Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Stephanie on January 06, 2017, 10:48:AM
-
Do you also accept We all know Julie is a competent liar
What I accept is Julie has been subjected to decades of abuse because of her involvement with Jeremy Bamber, as indeed have others, and this abuse has been rationalised by many in order to support there agendas. There has been much suggestion of her complicity into the murders which leaves me questioning why these suggestions are made in the first place.
Many people are unaware of the consequences of abusive partners in romantic relationships nor of the strategies employed by these abusers. Julie Mugford's witness statements clearly also demonstrates Bamber's strategies of entrapment and control and thankfully the police recognised this when she finally came forward. They are to be congratulated for this aspect of their investigations, not condemned imo.
She was not a scorned women as some have suggested she was a victim of psychological torture. There is a vast difference between the two.
And because of what she had been subjected to by Bamber it is understandable why she made the odd one or two mistakes whilst giving live evidence.
-
Let's see if this thread in particular appeals to those forum members who appear to lack the insight in relation to some of the posts they make regarding my experiences.
-
"What researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in much of the world now appreciate is that the significance of physical and sexual violence in male partner abuse derives from their role as part of an ongoing and multi-faceted strategy to subordinate women. This strategy is designed to deprive women of their autonomy, dignity, and their basic rights and resources; extends over time and through social space via various forms of surveillance, harassment, and stalking; and encompasses a range of tactics that hurt women, make them afraid, isolate them, and subject them to what the Council of Europe has called “arbitrary violations of liberty.”
See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2016/04/from-domestic-violence-to-coercive-control/#sthash.U7YhpMb4.dpuf
Though this excerpt doesn't make it clear, these strategies can also apply to women who have been psychological abused.
-
"Men use a range of techniques to achieve coercive control. One of the most valuable
and commonly used techniques is the disguise. This means that men will behave and
present one way when abusing the woman in private (a terroriser), and very differently
when in public, at work or socialising (a charmer). This ability to put on a disguise not
only prevents people detecting his abuse but also acts to confuse and isolate the woman
further. She thinks, ‘maybe there’s something wrong with me because he’s acting so
nice with them.’ In fact in social situations he is cleverly able to act both as a respectable
member of society while sending secret intimidating signals to the woman that only
she will understand.
https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/From_violence_to_coercive_control_Fisher_2011.pdf
This is exactly how I perceive Jeremy Bamber.
Statistics suggests an abuser is 60-80% more likely to use coercive control over a partner as opposed to physical assault which is 20 - 40% more likely
So whilst it has been suggested Jeremy Bamber hasn't presented with examples of physical violence, which I disagree with, he has displayed high levels of coercive control.
Many people have questioned why Julie Mugford stayed with Jeremy Bamber for as long as she did and why she didn't go to the police sooner. The answers to these questions are complex but again can be explained in terms of the coercive control she had been subjected to by Bamber, much of which would have been invisible to outsiders looking in.
The following book is a worthwhile read imo:
https://books.google.co.uk/booksid=8h0TDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=entrapment+strategies+and+coercive+control&source=bl&ots=waeK7jzB-O&sig=VyCL7uQrexUOqZhHk4eCqqSqTn0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1kN62rq3RAhUDIcAKHYyNA50Q6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q=entrapment%20strategies%20and%20coercive%20control&f=false
-
" Decades of abuse ?" Where ? How,when he's been locked-up ? It's JB who's being abuse by being locked-up for years----------for NOTHING.
-
" Decades of abuse ?" Where ? How,when he's been locked-up ? It's JB who's being abuse by being locked-up for years----------for NOTHING.
Julie Mugford murdered no one yet people are still abusing her 30 years on for having giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber. Therefore indirectly she is still being abused by Bamber.
Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of mass murder in a court of law, therefore in your opinion he is allegedly innocent. He isn't allegedly guilty.
He is allegedly being abused for nothing in your eyes.
Did you know Lookout that coercive control is the most widespread and devastating strategy men use to dominate women in personal life?
-
Julie Mugford murdered no one yet people are still abusing her 30 years on for having giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber. Therefore indirectly she is still being abused by Bamber.
Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of mass murder in a court of law, therefore in your opinion he is allegedly innocent. He isn't allegedly guilty.
He is allegedly being abused for nothing in your eyes.
Did you know Lookout that coercive control is the most widespread and devastating strategy men use to dominate women in personal life?
I wonder Steph, when Bamber got Julie to assist with the Robbery it was part of his strategy to control Julie? This could be why he confessed to Julie about the murders, he thought that he had a hold over her regarding this and the cheque book fraud?
-
Julie Mugford murdered no one yet people are still abusing her 30 years on for having giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber. Therefore indirectly she is still being abused by Bamber.
Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of mass murder in a court of law, therefore in your opinion he is allegedly innocent. He isn't allegedly guilty.
He is allegedly being abused for nothing in your eyes.
Did you know Lookout that coercive control is the most widespread and devastating strategy men use to dominate women in personal life?
I wouldn't know about coercive control in men,personally,but I do know that a woman HAS to be the instigator of a man having coercive control. Behind every man,there is a " she who must be obeyed ",or else. Takes two to tango and all that.
BTW,I'm no feminist either and will ALWAYS look at both sides when it comes to tale-telling.
-
I wouldn't know about coercive control in men,personally,but I do know that a woman HAS to be the instigator of a man having coercive control. Behind every man,there is a " she who must be obeyed ",or else. Takes two to tango and all that.
BTW,I'm no feminist either and will ALWAYS look at both sides when it comes to tale-telling.
You clearly know nothing and are showing ignorance.
Just not both sides when it comes to Jeremy Bamber because you made your mind up 30 odd years ago that he was innocent and no one is going to change your mind. Even the man himself if he confessed. Yes we know Lookout. ::)
-
You clearly know nothing and are showing ignorance.
Just not both sides when it comes to Jeremy Bamber because you made your mind up 30 odd years ago that he was innocent and no one is going to change your mind. Even the man himself if he confessed. Yes we know Lookout. ::)
How do you know that I " know nothing ?" Stop being so bloody rude.
-
What I accept is Julie has been subjected to decades of abuse because of her involvement with Jeremy Bamber, as indeed have others, and this abuse has been rationalised by many in order to support there agendas. There has been much suggestion of her complicity into the murders which leaves me questioning why these suggestions are made in the first place.
Many people are unaware of the consequences of abusive partners in romantic relationships nor of the strategies employed by these abusers. Julie Mugford's witness statements clearly also demonstrates Bamber's strategies of entrapment and control and thankfully the police recognised this when she finally came forward. They are to be congratulated for this aspect of their investigations, not condemned imo.
She was not a scorned women as some have suggested she was a victim of psychological torture. There is a vast difference between the two.
And because of what she had been subjected to by Bamber it is understandable why she made the odd one or two mistakes whilst giving live evidence.
[/b]
She also lied in her statements to the police which is a crime.
-
[/b]
She also lied in her statements to the police which is a crime.
What did she lie about. List what you think it is she lied about.
-
" Odd one or two mistakes ?" There was a barrage of them.Pity she " blubbered " all through her questioning by the defense or you'd have heard a few more. Those crocodile tears were well-timed !!
-
" Odd one or two mistakes ?" There was a barrage of them.Pity she " blubbered " all through her questioning by the defense or you'd have heard a few more. Those crocodile tears were well-timed !!
If they had been crocodile tears the jury would have noticed. The reason she cried was because it was clearly a traumatising experience for her.
The barrage of mistakes you refer were made by Jeremy and that is why he is where he is now. The reason he remains after so long is because all arguments put forward have been weak, and get weaker still with the passage of time.
-
If they had been crocodile tears the jury would have noticed. The reason she cried was because it was clearly a traumatising experience for her.
The barrage of mistakes you refer were made by Jeremy and that is why he is where he is now. The reason he remains after so long is because all arguments put forward have been weak, and get weaker still with the passage of time.
Nearly as traumatising as receiving a cheque for £25,000 ?
-
What did she lie about. List what you think it is she lied about.
Well, if he is guilty [which he obviously is NOT] then she lied about what he said on the phone on the night of the murders. 'There's something wrong at the farm and he didn't know what to do'. If he is innocent, the rest of her statements were a total crock. It then became 'Everything is going well, there's something wrong at the farm'. A totally contradictory statement.
-
Then she dragged in an innocent man on the say-so that JB had mentioned him--MM.
-
Its has already been established that Julies testimony came from the police and the relatives.
Threads already created.
Why Rivlin QC rightly told the jury to dismiss Julie Mugfords testimony -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.msg356435.html#msg356435 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.msg356435.html#msg356435)
Proof Julie got information from Ann Eaton and not Jeremy -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667)
-
Well, if he is guilty [which he obviously is NOT] then she lied about what he said on the phone on the night of the murders. 'There's something wrong at the farm and he didn't know what to do'. If he is innocent, the rest of her statements were a total crock. It then became 'Everything is going well, there's something wrong at the farm'. A totally contradictory statement.
I believe it's highly likely he did say both to her. She was merely the messenger of the message. He knew if she repeated what he'd said it was unlikely she would be believed. Thankfully the police eventually recognised Julie was a victim of psychological manipulation at the hands of Bamber.
That's one of the ways men like him confuse their victims. It a mind control tactic. It helps them to deplete their victim of reality. What is left behind is cognitive dissonance. Holding 2 conflicting thoughts.
She most possible also suffered something akin to stockholm syndrome.
-
Its has already been established that Julies testimony came from the police and the relatives.
Threads already created.
Why Rivlin QC rightly told the jury to dismiss Julie Mugfords testimony -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.msg356435.html#msg356435 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.msg356435.html#msg356435)
Proof Julie got information from Ann Eaton and not Jeremy -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667)
Only by you and your circular argument.
-
Only by you and your circular argument.
Yep.
-
Only by you and your circular argument.
Steph, I think other posters have also reached the same conclusion, separate from and prior to David posting on this form. One example being Martin.
-
Steph, I think other posters have also reached the same conclusion, separate from and prior to David posting on this form. One example being Martin.
You'll have to remind me Roch as I don't recall Martin.
Davids argues Julie lied "Its has already been established that Julies testimony came from the police and the relatives. this is his interpretation based on what I believe are blinkered and cherry picked arguments of the case. Also based on his post,s are his inconsistencies regarding where he stands, he doesn't seem sure. Which convinces me he still has a lot to learn.
What also stands out to me in David's posts from when he joined is that he was too quick to blame Julie, almost suggestive that he was showing bias too soon, as if he too had been betrayed, like he perceived Bamber to have been, by a women.
I remember he quoted some barrister and it seemed as if he has hung on to these words and run with them.
-
Only by you and your circular argument.
Really? Just me? ::)
"There was other evidence from a former girlfriend of Jeremy Bamber, but this was highly factually inaccurate and tainted by both an immunity from prosecution and the receipt of reward money on conviction from a newspaper. It was discredited evidence and the Judge in fact warned the jury in relation to it." - David Martin-Sperry
"The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"" - Rivlin QC
"Clearly, Miss Mugford's testimony was nothing more than a collection of invented newspaper stories, much of which held no credibility whatsoever, and were clearly untrue not only by newspapers and by Miss Mugford, but also put forward by her with the collusion of others". -James Stevenson
-
You'll have to remind me Roch as I don't recall Martin.
Davids argues Julie lied "Its has already been established that Julies testimony came from the police and the relatives. this is his interpretation based on what I believe are blinkered and cherry picked arguments of the case. Also based on his post,s are his inconsistencies regarding where he stands, he doesn't seem sure. Which convinces me he still has a lot to learn.
If that was the case you would be able to follow the case evidence and provide a counter argument based on that evidence. Yet you don't. Prove me wrong, prove that Julie did in fact provide factual evidence that only the alleged murder could possibly know. You can't because there is no such testimony. You have no evidence to prove Julie is a credible witness, but want to pretend she is credible so you just claim she is credible. That just illustrates you are a xxxxx
-
Really? Just me? ::)
"There was other evidence from a former girlfriend of Jeremy Bamber, but this was highly factually inaccurate and tainted by both an immunity from prosecution and the receipt of reward money on conviction from a newspaper. It was discredited evidence and the Judge in fact warned the jury in relation to it." - David Martin-Sperry This was clearly made after Bamber's trial - The clue being, the jury believed her
"The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"" - Rivlin QC The jury didn't believe it though David
"Clearly, Miss Mugford's testimony was nothing more than a collection of invented newspaper stories, much of which held no credibility whatsoever, and were clearly untrue not only by newspapers and by Miss Mugford, but also put forward by her with the collusion of others". -James Stevenson Maybe you should be reminded of how Jeremy told police he learned the details of how his father died from newspapers. Julie's evidence shows clearly only Bamber could have told her most of what she recalled.
Following my own experiences of being accused of making up SH's confession and having read not dissimilar statements to those above, also by supposed experts in their field; these can be dismissed in the same way as those from 2013 re SH's confession
-
Really? Just me? ::)
"Clearly, Miss Mugford's testimony was nothing more than a collection of invented newspaper stories, much of which held no credibility whatsoever, and were clearly untrue not only by newspapers and by Miss Mugford, but also put forward by her with the collusion of others". -James Stevenson
You still can't see it can you David.
It was Bamber who brought this up during his interviews with police. He told them he had read in the papers his father had been shot..
More importantly, it was Bamber's collection of invented stories and indeed his convoluted mind that got him banged to rights! He was the abuser not Julie!!
We know he didn't learn anything from the newspapers about how his father died because it was he who murdered him!
There were too many finer details in Julie's statements to have come from AE and the papers. Her contradictions strengthen her evidence, not weaken it.
Who are James Stevenson and David Martin-Perry btw?
-
If that was the case you would be able to follow the case evidence and provide a counter argument based on that evidence. Yet you don't. Prove me wrong, prove that Julie did in fact provide factual evidence that only the alleged murder could possibly know. You can't because there is no such testimony. You have no evidence to prove Julie is a credible witness, but want to pretend she is credible so you just claim she is credible. That just illustrates you are a xxxxx.
Stop insulting me David or I will put you back on ignore.
If you want a further counter argument to your apparent bias, maybe you should read up on Dr Jane Monckton Smith, who is an expert in the field of homicide. In particular domestic type murders, like the WHF murders.
Her research is extensive as indeed are her experiencess and she states the perps of these crimes are almost always male.
-
Julie Mugford had a lucky escape with her life. I feel certain had she not have not gone to the police when she did, Bamber may have tried to kill her too, because she knew too much and clearly in the end wasn't playing ball.
"And the most risky situation is when several factors collide. These include the psychology of the perpetrator.
Are they showing traits of obsessive behaviour? Are they making threats to kill or potentially lethally assault, such as threatened strangulation.
If these psychological factors combine with a 'trigger', the situation becomes potentially fatal.
"The trigger is nearly always the victim wanting to leave the abuser," said Jane.
All too often there has been a failure to understand why it is so hard for victims to leave an abusive relationship.
Jane said: "The quick answer is that she doesn't have a choice.
"They have a very real fear that they will be killed. She needs a safety plan and support network around her and that might mean providing housing and a safety plan around children.
"Quite often an abuser will have taken their money or their ability to get money.
"You can't just expect a woman to leave. It's not that simple. Imagine having a very real fear of this person chasing after you. These abusers are at the most dangerous when you leave.
"They exert a huge amount of control on that person so they don't have the choice to leave, that's not love."
Read more at http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/university-gloucestershire-criminologist-aims/story-27872828-detail/story.html#3xgU6Vr6Bfl1KXqR.99
-
Stop telling the truth David,or you'll go on ignore !!
-
Stop insulting me David or I will put you back on ignore.
If you want a further counter argument to your apparent bias, maybe you should read up on Dr Jane Monckton Smith, who is an expert in the field of homicide. In particular domestic type murders, like the WHF murders.
Her research is extensive as indeed are her experiencess and she states the perps of these crimes are almost always male.
Bamber didn't tell Julie the full story, he invented a hit man, which is why her story started with that. No one else spoke of a hit man, only Julie and this is where her evidence differs from anyone else.
-
Bamber didn't tell Julie the full story, he invented a hit man, which is why her story started with that. No one else spoke of a hit man, only Julie and this is where her evidence differs from anyone else.
I totally agree Caroline.
Her evidence was accepted by the jury therefore why David keeps quoting from the trial I don't know. And his burden of proof rubbish is pointless. It was proven in a court of law Jeremy was lying. Meaning any doubt was erased.
-
If that was the case you would be able to follow the case evidence and provide a counter argument based on that evidence. Yet you don't. Prove me wrong, prove that Julie did in fact provide factual evidence that only the alleged murder could possibly know. You can't because there is no such testimony. You have no evidence to prove Julie is a credible witness, but want to pretend she is credible so you just claim she is credible. That just illustrates you are a clown.
A glove came off in the fight with Nevill.
-
A glove came off in the fight with Nevill.
And the evidence given during his police interviews supports he was wearing gloves.
I'm not going to type it word for word and post it up. It's in the interviews when he's asked about wearing gloves when he went to allegedly shoot the rabbits.
He slipped up yet again....
His fingerprints weren't found on the gun yet he'd picked it up, loaded it blah blah..
-
A glove came off in the fight with Nevill.
Was the glove ever tested/exhibited,etc ? Or is that a daft question ?
-
Was the glove ever tested/exhibited,etc ? Or is that a daft question ?
Daft question
-
A glove came off in the fight with Nevill.
Is him saying that of any real significance? That could never be determined either way. It seems like a detail that Bamber might include to add detail - nothing more.
-
Is him saying that of any real significance? That could never be determined either way. It seems like a detail that Bamber might include to add detail - nothing more.
It's most probably true imo
-
It's most probably true imo
It may or may nor be but either way, it couldn't be be proven.
-
Is him saying that of any real significance? That could never be determined either way. It seems like a detail that Bamber might include to add detail - nothing more.
The point is that Julie included it in her statement as well as the Matthew McDonald story. Why embellish when you have a blockbuster story to begin with?
-
The point is that Julie included it in her statement as well as the Matthew McDonald story. Why embellish when you have a blockbuster story to begin with?
I don't think 'she' did. He did.
-
I don't think 'she' did. He did.
Who is he?
-
What's to stop a woman from wearing a glove to protect her nails ? Perhaps that's why her manicure appeared pristine ??
-
Who is he?
Jeremy!
-
What's to stop a woman from wearing a glove to protect her nails ? Perhaps that's why her manicure appeared pristine ??
So Jeremy would know that one of Sheila's gloves came off and add it to his story for Julie? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What's to stop a woman from wearing a glove to protect her nails ? Perhaps that's why her manicure appeared pristine ??
I know, but surely Sheila has to be in psychosis for this scenario to have any plausibility, synonymous with the incident at Moreshead Mansions when the doctor was called, the fondness for relating the Jeremy-is-innocent brigade knows no bounds
-
What's to stop a woman from wearing a glove to protect her nails ? Perhaps that's why her manicure appeared pristine ??
Why protect your nails when you're going to kill yourself?
-
So Jeremy would know that one of Sheila's gloves came off and add it to his story for Julie? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Always supposing that Sheila's hands were clean and her nails had been perfect,she must have worn gloves ?? Isn't that right ? Sheila had been perfectly clean ? You said so yourself.
-
Always supposing that Sheila's hands were clean and her nails had been perfect,she must have worn gloves ?? Isn't that right ? Sheila had been perfectly clean ? You said so yourself.
Where have I posted that Sheila's hands were clean? ;D ;D ;D ;D - I think you'll find that I have said the OPPOSITE! What I said was is that she had no evidence of having shot 25 shots at 4 different victims.
-
Why protect your nails when you're going to kill yourself?
Because she wanted to look her best.
-
Where have I posted that Sheila's hands were clean? ;D ;D ;D ;D - I think you'll find that I have said the OPPOSITE! What I said was is that she had no evidence of having shot 25 shots at 4 different victims.
Nails perfect ?
-
Because she wanted to look her best.
:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ speechless...
-
:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ speechless...
Ha Ha and someone said my post was pathetic.
-
Didn't some bright spark talk about ritual cleansing,etc before death ?
Why aren't you all laughing at the character who'd said that ??
-
After the murders, Julie said Jeremy had never spent money like it before and when he went to the bank to with drawer the wages he kept money back for himself, meaning some of the farm workers didn't get the full amount.
Does anyone know where the bank records are?
And what farm workers weren't paid the full amount. Do we have the statements of these farm workers.
Julie confirms all Jeremy was interested in was money. Seems some things never change.
-
Nails perfect ?
I'm not obsessed with Sheila's nails - wrong person Lookout!
-
He told me he had a mental problem and felt no guilt at all
Why are his supporters ignoring this?
This didn't come from any news paper or relative.
These are the words of someone with psychopathy.
-
He asked me to promise not to kill myself
I told him I would like him to feel some of the things I was feeling
I felt sorry for him and I still loved him
I tried to mother him as I felt sorry and assured him I would never do anything to hurt him
-
He told me he had a mental problem and felt no guilt at all
Why are his supporters ignoring this?
This didn't come from any news paper or relative.
These are the words of someone with psychopathy.
This article sums Jeremy Bamber up http://neuroinstincts.com/violent-psychopaths-and-crime/
"Many psychopaths like to be seen in a positive light, even after they have committed heinous acts and caused considerable harm to their victims.
Impression management and image come before any consideration or concern is extended towards their anti-social behavior. There victim is never given consideration.
Which can be seen in the way he behaved following the murders, at the funerals and how he continues to attempt to portray himself to his supporters
Damaging the reputation of another is of no concern to someone with psychopathy. It serves to put the fault on someone else, which they view as successful manipulation and reinforces that they are smarter than all involved (eg: police, non psychopathic partner, attorney). Additionally the process of deception and duping is stimulating and pleasurable.
He attempted to damage the reputation of Julie Mugford and indeed the relatives, not forgetting the police.
-
"Even after taking the life of another, psychopathic individuals will not tolerate blame for their behavior. They engage in egregious deception to avoid responsibility (eg: create people or scenarios that do not exist). They may even blame the non psychopathic partner, innocent people, and/or claim that they are in fact the victim.
The hitman story as told to Julie.
Blaming an innocent Sheila for his crimes
The Jeremy Bamber campaign allows him to play the victim, and hide behind a veil or normalcy; of which he is not!
-
After the murders, Julie said Jeremy had never spent money like it before and when he went to the bank to with drawer the wages he kept money back for himself, meaning some of the farm workers didn't get the full amount.
Does anyone know where the bank records are?
And what farm workers weren't paid the full amount. Do we have the statements of these farm workers.
Julie confirms all Jeremy was interested in was money. Seems some things never change.
Len Foakes was one of them - he was short by £100.00
-
JB did NOT initially blame Sheila because he had no idea of the extent of her mental issues. What he understood later was that which had been " fed " to him by those whose limited knowledge,blamed schizophrenia,instead of its cause. One doesn't suddenly develop schizophrenia.
I would hazard a guess that JB got the shock of his life after reading about the traumatic and tumultuous life that Sheila had endured that brought about her mental illness. Sheila was on a downward spiral. Anyone with half an eye could have seen that. Her friends,particularly when they'd remarked on how different she'd looked,scary and staring,since her final hospital visit.
JB has never seen himself as the victim,it's others who've added that " he too is a victim ". He certainly hasn't come across as a " feel sorry for me " person,of which there are many,but I wouldn't class them ALL as being psychopaths. I can't be doing with these sort of people either ( sympathy seekers )
-
Len Foakes was one of them - he was short by £100.00
Thanks Caroline.
This supports the fact he was criminally versatile and his only interest as Julie recognised and said in her statement was MONEY. All those people in his life were mere objects. Just as they are today.
I'll take another look at the statement.
When Jeremy was arrested at the airport, did he have anything illegal on him? And does anyone know where I will find his arrest/custody records?
-
JB did NOT initially blame Sheila because he had no idea of the extent of her mental issues. What he understood later was that which had been " fed " to him by those whose limited knowledge,blamed schizophrenia,instead of its cause. One doesn't suddenly develop schizophrenia.
I would hazard a guess that JB got the shock of his life after reading about the traumatic and tumultuous life that Sheila had endured that brought about her mental illness. Sheila was on a downward spiral. Anyone with half an eye could have seen that. Her friends,particularly when they'd remarked on how different she'd looked,scary and staring,since her final hospital visit.
JB has never seen himself as the victim,it's others who've added that " he too is a victim ". He certainly hasn't come across as a " feel sorry for me " person,of which there are many,but I wouldn't class them ALL as being psychopaths. I can't be doing with these sort of people either ( sympathy seekers )
Yes he did. You are forgetting what he told the police when he phoned them and spoke to them outside the farmhouse that morning. It was Jeremy who planted the seed of doubt...
Thankfully the police saw through the lie!
-
Yes he did. You are forgetting what he told the police when he phoned them and spoke to them outside the farmhouse that morning. It was Jeremy who planted the seed of doubt...
Thankfully the police saw through the lie!
JB blamed the police for killing his family----not Sheila.
-
JB did NOT initially blame Sheila because he had no idea of the extent of her mental issues. What he understood later was that which had been " fed " to him by those whose limited knowledge,blamed schizophrenia,instead of its cause. One doesn't suddenly develop schizophrenia.
I would hazard a guess that JB got the shock of his life after reading about the traumatic and tumultuous life that Sheila had endured that brought about her mental illness. Sheila was on a downward spiral. Anyone with half an eye could have seen that. Her friends,particularly when they'd remarked on how different she'd looked,scary and staring,since her final hospital visit.
JB has never seen himself as the victim,it's others who've added that " he too is a victim ". He certainly hasn't come across as a " feel sorry for me " person,of which there are many,but I wouldn't class them ALL as being psychopaths. I can't be doing with these sort of people either ( sympathy seekers )
Actually, Lookout, he did exactly that when he passed on the alleged message from Nevill, to the police. How so you know what information had been feed him? I don't believe that there's any correlation between sympathy seekers and psychopaths.
-
JB blamed the police for killing his family----not Sheila.
Having previously b lamed her via Nevill's alleged call in which he told police that Sheila had gone mad.........................
-
Having previously b lamed her via Nevill's alleged call in which he told police that Sheila had gone mad.........................
In JB's mind though,not " mad " enough to open fire.It would have been the last thing he'd have thought about,but because of this and because his father had described Sheila as having gone beserk or whatever,it might have prompted JB to have blamed the police if he'd had a picture of someone going mad and the police shooting at her because she too was armed.
-
In JB's mind though,not " mad " enough to open fire.It would have been the last thing he'd have thought about,but because of this and because his father had described Sheila as having gone beserk or whatever,it might have prompted JB to have blamed the police if he'd had a picture of someone going mad and the police shooting at her because she too was armed.
Where are your grounds for thinking that, Lookout? You seem to have become Jeremy's unofficial mouthpiece, so certain are you of what was in his mind at a given time.
-
Where are your grounds for thinking that, Lookout? You seem to have become Jeremy's unofficial mouthpiece, so certain are you of what was in his mind at a given time.
Grounds ? It happens to be how my own mind thinks.
-
Grounds ? It happens to be how my own mind thinks.
Fat lot of use you'd have been to him in court, then.
-
Fat lot of use you'd have been to him in court, then.
Oh,I don't know,as instead of dwelling on him as people do on here,I'd have spread the net wider.
-
Thanks Caroline.
This supports the fact he was criminally versatile and his only interest as Julie recognised and said in her statement was MONEY. All those people in his life were mere objects. Just as they are today.
I'll take another look at the statement.
When Jeremy was arrested at the airport, did he have anything illegal on him? And does anyone know where I will find his arrest/custody records?
Barbara Wilson had counted the money out, gave it to Jeremy to give to Len Foakes and by the time he received it, it was £100.00 short.
No, he didn't have anything illegal on him and I don't think we have his arrest records here. If we have, I haven't seen them.
-
Oh,I don't know,as instead of dwelling on him as people do on here,I'd have spread the net wider.
There are those here with a much less emotional and romanticized view of him than yours, Lookout. Your net is way more (w)holy than righteous.
-
There are those here with a much less emotional and romanticized view of him than yours, Lookout. Your net is way more (w)holy than righteous.
No. I'm straight and to the point,not emotional because it's not my style ( must be the psychopath in me ) romantic I'm not,that's for mugs,and righteous is not a description I'd give myself as there's a time and place for being so,and it's not here.
-
Barbara Wilson had counted the money out, gave it to Jeremy to give to Len Foakes and by the time he received it, it was £100.00 short.
No, he didn't have anything illegal on him and I don't think we have his arrest records here. If we have, I haven't seen them.
So Jeremy got it out of the bank, when Julie was with him, spent money from the wages then passed it to Barbara Wilson for her to pay the workers.. Is that right?
How do we know he didn't have anything illegal on him if we don't have his arrest records? They would have been disclosed, along with his custody records, whilst at the police station.
When SH was arrested he had weed in the house. I have my suspicions that money being sent to Jeremy by his supporters is being used for drugs. There's a chance he deals inside; especially if he did so before he was arrested.
-
No. I'm straight and to the point,not emotional because it's not my style ( must be the psychopath in me ) romantic I'm not,that's for mugs,and righteous is not a description I'd give myself as there's a time and place for being so,and it's not here.
That's not the way you come over at all Lookout.
-
No. I'm straight and to the point,not emotional because it's not my style ( must be the psychopath in me ) romantic I'm not,that's for mugs,and righteous is not a description I'd give myself as there's a time and place for being so,and it's not here.
Lookout, you may tell me you're unemotional until you're blue in the face, but your posts, regarding Jeremy, reveal you to be so.
-
So Jeremy got it out of the bank, when Julie was with him, spent money from the wages then passed it to Barbara Wilson for her to pay the workers.. Is that right?
How do we know he didn't have anything illegal on him if we don't have his arrest records? They would have been disclosed, along with his custody records, whilst at the police station.
When SH was arrested he had weed in the house. I have my suspicions that money being sent to Jeremy by his supporters is being used for drugs. There's a chance he deals inside; especially if he did so before he was arrested.
No, Barbara had counted out LF's wages and put it in the safe - she counted it twice to make sure it was correct. When it was given to LF, it was £100.00 short and PE had to compensate him.
I think if he had had anything illegal on him, we'd have known about it by now.
-
Lookout, you may tell me you're unemotional until you're blue in the face, but your posts, regarding Jeremy, reveal you to be so.
I'm telling you that there's no emotion attached to Jeremy at all. Blimey,my eldest daughter is only 2 weeks younger than him and it's her where my emotions are often focussed,10,000 miles away !
Jeremy is just someone that I'd like to see getting a fair and proper deal via the justice system.
I was the same with Louise Woodward,who I'd felt very strong against her conviction at the time when I even wrote to her parents telling them of my feelings and why I thought she was innocent. That was 1997/8,after returning from Oz.
I was shouted down and verbally abused online during a debate about the McCanns,another in which I felt strongly about regarding their innocence,so abuse has followed me around,dished out by those who always felt it necessary to PROVE themselves right. Empty vessels.
I don't need to use those tactics.
-
I'm telling you that there's no emotion attached to Jeremy at all. Blimey,my eldest daughter is only 2 weeks younger than him and it's her where my emotions are often focussed,10,000 miles away !
Jeremy is just someone that I'd like to see getting a fair and proper deal via the justice system.
I was the same with Louise Woodward,who I'd felt very strong against her conviction at the time when I even wrote to her parents telling them of my feelings and why I thought she was innocent. That was 1997/8,after returning from Oz.
I was shouted down and verbally abused online during a debate about the McCanns,another in which I felt strongly about regarding their innocence,so abuse has followed me around,dished out by those who always felt it necessary to PROVE themselves right. Empty vessels.
I don't need to use those tactics.
Louise Woodward has not been declared innocent. Her guilty conviction still stands. You referred to her as Joanne Woodward in an earlier post
What made you write to her parents?
Do you write to many people in prison Lookout; or have you done over the years?
-
This article sums Jeremy Bamber up http://neuroinstincts.com/violent-psychopaths-and-crime/
"Many psychopaths like to be seen in a positive light, even after they have committed heinous acts and caused considerable harm to their victims.
Impression management and image come before any consideration or concern is extended towards their anti-social behavior. There victim is never given consideration.
Which can be seen in the way he behaved following the murders, at the funerals and how he continues to attempt to portray himself to his supporters
Damaging the reputation of another is of no concern to someone with psychopathy. It serves to put the fault on someone else, which they view as successful manipulation and reinforces that they are smarter than all involved (eg: police, non psychopathic partner, attorney). Additionally the process of deception and duping is stimulating and pleasurable.
He attempted to damage the reputation of Julie Mugford and indeed the relatives, not forgetting the police.
https://twitter.com/JMoncktonSmith/status/817053932006608896/photo/1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04nfr82
"Family killings are on the increase, according to a criminologist at the University of Gloucestershire.
Dr Jane Monckton-Smith's study into domestic homicides suggests that in 95% of cases it men who carry out the acts of violence.
She tells Victoria that in most cases there are warning signs prior to the murders, which if acted upon could save lives.
-
https://twitter.com/JMoncktonSmith/status/817053932006608896/photo/1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04nfr82
"Family killings are on the increase, according to a criminologist at the University of Gloucestershire.
Dr Jane Monckton-Smith's study into domestic homicides suggests that in 95% of cases it men who carry out the acts of violence.
She tells Victoria that in most cases there are warning signs prior to the murders, which if acted upon could save lives.
This is worth listening to imo. I've read a lot of her work and she has a wealth of experience.
It's clear from Julie's evidence and indeed the relatives evidence that there were danger signs.
I am hopeful Jane Monckton Smith exposes what Jeremy Bamber is doing, along with the many other prisoners who are alleging they are victims, when clearly they not.
-
Barbara Wilson had counted the money out, gave it to Jeremy to give to Len Foakes and by the time he received it, it was £100.00 short.
No, he didn't have anything illegal on him and I don't think we have his arrest records here. If we have, I haven't seen them.
Were they paid weekly or monthly ?
-
This is worth listening to imo. I've read a lot of her work and she has a wealth of experience.
It's clear from Julie's evidence and indeed the relatives evidence that there were danger signs.
I am hopeful Jane Monckton Smith exposes what Jeremy Bamber is doing, along with the many other prisoners who are alleging they are victims, when clearly they not.
"There are consistencies in the way this certain group of men behave. Over 95 % of cases are men. Domestic homicides that have extended out. Always planned, never spontaneous
-
I HAVE JUST REMOVED A FEW POSTS AS THEY WERE DIRECTED AT THE POSTER NOT THE THREAD SUBJECT.
CAN YOU KEEP ON SUBJECT PLEASE.
-
I HAVE JUST REMOVED A FEW POSTS AS THEY WERE DIRECTED AT THE POSTER NOT THE THREAD SUBJECT.
CAN YOU KEEP ON SUBJECT PLEASE.
Hi Maggie, there are a few posts from last night that were abusive, directed at me and haven't been removed. You most probably missed them.
-
Louise Woodward has not been declared innocent. Her guilty conviction still stands. You referred to her as Joanne Woodward in an earlier post
What made you write to her parents?
Do you write to many people in prison Lookout; or have you done over the years?
Louise was no murderer. When that baby's skull was x-rayed,one pathologist had said he found a fracture to be an old one and not fitting with the time that the baby had died. The fracture had been present for long enough for the baby to suddenly develop symptoms.
I wrote to her parents on my return from Oz because I'd witnessed an incident which made me think.At the time I was away,my daughter was a child-minder and also had a toddler herself who objected strongly to " these children " coming into his house with his mummy looking after them. The child,my own grandson showed unnatural jealousy and hostility towards the children,which I noticed but my daughter didn't,as it was her son ! As soon as I saw " sly " displays of pinching and kicking,I then offered to take the 6 week old baby out in its pram--------out of the house to be honest.
Anyway,when all the children had gone home,I had a word with my daughter about what I'd seen her youngster doing and she disbelieved me. Each day,I felt very uncomfortable with this g/son of mine around ( who wouldn't even come out with me,he stayed clinging to his mother or creating havoc instead ) One night after the children had left again,their was a knock on the door and it was the father of one of the children.The guy was a cop,both he and his wife worked,and he presented his little girl whose back was bruised all over,and at 3 years of age she was able to say who'd done it.The finger pointed to my g/son who was also 3 at the time and the little girl had said he'd been sitting behind her,kicking her back.
I felt embarrassed and worse because my daughter made excuses that they were all playing and it could have been any one of them,but I knew it was him.
The moral of all this was that the time that Louise was accused,a toddler also lived at the house where she'd stayed. I can't remember the age of the child,another boy,but it had been previously reported that when a nanny went to the house for an interview,this older child started hitting the person who'd gone for the interview. Immediately I thought of another jealous child who'd objected to anyone going near his mother,and then I thought to myself that I wouldn't put it past him to have thrown a toy at the baby at some time and it struck the baby's head.
That's when I wrote to Louise's parents with my theory,because again,I could not picture that young girl doing any harm to either of those children,least of all the baby,but they made such a song and dance in the States that it whipped up a frenzy and resulted in a hate campaign.
I've never written to anyone in prison before,ever.
-
Hi Maggie, there are a few posts from last night that were abusive, directed at me and haven't been removed. You most probably missed them.
i Most probably I did Stephanie. Can you let me know where I'll find them. Thank you
-
Louise was no murderer. When that baby's skull was x-rayed,one pathologist had said he found a fracture to be an old one and not fitting with the time that the baby had died. The fracture had been present for long enough for the baby to suddenly develop symptoms.
I wrote to her parents on my return from Oz because I'd witnessed an incident which made me think.At the time I was away,my daughter was a child-minder and also had a toddler herself who objected strongly to " these children " coming into his house with his mummy looking after them. The child,my own grandson showed unnatural jealousy and hostility towards the children,which I noticed but my daughter didn't,as it was her son ! As soon as I saw " sly " displays of pinching and kicking,I then offered to take the 6 week old baby out in its pram--------out of the house to be honest.
Anyway,when all the children had gone home,I had a word with my daughter about what I'd seen her youngster doing and she disbelieved me. Each day,I felt very uncomfortable with this g/son of mine around ( who wouldn't even come out with me,he stayed clinging to his mother or creating havoc instead ) One night after the children had left again,their was a knock on the door and it was the father of one of the children.The guy was a cop,both he and his wife worked,and he presented his little girl whose back was bruised all over,and at 3 years of age she was able to say who'd done it.The finger pointed to my g/son who was also 3 at the time and the little girl had said he'd been sitting behind her,kicking her back.
I felt embarrassed and worse because my daughter made excuses that they were all playing and it could have been any one of them,but I knew it was him.
The moral of all this was that the time that Louise was accused,a toddler also lived at the house where she'd stayed. I can't remember the age of the child,another boy,but it had been previously reported that when a nanny went to the house for an interview,this older child started hitting the person who'd gone for the interview. Immediately I thought of another jealous child who'd objected to anyone going near his mother,and then I thought to myself that I wouldn't put it past him to have thrown a toy at the baby at some time and it struck the baby's head.
That's when I wrote to Louise's parents with my theory,because again,I could not picture that young girl doing any harm to either of those children,least of all the baby,but they made such a song and dance in the States that it whipped up a frenzy and resulted in a hate campaign.
I've never written to anyone in prison before,ever.
In your opinion she "was no murderer.
Just Jeremy Bamber
-
Louise was no murderer. When that baby's skull was x-rayed,one pathologist had said he found a fracture to be an old one and not fitting with the time that the baby had died. The fracture had been present for long enough for the baby to suddenly develop symptoms.
I wrote to her parents on my return from Oz because I'd witnessed an incident which made me think.At the time I was away,my daughter was a child-minder and also had a toddler herself who objected strongly to " these children " coming into his house with his mummy looking after them. The child,my own grandson showed unnatural jealousy and hostility towards the children,which I noticed but my daughter didn't,as it was her son ! As soon as I saw " sly " displays of pinching and kicking,I then offered to take the 6 week old baby out in its pram--------out of the house to be honest.
Anyway,when all the children had gone home,I had a word with my daughter about what I'd seen her youngster doing and she disbelieved me. Each day,I felt very uncomfortable with this g/son of mine around ( who wouldn't even come out with me,he stayed clinging to his mother or creating havoc instead ) One night after the children had left again,their was a knock on the door and it was the father of one of the children.The guy was a cop,both he and his wife worked,and he presented his little girl whose back was bruised all over,and at 3 years of age she was able to say who'd done it.The finger pointed to my g/son who was also 3 at the time and the little girl had said he'd been sitting behind her,kicking her back.
I felt embarrassed and worse because my daughter made excuses that they were all playing and it could have been any one of them,but I knew it was him.
The moral of all this was that the time that Louise was accused,a toddler also lived at the house where she'd stayed. I can't remember the age of the child,another boy,but it had been previously reported that when a nanny went to the house for an interview,this older child started hitting the person who'd gone for the interview. Immediately I thought of another jealous child who'd objected to anyone going near his mother,and then I thought to myself that I wouldn't put it past him to have thrown a toy at the baby at some time and it struck the baby's head.
That's when I wrote to Louise's parents with my theory,because again,I could not picture that young girl doing any harm to either of those children,least of all the baby,but they made such a song and dance in the States that it whipped up a frenzy and resulted in a hate campaign.
I've never written to anyone in prison before,ever.
That's very interesting lookout. I hadn't thought of that possibility before. If I recall the trial it really was trial by Sky News.
-
Louise was no murderer. When that baby's skull was x-rayed,one pathologist had said he found a fracture to be an old one and not fitting with the time that the baby had died. The fracture had been present for long enough for the baby to suddenly develop symptoms.
I wrote to her parents on my return from Oz because I'd witnessed an incident which made me think.At the time I was away,my daughter was a child-minder and also had a toddler herself who objected strongly to " these children " coming into his house with his mummy looking after them. The child,my own grandson showed unnatural jealousy and hostility towards the children,which I noticed but my daughter didn't,as it was her son ! As soon as I saw " sly " displays of pinching and kicking,I then offered to take the 6 week old baby out in its pram--------out of the house to be honest.
Anyway,when all the children had gone home,I had a word with my daughter about what I'd seen her youngster doing and she disbelieved me. Each day,I felt very uncomfortable with this g/son of mine around ( who wouldn't even come out with me,he stayed clinging to his mother or creating havoc instead ) One night after the children had left again,their was a knock on the door and it was the father of one of the children.The guy was a cop,both he and his wife worked,and he presented his little girl whose back was bruised all over,and at 3 years of age she was able to say who'd done it.The finger pointed to my g/son who was also 3 at the time and the little girl had said he'd been sitting behind her,kicking her back.
I felt embarrassed and worse because my daughter made excuses that they were all playing and it could have been any one of them,but I knew it was him.
The moral of all this was that the time that Louise was accused,a toddler also lived at the house where she'd stayed. I can't remember the age of the child,another boy,but it had been previously reported that when a nanny went to the house for an interview,this older child started hitting the person who'd gone for the interview. Immediately I thought of another jealous child who'd objected to anyone going near his mother,and then I thought to myself that I wouldn't put it past him to have thrown a toy at the baby at some time and it struck the baby's head.
That's when I wrote to Louise's parents with my theory,because again,I could not picture that young girl doing any harm to either of those children,least of all the baby,but they made such a song and dance in the States that it whipped up a frenzy and resulted in a hate campaign.
I've never written to anyone in prison before,ever.
Although it was a long time ago, I remember that case well Lookout it was very well documented on tv over here. I believe the general belief in this country was that she was innocent.
-
That's very interesting lookout. I hadn't thought of that possibility before. If I recall the trial it really was trial by Sky News.
Was it Sky News Steve? It was years ago but I also believed she was innocent although in reality we didn't have all the facts. :)
-
Was it Sky News Steve? It was years ago but I also believed she was innocent although in reality we didn't have all the facts. :)
and there's a subtle threat still on view from jackie preece it was the night notsure threatened to phone the police
-
Was it Sky News Steve? It was years ago but I also believed she was innocent although in reality we didn't have all the facts. :)
Yes they had the full media glare with cameras in the courtroom and full close ups of the accused as the case unfolded. She could have taken a plea bargain but insisted on pleading innocent-then the jurors convicted her. In the end the judge acted as the thirteenth juror and in effect freed her with a "time served" sentence, though officially she remains guilty and is unable to this day to set foot in the United States.
-
I think it was Sky news as it was well documented in Oz at the time and I remember " itching " to tell someone about the little monster here and how I'd feared for the 6 week old who was in my daughter's care,so much so I walked everywhere just to keep the baby safe,every day in fact until the parents went abroad on holiday.What a blessed relief,I couldn't settle.
I know it's my own flesh and blood,but the toddler had been " expelled " from kindy ( kindergarten ) because of his violent behaviour.My daughter couldn't see it. The older son was the same,expelled,until he finally grew out of it.
I'd pictured this sort of behaviour you see,as well as having experienced it there and put two and two together.
-
This is worth listening to imo. I've read a lot of her work and she has a wealth of experience.
It's clear from Julie's evidence and indeed the relatives evidence that there were danger signs.
I am hopeful Jane Monckton Smith exposes what Jeremy Bamber is doing, along with the many other prisoners who are alleging they are victims, when clearly they not.
Or at the very least includes his case in her current study.
-
Yes they had the full media glare with cameras in the courtroom and full close ups of the accused as the case unfolded. She could have taken a plea bargain but insisted on pleading innocent-then the jurors convicted her. In the end the judge acted as the thirteenth juror and in effect freed her with a "time served" sentence, though officially she remains guilty and is unable to this day to set foot in the United States.
I remember it well,being there.The public,outside the court building, were like baying wolves while the poor woman struggled through the yelling crowd.
A few years later though the baby's coat had been found near the den of a dingo at Uluru,I think it was,so what does that tell you ? So far as I'm concerned,it WAS a dingo who took the baby and since that day,notices were put around every camp site to take care and beware of dingo's.