Now lets clear up the myth you are trying to construct.
(https://s14.postimg.org/trjgx69xd/egan.jpg)
Once again you put the cart before the horse ::)
Jeremy has blogged about Christmas before. In fact I believe it's just about the only time of year when he did feel some lessening of pressure of expectation as a child as June herself relaxed somewhat and her son picked up the vibes. http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/a-christmas-of-less-liberty.html
Jeremy Bamber has cherry picked this information in order to fool his supporters.
Your own theories regarding innocence would have to go against expert opinion. So I'm unsure why you keep trying to push this as fact?
SH did not appear as angry, alienated, impulsive and out of control until 2013. He managed to keep up the pretense of 'normality' for over 12 years.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
My theories are supported by experts, Even Sheila being alive while Jeremy is outside in company of the police.
JB is not SH and SH is not a benchmark for every prisoner that protests innocence.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
No David, I've not put the cart before the horse..
I have already replied to you with regards Professor Egan and my beliefs regarding this.
Jeremy Bamber has cherry picked this information in order to fool his supporters. No expert is infallible, as you well know. If the experts weren't infallible you would not be arguing for innocence. Your own theories regarding innocence would have to go against expert opinion. So I'm unsure why you keep trying to push this as fact?
A psychopathy test is very involved and any conclusions would be far longer than one measly paragrapth. If Jeremy Bamber is not a psychopath he would have no problem putting into the public domain his psychology reports.
I have first hand experience of experts like Professor Egan being wrong in their judgement, therefore I will continue to dispute this as an error in judgement.
SH did not appear as angry, alienated, impulsive and out of control until 2013. He managed to keep up the pretense of 'normality' for over 12 years.
Why are you quoting Hitchens Razor? I am not making assertions without evidence! I have in depth knowledge and experience of disordered individuals and I have supported my posts. You are just choosing to ignore them with an inappropriate quote and because your bias blinds you.
If JB is innocent it's safe to say his personality has let him down.
What expert has now said Sheila was alive while Jeremy was outside? ::)
I have not used SH as a benchmark. I always believed Bamber was guilty.
Your assertions are based on your perceived oddities in his writings about Christmas. So yes you are making assertions without evidence.
I have said before that Jeremy's personality does him no favours. I quote myself.
This area is nothing new to me. Damien Echols, Barry George and Amanda Knox done themselves no favours either however the evidence all points away from them despite their seemingly odd or perceived incriminating behaviour.
Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.
I have uploaded the documents on here before.
Yes. However you are quick to compare the two and imply similarities.
I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on Bamber. Like I said before I find Jeremy does himself no favours and people who have met him have said he is "creepy" and that's not typical of psychopaths. they appear normal and friendly.
If you want to see a charming psychopath look further than Daniel Wozniak. I found this fascinating.
https://youtu.be/RjQHkxn0d6Q?t=26m29s (https://youtu.be/RjQHkxn0d6Q?t=26m29s)
Clearing up the myths - and Jeremy Bamber's lies - regarding Christmas in prison
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/christmas-time-in-prison-clearing-up-the-myths-9944302.html
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-prisons-christmas-dinner-menu-6467855
You are being blinkered if you think I am referring to his Christmas blogs alone.
It doesn't matter if we don't see eye to eye but from my point of view you have yet to put anything forward in order to support his claims of innocence.
Psychopaths come in all shapes and sizes. Some are intelligent, others aren't. Some appear charming, some don't. Some psychopaths are also very creepy and not all psychopaths appear 'normal' or friendly..
Btw - Barry George is not a psychopath, he has asperger syndrome.
I agree with posters who have previously commented on your theories regarding Marco Meloni http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7494.msg353335.html#msg353335 and dismissed them.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6955.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6894.msg321572.html#msg321572
Scipio makes valid points here regarding Meloni and Cavalli
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5535.msg242509.html#msg242509
"Neither is in the field of analyzing dead bodies let alone assesing time of death period let alone based on photos. Nor does such have anything even remotely at all do do with their fields.
Having doctors look at photos to try to see it they see signs of rigor or the evaluate the hue of blood is not an accepted scinetifically valid way to assess time of death. Hence they engaged in quackery.
Worse still, they also relied in part on bogus representations mad eot them that the blood coming from Sheila's mouth in the photos provided to them was wet. Dr Craig stated such blood was dry. So though the blood was dry in the photos they believed it was wet. That right there means their supposed skill is worthless because they thought blood detemrined to be dry was wet.
Worst yet I showed the image of Sheila's face to someone with a MD degree who handles wrongful death and other malpractice cases. He noted that she appears to be grimacing in the photo and her eyelids could reflect rigor. He said that more would be necessary to decide whether she had rigor or not but the photo had signs that could be and that it would be wrong to sy she had no signs that could be rigor.
In all medical evlauations second opinions are critical but isn't it funny how the only peopel who came out to support the defense were Italians with no expertise at all in the issue at hand hired by a fake lawyer who misrepresented that the blood on her mouth was wet and these doctors fell for it and believed the photos supported the blood was wet though the doctor who saw her in person and pronounced her dead before such photos were taken said it was dry.
The people who need to STFU are those trying to pretend these evaluations were scientifically valid and could be relied upon for anything. The courts consider them worthless as does any objective, informed person with half a brain.
Scipio also posts:
"The problems are:
1) Woodcock didn't mean the blood was actively coming out and wet that is just intentionally being misinterpreted as such
2) there is no way to assess time of death just based on how someone looks in a photo. Their speculation was rejected by other experts
3) it is impossible for her to have killed herself
4) no one heard anything like they would have had the gun been fired while they were outside
Hi Steph,
There is a clear deliberate attempt to ignore the facts in order to try and bring Sheila back to life at a time when Jeremy was outside the farmhouse with the police. However, when can see through the smoke screen, you come to realise that Sheila had been dead for some time.
Firstly, the following picture of Sheila - note the dried, almost black, cracked blood which had once flowed from her mouth, but quite some time before this picture was taken. Note also the mottled marks on her face, also indicative of death having occurred quite some time before the picture.
Secondly, Dr Craig pronounced death for Sheila at 08:44 and noted that the blood around her mouth was dried (see below). Woodcock would have seen the body of Sheila Caffell only an hour earlier, are we really expected to believe that wet flowing blood was able to completely dry, in just one hour?
The picture which supposedly shows blood flowing from Sheila's neck wounds, is clearly enhanced which is why her face has been edited out of the picture - it is at odds with the dried blood around her mouth. It is an edited version of the above picture and as we know from Dr Craig, quite some time BEFORE the CS pictures were taken, the blood around Sheila's mouth was dried - blowing the myth that the blood was flowing right out of the water.
Hi Steph,
There is a clear deliberate attempt to ignore the facts in order to try and bring Sheila back to life at a time when Jeremy was outside the farmhouse with the police. However, when can see through the smoke screen, you come to realise that Sheila had been dead for some time.
Firstly, the following picture of Sheila - note the dried, almost black, cracked blood which had once flowed from her mouth, but quite some time before this picture was taken. Note also the mottled marks on her face, also indicative of death having occurred quite some time before the picture.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391)
Secondly, Dr Craig pronounced death for Sheila at 08:44 and noted that the blood around her mouth was dried (see below). Woodcock would have seen the body of Sheila Caffell only an hour earlier, are we really expected to believe that wet flowing blood was able to completely dry, in just one hour?
The picture which supposedly shows blood flowing from Sheila's neck wounds, is clearly enhanced which is why her face has been edited out of the picture - it is at odds with the dried blood around her mouth. It is an edited version of the above picture and as we know from Dr Craig, quite some time BEFORE the CS pictures were taken, the blood around Sheila's mouth was dried - blowing the myth that the blood was flowing right out of the water.
The only deliberate attempt to ignore the facts is you using a poorly taken photograph of a photograph that Mike took, Then deluding yourself into thinking the genuine Kodacolor film strips are now forgeries.
Your happy to quote Dr Craig (who fails to spot two gunshot wounds) But you ignore PC Woodcock. Your quick to distract everyone by pointing out a coagulated stream of blood on Sheila's cheek. But you wont go near the issue of post mortem hypostasis. Indeed Caroline a clear deliberate attempt to ignore the facts.
Hi David,
If you read through all the posts of the above links (In my post above Caroline's) you will also see further posts by Caroline, and indeed yourself, where she has disputed your presentations and backed these up with detailed evidence.
I cannot see how you have drawn the conclusion Caroline is deliberately attempting to ignore the facts - she hasn't! It does appear you are doing what you are suggesting others are doing?
I posted facts - Craig described the blood around Sheila's mouth as 'dried'. The blood around Sheila's mouth is dried but some people are in denial and claiming to have access to original material to bolster their nonsense. I don't ignore the facts, I ignore people who try and pull the wool and I am (for the record) certainly ignoring David and his obsession.
It's a utter joke to believe that is Sheila's foot.
defo June's foot but Andrew Hunter claimed it was Sheila's.
But they are not Sheila's wherever they were taken.
I don't care what you mention to who - the picture is clearly NOT Sheila's foot.
No one is trying to manipulate anyone!
xxxxxxxxx Caroline is at it again. The only one making clear deliberate attempt to ignore the facts is none other than yourself.
For example
The other day you tried to fool people into thinking the Scotsman was another man by the name of Mcdonald. Because you realise the significance of "(a man called Mcdonald?)" brought up in conversation between Robert Boutflour and The Police several weeks before Julie came forward implicating Mathew Mcdonald.
(https://s11.postimg.org/6gqs93ulv/lying2.jpg)
Turns out his name was Hector Maclean. - deliberate attempt to ignore the facts ::)
(https://s11.postimg.org/o82enka0j/lying3.jpg)
I shall also take this opportunity to expose another one of your deliberate attempts to ignore the facts.
(https://s15.postimg.org/ew1k7dyq3/feetcompare.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.org/6gbzpvvuz/feetcompare3.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.org/j6g82z3t7/feetcompare2.jpg)
(http://media.giphy.com/media/CoDp6NnSmItoY/giphy.gif)
Clearly you DO have a clearer picture of Sheila's body (see, no problem being wrong) so why not post her face and neck so we can see if the 'enhanced' picture is genuine and how that fairs against the dried, cracked blood around Sheila's mouth. The foot tells us nothing but you could put your money where your mouth is and may even convert a few people!
I'm not up to speed in relation to David having other photos. However, if anyone (Not just David) has any evidence they believe can clear Bamber, then they would surely want it seen by the public?
If there are any photographs that would cast doubt on Bambers guilt, why doesn't he put them in the public domain himself? After 31 years, surely he would do anything to get out now?
This true, if the picture shows blood running from her throat whilst the blood around her mouth doesn't look black and cracked, then that is clearly an issue - if not .........
Ha, ha! What does one have to do with the other? Firstly, I didn't know the name of the guy in Scotland but it certainly wasn't MacDonald
As far as the foot is concerned, so what if it's Sheila's? There are a few spots of blood - big deal. What you and your stupid mocking little gif files don't realise is that I don't care about being wrong. I've been wrong before when I thought Bamber was innocent. It's no biggy ;)
Clearly you DO have a clearer picture of Sheila's body (see, no problem being wrong) so why not post her face and neck so we can see if the 'enhanced' picture is genuine and how that fairs against the dried, cracked blood around Sheila's mouth. The foot tells us nothing but you could put your money where your mouth is and may even convert a few people!
You haven't got any pictures!
you invented having access to official crime scene pictures - pathetic!
you can't post what you haven't got and all this 'you can't trick me into posting them' is just more bluff. You know and I know it. Anyone who believes you needs to have a serious word with themselves!
Then why did you claim "its not the same McDonald" implying his name was Mcdonald if you never knew his name in the first place? because you were making things up.
Had his name been McDonald, it OBVIOUSLY wasn't the same person. Any idiot can see that there would be no point in posting drugs to a Scottish address for a person who lives around the corner. You were so desperate to have RB mention McDonald you just didn't think it through! Turns out it wasn't McDonald, just RB getting thr name wrong!!
It's NOT the same McDonald, or are you trying to suggest it is? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You were correct when you thought Bamber was innocent you are wrong at present and you know it but like you say "It's no biggy" ::)
No, I was wrong, just like like you are now.
Who said I have no plans not to? I may well post it but I find that giving someone a reality check is best when they least expect it and don't see it coming. Like a big random slap on the face, don't you think?
So p*** or get off the pot! Sorry to disappoint you David, I haven't had a reality check or a slap in the face. I think you're a pathetic little worm and as such, don't enter into my thinking. You're obsession with Bamber seems to dominate your every breath to the point where you're now believing you actually matter to me? Reality check? You certainly need one!
Had his name been McDonald, it OBVIOUSLY wasn't the same person. Any idiot can see that there would be no point in posting drugs to a Scottish address for a person who lives around the corner. You were so desperate to have RB mention McDonald you just didn't think it through! Turns out it wasn't McDonald, just RB getting thr name wrong!!
It's NOT the same McDonald, or are you trying to suggest it is?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Don't try to manipulate me Caroline, your connivance only works on those with an IQ below room temperature. Those who go along the lines of "forensics is not my thing"
Now the façade of smiley faces is being used once again. Awwww am I upsetting you?
(http://i.pokeme.com/meme/img/00my.jpg)
You're the biggest manipulator on this board David - either post the pictures or stop posting claims you can't back up. The claims that the Giovanni picture is genuine, sounds much the same as the picture of Sheila on the bed.
Now the facade of moronic gif files are being used once again. Awww, am I upsetting you?
Not upset but rather annoyed. Annoyed at -
A) wrongly accusing Andrew Hunter of misleading people of the photos of Sheila's feet.
B) wrongly accusing me of lying over access to the photos.
David, has Andrew Hunter said something to you in order for you to feel you need to say something on a public forum?
a) Yes
b) No
Here's the thing, if Andrew Hunter has photo's that he (and you?) thinks will clear Jeremy Bambers name and/or cast doubt, why hasn't he put them in the public domain? Why wait any longer? What's he waiting for? Another 31 years?
I'm not up to speed with the ins and outs of this however as an outside observer, surely even you can see why we are sceptical?
Ages ago Andrew Hunter released photos of Sheila's feet. Caroline was accusing him of lying. So I put the record straight on that.
I was also accused of lying also. So I put the record straight on that.
The photo has been in the public domain since 2005. Its been submitted to the CCRC but they just found excuses because the system is not going to admit to such an epic fail.
Ages ago Andrew Hunter released photos of Sheila's feet. Caroline was accusing him of lying. So I put the record straight on that.
I was also accused of lying also. So I put the record straight on that.
The photo has been in the public domain since 2005. Its been submitted to the CCRC but they just found excuses because the system is not going to admit to such an epic fail.
Were did I accuse him of lying or misleading anyone? Get your facts right! http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7207.msg342035.html#msg342035
Until you post the picture you claim to have, your claims are no more credible than other claims made here in respect to Sheila on the bed.
So there are no pictures then!
No idea, he seems to have pictures that aren't on this forum, but whether he has a picture that PROVES Sheila had blood 'running' from her neck wounds (which also includes her face), remains to be seen. If it existed, this would go a long way to support that Sheila hadn't been dead as long as the others and could sway the balance in the favour of innocence. Which is why I can't believe someone would sit on it - unless it was nothing like the build up they had given it.
No idea, he seems to have pictures that aren't on this forum, but whether he has a picture that PROVES Sheila had blood 'running' from her neck wounds (which also includes her face), remains to be seen. If it existed, this would go a long way to support that Sheila hadn't been dead as long as the others and could sway the balance in the favour of innocence. Which is why I can't believe someone would sit on it - unless it was nothing like the build up they had given it.
I don't think any of the photos blown up at lab prior to the last CCRC application were/are allowed to be released in to the public domain. Not sure if the alleged photo being discussed on here falls within that remit.
I'm not sitting on anything new. Its nothing the CCRC does not already have or seen. It would not make any difference if I post it or not.
People claimed (without a shred of evidence) that the photo already available is a forgery.
I have no doubt that same would happen if another was posted.
That makes sense Roch.
And to save me from searching, can you confirm the CCRC had possession of these and didn't think they were of any evidential value?
I'm not sitting on anything new. Its nothing the CCRC does not already have or seen. It would not make any difference if I post it or not.
People claimed (without a shred of evidence) that the photo already available is a forgery.
I have no doubt that same would happen if another was posted.
From what I can recall, JB claimed that EP were "gutted" that the photos were released - as there was considerable evidential value contained within them. The defence had a considerable and prolonged fight to obtain the photos. Many prior excuses had been given as to why they could not be released or obtained.
However, I cannot say whether this would answer your query about the alleged photo that David and Caroline may be disagreeing on.
Were did I accuse him of lying or misleading anyone? Get your facts right! http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7207.msg342035.html#msg342035
defo June's foot but Andrew Hunter claimed it was Sheila's.
It's a utter joke to believe that is Sheila's foot.
If it doesn't include Sheila's face, I certainly wouldn't give it ANY credence.
If the hypostasis does not convince you nothing will. you are a lost cause.
No it doesn't - there is discolouration on Sheila and the pitcure of June isn't clear and has a high red hue.
You have never seen a clear accurate picture of Sheila's face. Mikes copies are so misleading in that respect. The skin is white/grey and the carpet is dark green/grey its like the photo was taken at night.
As for June she has to have PML otherwise that means she was also alive while Jeremy was outside.
(https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/lividity-timing-lit-review.png)
Dead skin is white/grey and the blood is dried and cracked, it shows she had been dead for some time. Her skin is mottled on her face and also her legs. I didn't say that June didn't have livor mortis, I am saying that Sheila did also. Plus the times you have given are 'in general' and not set i stone.
There is no getting away from the dried cracked blood and the fact that Craig noted it. Sheila had been dead for some time.
Photos were taken many hours after police arrived at the scene with Jeremy. Blood will dry quickly and crack. It's the body's way of closing a wound.
What about the dead skin and mottling on her face and legs? How do you explain that?
Photos were taken many hours after police arrived at the scene with Jeremy. Blood will dry quickly and crack. It's the body's way of closing a wound.
Denial Steph, denial ::)
Lookout you made similar excuses when SH confessed. You appear to be one of those people who wont back down to reason, even when the truth is staring you in the face.
The picture shows that she has been dead for quite some time, people can deny it all they like but there is no way Sheila died shortly before the house was stormed. She had been dead for some time.
Is it denial, or a lack of understanding and knowledge? I'm unsure. I questioned this when SH confessed.
Many people are lead by their own emotions and personal experiences and indeed agenda's. It's all there in the Simon Hall confession thread.
There weren't many posters who accepted the confession for what it was.
In this instance, I believe it's denial. People make excuses to argue innocence, I did it myself - didn't even realise I was doing that until I started to have doubts.
Did you see Bambers letter to Trudie dated 10th October? What do you make of it?
I was obviously in denial when I learned SH had lied about his movements on that fateful night. I was in denial for around 8 months. ::) ::) Though I didn't stop asking him questions and calling him out when I caught him in a lie or contradicting himself.
I even remained in denial when his brother boldly posted about his guilty early on in 2013.
SH suggested he'd been in denial for all those years. He tried to convince me that he's fed into his own lies and started to believe them. Another crock! ::)
Scip hasn't changed his guilty stance - he just got bored and has interests in another case.
It's well I remain pertinacious ! ;D ;D
I'm sure there is an older trick than that Lookout. Still not sure what you mean though. No one needs to do an inside job on the CT, they do themselves more harm with silly gimmicks.
But the real harm is being caused by Jeremy Bamber. He is the predator, the CT are his prey. I imagine some of them work flat out; or did - until he drained them of everything they had. I also imagine they are doing a lot of what they are doing, not only based on their initiative but on the the subtle, and not so subtle clues Bamber will be making to them. They are his puppets, as I once was. They are supply, nothing more nothing less.
Jeremy Bamber is NOT Simon Hall
Craig described the blood as dried and cracked with proves she hadn't JUST died.
I can never understand why no one tested what actually could be heard from outside that house . If she had been alive when the police arrived could she have laid down on the bedroom floor and shot herself without being heard from outside? It's all speculation to say yes or no because like the window farce as far as I know it was never proven either way to the jury .
The only proof you have about Jeremy's mental illness is that he is guilty in the eyes of the law. Or has he had a definitive medical diagnosis from someone who has actually met him?
A personality disorder is not a mental illness; neither is psychopathy!
I would say that psychopathy,personality disorder, narcissism,etc all form part of an abnormality of the brain particularly during development and teenage years.
If the mother is of a nervous or neurotic disposition then chances are the child will become the same.Environmental conditions/situations can alter the whole structure of the brain.
There are many " for instances " connected to the above.
In MY opinion,those named, ARE mental illnesses as sooner or later those persons have to have some form of treatment.
MY GOD!!!! So you'd take the country back to the days of Matthew Hopkins, would you? How would YOU like it if it was decided to put a name to your personality because it was perceived as being truculent/ difficult/non conformist, and it was believed necessary to give you personality changing drugs? It's the modern day version of hunting down witches.
I would say that psychopathy,personality disorder, narcissism,etc all form part of an abnormality of the brain particularly during development and teenage years.
If the mother is of a nervous or neurotic disposition then chances are the child will become the same.Environmental conditions/situations can alter the whole structure of the brain.
There are many " for instances " connected to the above.
In MY opinion,those named, ARE mental illnesses as sooner or later those persons have to have some form of treatment.
Treatment with what?
Back to E.C.T. again, Caroline.......................or perhaps ducking or even burning?
Full of drama and lame excuses as per.
Jeremy Bamber's latest blog should be titled Sentimentality: The Dark Side !!
Beware people; you are being manipulated!
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. 8)
One has to know someone PERSONALLY before carrying out/reading any psychological assessment/ research on that person.
Apparently not. Doctors are now giving diagnoses over the phone.
What next,Mediums ? How on earth can a diagnosis be made over the phone ? Would you like to be diagnosed in this way,Honestly ??
Possibly! I may not like the idea of it, but if I couldn't get to see the doctor, it may be better than nothing if I was in need. No doubt over phone diagnoses will be coming to a surgery near you, soon!!!
One has to know someone PERSONALLY before carrying out/reading any psychological assessment/ research on that person.
You don't have to know them personally, but you do require some interaction. However, to have an opinion on a mass murderer's personality where quite a lot of information about them is readily available, you don't need such interaction.
I beg to differ. Police in the States painted the blackest picture of a guy who was released from Death Row after 20 years of incarceration there-------the guy was awaiting the electric chair for the alleged rape and murder of a woman and only for DNA taken years after his arrest,was it found that the man,Nick Yarris,had been innocent.
And?
Does it not go to prove that the arm of the law aren't always right ? Even in murder cases !!
Apparently not. Doctors are now giving diagnoses over the phone.
I didn't say hey were always right and don't believe they are. However, I do believe Jeremy is guilty and shares many traits synonymous with psychopathy.
There are lots of people who share the same traits who are NOT psychopaths !
It depends on how many of the traits they share.
There are lots of people who share the same traits who are NOT psychopaths !
What are they then Lookout?
How would you describe someone who shares the same traits as a psychopath?
https://www.sott.net/article/268449-Empathic-people-are-natural-targets-for-sociopaths-protect-yourself
I remember well the "hangers-on" from 2013; especially those people who refused to accept SH's guilt.
The Emperor's New Clothes
In The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson, two weavers promise the emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those who are stupid and unfit for their positions.
When the emperor parades before his subjects, all the adults, not wishing to be seen in a negative light, pretend they can see the clothes. The only truthful person is a child who cries "But he isn't wearing any clothes!".
The boy in the tale represents those who see the problem behavior for what it is and find the courage of their convictions to make a stand. Sight becomes insight, which turns into action.
I wouldn't know what the tests conducted in prison consist of to say definitively that Bamber was a psychopath. I think he experienced a feeling of alienation from an early age and when Brambles the dog died learned to shut off his feelings from the outside world. He and Sheila may or may not have contributed to June's second breakdown in 1982; both were financially secure but emotionally neglected, craving hugs from their partners and the need to feel reassurance that they were both wanted. In my view it's impossible to say whether both were bad, mad or just sad.
He doesn't get tested for psychopathy regularly Steve.Those tests seem pretty easy to circumvent anyhow.
It depends on how many of the traits they share.
You just have to read these questions and from what we know about Jeremy, I think he would score pretty high (although it's not an actual diagnosis test) http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/psychopathy.htm
He doesn't get tested for psychopathy regularly Steve.
SH did tests like this before he confessed. Following his confession he stated he was a possible psychopath.
I have no doubts that Bamber is a classic psychopath. It's possible he was damaged long before he was adopted. It's also possible genetics were a factor.
I would say enough for them to be " on the border ". There's no turning back either,just progressiveness.
Those tests seem pretty easy to circumvent anyhow.They aren't, they ask the same question in many different ways. There are a lot of questions but only certain ones are relevant and they are hidden in between.
Research suggests intervention may help an individual who presents with traits of a personality disorder in early adulthood. Therefore I do not agree with your belief that there is no turning back. It often depends on environmental factors.
Do we know if a visit to A&E was in order after this head injury ?
Do we know if a visit to A&E was in order after this head injury ?
They aren't, they ask the same question in many different ways. There are a lot of questions but only certain ones are relevant and they are hidden in between.
There is a lot of research into positive reinforcement. But diagnosis needs to be in early childhood.
no idea
Because as you know,it would have depended upon the severity of the injury as to whether a hospital visit was needed. If not,then it would have been amongst the normal bumps and bruises that a toddler collects along the way.
Also the age of the child too because if under one year old,the skull is still soft enough to buffer a bump.
I haven't read about anything having been made of it,which leads me to believe that it wasn't a worry.
Why would he need to be? It seems, from what we're told that his behaviours, since his conviction, have been relatively consistent, so it's hardly a matter for concern what psych label is attached to him, or indeed, any OTHER prisoner. Think of the expense in regularly testing numerous prisoners. Different thing if a sudden change occurs in their behaviours.
I'm not convinced Bamber has had a thorough and proper psychopathy test. I'm of the strong opinion the forensic psychologist who assessed him based his assessment on Bamber's claims of innocence. SH was tested for a personality disorder in 2008, based on his claims of innocence and passed with flying colours.
Did the Bambers ever do NHS?
agreed
however even if he is one it doesn't make him guilty. It's been pointed out several times that many people have it .
During the trial it didn't seem to be an issue they were concerned about so I'm not sure why it is on this forum.
NHS and Private work together. Well consultants do both, and overflows from NHS are sent to private hospitals.
Even if the head injury had warranted a hospital visit,we'd have heard about it before now.
We have heard about the head injury.
I know we've heard about the injury,but where from and by whom ? Any medical reports about it ?
You write to Jeremy, ask him.
No problem,I will do.
https://www.sott.net/article/268449-Empathic-people-are-natural-targets-for-sociopaths-protect-yourself
"The apath. We call those who collude in the sport of the sociopath apathetic, or apaths. In this situation, it means a lack of concern or being indifferent to the targeted person.
Apaths are an integral part of the sociopath's arsenal and contribute to sociopathic abuse. Sociopaths have an uncanny knack of knowing who will assist them in bringing down the person they are targeting. It is not necessarily easy to identify an apath; in other circumstances, an apath can show ample empathy and concern for others - just not in this case. The one attribute an apath must have is a link to the target.
How apaths, who might otherwise be fair-minded people, become involved in such destructive business is not hard to understand, but it can be hard to accept. The main qualifying attribute is poor judgment resulting from lack of insight. They might be jealous of or angry at the target, and thus have something to gain from the evolving situation.
At other times, the apath might not want to see the 'bad' in someone, particularly if the sociopath is useful. Or they might choose not to see because they have enough on their plate and do not possess the wherewithal or moral courage to help the targeted person at that time. Usually, be it active or passive involvement, the apath's conscience appears to fall asleep. It is this scenario that causes people blindly to follow leaders motivated only by self-interest.
Apathy is an avoidance strategy.
Apaths are often fearful people. They are the ones most likely to go with the flow, to agree that the emperor/empress is wearing new clothes. They might also fail to perceive the threat: a danger is of no importance if you deny its existence.
An apath's response to a sociopath's call to arms can then result from a state of 'learned helplessness'.
Apaths behave defenselessly because they want to avoid unpleasant or harmful circumstances [including the sociopath turning on them].
Nothing blind about me. Nor do I persist in making remarks toward those who see him guilty !
I think their main concern was whether he was guilty or not. Being a psychopath wasn't something the court was looking for - however, it's a stretch too far to say that he might be a psychopath but could still be innocent? I think he's a psychopath because only someone with that kind of personality disorder could kill 5 people and still play the innocent victim.
well I suppose if I thought he was a 100% percent guilty I might agree with you but I have my doubts so can't.
That's fine.
I'm just watching a documentary about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, it's a new look at the cse. One of the officers who was in charge on the morning she was discovered said "Virtually every staged murder case that I have seen, the perpetrator manipulates the arrival of friends or other family members who are then put into a situation where they actually discover the body or they are with the perpetrator who the body is discovered". Sound familiar?
That's fine.I might agree with the theory but the JonBenet murder scene wasn't staged. Her father discovered the body and a stun gun had been used in a kidnapping gone wrong.
I'm just watching a documentary about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, it's a new look at the cse. One of the officers who was in charge on the morning she was discovered said "Virtually every staged murder case that I have seen, the perpetrator manipulates the arrival of friends or other family members who are then put into a situation where they actually discover the body or they are with the perpetrator who the body is discovered". Sound familiar?
I might agree with the theory but the JonBenet murder scene wasn't staged. Her father discovered the body and a stun gun had been used in a kidnapping gone wrong.
That's fine.
I'm just watching a documentary about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, it's a new look at the cse. One of the officers who was in charge on the morning she was discovered said "Virtually every staged murder case that I have seen, the perpetrator manipulates the arrival of friends or other family members who are then put into a situation where they actually discover the body or they are with the perpetrator who the body is discovered". Sound familiar?
That's fine.Spotted that as well Caroline, I thought they ruled out the stun gun? It didn't leave the same marks and the gap between marks wasn't the same distance? They said the marks was made by the child's train track prongs? The DNA on the knickers was micro and could have come from when they were packaged? The flash light matched the skull injury and proved it left the same indentation when tested on a skull. Like they said, why leave a ransom note when she is dead in the house.
I'm just watching a documentary about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, it's a new look at the cse. One of the officers who was in charge on the morning she was discovered said "Virtually every staged murder case that I have seen, the perpetrator manipulates the arrival of friends or other family members who are then put into a situation where they actually discover the body or they are with the perpetrator who the body is discovered". Sound familiar?
Spotted that as well Caroline, I thought they ruled out the stun gun? It didn't leave the same marks and the gap between marks wasn't the same distance? They said the marks was made by the child's train track prongs? The DNA on the knickers was micro and could have come from when they were packaged? The flash light matched the skull injury and proved it left the same indentation when tested on a skull. Like they said, why leave a ransom note when she is dead in the house.
They did rule out the stun gun, it was just a theory. I agree about the note - why leave another piece of evidence behind? The cobwebs were interesting!They did not. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682467/Evidence%20of%20a%20Stun%20Gun
They did not. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682467/Evidence%20of%20a%20Stun%20GunHi Steve, we are on about the panel of experts on the recent documentary on channel 4
Hi Steve, we are on about the panel of experts on the recent documentary on channel 4Well I watched that as well. I must have missed the relevant part.
Well I watched that as well. I must have missed the relevant part.They said it wasn't a stun gun, they tested one on someone and it didn't leave the same marks and the distance wasn't the same, they lined the marks up with a child's train set track that was on the floor at the time. He proved this was used after she was dead because it punctured the skin but no blood had seeped out as if they had prodded her with it to see if she was alive?
They said it wasn't a stun gun, they tested one on someone and it didn't leave the same marks and the distance wasn't the same, they lined the marks up with a child's train set track that was on the floor at the time. He proved this was used after she was dead because it punctured the skin but no blood had seeped out as if they had prodded her with it to see if she was alive?Yes I remember now. They'd better be careful though or Burke will make another (financial) killing.
Yes I remember now. They'd better be careful though or Burke will make another (financial) killing.Yes he's wanting 750 million dollars from cbs.
They did not. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682467/Evidence%20of%20a%20Stun%20Gun