Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on March 15, 2016, 12:25:PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do7E5ksS5jQ
Do you think Trudi is reading the forum? She answered my question re: psychopaths can pass a polygraph! Cheers Trudi :)
-
bear in mind that he wasnt challenged to do the test he asked himself.
when the prisonfirst refused he could of just said well i wanted to take one but i wasnt allowed to.
-
bear in mind that he wasnt challenged to do the test he asked himself.
when the prisonfirst refused he could of just said well i wanted to take one but i wasnt allowed to.
And? If he believed he could pass, why wouldn't he do it? You can only fail if you feel guilt - psychopaths don't.
-
he couldent possbly know he was going to pass.
-
And he has no diagnosis of being a psychopath.
-
And he has no diagnosis of being a psychopath.
It's very doubtful that the authorities would be interested. I think it unlikely that they'd go to the expense of running tests to find out, and I can't see Jeremy agreeing to take a test which would proclaim him as such.
-
Well he had the pclr test didnt he and lots of other tests. The fact is jane we dont have any proof of him being a physcopath and jyst have our opinions to go on which can distort our views.
-
Well he had the pclr test didnt he and lots of other tests. The fact is jane we dont have any proof of him being a physcopath and jyst have our opinions to go on which can distort our views.
To the best of my knowledge, Jeremy hasn't received anything in the way of regular testing that other life prisoners haven't had. Probably the same routine, yearly tests that we have in our doctor's surgeries. There seems to be a perception of Jeremy being some sort of super-star prisoner and receiving special attention. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. Just a thought, but what service do you think it would perform, and whose lives do you imagine would be changed if the authorities were to announce that Jeremy had been found to be a psychopath?
-
To the best of my knowledge, Jeremy hasn't received anything in the way of regular testing that other life prisoners haven't had. Probably the same routine, yearly tests that we have in our doctor's surgeries. There seems to be a perception of Jeremy being some sort of super-star prisoner and receiving special attention. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. Just a thought, but what service do you think it would perform, and whose lives do you imagine would be changed if the authorities were to announce that Jeremy had been found to be a psychopath?
well its what people base thier opinions on regarding the polygraph. Its no good going round in circles on this , we can only go on the facts which is that he has had pclr tests and 27 others tests all of which confirm he is not a physcopath and does not have a personality disorder. My own personal opinion is that it would be a lot easier for me to be convinced of his guilt if it was proven he was a physcopath
-
Well he had the pclr test didnt he and lots of other tests. The fact is jane we dont have any proof of him being a physcopath and jyst have our opinions to go on which can distort our views.
The PCL-R test is only as good as the tester and it is open to their biases. For instance, I might think Jeremy was being glib, you may not. The other tests are to assess 'dangerousness' - all prisoners have them, nothing to do with testing for psychopathy.
I think he's guilty and to kill 5 people (including to innocent 6 year old children), not have any guilt or remorse - you have to be a psychopath. I used to think he was innocent so have looked at this from both sides of the fence.
-
What type of person can claim thier innocence for 30 years without showing signs of physcopathy or some kind of dissorder- he would need to be extremely clever to do that
-
And he has no diagnosis of being a psychopath.
So you're not a psychopath until someone says so? The crime and the way he went about it and not showing ANY remorse shows he is a psychopath. That's my opinion and one which won't change.
-
What type of person can claim thier innocence for 30 years without showing signs of physcopathy or some kind of dissorder- he would need to be extremely clever to do that
What kind of person? A psychopath! ;)
-
There seems to be a perception of Jeremy being some sort of super-star prisoner and receiving special attention. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. Just a thought, but what service do you think it would perform, and whose lives do you imagine would be changed if the authorities were to announce that Jeremy had been found to be a psychopath?
This has been mentioned a few times in the press and from former prisoners that at Full Sutton he had special privileges and better treatment from staff. I also read somewhere it was one of the reasons he got attacked.
-
well its what people base thier opinions on regarding the polygraph. Its no good going round in circles on this , we can only go on the facts which is that he has had pclr tests and 27 others tests all of which confirm he is not a physcopath and does not have a personality disorder. My own personal opinion is that it would be a lot easier for me to be convinced of his guilt if it was proven he was a physcopath
But the 27 tests to which you refer weren't testing for psychopathy or any other PD's so they can't have confirmed he wasn't one. They were routine -physiological- tests that he's probably still having ie, bp, liver function, cholesterol, diabetes.
-
This has been mentioned a few times in the press and from former prisoners that at Full Sutton he had special privileges and better treatment from staff. I also read somewhere it was one of the reasons he got attacked.
He did get attacked because the other prisoners think he has 'special privileges' but as he maintains his innocence, he is allowed access to the media etc. I don't believe the staff treat him any better or worse than anyone else though.
-
This has been mentioned a few times in the press and from former prisoners that at Full Sutton he had special privileges and better treatment from staff. I also read somewhere it was one of the reasons he got attacked.
We all know how the press like to devour these delicious pieces of goss., especially when they're short of copy.
-
What kind of person? A psychopath! ;)
[/quote
exactly, so i am pretty sure he would have been found to ge one by now
-
What type of person can claim thier innocence for 30 years without showing signs of physcopathy or some kind of dissorder- he would need to be extremely clever to do that
You would also need to be extremely clever to execute a mass murder and engineer it in such a way that it convincingly appears like a psychotic rampage murder/suicide.
-
The PCL-R test is only as good as the tester and it is open to their biases. For instance, I might think Jeremy was being glib, you may not. The other tests are to assess 'dangerousness' - all prisoners have them, nothing to do with testing for psychopathy.
I think he's guilty and to kill 5 people (including to innocent 6 year old children), not have any guilt or remorse - you have to be a psychopath. I used to think he was innocent so have looked at this from both sides of the fence.
I know uou have caroline and i get it i really do. I know you uave corresponded with him so have a much better understanding of his personality than i do, but look at it from my perspective. Your convinced hes a physcopath but have no proof to give me to accept your opinion.
-
You would also need to be extremely clever to execute a mass murder and engineer it in such a way that it convincingly appears like a psychotic rampage murder/suicide.
But it wasn't just staged and left. He followed it up, too. The alleged phonecall in which he passed on words his father had allegedly told him, laying the blame at Sheila's feet. He then stood outside with them at WHF adding his own story of her mental history and how she'd previously attempted suicide. They say exactly what he'd planned for them to see. What he wasn't able to do was get into the emotions of those he'd killed. He didn't understand that a mother would rather die with her children than with her mother.
-
I know uou have caroline and i get it i really do. I know you uave corresponded with him so have a much better understanding of his personality than i do, but look at it from my perspective. Your convinced hes a physcopath but have no proof to give me to accept your opinion.
I'm not asking you to accept my opinion - simply stating it. You must follow your own thoughts. Anyway, here is the link to a government document that explains the prisoners annual assessment. It's explained in section 5 - I'll also post the relevant section below.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2011/psi-40-2011-categorisation-adult-males.doc
SECTION 5: RECATEGORISATION AND ALLOCATION
5.1 The purpose of the recategorisation process is to determine whether, and to what extent, there has been a clear change in the risks a prisoner presented at his last review and to ensure that he continues to be held in the most appropriate conditions of security.
Allocation often follows immediately after recategorisation but is a separate process, the purpose of which is to assign the prisoner to a suitably secure establishment which best meets his needs insofar as pressures on the estate allow.
5.2 Risk levels may increase or decrease depending on individual circumstances and the prisoner’s security category must reflect this. Due account should be taken of any intelligence, held either within the prison or received from a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA), that indicates the prisoner is involved in ongoing serious criminal activity.
5.3 Recategorisation to a lower security category is not an automatic progression or right but must be based on clear evidence of reduction in previously identified risk levels to a level that is manageable in an establishment of the lower category.
In reviewing a prisoner’s security category it is essential to look at the reasons why, at his last review, the prisoner was placed in the current security category. Only then is it possible to determine whether, and to what extent, circumstances may have changed to warrant a change in category. It is also important to consider the particular characteristics of the estate for which the prisoner is being assessed, taking account of physical security, supervision levels and regime availability. This is particularly important when considering whether to recategorise a prisoner to Category D, Because of the particular characteristics of the open estate, recategorisation to Category D must be based on the prisoner’s proven trustworthiness and manageable risks.
5.4 Two years is considered to be the maximum time a prisoner should spend in open
conditions. However, assessment of a prisoner’s individual risks and needs may support
earlier recategorisation to D. Such cases must have the reasons for their categorisation
fully documented and confirmed in writing by the Governing Governor.
5.5 Timing of recategorisation reviews
All prisoners other than those already categorised as Category D, those sentenced to less than 12 months, and ISPs (to whom PSI 36/2010 PSO 4700 Chapter 4 Serving the Indeterminate Sentence applies) must have their security reviewed at regular prescribed intervals.
Prisoners serving indeterminate sentences will be subject to Sentence Planning and Review meetings, which must be held at least every 12 months, and in line with the OM III manual. The ISP’s security category should be considered at each meeting. (See PSO 4700 Chapter 4).
The following have a six monthly review
Prisoners serving a determinate sentence of 12 months or more but less than 4 years
Extended Sentence for Public Protection (EPP) prisoners with a custodial term of less than four years
Prisoners in the last 24 months of their sentence
The following have an annual review
Determinate sentence prisoners with a sentence of 4 years or more
EPP prisoners with a custodial term of four years or more
5.6 Recalled prisoners must be reviewed within 4 working days of the Parole Board or Justice Secretary making a decision in their case.
5.7 Prisoners in the open estate, and Category D prisoners held in the closed estate, will be reviewed only if there is a change in their circumstances; their behaviour gives cause for concern or when new information or intelligence suggests an increase in risk levels. For ISPs, see PSI 36/2010 PSO 4700 Chapter 4, Serving the Indeterminate Sentence.
5.8 A prisoner’s recategorisation review must not be withheld or delayed to await the outcome of a parole hearing. To do so could be construed as unfairly jeopardising the prisoner’s chances of parole success. The review should take place at the normal time although it will normally be inappropriate to transfer the prisoner until the parole dossier is completed unless there is an urgent need to transfer the prisoner to conditions of higher security.
5.9 In addition to the prescribed timetable of reviews, prisoners may have their security category reviewed whenever there has been a significant change in their circumstances or behaviour which impacts on the level of security required. Changes might include those listed below, although other circumstances might also arise:
there is a change in circumstances or behaviour which indicates an urgent threat to prison security or the good order of the establishment
intelligence indicating involvement in ongoing serious criminality
further charges of a serious nature indicate that the prisoner requires a higher level of security
a notice of deportation is served
a Confiscation Order is enforced
a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO) is imposed
new or additional information comes to light. For example, during completion or updating the OASys assessment which highlights additional risk factors
there is cause for concern that the current categorisation decision is unsound. (There must be corroborative evidence to support that concern)
the prisoner has completed a successful ROTL
serious ROTL failure
a sentence/tariff is reduced on appeal
a key piece of offending behaviour work is completed, or there has been a successful detoxification or opiate substitute maintenance regime
a prisoner is recalled to custody
a prisoner is returned to prison custody from a Special Hospital.
-
This document explains risk management specifically for CAT A prisoners.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2013/psi-05-2013-categ-mgt-potential-cat-a.doc
-
I'm not asking you to accept my opinion - simply stating it. You must follow your own thoughts. Anyway, here is the link to a government document that explains the prisoners annual assessment. It's explained in section 5 - I'll also post the relevant section below.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2011/psi-40-2011-categorisation-adult-males.doc
SECTION 5: RECATEGORISATION AND ALLOCATION
5.1 The purpose of the recategorisation process is to determine whether, and to what extent, there has been a clear change in the risks a prisoner presented at his last review and to ensure that he continues to be held in the most appropriate conditions of security.
Allocation often follows immediately after recategorisation but is a separate process, the purpose of which is to assign the prisoner to a suitably secure establishment which best meets his needs insofar as pressures on the estate allow.
5.2 Risk levels may increase or decrease depending on individual circumstances and the prisoner’s security category must reflect this. Due account should be taken of any intelligence, held either within the prison or received from a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA), that indicates the prisoner is involved in ongoing serious criminal activity.
5.3 Recategorisation to a lower security category is not an automatic progression or right but must be based on clear evidence of reduction in previously identified risk levels to a level that is manageable in an establishment of the lower category.
In reviewing a prisoner’s security category it is essential to look at the reasons why, at his last review, the prisoner was placed in the current security category. Only then is it possible to determine whether, and to what extent, circumstances may have changed to warrant a change in category. It is also important to consider the particular characteristics of the estate for which the prisoner is being assessed, taking account of physical security, supervision levels and regime availability. This is particularly important when considering whether to recategorise a prisoner to Category D, Because of the particular characteristics of the open estate, recategorisation to Category D must be based on the prisoner’s proven trustworthiness and manageable risks.
5.4 Two years is considered to be the maximum time a prisoner should spend in open
conditions. However, assessment of a prisoner’s individual risks and needs may support
earlier recategorisation to D. Such cases must have the reasons for their categorisation
fully documented and confirmed in writing by the Governing Governor.
5.5 Timing of recategorisation reviews
All prisoners other than those already categorised as Category D, those sentenced to less than 12 months, and ISPs (to whom PSI 36/2010 PSO 4700 Chapter 4 Serving the Indeterminate Sentence applies) must have their security reviewed at regular prescribed intervals.
Prisoners serving indeterminate sentences will be subject to Sentence Planning and Review meetings, which must be held at least every 12 months, and in line with the OM III manual. The ISP’s security category should be considered at each meeting. (See PSO 4700 Chapter 4).
The following have a six monthly review
Prisoners serving a determinate sentence of 12 months or more but less than 4 years
Extended Sentence for Public Protection (EPP) prisoners with a custodial term of less than four years
Prisoners in the last 24 months of their sentence
The following have an annual review
Determinate sentence prisoners with a sentence of 4 years or more
EPP prisoners with a custodial term of four years or more
5.6 Recalled prisoners must be reviewed within 4 working days of the Parole Board or Justice Secretary making a decision in their case.
5.7 Prisoners in the open estate, and Category D prisoners held in the closed estate, will be reviewed only if there is a change in their circumstances; their behaviour gives cause for concern or when new information or intelligence suggests an increase in risk levels. For ISPs, see PSI 36/2010 PSO 4700 Chapter 4, Serving the Indeterminate Sentence.
5.8 A prisoner’s recategorisation review must not be withheld or delayed to await the outcome of a parole hearing. To do so could be construed as unfairly jeopardising the prisoner’s chances of parole success. The review should take place at the normal time although it will normally be inappropriate to transfer the prisoner until the parole dossier is completed unless there is an urgent need to transfer the prisoner to conditions of higher security.
5.9 In addition to the prescribed timetable of reviews, prisoners may have their security category reviewed whenever there has been a significant change in their circumstances or behaviour which impacts on the level of security required. Changes might include those listed below, although other circumstances might also arise:
there is a change in circumstances or behaviour which indicates an urgent threat to prison security or the good order of the establishment
intelligence indicating involvement in ongoing serious criminality
further charges of a serious nature indicate that the prisoner requires a higher level of security
a notice of deportation is served
a Confiscation Order is enforced
a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO) is imposed
new or additional information comes to light. For example, during completion or updating the OASys assessment which highlights additional risk factors
there is cause for concern that the current categorisation decision is unsound. (There must be corroborative evidence to support that concern)
the prisoner has completed a successful ROTL
serious ROTL failure
a sentence/tariff is reduced on appeal
a key piece of offending behaviour work is completed, or there has been a successful detoxification or opiate substitute maintenance regime
a prisoner is recalled to custody
a prisoner is returned to prison custody from a Special Hospital.
I've posted about this before in another thread - probably in the 'Is Jeremy Bamber a psychopath' thread.
In my opinion it's worth all those people who are either sitting on the fence or believe Bamber to be innocent should familiarise themselves with PSI 40/2011 along with the yearly OASys reports.
-
I've posted about this before in another thread - probably in the 'Is Jeremy Bamber a psychopath' thread.
In my opinion it's worth all those people who are either sitting on the fence or believe Bamber to be innocent should familiarise themselves with PSI 40/2011 along with the yearly OASys reports.
So did I, had to trawl through them to look for it - no doubt in six months when the 'assessments' are brought up again, I'll have to trawl again!
-
But it wasn't just staged and left. He followed it up, too. The alleged phonecall in which he passed on words his father had allegedly told him, laying the blame at Sheila's feet. He then stood outside with them at WHF adding his own story of her mental history and how she'd previously attempted suicide. They say exactly what he'd planned for them to see. What he wasn't able to do was get into the emotions of those he'd killed. He didn't understand that a mother would rather die with her children than with her mother.
There is no statistical evidence or a large enough sample size of these rare instances to conclude such a thing.
Believing Jeremy must be guilty because Shelia was found in the main bedroom not the kids room is ill considered and downright laughable
-
There is no statistical evidence or a large enough sample size of these rare instances to conclude such a thing.
Believing Jeremy must be guilty because Shelia was found in the main bedroom not the kids room is ill considered and downright laughable
I don't think Jane said she did believe he was guilty because of where Sheila was found.
-
So hes a cat A prisoner and is seen as a great risk to public if he escapes .
Is that because he refuses to say hes guilty of such a violent crime and so renders him a physcho
Forgive me if i am getting the wrong end of the stick.
-
I don't think Jane said she did believe he was guilty because of where Sheila was found.
No, I didn't, Caroline. Thank you for pointing it out to David.
-
So hes a cat A prisoner and is seen as a great risk to public if he escapes .
Is that because he refuses to say hes guilty of such a violent crime and so renders him a physcho
Forgive me if i am getting the wrong end of the stick.
No, you mentioned the annual assessments that Jeremy has had. The documents explain what those assessments are all about.
-
So did I, had to trawl through them to look for it - no doubt in six months when the 'assessments' are brought up again, I'll have to trawl again!
;D
-
So hes a cat A prisoner and is seen as a great risk to public if he escapes .
Is that because he refuses to say hes guilty of such a violent crime and so renders him a physcho
Forgive me if i am getting the wrong end of the stick.
SH was an appellant the same as Bamber. He maintained innocence for over 12 years and eventually ended up in an open prison categorised as a D-Cat prisoner.
-
So hes a cat A prisoner and is seen as a great risk to public if he escapes .
Is that because he refuses to say hes guilty of such a violent crime and so renders him a physcho
Forgive me if i am getting the wrong end of the stick.
In order for Jeremy to be downgraded he has to undergo offense related courses and part of those courses is admitting to the crime hence he does not do them.
Since Jeremy has life without parole he also has no motive to undergo any courses to impress the parole board because it wont lead anywhere.
-
In order for Jeremy to be downgraded he has to undergo offense related courses and part of those courses is admitting to the crime hence he does not do them.
Since Jeremy has life without parole he also has no motive to undergo any courses to impress the parole board because it wont lead anywhere.
Not that I'm advocating the death penalty, but did abolitionists take into account a prisoner's mental state incarcerated without hope all these years..
-
Not that I'm advocating the death penalty, but did abolitionists take into account a prisoner's mental state incarcerated without hope all these years..
I wouldn't say that Jeremy doesn't have hope - that is all he really has left.
-
Not that I'm advocating the death penalty, but did abolitionists take into account a prisoner's mental state incarcerated without hope all these years..
What used to happen was, prisoners with life without parole were never told they had life without parole and would get bogus parole hearing's in the view that it would benefit their mental health (false hope)
However the EU human rights legislations put an end to this, I don't think Jeremy was ever "upgraded" to life without parole I think he was more or less told the truth about his sentence if you know what I mean
-
What used to happen was, prisoners with life without parole were never told they had life without parole and would get bogus parole hearing's in the view that it would benefit their mental health (false hope)
However the EU human rights legislations put an end to this, I don't think Jeremy was ever "upgraded" to life without parole I think he was more or less told the truth about his sentence if you know what I mean
His trial judge was quite explicit. Yes, he sentenced him to 25 years but with the rider that it was still to be decided if he would ever be safe to be released.
-
In order for Jeremy to be downgraded he has to undergo offense related courses and part of those courses is admitting to the crime hence he does not do them.
Since Jeremy has life without parole he also has no motive to undergo any courses to impress the parole board because it wont lead anywhere.
SH completed offence related courses and remained an appellant and worked his way from a B Cat to a D Cat, eventually transferring to open prison condition via the 'Guittard' ruling.
Up until the 23rd February 2014, SH remained classified as a D-Cat prisoner.
-
Not that I'm advocating the death penalty, but did abolitionists take into account a prisoner's mental state incarcerated without hope all these years..
I wouldn't say that Jeremy doesn't have hope - that is all he really has left.
According to Bamber, to moan about his situation when compared to "those poor flood victims" would appear to be "self-indulgent."
To recap Bamber stated:
"This week I will be turning 55 and I know I am lucky to have reached this age. I know my last thirty years have not seemed that great and to a point that’s true but to moan is so self-indulgent when I think of all those poor flood victims who didn’t deserve their lives to be turned upside down with events which may devastate their lives for years. Plus I’ve been watching the awful conflicts in Syria and Iraq and in so many Middle Eastern Countries, the awful deaths of civilians and troops; the displacement of peoples; the loss of everything, no one has done anything to deserve that, to suffer such dreadful loss, so here’s me moaning about my miscarriage of justice and I feel that so many others have equal and worse things to deal with."
-
Not that I'm advocating the death penalty, but did abolitionists take into account a prisoner's mental state incarcerated without hope all these years..
I was reading in detail about Full Sutton prison recently, have a look at this Steve http://insidetime.org/hmp-full-sutton-prison-regime-info/
-
I was reading in detail about Full Sutton prison recently, have a look at this Steve http://insidetime.org/hmp-full-sutton-prison-regime-info/
Well I've skim-read it Stephanie but nothing can prepare you for the solitude of the prison cell as the shadows start to fall.
-
Well I've skim-read it Stephanie but nothing can prepare you for the solitude of the prison cell as the shadows start to fall.
Have you been in prison Steve?
-
Hasn't Bamber stated he prefers his solitude.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do7E5ksS5jQ
Do you think Trudi is reading the forum? She answered my question re: psychopaths can pass a polygraph! Cheers Trudi :)
I've only just read this - gonna watch the vid..
-
SH completed offence related courses and remained an appellant and worked his way from a B Cat to a D Cat, eventually transferring to open prison condition via the 'Guittard' ruling.
Up until the 23rd February 2014, SH remained classified as a D-Cat prisoner.
SH conviction was a burglary gone wrong and killed her to avoid detection. JBs conviction is allot more brutal and calculating also involving children so they wont treat them the same.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do7E5ksS5jQ
Do you think Trudi is reading the forum? She answered my question re: psychopaths can pass a polygraph! Cheers Trudi :)
I've only just read this - gonna watch the vid..
I've got to just over 2 minutes, and imo, Trudi has no idea what a psychopath is. I'm not knocking her for that btw but this video proves nothing.
What I'd like Trudi to vlog about is what Bambers views are on psychopaths and psychopathy in general.
According to research 25% of the prison population have psychopathy so what are his views and opinions on this. How many psychopaths has Bamber come into comtact. Can he spot them? If so how does he spot them? How do they stand out from other prisoners? Do they stand out from other prisoners?
Come on - let's here what Bamber has to say on the subject.
-
im guess trudi doesnt read this forum becouse she still show traces of sainity so she cant have been reading a lot of the posts here.
-
SH conviction was a burglary gone wrong and killed her to avoid detection. JBs conviction is allot more brutal and calculating also involving children so they wont treat them the same.
The police described the murder of his victim as brutal. His victim was stabbed multiple times and was 79 years old.
Explain what you mean when you say 'they (the prison) won't treat them the same.'
-
I've only just read this - gonna watch the vid..
I've got to just over 2 minutes, and imo, Trudi has no idea what a psychopath is. I'm not knocking her for that btw but this video proves nothing.
What I'd like Trudi to vlog about is what Bambers views are on psychopaths and psychopathy in general.
According to research 25% of the prison population have psychopathy so what are his views and opinions on this. How many psychopaths has Bamber come into comtact. Can he spot them? If so how does he spot them? How do they stand out from other prisoners? Do they stand out from other prisoners?
Come on - let's here what Bamber has to say on the subject.
So is the polygraph 'expert' also an 'expert' in psychopathy and able to spot a psychopath after a few questions? ::)
-
So is the polygraph 'expert' also an 'expert' in psychopathy and able to spot a psychopath after a few questions? ::)
And in a nutshell, because he'd been given information from Bambers lawyers and co stating Bamber wasn't a psychopath he carried out the test with bias - confirmation bias.. ::)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do7E5ksS5jQ
Do you think Trudi is reading the forum? She answered my question re: psychopaths can pass a polygraph! Cheers Trudi :)
This bloke contradicted himself through out his interview with Trudi and she failed to pick up on it. He later stated he was in his twenties when he carried out the test and didn't have an opinion on the case, yet he'd previously stated he'd been told by the lawyers Bamber did not have psychopathy..
-
The police described the murder of his victim as brutal. His victim was stabbed multiple times and was 79 years old.
Explain what you mean when you say 'they (the prison) won't treat them the same.'
They will see JB as a much greater threat to society thus they put him in a more secure prison and consider him too dangerous to ever be released.
-
Well he had the pclr test didnt he and lots of other tests. The fact is jane we dont have any proof of him being a physcopath and jyst have our opinions to go on which can distort our views.
I don't believe Bamber has been tested for psychopathy. I would reconsider if Bamber were to allow public access to his unredacted test results. Otherwise imo it's propaganda.
-
They will see JB as a much greater threat to society thus they put him in a more secure prison and consider him too dangerous to ever be released.
In order for Jeremy to be downgraded he has to undergo offense related courses and part of those courses is admitting to the crime hence he does not do them.
Why then did you post the above?
-
This bloke contradicted himself through out his interview with Trudi and she failed to pick up on it. He later stated he was in his twenties when he carried out the test and didn't have an opinion on the case, yet he'd previously stated he'd been told by the lawyers Bamber did not have psychopathy..
He further proves his confirmation bias when he suggests an innocent person will conduct themselves properly. So will a psychopath.
-
Why then did you post the above?
Because I was answering nugs question
-
Because I was answering nugs question
Just an observation and no offence David, but I detect from how you use constant and systematic contradictions when you post it makes you feel superior to other posters or is it about control?
With regards to Trudi and her relationship with Bamber, I believe he's groomed her as I believe he's groomed all of the CT members and others.
I further believe Trudi may be being given advice from people who have agendas of their own and that she is being covertly manipulated.
-
Just an observation and no offence David, but I detect from how you use constant and systematic contradictions when you post it makes you feel superior to other posters or is it about control?
With regards to Trudi and her relationship with Bamber, I believe he's groomed her as I believe he's groomed all of the CT members and others.
I further believe Trudi may be being given advice from people who have agendas of their own and that she is being covertly manipulated.
Some menbers would have benefited from watching Happy Valley last night!
-
Just an observation and no offence David, but I detect from how you use constant and systematic contradictions when you post it makes you feel superior to other posters or is it about control?
I am not contradicting myself, you take two sentences of mine from two different answers from two different conversations to try and catch me out or something?
-
I am not contradicting myself, you take two sentences of mine from two different answers from two different conversations to try and catch me out or something?
That you sense there may be something about your posts which may encourage others to "catch me out or something", rather suggests that there is something there to catch out? Of course, I could be wrong.
-
That you sense there may be something about your posts which may encourage others to "catch me out or something", rather suggests that there is something there to catch out? Of course, I could be wrong.
I'm simply misunderstood much of the time, Or I don't elaborate enough
-
I'm simply misunderstood much of the time, Or I don't elaborate enough
Aww. It's horrid to be misunderstood :(
-
Just an observation and no offence David, but I detect from how you use constant and systematic contradictions when you post it makes you feel superior to other posters or is it about control?
I am not contradicting myself, you take two sentences of mine from two different answers from two different conversations to try and catch me out or something?
I meant in general. In general you appear to me to use constant and systemic contradictions throughout all your posts. I wasn't referring to the 'two sentences' you refer to above, though you appeared to do it then also.
Why would you think I'm trying to catch you out? Catch you out how? I'm just stating my observations.
-
"Grooming is a insidious predatory tactic, utilized by abusers. Grooming is practiced by Narcissists, Antisocial predators, con-artists and sexual aggressors, who target and manipulate vulnerable people for exploitation.
Child grooming is the deliberate act of establishing an emotional bond with a child, to lower the child's resistance. Child grooming can result in the minor falling victim to physical, sexual and emotional abuse, or specifically, to manipulate children into participating in slave labor, prostitution, and/or the production of child pornography.
Adult grooming is correspondent to child grooming and applies to any situation where an adult is primed to allow him or herself to be exploited or abused. While it is a common assumption that grooming is only practiced on the very young, identical emotional and psychological processes are commonly used to abuse or exploit adults the elderly, and those with compromised mental facilities.
http://outofthefog.website/top-100-trait-blog/2015/11/4/grooming
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do7E5ksS5jQ
Do you think Trudi is reading the forum? She answered my question re: psychopaths can pass a polygraph! Cheers Trudi :)
If Trudi has been warned by anyone to not read the forum (as I believe may be the case) and/or may not be familiar with it - I would suggest she ignores any advice she may have been given and would further suggest anyone who may be in contact with her highlights this forum to her.
She appears to be being brainwashed, as I once was. The Terry Mullins interview imo showed this.
-
If Trudi has been warned by anyone to not read the forum (as I believe may be the case) and/or may not be familiar with it - I would suggest she ignores any advice she may have been given and would further suggest anyone who may be in contact with her highlights this forum to her.
She appears to be being brainwashed, as I once was. The Terry Mullins interview imo showed this.
Steph, the first thing I'd do, if warned not to read or look at something, is want to know what I was missing. Presumably, she's no different. I wonder if she's brainwashed herself with, what she may see as being, her own "celebrity".
-
Steph, the first thing I'd do, if warned not to read or look at something, is want to know what I was missing. Presumably, she's no different. I wonder if she's brainwashed herself with, what she may see as being, her own "celebrity".
I obviously can't answer that question, only she knows why she's doing what she's doing and her motivations behind it.
She does appear confident in front of the camera. I was too overwhelmed and traumatised from having single handedly 'campaigned' and supported SH financially and emotionally on my own for all those years. I guess she's not emotionally invested in the same way I was.
I can't stand that word 'campaigner' I never saw myself as a 'campaigner.' I did what I did as I believed SH was innocent and that others were responsible. Of course with hindsight I realise now why I was left to 'campaign' single handedly. But that's a whole other story for another time...
I was treated like a pariah by some, and from my own experiences there's no 'celebrity factor' being linked to a convicted murderer maintaining innocence. I should add, I felt like this in the very beginning. There's nothing glamorous about visiting anyone in prison. It's a degrading experience and doesn't improve at any point, even in open prison conditions.
-
If Trudi has been warned by anyone to not read the forum (as I believe may be the case) and/or may not be familiar with it - I would suggest she ignores any advice she may have been given and would further suggest anyone who may be in contact with her highlights this forum to her.
She appears to be being brainwashed, as I once was. The Terry Mullins interview imo showed this.
She must read the forum Steph because the points she addressed are ones frequently raised here.
-
She must read the forum Steph because the points she addressed are ones frequently raised here.
I've no idea? Someone could be relaying information to her I suppose?
This forum in particular helped me uncover the truth. There were numerous posts made by one or two members that didn't sit right with me and I needed to understand with SH why these comments would have been made...
I thought the Terry Mullins interview was weak and the information disclosed in that interview adds yet further weight to Bambers guilt and indications of psychopathy.
-
I meant in general. In general you appear to me to use constant and systemic contradictions throughout all your posts. I wasn't referring to the 'two sentences' you refer to above, though you appeared to do it then also.
Why would you think I'm trying to catch you out? Catch you out how? I'm just stating my observations.
well your entitled to your opinions
-
She must read the forum Steph because the points she addressed are ones frequently raised here.
Allot of people do. Ages ago I first pointed out that Jeremy could have entered the house and taken the phone off the hook in the kitchen and that will disable all the lines in the house preventing anyone else from making an outgoing call and that's all he needed to do.
That then became part of CALs version of events in her book when it was published some 6-7 month later. Holly over at red has noticed things like that also. could be coincidence tho
I have made a few other discoveries but I am reluctant to post it because I don't want some author or journalist to steal it :(
-
Allot of people do. Ages ago I first pointed out that Jeremy could have entered the house and taken the phone off the hook in the kitchen and that will disable all the lines in the house preventing anyone else from making an outgoing call and that's all he needed to do.
That then became part of CALs version of events in her book when it was published some 6-7 month later. Holly over at red has noticed things like that also. could be coincidence tho
I have made a few other discoveries but I am reluctant to post it because I don't want some author or journalist to steal it :(
Really, David. I'm very surprised you'd say such a thing, because I could have sworn, from your posts, that you're convinced of Jeremy's innocence.
-
Allot of people do. Ages ago I first pointed out that Jeremy could have entered the house and taken the phone off the hook in the kitchen and that will disable all the lines in the house preventing anyone else from making an outgoing call and that's all he needed to do.
That then became part of CALs version of events in her book when it was published some 6-7 month later. Holly over at red has noticed things like that also. could be coincidence tho
I have made a few other discoveries but I am reluctant to post it because I don't want some author or journalist to steal it :(
That is not a discovery. Bob Woffindon's guilty account of how Bamber did it, from years ago, mentioned this.
-
That is not a discovery. Bob Woffindon's guilty account of how Bamber did it, from years ago, mentioned this.
No Bob Woffindon claims Jeremy re-arraigned the phones so they could not call out. when my theory is much more simple - take phone off the hook in downstairs kitchen then no other phone can call out hence Jeremy did not need to take the upstairs phone downstairs ect ect. The upstairs phone was taken downstairs because June preffered it downstairs.
Simple
-
That is not a discovery. Bob Woffindon's guilty account of how Bamber did it, from years ago, mentioned this.
Sour grapes now, is it, Adam?
-
Really, David. I'm very surprised you'd say such a thing, because I could have sworn, from your posts, that you're convinced of Jeremy's innocence.
I am not convinced of guilt or innocence as neither can be proven. When I first got interested in the case I was fairly sure he was guilty due to the fact his he had been in prison for 28 years and all his appeals rejected. However I could not help reading more and more evidence and the more I studied I began to realise his innocence is a strong possibility, Its just a question of whether you are prepared to accept that the Justice system will never admit to such an appalling mistake, and are prepared to bend the rules for the sake of their own reputation.
-
'There were four separate phones at the farm, all on the same line: one in the kitchen, one in the office and another in Nevill and June’s bedroom. A cordless phone had been collected for repair two days earlier'.
From Woffindens article. This has been discussed before. A lot. I've always said Bamber removed the kitchen phone off it's hook upon entrance. To disable all phones. Then moved the bedroom phone downstairs to explain Neville's kitchen fight.
Scipio said the bedroom phone was already downstairs.
To believe CAL got the idea from you is optimistic. Didn't all big houses in the 80's have one phone line ? So I'm sure she could work it out herself.
-
I am not convinced of guilt or innocence as neither can be proven. When I first got interested in the case I was fairly sure he was guilty due to the fact his he had been in prison for 28 years and all his appeals rejected. However I could not help reading more and more evidence and the more I studied I began to realise his innocence is a strong possibility, Its just a question of whether you are prepared to accept that the Justice system will never admit to such an appalling mistake, and are prepared to bend the rules for the sake of their own reputation.
Are you saying that whether he's guilty or innocent, for you, this is more about failings in the judicial system? As, in your view, neither guilt nor innocence can be proved, where does that leave you?
-
From Woffinden:
'The telephone that moved downstairs is the key to solving the White House Farm murders.
Why? Because the phone which was normally on Nevill Bamber’s bedside table was the principal obstacle to Jeremy Bamber’s hopes of fulfilling an ambition he had confided to Julie Mugford, his girlfriend: that of committing the perfect murder.
Someone in the house had only to call 999 and identify him as the gunman for his entire plan to be foiled. Once we recognise this it becomes possible to reconstruct events'.
It's pretty obvious Woffinden was suggesting Bamber disabled all phones upon entrance. Not just the bedroom phone, but the upstairs office phone also needed to be disabled.
-
'There were four separate phones at the farm, all on the same line: one in the kitchen, one in the office and another in Nevill and June’s bedroom. A cordless phone had been collected for repair two days earlier'.
From Woffindens article. This has been discussed before. A lot. I've always said Bamber removed the kitchen phone off it's hook upon entrance. To disable all phones. Then moved the bedroom phone downstairs to explain Neville's kitchen fight.
Scipio said the bedroom phone was already downstairs.
To believe CAL got the idea from you is optimistic. Didn't all big houses in the 80's have one phone line ? So I'm sure she could work it out herself.
How much have what you've churned out has been considered good enough to be written about, Adam?
-
How much have what you've churned out has been considered good enough to be written about, Adam?
Not sure what you are saying.
Anyway, David believes CAL got the idea that Bamber took the kitchen phone off the hook to disable all phones upon entrance, from him.
-
Not sure what you are saying.
Anyway, David believes CAL got the idea that Bamber took the kitchen phone off the hook to disable all phones upon entrance, from him.
Maybe she did. She didn't get any ideas from you, did she?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6845.msg317452.html#msg317452
This is a thread about the phones. Although it had been discussed a lot beforehand.
-
'There were four separate phones at the farm, all on the same line: one in the kitchen, one in the office and another in Nevill and June’s bedroom. A cordless phone had been collected for repair two days earlier'.
From Woffindens article. This has been discussed before. A lot. I've always said Bamber removed the kitchen phone off it's hook upon entrance. To disable all phones. Then moved the bedroom phone downstairs to explain Neville's kitchen fight.
Scipio said the bedroom phone was already downstairs.
To believe CAL got the idea from you is optimistic. Didn't all big houses in the 80's have one phone line ? So I'm sure she could work it out herself.
I did say it could be a coincidence. I've never heard you mention it and as for scipio he went nuts when I brought it up because it didn't suit his theory and denied that taking the phone off the hook disables the line and he still denies it to this day.
It's not exactly difficult to work out however with cases like these people naturally tend to over complicate things and that prevents people focusing on simpler explanations.
-
Maybe she did. She didn't get any ideas from you, did she?
No idea.
-
No idea.
I'm sure you don't.
-
No Bob Woffindon claims Jeremy re-arraigned the phones so they could not call out. when my theory is much more simple - take phone off the hook in downstairs kitchen then no other phone can call out hence Jeremy did not need to take the upstairs phone downstairs ect ect. The upstairs phone was taken downstairs because June preffered it downstairs.
Simple
This is from his article in the Daily Mail, May 2011
On the evening of the murders, he drove home from the farmhouse at around 10pm to his small cottage nearby in Goldhanger village. He returned on his mother’s bicycle. The first thing he did on entering the house was to take the kitchen phone off the hook. By doing this he disabled every phone in the house.
-
Whether the main bedroom phone was already downstairs or not, Bamber would have taken the plugged in kitchen phone off the hook, upon entrance.
This was easy to do and disabled the other two/three working phones inside WHF.
-
This is from his article in the Daily Mail, May 2011
On the evening of the murders, he drove home from the farmhouse at around 10pm to his small cottage nearby in Goldhanger village. He returned on his mother’s bicycle. The first thing he did on entering the house was to take the kitchen phone off the hook. By doing this he disabled every phone in the house.
Thank you. I believed I read that somewhere. I have just read it again and seen it.
-
This is from his article in the Daily Mail, May 2011
On the evening of the murders, he drove home from the farmhouse at around 10pm to his small cottage nearby in Goldhanger village. He returned on his mother’s bicycle. The first thing he did on entering the house was to take the kitchen phone off the hook. By doing this he disabled every phone in the house.
Your right! I read this a while back but not the full article. He claims Jeremy moved the phone from his parents room and plugged it in downstairs in order to prevent them calling 999, then further down the article he mentions disabling all lines with the phone off the hook, then why argue Jeremy unplugged the phone upstairs when he could have used the phone already downstairs to disable the lines? Strange.
-
Your right! I read this a while back but not the full article. He claims Jeremy moved the phone from his parents room and plugged it in downstairs in order to prevent them calling 999, then further down the article he mentions disabling all lines with the phone off the hook, then why argue Jeremy unplugged the phone upstairs when he could have used the phone already downstairs to disable the lines? Strange.
I don't think your reading the article correctly,
The first thing he did on entering the house was to take the kitchen phone off the hook. By doing this he disabled every phone in the house.
But he did have a major problem. What if investigators asked why Nevill or June hadn’t dialled 999 from the bedroom? And why was Nevill’s body in the kitchen? Bamber had to improvise. So he plugged the ivory bedroom phone into the kitchen socket — hastily hiding the kitchen phone under magazines.
He had the problem with Neville being downstairs
-
SH was an appellant the same as Bamber. He maintained innocence for over 12 years and eventually ended up in an open prison categorised as a D-Cat prisoner.
He also admitted his guilt didnt he which JB hasnt done.
-
No, you mentioned the annual assessments that Jeremy has had. The documents explain what those assessments are all about.
I didnt mention the annaul assessments caroline, I mentioned the 27 tests that he has had according to his website etc that make it sound as though they are all pd or physco tests.
-
I don't think your reading the article correctly,
The first thing he did on entering the house was to take the kitchen phone off the hook. By doing this he disabled every phone in the house.
But he did have a major problem. What if investigators asked why Nevill or June hadn’t dialled 999 from the bedroom? And why was Nevill’s body in the kitchen? Bamber had to improvise. So he plugged the ivory bedroom phone into the kitchen socket — hastily hiding the kitchen phone under magazines.
He had the problem with Neville being downstairs
Ah ok. I don't consider this theory very plausible. Nor do I believe it would be a problem if the phone was upstairs plugged it. Because if investigators did ask Jeremy's answer would be "I don't know I was not there"
Or he could have left the upstairs phone off the hook and say he got a call from June instead of Neville that option would be available to him without moving the phones.
-
She must read the forum Steph because the points she addressed are ones frequently raised here.
Not necessarily Caroline, she has an email address on the ct site if anyone wants to ask her anything.
-
I didnt mention the annaul assessments caroline, I mentioned the 27 tests that he has had according to his website etc that make it sound as though they are all pd or physco tests.
He also admitted his guilt didnt he which JB hasnt done.
I should have made my point clearer. SH would have had 12 annual assessments, like JB had 27.
Yes he did confess eventually but up until then he was an appellant the same as JB, believed by many.
-
I didnt mention the annaul assessments caroline, I mentioned the 27 tests that he has had according to his website etc that make it sound as though they are all pd or physco tests.
Notsure, at the time he spoke of 27 tests he'd been in prison 27 years. I think it was reasonable to assume that these these tests were routine. Why on earth would they do yearly tests for psychopathy? Why would they be that interested? Psychopathy isn't something which develops over night. If he wasn't a psychopath in one year, there's no earthly reason why he'll have become one the following year. Of course, I can quite see WHY "they" wants to suggest that he's been tested for psychopathy and passed with flying colours. If there's the remotest chance of release, it certainly won't help if he's found to be a psychopath.
-
Not necessarily Caroline, she has an email address on the ct site if anyone wants to ask her anything.
Asking is one thing. Getting a reply is something else entirely.
-
Allot of people do. Ages ago I first pointed out that Jeremy could have entered the house and taken the phone off the hook in the kitchen and that will disable all the lines in the house preventing anyone else from making an outgoing call and that's all he needed to do.
That then became part of CALs version of events in her book when it was published some 6-7 month later. Holly over at red has noticed things like that also. could be coincidence tho
I have made a few other discoveries but I am reluctant to post it because I don't want some author or journalist to steal it :(
Please do post you're new discoveries. It's a discussion forum
Similar to the disabling of all the WHF phones, I'm sure you can handle an author stealing it.
-
Ah ok. I don't consider this theory very plausible. Nor do I believe it would be a problem if the phone was upstairs plugged it. Because if investigators did ask Jeremy's answer would be "I don't know I was not there"
Or he could have left the upstairs phone off the hook and say he got a call from June instead of Neville that option would be available to him without moving the phones.
I think what he is saying, Neville would have phoned from the upstairs phone and Jeremy must have panicked when Neville made his way downstairs to get to the phone that was off the hook, it did not entirely go to plan so he moved the upstairs phone downstairs. Neville would have been upstairs protecting his loved ones and Neville making his way downstairs made him panic
-
Please do post you're new discoveries. It's a discussion forum
Similar to the disabling of all the WHF phones, I'm sure you can handle an author stealing it.
One thing I am working on is much more significant so I am tempted.
-
I think what he is saying, Neville would have phoned from the upstairs phone and Jeremy must have panicked when Neville made his way downstairs to get to the phone that was off the hook, it did not entirely go to plan so he moved the upstairs phone downstairs. Neville would have been upstairs protecting his loved ones and Neville making his way downstairs made him panic
Police find Nevilles body in downstairs kitchen they will not scratch their heads wondering why he didn't call from upstairs, There are too many variables/possibilities. And since June was upstairs he could always have decided to make up a call from June Instead of Neville
-
He also admitted his guilt didnt he which JB hasnt done.
Not admitting his guilt, doesn't make him innocent.
-
I didnt mention the annaul assessments caroline, I mentioned the 27 tests that he has had according to his website etc that make it sound as though they are all pd or physco tests.
Yes, they are the SAME thing! I am WELL AWARE what the OS makes them SOUND like.
-
Not necessarily Caroline, she has an email address on the ct site if anyone wants to ask her anything.
Yes, to ask question for future Vlogs
-
I didnt mention the annaul assessments caroline, I mentioned the 27 tests that he has had according to his website etc that make it sound as though they are all pd or physco tests.
From the OS
Professor Vincent Egan, BSc. (Hons).,Ph.D., D. Clin. Psy. Chartered Clinical Psychologist, Chartered Forensic Psychologist, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, University of Leicester, recently carried out a psychological assessment of Jeremy Bamber for a category A risk assessment review and he stated in his 14 page report: (test NOT for psychopathy! But is the annual test ALL prisoners have for risk assessment - Jeremy is STILL a CAT A and considered hight risk - this guy obviously didn't find him to be a pussy cat)
“Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” He goes on to state “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.” BUT Egan didn't use the PCL-R test, and doesn't state what he did use
-
Notsure, at the time he spoke of 27 tests he'd been in prison 27 years. I think it was reasonable to assume that these these tests were routine. Why on earth would they do yearly tests for psychopathy? Why would they be that interested? Psychopathy isn't something which develops over night. If he wasn't a psychopath in one year, there's no earthly reason why he'll have become one the following year. Of course, I can quite see WHY "they" wants to suggest that he's been tested for psychopathy and passed with flying colours. If there's the remotest chance of release, it certainly won't help if he's found to be a psychopath.
As you have pointed out and has been pointed out numerous times, Bamber does not have annual psychopathy tests. It is misleading to suggest otherwise.
If Trudi reads this forum or someone reads this forum in order to pass on messages.. Trudi you need a copy of Bambers last annual report at the very least, if you are unable to get copies of each years reports.
If Bamber makes excuses for not allowing you access to this report, this should raise alarm bells.
You also need a copy of his pre trial report. The prison uses this report, along with yearly reports from prison staff, like say for example, Bambers personal officer in order to put together the yearly reports.
-
To make things even MORE confusing this page seems to have been rewritten http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/ ? The link to Professor Vincent Egan takes you to someone called Daniel Attenborough ???
-
I wish Egan would make up his mind :---as quoted :
"Dangerous violent persons tend to be angry,alienated,impulsive and out of control,and none of these qualities appear to reflect Mr Bamber. Quite what the motive would be for something like the index offence carried out by Mr Bamber again is very speculative,as is the proposition in the first place. unquote"
A BIDR was completed to show if any exaggeration had been displayed and the measurements of the said test showed low to normal range for impression and self-deception enhancement.The results suggesting that he wasn't presenting himself in an excessively anodyne way as to bias the assessor.
-
Yes, they are the SAME thing! I am WELL AWARE what the OS makes them SOUND like.
How many times will Notsure be told this. :-\ Maybe they just don't believe it, it's been pointed out to Notsure twice now and that is what I recall.
27 tests wouldn't make sense if it was testing for psychopathy... Testing him for it yearly. :-\
Alot of people that actually know how prisons work have state numerous times that these are general assessments done to all prisoners, yearly.
It should be put to bed and made more clear on the OS.
-
How many times will Notsure be told this. :-\ Maybe they just don't believe it, it's been pointed out to Notsure twice now and that is what I recall.
27 tests wouldn't make sense if it was testing for psychopathy... Testing him for it yearly. :-\
Alot of people that actually know how prisons work have state numerous times that these are general assessments done to all prisoners, yearly.
It should be put to bed and made more clear on the OS.
Trouble is, Mat, there's us saying one thing and the OS saying what many here want to hear...............if you hear what I mean :))
-
Ah ok. I don't consider this theory very plausible. Nor do I believe it would be a problem if the phone was upstairs plugged it. Because if investigators did ask Jeremy's answer would be "I don't know I was not there"
Or he could have left the upstairs phone off the hook and say he got a call from June instead of Neville that option would be available to him without moving the phones.
If June was supposed to have made a telephone call from the bedroom Bamber would have had to replace that phone from the kitchen. I wonder what his original plan was.
-
Egan went on to say of Jeremy's state of mind,quote " Non-Psychopathic. He did not meet the caseness for clinical psychopathy or even mild psychopathy.He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions----unquote "
-
Egan went on to say of Jeremy's state of mind,quote " Non-Psychopathic. He did not meet the caseness for clinical psychopathy or even mild psychopathy.He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions----unquote "
And yet he doesn't say that test he did - can't have been the PCL-R because he mentions that was used PREVIOUSLY. The official site needs to clarify because they are quoting him yet what they have posted doesn't make any sense.
-
And yet he doesn't say that test he did - can't have been the PCL-R because he mentions that was used PREVIOUSLY. The official site needs to clarify because they are quoting him yet what they have posted doesn't make any sense.
I'm going to find out about these conflicting reports,it's not right,it's not ethical.
-
I'm going to find out about these conflicting reports,it's not right,it's not ethical.
Well, it certainly needs clarifying - it doesn't make any sense.
-
Egan went on to say of Jeremy's state of mind,quote " Non-Psychopathic. He did not meet the caseness for clinical psychopathy or even mild psychopathy.He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions----unquote "
Neither did SH.
-
I'm going to find out about these conflicting reports,it's not right,it's not ethical.
But this often happens when there's an agenda involved, doesn't it, Lookout. Apparently, money is being asked for, for certain tests to be carried out. People aren't going to give money if they believe Jeremy is guilty. Not only MUST they make him look innocent, there must be "expert names" that that back them up.
-
Neither did SH.
I'm NOT talking about SH !! Leave him out of this case,please. No two cases are alike ! You might think so but they're not,there's no connection whatsoever.
-
I'm NOT talking about SH !! Leave him out of this case,please. No two cases are alike ! You might think so but they're not,there's no connection whatsoever.
Lookout, may we remind you of that next time you throw in another case of a poor woman who kills her children an/or commits suicide? :)
-
But this often happens when there's an agenda involved, doesn't it, Lookout. Apparently, money is being asked for, for certain tests to be carried out. People aren't going to give money if they believe Jeremy is guilty. Not only MUST they make him look innocent, there must be "expert names" that that back them up.
" Backup " can work both ways Jane. Even you should realise that.
-
OK, found the answer, it's in CAL's book. Egan was one of the psychologists that applied the PCL-R but the 27 assessments are just routine. the OS NEEDS to make this CLEAR!
-
People will always believe the professors,top-cops, doctors,psychiatrists,etc etc,without stopping to think that they too can get things wrong.Nobody is infallible,no matter who they are.
-
" Backup " can work both ways Jane. Even you should realise that.
Yes, it can, lookout, but we don't have anything resting on the outcome of what we say.
-
Yes, it can, lookout, but we don't have anything resting on the outcome of what we say.
Unfortunately.
-
People will always believe the professors,top-cops, doctors,psychiatrists,etc etc,without stopping to think that they too can get things wrong.Nobody is infallible,no matter who they are.
I totally agree, which is why all of the above -and others- will disagree with each others' findings.
-
I'm NOT talking about SH !! Leave him out of this case,please. No two cases are alike ! You might think so but they're not,there's no connection whatsoever.
I disagree entirely. That is your opinion. This thread is about Bambers 'lie detector' test and Trudi's vlog with Terry Mullins. My posts have been relevant to the discussion and I have offered my experiences of how prisoners assessments are carried out annually.
Do you think Bambers yearly assessments have been created for Bamber and Bamber alone?
-
People will always believe the professors,top-cops, doctors,psychiatrists,etc etc,without stopping to think that they too can get things wrong.Nobody is infallible,no matter who they are.
I agree, for every psychiatrist that says one thing there will be another with the opposite view. I think the PCL-R test is very much open to interpretation.
-
I agree, for every psychiatrist that says one thing there will be another with the opposite view. I think the PCL-R test is very much open to interpretation.
Any tests involving psychiatry/psychology are,in my estimation anyway.
-
I'm NOT talking about SH !! Leave him out of this case,please. No two cases are alike ! You might think so but they're not,there's no connection whatsoever.
There is indeed a connection imo but for some reason you are choosing to ignore it?
-
I disagree entirely. That is your opinion. This thread is about Bambers 'lie detector' test and Trudi's vlog with Terry Mullins. My posts have been relevant to the discussion and I have offered my experiences of how prisoners assessments are carried out annually.
Do you think Bambers yearly assessments have been created for Bamber and Bamber alone?
The 27 assessments are 'ROUTINE' assessments conducted by the prison. They are not in depth psychological examinations carried out by independent experts ( source from CAL). Exactly what some of us have said ALL along.
-
OK, found the answer, it's in CAL's book. Egan was one of the psychologists that applied the PCL-R but the 27 assessments are just routine. the OS NEEDS to make this CLEAR!
Who tested Bamber pre trial?
-
There is indeed a connection imo but for some reason you are choosing to ignore it?
I'm not arguing with you Steph,but I see no connection whatsoever and that is why I'm ignoring it. End of.
-
I'm not arguing with you Steph,but I see no connection whatsoever and that is why I'm ignoring it. End of.
Then you are being subjective as opposed to objective.
-
Jeremy's only hope for parole could very well be if he confesses at some point and admits his part in the killings.
-
The 27 assessments are 'ROUTINE' assessments conducted by the prison. They are not in depth psychological examinations carried out by independent experts ( source from CAL). Exactly what some of us have said ALL along.
My question was rhetorical in response to Lookouts previous post.
As I've already pointed out previously, and as you have kindly clarified above Caroline, Bamber would be treated the same as any other prisoner. The 27 (now 30) assessments Referred to on the OS are the same as the 12 assessments completed by SH.
-
Jeremy's only hope for parole could very well be if he confesses at some point and admits his part in the killings.
It's a bit late in the day now, he'd have done that 30 years ago if he'd been guilty.
-
From the OS
Professor Vincent Egan, BSc. (Hons).,Ph.D., D. Clin. Psy. Chartered Clinical Psychologist, Chartered Forensic Psychologist, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, University of Leicester, recently carried out a psychological assessment of Jeremy Bamber for a category A risk assessment review and he stated in his 14 page report: (test NOT for psychopathy! But is the annual test ALL prisoners have for risk assessment - Jeremy is STILL a CAT A and considered hight risk - this guy obviously didn't find him to be a pussy cat)
“Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” He goes on to state “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.” BUT Egan didn't use the PCL-R test, and doesn't state what he did use
Regardless of this 'expert' opinion from Egan, the courts did not accept it, they did however accept an alternative view, as can be seen in the link below.
So I'm not sure why the campaign team are clinging on to a rejected view, especially when they fail to mention what was actually accepted. ???
This is an article on the BBC News from back in 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7335058.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7335058.stm)
The part which jumps out at me is that he was refused a downgrade in status due to his psychological reports, if I'm reading it correctly? :-\
-
Regardless of this 'expert' opinion from Egan, the courts did not accept it, they did however accept an alternative view, as can be seen in the link below.
So I'm not sure why the campaign team are clinging on to a rejected view, especially when they fail to mention what was actually accepted. ???
As you'd highlighted here Hartley http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.0.html
We discussed his psychological report and how it appears to be the reason he was knocked back.
Trudi needs to see a copy of this report also.
-
As you'd highlighted here Hartley http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.0.html
We discussed his psychological report and how it appears to be the reason he was knocked back.
Trudi needs to see a copy of this report also.
Yes, so clearly the claims that there are all these tests showing JB to be psychologically 'normal', are completely bogus.
-
This is what the judge said when he denied JB's application for a downgrade of prison status:
"The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.0.html
-
Yes, so clearly the claims that there are all these tests showing JB to be psychologically 'normal', are completely bogus.
Exactly!
-
Are you saying that whether he's guilty or innocent, for you, this is more about failings in the judicial system? As, in your view, neither guilt nor innocence can be proved, where does that leave you?
He shouldn't have his conviction upheld or at least should have been given a retrial long ago.
You only have to look at other convicts getting retrials due to some minor details that could have effected the jury.
Nat Fraiser for example convicted of killing his Wife, at his first trial police officers testified that they didn't see his Wife's wedding ring and other jewelry in the bathroom where she usually kept them. Then they managed to find footage from the forensic teams recording of the house showing the wedding ring and jewellery in the bathroom AFTER those police visited. This is what granted him a retrial.
Sion Jenkings got a retrial due to new blood spatter evidence.
Mark Lundy (New Zealand) Got a retrial because at his first trial they found a prosecution expert had misrepresented the evidence of his Wife's brain tissue found on his clothes. ::)
Now if you look at Jeremy's situation its a double standard. Plus they never released the COLP documents and Julies dealings with the police until after his 2001 appeal so he could never use that as evidence in the appeal. Everything new Jeremy has presented in 1989, 2001 and 2011 would have had a major impact on the outcome if he had it available in 1986.
-
Yes, so clearly the claims that there are all these tests showing JB to be psychologically 'normal', are completely bogus.
Any psychologically 'normal' personal is capable of murder in the right circumstances.
-
Exactly!
It is not feasible that the campaign team have made all of these mistakes by accident, there is clearly an intention to spread false information to influence and mislead people.
They must therefore be trying to obtain money under false pretences. Is that legal? ???
-
Any psychologically 'normal' personal is capable of murder in the right circumstances.
That is not relevant to this discussion.
-
My question was rhetorical in response to Lookouts previous post.
As I've already pointed out previously, and as you have kindly clarified above Caroline, Bamber would be treated the same as any other prisoner. The 27 (now 30) assessments Referred to on the OS are the same as the 12 assessments completed by SH.
They are indeed
-
As you'd highlighted here Hartley http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.0.html
We discussed his psychological report and how it appears to be the reason he was knocked back.
Trudi needs to see a copy of this report also.
Not only see it, but mention it in her VLOGS - there is a certain amount of selectivity going on and the OS is completely misleading when it talks of the 27 tests.
-
It is not feasible that the campaign team have made all of these mistakes by accident, there is clearly an intention to spread false information to influence and mislead people.
They must therefore be trying to obtain money under false pretences. Is that legal? ???
If Professor Egan concludes he is not psychopathic and they cite him as a source when they claim so then no.
If Egan concluded he was a phychopath but the campaign team just say otherwise or use an expert that's never met him or never concluded anything then yes it would be illegal to some extent
-
It is not feasible that the campaign team have made all of these mistakes by accident, there is clearly an intention to spread false information to influence and mislead people.
They must therefore be trying to obtain money under false pretences. Is that legal? ???
Maybe Trudi would like to address this in her next vlog?
-
He shouldn't have his conviction upheld or at least should have been given a retrial long ago.
You only have to look at other convicts getting retrials due to some minor details that could have effected the jury.
Nat Fraiser for example convicted of killing his Wife, at his first trial police officers testified that they didn't see his Wife's wedding ring and other jewelry in the bathroom where she usually kept them. Then they managed to find footage from the forensic teams recording of the house showing the wedding ring and jewellery in the bathroom AFTER those police visited. This is what granted him a retrial.
Sion Jenkings got a retrial due to new blood spatter evidence.
Mark Lundy (New Zealand) Got a retrial because at his first trial they found a prosecution expert had misrepresented the evidence of his Wife's brain tissue found on his clothes. ::)
Now if you look at Jeremy's situation its a double standard. Plus they never released the COLP documents and Julies dealings with the police until after his 2001 appeal so he could never use that as evidence in the appeal. Everything new Jeremy has presented in 1989, 2001 and 2011 would have had a major impact on the outcome if he had it available in 1986.
That's your opinion - I certainly don't agree.
-
If Professor Egan concludes he is not psychopathic and they cite him as a source when they claim so then no.
If Egan concluded he was a phychopath but the campaign team just say otherwise or use an expert that's never met him or never concluded anything then yes it would be illegal to some extent
You are (probably intentionally) missing the point.
A judge stated that:
"The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified
So clearly there is something in the psychological reports which was used to justify his Cat A status.
That simply isn't compatible with what is claimed here:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/ (http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/)
-
That is not relevant to this discussion.
Yes it is, Jeremy does not have to be mentally ill to be guilty.
-
You are (probably intentionally) missing the point.
A judge stated that:
"The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified
So clearly there is something in the psychological reports which was used to justify his Cat A status.
That simply isn't compatible with what is claimed here:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/ (http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/)
Here's another thing Terry Mullins polygraph test was carried out in 2007, therefore the above report makes Terry Mullins test null and void!
-
Yes it is, Jeremy does not have to be mentally ill to be guilty.
I have not referred to his guilt or innocence, so it is not relevant to any of my posts which you have quoted.
-
Trudi states in her vlog that Bamber has been tested for psychopathy "back right left centre and forth" - this is not true!
Trudi has been disingenuous. Has Bamber suggested this to her? or has she made this false statement as a misunderstanding on her part?
-
Here's another thing Terry Mullins polygraph test was carried out in 2007, therefore the above report makes Terry Mullins test null and void!
I'm not sure I understand what you mean (again :-[ ).
Do you mean the test would be invalid due to his psychological 'wellness', or lack of?
-
I'm not sure I understand what you mean (again :-[ ).
Do you mean the test would be invalid due to his psychological 'wellness', or lack of?
Oh no :-[
I believe Bamber is a psychopath so I believe he passed the test because of this. On the other hand there's the other fact to consider, as I've stated previously, Terry Mullins confirmed during his interview with Trudi that his (Mullins) test was ineffective because of his own confirmation bias.
If people like Trudi want to now (2016) believe in the results of the polygraph test then they have to also take into account the report referred to by the judges in 2008.
Hence why I stated the 2007 test is made null and void by the judges comments in 2008.
-
Trudi is not looking at the whole picture.
I'm unsure if it's due to her lack of knowledge regarding all that has gone on since Bambers conviction in the 80's or whether she is confused herself?
She certainly doesn't strike me as someone with a solid and thorough understanding of the case and what has gone on from then to now.
-
He shouldn't have his conviction upheld or at least should have been given a retrial long ago.
You only have to look at other convicts getting retrials due to some minor details that could have effected the jury.
Nat Fraiser for example convicted of killing his Wife, at his first trial police officers testified that they didn't see his Wife's wedding ring and other jewelry in the bathroom where she usually kept them. Then they managed to find footage from the forensic teams recording of the house showing the wedding ring and jewellery in the bathroom AFTER those police visited. This is what granted him a retrial.
Sion Jenkings got a retrial due to new blood spatter evidence.
Mark Lundy (New Zealand) Got a retrial because at his first trial they found a prosecution expert had misrepresented the evidence of his Wife's brain tissue found on his clothes. ::)
Now if you look at Jeremy's situation its a double standard. Plus they never released the COLP documents and Julies dealings with the police until after his 2001 appeal so he could never use that as evidence in the appeal. Everything new Jeremy has presented in 1989, 2001 and 2011 would have had a major impact on the outcome if he had it available in 1986.
..and how ridiculous that was.
-
Oh no :-[
I believe Bamber is a psychopath so I believe he passed the test because of this. On the other hand there's the other fact to consider, as I've stated previously, Terry Mullins confirmed during his interview with Trudi that his (Mullins) test was ineffective because of his own confirmation bias.
If people like Trudi want to now (2016) believe in the results of the polygraph test then they have to also take into account the report referred to by the judges in 2008.
Hence why I stated the 2007 test is made null and void by the judges comments in 2008.
Okay, that's what I thought you meant. Phew. :)
I'd agree that there is potential for that being the case.
-
..and how ridiculous that was.
I'm not sure if he is guilty or not. But Mark Lundy getting a retrial was a joke, He used to colour code his work tools and they found the exact same two samples of paint he had on his axe the paint was found in what remains of her scull. They then found microscopic brain tissue from his wife on his boiler suit.
His second trial was guilty verdict
-
A judge stated that:
"The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified
So clearly there is something in the psychological reports which was used to justify his Cat A status.
That simply isn't compatible with what is claimed here:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/ (http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/)
David, do you disagree with the above?
Or does anybody disagree?
-
Okay, that's what I thought you meant. Phew. :)
I'd agree that there is potential for that being the case.
Also the polygraph was arranged by dodgy Distefano that's enough for me to think nothing of it. wouldn't surprise me if DGS took the polygraph for him telling Mullins he was JB
-
David, do you disagree with the above?
Or does anybody disagree?
Yes I do disagree with the rationale of what you are saying. Just because a review team reject something that does not mean that what was presented to them was false. The prison board is not an unimpeachable authority on what is correct and not correct.
However I am not in favour of how the Campaign Team operates so I agree with you to some extent
-
Okay, that's what I thought you meant. Phew. :)
I'd agree that there is potential for that being the case.
Admittedly I could have explained it better than I did. :)
-
Jeremy's only hope for parole could very well be if he confesses at some point and admits his part in the killings.
Confession or not, once found guilty, he was never, ever going to get parole.
-
Yes I do disagree with the rationale of what you are saying. Just because a review team reject something that does not mean that what was presented to them was false. The prison board is not an unimpeachable authority on what is correct and not correct.
However I am not in favour of how the Campaign Team operates so I agree with you to some extent
You've answered a different question to the one I asked, but fair enough.
The review team have used psychological reports to justify JB's status as a Category A prisoner.
A category A prisoner is defined as:
Prisoners whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public, the police or the security of the state, no matter how unlikely that escape might be.
_______________________________
Therefore, the claims from the campaign team regarding JB's psychological reports, are clearly incompatible with the judgement that cites the reports as indicating that his escape would be highly dangerous to the public, the police or the security of the state.
-
You've answered a different question to the one I asked, but fair enough.
The review team have used psychological reports to justify JB's status as a Category A prisoner.
A category A prisoner is defined as:
Prisoners whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public, the police or the security of the state, no matter how unlikely that escape might be.
_______________________________
Therefore, the claims from the campaign team regarding JB's psychological reports, are clearly incompatible with the judgement that cites the reports as indicating that his escape would be highly dangerous to the public, the police or the security of the state.
Yes they are incompatible but the campaign team don't have to accept the courts opinions and rulings neither do I or you for that matter.
Anyway it would be interesting if we could get the 2008 judgement I cant find it anywhere :-\
Bailii does not have it either I looked :( any ideas?
-
Yes they are incompatible but the campaign team don't have to accept the courts opinions and rulings neither do I or you for that matter.
Anyway it would be interesting if we could get the 2008 judgement I cant find it anywhere :-\
Bailii does not have it either I looked :( any ideas?
And we don't have to accept the findings of Mullins or Egan and personally, I don't. Also, the OS is misleading on the 27 assessments.
-
And we don't have to accept the findings of Mullins or Egan and personally, I don't. Also, the OS is misleading on the 27 assessments.
Its a free country, we can believe the world is flat if we like ;D
-
Its a free country, we can believe the world is flat if we like ;D
You mean it's not? :o Next you'll be saying there's no Santa Claus! :o :o :o
-
Yes they are incompatible.
Yeah, we know. ::)
-
Yes, so clearly the claims that there are all these tests showing JB to be psychologically 'normal', are completely bogus.
And clearly there are things known about him that only those who need to know are aware of.
-
Yeah, we know. ::)
What was the reason he was downgraded to category B for a while then back to A again? I don't really get why the A,B,C categories apply to the likes of Jeremy because Life without Parole is like a category in itself (too dangerous to ever be realeased)
-
Trudi is not looking at the whole picture.
I'm unsure if it's due to her lack of knowledge regarding all that has gone on since Bambers conviction in the 80's or whether she is confused herself?
She certainly doesn't strike me as someone with a solid and thorough understanding of the case and what has gone on from then to now.
Steph, I suspect that some of us, who previously thought he was innocent, didn't either. Speaking for myself, it was probably a case of not wanting to look at the bigger picture out of fear of what I might see there -I guess you'll know how "uncomfortable" it feels to have one's whole belief system turned on it's head. Surprisingly, when I did look, it was a relief.
-
What was the reason he was downgraded to category B for a while then back to A again? I don't really get why the A,B,C categories apply to the likes of Jeremy because Life without Parole is like a category in itself (too dangerous to ever be realeased)
I guess like all institutions, "I's" have to be dotted and "T's" crossed. Everybody/thing must be labelled which I suppose can be taken to mean that all of those considered to be too dangerous to release are automatically Cat A.
-
What was the reason he was downgraded to category B for a while then back to A again? I don't really get why the A,B,C categories apply to the likes of Jeremy because Life without Parole is like a category in itself (too dangerous to ever be realeased)
It is claimed that he was downgraded to Cat B for a mere 3 months between June and September 1991.
I don't know why, or if it is even true. I understood that he was moved prisons rather than actually downgraded, but the information available is somewhat vague.
I rather suspect that, like everything else, the reality will be rather different to what is being claimed by the campaign team.
Three months in 30 years doesn't sound like something to use to argue that he has a reduced level of dangerousness.
-
It is claimed that he was downgraded to Cat B for a mere 3 months between June and September 1991.
I don't know why, or if it is even true. I understood that he was moved prisons rather than actually downgraded, but the information available is somewhat vague.
I rather suspect that, like everything else, the reality will be rather different to what is being claimed by the campaign team.
Three months in 30 years doesn't sound like something to use to argue that he has a reduced level of dangerousness.
It's an irony, that having spent 30 years claiming innocence and trying to get out, as a guilty convict who has failed to admit his guilt, he's considered to dangerous to ever release. 'Course, when you think about it, he's actually only done 6 years per life he took.
-
It is claimed that he was downgraded to Cat B for a mere 3 months between June and September 1991.
I don't know why, or if it is even true. I understood that he was moved prisons rather than actually downgraded, but the information available is somewhat vague.
I rather suspect that, like everything else, the reality will be rather different to what is being claimed by the campaign team.
Three months in 30 years doesn't sound like something to use to argue that he has a reduced level of dangerousness.
To put this in perspective, three months equates to 0.8% of the 366 months that he has been in prison.
-
It's an irony, that having spent 30 years claiming innocence and trying to get out, as a guilty convict who has failed to admit his guilt, he's considered to dangerous to ever release. 'Course, when you think about it, he's actually only done 6 years per life he took.
To put this in perspective, three months equates to 0.8% of the 366 months that he has been in prison.
Hot on stats, this morning, aren't we? ;D
-
Hot on stats, this morning, aren't we? ;D
I can make anything up me. ;D
-
In the Islamic tradition " If there are any doubts in the case,then use them,for it is better for a judge to err towards leniency than towards punishment.Invoke doubtfulness in evidence during prosecution to avoid legal punishments ".
-
To put this in perspective, three months equates to 0.8% of the 366 months that he has been in prison.
Another thing, which may or may not be purely coincidental, the three months of Cat B claimed by the campaign team were between June & September 1991.
The COLP investigation ran between May and October 1991.
-
Another thing, which may or may not be purely coincidental, the three months of Cat B claimed by the campaign team were between June & September 1991.
The COLP investigation ran between May and October 1991.
So ?
-
I have read at the time that the category had been put to B that when the relatives got wind of it RWB wrote a stiff letter to EP telling them how " they've all been let down by the system,etc etc ",and a letter also found its way to the local MP at the time. Very soon after,JB went back to cat A.
-
Apparently,during the time that JB was being downgraded to cat B, COLP had gone to WHF to interview AE who'd expressed that the thought of downgrading JB was making her ill,so EP offered guidance on how to show their feelings about the change of status-------------and the rest is history.
-
In 2004 the ITV camera crew were in WHF and AE had pointed out where her 5 relatives had died-------she didn't bat an eyelid ! Yet previously when AE had been bombarded with questions for the COLP enquiry,she suddenly felt ill again. Well you would,wouldn't you ??? >:(
The above info was from a reporter attached to The Times newspaper in 2010.
-
In 2004 the ITV camera crew were in WHF and AE had pointed out where her 5 relatives had died-------she didn't bat an eyelid ! Yet previously when AE had been bombarded with questions for the COLP enquiry,she suddenly felt ill again. Well you would,wouldn't you ??? >:(
The above info was from a reporter attached to The Times newspaper in 2010.
Have you got a source for this?
-
I have read at the time that the category had been put to B that when the relatives got wind of it RWB wrote a stiff letter to EP telling them how " they've all been let down by the system,etc etc ",and a letter also found its way to the local MP at the time. Very soon after,JB went back to cat A.
You mean like the letters the CT are asking supporters to send to their MP's?
-
Have you got a source for this?
Yes,it's on the link of Jeremy Bamber Campaign for Freedom--Ann Eaton.
-
Yes,it's on the link of Jeremy Bamber Campaign for Freedom--Ann Eaton.
Consider your sources.
The article is based on an interview with Jeremy and contains more fiction than an installment of Harry Potter.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWMDBjNWMwNDMtNTNhNC00NGRmLThiNjQtNWQ0OTZmMDEzMmU0/view
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWMDBjNWMwNDMtNTNhNC00NGRmLThiNjQtNWQ0OTZmMDEzMmU0/view)
-
Consider your sources.
The article is based on an interview with Jeremy and contains more fiction than an installment of Harry Potter.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWMDBjNWMwNDMtNTNhNC00NGRmLThiNjQtNWQ0OTZmMDEzMmU0/view
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWMDBjNWMwNDMtNTNhNC00NGRmLThiNjQtNWQ0OTZmMDEzMmU0/view)
Cheers H, have read that before. I'm not really sure what the problem is with showing a TV camera crew around WHF? It has a history and the media will no doubt be interested and who better to show them around?
-
Consider your sources.
The article is based on an interview with Jeremy and contains more fiction than an installment of Harry Potter.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWMDBjNWMwNDMtNTNhNC00NGRmLThiNjQtNWQ0OTZmMDEzMmU0/view
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWMDBjNWMwNDMtNTNhNC00NGRmLThiNjQtNWQ0OTZmMDEzMmU0/view)
So you're an expert on whether interviews are the truth or not ? Were you there ?
Are you now going to ignore what the papers say,unless of course it's slating JB ?
-
Cheers H, have read that before. I'm not really sure what the problem is with showing a TV camera crew around WHF? It has a history and the media will no doubt be interested and who better to show them around?
The problem wasn't with showing the TV camera around the farmhouse,on the contrary it was when COLP started asking questions was when AE felt uncomfortable.
-
The problem wasn't with showing the TV camera around the farmhouse,on the contrary it was when COLP started asking questions was when AE felt uncomfortable.
Says who? How would anybody know, let alone Jeremy? ???
-
So you're an expert on whether interviews are the truth or not ? Were you there ?
Are you now going to ignore what the papers say,unless of course it's slating JB ?
Hartley isn't referring to whether the interview is true or not, he's referring to what Jeremy told the interviewer.
-
The problem wasn't with showing the TV camera around the farmhouse,on the contrary it was when COLP started asking questions was when AE felt uncomfortable.
You mentioned AE showing a TV crew around WHF as though there were something wrong in that. I fail to see what's wrong in her doing so?
-
I have read at the time that the category had been put to B that when the relatives got wind of it RWB wrote a stiff letter to EP telling them how " they've all been let down by the system,etc etc ",and a letter also found its way to the local MP at the time. Very soon after,JB went back to cat A.
C'mon Lookout. Be fair. If the person who you believed responsible for wiping out your entire family was in prison, would YOU want their status downgraded with moves which could lead to eventual release. Telling me Jeremy didn't murder anyone WON'T be the answer to my question.
-
C'mon Lookout. Be fair. If the person who you believed responsible for wiping out your entire family was in prison, would YOU want their status downgraded with moves which could lead to eventual release. Telling me Jeremy didn't murder anyone WON'T be the answer to my question.
I certainly wouldn't have been as quick to point a finger as everyone else seemingly was !
-
I certainly wouldn't have been as quick to point a finger as everyone else seemingly was !
Firstly, I believe that the key word in your sentence is "seemingly." You really have no idea of who said what to whom. Secondly, not being as quick to point a finger is remarkably generous from the woman who believes in a form of punishment from which there is no return.
-
Firstly, I believe that the key word in your sentence is "seemingly." You really have no idea of who said what to whom. Secondly, not being as quick to point a finger is remarkably generous from the woman who believes in a form of punishment from which there is no return.
Exactly !! One has to be DOUBLY sure whether it's a hanging situation or not.
-
Exactly !! One has to be DOUBLY sure whether it's a hanging situation or not.
So, how WOULD you feel if the person you were convinced was responsible for the slaughter of your entire family had his prison status reduced to a place where it could lead to potential release?
-
So, how WOULD you feel if the person you were convinced was responsible for the slaughter of your entire family had his prison status reduced to a place where it could lead to potential release?
But I'm NOT convinced. What sort of a question is that anyway ? Have you run out of options ??
-
But I'm NOT convinced. What sort of a question is that anyway ? Have you run out of options ??
And I think you're sliding out of giving a straight answer. The question was entirely reasonable. AE, convinced that Jeremy was responsible for wiping out her family, reacted to his downgrade in status, potentially paving the way to eventual release, exactly how I'd expect. Like most of us, she wouldn't want him walking the streets.
It's not a question of running out of options, Lookout, which is an irony on your part to even suggest given you don't believe in the guilty having them.
-
But Notsure. If you are so sure that you're correct, and everyone else is wrong. Please post something that backs up your opinion and the claim on the official site. We've posted plenty to back up that these are general assessments carried out yearly on every prisoners. Which is why Jeremy had 27 in 27 years inside.
Your only source is the official site and their claim. :-\
-
And I think you're sliding out of giving a straight answer. The question was entirely reasonable. AE, convinced that Jeremy was responsible for wiping out her family, reacted to his downgrade in status, potentially paving the way to eventual release, exactly how I'd expect. Like most of us, she wouldn't want him walking the streets.
It's not a question of running out of options, Lookout, which is an irony on your part to even suggest given you don't believe in the guilty having them.
AE might be convinced that JB is a killer,but I'm not so therefore your questions don't pertain to me PERSONALLY.
-
AE might be convinced that JB is a killer,but I'm not so therefore your questions don't pertain to me PERSONALLY.
NO, but the question that you're still not giving an answer to, DOES, so understandably, it seems like it's a case of it being different when the boot's on the other foot. My question was entirely up front and genuine. Leave Jeremy -and AE- out of the equation. If you were in the situation where you saw the person who you believed, beyond a shadow of doubt, had slaughtered 5 members of your family, being prepared for a change of prisoner status that could potentially lead to his release, how would you feel.
-
Because your question has a bearing on THIS case,I REFUSE to answer it !!
The trial verdict was NOT even beyond a shadow of doubt.
Thank-you, Lookout. THIS case could easily have been left out of the equation. It COULD have been entirely ignored. I believe your refusal to answer tells it's own story. I'll leave others to decide what the title might be.
-
You mentioned AE showing a TV crew around WHF as though there were something wrong in that. I fail to see what's wrong in her doing so?
Iv always found it rather creepy that she can live in there knowing what happened and she knew the people that died.
-
Iv always found it rather creepy that she can live in there knowing what happened and she knew the people that died.
Not for everyone I suppose BUT, I live in an old house, god knows what's happened in here over the years.
-
Iv always found it rather creepy that she can live in there knowing what happened and she knew the people that died.
Have a read of CAL. She gives a wonderful background to WHF. It's seen many tragedies down the years.
-
Not for everyone I suppose BUT, I live in an old house, god knows what's happened in here over the years.
It's different when you knew the people that died and in such horrific circumstances.
-
It's different when you knew the people that died and in such horrific circumstances.
Perhaps it was the lesser of two evils. Better to live there herself than to have strangers move in??
-
It's different when you knew the people that died and in such horrific circumstances.
Why? She didn't kill them, she didn't even see them dead and it's not like she moved in the day after the funeral. I believe it was about 4 years after the murders.
-
Why? She didn't kill them, she didn't even see them dead and it's not like she moved in the day after the funeral. I believe it was about 4 years after the murders.
For most people they don't like being places where people they know have died in tragic circumstances.
They destroyed the house April Jones was killed in for example, They demolished Sandy Hook school after the shooting for all the same reasons.
-
For most people they don't like being places where people they know have died in tragic circumstances.
They destroyed the house April Jones was killed in for example, They demolished Sandy Hook school after the shooting for all the same reasons.
Most don't get demolished and people carry on living in them. Like I said, it she didn't move in the day after.
-
Most don't get demolished and people carry on living in them. Like I said, it she didn't move in the day after.
Most people agree with me that its rather creepy. that fact the place is preserved makes it worse
-
Most people agree with me that its rather creepy. that fact the place is preserved makes it worse
Most people? Most people where? Here?
Preserved? ???
-
For most people they don't like being places where people they know have died in tragic circumstances.
They destroyed the house April Jones was killed in for example, They demolished Sandy Hook school after the shooting for all the same reasons.
65 Every Street and 10 Rillington Place also spring to mind. But it would have been a shame to tear down such a beautiful Georgian house and there was a sentiment of defiance when more children were installed there after what Jeremy had done.
-
65 Every Street and 10 Rillington Place also spring to mind. But it would have been a shame to tear down such a beautiful Georgian house and there was a sentiment of defiance when more children were installed there after what Jeremy had done.
Would you not agree that Ann living there does seem rather odd/creepy. I don't know anyone that would live in a place where their friends/relatives they knew had a terrible death.
The Library and Canteen at Colombine high was demolished in after the 1999 massacre also
-
Would you not agree that Ann living there does seem rather odd/creepy. I don't know anyone that would live in a place where their friends/relatives they knew had a terrible death.
The Library and Canteen at Colombine high was demolished in after the 1999 massacre also
I suppose they were farmers and it was a bit like living over the shop. I'm not sure how much of an emotional loss the victims were anyway, but I'm not judging her on that.
-
Would you not agree that Ann living there does seem rather odd/creepy. I don't know anyone that would live in a place where their friends/relatives they knew had a terrible death.
The Library and Canteen at Colombine high was demolished in after the 1999 massacre also
Would it have been creepy if Jeremy moved in and lived there (had he not been convicted)? Personally, I wouldn't live there but it's just a house.
-
Would you not agree that Ann living there does seem rather odd/creepy. I don't know anyone that would live in a place where their friends/relatives they knew had a terrible death.
The Library and Canteen at Colombine high was demolished in after the 1999 massacre also
I think you'll find that there are laws against tearing down Grade "listeds". WHF was the property of a charity who might have had views about it's destruction.
Thinking about it, I probably wouldn't have wanted to move into it immediately, but Ann didn't which MIGHT suggest that some thought was put into it.
-
Most people agree with me that its rather creepy. that fact the place is preserved makes it worse
You seem to have a "thing" about it, David. Perhaps you could set up a poll to find out how may of us believe a perfectly good and solid, LISTED residence should have been demolished.
-
I think you'll find that there are laws against tearing down Grade "listeds". WHF was the property of a charity who might have had views about it's destruction.
Thinking about it, I probably wouldn't have wanted to move into it immediately, but Ann didn't which MIGHT suggest that some thought was put into it.
I believe it would be wrong to demolish such an historic building as WHF, it would seem like a final act of violence to me.
At the same time I can sympathise with the lack of understanding many have for the behaviour of AE and family which apart from any other reason does seem to suggest the family had coveted the house for themselves.
For all that I think we have to accept that we are all different and we all grieve in our own ways, what is comforting for some is 'creepy' for others and until we have walked in someone else's shoes we can't really judge.
-
I believe it would be wrong to demolish such an historic building as WHF, it would seem like a final act of violence to me.
At the same time I can sympathise with the lack of understanding many have for the behaviour of AE and family which apart from any other reason does seem to suggest the family had coveted the house for themselves.
For all that I think we have to accept that we are all different and we all grieve in our own ways, what is comforting for some is 'creepy' for others and until we have walked in someone else's shoes we can't really judge.
I started writing a response to the above posts (not specifically Maggies post), but then thought the following post already explains it pretty well:
Especially as one interested party were a B&B / hotel company specialising in 'murder mystery weekends'. Maybe you can put yourself in that situation and try to understand why they retained the tenancy.
Ann is quite clear though in saying that her overriding emotion to WHF was that June and Nevill loved the place and she wanted to keep it going for them. I don't know if I could have done the same and moved in, but it's very clear talking to Ann how many mixed emotions were involved, even now looking back at their decision.
Anyone who says that Ann is unmoved by the events of 1985 is talking out of their arse.
-
I started writing a response to the above posts (not specifically Maggies post), but then thought the following post already explains it pretty well:
Part of the obsession with Ann moving into WHF seems to be the insinuation that she couldn't wait to get her hands on the house. The house was (and still is I assume) a tenancy and I believe it was a number of YEARS before Ann and the family actually moved there.
-
Part of the obsession with Ann moving into WHF seems to be the insinuation that she couldn't wait to get her hands on the house. The house was (and still is I assume) a tenancy and I believe it was a number of YEARS before Ann and the family actually moved there.
That is correct.
In any event, it doesn't make a lot of difference whether they are renting this house or another one, there is/was no financial advantage to specifically take up tenancy on THIS property, over another.
So anybody who claims that the Eatons had an agenda to become tenants of WHF is talking rubbish, it doesn't even make any sense.
-
Part of the obsession with Ann moving into WHF seems to be the insinuation that she couldn't wait to get her hands on the house. The house was (and still is I assume) a tenancy and I believe it was a number of YEARS before Ann and the family actually moved there.
I know that's true Hartley and vidvic.
I was just really trying to say that we shouldn't judge anyone in that situation as we have no idea what their reasons are, however in this kind of situation people tend to use anything to prove a point.
Personally, I don't agree with that, we shouldn't judge when we don't know the true circumstances but we often do because it's human nature. :-\
-
I know that's true Hartley and vidvic.
I was just really trying to say that we shouldn't judge anyone in that situation as we have no idea what their reasons are, however in this kind of situation people tend to use anything to prove a point.
Personally, I don't agree with that, we shouldn't judge when we don't know the true circumstances but we often do because it's human nature. :-\
Perhaps they moved in IN SPITE of Jeremy, to show him that what he did wasn't going to destroy all the hard work Nevill and June had done and making sure that their HOME, stayed in the family.
-
Perhaps they moved in IN SPITE of Jeremy, to show him that what he did wasn't going to destroy all the hard work Nevill and June had done and making sure that their HOME, stayed in the family.
Jeremy was told that he would not be suitable to take on the tenancy of WHF by the owners (HSC) before he was arrested for the murders in September 1985, he still however chose to make a vexatious application for tenancy of WHF from his prison cell after he was convicted and sentenced.
-
I was just really trying to say that we shouldn't judge anyone in that situation as we have no idea what their reasons are, however in this kind of situation people tend to try to use anything to prove a point.
I think you have just hit the nail on the head.
I actually believe that David was attempting to be inflammatory with his posts regarding the Eatons taking up the tenancy of WHF.
-
I think you have just hit the nail on the head.
I actually believe that David was attempting to be inflammatory with his posts regarding the Eatons taking up the tenancy of WHF.
He certainly seems to have a bee in his bonnet about it. It felt as if negative comments were being invited.
-
Not a new point though, it's been used a lot in the past. I do think it is used as an attack on the remaining relatives.
-
I think you have just hit the nail on the head.
I actually believe that David was attempting to be inflammatory with his posts regarding the Eatons taking up the tenancy of WHF.
Never mind David1819 what about David Boutflour? ?
?
I quote from the Sunday Times "Ann Eaton moved into the farm not long after the murders and still lives there with her family. Bamber told me he thought she was a "sick puppy" for doing that. Eaton would not talk to me for this article - indeed, after I wrote her a polite letter I received a "warning" call from Essex police detective superintendent asking me to leave her alone, which I did - but David Boutflour was generous and spoke to me at length. It is clear he doesn't understand his sister's actions either. How could she? Boutflour told me he knew Ann's children had suffered nightmares. As well you might. Bamber said she was "as cold as ice".
-
Part of the obsession with Ann moving into WHF seems to be the insinuation that she couldn't wait to get her hands on the house. The house was (and still is I assume) a tenancy and I believe it was a number of YEARS before Ann and the family actually moved there.
Whether she wanted or liked the house or not is not really what bugs me. Put it this way if I really liked a friends or relatives house but then they got slaughtered in that house, it would put me right off it.
Homes where brutal murders have took place drop in value as people don't want to live in them
http://www.domain.com.au/news/how-australias-murder-houses-perform-on-the-market-20150325-1m71ra/ (http://www.domain.com.au/news/how-australias-murder-houses-perform-on-the-market-20150325-1m71ra/)
http://www.news.com.au/national/houses-of-horror-8212-can-a-murder-house-absorb-evil/story-fncynjr2-1226696260133 (http://www.news.com.au/national/houses-of-horror-8212-can-a-murder-house-absorb-evil/story-fncynjr2-1226696260133)
-
Whether she wanted or liked the house or not is not really what bugs me. Put it this way if I really liked a friends or relatives house but then they got slaughtered in that house, it would put me right off it.
Homes where brutal murders have took place drop in value as people don't want to live in them
http://www.domain.com.au/news/how-australias-murder-houses-perform-on-the-market-20150325-1m71ra/ (http://www.domain.com.au/news/how-australias-murder-houses-perform-on-the-market-20150325-1m71ra/)
http://www.news.com.au/national/houses-of-horror-8212-can-a-murder-house-absorb-evil/story-fncynjr2-1226696260133 (http://www.news.com.au/national/houses-of-horror-8212-can-a-murder-house-absorb-evil/story-fncynjr2-1226696260133)
But you're not living there so don't worry about it.
-
Never mind David1819 what about David Boutflour? ?
?
I quote from the Sunday Times "Ann Eaton moved into the farm not long after the murders and still lives there with her family. Bamber told me he thought she was a "sick puppy" for doing that. Eaton would not talk to me for this article - indeed, after I wrote her a polite letter I received a "warning" call from Essex police detective superintendent asking me to leave her alone, which I did - but David Boutflour was generous and spoke to me at length. It is clear he doesn't understand his sister's actions either. How could she? Boutflour told me he knew Ann's children had suffered nightmares. As well you might. Bamber said she was "as cold as ice".
What about him? Ann hasn't killed anyone and whether you understand her moving in there or not, it has no bearing on Jeremy being guilty or not. It's side stepping and blaming the victims.
-
But you're not living there so don't worry about it.
But I am living there, I am secretly camping under a pile of boxes in the loft of WHF! :o ??? ::) ;D
I never though my obsession with the case would lead to such drastic measures but there you go ;) ;D ;D
-
But I am living there, I am secretly camping under a pile of boxes in the loft of WHF! :o ??? ::) ;D
I never though my obsession with the case would lead to such drastic measures but there you go ;) ;D ;D
So if you think THEY'RE creepy - I guess you must be creepy+1? You're not just living there but secretly living in someone else's house! :o :o :o :o
-
I actually believe that David was attempting to be inflammatory with his posts regarding the Eatons taking up the tenancy of WHF.
No, I was just pointing out that it is rather odd and most people would find it uncomfortable. As me and Steve rightly pointed out in this topic yesterday buildings were significant crimes take place often get demolished because - A it reminds the locals of what happened and B few people will want to occupy or use it.
To add to the names of buildings that I mentioned yesterday, they demolished that guys house who kidnapped and kept three women prisoner for 25 odd years.
-
No, I was just pointing out that it is rather odd and most people would find it uncomfortable. As me and Steve rightly pointed out in this topic yesterday buildings were significant crimes take place often get demolished because - A it reminds the locals of what happened and B few people will want to occupy or use it.
To add to the names of buildings that I mentioned yesterday, they demolished that guys house who kidnapped and kept three women prisoner for 25 odd years.
I lived near to where Michael Atherton killed his wife, her sister, her sisters daughter and tried to kill his step daughter before killing himself. House is still standing and occupied. Lots of places are but in the case of Ann Eaton, she clearly didn't want to house and farm to go outside of the family after all of the hard work Nevill and June had put into it.
-
No, I was just pointing out that it is rather odd and most people would find it uncomfortable. As me and Steve rightly pointed out in this topic yesterday buildings were significant crimes take place often get demolished because - A it reminds the locals of what happened and B few people will want to occupy or use it.
To add to the names of buildings that I mentioned yesterday, they demolished that guys house who kidnapped and kept three women prisoner for 25 odd years.
There aren't enough "locals" close enough to WHF to worry about what happened and there's also the possibility that "cranks" might want to move in and hold seances. Apart from that, what earthly use is the farm, to a family, without a farm house close to it?
-
There aren't enough "locals" close enough to WHF to worry about what happened and there's also the possibility that "cranks" might want to move in and hold seances. Apart from that, what earthly use is the farm, to a family, without a farm house close to it?
I was never implying that the place should be destroyed, I was using the destruction of other buildings as proof that people don't like/want them.
-
I was never implying that the place should be destroyed, I was using the destruction of other buildings as proof that people don't like/want them.
For evey one that's been demolished, there are 100 that haven't.
-
There aren't enough "locals" close enough to WHF to worry about what happened and there's also the possibility that "cranks" might want to move in and hold seances. Apart from that, what earthly use is the farm, to a family, without a farm house close to it?
Your right Jane, it's very isolated, used to love to watch high tide at tollesbury Jane, my son used to stay on the Fellowship afloat.
-
Another Vlog due today which states Trudi being pretty annoyed over something though I can't imagine her being a person who's easily irritated as she seems too placid.
-
I'm a tad annoyed that the best posters have gone. :( >:(
-
I'm a tad annoyed that the best posters have gone. :( >:(
I'm a tad annoyed that some of the most irritating are still here >:( ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm a tad annoyed that some of the most irritating are still here >:( ;D ;D ;D
Ditto.
-
Another Vlog due today which states Trudi being pretty annoyed over something though I can't imagine her being a person who's easily irritated as she seems too placid.
No she doesn't.
-
No she doesn't.
Doesn't what ?
-
I'm a tad annoyed that the best posters have gone. :( >:(
Agreed Lookout but I am in the process of getting them back
-
Agreed Lookout but I am in the process of getting them back
Oh good,because we can't have too much negativity creeping in when everything ahead of us is positive.
-
Oh good,because we can't have too much negativity creeping in when everything ahead of us is positive.
Exactly ;)
-
Doesn't what ?
seem placid
-
Hetty Wainthropp strikes again. This time along the blustery shores of a deserted quagmire of what looks like one large swamp. I couldn't hear a word for the wind blowing furiously whipping up quite a swell on the surrounding estuary.
-
Hetty Wainthropp strikes again. This time along the blustery shores of a deserted quagmire of what looks like one large swamp. I couldn't hear a word for the wind blowing furiously whipping up quite a swell on the surrounding estuary.
Eh???
-
Eh???
Todays Vlog.
-
Todays Vlog.
AH! Thank-you, Lookout. From your description, I don't think I'll bother. Her attempts at interviewing always leave me feeling slightly uncomfortable -embarrassed even.
-
AH! Thank-you, Lookout. From your description, I don't think I'll bother. Her attempts at interviewing always leave me feeling slightly uncomfortable -embarrassed even.
I'm begging you to see it. I can't help my Merseyside humour coming out,as I can see the funny side in lots of things that others wouldn't find amusing. So go on,I dare you.
-
Todays Vlog.
The only one I found on the OS was dated March 15th and I've already "seen" that one. Didn't see any Hetty Wainthropp ???
-
The only one I found on the OS was dated March 15th and I've already "seen" that one. Didn't see any Hetty Wainthropp ???
Someone's bound to put it on here eventually. I meant Trudi by the way ( Hetty )
-
Someone's bound to put it on here eventually. I meant Trudi by the way ( Hetty )
Oh 'eck,you don't have the same sense of humour. :(
-
Someone's bound to put it on here eventually. I meant Trudi by the way ( Hetty )
Where did you see it then?
-
Oh 'eck,you don't have the same sense of humour. :(
Giv'us a chance, I haven't seen it.
-
Where did you see it then?
Bambertweets.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-mn8SCXpYg&feature=youtu.be
-
You can't even hear most of it but I watched it and I actually agree that the wet suit and bicycle theory is rubbish.
-
xxxxxxxx
To be fair, I have to agree with Lookout, I don't agree with much that Tb has said so far but she is trying to do something. She has put her money where her mouth is and I would have thought being Jeremy's No1 fan - you would be supporting her instead of making catty comments such as this. I'd say you were xxxxxxx.
-
You can't even hear most of it but I watched it and I actually agree that the wet suit and bicycle theory is rubbish.
I agreed, the bicycle and wetsuit theory were/are ridiculous. But just like the SH case, and many other cases, the prosecution case is quite often just that - a theory.
In the SH case it turned out the motive wasn't a burglary gone wrong and the prosecutions theory was way off.
Like the Bamber case, no one saw SH on the night in question, therefore I don't believe it relevant that Bamber wasn't seen.
I think there's a possibility he'd already murdered his family and may have arrived home at Goldhanger in his car at approx 10pm ish or whenever. And/or, the neighbours who thought they heard the car may have been wrong - as we're the numerous witnesses in the SH case, when it was suggested noises were heard at 2am by a dozen or more neighbours.
-
I think the personal comments about Trudi and her attire are uncalled for.
-
To be fair, I have to agree with Lookout, I don't agree with much that Tb has said so far but she is trying to do something. She has put her money where her mouth is and I would have thought being Jeremy's No1 fan - you would be supporting her instead of making catty comments such as this. I'd say you were xxxxxxx.
Fortunately you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. I did make Ngb aware by pm today but it's not something I am willing to post on an open forum. I continue to believe the campaign team do more harm than good but there are numerous people working independently that will most likely make sure this conviction is overturned
Your comments once again xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
I agreed, the bicycle and wetsuit theory were/are ridiculous. But just like the SH case, and many other cases, the prosecution case is quite often just that - a theory.
In the SH case it turned out the motive wasn't a burglary gone wrong and the prosecutions theory was way off.
Like the Bamber case, no one saw SH on the night in question, therefore I don't believe it relevant that Bamber wasn't seen.
I think there's a possibility he'd already murdered his family and may have arrived home at Goldhanger in his car at approx 10pm ish or whenever. And/or, the neighbours who thought they heard the car may have been wrong - as we're the numerous witnesses in the SH case, when it was suggested noises were heard at 2am by a dozen or more neighbours.
They had to be still alive between 10:00 and 10:30 because June spoke to her sister Pam, during that time. Jeremy made a big thing about leaving the farm that night because he wanted the Foakes's to see him go. I think he walked by over the fields - hardly surprising that no one saw him - why would they?
-
I think the personal comments about Trudi and her attire are uncalled for.
Like I said--------the woman is doing her best and at long last JB has got a "mouthpiece" who appears to be a decent and honest kind of person who means well. Makes a change really.
-
I agreed, the bicycle and wetsuit theory were/are ridiculous. But just like the SH case, and many other cases, the prosecution case is quite often just that - a theory.
In the SH case it turned out the motive wasn't a burglary gone wrong and the prosecutions theory was way off.
Like the Bamber case, no one saw SH on the night in question, therefore I don't believe it relevant that Bamber wasn't seen.
I think there's a possibility he'd already murdered his family and may have arrived home at Goldhanger in his car at approx 10pm ish or whenever. And/or, the neighbours who thought they heard the car may have been wrong - as we're the numerous witnesses in the SH case, when it was suggested noises were heard at 2am by a dozen or more neighbours.
We are discussing the JB case not the Simon Hall case
-
Like I said--------the woman is doing her best and at long last JB has got a "mouthpiece" who appears to be a decent and honest kind of person who means well. Makes a change really.
I agree Lookout! Absolutely!
-
They had to be still alive between 10:00 and 10:30 because June spoke to her sister Pam, during that time. Jeremy made a big thing about leaving the farm that night because he wanted the Foakes's to see him go. I think he walked by over the fields - hardly surprising that no one saw him - why would they?
You mean Bamber wasn't seen, in the dead of night - in the countryside? ;D I wonder why.
I don't believe in the wetsuit theory either. But then again I don't know any guilter that does.
One good thing I will say about Trudi is at least she knows the case. She is willing to say that she believes in his innocence and ABLE to say WHY that is. That sets her apart from some of the other supporters.
-
They had to be still alive between 10:00 and 10:30 because June spoke to her sister Pam, during that time. Jeremy made a big thing about leaving the farm that night because he wanted the Foakes's to see him go. I think he walked by over the fields - hardly surprising that no one saw him - why would they?
I realised this after i made my post. I still think there's a possibility he drove and wasn't heard. It's not impossible. No one recalled seeing SH at 5.30am-6am on his drive from the town to the village, and there was traffic about at that time.
He could have driven off loudly and parked his car up a few hundred yards away from WHF. There are numerous possibilities but I don't think a bike was involved nor do I think he walked very far... Just my thoughts....
-
Just like the SH case, Bamber was 'at large' for some time after the murders. He therefore had plenty of time to dispose of the clothes he was wearing that night. His (Bambers) body had time to heal from any minor injuries caused...
-
I have locked the thread yet again and shall leave it like this until tomorrow.
Please do not just continue this behaviour on another thread or I shall be banning people, this behaviour is unacceptable.
-
Not only see it, but mention it in her VLOGS - there is a certain amount of selectivity going on and the OS is completely misleading when it talks of the 27 tests.
Or maybe because of this...
Monday, 14 February 2011
Psychological findings on Jeremy Bamber
“As a high profile case, a category ‘A’ prisoner, and a whole life tariff prisoner I have undergone a number of psychological assessments by twenty seven different psychologists. Each carried out numerous tests on me and some interviewed me for twenty hours or more over many weeks.
The most recent assessment of me was carried out last in 2009 by Professor Vincent Egan a Chartered Clinical psychologist and senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Leicester University. He was provided with my complete psychological file and all my medical records. He also interviewed me, and I completed various psychological tests before he wrote his report on me.
His conclusion is that I am not a psychopath. During the last quarter of a century and twenty seven different psychologists, not a single one of these experts has concluded that I show any traits consistent with psychopathy.
On the ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. I have also had 3 P.C.L.R tests that are designed specifically to reveal psychopathy and all 3 concluded the same, I am not a psychopath. Nor do I have any personality disorder."
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Monday, February 14, 2011
-
Or maybe because of this...
Monday, 14 February 2011
Psychological findings on Jeremy Bamber
“As a high profile case, a category ‘A’ prisoner, and a whole life tariff prisoner I have undergone a number of psychological assessments by twenty seven different psychologists. Each carried out numerous tests on me and some interviewed me for twenty hours or more over many weeks.
The most recent assessment of me was carried out last in 2009 by Professor Vincent Egan a Chartered Clinical psychologist and senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Leicester University. He was provided with my complete psychological file and all my medical records. He also interviewed me, and I completed various psychological tests before he wrote his report on me.
His conclusion is that I am not a psychopath. During the last quarter of a century and twenty seven different psychologists, not a single one of these experts has concluded that I show any traits consistent with psychopathy.
On the ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. I have also had 3 P.C.L.R tests that are designed specifically to reveal psychopathy and all 3 concluded the same, I am not a psychopath. Nor do I have any personality disorder."
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Monday, February 14, 2011
With a little bit of truth thrown in... ::)
-
With a little bit of truth thrown in... ::)
3.4 The self-assessment questionnaire must be completed on paper, and must be signed, when printed, by the offender and retained in the offender’s OASys file. A new SAQ must be completed during each subsequent review. The details are entered onto the SAQ within the OASys system, so that it is easily accessible to those who will view the assessment in future and is available for data analysis.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/pso/PSO_2205_offender_assessment_and_sentence_management.doc
-
1.5 OASys is a risk and needs assessment tool. A new assessment system was developed because none of the existing tools and inventories fully met the requirements for consistent assessment to help practitioners make sound and defensible decisions. OASys contributes towards ensuring security and control through the identification and management of risk. OASys identifies and classifies offending related needs, such as a lack of accommodation, poor educational and employment skills, substance misuse, relationship problems, and problems with thinking and attitudes. It also assesses the risk of harm offenders pose to themselves and others. From these assessments, sentence plans are drawn up within OASys to manage and reduce these risks. Thereby, OASys will help target interventions, making them more effective, and contribute towards reducing re-offending and protecting the public.
-
Or maybe because of this...
Monday, 14 February 2011
Psychological findings on Jeremy Bamber
“As a high profile case, a category ‘A’ prisoner, and a whole life tariff prisoner I have undergone a number of psychological assessments by twenty seven different psychologists. Each carried out numerous tests on me and some interviewed me for twenty hours or more over many weeks.
The most recent assessment of me was carried out last in 2009 by Professor Vincent Egan a Chartered Clinical psychologist and senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Leicester University. He was provided with my complete psychological file and all my medical records. He also interviewed me, and I completed various psychological tests before he wrote his report on me.
His conclusion is that I am not a psychopath. During the last quarter of a century and twenty seven different psychologists, not a single one of these experts has concluded that I show any traits consistent with psychopathy.
On the ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. I have also had 3 P.C.L.R tests that are designed specifically to reveal psychopathy and all 3 concluded the same, I am not a psychopath. Nor do I have any personality disorder."
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Monday, February 14, 2011
A classic example of Bamber being economical with the truth...
ALL prisoners, apart from (normally) those serving less than 12 months, are assessed in the same way Bamber has been. His 'high profile' status makes no difference (though I imagine it makes him feel good stating this) nor does his prisoner categorisation.
Bamber mentions 'some' of the psychologists that tested him over the years interviewed him for more than 20 hours or more..
I imagine the 'some' to be one or two.. He would have been interviewed at length (probably over 20 hours) pre trial and 'maybe' on another occasion but certainly not every year...
-
Or maybe because of this...
Monday, 14 February 2011
Psychological findings on Jeremy Bamber
“As a high profile case, a category ‘A’ prisoner, and a whole life tariff prisoner I have undergone a number of psychological assessments by twenty seven different psychologists. Each carried out numerous tests on me and some interviewed me for twenty hours or more over many weeks.
The most recent assessment of me was carried out last in 2009 by Professor Vincent Egan a Chartered Clinical psychologist and senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Leicester University. He was provided with my complete psychological file and all my medical records. He also interviewed me, and I completed various psychological tests before he wrote his report on me.
His conclusion is that I am not a psychopath. During the last quarter of a century and twenty seven different psychologists, not a single one of these experts has concluded that I show any traits consistent with psychopathy.
On the ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. I have also had 3 P.C.L.R tests that are designed specifically to reveal psychopathy and all 3 concluded the same, I am not a psychopath. Nor do I have any personality disorder."
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Monday, February 14, 2011
Where did he pull that statistic from? I'm gathering these are his own conclusions...
-
Mrs hall why have you changed your name ????
-
Monday, 14 February 2011
Psychological findings on Jeremy Bamber
“As a high profile case, a category ‘A’ prisoner, and a whole life tariff prisoner I have undergone a number of psychological assessments by twenty seven different psychologists. Each carried out numerous tests on me and some interviewed me for twenty hours or more over many weeks.
The most recent assessment of me was carried out last in 2009 by Professor Vincent Egan a Chartered Clinical psychologist and senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Leicester University. He was provided with my complete psychological file and all my medical records. He also interviewed me, and I completed various psychological tests before he wrote his report on me.
His conclusion is that I am not a psychopath. During the last quarter of a century and twenty seven different psychologists, not a single one of these experts has concluded that I show any traits consistent with psychopathy.
On the ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. I have also had 3 P.C.L.R tests that are designed specifically to reveal psychopathy and all 3 concluded the same, I am not a psychopath. Nor do I have any personality disorder."
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Monday, February 14, 2011
With a little bit of truth thrown in... ::)
To make this clear - Bamber is talking about self assessments. Self assessments that can be, and often are, manipulated..
-
A classic example of Bamber being economical with the truth...
ALL prisoners, apart from (normally) those serving less than 12 months, are assessed in the same way Bamber has been. His 'high profile' status makes no difference (though I imagine it makes him feel good stating this) nor does his prisoner categorisation.
Bamber mentions 'some' of the psychologists that tested him over the years interviewed him for more than 20 hours or more..
I imagine the 'some' to be one or two.. He would have been interviewed at length (probably over 20 hours) pre trial and 'maybe' on another occasion but certainly not every year...
You have a fertile imagination.
-
You have a fertile imagination.
Or probably a far more intimate knowledge of how prisoners' lives are directed than have you.
-
You have a fertile imagination.
OMG! That's rich! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You have a fertile imagination.
I agree completely
-
I agree completely
You are, once again, projecting!
-
I agree completely
Only if you, too, have been in the situation in which Steph found herself, would you qualify to make that remark. Are we to take it that you have such intimate knowledge?
-
Only if you, too, have been in the situation in which Steph found herself, would you qualify to make that remark. Are we to take it that you have such intimate knowledge?
It's clear Jackie has 'agreed entirely' with Lelabebs derogatory comment to me in the hope it will make her arguments stronger. The fact is she probably doesn't even know what she's 'entirely agreed' with ::)
-
It's clear Jackie has 'agreed entirely' with Lelabebs derogatory comment to me in the hope it will make her arguments stronger. The fact is she probably doesn't even know what she's 'entirely agreed' with ::)
To paraphrase MRD, "Well, she would, wouldn't she?" She's got very little in the way of support from anyone else here so I guess she'll join in with anyone she thinks will agree with her.
-
To paraphrase MRD, "Well, she would, wouldn't she?" She's got very little in the way of support from anyone else here so I guess she'll join in with anyone she thinks will agree with her.
Isn't that the way it goes on here when you're a lone wolf ? ::)
-
Isn't that the way it goes on here when you're a lone wolf ? ::)
::)
-
Isn't that the way it goes on here when you're a lone wolf ? ::)
Have no fear, Lookout. You've a long way to go before you're held in the xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx.
-
It's clear Jackie has 'agreed entirely' with Lelabebs derogatory comment to me in the hope it will make her arguments stronger. The fact is she probably doesn't even know what she's 'entirely agreed' with ::)
My comment was to Mrs Shipman not you Stephanie.
-
My comment was to Mrs Shipman not you Stephanie.
Hmmmmm, powers of deduction leave much to be desired! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy had said that he'd left the rifle on the settle in the kitchen area. Did he have to disclose where he'd left it ? No. Because he was telling the truth. He could just as easy have said he'd put it back in the cupboard for all anyone knew. Then what would have been made out of that to implicate him ?
Not once has he covered anything up. He hasn't needed to.
-
Jeremy had said that he'd left the rifle on the settle in the kitchen area. Did he have to disclose where he'd left it ? No. Because he was telling the truth. He could just as easy have said he'd put it back in the cupboard for all anyone knew. Then what would have been made out of that to implicate him ?
Not once has he covered anything up. He hasn't needed to.
He NEEDED to let it be known that the rifle was left where anyone, allegedly wishing to use it to shoot the family, would have easy access to it.
-
He NEEDED to let it be known that the rifle was left where anyone, allegedly wishing to use it to shoot the family, would have easy access to it.
He didn't need to at all. Sheila knew where the guns were kept,she was by no means stupid.
-
He didn't need to at all. Sheila knew where the guns were kept,she was by no means stupid.
Access couldn't have been easier as there was no lock,etc on the gun cupboard. If I was going to shoot someone,I wouldn't make it so obvious by leaving the gun out.
How do we know that Neville hadn't put it away,considering the twins were there ?
-
He didn't need to at all. Sheila knew where the guns were kept,she was by no means stupid.
Lookout, WHY are you being xx xxxxxx? Of COURSE Sheila knew where guns were kept, but if you've ever done stage management, you'll know that it's always assumed that the audience knows zilch, ergo the scene has to be laid out for them. Jeremy was creating the scene so that the police were able to visualize what he laid out for them.
-
Lookout, WHY are you being xx xxxxxx.? Of COURSE Sheila knew where guns were kept, but if you've ever done stage management, you'll know that it's always assumed that the audience knows zilch, ergo the scene has to be laid out for them. Jeremy was creating the scene so that the police were able to visualize what he laid out for them.
No,that's too simple. Then you obviously like simple as did the police.Nothing too taxing.
-
The stage was being set alright,for one of the biggest MOJ's this country has ever seen. Watch this space.
-
No,that's too simple. Then you obviously like simple as did the police.Nothing too taxing.
The police liked simple did they? Then they would have stuck with their initial conclusion - that Sheila was responsible. They made it far more complicated when they turned to Jeremy and it also made them look incompetent but they still stuck to their guns. So the simple answer was that Sheila killed everyone then killed herself - isn't that what you think too? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hmmmmm, powers of deduction leave much to be desired! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I can see my sarcasm went straight over your head.
-
No,that's too simple. Then you obviously like simple as did the police.Nothing too taxing.
For you, I suppose it is. You've used every convoluted trick in the book to detract from the truth in order to try to prove that Jeremy is innocent. They had SIMPLE there in front of them, Lookout. Just as Jeremy told them. Signed, sealed and delivered. Crime solved. How much MORE simple do you think it could have been?
-
For you, I suppose it is. You've used every convoluted trick in the book to detract from the truth in order to try to prove that Jeremy is innocent. They had SIMPLE there in front of them, Lookout. Just as Jeremy told them. Signed, sealed and delivered. Crime solved. How much MORE simple do you think it could have been?
"Detract from the truth..."? What is the truth? IMO the truth is he's innocent.
-
He NEEDED to let it be known that the rifle was left where anyone, allegedly wishing to use it to shoot the family, would have easy access to it.
Of course, he had to make it look easy. The difficulty for him though was that the .22 rifle was problematic and was incapable of killing using one bullet even at point blank range, the bullets just don't have sufficient velocity. The killer had to fire multiple shots to put his victim down requiring reloading at least once. None of this was in Bamber's plan. His need to reload meant Nevill could get to the kitchen where the fight ensued, a fight which Sheila could never have participated in.
The logic in this case is easy to see, the silencer issue is merely a distraction.
-
Of course, he had to make it look easy. The difficulty for him though was that the .22 rifle was problematic and was incapable of killing using one bullet even at point blank range, the bullets just don't have sufficient velocity. The killer had to fire multiple shots to put his victim down requiring reloading at least once. None of this was in Bamber's plan. His need to reload meant Nevill could get to the kitchen where the fight ensued, a fight which Sheila could never have participated in.
The logic in this case is easy to see, the silencer issue is merely a distraction.
John, I never talk about firearm action because I understand LESS than nothing about it. The only thing I can contribute to what you've said, is that whilst the gun's inability to kill quickly was a problem for Jeremy, it wouldn't have been for a psychotic Sheila who would, presumably, just kept firing, and his aim was to make it look like psychotic Sheila had been responsible.
-
I can see my sarcasm went straight over your head.
Sarcasm? Yeah right ::)
-
Of course, he had to make it look easy. The difficulty for him though was that the .22 rifle was problematic and was incapable of killing using one bullet even at point blank range, the bullets just don't have sufficient velocity. The killer had to fire multiple shots to put his victim down requiring reloading at least once. None of this was in Bamber's plan. His need to reload meant Nevill could get to the kitchen where the fight ensued, a fight which Sheila could never have participated in.
The logic in this case is easy to see, the silencer issue is merely a distraction.
Then what else besides the silencer is there ?
-
Then what else besides the silencer is there ?
There is no point in anyone providing YET ANOTHER answer to this question because you don't take on board the answer.
-
There is no point in anyone providing YET ANOTHER answer to this question because you don't take on board the answer.
Because there is no answer beyond USING the silencer.
-
Because there is no answer beyond USING the silencer.
I suggest yu do a search on the forum for every time you have asked that question but while you're looking, perhaps you can finally answer what evidence there is to prove Sheila resonsible. You haven't answered yet.
-
I suggest yu do a search on the forum for every time you have asked that question but while you're looking, perhaps you can finally answer what evidence there is to prove Sheila resonsible. You haven't answered yet.
I was about to ask you to do the same,but maybe you don't want to in case it throws up something you don't want to see. Then again,why should you when you're not interested ?
-
I was about to ask you to do the same,but maybe you don't want to in case it throws up something you don't want to see. Then again,why should you when you're not interested ?
I can't count the number of times I have done your work for you - it's YOUR claim, you find it!
-
I can't count the number of times I have done your work for you - it's YOUR claim, you find it!
Poor you.I can understand why you've " missed " said information.
-
Poor you.I can understand why you've " missed " said information.
You can't find it can you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You can't find it can you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's on the other thread------just.
-
Sarcasm? Yeah right ::)
You shouldn't let being brown nosed by other members go to your head.
FYI it was blatantly obvious that Stephanie and Mrs Shipman were the same person as she admitted as much by her reply to me. My sarcastic reply was questioning the motive behind such duplicity. If you didn't get it no big deal, I can't help it that my subtle humour is wasted on you.
-
John, I never talk about firearm action because I understand LESS than nothing about it. The only thing I can contribute to what you've said, is that whilst the gun's inability to kill quickly was a problem for Jeremy, it wouldn't have been for a psychotic Sheila who would, presumably, just kept firing, and his aim was to make it look like psychotic Sheila had been responsible.
I have one major problem with that scenario though, a psychotic Sheila would have decorated the house with her bullets whereas the cold calculating callous killer could pick his shots. Correction, had to pick his shots when he realised one or two would not floor an adult person unlike a rabbit.
-
Then what else besides the silencer is there ?
Oh dear lookout, I like you, I really do but your lack of understanding of all the evidence is appalling. For the millionth time, Jeremy's guilt is derived from Sheila's innocence, it's as simple as that.
And for the benefit of any new reader who hasn't a clue, the evidence shows that only Jeremy or Sheila had the opportunity to murder the family, an outsider acting a lone without any help from Jeremy is a non starter. In fact, had Jeremy set it all up for a third party he would have made bloody sure he had a bulletproof (sos) alibi! Yet another factor which points to Jeremy being present when the dirty deeds were done.
Then there are the other acquaintances with very convenient bulletproof alibis.
-
Lookout has posted on my forensic evidence library.
So has either forgotten all the forensic evidence, or is ignoring it.
-
Adam, could you change my quote in your post 329 as per my edit...bloody tablet is making up its own words now. ;D
-
There is a forensic evidence library.
This has 27 forensic evidence threads in. Each thread about a different piece of forensic evidence. However some of the threads discuss multiple pieces of forensic evidence.
There should really also be a circimstantial evidence library, which highlights Bamber's guilt.
-
Adam, could you change my quote in your post 329 as per my edit...bloody tablet is making up its own words now. ;D
Everything to match,eh John ? ;D
-
COLP Statement/Interview of PS Woodcock.
Does this make sense to anyone ? :
Quote," I was struck with Junes body by fingermarks around her neck that appeared to be in blood.There was bloodstaining to her legs and nightdress and having seen the body in the kitchen ?? and thought of the struggle that must have taken place on seeing Junes body the thought of a struggle remained unquote "
-
COLP Statement/Interview of PS Woodcock.
Does this make sense to anyone ? :
Quote," I was struck with Junes body by fingermarks around her neck that appeared to be in blood.There was bloodstaining to her legs and nightdress and having seen the body in the kitchen ?? and thought of the struggle that must have taken place on seeing Junes body the thought of a struggle remained unquote "
Yes, it makes sense, she most likely got the back eye at the same time.
-
Yes, it makes sense, she most likely got the back eye at the same time.
From whom ?
-
COLP Statement/Interview of PS Woodcock.
Does this make sense to anyone ? :
Quote," I was struck with Junes body by fingermarks around her neck that appeared to be in blood.There was bloodstaining to her legs and nightdress and having seen the body in the kitchen ?? and thought of the struggle that must have taken place on seeing Junes body the thought of a struggle remained unquote "
Is this in the archives?
-
Is this in the archives?
It should be Steve. I picked it up in the " Tesko files " on the forum where the statement is.
-
Everything to match,eh John ? ;D
Unfortnately the trials of a perfectionist. :(
-
From whom ?
A clue. This forum is named after him! ::)
-
It should be Steve. I picked it up in the " Tesko files " on the forum where the statement is.
Why don't you, Mike and Nugs work together. To help free Bamber.
? I am sure Bamber would appreciate it.
TB has not got the only rights to go public.
-
Is this in the archives?
Yes it's in the archives - it's been there for ages. Woodcock also stated that he thought Sheila looked too clean to have been involved in any struggle.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4207.msg172557.html#msg172557
-
Yes it's in the archives - it's been there for ages. Woodcock also stated that he thought Sheila looked too clean to have been involved in any struggle.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4207.msg172557.html#msg172557
So Sheila gets close enough -without the gun- to strangle/claw/gouge June and Nevill and they just stand there and let her?
Well, they must have done if she had no marks to indicate otherwise.
-
So Sheila gets close enough -without the gun- to strangle/claw/gouge June and Nevill and they just stand there and let her?
Well, they must have done if she had no marks to indicate otherwise.
No mention of gouging Jane ;D ;D
-
And as cousin David said in his last TV appearance, not a chipped nail or a hair out of place.
-
No mention of gouging Jane ;D ;D
Oh, OK. So June WASN'T gouged??
-
Oh, OK. So June WASN'T gouged??
Lacerated indentations.
-
Lacerated indentations.
A rose by any other name...................
-
Lacerated indentations.
finger marks refers to what looked like finger marks in blood around her neck NOT indentations.
-
finger marks refers to what looked like finger marks in blood around her neck NOT indentations.
I'm talking about the post-mortem results that Vanezis forgot to re-write up from his original findings.
-
finger marks refers to what looked like finger marks in blood around her neck NOT indentations.
It might be argued that they were June's own.
-
I'm talking about the post-mortem results that Vanezis forgot to re-write up from his original findings.
Where are you reading this from?
-
It might be argued that they were June's own.
And it could be argued that they were Neville's also,but I ain't talking about the handprint around June's neck being an indentation so why twist what I say ?
The same handprint was also found around Sheila's neck,so it would have seemed that they were all killing each other in a frenzy of sheer madness.
-
And it could be argued that they were Neville's also,but I ain't talking about the handprint around June's neck being an indentation so why twist what I say ?
The same handprint was also found around Sheila's neck,so it would have seemed that they were all killing each other in a frenzy of sheer madness.
You're making this up as you go along! If you made it clear what you do mean instead of shifting postion when you're caught out in inaccuracies, it might make things a lot easier.
-
You're making this up as you go along! If you made it clear what you do mean instead of shifting postion when you're caught out in inaccuracies, it might make things a lot easier.
Ye Gods I'd NEVER put a full version of my actual thoughts on here.
-
Where are you reading this from?
That's called a dangling preposition.
-
That's called a dangling preposition.
That's called a pointless post!
-
Charming as usual.
-
Ye Gods I'd NEVER put a full version of my actual thoughts on here.
Your thoughts are one things but you said you read something about lacerated indentations in Venezis's written report - we were discussing June and you said you weren't referring to June so who were you on about?
-
Charming as usual.
I graduated with honours! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Your thoughts are one things but you said you read something about lacerated indentations in Venezis's written report - we were discussing June and you said you weren't referring to June so who were you on about?
I was referring to June and also Neville,having read from what SHOULD have appeared at the Court of Appeal from Vanezis post-mortem ORIGINALS,but were OMITTED.
-
Yes it's in the archives - it's been there for ages. Woodcock also stated that he thought Sheila looked too clean to have been involved in any struggle.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4207.msg172557.html#msg172557
Yes and noted the two bullet holes. But I am surprised that he remarks about finger marks round her neck.
-
I obviously can't answer that question, only she knows why she's doing what
She does appear confident in front of the camera. I was too overwhelmed and traumatised from having single handedly 'campaigned' and supported SH financially and emotionally on my own for all those years. I guess she's not emotionally invested in the same way I was.
I can't stand that word 'campaigner' I never saw myself as a 'campaigner.' I did what I did as I believed SH was innocent and that others were responsible. Of course with hindsight I realise now why I was left to 'campaign' single handedly. But that's a whole other story for another time...
I was treated like a pariah by some, and from my own experiences there's no 'celebrity factor' being linked to a convicted murderer maintaining innocence. I should add, I felt like this in the very beginning. There's nothing glamorous about visiting anyone in prison. It's a degrading experience and doesn't improve at any point, even in open prison conditions.
I concur. 100%
-
Where are you reading this from?
The last time Lookout mentioned all of this, Patti tried to help her remember where she had read it and help her find it. It turned out, the claim was apparently from Poppis blog - "apparently" Poppi claimed there were two COLP reports and that one was hidden - it contained Venizes "full findings" ;D But when you look at Poppis blog there is NOTHING at all like this on there.
It's all made up as Lookout goes along - and it changes (as it did in this topic) if it was the truth, the claim would be the same every time but each time it is pointed out why it can't be the wording changes.
-
Try reading the full interview !!
I DON'T make anything up.Why would I ??
-
Try reading the full interview !!
I DON'T make anything up.Why would I ??
I've read the whole thing numerous times Lookout. In the past you've also claimed AE said things in the COLP interviews - that are hidden in a secret second COLP report. If they are hidden how have YOU seen them? And if you have seen them why has no one else?
-
Yes it's in the archives - it's been there for ages. Woodcock also stated that he thought Sheila looked too clean to have been involved in any struggle.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4207.msg172557.html#msg172557
I don't believe there was any struggle in the kitchen. There is no conclusive evidence for such an assertion.
-
I don't believe there was any struggle in the kitchen. There is no conclusive evidence for such an assertion.
The ceiling light was broken for one thing. Quite apart from the bloodied fingerprints on the blue and white chequered worktop, blood on the floor and the scratches on the mantelpiece, which you can choose to believe or not.
-
I would have said that the blood on the worktops was where Neville had leaned at the phone when phoning the police as he seemingly wasn't hurt when he'd rang Jeremy.
-
I would have said that the blood on the worktops was where Neville had leaned at the phone when phoning the police as he seemingly wasn't hurt when he'd rang Jeremy.
He didn't call the police.
-
I've read the whole thing numerous times Lookout. In the past you've also claimed AE said things in the COLP interviews - that are hidden in a secret second COLP report. If they are hidden how have YOU seen them? And if you have seen them why has no one else?
Have you read the whole thing or just what Mike has managed to upload?
I don't know about AE or lookouts claims but I know there are missing or 'secret' parts of the COLP report because you can find reference to those items in other documents, Like DI Cooks Audio interview. Whether its 'secret' or has been 'accidently lost' is down to you to guess for yourself.
-
Have you read the whole thing or just what Mike has managed to upload?
I don't know about AE or lookouts claims but I know there are missing or 'secret' parts of the COLP report because you can find reference to those items in other documents, Like DI Cooks Audio interview. Whether its 'secret' or has been 'accidently lost' is down to you to guess for yourself.
I would like to know the significance of these things..
-
He didn't call the police.
Do you mind elaborating on that.
-
I would like to know the significance of these things..
...........and why it's automatically assumed there's something suspicious about it being missing. Do Jeremy's supporters believe that there's such stupidity at that level that they'd have left themselves exposed in such a way?
-
Do you mind elaborating on that.
Lookout, I believe I once asked you by what means did Nevill make the call to the police that you allege of him, and what sort of conversation might he have had with them that they may have subsequently chosen to ignore. Oh, and there's a hypothetical for you in this. What action might you have expected a living Nevill to take against a constable and civilian who took it upon themselves to disregard his call?
-
Lookout, I believe I once asked you by what means did Nevill make the call to the police that you allege of him, and what sort of conversation might he have had with them that they may have subsequently chosen to ignore. Oh, and there's a hypothetical for you in this. What action might you have expected a living Nevill to take against a constable and civilian who took it upon themselves to disregard his call?
Neville already had little faith in the force.What was it he used to call them ? Dad's Army ! How right he was. He must have had bags of past experience having been a magistrate.
-
Neville already had little faith in the force.What was it he used to call them ? Dad's Army ! How right he was. He must have had bags of past experience having been a magistrate.
Then as he thought SO little of their capabilities, IF he'd called them it would undoubtedly have been a 999 call, however, going along those lines you've laid out, it seems he probably didn't call them imagining Jeremy could handle things better.......................... IF he called him.
-
Then as he thought SO little of their capabilities, IF he'd called them it would undoubtedly have been a 999 call, however, going along those lines you've laid out, it seems he probably didn't call them imagining Jeremy could handle things better.......................... IF he called him.
He'd have called them alright in case his first call to Jeremy had been made while looking through the gun's barrel.
-
He'd have called them alright in case his first call to Jeremy had been made while looking through the gun's barrel.
He didn't.
-
He didn't.
Instead of you repeating " he didn't "----------- Tell me why he didn't. And how you know why he didn't.
-
He'd have called them alright in case his first call to Jeremy had been made while looking through the gun's barrel.
Do you think he'd have flicked through the phone directory or called 999?
-
Do you think he'd have flicked through the phone directory or called 999?
Whichever number he'd have rang,it would automatically have been recorded as all calls made to the emergency services are.
-
Instead of you repeating " he didn't "----------- Tell me why he didn't. And how you know why he didn't.
I already have - MANY times. It falls on deaf ears because you want to believe that Jeremy is innocent when he isn't.
-
I already have - MANY times. It falls on deaf ears because you want to believe that Jeremy is innocent when he isn't.
Well that's one way of getting out of it.
-
Well that's one way of getting out of it.
But you just deflect the subject so you don't have to answer.
-
But you just deflect the subject so you don't have to answer.
Another way of getting out of it------------oh dear.
-
Another way of getting out of it------------oh dear.
Lookout, if you'd been honest enough to lay your cards on the table and stick to a story instead of bleating on about Jeremy being innocent but giving no joined up explanation and deflecting when asked about the hows and whys, you wouldn't be challenged as much. You shout about your honesty but what I experience is ambiguity.
-
Caroline, Lookout and Jane repeating the same argument for the 962nd time
-
Caroline, Lookout and Jane repeating the same argument for the 962nd time
I know--------not my fault.
-
Caroline, Lookout and Jane repeating the same argument for the 962nd time
Whereas you're about to break the whole case open? ::)
-
The Defence might argue that Jeremy was not articulate and never had been articulate enough to express whatever fine feelings if any ran through his veins, and that he was just out of his depth when his father called. I could argue that but I won't because I'm in the guilty camp.
-
The Defence might argue that Jeremy was not articulate and never had been articulate enough to express whatever fine feelings if any ran through his veins, and that he was just out of his depth when his father called. I could argue that but I won't because I'm in the guilty camp.
To which the prosecution might argue that having had the benefit of public school education, even if Jeremy lacked emotional intelligence, he'd have had the words with which to articulate.
-
Whereas you're about to break the whole case open? ::)
Its amazing what you can find if you focus on looking for fresh evidence instead of going round in circles ::)
-
Its amazing what you can find if you focus on looking for fresh evidence instead of going round in circles ::)
Of course David ;D ;D ;D ;D