Motivations For Murders

[mertol22]

One has to be a psychopath to have committed those murders Maggie.  Someone who was pushed to the limit and snapped.  Son or daughter....to have looked into the face of their parents and shot them to death....then shot two 6 year old boys.....not once, but several times.

I've just been watching some more clips about psychopathy and, scientists have come up with some amazing stuff regarding brain images and the brain functions.  In 10 years time, a psychopath could treated with a micro chip inserted into the brain, so that the brain functions like a normal person.....WOW!

I agree patti to carry out such a act  how could you have a rational mind ? if jeremy was responsible why would he go home that night and return later, he could have started then when he finished work,something else as well, i have issues as to why he was told to meet the police at WHF from that point this had nothing to do with jeremy this was a police matter now and i do believe they placed him in danger also as there was no concrete prior no how if anyone with a firearm was already outside , what i do find interesting is given its been said to many jeremy was cocky even arrogant he never said why should i go or refused.

[Patti]

Yes but did you get the bit about Dr John Bowlby's attachment theory and how this can give rise to a lack of empathy?

Yes I did egap....fascinating stuff. It made me watch other things too....Now I must eat...lol

[maggie]

One has to be a psychopath to have committed those murders Maggie.  Someone who was pushed to the limit and snapped.  Son or daughter....to have looked into the face of their parents and shot them to death....then shot two 6 year old boys.....not once, but several times.

I've just been watching some more clips about psychopathy and, scientists have come up with some amazing stuff regarding brain images and the brain functions.  In 10 years time, a psychopath could treated with a micro chip inserted into the brain, so that the brain functions like a normal person.....WOW!

I know Patti a person would have to have a severe personality disorder. I did read that a psychopath who murders is really a 'failed' psychopath as most hide the fact that they care nothing for otber people as they push their way to the top of many of our institutions ie. police and big business ?News Corp/News I.tl.?

[Jane]

Really fascinating lecture egap. I was wondering if June had herself suffered from attachment difficulties as a young child which may have caused her own apparent lack of warmth with her children  eg.not enough cuddling and kisses

Maggie, we understand that patterns of behaviour become repeated, often through generations until one person realises that something feels wrong.

[maggie]

Maggie, we understand that patterns of behaviour become repeated, often through generations until one person realises that something feels wrong.

That is so true april maybe it is because people from one family will have the same genetic disorder which on a physiological level reinforces learned behaviour patterns. Maybe the person who breaks the mould in a family has actually i.herited different genes therefore their natural ability to emote will be much stronger overriding learned patterns. of behaviour.

[Jane]

I know Patti a person would have to have a severe personality disorder. I did read that a psychopath who murders is really a 'failed' psychopath as most hide the fact that they care nothing for otber people as they push their way to the top of many of our institutions ie. police and big business ?News Corp/News I.tl.?

I believe that as many as 1 in every 8 males is thought to have psychopathis tendencies. For women, I think it's 1 in 12. The majority of these will never resort to physical violence.

[maggie]

I believe that as many as 1 in every 8 males is thought to have psychopathis tendencies. For women, I think it's 1 in 12. The majority of these will never resort to physical violence.

i know april. AIt is a surprisingly  high proportion of the genral population. TI can think of a few!!

[Jane]

That is so true april maybe it is because people from one family will have the same genetic disorder which on a physiological level reinforces learned behaviour patterns. Maybe the person who breaks the mould in a family has actually i.herited different genes therefore their natural ability to emote will be much stronger overriding learned patterns. of behaviour.

You know, Maggie, I believe it has more to do with childrens' need for parental approval and what better way of getting it than by copying how that parent acts, repeating that parents' beliefs to others and generally becoming a carbon copy of that parent. It is usually with the most difficult to please parent that the child tries hardest. Don't they say that copying is the sincerest form of flattery?

[maggie]

You know, Maggie, I believe it has more to do with childrens' need for parental approval and what better way of getting it than by copying how that parent acts, repeating that parents' beliefs to others and generally becoming a carbon copy of that parent. It is usually with the most difficult to please parent that the child tries hardest. Don't they say that copying is the sincerest form of flattery?

Oh Im sure your'e right april1, I have I think tho said to you before that I believe nature to be stronger than nurture, due to my own observations.If genetics play a part in ability to emote within a family there is no way that a person could abuse their child because their mother abused them, if they have  the understanding of another persons pain. Maybe that is why some people step outside the circle and break the mould. I think we are way off topic!!

[Jane]

Oh Im sure your'e right april1, I have I think tho said to you before that I believe nature to be stronger than nurture, due to my own observations.If genetics play a part in ability to emote within a family there is no way that a person could abuse their child because their mother abused them, if they have  the understanding of another persons pain. Maybe that is why some people step outside the circle and break the mould. I think we are way off topic!!

Maybe not quite as far as you think, Maggie. I was going down the road of June's reputed coldness towards her adopted children and wondering how hard those children may have tried to gain her approval, especially if they had been told how lucky they were to be there and the alternative was being in an orphanage This is not conducive to a warm, loving relationship between mother and children although I realize it's not a motive for murder, either.

[mertol22]

Maybe not quite as far as you think, Maggie. I was going down the road of June's reputed coldness towards her adopted children and wondering how hard those children may have tried to gain her approval, especially if they had been told how lucky they were to be there and the alternative was being in an orphanage This is not conducive to a warm, loving relationship between mother and children although I realize it's not a motive for murder, either.

June made Daniel and Nicholas to prey at the bedside before sleep,they were not her children she had no right to do that, she chose for them ,Sheila must have been livid to hell motive enough.

[jf71]

in Mike's post : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2571.0.html
 
Under list of Witness statements, "WHITING, Philip John" - ex-boyfriend of Sheila.
"She told him Jeremy used to torture animals in front of her"

Mike, do you have the full statement for this witness?

[ngb1066]

This is slightly away from the title of the thread but I'm truly fascinated to try and understand why some members are pro and others anti given that we all have access to the same info.  I guess its just the way we process info, meshed with our own life experiences and the weight we apply to particular aspects, or is it something else?

For example Hartley, Bob, Rochford and NGB1066 (Haven't incl Mike as he has met Jeremy).  All four seem of above average intelligence, are articulate and seem decent people.  They all have access to the same info and yet totally disagree?

I think someone started an off-topic thread a few weeks back about a similar theme ie suggesting that those on the right of the political spectrum might be more inclined towards JB being guilty and the reverse for the left wingers.  But as was pointed out that doesn't account for Andrew Hunter. 

Even the jury: 10:2?

Cld it be that those that believe JB is guilty are comfortable seeing the worse in others in a way that those who don't aren't?

Any ideas?

I think it is difficult to define a pattern here.  I doubt whether left/right politics are a factor.  As has been pointed out Andrew Hunter is to the far right of the Conservative Party and Jeremy has also be supported by George Galloway.  The case is a complex one from an evidential point of view and as I have posted before there are factors which tend to support the guilty view and other factors which support the not guilty view.  In order to reach an overall conclusion it is necessary to weigh those various factors in the balance.  In doing that subjective judgement comes into play and since we all have different experiences and skills it is inevitable that equally intelligent and informed people will reach opposing views. 

[grahameb]

I think it is difficult to define a pattern here.  I doubt whether left/right politics are a factor.  As has been pointed out Andrew Hunter is to the far right of the Conservative Party and Jeremy has also be supported by George Galloway.  The case is a complex one from an evidential point of view and as I have posted before there are factors which tend to support the guilty view and other factors which support the not guilty view.  In order to reach an overall conclusion it is necessary to weigh those various factors in the balance.  In doing that subjective judgement comes into play and since we all have different experiences and skills it is inevitable that equally intelligent and informed people will reach opposing views.

The important thing to remember those is not to take the childish and naive view that just because someone holds the opposite view to the other does not mean that that person is evil or and idiot.

[Jane]

I think it is difficult to define a pattern here.  I doubt whether left/right politics are a factor.  As has been pointed out Andrew Hunter is to the far right of the Conservative Party and Jeremy has also be supported by George Galloway.  The case is a complex one from an evidential point of view and as I have posted before there are factors which tend to support the guilty view and other factors which support the not guilty view.  In order to reach an overall conclusion it is necessary to weigh those various factors in the balance.  In doing that subjective judgement comes into play and since we all have different experiences and skills it is inevitable that equally intelligent and informed people will reach opposing views.

I wonder if it has to do with one's personal ability to forgive.......or not, as the case may be. I know people who have become estranged from friends and/or family because of a remark to which offence has been taken. Years later the offending remark is remembered as if it were yesterday. I find it hard to imagine somebody with this mindset seeing innocence where there might be the smallest chance of guilt.