thug as well as a psychopath. Silly me,they're the same. ::)
1 in every 100 people are psychopaths-----------even down to a nagging woman who is also one.
-
I've seen JB referred to as a 'chicken' and a 'coward.' We can't understand psychopaths because we evaluate them through the lens of our own motivations, values and emotions. This is a fundamental mistake.
Psychopaths aren't cowards, they are just hungry. Like a lion is to their prey.
I would say the same applies to Sheila - if she was guilty she was very ill - therefore we should not apply logic or emotion to her actions either. she may not have even seen the victims as her family.
It works both ways.
-
why?
Colin says in his book the family were spreading rumours that Jeremy was going round dressed as a woman. unsubstantiated of course ;D.
New romantic gear and music was very popular. People used to worry about mods and rockers as well. Its a generational thing.
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy. You know he is guilty and cannot explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy. You know he is guilty and cannot explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
Adam, if I read this one more time, I will scream! ANNOYING!
-
"Other men were obsessed by what they perceived to be the unfairness of their sentence and proclaimed their innocence. Most men denied the seriousness of their offences, according to the official sources of information. A sub-group of these men spent long periods writing to lawyers, outside organisations, and pressure groups. Their campaigns frequently brought them into conflict with the prison authorities."
How often is this? This Must really harm people that really do protest their innocence :(
-
The late Susan May,who was imprisoned ( innocent ) for allegedly murdering her aunt, never admitted her guilt,nor did she show any remorse,because she was no killer/psychopath-----------just an innocent woman who was wrongly convicted !!
The fight for her freedom is still ongoing.
Quote," When the CCRC began work in 1997,there were major cases crying out for redress---for example those of Eddie Gilfoyle,Jeremy Bamber and Susan May.In its early years,the CCRC referred all three; but the fact is that today,all three remain un-rectified miscarriages of justice.unquote "
As stated by Bob Woffinden-Dec 17th 2014.
This indicates--to a growing number of observers--that the system we have for correcting perceived mistakes in the system is no longer working.
-
Like BW stated,this could be the beginning of the end for the CCRC.
Let's hope Jeremy gets his submission in before the end !
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy. You know he is guilty and cannot explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
Adam I have told you how I think it happened - You tell me how JB managed to get Sheila to lie down and pretend she was complicit with being shot without even putting her hands up?
Guess what you can say what you want because we were not there . So we are making up a scenario.
At least I look at both sides - you are just on some kind of mission and funnily enough the more times you say what you do - the more you convince me my theories are right. funny that .
-
Why don't you all write and ask him to take a brain scan ( PET scan) in order to detect any abnormality,as it WILL show activity of neurons within the brain------------FACT.
Didn't he refuse a scan,or is this just another myth? The video here is maybe worthy of its own thread,but neuroscientist Professor James Fallon tells us some people do have psychopathic traits,the difference being they can control that urge. https://youtu.be/0Bn-TJHnNYQ
-
How often is this? This Must really harm people that really do protest their innocence :(
I would suggest it is much higher than many of us perceive. There aren't many high profile MOJ cases that I believe are actual MOJ's.
-
Didn't he refuse a scan,or is this just another myth? The video here is maybe worthy of its own thread,but neuroscientist Professor James Fallon tells us some people do have psychopathic traits,the difference being they can control that urge. https://youtu.be/0Bn-TJHnNYQ
I also note the preparation involved in the perpetration of the crime,and also like Julie some people must have known beforehand.
-
Didn't he refuse a scan,or is this just another myth? The video here is maybe worthy of its own thread,but neuroscientist Professor James Fallon tells us some people do have psychopathic traits,the difference being they can control that urge. https://youtu.be/0Bn-TJHnNYQ
I haven't read anything about a refusal,or even a scan come to that. There is such a thing as a non-lethal psychopath,which would refer to a nagging wife,a bullying work manager,and really a reference to those who can't control their temper.
-
You seems to be looking at one behaviour at a time as opposed to looking at the overall picture.
No I am not - there are varying reports about his character - some of them are obviously exaggerated on purpose for affect. It is very easy in retrospect to pick out the bad bits and ignore the good. I have never claimed he was a saint. I don't know him , have never met him . But there seem to be a lot of experts on here willing to attribute a medical illness to him which I have never seen officially diagnosed - so what should I assume from that?
-
I haven't read anything about a refusal,or even a scan come to that. There is such a thing as a non-lethal psychopath,which would refer to a nagging wife,a bullying work manager,and really a reference to those who can't control their temper.
Just read in passing that we actually need what we call psychopaths in our societies. We need people who can take risks, many leaders are "psychopaths". They generate jobs - it isn´t all negative. Have to read the article properly - but I am not that interested in psychopathy! :P
-
There are people who have lived with people with Aspergers all their lives and not even realised it. It happens.
-
Adam I have told you how I think it happened - You tell me how JB managed to get Sheila to lie down and pretend she was complicit with being shot without even putting her hands up?
Guess what you can say what you want because we were not there . So we are making up a scenario.
At least I look at both sides - you are just on some kind of mission and funnily enough the more times you say what you do - the more you convince me my theories are right. funny that .
I will call you a liar but apologise when you submit the post which says point by point how Sheila did it.
Threads have been created on how Sheila was shot.
-
Just read in passing that we actually need what we call psychopaths in our societies. We need people who can take risks, many leaders are "psychopaths". They generate jobs - it isn´t all negative. Have to read the article properly - but I am not that interested in psychopathy! :P
Another word for them is bad-tempered b'stards. ;D ;D Leaders. People with drive.
-
There are people who have lived with people with Aspergers all their lives and not even realised it. It happens.
And other diagnosis - like Tourettes for instance. Earlier it was just called, he´s got a tick. OR ADHD - how many kids are on medication for that now, where earlier they were just called naughty.
-
I will call you a liar but apologise when you submit the post which says point by point how Sheila did it.
Threads have been created on how Sheila was shot.
Personal post - calling me a liar - I will report you - little sneak . Get ready for 24 hours in Coventry .
only joking ;D I love your funny amusing posts.
-
No I am not - there are varying reports about his character - some of them are obviously exaggerated on purpose for affect. It is very easy in retrospect to pick out the bad bits and ignore the good. I have never claimed he was a saint. I don't know him , have never met him . But there seem to be a lot of experts on here willing to attribute a medical illness to him which I have never seen officially diagnosed - so what should I assume from that?
I have drawn many of my conclusions based on evidence presented by JB himself. Psychopathy isn't a medical illness it is a personality disorder.
-
I have drawn many of my conclusions based on evidence presented by JB himself. Psychopathy isn't a medical illness it is a personality disorder.
Ok - has that been diagnosed by an expert in Psychopathy that has studied/met Jeremy face to face?
-
Ok - has that been diagnosed by an expert in Psychopathy that has studied/met Jeremy face to face?
Why would it need to be?
-
Personal post - calling me a liar - I will report you - little sneak . Get ready for 24 hours in Coventry .
only joking ;D I love your funny amusing posts.
I will be happy to make a grovelling apology when I see you're (already posted) submission.
I must have missed you're submission. Although I didn't miss David's or Alias's. Funny that.
I wish you would just direct me to the thread where you posted it. Or just copy and paste it. Rather than keep claiming you have already done it.
Once I see it, I can comment.
-
Having now watched the documentary, paying particular attention to the wild unfounded claims/credible diagnosis(delete as appropriate) of Kerry Daynes, I am staggered that anyone takes her seriously.
Her first pronouncement about 16 minutes in;
"It's likely that he felt incredibly rejected on many different fronts and this caused him to feel that he desperately wanted attention, he wanted to be loved but if he actually attempted to get this he would be rejected again.
This causes a terrible conflict for a child and one way of coping with it might be to simply detach. You detach from your emotions so you can't be hurt.
What could have happened is that the emotional switches in Jeremy's brain could have been jammed in the opposition."
So after hearing a few anecdotes from interested parties Kerry Daynes is able to paint a "likely" picture of Jeremy's thoughts. She is then able to speculate as to what Jeremy "might" do to cope with this "likely"
scenario.
Anyway having uncovered the "likely" thoughts of Jeremy and what he "might" do to cope, Kerry remarkably can then diagnose what "could" have happened in Jeremy's brain.
It's a load of old bollocks isn't it?
Her next remarkable insight/paid for opinion comes at about 21 minutes. The reconstruction shows Jeremy driving a tractor dressed as Adam Ant and with his nails painted. Barbara Wilson apparently knows exactly why Jeremy dressed like this and it was to annoy his parents. Mike Fielder, the Sun "journalist" then claims that Jeremy was, "a sexual predator. On his nights off from Julie he was rampant around the bars and the clubs of South East Essex."
After being informed by the narrator that this behaviour by Jeremy could have been youthful high spirits or perhaps an indication of something darker, Kerry Daynes is on hand to help us decide.
She states, "It's possible that these are the early signs that in actual fact he has got psychopathic traits, so breaking rules, constantly breaking rules in many different ways. Also being sexually promiscuous and really needing a high level of stimulation, they're very prone to boredom."
How can anyone consider such groundless speculation as evidence of psychopathy? These are not indicators of psychopathy just because some pseudo scientists claim such.
How can opinions couched with more coulds and maybes and based on anecdotal evidence from interested parties be the grounds for a respected scientific opinion? This is voodoo science.
At around 29 minutes in after RWB has related his tale of Jeremy "acting" at the funeral and smiling like a "wide mouthed frog", the incredible Kerry Daynes is able to turn this anecdotal opinion into a hard fact and confidently state, "I think that this is classic behaviour of a psychopath. I think that in essence Jeremy painted on his emotions, the emotions that he felt he should portray that day and then when he felt that nobody was watching him, or nobody that mattered was watching him, he simply took the mask off and put it to one side."
Again this is not a scientific opinion, it is just some bollocks spouted by someone for money and is utterly meaningless drivel.
Her final contribution at around 41 minutes, "He certainly ticks an awful lot of boxes for a psychopath. Here is someone who is grandiose, he's arrogant, he seems to have very little emotion and what he does is very shallow and rather fake. He manipulates other people and he's quite happy to use people to meet his own needs."
For a science it appears to rely on a lot of assumption and speculation, as well as using subjective opinions as the basis for diagnosis. It is clearly groundless bollocks.
-
Having now watched the documentary, paying particular attention to the wild unfounded claims/credible diagnosis(delete as appropriate) of Kerry Daynes, I am staggered that anyone takes her seriously.
Her first pronouncement about 16 minutes in;
"It's likely that he felt incredibly rejected on many different fronts and this caused him to feel that he desperately wanted attention, he wanted to be loved but if he actually attempted to get this he would be rejected again.
This causes a terrible conflict for a child and one way of coping with it might be to simply detach. You detach from your emotions so you can't be hurt.
What could have happened is that the emotional switches in Jeremy's brain could have been jammed in the opposition."
So after hearing a few anecdotes from interested parties Kerry Daynes is able to paint a "likely" picture of Jeremy's thoughts. She is then able to speculate as to what Jeremy "might" do to cope with this "likely"
scenario.
Anyway having uncovered the "likely" thoughts of Jeremy and what he "might" do to cope, Kerry remarkably can then diagnose what "could" have happened in Jeremy's brain.
It's a load of old bollocks isn't it?
Her next remarkable insight/paid for opinion comes at about 21 minutes. The reconstruction shows Jeremy driving a tractor dressed as Adam Ant and with his nails painted. Barbara Wilson apparently knows exactly why Jeremy dressed like this and it was to annoy his parents. Mike Fielder, the Sun "journalist" then claims that Jeremy was, "a sexual predator. On his nights off from Julie he was rampant around the bars and the clubs of South East Essex."
After being informed by the narrator that this behaviour by Jeremy could have been youthful high spirits or perhaps an indication of something darker, Kerry Daynes is on hand to help us decide.
She states, "It's possible that these are the early signs that in actual fact he has got psychopathic traits, so breaking rules, constantly breaking rules in many different ways. Also being sexually promiscuous and really needing a high level of stimulation, they're very prone to boredom."
How can anyone consider such groundless speculation as evidence of psychopathy? These are not indicators of psychopathy just because some pseudo scientists claim such.
How can opinions couched with more coulds and maybes and based on anecdotal evidence from interested parties be the grounds for a respected scientific opinion? This is voodoo science.
At around 29 minutes in after RWB has related his tale of Jeremy "acting" at the funeral and smiling like a "wide mouthed frog", the incredible Kerry Daynes is able to turn this anecdotal opinion into a hard fact and confidently state, "I think that this is classic behaviour of a psychopath. I think that in essence Jeremy painted on his emotions, the emotions that he felt he should portray that day and then when he felt that nobody was watching him, or nobody that mattered was watching him, he simply took the mask off and put it to one side."
Again this is not a scientific opinion, it is just some bollocks spouted by someone for money and is utterly meaningless drivel.
Her final contribution at around 41 minutes, "He certainly ticks an awful lot of boxes for a psychopath. Here is someone who is grandiose, he's arrogant, he seems to have very little emotion and what he does is very shallow and rather fake. He manipulates other people and he's quite happy to use people to meet his own needs."
For a science it appears to rely on a lot of assumption and speculation, as well as using subjective opinions as the basis for diagnosis. It is clearly groundless bollocks.
You've clearly not read his police interviews, court transcripts, blogs, other interviews or letters nor paid any attention to the amount of people he has come into contact with over the past 3 decades.
So now that you appear to be the oracle on human nature - what do you suggest made him murder 5 members of his family and what's wrong with him to have carried out this massacre?
-
Jan is always asking me to apologise when she produces a document. Apparently these end the debate.
Thought she would revel in getting me to apologise when directing me to or copying her already posted point by point account of how Sheila committed the massacre. Which she repeatedly says she has already posted. Sadly I have only read David's and Alias's. Funny that.
Obviously if no such post exists from Jan, she will have to apologise to me.
If it does exist perhaps there should still be an apology for repeatedly saying it exists but not providing it, after I have politely asked for it.
But it is never too late to support Jeremy and show how Sheila committed the massacre. If this is not possible, then it is weird that people support Jeremy but cannot give a plausible explanation of how Sheila did it.
-
The attractive woman in the video obviously knows what she is talking about. Otherwise she would be asked to comment.
She is giving her views based her knowledge of Jeremy and psychopathy. There is no law that she had to meet Jeremy. Anyway, as she said he would be more than capable of putting on a mask for her.
Supporters have to try to discredit her. Keepers saying she apologised about what she said, but then failing to provide a source of this when I asked for it.
-
Keepers, he's a strange one.
He said he has never stated Sheila committed the massacre. Suggesting he believes she did not. This automatically makes Jeremy guilty.
However the evidence which satisfied the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC is apparently not enough for him to say Jeremy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Why would it need to be?
I don't think many people would be happy for someone to decide whether or not they were a psychopath simply from looking at pictures, film and speaking to people who didn't like them
-
You've clearly not read his police interviews, court transcripts, blogs, other interviews or letters nor paid any attention to the amount of people he has come into contact with over the past 3 decades.
So now that you appear to be the oracle on human nature - what do you suggest made him murder 5 members of his family and what's wrong with him to have carried out this massacre?
I have read the interviews etc. and it is clear that a diagnosis of psychopathy can't be diagnosed from these and any belief otherwise has no basis.
It is not I who is claiming to be the oracle on human nature though is it? I'm not the one making wild and extravagant claims based on a few blogs, interviews and the subjective opinion of biased sources.
-
I don't think many people would be happy for someone to decide whether or not they were a psychopath simply from looking at pictures, film and speaking to people who didn't like them
The fact he's in prison having been convicted of 5 murders is a bit of a clue.
-
I have read the interviews etc. and it is clear that a diagnosis of psychopathy can't be diagnosed from these and any belief otherwise has no basis.
It is not I who is claiming to be the oracle on human nature though is it? I'm not the one making wild and extravagant claims based on a few blogs, interviews and the subjective opinion of biased sources.
What is clear then Gringo?
I've already responded to Sara T regarding this - see my post above ^^^^^
-
The fact he's in prison having been convicted of 5 murders is a bit of a clue.
Not if he's innocent it's not.
Plus, She wasn't basing her findings on this, she was doing it by looking at film, photos and listening to the words of people who didn't like him.
-
I have read the interviews etc. and it is clear that a diagnosis of psychopathy can't be diagnosed from these and any belief otherwise has no basis.
It is not I who is claiming to be the oracle on human nature though is it? I'm not the one making wild and extravagant claims based on a few blogs, interviews and the subjective opinion of biased sources.
It may be clear in your opinion but I wonder in which other way might it be possible to diagnose a psychopath -I believe it is now acceptable for doctors to give "over the phone" diagnoses- other than after a crime has been committed. One can't do random checks because there is no law which outlaws personality disorders. Only when laws are broken can checks be made.
-
Not if he's innocent it's not.
Plus, She wasn't basing her findings on this, she was doing it by looking at film, photos and listening to the words of people who didn't like him.
I don't believe he is!
That's your opinion. You don't know what she based her findings on. The fact that Ofcom ignored JB's complaint, suggests they found she wasn't unprofessional.
Regardless of what JB and his campaign team says. They have only given a bias view on the official website, no more no less.
-
Having now watched the documentary, paying particular attention to the wild unfounded claims/credible diagnosis(delete as appropriate) of Kerry Daynes, I am staggered that anyone takes her seriously.
Her first pronouncement about 16 minutes in;
"It's likely that he felt incredibly rejected on many different fronts and this caused him to feel that he desperately wanted attention, he wanted to be loved but if he actually attempted to get this he would be rejected again.
This causes a terrible conflict for a child and one way of coping with it might be to simply detach. You detach from your emotions so you can't be hurt.
What could have happened is that the emotional switches in Jeremy's brain could have been jammed in the opposition."
So after hearing a few anecdotes from interested parties Kerry Daynes is able to paint a "likely" picture of Jeremy's thoughts. She is then able to speculate as to what Jeremy "might" do to cope with this "likely"
scenario.
Anyway having uncovered the "likely" thoughts of Jeremy and what he "might" do to cope, Kerry remarkably can then diagnose what "could" have happened in Jeremy's brain.
It's a load of old bollocks isn't it?
Her next remarkable insight/paid for opinion comes at about 21 minutes. The reconstruction shows Jeremy driving a tractor dressed as Adam Ant and with his nails painted. Barbara Wilson apparently knows exactly why Jeremy dressed like this and it was to annoy his parents. Mike Fielder, the Sun "journalist" then claims that Jeremy was, "a sexual predator. On his nights off from Julie he was rampant around the bars and the clubs of South East Essex."
After being informed by the narrator that this behaviour by Jeremy could have been youthful high spirits or perhaps an indication of something darker, Kerry Daynes is on hand to help us decide.
She states, "It's possible that these are the early signs that in actual fact he has got psychopathic traits, so breaking rules, constantly breaking rules in many different ways. Also being sexually promiscuous and really needing a high level of stimulation, they're very prone to boredom."
How can anyone consider such groundless speculation as evidence of psychopathy? These are not indicators of psychopathy just because some pseudo scientists claim such.
How can opinions couched with more coulds and maybes and based on anecdotal evidence from interested parties be the grounds for a respected scientific opinion? This is voodoo science.
At around 29 minutes in after RWB has related his tale of Jeremy "acting" at the funeral and smiling like a "wide mouthed frog", the incredible Kerry Daynes is able to turn this anecdotal opinion into a hard fact and confidently state, "I think that this is classic behaviour of a psychopath. I think that in essence Jeremy painted on his emotions, the emotions that he felt he should portray that day and then when he felt that nobody was watching him, or nobody that mattered was watching him, he simply took the mask off and put it to one side."
Again this is not a scientific opinion, it is just some bollocks spouted by someone for money and is utterly meaningless drivel.
Her final contribution at around 41 minutes, "He certainly ticks an awful lot of boxes for a psychopath. Here is someone who is grandiose, he's arrogant, he seems to have very little emotion and what he does is very shallow and rather fake. He manipulates other people and he's quite happy to use people to meet his own needs."
For a science it appears to rely on a lot of assumption and speculation, as well as using subjective opinions as the basis for diagnosis. It is clearly groundless bollocks.
Brilliant post Gringo
All it is, is an assessment called profiling. :-\
-
Brilliant post Gringo
All it is, is an assessment called profiling. :-\
Really?
Think you need to read up about Psychopathy http://www.livescience.com/49613-psychopaths-brains-punishment.html
-
Having now watched the documentary, paying particular attention to the wild unfounded claims/credible diagnosis(delete as appropriate) of Kerry Daynes, I am staggered that anyone takes her seriously.
Her first pronouncement about 16 minutes in;
"It's likely that he felt incredibly rejected on many different fronts and this caused him to feel that he desperately wanted attention, he wanted to be loved but if he actually attempted to get this he would be rejected again.
This causes a terrible conflict for a child and one way of coping with it might be to simply detach. You detach from your emotions so you can't be hurt.
What could have happened is that the emotional switches in Jeremy's brain could have been jammed in the opposition."
So after hearing a few anecdotes from interested parties Kerry Daynes is able to paint a "likely" picture of Jeremy's thoughts. She is then able to speculate as to what Jeremy "might" do to cope with this "likely"
scenario.
Anyway having uncovered the "likely" thoughts of Jeremy and what he "might" do to cope, Kerry remarkably can then diagnose what "could" have happened in Jeremy's brain.
It's a load of old bollocks isn't it?
Her next remarkable insight/paid for opinion comes at about 21 minutes. The reconstruction shows Jeremy driving a tractor dressed as Adam Ant and with his nails painted. Barbara Wilson apparently knows exactly why Jeremy dressed like this and it was to annoy his parents. Mike Fielder, the Sun "journalist" then claims that Jeremy was, "a sexual predator. On his nights off from Julie he was rampant around the bars and the clubs of South East Essex."
After being informed by the narrator that this behaviour by Jeremy could have been youthful high spirits or perhaps an indication of something darker, Kerry Daynes is on hand to help us decide.
She states, "It's possible that these are the early signs that in actual fact he has got psychopathic traits, so breaking rules, constantly breaking rules in many different ways. Also being sexually promiscuous and really needing a high level of stimulation, they're very prone to boredom."
How can anyone consider such groundless speculation as evidence of psychopathy? These are not indicators of psychopathy just because some pseudo scientists claim such.
How can opinions couched with more coulds and maybes and based on anecdotal evidence from interested parties be the grounds for a respected scientific opinion? This is voodoo science.
At around 29 minutes in after RWB has related his tale of Jeremy "acting" at the funeral and smiling like a "wide mouthed frog", the incredible Kerry Daynes is able to turn this anecdotal opinion into a hard fact and confidently state, "I think that this is classic behaviour of a psychopath. I think that in essence Jeremy painted on his emotions, the emotions that he felt he should portray that day and then when he felt that nobody was watching him, or nobody that mattered was watching him, he simply took the mask off and put it to one side."
Again this is not a scientific opinion, it is just some bollocks spouted by someone for money and is utterly meaningless drivel.
Her final contribution at around 41 minutes, "He certainly ticks an awful lot of boxes for a psychopath. Here is someone who is grandiose, he's arrogant, he seems to have very little emotion and what he does is very shallow and rather fake. He manipulates other people and he's quite happy to use people to meet his own needs."
For a science it appears to rely on a lot of assumption and speculation, as well as using subjective opinions as the basis for diagnosis. It is clearly groundless bollocks.
An excellent post as usual,Gringo,making it yet another money-making piece of spin.
Well done.
I think I'll take up diagnosing via posts. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Having now watched the documentary, paying particular attention to the wild unfounded claims/credible diagnosis(delete as appropriate) of Kerry Daynes, I am staggered that anyone takes her seriously.
Her first pronouncement about 16 minutes in;
"It's likely that he felt incredibly rejected on many different fronts and this caused him to feel that he desperately wanted attention, he wanted to be loved but if he actually attempted to get this he would be rejected again.
This causes a terrible conflict for a child and one way of coping with it might be to simply detach. You detach from your emotions so you can't be hurt.
What could have happened is that the emotional switches in Jeremy's brain could have been jammed in the opposition."
So after hearing a few anecdotes from interested parties Kerry Daynes is able to paint a "likely" picture of Jeremy's thoughts. She is then able to speculate as to what Jeremy "might" do to cope with this "likely"
scenario.
Anyway having uncovered the "likely" thoughts of Jeremy and what he "might" do to cope, Kerry remarkably can then diagnose what "could" have happened in Jeremy's brain.
It's a load of old bollocks isn't it?
Her next remarkable insight/paid for opinion comes at about 21 minutes. The reconstruction shows Jeremy driving a tractor dressed as Adam Ant and with his nails painted. Barbara Wilson apparently knows exactly why Jeremy dressed like this and it was to annoy his parents. Mike Fielder, the Sun "journalist" then claims that Jeremy was, "a sexual predator. On his nights off from Julie he was rampant around the bars and the clubs of South East Essex."
After being informed by the narrator that this behaviour by Jeremy could have been youthful high spirits or perhaps an indication of something darker, Kerry Daynes is on hand to help us decide.
She states, "It's possible that these are the early signs that in actual fact he has got psychopathic traits, so breaking rules, constantly breaking rules in many different ways. Also being sexually promiscuous and really needing a high level of stimulation, they're very prone to boredom."
How can anyone consider such groundless speculation as evidence of psychopathy? These are not indicators of psychopathy just because some pseudo scientists claim such.
How can opinions couched with more coulds and maybes and based on anecdotal evidence from interested parties be the grounds for a respected scientific opinion? This is voodoo science.
At around 29 minutes in after RWB has related his tale of Jeremy "acting" at the funeral and smiling like a "wide mouthed frog", the incredible Kerry Daynes is able to turn this anecdotal opinion into a hard fact and confidently state, "I think that this is classic behaviour of a psychopath. I think that in essence Jeremy painted on his emotions, the emotions that he felt he should portray that day and then when he felt that nobody was watching him, or nobody that mattered was watching him, he simply took the mask off and put it to one side."
Again this is not a scientific opinion, it is just some bollocks spouted by someone for money and is utterly meaningless drivel.
Her final contribution at around 41 minutes, "He certainly ticks an awful lot of boxes for a psychopath. Here is someone who is grandiose, he's arrogant, he seems to have very little emotion and what he does is very shallow and rather fake. He manipulates other people and he's quite happy to use people to meet his own needs."
For a science it appears to rely on a lot of assumption and speculation, as well as using subjective opinions as the basis for diagnosis. It is clearly groundless bollocks.
You haven't got a clue, you're just another obsessed Bamber supporter trying to discredit the strikingly obvious fact that Bamber is a psychopath. That won't change simply because you don't understand the concept. Actually gringo, your last sentence describes perfectly, you notion that Nevill Bamber called the police - meaning it is clearly groundless bollocks.
-
An excellent post as usual,Gringo,making it yet another money-making piece of spin.
Well done.
I think I'll take up diagnosing via posts. ;D ;D ;D ;D
You'll have to learn what a psychopath is first! ;D ;D
-
Why would it need to be?
So now you are saying you can diagnose remotely from hearsay and un proven anecdotes?
Or what are you saying?
-
You'll have to learn what a psychopath is first! ;D ;D
As I've already said---------it takes one to know one. ;D ;D
-
As I've already said---------it takes one to know one. ;D ;D
Can you explain this please Lookout because I'm not understanding what your post is implying. Unless of course you are suggesting that we are psychopaths? If that is the case then I'd like a moderator to have a word please!
-
I'm fully aware of what a psychopath is,and Jeremy isn't one of them. He was a lad who liked to show off given his new found freedom from the apron strings of his mother. It's quite normal.
-
Everyone on this forum has given an opinion of whether Jeremy is a psychopath. So why shouldn't someone who is qualified in this area, give an opinion, when asked ?
She didn't say he was a psychopath, but that he ticked a lot of boxes. And suggested it may have started in early childhood.
-
So now you are saying you can diagnose remotely from hearsay and un proven anecdotes?
Or what are you saying?
No, that is what you are all saying in order to dilute Kerry Daynes professional opinion. She thinks he's a psychopath, we think he's a psychopath, lots of people think he's a psychopath. In fact there are very few people who don't think he is a psychopath.
-
I'm fully aware of what a psychopath is,and Jeremy isn't one of them. He was a lad who liked to show off given his new found freedom from the apron strings of his mother. It's quite normal.
Based on your previous posts on the subject and your apparent bias, Clearly you are not.
-
No, that is what you are all saying in order in order to dilute Kerry Daynes professional opinion. She thinks he's a psychopath, we think he's a psychopath, lots of people think he's a psychopath. In fact there are very few people who don't think he is a psychopath.
Actually I was not - I was referring to your opinion - because I have not even had time to finish watching the video. I was asking what is the accepted way to do a diagnosis .
-
Actually I was not - I was referring to your opinion - because I have not even had time to finish watching the video. I was asking what is the accepted way to do a diagnosis .
See my previous posts on the subject.
My opinion has come from reading his statements, interviews, blogs, letters... Eccetera.... And paying attention to his behaviours, what he says and doesn't say... Blah blah
You only have to look at his recent blog (early May 2015) - He is given the opportunity to protest his innocence but rather than do this he appears more interested in jumping on the bandwagon in relation to old news.
Again, his motive to murder was allegedly for money, he's been in the news in the past fighting for MONEY and now he's banging on about MONEY.
-
See my previous posts on the subject.
My opinion has come from reading his statements, interviews, blogs, letters... Eccetera.... And paying attention to his behaviours, what he says and doesn't say... Blah blah
You only have to look at his recent blog (early May 2015) - he is given the opportunity to protest his innocence but rather than do this he appears more interested in jumping on the bandwagon in relation to old news.
Again, his motive to murder was allegedly for money, he's been in the news in the past fighting for MONEY and now he's banging on about MONEY.
So if someone is in jail and they are actually innocent how do you expect them to prove that fact without some support if they are not entitled to legal aid - this is no ta question about Jeremy it is a theoretical question - how do they get the legal representation and pay for everything that needs to be done?
-
Furthermore, as a prisoner maintaining innocence I think he is taking liberties by blogging what he has. The original point of giving prisoners, maintaining innocence, the right to have contact with the media wasn't to allow them to be given a voice to air their opinions/grievances on political matters it was in order for them to have a voice beyond the prison walls in relation to their conviction (unsafe/wrongful).
This adds further weight for me that JB is arrogant - another trait of psychopathy.
It wouldn't surprise me if he gets "dupers delight" from being allowed to blog about subjects unrelated to overturning his conviction.
-
See my previous posts on the subject.
My opinion has come from reading his statements, interviews, blogs, letters... Eccetera.... And paying attention to his behaviours, what he says and doesn't say... Blah blah
You only have to look at his recent blog (early May 2015) - He is given the opportunity to protest his innocence but rather than do this he appears more interested in jumping on the bandwagon in relation to old news.
Again, his motive to murder was allegedly for money, he's been in the news in the past fighting for MONEY and now he's banging on about MONEY.
So if someone is in jail and they are actually innocent how do you expect them to prove that fact without some support if they are not entitled to legal aid - this is no ta question about Jeremy it is a theoretical question - how do they get the legal representation and pay for everything that needs to be done?
Your post doesn't make sense in relation to what I have posted? I haven't mentioned legal aid?
-
Unless of course you are suggesting that JB has attempted to get money in the past by suing people in order to pay his legal fees?
-
I'm fully aware of what a psychopath is,and Jeremy isn't one of them. He was a lad who liked to show off given his new found freedom from the apron strings of his mother. It's quite normal.
And how are you, as a one time nurse, more qualified to make that statement, than a qualified psychologist?
-
But to answer your question, from experience, it is free to apply to the CCRC in order for them to review a case of 'wrongful conviction.'
-
And how are you, as a one time nurse, more qualified to make that statement, than a qualified psychologist?
Believe me April,it has nothing to do with being qualified or not. There are some nurses who are more qualified in their field,than doctors. You ask any doctor. A doctor only specialises in one or two areas of the anatomy,whereas a nurse on a specific ward,say of a surgical nature,can also spot other problems which are medical too,such as a mental illness.The surgeon only carried out " his area " of expertise.
A psychiatrist/psychologist won't profess to know everything either,and they CAN get it wrong. A for instance is actually concerning the family. The child in question is coming up to 7 years of age,and for the past 4,we as a family have known that there was a problem with the child,as at 3 she was destructive,used to bite her siblings,run amok,etc etc,and don't mention taking her shopping !!
December last year,I accompanied the child to the hospital to see ANOTHER child psychiatrist and demanded that her behaviour wasn't normal,as had been said in the past of a 3 year old. To cut a long story short,the child's mother received the top rate disability living allowance for the child,who has got severe ADHD,even though she'd been attending a school which specialises in children who are behind in their work,the psychiatrists still hadn't seen a problem ::)
The child is a loveable monster.
-
Believe me April,it has nothing to do with being qualified or not. There are some nurses who are more qualified in their field,than doctors. You ask any doctor. A doctor only specialises in one or two areas of the anatomy,whereas a nurse on a specific ward,say of a surgical nature,can also spot other problems which are medical too,such as a mental illness.The surgeon only carried out " his area " of expertise.
A psychiatrist/psychologist won't profess to know everything either,and they CAN get it wrong. A for instance is actually concerning the family. The child in question is coming up to 7 years of age,and for the past 4,we as a family have known that there was a problem with the child,as at 3 she was destructive,used to bite her siblings,run amok,etc etc,and don't mention taking her shopping !!
December last year,I accompanied the child to the hospital to see ANOTHER child psychiatrist and demanded that her behaviour wasn't normal,as had been said in the past of a 3 year old. To cut a long story short,the child's mother received the top rate disability living allowance for the child,who has got severe ADHD,even though she'd been attending a school which specialises in children who are behind in their work,the psychiatrists still hadn't seen a problem ::)
The child is a loveable monster.
So are you saying, to cut a long story short, that you've accepted that the 'child is a loveable monster' as the top rate for disability living allowance is now being paid for the child who has severe ADHD?
Or have I misinterpreted that?
Incidentally labelling a child a 'monster' can be harmful to the child in later life, so be sure to air on the side of caution when referring to them in this manner' if indeed you need to refer to them like this at all?
-
I love my great granddaughter very much,and she IS a monster at times,and one can only KNOW of these things when your faced with it. The same as you don't know someone with a psychopathic disorder until you've met one.
My argument is,that it's taken nearly 4 years to get a diagnosis from a doctor/psychiatrist/psychologist and a paediatrician to notice that there was something " not right ". My g/daughter had been tearing her hair out because she was such a handful. Also had been reduced to tears at times as well,as she has other children to see to. I've had the child on occasion, but became scared in case she ran out of the door.
-
I love my great granddaughter very much,and she IS a monster at times,and one can only KNOW of these things when your faced with it. The same as you don't know someone with a psychopathic disorder until you've met one.
My argument is,that it's taken nearly 4 years to get a diagnosis from a doctor/psychiatrist/psychologist and a paediatrician to notice that there was something " not right ". My g/daughter had been tearing her hair out because she was such a handful. Also had been reduced to tears at times as well,as she has other children to see to. I've had the child on occasion, but became scared in case she ran out of the door.
I am not suggesting for one moment you do not love your great granddaughter very much.
But how can a small child act like a monster, as you suggest? Could it be that things going on around her could be affecting her? Could her environment be a cause or do you think she was born that way?
-
I am not suggesting for one moment you do not love your great granddaughter very much.
But how can a small child act like a monster, as you suggest? Could it be that things going on around her could be affecting her? Could her environment be a cause or do you think she was born that way?
Oh dear,this is futile if you have no experience of children.
-
Oh dear,this is futile if you have no experience of children.
Who doesn't have experience of children?
I don't think receiving the highest amount possible for disability living allowance suggests a child has ADHD. In fact I think this is one of the flaws in our government support systems.
I know a parent who claimed the highest amount possible for her child who apparently had ADHD. They too had to put up a fight over the years in order to receive the monetary award. Was this money spent on helping the child? No it was not. Where is the child now; in prison for a very long time.
Maybe the child psychologists in these instances have got it right . Maybe the problems aren't with the child but with their environment. Maybe the parent needs the help and support in order to better support the child emotionally?
-
Oh dear,this is futile if you have no experience of children.
And the same can be said if you have no experience of psychopaths.
-
And the same can be said if you have no experience of psychopaths.
From working in an asylum,I think I gathered more than enough experience of psychopaths,except that the patients weren't given that diagnosis back then.
-
From working in an asylum,I think I gathered more than enough experience of psychopaths,except that the patients weren't given that diagnosis back then.
What diagnosis were they given?
It sounds to me a though you've had no experiences whatsoever with psychopaths, even though you've worked in asylums.
Many people back in the day were sent to asylums after suffering from stress, post natel depression and anxiety. Thankfully things have moved on since then and people with these conditions are being treated more humanely. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2141741/Sent-asylum-The-Victorian-women-locked-suffering-stress-post-natal-depression-anxiety.html
-
From working in an asylum,I think I gathered more than enough experience of psychopaths,except that the patients weren't given that diagnosis back then.
So how do you know any of the patients you dealt with her 'psychopaths'? From what you just posted, you had/have no idea if there were any psychopaths among the patients you deal with. Generally, psychopaths find their way into the prison system, they are not classed as being insane because they know what they're doing is wrong, they just don't care.
-
What diagnosis were they given?
They just seemed to be classed as insane,and certain ones were given risk assessments as being criminally insane,others were depressives.I don't remember any other diagnosis on the ward that I was on which I can only liken to a prison,with a row of cells on one side,and on the other side,a large communal bath which was fixed to the floor,which had a large wooden yoke attached.
There was also the padded cell.
There was also another ward off this area where the depressives and elderly senile were housed.
-
So how do you know any of the patients you dealt with her 'psychopaths'? From what you just posted, you had/have no idea if there were any psychopaths among the patients you deal with. Generally, psychopaths find their way into the prison system, they are not classed as being insane because they know what they're doing is wrong, they just don't care.
I get the strong feeling that some people sent to asylums back in the day were possibly referred to as "psychos" without the person referring to them in this manner actually understanding the concept.
Lookout clearly doesn't understand psychopathy as her beliefs are so contradictory - not unlike the doublethink George Orwell wrote about in "1984"
-
They just seemed to be classed as insane,and certain ones were given risk assessments as being criminally insane,others were depressives.I don't remember any other diagnosis on the ward that I was on which I can only liken to a prison,with a row of cells on one side,and on the other side,a large communal bath which was fixed to the floor,which had a large wooden yoke attached.
There was also the padded cell.
There was also another ward off this area where the depressives and elderly senile were housed.
Psychopaths aren't insane.
-
Believe me April,it has nothing to do with being qualified or not. There are some nurses who are more qualified in their field,than doctors. You ask any doctor. A doctor only specialises in one or two areas of the anatomy,whereas a nurse on a specific ward,say of a surgical nature,can also spot other problems which are medical too,such as a mental illness.The surgeon only carried out " his area " of expertise.
A psychiatrist/psychologist won't profess to know everything either,and they CAN get it wrong. A for instance is actually concerning the family. The child in question is coming up to 7 years of age,and for the past 4,we as a family have known that there was a problem with the child,as at 3 she was destructive,used to bite her siblings,run amok,etc etc,and don't mention taking her shopping !!
December last year,I accompanied the child to the hospital to see ANOTHER child psychiatrist and demanded that her behaviour wasn't normal,as had been said in the past of a 3 year old. To cut a long story short,the child's mother received the top rate disability living allowance for the child,who has got severe ADHD,even though she'd been attending a school which specialises in children who are behind in their work,the psychiatrists still hadn't seen a problem ::)
The child is a loveable monster.
I hope I've got this wrong, but you do seem to be saying that you know more than experts and seem to be unaware of the irony that if THEY can get it wrong, so too, can you. It seems that neither you nor the psychologist in question have met Jeremy yet your own pronouncements on him are every bit as -no, MORE rigid- than hers. WHY is it OK for you, having never seen him, to make strong assessments of him, but wrong for her to do the same?
-
Psychopaths aren't insane.
Did I say they were ?
-
I'm walking away because I can see where it's leading to.
-
They just seemed to be classed as insane,and certain ones were given risk assessments as being criminally insane,others were depressives.I don't remember any other diagnosis on the ward that I was on which I can only liken to a prison,with a row of cells on one side,and on the other side,a large communal bath which was fixed to the floor,which had a large wooden yoke attached.
There was also the padded cell.
There was also another ward off this area where the depressives and elderly senile were housed.
So it's very possible that there may NOT have been a psychopath amongst them...................equally, it's not unheard of for psychopaths to suffer mental illness and very probable that whilst the mental illness was receiving treatment, the psychopathy would have gone unrecognized.
-
A Professor Vincent Egan assessed Jeremy and found no indication of psychopathy.
-
A Professor Vincent Egan assessed Jeremy and found no indication of psychopathy.
Been there done that a few weeks ago...
Professor Vincent Egan refers to Luke Mitchell's guilt here http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/why-silent-and-defiant-to-the-end-luke-mitchell-denied-the-family-of-jodi-jones-the-one-answer-they-needed-1.65040
You will recall the Luke Mitchell case is discussed on this forum http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.0.html
So which one has Professor Egan got correct? Or are both of them wrong? Or is one wrong?
-
A Professor Vincent Egan assessed Jeremy and found no indication of psychopathy.
Yeah well, it needs doing again by someone not working for the defence!
-
I do think the reference to the music and clips from videos of that era made the documentary appear trite in places.
-
I'm walking away because I can see where it's leading to.
The whole thing just isn´t pretty to watch, ew, hope you are OK.
-
you cant win - wrong if you argue - wrong if you walk away .
Wonder what that is a sign of?
-
Was the voice at the beginning the police recording of Jeremy calling the police. Or was it an actors voice ?
-
Gain Bews claims the house was in total darkness. :-\
-
Was the voice at the beginning the police recording of Jeremy calling the police. Or was it an actors voice ?
It was an actor.
-
Was the voice at the beginning the police recording of Jeremy calling the police. Or was it an actors voice ?
I'm not sure what is more bizarre- if you thought an anti-Jeremy documentary crew got Jeremy to read lines for the camera or that there was a recording they found though police said they didn't record calls other than those to the IR Information room.
-
Thank you NGB.
-
I'm not sure what is more bizarre- if you thought an anti-Jeremy documentary crew got Jeremy to read lines for the camera or that there was a recording they found though police said they didn't record calls other than those to the IR Information room.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You haven't got a clue, you're just another obsessed Bamber supporter trying to discredit the strikingly obvious fact that Bamber is a psychopath. That won't change simply because you don't understand the concept. Actually gringo, your last sentence describes perfectly, you notion that Nevill Bamber called the police - meaning it is clearly groundless bollocks.
If you are convinced that Kerry Daynes, or you or any of the other armchair psychologists on here can diagnose psychopathy from letters, blogs and subjective anecdotal tales then you will believe anything. I understand the concept perfectly well but I think that you struggle to recognise the difference between pseudoscience and science. Kerry Daynes claims certainly fall into the former category.
The supposed "strikingly obvious fact that Bamber is a psychopath" is based on nothing more than whatever pseudo scientific rubbish you were last reading on the internet.
I think you are probably taking the piss with these claims and are just trying to get a rise out of people because you cannot really believe that these claims are worthy of serious debate.
Before you say, I aren't debating Kerry Daines claims, I am deriding them.
As for me being "another obsessed Bamber supporter", I would suggest a little more self awareness before attempting put downs. A quick look in the members list shows that in your latest incarnation on here you have managed over 7,300 posts in less than 8 months, posting at a rate of more than 32 per day. At your current posting rate you are on course for nearly 1,300 posts in a year.
My posting history shows that in over 4 years I have posted 772 times or one post every other day. it takes you, on average, 2 weeks and 4 days to post the same number of posts that I have made in over 4 years.
The evidence quite clearly shows that you are the one who is obsessed, being by far the most prolific poster on the forum but also, ironically, the poster most likely to call someone obsessed.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm not sure what is more bizarre- if you thought an anti-Jeremy documentary crew got Jeremy to read lines for the camera or that there was a recording they found though police said they didn't record calls other than those to the IR Information room.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If you are convinced that Kerry Daynes, or you or any of the other armchair psychologists on here can diagnose psychopathy from letters, blogs and subjective anecdotal tales then you will believe anything. I understand the concept perfectly well but I think that you struggle to recognise the difference between pseudo science and science. Kerry Daynes claims certainly fall into the former category.
The supposed "strikingly obvious fact that Bamber is a psychopath" is based on nothing more than whatever pseudo scientific rubbish you were last reading on the internet.
I think you are probably taking the piss with these claims and are just trying to get a rise out of people because you cannot really believe that these claims are worthy of serious debate.
Before you say, I aren't debating Kerry Daines claims, I am deriding them.
As for me being "another obsessed Bamber supporter", I would suggest a little more self awareness before attempting put downs. A quick look in the members list shows that in your latest incarnation on here you have managed over 7,300 posts in less than 8 months, posting at a rate of more than 32 per day. At your current posting rate you are on course for nearly 1,300 posts in a year.
My posting history shows that in over 4 years I have posted 772 times or one post every other day. it takes you, on average, 2 weeks and 4 days to post the same number of posts that I have made in over 4 years.
The evidence quite clearly shows that you are the one who is obsessed, being by far the most prolific poster on the forum but also, ironically, the poster most likely to call someone obsessed.
I post more than any other poster do I? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I didn't say you were obsessed with the forum, I said you were obsessed by Bamber (and a wee bit obsessed with me - it's rather flattering but not necessary - I'm already spoken for thanks! ;D ;D ;D ;D You have to be obsessed to start looking into how many posts I've made). Why don't you put your efforts into showing how Bamber is innocent? I guess that's really not so easy and perhaps that's why you're unable to post much? ;)
Is pseudoscience your new word? It really doesn't matter what you think about psychology as a discipline because at the end of the day, it's not going anywhere, the police use it in their investigations and Bamber is STILL a psychopath. Can't win them all though eh gringo? ;)
-
I post more than any other poster do I? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I didn't say you were obsessed with the forum, I said you were obsessed by Bamber (and a wee bit obsessed with me - it's rather flattering but not necessary - I'm already spoken for thanks! ;D ;D ;D ;D You have to be obsessed to start looking into how many posts I've made). Why don't you put your efforts into showing how Bamber is innocent? I guess that's really not so easy and perhaps that's why you're unable to post much? ;)
Is pseudoscience your new word? It really doesn't matter what you think about psychology as a discipline because at the end of the day, it's not going anywhere, the police use it in their investigations and Bamber is STILL a psychopath. Can't win them all though eh gringo? ;)
I'm surprised he hasn't been "advised" to attack the post, NOT the poster.....................on the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't be. ;)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am sure Susan was aware the police did not keep the recording of Bamber's call.
After all you have got to page 8 of Wilkes's book.
-
I am sure Susan was aware the police did not keep the recording of Bamber's call.
After all you have got to page 8 of Wilkes's book.
Adam hahaha you are so funny but you will be so proud of me because I am now upto page 20 ;D
-
I post more than any other poster do I? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I didn't say you were obsessed with the forum, I said you were obsessed by Bamber (and a wee bit obsessed with me - it's rather flattering but not necessary - I'm already spoken for thanks! ;D ;D ;D ;D You have to be obsessed to start looking into how many posts I've made). Why don't you put your efforts into showing how Bamber is innocent? I guess that's really not so easy and perhaps that's why you're unable to post much? ;)
Is pseudoscience your new word? It really doesn't matter what you think about psychology as a discipline because at the end of the day, it's not going anywhere, the police use it in their investigations and Bamber is STILL a psychopath. Can't win them all though eh gringo? ;)
How do you deduce that I am obsessed by Bamber? My few postings on the forum are all you have to go on, but you conclude that I am obsessed with Bamber but not the forum. With reasoning like that I am not surprised that you are prone to believing pseudoscience( not my new word, just the most accurate description of what you consider to be science).
I looked into the amount of posts you made to check whether or not your claim of my obsession held any water(it didn't).
It isn't just what I think about some branches of psychology. It is well recognised by most scientists, even amongst psychologists, that there are many branches of psychology masquerading as science that are nothing more than mumbo jumbo. Do some reading on it that isn't just confirmation bias and you may be able to discern the difference.
What's to win here, by the way? If winning hinges on the credibility of yours and Kerry Daines diagnoses of psychopathy then you lost some time ago because the claims made are so self evidently ridiculous that they are self defeating.
-
How do you deduce that I am obsessed by Bamber? My few postings on the forum are all you have to go on, but you conclude that I am obsessed with Bamber but not the forum. With reasoning like that I am not surprised that you are prone to believing pseudoscience( not my new word, just the most accurate description of what you consider to be science).
I looked into the amount of posts you made to check whether or not your claim of my obsession held any water(it didn't).
It isn't just what I think about some branches of psychology. It is well recognised by most scientists, even amongst psychologists, that there are many branches of psychology masquerading as science that are nothing more than mumbo jumbo. Do some reading on it that isn't just confirmation bias and you may be able to discern the difference.
What's to win here, by the way? If winning hinges on the credibility of yours and Kerry Daines diagnoses of psychopathy then you lost some time ago because the claims made are so self evidently ridiculous that they are self defeating.
And so says gringo! Doesn't deflect from the fact that Bamber is a psychopath and guilty of 5 murders. What is self defeating is your continued attempts to defend his innocence - one day, you might see that :)
-
If you are convinced that Kerry Daynes, or you or any of the other armchair psychologists on here can diagnose psychopathy from letters, blogs and subjective anecdotal tales then you will believe anything. I understand the concept perfectly well but I think that you struggle to recognise the difference between pseudoscience and science. Kerry Daynes claims certainly fall into the former category.
The supposed "strikingly obvious fact that Bamber is a psychopath" is based on nothing more than whatever pseudo scientific rubbish you were last reading on the internet.
I think you are probably taking the piss with these claims and are just trying to get a rise out of people because you cannot really believe that these claims are worthy of serious debate.
Before you say, I aren't debating Kerry Daines claims, I am deriding them.
As for me being "another obsessed Bamber supporter", I would suggest a little more self awareness before attempting put downs. A quick look in the members list shows that in your latest incarnation on here you have managed over 7,300 posts in less than 8 months, posting at a rate of more than 32 per day. At your current posting rate you are on course for nearly 1,300 posts in a year.
My posting history shows that in over 4 years I have posted 772 times or one post every other day. it takes you, on average, 2 weeks and 4 days to post the same number of posts that I have made in over 4 years.
The evidence quite clearly shows that you are the one who is obsessed, being by far the most prolific poster on the forum but also, ironically, the poster most likely to call someone obsessed.
Just thought I better clear this up. The reason why my average posting is so high (as opposed to yours) is because I left for a short while. When I rejoined, Neil kindly linked my new profile with the old so that I could access all my old posts without searching. The system calculates the average from the total (previous profile posts together with any new profile posts) but it is only counting from the day I rejoined so the 'average' is incorrect. If you look at Patti's posting history (sorry Patti, but your recent rejoining just confirmed my theory), it shows that on average she has posted 3246 times per day. Now as keen as she is, I doubt that is a true reflection of her 'actual' posting pattern since Monday. :)
-
The reconstruction of Jeremy calling the police is spooky.
If this is how Jeremy spoke, he didn't sound very stressed. It wouldn't be hard for the programme makers to interview the officer who took the call to get a picture of how he sounded.
-
The picture of the bible has it on top of carpet blood. The blood must have fallen on the carpet after the first shot, before Sheila had her shower. Bit of a coincidence that she shot herself the second time in the same place.
-
I didn't know Stan Jones took 200 pictures himself of the crime scene. Due to his suspicions.
-
DB said 'Jeremy did abuse his mother, verbally quite a lot of the time'.
So Jan was right, they were on speaking terms.
-
The video said Jeremy 'deeply resented having to do a decent days work'.
Don't we all.
-
Mike Fielder says Jeremy was a sexual predator.
Aren't we all.
-
BW said Jeremy would kiss other boys if he knew she was looking at him. To impress.
I have never tried that.
-
June & Neville bought Sheila a flat in Maida Vale to help her recover from her breakdown.
Me thinks it time I had a breakdown.
-
Neville told BW he wouldn't be surprised if his life was cut short in the near future. In a shooting accident.
Guess he shouldn't have invited Sheila over then.
-
Neville told BW he wouldn't be surprised if his life was cut short in the near future. In a shooting accident.
Guess he shouldn't have invited Sheila over then.
Adam you seem to have changed your stance now you think Sheila committed the murders.
-
Julie said she thought no one would believe her. Partly because Jeremy was so terribly confident.
So that's you're reason.
-
CC said she had 'never used a gun'.
So how did Sheila become the female Clint Eastwood. Loading, chambering and accurately shooting ?
-
CC said she had 'never used a gun'.
So how did Sheila become the female Clint Eastwood. Loading, chambering and accurately shooting ?
CC wasn't with her long enough to find out !
-
The video said Julie could 'prove his guilt'.
That is incorrect. She could claim what she had been told. But it is her word against his.
-
It said Jeremy was not aware evidence was mounting up against him.
Which explains why he just partied.
-
It said De Stefano also represented Saddam Hussein and Kenneth Noye. Two more innocent people.
-
Adam you seem to have changed your stance now you think Sheila committed the murders.
Lookout has persuaded me.
Do you think it was strange that Neville told BW he believed he would die in a shooting accident. Then he invited Sheila over and left a loaded gun out for her ?
-
Lookout has persuaded me.
Do you think it was strange that Neville told BW he believed he would die in a shooting accident. Then he invited Sheila over and left a loaded gun out for her ?
Adam if indeed Ralph told BW that he believed he would be killed in a shooting accident I suspect it was not Sheila he was fearing so no I don't think it strange he invited her to stay.
-
Adam if indeed Ralph told BW that he believed he would be killed in a shooting accident I suspect it was not Sheila he was fearing so no I don't think it strange he invited her to stay.
I thought Sheila killed everyone ?
-
I thought Sheila killed everyone ?
Adam I thought you had changed your stance to one of Jeremy innocent.
-
He obviously did not fear either one of them ( Jeremy of Sheila) otherwise they would not have been in his house and he would have locked his guns and ammunition away.
He obviously did fear persons who were witnessed to make a death threat against him.
I would think that is obvious.
-
He obviously did not fear either one of them ( Jeremy of Sheila) otherwise they would not have been in his house and he would have locked his guns and ammunition away.
He obviously did fear persons who were witnessed to make a death threat against him.
I would think that is obvious.
Then he was afraid of the wrong people.
-
He obviously did not fear either one of them ( Jeremy of Sheila) otherwise they would not have been in his house and he would have locked his guns and ammunition away.
He obviously did fear persons who were witnessed to make a death threat against him.
I would think that is obvious.
So strange all of this. A man receives death threats from one party, but ends up being killed by another.
-
So strange all of this. A man receives death threats from one party, but ends up being killed by another.
He had death threats from both, cept one party didn't say it to his face.
-
He had death threats from both, cept one party didn't say it to his face.
I thought BW warned him ??
-
He had death threats from both, cept one party didn't say it to his face.
Safe to say then he didn´t fear Jeremy. The "I mustn´t turn my back on that young man." has nothing to do with death threats.
There are many myths in this case, and that goes for both sides.
-
Safe to say then he didn´t fear Jeremy. The "I mustn´t turn my back on that young man." has nothing to do with death threats.
There are many myths in this case, and that goes for both sides.
I guess that rather depends what you mean by "fear" if we put it on a 1-10 scale. I wonder how many parents SERIOUSLY fear their children. They may not trust them to make sensible decisions. They may have their doubts about their competency to carry out certain tasks but there is a HUGE jump from there, especially as Jeremy doesn't previously seem to have been given to outbursts of temper/violence, to fearing for his personal safety.
-
Safe to say then he didn´t fear Jeremy. The "I mustn´t turn my back on that young man." has nothing to do with death threats.
There are many myths in this case, and that goes for both sides.
Alias I have never thought "I must never turn my back on that young man" meant Ralph thought Jeremy was going to murder him just does not make sense had he thought that he would have locked every gun at WHF up and taken some steps to protect himself.
-
Then he was afraid of the wrong people.
Yes how silly of him. Obviously not a good judge of character then. Makes you wonder how he became to be a Magistrate.
-
Safe to say then he didn´t fear Jeremy. The "I mustn´t turn my back on that young man." has nothing to do with death threats.
There are many myths in this case, and that goes for both sides.
There might indeed be many myths and that might be one of them, however, point me in the direction of the post where I mentioned it? I think you'll find it was Lookout (who is on your side) who mentioned RW - not me! ;D ;D. I said Jeremy didn't say he wanted to kill his father (and the rest) 'to his face' - he said it to Julie, which was what I was getting at.
-
Yes how silly of him. Obviously not a good judge of character then. Makes you wonder how he became to be a Magistrate.
He applied? ???
-
There might indeed be many myths and that might be one of them, however, point me in the direction of the post where I mentioned it? I think you'll find it was Lookout (who is on your side) who mentioned RW - not me! ;D ;D. I said Jeremy didn't say he wanted to kill his father (and the rest) 'to his face' - he said it to Julie, which was what I was getting at.
I thought there were no "sides" here?
-
I thought there were no "sides" here?
Best tell that to Alias, given that she mentioned it - I was replying to her post ;D ;D
Safe to say then he didn´t fear Jeremy. The "I mustn´t turn my back on that young man." has nothing to do with death threats.
There are many myths in this case, and that goes for both sides.
-
There might indeed be many myths and that might be one of them, however, point me in the direction of the post where I mentioned it? I think you'll find it was Lookout (who is on your side) who mentioned RW - not me! ;D ;D. I said Jeremy didn't say he wanted to kill his father (and the rest) 'to his face' - he said it to Julie, which was what I was getting at.
I wasn´t specifically talking to you, just aired some general thoughts.
I am not on any side, thank you.
-
I wasn´t specifically talking to you, just aired some general thoughts.
I am not on any side, thank you.
You answered my post. And you are the one who mentioned sides! However, you're certainly aren't on the guilty side!!
-
I wasn´t specifically talking to you, just aired some general thoughts.
I am not on any side, thank you.
You do keep saying you don't believe Jeremy would of staged a two shot suicide. That shows you can only believe in his innocence.
-
" Cat is out of the bag ?" Just because he's been imprisoned ? Doesn't mean a thing.
-
" Cat is out of the bag ?" Just because he's been imprisoned ? Doesn't mean a thing.
I bet he begs to differ!
-
I bet he begs to differ!
You can bet your life he does. ::)
-
I am not aware that I side against guilters except when I am being accused of things I have never even thought. Happens a lot.
I think it happens across the board.
-
"I must never turn my back on that young man"
One person, after the event said that. It doesn't mean it was true or actually said
-
One person, after the event said that. It doesn't mean it was true or actually said
Sara I quite agree with you I thought I had indicated that in my post about those words which I have never taken seriously.
-
Sara I quite agree with you I thought I had indicated that in my post about those words which I have never taken seriously.
Sorry Susan I didn't mean it like that, I just wanted to highlight that sentence which is no more than gossip over the garden gate type stuff that seems to have been turned into hard fact over the years
-
Sorry Susan I didn't mean it like that, I just wanted to highlight that sentence which is no more than gossip over the garden gate type stuff that seems to have been turned into hard fact over the years
Sara I understand and I agree it is utter nonsense :)
-
Sorry Susan I didn't mean it like that, I just wanted to highlight that sentence which is no more than gossip over the garden gate type stuff that seems to have been turned into hard fact over the years
I'm with you there Sara T. Words put into the mouths of those who are gullible enough to listen to the law at all times no matter what,without knowing the full facts of a case.
-
What have you got against Jeremy supporters ? What's it to you ? You're biased towards his guilt,so what ?
-
why is the freak still allowed on here hes got abslutly nothing to say.
He has more than most! We may not agree on the silencer but he certainly knows the case inside and out. That's why a lot of people don't like him!
-
Unlike the nonsense you spew I actually write on topic and accurately.
if you have to keep saying it then it cant be true.
-
And you complain that HE is rude. Given some of what gets slung at him he displays remarkable dignity.
i only giving bavk what he dishes out
-
if you have to keep saying it then it cant be true.
Perhaps you should apply that remark to Lookout, Nugs :D
-
if you have to keep saying it then it cant be true.
Huh?
-
the fact you have to constantly make thse coments i thinks show how weak your arguments are.
My arguments are well supported. My arguments regarding the case and those regarding people who are Jeremy supporters but don't want to admit it even though their posts demonstrate it without a doubt.
No one ever has to wonder where I stand on an issue or why- I hide neither my positions nor my reasoning and people typically find it difficult to counter such.
-
My arguments are well supported. My arguments regarding the case and those regarding people who are Jeremy supporters but don't want to admit it even though their posts demonstrate it without a doubt.
No one ever has to wonder where I stand on an issue or why- I hide neither my positions nor my reasoning and people typically find it difficult to counter such.
if that was true you wouldent need to keep repeating it.
-
im not reapeating it.
-
if that was true you wouldent need to keep repeating it.
Why wouldn't he? Not sure what you're getting at? Reason he repeats himself is that people keep stating their is no evidence, so he keeps posting it ;D ;D ;D
-
im not reapeating it.
It sounds as if you are becoming confused with just WHO keeps repeating the same story, Nugs.
-
i havent seen him post any evedence of anything.
-
i havent seen him post any evedence of anything.
Exasperated! :o :o :o :o
-
Exasperated! :o :o :o :o
you dont seem to know the diffrence between opion and evdence.
-
you dont seem to know the diffrence between opion and evdence.
Coming from you that is classic! But it would be nice to return to the topic.
-
you posted some words on white background that means abslutly nothing.
-
Think it may be a good idea to cool it a bit.
It's good to talk things through but it's getting a bit too personal.
Can we get back to the subject of the thread now.
-
Yes, but it makes for a deflection from what you and the rest of us have to say Re: Jeremy's guilt!
when somone acuses others of making false cliams when there clearly doing so themselves i belive i have a right to point it out.
-
I have no need to make up anything about my background because it has no bearing on anything. It was like when someone wondered if I am really American, there is no reason to make it up. Making up I was a cop who worked on this case or spoke to someone who worked on this case so was privy to non-public info is the kind of thing that someone would make up to try to use for some advantage.
I have evidence on my side I don't need to make anything up. The people who have a challenge to deal with are those arguing in support of Jeremy, they are the ones who need all the help they can get.
I think it's clear you are an American and can't see why you would be deceptive about other aspects of your life. It makes no sense and adds nothing to your argument. It's just a way of trying (and failing) to belittle your argument.
-
I am bringing up false claims related to the case but in any event do post this evidence of me not knowing the difference between what civilian weapon and military weapon and how it demonstrates my lack of military knowledge. By the way, just having knowledge of weapons doesn't establish someone was in the military more obscure things are needed to establish that. Anyone can read about weapons.
when you first here ngb a real gun expert had to point out the diffrence to you.
a reall matine would allready now the diffrence a real lawyer who defends people in court would also know the diffrence.
-
when you first ngb a real gun expert had to point out the diffrence to you.
a reall matine would allready now the diffrence a real lawyer who defends people in court would also know the diffrence.
I think you like a conspiracy theory a bit too much Nugs! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have only asked this of skippy - so far. ;)
I'll get my coat. :(
-
How boring would that be though? :-\ :D
Exactly Hartley. most have conflict with someone at different times for real or mistaken reasons, it's part and parcel of being on a forum.
-
I think you like a conspiracy theory a bit too much Nugs! ;D ;D ;D ;D
what a poster on the internet isnt really what they cliam to be thats hardly a conspriacy yhoery is it.
-
How boring would that be though? :-\ :D
It would indeed be boring, Hartley but it's all about making the best choices for ourselves. Some of us think spats add spice and some of us think that spats ain't nice :D
-
Exactly Hartley. most have conflict with someone at different times for real or mistaken reasons, it's part and parcel of being on a forum.
Absolutely agree Maggie. I think I've had conflict with most and the reality in the cold light of day is that it's all been meaningless, maybe even a little nasty at times :-[.
Generally, as far as a forum of this nature goes, there is a good core group of people, regardless of viewpoints.
-
what a poster on the internet isnt really what they cliam to be thats hardly a conspriacy yhoery is it.
NO. Nor does what/who they claim to be make any difference to what they say. Peoples privacy isn't our concern.
-
Gotta go, now you can all safely ignore me and vice versa, and there won´t be any conflicts - at least not invplving Alias. ;)
Be good, all! ;D ;D
-
Gotta go, now you can all safely ignore me and vice versa, and there won´t be any conflicts - at least not invplving Alias. ;)
Be good, all! ;D ;D
Night night.
-
Gotta go, now you can all safely ignore me and vice versa, and there won´t be any conflicts - at least not invplving Alias. ;)
Be good, all! ;D ;D
Enjoy your holiday :)
-
Gotta go, now you can all safely ignore me and vice versa, and there won´t be any conflicts - at least not invplving Alias. ;)
Be good, all! ;D ;D
Night Alias.
-
Absolutely agree Maggie. I think I've had conflict with most and the reality in the cold light of day is that it's all been meaningless, maybe even a little nasty at times :-[.
Generally, as far as a forum of this nature goes, there is a good core group of people, regardless of viewpoints.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ... very true, think we need something new to talk about that's half the problem as we've discussed it all over and over and over ........
-
what a poster on the internet isnt really what they cliam to be thats hardly a conspriacy yhoery is it.
Your willingness to believe he isn't implies that he has an ulterior motive. Who he is has nothing to do with anyone but he has no reason to lie.
-
its done to imply supreriority but anyone who looks at it closely can see both are clearly untrue.
-
when you first here ngb a real gun expert had to point out the diffrence to you.
a reall matine would allready now the diffrence a real lawyer who defends people in court would also know the diffrence.
You as usual have no idea what you are talking about. Post a link where I couldn't tell the difference between a military weapon and civilian weapon and needed NGB to point it out. What was this supposed weapon anyway?.
"the fact you couldent tell a miltary weapon from a civlan one proves you have never been a marine"
How much do people want to wager that nugnug can't back up his/her claims and as always is talking about of his.her butt.
-
its done to imply supreriority but anyone who looks at it closely can see both are clearly untrue.
I don't feel he is superior, if people feel 'inferior' that says more about them.
-
You as usual have no idea what you are talking about. Post a link where I couldn't tell the difference between a military weapon and civilian weapon and needed NGB to point it out. What was this supposed weapon anyway?.
"the fact you couldent tell a miltary weapon from a civlan one proves you have never been a marine"
How much do people want to wager that nugnug can't back up his/her claims and as always is talking about of his.her butt.
I never bet butt ...... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just watched part of the video again and it's not David Boutflour that said they found the silencer after the funeral, it was the narrator and such programmes are notorious for getting things wrong. However, this is the first time I have heard him suggest that the silencer was 'sticky'!!
Highlighted for David
-
Mmm,sticky silencer,eh ? Well AE DID remark on a " blob of jam ",which it MUST have been. After all,it was supposedly displayed on the table at the Boutflours.
-
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
15: No one is able to post a credible explanation of how Sheila could have committed the massacre. Which matches the crime scene.
-
Is this all your own work Adam? Or are you quoting extracts again? By the way all points have been answers on various old threads.
-
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
15: No one is able to post a credible explanation of how Sheila could have committed the massacre. Which matches the crime scene.
Good collection and some of the many reasons Sheila isn't guilty, which by default makes Bamber.
-
Good collection and some of the many reasons Sheila isn't guilty, which by default makes Bamber.
Good cutting and pasting, eh Mat? ;)
-
Good cutting and pasting, eh Mat? ;)
;D
Yes, am proud.
-
Is this all your own work Adam? Or are you quoting extracts again? By the way all points have been answers on various old threads.
I cut and pasted it. In reply to Lookouts request. Hopefully Lookout will reply to my request for a source yesterday, about Julie's smuggling of drugs from Canada.
I have cut and pasted this article before, and said it was cut and pasted.
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy. April and Caroline felt so strongly in his innocence, they were moderators and put up huge long term resistance after I joined. But even they can only do so much fire fighting and changed stance and stopped moderating.
It alarms me that you are still in denial.
-
Taken from the " Campaign for Freedom " site :
Back in 1991 COLP had investigated Essex Police,they detailed a list of crimes which JM had confessed to carrying out undetected. These included taking cannabis,selling cannabis,accessory to burglary at the caravan park,smuggling drugs back to the UK from Canada and cheque-book fraud.
As we all know she was given immunity as a trade-off for standing as a prosecution witness. Documents relating to this are held under PII.
There is documentation supporting the above.
-
Taken from the " Campaign for Freedom " site :
Back in 1991 COLP had investigated Essex Police,they detailed a list of crimes which JM had confessed to carrying out undetected. These included taking cannabis,selling cannabis,accessory to burglary at the caravan park,smuggling drugs back to the UK from Canada and cheque-book fraud.
As we all know she was given immunity as a trade-off for standing as a prosecution witness. Documents relating to this are held under PII.
There is documentation supporting the above.
Jeremy has almost everything held under PII - ask him, next time you write.
-
The reason for JM being " afraid for her life " has NOTHING to do with Jeremy being a " murderer ",but everything to do with the lies she told in her testimony which,if brought into the open,would have catastrophic effects all round and the backlash would be enormous,but she'd have NO fear of Jeremy at all as he doesn't bear malice like others do.
I have it on good authority that family life in Canada hasn't been all its cracked up to be because of the knowledge that the testimony hadn't been altogether truthful. To say it's caused some consternation is an understatement.
If immunity was granted at the beginning,it would be worth settling for that again in order to receive a written confession.
Makes me wonder about others who are " afraid for their lives " who were obliged to follow the same route !!!
If that sentence is repeated often enough,Jeremy stays where he is. The public has more power that the authorities when a prisoner has been convicted for murder.
-
The reason for JM being " afraid for her life " has NOTHING to do with Jeremy being a " murderer ",but everything to do with the lies she told in her testimony which,if brought into the open,would have catastrophic effects all round and the backlash would be enormous,but she'd have NO fear of Jeremy at all as he doesn't bear malice like others do.
I have it on good authority that family life in Canada hasn't been all its cracked up to be because of the knowledge that the testimony hadn't been altogether truthful. To say it's caused some consternation is an understatement.
If immunity was granted at the beginning,it would be worth settling for that again in order to receive a written confession.
Makes me wonder about others who are " afraid for their lives " who were obliged to follow the same route !!!
If that sentence is repeated often enough,Jeremy stays where he is. The public has more power that the authorities when a prisoner has been convicted for murder.
Really? I beg to differ Lookout ;D ;D
In the main, the public believe (quite rightly) that he's guilty, he doesn't have enough support to raise a draft, never mind a concern that he's innocent. There is a reason for that!
-
The reason for JM being " afraid for her life " has NOTHING to do with Jeremy being a " murderer ",but everything to do with the lies she told in her testimony which,if brought into the open,would have catastrophic effects all round and the backlash would be enormous,but she'd have NO fear of Jeremy at all as he doesn't bear malice like others do.
I have it on good authority that family life in Canada hasn't been all its cracked up to be because of the knowledge that the testimony hadn't been altogether truthful. To say it's caused some consternation is an understatement.
If immunity was granted at the beginning,it would be worth settling for that again in order to receive a written confession.
Makes me wonder about others who are " afraid for their lives " who were obliged to follow the same route !!!
If that sentence is repeated often enough,Jeremy stays where he is. The public has more power that the authorities when a prisoner has been convicted for murder.
SUCH sweeping statements, Lookout!!! the majority of which you CANNOT know as factual. I can only assume, from what you say about Julie's Canadian life that at some moment she's confessed to lying under oath. Indeed, she may have.............to a counsellor or priest, BOTH bound, as am I, by rules of confidentiality.
Saying that Jeremy bears no malice -and THAT can't be proved- has nothing to do with her supposed fear of him. I think she has every right to feel it. I think she was far more complicit in what happened than she revealed but she got in first. Without admitting his own part in it, Jeremy can't say what was her part.......................but that COULD change at any time and it's something that she has to live with. All the counsellors and priests in the world won't take that away.
-
SUCH sweeping statements, Lookout!!! the majority of which you CANNOT know as factual. I can only assume, from what you say about Julie's Canadian life that at some moment she's confessed to lying under oath. Indeed, she may have.............to a counsellor or priest, BOTH bound, as am I, by rules of confidentiality.
Saying that Jeremy bears no malice -and THAT can't be proved- has nothing to do with her supposed fear of him. I think she has every right to feel it. I think she was far more complicit in what happened than she revealed but she got in first. Without admitting his own part in it, Jeremy can't say what was her part.......................but that COULD change at any time and it's something that she has to live with. All the counsellors and priests in the world won't take that away.
April,I've only explained part of what I know to be true. I don't want to elaborate at this juncture,so this is just a spattering.
-
April,I've only explained part of what I know to be true. I don't want to elaborate at this juncture,so this is just a spattering.
Lookout, I fully understand that if you are holding on to something exciting part of you may be longing to either share it or at least let people know that you know something they don't. Things have a habit of not working out as we hope they might so it may be wiser, at this juncture, to say nothing. No hints and no smatterings. ;D
-
Lookout, I fully understand that if you are holding on to something exciting part of you may be longing to either share it or at least let people know that you know something they don't. Things have a habit of not working out as we hope they might so it may be wiser, at this juncture, to say nothing. No hints and no smatterings. ;D
No,I shan't say any more. I'll wait until it comes to fruition. ;D
-
I'd like a thread to be bumped. It's something I've been reading.
" Bambers Application for Prerogative of Pardon 2005 "
It's on a thread of this year,Feb 16th and was started by David 1819.
-
No,I shan't say any more. I'll wait until it comes to fruition. ;D
Then you're in a win/win situation. You haven't lost face if it doesn't happen.................and you can crow as loud as you like if it does ;D
-
Then you're in a win/win situation. You haven't lost face if it doesn't happen.................and you can crow as loud as you like if it does ;D
That's about it. ;D ;D ;D
-
Taken from the " Campaign for Freedom " site :
Back in 1991 COLP had investigated Essex Police,they detailed a list of crimes which JM had confessed to carrying out undetected. These included taking cannabis,selling cannabis,accessory to burglary at the caravan park,smuggling drugs back to the UK from Canada and cheque-book fraud.
As we all know she was given immunity as a trade-off for standing as a prosecution witness. Documents relating to this are held under PII.
There is documentation supporting the above.
Some of these crimes were not undetected.
The first thing she told the police about when she approached them, was the caravan break in.
The 1984 minor cheque book fraud was found out about after she had completed her WS.
It is well known Jeremy smuggled cannabis into England straight after the massacre. So Julie as his girlfriend may have taken some.
I have yet to see any other documentation of Julie smuggling drugs into England from Canada. Or of selling cannabis. The OS has no supporting documentation. Suspect they have just added these on to try to give the article more gravitas.
-
Julie is currently Director of Assessment and instructional support services for the Winnipeg School Division.
Funny how she didn't try to find another rich man where she could be lady of the manor.
-
Funny how she didn't try to find another rich man where she could be lady of the manor.
Nobody likes an accessory !!
-
Funny how she didn't try to find another rich man where she could be lady of the manor.
Nobody likes an accessory !!
With the reputation she'd made for herself after THOSE pictures, that she'd had to resign her teaching position because her presence in the school did nothing to enhance the school's reputation, I doubt her name would have been top of a "Suitable Bride's" list so her chances were limited of finding a wealthy man, from a respectable background, who was willing to take her on. We are talking about England in 1985. Old money would certainly have closed ranks so I imagine she had to move the goal posts.
-
With the reputation she'd made for herself after THOSE pictures, that she'd had to resign her teaching position because her presence in the school did nothing to enhance the school's reputation, I doubt her name would have been top of a "Suitable Bride's" list so her chances were limited of finding a wealthy man, from a respectable background, who was willing to take her on. We are talking about England in 1985. Old money would certainly have closed ranks so I imagine she had to move the goal posts.
How exactly would she go about finding a rich man anyway? She wasn't model material- I don't even think she was very feminine looking with her haircut and all- so even if in a public place or at a party where a rich guy happened to be it is not as if they would flock to her. She would have to go trying to pursue rich men herself. But there is no evidence she tried and no evidence she exhibited the gold digger attributes some Jeremy supporters want to attribute to her as part of their efforts to discount her testimony. I think that is what Adams snide comment was speaking to.
-
How exactly would she go about finding a rich man anyway? She wasn't model material- I don't even think she was very feminine looking with her haircut and all- so even if in a public place or at a party where a rich guy happened to be it is not as if they would flock to her. She would have to go trying to pursue rich men herself. But there is no evidence she tried and no evidence she exhibited the gold digger attributes some Jeremy supporters want to attribute to her as part of their efforts to discount her testimony. I think that is what Adams snide comment was speaking to.
Supporters and April have claimed Julie approached the police after realising Jeremy was not going to allow her to be the lady of the manor.
Jeremy indirectly supports this saying she approached the police because he apparently jilted her.
Not sure why she was living in shared accommodation in New Cross, studying for her second degree if all she wanted to do was live off Jeremy.
Whether she was able to find another rich man or not, there is no evidence she tried to. Guess she decided to get her second degree and get a prestigious job instead.
-
How exactly would she go about finding a rich man anyway? She wasn't model material- I don't even think she was very feminine looking with her haircut and all- so even if in a public place or at a party where a rich guy happened to be it is not as if they would flock to her. She would have to go trying to pursue rich men herself. But there is no evidence she tried and no evidence she exhibited the gold digger attributes some Jeremy supporters want to attribute to her as part of their efforts to discount her testimony. I think that is what Adams snide comment was speaking to.
I can go with all of what you said re Julie......................but I don't think Julie saw herself the same way ;)
-
With the reputation she'd made for herself after THOSE pictures, that she'd had to resign her teaching position because her presence in the school did nothing to enhance the school's reputation, I doubt her name would have been top of a "Suitable Bride's" list so her chances were limited of finding a wealthy man, from a respectable background, who was willing to take her on. We are talking about England in 1985. Old money would certainly have closed ranks so I imagine she had to move the goal posts.
Plus, she had £25,000.00 and didn't need anyone else's cash.
-
Plus, she had £25,000.00 and didn't need anyone else's cash.
Just a minor detail ;D ;D ;D
-
Plus, she had £25,000.00 and didn't need anyone else's cash.
A sizeable sum back in 1986.
-
A sizeable sum back in 1986.
It's non too shabby now!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Didn't she buy her mother a house with the 25k ?
She deserved the 25k, thread already created. It would have kept her going for a year or so. But at only 21 and apparently wanting to be a lady of the manor, she would need to find another man.
If she wanted to be the lady of the manor, why was she with Jeremy, who she met while he was doing a dead end job. Any possible inheritance of Jeremy was decades away.
-
JB paid off her student debts and bought HERSELF a flat/apartment.
-
Didn't she buy her mother a house with the 25k ?
She deserved the 25k, thread already created. It would have kept her going for a year or so. But at only 21 and apparently wanting to be a lady of the manor, she would need to find another man.
If she wanted to be the lady of the manor, why was she with Jeremy, who she met while he was doing a dead end job. Any possible inheritance of Jeremy was decades away.
No, she bought herself a flat! If you have written THAT in your 'CREATED THREAD' best pop over and amend it! ::) ::)
-
Didn't she buy her mother a house with the 25k ?
She deserved the 25k, thread already created. It would have kept her going for a year or so. But at only 21 and apparently wanting to be a lady of the manor, she would need to find another man.
If she wanted to be the lady of the manor, why was she with Jeremy, who she met while he was doing a dead end job. Any possible inheritance of Jeremy was decades away.
I wouldn't agree, really. But the press are always going to pay for stories like that. She has a story to tell and to the press it was worth a lot of money - so I don't blame her for accepting the fee. She does have a lot to think about though, she should have gone to the police directly after the crimes, that would have stopped so many conspiracy theories - the fact she stayed with Bamber for so long is a stain on her and always will be. I do agree with her not being prosecuted though as she was forth coming with evidence when she finally talked and her testimony was important to the trial - the great evil was gotten in the end.
-
No, she bought herself a flat! If you have written THAT in your 'CREATED THREAD' best pop over and amend it! ::) ::)
Caroline
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D love it ;D
-
Jeremy testified Julie approached the police after he apparently 'jilted her'. This may be correct, but it doesn't mean she lied. Anyway a jilted woman is just as likely to tell the truth. Once she recovers from the shock of what her boyfriend did.
Approaching the police undoubtedly means she wanted to give a statement. However the OS says she only gave a statement after the police said they would not prosecute her for crimes. This is incorrect, the only crime they were aware of was the caravan break in. Which Julie told them about after she approached them.
It does seem far fetched that Julie would approach the police and then have to be forced into making a statement.
-
No, she bought herself a flat! If you have written THAT in your 'CREATED THREAD' best pop over and amend it! ::) ::)
Thanks. I didn't write it in the created thread.
I will find it as posters are saying she did not deserve the 25k. She most certainly did.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6386.msg282647.html#msg282647
-
You as usual have no idea what you are talking about. Post a link where I couldn't tell the difference between a military weapon and civilian weapon and needed NGB to point it out. What was this supposed weapon anyway?.
"the fact you couldent tell a miltary weapon from a civlan one proves you have never been a marine"
How much do people want to wager that nugnug can't back up his/her claims and as always is talking about of his.her butt.
ok theres noting easier.
-
heres one to be geting on with then ill find some more.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5391.15.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4062.0.html
-
heres one to be geting on with then ill find some more.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5391.15.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4062.0.html
In the first thread I noted semi-automatic weapons require the first round to be manually fed from the magazine into the chamber. NGB didn't post in that thread at all let alone did he challenge my assertions. In another thread he confirmed the first round had to be manually fed so agreed with me.
In the second thread here is the exchange NGB and I had:
Scipio: A rifle needs more cleaning than a shotgun. Fouling of the barrel harms accuracy. A shotgun is smoothbore in contrast and doesn't rely on accuracy. A rifle should be cleaned after every use if you want to keep it in good condition.
NGB: You are talking about military weapons, particularly those capable of automatic fire. It is not standard practice to clean rifles, whether rimfire or centrefire, used with telescopic sights for shooting vermin and game (e.g. deer). There are two reasons: 1) the cartridge propellant contains detergent that limits fouling of the rifling, and 2) after cleaning it is recommended that the rifle be zeroed.
Scipio: My weapons are all civilian manufacture. I used to have a 22LR that I "inherited" and the 22LR rounds caused more dirt than any M16 round did. It needed to be cleaned or would not fire right the rounds would not feed properly. I only have centerfire rifles now I don't like 22s.
A centerfire rifle should be cleaned after 75 rounds are fired and definitely after 100. Cleaning the barrel is to protect from pitting but cleaning the firing pin and bolt mechanism is to prevent jams and misfirings.
Many rifles have ways to enable cleaning that don't require removing the scope. M-16 style weapons are a good example. This can also be done with the 525. But that doesn't mean it was ever done. It is a misconception among 22LR owners that cleaning doesn't need to occur. So in all likelihood the dirt and grime from every use built up and combined with the problems caused by the use during the murders to combine for the problems Fletcher found.
The wise rules of thumb are if you use a gun a lot then clean it after you are done with it and have put 100 rounds or more through it. If you use it infrequently then clean it and oil it before you put it away. It was used infrequently and probably never cleaned since it was purchased. Several hundred rounds were put through it over the course of it's lifetime. It certainly wasn't cleaned after the murders so the combo and using the rifle as a club was a recipe for problems that would surface later.
NGB: I agree with you about cleaning a centrefire rifle after 75 or 100 rounds, possibly less than that. As far as a rimfire rifle is concerned I have found that a semi-automatic needs cleaning more often than a bolt action.
----------
So the whole discussion concerned when it is advisable to clean a rifle and typical practices of people.
NGB ended up saying military weapons and even civilian weapons that use centerfire cartridges need cleaning more frequently than rimfire and semi-auto rimfire (like the murder weapon) need cleaning more frequently than bolt action rifles and in his experience people with rimfire weapons tend to clean them infrequently. That is what he said.
How does this impugn my military knowledge?
Your characterization of this discussion bears no semblance to reality.
This goes back to what I said in the past about NGB's posts. I often see people attribute things to him but rarely do his posts ever actually state what is purported. His words are twisted by both sides beyond recognition.
-
I wouldn't agree, really. But the press are always going to pay for stories like that. She has a story to tell and to the press it was worth a lot of money - so I don't blame her for accepting the fee. She does have a lot to think about though, she should have gone to the police directly after the crimes, that would have stopped so many conspiracy theories - the fact she stayed with Bamber for so long is a stain on her and always will be. I do agree with her not being prosecuted though as she was forth coming with evidence when she finally talked and her testimony was important to the trial - the great evil was gotten in the end.
It begs the question what animus led her to stay with him throughout and whether the power of a woman's love can surpass any heinous deed committed by their partner including mass murder,and whether any individual in these times can feel so bereft of human affection that to see the relationship through is the only course tenable surrounded by what might be perceived as hostile forces,even if it means sacrificing the lives of two little boys whose birthday Colin will be commemorating today.
-
It begs the question what animus led her to stay with him throughout and whether the power of a woman's love can surpass any heinous deed committed by their partner including mass murder,and whether any individual in these times can feel so bereft of human affection that to see the relationship through is the only course tenable surrounded by what might be perceived as hostile forces,even if it means sacrificing the lives of two little boys whose birthday Colin will be commemorating today.
1) People have been known to help loved ones who committed horrible crimes even to help dispose of bodies to try to help them escape liability. They don't want to lose the loved one and will do whatever it takes to keep them.
2) In this case though they didn't stay together even a month after. Her willingness to cover for him wore thin fast. She said that part of it was how horrible he was acting towards Colin and others and part guilt. She also said they fought because of he wanted to party so much and basically was acting immature. If he asked her to marry her and was not acting like a child suddenly given a lot of freedom who knows if her conscience would have won out. But what ifs are pointless to think about as they make no difference.
-
It begs the question what animus led her to stay with him throughout and whether the power of a woman's love can surpass any heinous deed committed by their partner including mass murder,and whether any individual in these times can feel so bereft of human affection that to see the relationship through is the only course tenable surrounded by what might be perceived as hostile forces,even if it means sacrificing the lives of two little boys whose birthday Colin will be commemorating today.
There is already a thread on why she waited a month. I will find it.
She probably spent the first two weeks in shock. While being whisked all over the place unexpectedly.
Poor young lady.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5798.msg256880.html#msg256880
-
This is a very random question Adam but are you from Japan?
-
This is a very random question Adam but are you from Japan?
London.
-
This is a very random question Adam but are you from Japan?
Sara may I ask why you asked Adam if he was from Japan I am sure you will have an excellent reason ;D
-
Sara may I ask why you asked Adam if he was from Japan I am sure you will have an excellent reason ;D
It's the way he phrases things and forms his sentences
-
Another case of an alleged scorned woman privy to a murder intertwined with religion and whether the jury could see through it all. https://youtu.be/T-ndVMDo214
-
Another case of an alleged scorned woman privy to a murder intertwined with religion and whether the jury could see through it all. https://youtu.be/T-ndVMDo214
Thanks Steve very interesting video.
Especially about the immunity and Vanessas evidence.
Sounds like she was telling lies perhaps for "the noble cause"? She certainly was a very good liar .
I think the evidence of him looking for drugs was more damming to be honest.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-planning-fourth-appeal-6303203&ved=0CB4QqQIwAGoVChMIvdnukf2-xwIVRdYaCh2iyQff&usg=AFQjCNFtHk3xZw2fNKKAQqGjM4AQAnS5dw&sig2=3iX3m9Hsvgdr7CW6rbU4JQ
Another video is coming out soon.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-planning-fourth-appeal-6303203&ved=0CB4QqQIwAGoVChMIvdnukf2-xwIVRdYaCh2iyQff&usg=AFQjCNFtHk3xZw2fNKKAQqGjM4AQAnS5dw&sig2=3iX3m9Hsvgdr7CW6rbU4JQ
Another video is coming out soon.
Yeah it's this Friday on ID
-
Yeah it's this Friday on ID
Murder Mansions.
-
I thought he changed his mind mainly because of the phones - and according to the new video it may have not even been found in the magazines .
Its all very odd.
-
I thought it was the bicycle which changed his mind.
It's probably because of all his chopping and changing which has confused him that he's now thought of something else. Stinks of uncertainty.Something which Woffinden himself can't prove,unless he's read PH's book. ::)
-
I thought it was the bicycle which changed his mind.
It's probably because of all his chopping and changing which has confused him that he's now thought of something else. Stinks of uncertainty.Something which Woffinden himself can't prove,unless he's read PH's book. ::)
It was the phones that changed his mind. Have to say that I agree with him in respect to the documents simply containing human errors.
-
It was the phones that changed his mind. Have to say that I agree with him in respect to the documents simply containing human errors.
That's true and he was a believer in the 'wetsuit theory' ... nuff said :'(
-
I agree - especially about the phone call . However this is another thing that can be looked at both ways - either of which could be supposition .
If you were desperate after 30 years of trying to prove your innocence - especially if you believe you have been set up - you will cling on to any thing that gives you hope.
Or if you are relishing the attention you will cling on to anything to keep you in the lime light.
-
That's true and he was a believer in the 'wetsuit theory' ... nuff said :'(
Of course,the wetsuit--------silly man. ;D Shows how uncertain he is and is relying on what a few others say,to be on the safe side. What a wally.
-
I agree - especially about the phone call . However this is another thing that can be looked at both ways - either of which could be supposition .
If you were desperate after 30 years of trying to prove your innocence - especially if you believe you have been set up - you will cling on to any thing that gives you hope.
Or if you are relishing the attention you will cling on to anything to keep you in the lime light.
Exactly Jan.
-
Of course,the wetsuit--------silly man. ;D Shows how uncertain he is and is relying on what a few others say,to be on the safe side. What a wally.
I remember reading his statement why he had changed his mind, it was unconvincing. I cannot disagree there will be many human errors and the whole investigation was badly conducted but the wet suit theory is a non starter and the mving f the phones is only a theory. imo
-
I remember reading his statement why he had changed his mind, it was unconvincing. I cannot disagree there will be many human errors and the whole investigation was badly conducted but the wet suit theory is a non starter and the mving f the phones is only a theory. imo
All of it sounds like they were searching for anything they could use against him . Throw every thing they can in the hope some of it will stick.
-
Woffinden gave his reasons on camera in the 'Behind Mansion Walls' video.
I previously posted this video up in a new thread. Sadly the video is no longer on Youtube.
-
Woffinden gave his reasons on camera in the 'Behind Mansion Walls' video.
I previously posted this video up in a new thread. Sadly the video is no longer on Youtube.
What a shame ;D ;D
-
It does seem strange that Neville got such a brutal beating and Sheila was not marked.
If Neville was not fighting back effectively, why did Sheila give him such a brutal beating ?
However if Neville was fighting back effectively why didn't Sheila have any injuries ?
-
It does seem strange that Neville got such a brutal beating and Sheila was not marked.
If Neville was not fighting back effectively, why did Sheila give him such a brutal beating ?
However if Neville was fighting back effectively why didn't Sheila have any injuries ?
By the time Nevill was battered so cruelly he must have been in a very weak state who ever carried it out. imo
-
The same cannot be said of Bamber.
Bamber was fully clothed and protected. And was not examined for one month.
Neville being downstairs was a major problem for him. Neville was big and strong and still a big threat although injured.
Bamber was already fired up and half way through his 'now or never' moment. He wouldn't hold back in nullifying a fighting back Neville.
-
The same cannot be said of Bamber.
Bamber was fully clothed and protected. And was not examined for one month.
Neville being downstairs was a major problem for him. Neville was big and strong and still a big threat although injured.
Bamber was already fired up and half way through his 'now or never' moment. He wouldn't hold back in nullifying a fighting back Neville.
For all that Nevill was a much bigger man than Jeremy, Jeremy simply couldn't have been able to beat him that way unless he was collapsed somewhere, most likely in one of the chairs where he was found.
-
It does seem strange that Neville got such a brutal beating and Sheila was not marked.
If Neville was not fighting back effectively, why did Sheila give him such a brutal beating ?
However if Neville was fighting back effectively why didn't Sheila have any injuries ?
Jeremy was not marked either. I think it's safe to say a brawl never happend as such.
You could argue this. Jeremy shoots Neville 4 times upstairs, twice to the face/jaw and twice to the arms.
Neville runs downstairs trying to escape the house. Jeremy catches up with him and knocks him unconsouse with blows to the face and head with the rifle end, then reloads them finishes him off with 3 shots to the head.
Neville took 5 shots to the face or head so it could appear to be a brutal beating when in fact it's just the sheer Amount of ballistic trauma that has made the blunt force trauma seem more severe than it is.
-
Jeremy was not marked either. I think it's safe to say a brawl never happend as such.
You could argue this. Jeremy shoots Neville 4 times upstairs, twice to the face/jaw and twice to the arms.
Neville runs downstairs trying to escape the house. Jeremy catches up with him and knocks him unconsouse with blows to the face and head with the rifle end, then reloads them finishes him off with 3 shots to the head.
Neville took 5 shots to the face or head so it could appear to be a brutal beating when in fact it's just the sheer Amount of ballistic trauma that has made the blunt force trauma seem more severe than it is.
I agree with you, the wounds from bullets would have caused a massive amount of bruising to the face.
-
Jeremy was not marked either. I think it's safe to say a brawl never happend as such.
You could argue this. Jeremy shoots Neville 4 times upstairs, twice to the face/jaw and twice to the arms.
Neville runs downstairs trying to escape the house. Jeremy catches up with him and knocks him unconsouse with blows to the face and head with the rifle end, then reloads them finishes him off with 3 shots to the head.
Neville took 5 shots to the face or head so it could appear to be a brutal beating when in fact it's just the sheer Amount of ballistic trauma that has made the blunt force trauma seem more severe than it is.
I already said Bamber was not marked in post 511. And said why.
Most of the rest of the post I agree with. However if you look at the description of Neville on the 2002 COA judgement, you will see he took a brutal beating.
The state of the kitchen suggests there was a big struggle. The judge said Neville 'put up a tremendous fight for life'.
Bamber would not know how injured and capable Neville still was. So would have attempted to give a beating until Neville was knocked out. This was no time to hold back. He eventually succeeded.
-
42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
-
42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
no body was denying that - they were questioning the sequence of events
-
42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
I don't think anyone denies poor Nevill took a deadful beating but at the same time bullets fired into the body will produce local bruising and trauma including broken bones.
-
no body was denying that - they were questioning the sequence of events
I wasn't questioning the events.
Just stating that if Neville could hardly move after his upstairs shots, why did Sheila give him such a brutal beating ?
However if Neville 'put up a tremendous fight for life' as the judge said and as the state of the kitchen suggests, why did Sheila have no injuries.
-
I wasn't questioning the events.
Just stating that if Neville could hardly move after his upstairs shots, why did Sheila give him such a brutal beating ?
However if Neville 'put up a tremendous fight for life' as the judge said and as the state of the kitchen suggests, why did Sheila have no injuries.
I wonder, given that he'd only seen pictures of Sheila's comparatively unmarked body. and no one -not even Julie- had come forward to say that Jeremy was marked in any way, how the judge was able to ascertain that Neville had "put up a tremendous struggle for life." Certainly, he'd been horrifically beaten but how would we know if he'd have looked any different whether he'd fought back or just given in. Both bullets and blunt instruments can result in broken bones, bleeding and bruising.
-
I wasn't questioning the events.
Just stating that if Neville could hardly move after his upstairs shots, why did Sheila give him such a brutal beating ?
However if Neville 'put up a tremendous fight for life' as the judge said and as the state of the kitchen suggests, why did Sheila have no injuries.
why are you trying to apply logic to someone who may have been in the middle of a psychotic episode ?
I think it is very sad after all the information posted on here - even if Jeremy is the murderer- that you appear not to have any understanding for her illness whatsoever .
Do you just chose to ignore the reports from her own doctor when she felt she was a threat to her own sons? The statement that showed she thought one of her friends had appeared to her as the devil ? She thought the CIA were after her , She was not looking after her children full time?
Its like in a way that you are so determined to make Jeremy guilty ( which he already is in the eyes of the law and in jail in case you have forgotten) that you have some vision of Sheila being the perfect mum and having no problems?
But whatever the truth that is very far from the realities of her life.
-
why are you trying to apply logic to someone who may have been in the middle of a psychotic episode ?
I think it is very sad after all the information posted on here - even if Jeremy is the murderer- that you appear not to have any understanding for her illness whatsoever .
Do you just chose to ignore the reports from her own doctor when she felt she was a threat to her own sons? The statement that showed she thought one of her friends had appeared to her as the devil ? She thought the CIA were after her , She was not looking after her children full time?
Its like in a way that you are so determined to make Jeremy guilty ( which he already is in the eyes of the law and in jail in case you have forgotten) that you have some vision of Sheila being the perfect mum and having no problems?
But whatever the truth that is very far from the realities of her life.
Well said Jan, Sheila deserves more respect in my opinion, her life was a struggle and must have been so difficult. Whether innocent or guilty she was a victim of her illness however hard she may have fought against it.
-
It seems Bamber knocked Neville out downstairs. Before firing his final head shots into him.
It can take a lot to knock someone out. Professional boxers spend 36 minutes trying to do this, and often don't succeed.
Bamber's blows eventually knocked Neville out. Sheila would not have had the power.
-
It seems Bamber knocked Neville out downstairs. Before firing his final head shots into him.
It can take a lot to knock someone out. Professional boxers spend 36 minutes trying to do this, and often don't succeed.
Bamber's blows eventually knocked Neville out. Sheila would not have had the power.
Most boxers don't already have bullets in their face and body before being knocked out.
If Sheila was in a psychotic state she could have had what is referred to as 'super human strength'.
-
Well said Jan, Sheila deserves more respect in my opinion, her life was a struggle and must have been so difficult. Whether innocent or guilty she was a victim of her illness however hard she may have fought against it.
Maggie I've sent you a PM regarding Jan's offensive post. Saying I do not understand Sheila's illness.
You deleted my response, which was not offensive.
-
Maggie I've sent you a PM regarding Jan's offensive post. Saying I do not understand her illness.
Thank you Adam, I have replied to your post.
-
Anyway. Onto the issue.
Neville got downstairs and put up a tremendous fight for life. The evidence shows this and he took a brutal beating for his efforts.
But Sheila in her nightie didn't have a mark on her. Why ?
-
Anyway. Onto the issue.
Neville got downstairs and put up a tremendous fight for life. The evidence shows this and he took a brutal beating for his efforts.
But Sheila in her nightie didn't have a mark on her. Why ?
What, exactly do you think Neville did which constituted putting up a tremendous fight for life. From the amount of bullets which had already found their mark I doubt if he'd have been capable of much in the way of physical activity. Also, I hadn't been aware that Jan had been ill. Wasn't it rather churlish of you to report her for saying you didn't understand her illness.
-
What, exactly do you think Neville did which constituted putting up a tremendous fight for life. From the amount of bullets which had already found their mark I doubt if he'd have been capable of much in the way of physical activity. Also, I hadn't been aware that Jan had been ill. Wasn't it rather churlish of you to report her for saying you didn't understand her illness.
The judge said this. He sat through the whole trial and knows a lot more than anyone on here.
If there was no fight why was there so much upturned and smashed furniture ? And why did Neville get his face smashed in ?
-
The only thing answer is Sheila brutally beat Neville after he was dead. Which is ridiculous.
I thought Sheila was closest to Neville. Why didn't she beat June, she got out of bed and was moving around.
Whatever way you look at it. A fully protected and fit Jeremy brutally beat Neville after he fought back.
-
The judge said this. He sat through the whole trial and knows a lot more than anyone on here.
If there was no fight why was there so much upturned and smashed furniture ? And why did Neville get his face smashed in ?
Why does the judge necessarily know more than us-it's just another day at the office to him. It's impossible to know for certain exactly what damage the Raid Team caused on entry. Nevill's face was bashed in after death and possibly prodded with a poker as Jeremy couldn't quite believe the man who had dominated his life had finally expired.
-
The judge said this. He sat through the whole trial and knows a lot more than anyone on here.
If there was no fight why was there so much upturned and smashed furniture ? And why did Neville get his face smashed in ?
Contrary to what you seem to think, judges aren't omnipotent. HOW would he know, without knowing what damage was done to an opponent, what sort of fight a severely incapacitated Neville put up? To me, this doesn't seem an unreasonable question. Re the upturned and smashed furniture. It stands to reason that Jeremy would want it to look like a violent struggle had taken place, and I guess some of Neville's facial injuries were the result of being beaten with the butt of the rifle apart from a bullet having shattered his jaw.
-
The only thing answer is Sheila brutally beat Neville after he was dead. Which is ridiculous.
I thought Sheila was closest to Neville. Why didn't she beat June, she got out of bed and was moving around.
Whatever way you look at it. A fully protected and fit Jeremy brutally beat Neville after he fought back.
Why is it ridiculous ?
1) I just explained that she may not have seen him as her father at the time
2) if she was very depressed/ suicidal and not in the throws of an episode - she may have felt everyone was against her and if Neville agreed about the fostering - even if he was trying to help her- she may have seen that as the last straw and the final betrayal.
-
Why does the judge necessarily know more than us-it's just another day at the office to him. It's impossible to know for certain exactly what damage the Raid Team caused on entry. Nevill's face was bashed in after death and possibly prodded with a poker as Jeremy couldn't quite believe the man who had dominated his life had finally expired.
Or Sheila saw him as the devil and burnt him with the" son the father and the holy ghost"
we may never know.
-
Why is it ridiculous ?
1) I just explained that she may not have seen him as her father at the time
2) if she was very depressed/ suicidal and not in the throws of an episode - she may have felt everyone was against her and if Neville agreed about the fostering - even if he was trying to help her- she may have seen that as the last straw and the final betrayal.
Jan, I know he's reported you for saying that he doesn't understand your illness but I don't think he understands Sheila's, either.
-
Why is it ridiculous ?
1) I just explained that she may not have seen him as her father at the time
2) if she was very depressed/ suicidal and not in the throws of an episode - she may have felt everyone was against her and if Neville agreed about the fostering - even if he was trying to help her- she may have seen that as the last straw and the final betrayal.
I just don't see her as having the strength to execute it all..
-
Why does the judge necessarily know more than us-it's just another day at the office to him. It's impossible to know for certain exactly what damage the Raid Team caused on entry. Nevill's face was bashed in after death and possibly prodded with a poker as Jeremy couldn't quite believe the man who had dominated his life had finally expired.
Judges take their jobs a bit more seriously than a filing clerk. Which is why they rise to that position on the first place.
He will know a mountain of things no one else will know.
He said in his summing up 'Neville put up a tremendous fight for life'. So it's fact.
-
Judges take their jobs a bit more seriously than a filing clerk. Which is why they rise to that position on the first place.
He will know a mountain of things no one else will know.
He said in his summing up 'Neville put up a tremendous fight for life'. So it's fact.
Not true - a judge relies on experts and really are not supposed to influence the jury on subjects they themselves do not comprehend .
The raid team admitted that some of the "mess " was due to them.
We do not know if the injuries occurred after he was shot.
-
Judges take their jobs a bit more seriously than a filing clerk. Which is why they rise to that position on the first place.
He will know a mountain of things no one else will know.
He said in his summing up 'Neville put up a tremendous fight for life'. So it's fact.
Then as you have so much faith in the judge's omnipotence, perhaps you'd like to give us your thoughts about the tremendous fight Neville put up.
-
Supporters have to say Sheila brutally beat Neville after he passed out. And that he passed out before having the chance to strike a blow on Sheila.
Then Sheila smashed up the kitchen for no reason.
All this contradicts all common sense and what the judge said.
If that's what happened, Jan is right, I have no understanding of Sheila's illness.
-
Supporters have to say Sheila brutally beat Neville after he passed out. And that he passed out before having the chance to strike a blow on Sheila.
Then Sheila smashed up the kitchen for no reason.
All this contradicts all common sense and what the judge said.
If that's what happened, Jan is right, I have no understanding of Sheila's illness.
Well at what point did he put up a tremendous fight for life?
-
Supporters have to say Sheila brutally beat Neville after he passed out. And that he passed out before having the chance to strike a blow on Sheila.
Then Sheila smashed up the kitchen for no reason.
All this contradicts all common sense and what the judge said.
If that's what happened, Jan is right, I have no understanding of Sheila's illness.
what exactly are you talking about in the kitchen ? The raid team burst in and admitted they knocked things over . Don't forget they were shouting out to Sheila and thought she was alive so they were not exactly tip toeing around - they were worried she was going to shoot them .
so to be clear - we are saying its a possibility - he could have been beaten after he was shot.
-
Well at what point did he put up a tremendous fight for life?
Well it wasn't upstairs.
He got shot four times as he was getting out of bed.
-
Well it wasn't upstairs.
He got shot four times as he was getting out of bed.
So where was Sheila when that happened and when he went down into the kitchen and was beaten?
-
So where was Sheila when that happened and when he went down into the kitchen and was beaten?
I personally think Sheila slept through most of it and was awoken after the other four had already been killed..
-
Well it wasn't upstairs.
He got shot four times as he was getting out of bed.
Exactly. So please tell us how, in your estimation, Neville, with a shattered jaw and a useless arm, having made it downstairs, managed to put up a tremendous fight for life.
-
I personally think Sheila slept through most of it and was awoken after the other four had already been killed..
Possible - although it does not even look as if she had been to bed. Skippy says you could hear the shots from outside let alone in the house. That is a lot of shots and running about to sleep through .
-
So where was Sheila when that happened and when he went down into the kitchen and was beaten?
Sheila was in bed. Asleep.
You know this. Everyone agrees Jeremy entered the main bedroom first. It's common sense to do this.
-
Exactly. So please tell us how, in your estimation, Neville, with a shattered jaw and a useless arm, having made it downstairs, managed to put up a tremendous fight for life.
Because he was 6.4. Strong and fit for his age. And knew he was in a life or death struggle. Not just for himself, but to save his family.
-
I personally think Sheila slept through most of it and was awoken after the other four had already been killed..
Possible.
She would only wake during the downstairs kitchen struggle. But if her bedroom door was shut, that is doubtful.
-
Because he was 6.4. Strong and fit for his age. And knew he was in a life or death struggle. Not just for himself, but to save his family.
Which was very ineffective because Sheila was unmarked and even Julie didn't add any scratches on Jeremy to give weight to her evidence. Hardly a tremendous fight, was it?
-
I wonder if there were any locks on the bedroom doors,or on the landing door that led through to Sheila's room ?
-
Which was very ineffective because Sheila was unmarked and even Julie didn't add any scratches on Jeremy to give weight to her evidence. Hardly a tremendous fight, was it?
I have already said why Bamber would not have any marks.
Big difference between a fit, fully protected young man, and an uncoordinated, light woman in a nightie.
-
It seems Bamber knocked Neville out downstairs. Before firing his final head shots into him.
It can take a lot to knock someone out. Professional boxers spend 36 minutes trying to do this, and often don't succeed.
Bamber's blows eventually knocked Neville out. Sheila would not have had the power.
LOL What kind of argument is that? Neville was an old man half asleep, not a Prime Boxer in his late 20s getting hyped up for the fight.
-
And Jeremy couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding !
-
Sheila was in bed. Asleep.
You know this. Everyone agrees Jeremy entered the main bedroom first. It's common sense to do this.
that is supposition not fact . And no one agrees that the order of shootings has never been established.
Unless she had earplugs in why would she stay asleep through her mother and father being shot when skippy says even with the silencer on you would hear the shots outside?
-
LOL What kind of argument is that? Neville was an old man half asleep, not a Prime Boxer in his late 20s getting hyped up for the fight.
Neville was fit and strong for his age. By the time he had reached the kitchen he was awake. Being shot at tends to wake people.
-
I have already said why Bamber would not have any marks.
Big difference between a fit, fully protected young man, and an uncoordinated, light woman in a nightie.
not according to skippy - when you have a gun pointed at you ,you just do as you are told
-
I personally think Sheila slept through most of it and was awoken after the other four had already been killed..
Wasn't Sheila's bed made?
-
Neville was fit and strong for his age. By the time he had reached the kitchen he was awake. Being shot at tends to wake people.
An old man already shot 4 times will not be able to put up much of fight
-
Wasn't Sheila's bed made?
It had never been slept in.
-
Wasn't Sheila's bed made?
There were twin beds with neither of the sheets turned back,but as it was August I'm afraid that this is just another avenue which proves to be inconclusive.
-
Wasn't Sheila's bed made?
David
I got the impression her bed had been used but just lying on the top of the covers
-
that is supposition not fact . And no one agrees that the order of shootings has never been established.
Unless she had earplugs in why would she stay asleep through her mother and father being shot when skippy says even with the silencer on you would hear the shots outside?
I doubt the gun was very loud. It was used for shooting vermin. Not elephants. With a silencer on it would be even more quiet.
I suspect a gun shot would be heard on the phone once the line was cleared.
If Bamber shut the main bedroom door prior to shooting Neville and June, then that would negate the sound more. Sheila would not hear it even if she was awake.
-
Can someone send me the uncensored photo of Neville? All we have is written descriptions about his state, to make a judgement I would have to see the crime scene photo, afterall that is why crime scene photos are taken
-
I doubt the gun was very loud. It was used for shooting vermin. Not elephants. With a silencer on it would be even more quiet.
I suspect a gun shot would be heard on the phone once the line was cleared.
If Bamber shut the main bedroom door prior to shooting Neville and June, then that would negate the sound more.
So in your scenario Sheila could have shot herself when the police were outside and no one woud have heard her?
The phone line was only open in the kitchen so if the door was closed that argument does not stack up either
-
There were twin beds with neither of the sheets turned back,but as it was August I'm afraid that this is just another avenue which proves to be inconclusive.
It was a cool evening,Steve. Even the Aga had been left lit so warming everywhere. June had her bedsocks on too.
It's a possibility that Sheila was in her mother's bed with June.
-
Can someone send me the uncensored photo of Neville? All we have is written descriptions about his state, to make a judgement I would have to see the crime scene photo, afterall that is why crime scene photos are taken
You have the COA description.
-
Neville was fit and strong for his age. By the time he had reached the kitchen he was awake. Being shot at tends to wake people.
Yes, he'd have been awake to the realization that he was in pain from a shattered jaw, swallowing blood from it, as well as having a useless arm. He'd have been very fit.....................mostly for nothing.
-
So in your scenario Sheila could have shot herself when the police were outside and no one woud have heard her?
The phone line was only open in the kitchen so if the door was closed that argument does not stack up either
Well the judge said everyone was dead prior to 3.48am. As no shots were heard. Either on the open line, or from outside. So a shot from Sheila would be heard. Dozens of people were listening out for noises.
However Bamber spending around 15 seconds shooting 10/11 bullets into June and Neville, with Sheila asleep, and two closed doors and 30 yards in front of her, is unlikely to wake her.
-
So in your scenario Sheila could have shot herself when the police were outside and no one woud have heard her?
The phone line was only open in the kitchen so if the door was closed that argument does not stack up either
Yes Adam has previously stated that police outside would have heard gun shots had shelia killed herself.
A .22 rifle will sounds like a loud clap. So make up your own minds. I doubt anyone slept though it and I believe the twins where first to go. I can't see shelia sleeping through not only the gun shots but also there would be screaming from June as she didn't die instantly and crawled to the doorway.
-
Yes Adam has previously stated that police outside would have heard gun shots had shelia killed herself.
A .22 rifle will sounds like a loud clap. So make up your own minds. I doubt anyone slept though it and I believe the twins where first to go. I can't see shelia sleeping through not only the gun shots but also there would be screaming from June as she didn't die instantly and crawled to the doorway.
I don't recall saying that. But the judge said a shot would be heard by the police outside. As well as the phone line. Sheila could only shoot herself without the silencer.
Bamber shot June and Neville with the silencer. The twins didn't wake.
If Sheila woke, she woke. I have always said she may have woken. It doesn't change who committed the massacre.
-
An old man already shot 4 times will not be able to put up much of fight
Any man shot in the face would be stunned and at a huge dissadvantage in any situation.
-
Any man shot in the face would be stunned and at a huge dissadvantage in any situation.
Especially against a woman opponent.
-
Why do supporters think Sheila kept herself alive for several hours after killing everyone else ?
I asked this question in a thread. The only answer I got was that her actions would be erratic due to her illness.
Erratic ? You can say that again. Beating an already dead Neville.
-
Yes Adam has previously stated that police outside would have heard gun shots had shelia killed herself.
A .22 rifle will sounds like a loud clap. So make up your own minds. I doubt anyone slept though it and I believe the twins where first to go. I can't see shelia sleeping through not only the gun shots but also there would be screaming from June as she didn't die instantly and crawled to the doorway.
I wonder if we'll ever find out whether June cried out or not. Wasn't she shot in the neck from close range,so I would expect gurgling at most. Sheila was used to lying in bed and with the large Georgian farmhouse having thick walls it's quite possible she heard nothing.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6753.msg311209.html#msg311209
-
Why do supporters think Sheila kept herself alive for several hours after killing everyone else ?
I asked this question in a thread. The only answer I got was that her actions would be erratic due to her illness.
Erratic ? You can say that again. Beating an already dead Neville.
Although June also was peppered in bullets,she wasn't exactly lying in a huge pool of blood which says that she too had many shots after she was dead too. The shooting was frenzied.
-
Obviously if supporters accept the evidence that everyone was dead prior to 3.48am, that supports Bamber being the killer. As Sheila couldn't have achieved the massacre between 3.26am - 3.48am.
So supporters argue Sheila was alive while the police were outside. Although cannot give a reason why she would do this and have no evidence to support this happening.