Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Stephanie on January 09, 2017, 04:57:PM
-
"114. During the course of making her witness statements in September, Julie Mugford admitted that at Easter 1985 she had helped the appellant steal money from the offices of the Osea Road Caravan site which was owned by the appellant and various members of the family. On this occasion he had stage-managed the scene to give it the appearance of a burglary by an outsider. Some £970-£980 had been stolen which was used in part to buy a lavish meal.
I mistakenly stated Jeremy Bamber had a conviction for dishonesty, he did not.
However he did admit to the police during evidence that he had burgled the family caravan park in order to prove a point
This shows he had been dishonest and was capable of lying to his family and withholding vital information
-
So had she been dishonest--------being there with him and not stopping him.
-
both had a lavish meal. It must have been like Bonnie and clyde to her.
-
So had she been dishonest--------being there with him and not stopping him.
Exactly HOW do you suggest she might have stopped him, Lookout?
-
Exactly HOW do you suggest she might have stopped him, Lookout?
walked away.
-
walked away.
That's about HER behaviour, not his.
-
Exactly HOW do you suggest she might have stopped him, Lookout?
By saying it wasn't right,that she was going home and leaving him to it ?
-
By saying it wasn't right,that she was going home and leaving him to it ?
How would that have stopped HIM? He didn't REALLY need her there, did he?
-
How would that have stopped HIM? He didn't REALLY need her there, did he?
Yes so her hand fitted in the letter box.
-
How would that have stopped HIM? He didn't REALLY need her there, did he?
He most likely would NOT have done it had she not been there.
-
He most likely would NOT have done it had she not been there.
Are you saying it's her fault he did it?
-
Are you saying it's her fault he did it?
Indeed I am.She loved money too and seemed to know her way around lots of things ! You've got her down as a sweet innocent girl---------not so !
-
both had a lavish meal. It must have been like Bonnie and clyde to her.
Hi Buddy,
I owe you an apology for yesterday. :-\ Glad I haven't put you off posting ;D
So sorry again for any confusion :-[
-
It would obviously have been Mugfords idea.
Jeremy had no record for stealing but she did
Always quick to notice a chance to take money or goods she probably pointed out to Jeremy the opportunity
-
Indeed I am.She loved money too and seemed to know her way around lots of things ! You've got her down as a sweet innocent girl---------not so !
No. But I do have her down as a girl who was besotted with what she saw her future as being. I'm not sure what it is you think she knew her way around but I'll lay odds it's supposition as opposed to fact.
-
So had she been dishonest--------being there with him and not stopping him.
no Lookout, this isn't about Julie - this is about Jeremy.
We are focusing on Jeremy and whether or not he is innocent or guilty.
We are focusing on that alleged telephone call he claims his father made.
You see he had a reputation for being dishonest. Why should we take his word for it that his father phoned? What evidence is there supporting any belief he was a honest citizen?
-
By saying it wasn't right,that she was going home and leaving him to it ?
Julie wasn't responsible for Jeremy's actions. Jeremy was responsible for Jeremy's actions.
-
It would obviously have been Mugfords idea.
Jeremy had no record for stealing but she did
Always quick to notice a chance to take money or goods she probably pointed out to Jeremy the opportunity
Aren't you forgetting what he told the police during his interviews?
-
no Lookout, this isn't about Julie - this is about Jeremy.
We are focusing on Jeremy and whether or not he is innocent or guilty.
We are focusing on that alleged telephone call he claims his father made.
You see he had a reputation for being dishonest. Why should we take his word for it that his father phoned? What evidence is there supporting any belief he was a honest citizen?
Absolutely Steph. It makes no difference WHAT Julie's character was. It's not about her. Jeremy couldn't have been that enamoured with her anyway. He broke their engagement and dumped her for another woman.
-
No. But I do have her down as a girl who was besotted with what she saw her future as being. I'm not sure what it is you think she knew her way around but I'll lay odds it's supposition as opposed to fact.
And more than likely brainwashed
-
no Lookout, this isn't about Julie - this is about Jeremy.
We are focusing on Jeremy and whether or not he is innocent or guilty.
We are focusing on that alleged telephone call he claims his father made.
You see he had a reputation for being dishonest. Why should we take his word for it that his father phoned? What evidence is there supporting any belief he was a honest citizen?
I know what the debate is about and Julie was involved with Jeremy whether you like it or not.
This thread is about the caravan park----not the phone-calls.
Whether JB was dishonest or not doesn't mean that he was also a murderer.There are millions of dishonest people who aren't murderers.
Does ANYONE have proof that they're honest citizens ?
-
And more than likely brainwashed
With a good sprinkling of fairy dust. Cinderella had met her Prince Charming.
-
I know what the debate is about and Julie was involved with Jeremy whether you like it or not.
This thread is about the caravan park----not the phone-calls.
Whether JB was dishonest or not doesn't mean that he was also a murderer.There are millions of dishonest people who aren't murderers.
Does ANYONE have proof that they're honest citizens ?
But it sounds as if you're attempting to suggest that it was Jeremy who was in her thrall. His actions towards her rather give the lie to that. You make every excuse going for what you see as Jeremy's boyish pranks but you're not as generous when it comes to Julie.
-
It would obviously have been Mugfords idea.
Jeremy had no record for stealing but she did
Always quick to notice a chance to take money or goods she probably pointed out to Jeremy the opportunity
Jeremy had a choice Jackie. Even 'if' it was Julie's idea; which I don't believe for one minute, Jeremy could have said NO!
He didn't say NO! He robbed his families caravan park of £900 off pounds!
Julie wasn't facing a murder conviction. She was miles away sleeping on the night of the murders. This is a proven fact!
It was Jeremy who was fixated with money, not Julie. She was a student who admitted to having been dishonest to subsise her lack of income.
Jeremy's reasons for burgling his families caravan park was to teach them a lesson! His own words Jackie!
-
Oh dear,it gets worse. Apart from the fact that it seemed that they deserved each other in that respect.
Some people do.
-
no Lookout, this isn't about Julie - this is about Jeremy.
We are focusing on Jeremy and whether or not he is innocent or guilty.
We are focusing on that alleged telephone call he claims his father made.
You see he had a reputation for being dishonest. Why should we take his word for it that his father phoned? What evidence is there supporting any belief he was a honest citizen?
We are not focusing on the phone calls
As accepted the phone calls are pure speculation
We are focusing on Julie a chief prosecution witness who was an accomplished liar their and fraudster
-
Absolutely Steph. It makes no difference WHAT Julie's character was. It's not about her. Jeremy couldn't have been that enamoured with her anyway. He broke their engagement and dumped her for another woman.
Don't be ridiculous
The women is a liar
Fact
The women knew if she got Bamber banged up she would be rich
Fact
-
We are not focusing on the phone calls
As accepted the phone calls are pure speculation
We are focusing on Julie a chief prosecution witness who was an accomplished liar their and fraudster
I've edited the thread title so that Lookout doesn't get confused
We are focusing on Jeremy's track record of dishonesty
We are focusing on the fact that Jeremy's claims his father phoned him cannot be relied upon
We are focusing on Jeremy Bambers guilt or innocence
This is the Jeremy Bamber forum NOT the JM forum
JM is not a convicted killer!
Julie had already admitted to her crimes, therefore her slate was clean by the time she gave evidence
Jeremy Bamber had admitted to committing the burglary of his families caravan park because he wanted to teach them a lesson regarding security
What kind of person does that to their own family?
-
They ALL knew they'd be flush if he was banged up !Liars Lobby indeed.
-
Jeremy had a choice Jackie. Even 'if' it was Julie's idea; which I don't believe for one minute, Jeremy could have said NO!
He didn't say NO! He robbed his families caravan park of £900 off pounds!
Julie wasn't facing a murder conviction. She was miles away sleeping on the night of the murders. This is a proven fact!
It was Jeremy who was fixated with money, not Julie. She was a student who admitted to having been dishonest to subsise her lack of income.
Jeremy's reasons for burgling his families caravan park was to teach them a lesson! His own words Jackie!
Once again in case you have trouble grasping this
Don't be ridiculous
The women is a liar
Fact
The women knew if she got Bamber banged up she would be rich
Fact
Mrs Hall you cannot tell when Mugford was telling the truth and when she's lying
Fact
Why do you think cheque book journalism is no longer allowed
To STOP MOJ cases like Jeremy's
FACT
-
I've edited the thread title so that Lookout doesn't get confused
We are focusing on Jeremy's track record of dishonesty
We are focusing on the fact that Jeremy's claims his father phoned him cannot be relied upon
We are focusing on Jeremy Bambers guilt or innocence
This is the Jeremy Bamber forum NOT the JM forum
JM is not a convicted killer!
Julie had already admitted to her crimes, therefore her slate was clean by the time she gave evidence
Jeremy Bamber had admitted to committing the burglary of his families caravan park because he wanted to teach them a lesson regarding security
What kind of person does that to their own family?
As stated the phone calls are pure speculation FACT
You can sit on this forum 24 hours a day you cannot change this FACT
-
I've edited the thread title so that Lookout doesn't get confused
We are focusing on Jeremy's track record of dishonesty
We are focusing on the fact that Jeremy's claims his father phoned him cannot be relied upon
We are focusing on Jeremy Bambers guilt or innocence
This is the Jeremy Bamber forum NOT the JM forum
JM is not a convicted killer!
Julie had already admitted to her crimes, therefore her slate was clean by the time she gave evidence
Jeremy Bamber had admitted to committing the burglary of his families caravan park because he wanted to teach them a lesson regarding security
What kind of person does that to their own family?
How DARE you. I might be in my 77th year,but stupid or confused I'm not !!
-
I wonder why it is that certain posters seem so eager to castrate Jeremy. Thus far, it appears that he had ZERO control of any part of his life and was a willing/unwilling subservient tool to be manipulated every which way for the benefit of others. This is NOT the person described by those who had dealings with him.
-
How DARE you. I might be in my 77th year,but stupid or confused I'm not !!
I know what the debate is about and Julie was involved with Jeremy whether you like it or not.
This thread is about the caravan park----not the phone-calls.
Whether JB was dishonest or not doesn't mean that he was also a murderer.There are millions of dishonest people who aren't murderers.
Does ANYONE have proof that they're honest citizens ?
-
The phone-calls have seen long-running threads over the last 5 years.Why should yours be any different ?? Oh,I forgot,in my confusion,must be something to do with you wanting to be the" Big I Am".
-
I wonder why it is that certain posters seem so eager to castrate Jeremy. Thus far, it appears that he had ZERO control of any part of his life and was a willing/unwilling subservient tool to be manipulated every which way for the benefit of others. This is NOT the person described by those who had dealings with him.
It appears some posters are unwilling to admit to his character flaws, preferring to blame others for the way he behaved before the murders.
As you say Jane, he was a grown man of 23/24 years of age, not a little boy.
No one pulled his strings.
I want to see the evidence that he was a reformed character. I want to see he had admitted to the error of his ways.
He never did though did he? He never told his family he had burgled the family caravan park. As pointed out, they died not knowing the truth that their son had robbed them blind.
I wonder if his father or mother ever had any suspicions or indeed any of his family members.
He carried on regardless and still had the cheek to borrow money from his parents to re-decorate the house he lived in; supplied to him - courtesy of the bank of Mum & Dad.
I wonder if he told his parents before he murdered them in cold blood that he'd robbed them?
-
The phone-calls have seen long-running threads over the last 5 years.Why should yours be any different ?? Oh,I forgot,in my confusion,must be something to do with you wanting to be the" Big I Am".
Stop projecting!
-
It appears some posters are unwilling to admit to his character flaws, preferring to blame others for the way he behaved before the murders.
As you say Jane, he was a grown man of 23/24 years of age, not a little boy.
No one pulled his strings.
I want to see the evidence that he was a reformed character. I want to see he had admitted to the error of his ways.
He never did though did he? He never told his family he had burgled the family caravan park. As pointed out, they died not knowing the truth that their son had robbed them blind.
I wonder if his father or mother ever had any suspicions or indeed any of his family members.
He carried on regardless and still had the cheek to borrow money from his parents to re-decorate the house he lived in; supplied to him - courtesy of the bank of Mum & Dad.
I wonder if he told his parents before he murdered them in cold blood that he'd robbed them?
I think without checking Steph, Neville found out?
-
It appears some posters are unwilling to admit to his character flaws, preferring to blame others for the way he behaved before the murders.
As you say Jane, he was a grown man of 23/24 years of age, not a little boy.
No one pulled his strings.
I want to see the evidence that he was a reformed character. I want to see he had admitted to the error of his ways.
He never did though did he? He never told his family he had burgled the family caravan park. As pointed out, they died not knowing the truth that their son had robbed them blind.
I wonder if his father or mother ever had any suspicions or indeed any of his family members.
He carried on regardless and still had the cheek to borrow money from his parents to re-decorate the house he lived in; supplied to him - courtesy of the bank of Mum & Dad.
I wonder if he told his parents before he murdered them in cold blood that he'd robbed them?
I can only think that the desire to return him to -if not the womb, certainly the nursery- would render him innocent and helpless. Possibly June and Nevill wished they could return him to a place from which they could do things differently............................ OR adopt a different child, perhaps?
-
I think without checking Steph, Neville found out?
Thanks Justice. Any idea where we can find reference to this?
-
Thanks Justice. Any idea where we can find reference to this?
I thought it was in Anne Eatons statements but up to now I cannot find it, but if I come across it I will post, so as I said I am not certain Steph.
-
I can only think that the desire to return him to -if not the womb, certainly the nursery- would render him innocent and helpless. Possibly June and Nevill wished they could return him to a place from which they could do things differently............................ OR adopt a different child, perhaps?
I take it you are referring to those people who so vehemently defend him? But isn't this what Jeremy the psychopath would want them to believe. What with his pity plays and victim mentality and nothing ever being his fault.
-
Bamber said during police interview when questioned about the caravan park burglary:
"I knew I would be number one suspect but they couldn't prove it." The money would come in handy buying drinks and things for the house.
When asked why he broke in, he relied:
"To bring home to the other directors and people involved in the caravan site that we were too lackadaisical and the reasons why we were always getting done." It was to prove a point.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8040.msg381416.html#msg381416
-
Bamber said during police interview when questioned about the caravan park burglary:
The money would come in handy buying drinks and things for the house.
When asked why he broke in, he relied:
"To bring home to the other directors and people involved in the caravan site that we were too lackadaisical and the reasons why we were always getting done." It was to prove a point.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8040.msg381416.html#msg381416
"I knew I would be number one suspect but they couldn't prove it."
-
"I knew I would be number one suspect but they couldn't prove it."
He certainly enjoyed thinking he'd got one over them. He must have felt really clever.
-
Stop projecting!
Stop Insulting !!
-
This article suggests he was still benefiting financially from the caravan park following his conviction.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/bamber_slammed_after_claim_is_struck_out_1_66197
MASS murderer Jeremy Bamber was last night accused of "harassing" surviving members of the family he decimated after he failed in a £326,000 High Court damages claim against them.
Bamber, who until recently owned 7.5% of the shares in successful family-run holiday park company, Osea Road Camp Sites Ltd, argued that while members of his family have made money from the venture, he had been "unfairly" done out of his rightful share of the profits.
However, Mr Justice Pumfrey, sitting at London's High Court yesterday, upheld the family's application to have his claim struck out - saying it was "difficult to see how any equitable obligation could survive the murder of his adoptive parents".
Last night his adoptive aunt, Pamela Boutflour, described the court case as "just another harassment" by the killer.
Bespectacled Bamber, 43, dressed in a blue sweatshirt, remained impassive in the dock as the judge gave his ruling, and will not appeal the decision.
He said he would accept Mr Justice Pumfrey's "wise judgement of the law". He was also ordered to pay £16,250 in legal costs bills.
Bamber was suing his maternal adoptive aunt, Pamela Boutflour, her husband Robert and their children, David Boutflour and Ann Eaton, who argued his claim was "unmeritorious to the point of being absurd".
Bamber was convicted in October 1986 of the murders of his adoptive mother June and father Nevill, both 61, sister Sheila Caffell, 27, and her twin six-year-old sons, Nicholas and Daniel, at their farmhouse home in Tolleshunt D'Arcy.
He is serving five life sentences and the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, ruled in 1994 that he should never be released. However, Bamber still protests his innocence.
Barrister for the family, Andrew De La Rosa, said the dismissal of an appeal against the convictions in 2002 prompted Bamber to launch a rash of litigation from his prison cell against the surviving members of his adoptive family.
He made a £1.27 million claim over the will of his maternal grandmother, Mabel Speakman, but that was struck out earlier this year.
He also made a libel claim against Ann Eaton over comments she made on a television programme which Mr De La Rosa said had now "lapsed".
Bamber's claim in relation to Osea Road Camp Sites Ltd, a company based in Goldhanger Road, Maldon and set up by his grandparents, was that he should be entitled to £326,000 in "financial remuneration", along with interest going back to 1985.
Although he has recently sold his shares to cover an £18,000 lawyers' bill, he argued he had been "unfairly prejudiced".
He claimed family members had been paid large sums as directors whilst, at the same time, the company has paid no dividends so that he has not received a penny.
Bamber told the judge it was understandable that his co-owners of the company would not want to have anything to do with him "because of the nature of my convictions'.
But they could have contacted him in prison through solicitors or accountants as, he claimed, they were bound to do because he was a shareholder.
He accepted the sum of money he was claiming might be pitched too high, but argued that he must be entitled to some remuneration from the company's profits and that his claim should not be "shut out on a technicality'.
But Mr Justice Pumfrey ruled the claim should not be allowed to proceed to the next stage.
Bamber also denied harassing the family and said he had no wish to cause distress.
"I have never said anything bad about them in the press, or written to them or harassed them,' he said.
Yesterday Mrs Boutflour, who lives in Wix, said: "This is just another harassment by Jeremy Bamber, yet again. He continually harasses the family.
"We are very relieved that the judge made the right judgement, but it just goes on and on."
-
Yes so her hand fitted in the letter box.
Bamber told the police he had put his hand through the letter box. It wasn't Julie who broke in per se. He told police he had done it before to get in.
-
Yes so her hand fitted in the letter box.
What makes you think that Buddy?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5789
-
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1985/09/13/AS130985004/?s=bambi&st=0&pn=1
-
Reference to him stage managing the crime scene is here Jackie http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
130. The appellant admitted committing the burglary with Julie Mugford at the Osea Road Caravan Site on 23/24 March 1985 when £980 had been stolen. He said he had done it to prove that the security at the site was poor.
Following his arrest for the burglary:
136. The appellant was bailed from the police station on 13 September 1985. Some days later he went on holiday to the South of France. On his return to this country on 29 September he was re-arrested and charged with the five murders.
with not a care in the world..
138. He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.
-
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
118. James Richards, another student from Goldsmiths College who had met the appellant through Julie Mugford, heard him talk of his parents in about February 1985. He claimed they kept him short of money and that his mother was a religious freak. He said, "I f**king hate my parents".
119. In about March 1985, in the context of a discussion about the security at the Osea Road caravan site, the appellant told his uncle Robert Boutflour, "… I could kill anybody … I could easily kill my parents".
139. Apart from Julie Mugford the appellant suggested that other witnesses had told lies about him during the trial. They included Mrs Mugford, James Richards, Dorothy Foakes and Robert Boutflour.
140. He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000.
-
Why would officer,collar number 1990 make 2 separate records of the one call ?
Neville Bamber-phoned @ 03.26-car CA7 dispatched,arriving at WHF @ 03.48. NB states-" my guns ".
Jeremy Bamber-phoned @03.36-car CA5 dispatched,arriving at WHF @ 04.23.JB states -" the gun ".
At 03.56 GPO had reported the phone at WHF as being off the hook.
-
Bamber told the police he had put his hand through the letter box. It wasn't Julie who broke in per se. He told police he had done it before to get in.
Bamber was completely responsible for the caravan park robbery.
-
Reference to him stage managing the crime scene is here Jackie http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
130. The appellant admitted committing the burglary with Julie Mugford at the Osea Road Caravan Site on 23/24 March 1985 when £980 had been stolen. He said he had done it to prove that the security at the site was poor.
Following his arrest for the burglary:
136. The appellant was bailed from the police station on 13 September 1985. Some days later he went on holiday to the South of France. On his return to this country on 29 September he was re-arrested and charged with the five murders.
with not a care in the world..
138. He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.
Just as he went on to do at WHF!
Violent Psychopaths, Crime & Society http://neuroinstincts.com/violent-psychopaths-and-crime/
"However, there are a subset of individuals with psychopathy that are violent . When they commit crimes , the acts tend to be extremely vile, callous, and cold with unimaginable cruelty. Sometimes society is quick to assume, "that person is absolutely crazy." (Psychotic)
And that is exactly what supporters of Jeremy Bamber have done. They will have been taken in by his charm and the image he attempts to portray to his unsuspecting victims ("Psychopaths are easy to like). They dismiss his behaviors preferring to blame his sister. These supporters have been quick to wrongly assume the person responsible is psychotic as opposed to realising the person responsible suffers from psychopathy.
"Most of their crimes are considered 'instrumental' meaning they are committing the act for a specific reason. It tends to be planned, purposeful and calculated.
As is evidenced by the caravan burglary and the murders.
"Like most psychopathic individuals who hurt others, they lie, try to control the situation and slander or paint the innocent victim in a negative light.
"Despite pain and irreparable damage caused, they continue to maintain in their mind the 'nice guy, good person image
-
118. James Richards, another student from Goldsmiths College who had met the appellant through Julie Mugford, heard him talk of his parents in about February 1985. He claimed they kept him short of money and that his mother was a religious freak. He said, "I f**king hate my parents".
119. In about March 1985, in the context of a discussion about the security at the Osea Road caravan site, the appellant told his uncle Robert Boutflour, "… I could kill anybody … I could easily kill my parents".
139. Apart from Julie Mugford the appellant suggested that other witnesses had told lies about him during the trial. They included Mrs Mugford, James Richards, Dorothy Foakes and Robert Boutflour.
140. He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000.
Fact
Robert Boutflour proved an unreliable witness after telling lies in court about Sheila and guns
His greed to get his hands on the Bamber fortunes was so blatant he was prepared to mislead the jury
-
Reference to him stage managing the crime scene is here Jackie http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
130. The appellant admitted committing the burglary with Julie Mugford at the Osea Road Caravan Site on 23/24 March 1985 when £980 had been stolen. He said he had done it to prove that the security at the site was poor.
Following his arrest for the burglary:
136. The appellant was bailed from the police station on 13 September 1985. Some days later he went on holiday to the South of France. On his return to this country on 29 September he was re-arrested and charged with the five murders.
with not a care in the world..
138. He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.
Once again through your many hours on the forum you are trying to mislead members
You stated Jeremy DID stage manage the crime scene
FACT
You do not know
Like most of your posts you continue to state speculation as fact
We were not discussing the burglary before
It's a ridiculous way to carry on
-
Just as he went on to do at WHF!
Violent Psychopaths, Crime & Society http://neuroinstincts.com/violent-psychopaths-and-crime/
"However, there are a subset of individuals with psychopathy that are violent . When they commit crimes , the acts tend to be extremely vile, callous, and cold with unimaginable cruelty. Sometimes society is quick to assume, "that person is absolutely crazy." (Psychotic)
And that is exactly what supporters of Jeremy Bamber have done. They will have been taken in by his charm and the image he attempts to portray to his unsuspecting victims ("Psychopaths are easy to like). They dismiss his behaviors preferring to blame his sister. These supporters have been quick to wrongly assume the person responsible is psychotic as opposed to realising the person responsible suffers from psychopathy.
"Most of their crimes are considered 'instrumental' meaning they are committing the act for a specific reason. It tends to be planned, purposeful and calculated.
As is evidenced by the caravan burglary and the murders.
"Like most psychopathic individuals who hurt others, they lie, try to control the situation and slander or paint the innocent victim in a negative light.
"Despite pain and irreparable damage caused, they continue to maintain in their mind the 'nice guy, good person image
FACT
You have no idea if Jeremy is a psychopath
Pure speculation from someone who could not even recognise someone who was a sexual deviant and murderer
Your description of Simon Hall was your gorgus hubby
Stop putting up posts that are pure speculation as they are fact
-
FACT
You have no idea if Jeremy is a psychopath
Pure speculation from someone who could not even recognise someone who was a sexual deviant and murderer
Your description of Simon Hall was your gorgus hubby
Stop putting up posts that are pure speculation as they are fact
Maybe you are forgetting what Jeremy's defence team uncovered at the time of his trial. What did the forensic psychologist state about Jeremy's personality?
My position then is no different to your position now Jackie. I was not aware of psychopathy. I made a mistake; just as you are doing now.
You appear unable to see your own projections and your personal comments about SH support this assertion. By posting his full name on the board and referring to him as gorgus, you are attempting to keep him alive and I suspect your motive for doing so is malicious. But what you are actually doing Jackie is showing it is you who is obsessed.
-
Once again through your many hours on the forum you are trying to mislead members
You stated Jeremy DID stage manage the crime scene
FACT
You do not know
Like most of your posts you continue to state speculation as fact
We were not discussing the burglary before
It's a ridiculous way to carry on
It doesn't mislead me,Jackie. All these posts do is further their desperation in trying to prove themselves right.Sad really.