Author Topic: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?  (Read 4065 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2018, 03:50:33 PM »
And that's EXACTLY what he does! Thank you Holly! He wont agree to the tests unless he can control what tests are carried ut.

And he's entirely right to do so, in fairness.  It's normal that the defence would want complete control of their own tests.  If I were Bamber, I would insist on the same or not have the tests done.  There is nothing improper in this, and any experts appointed have an overriding duty to the court. 

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2018, 06:14:17 PM »
And he's entirely right to do so, in fairness.  It's normal that the defence would want complete control of their own tests.  If I were Bamber, I would insist on the same or not have the tests done.  There is nothing improper in this, and any experts appointed have an overriding duty to the court.

Is there a difference between control and complete control?
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Caroline

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2018, 07:44:34 PM »
And he's entirely right to do so, in fairness.  It's normal that the defence would want complete control of their own tests.  If I were Bamber, I would insist on the same or not have the tests done.  There is nothing improper in this, and any experts appointed have an overriding duty to the court.

Why? If you have nothing to hide? However, my point wasn't just in relation to forensic tests. Jeremy doesn't answer questions he doesn't like - THAT was my point.

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1612
  • Total likes: 31
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2018, 11:52:08 AM »
Why? If you have nothing to hide? However, my point wasn't just in relation to forensic tests. Jeremy doesn't answer questions he doesn't like - THAT was my point.


Deceptive people often claim lack of memory as a way to cover the truth. This defense sets two traps for dissemblers:

Detecting deception using verbal cues remains a difficult task. The best method to predict deception compares what a person says against external evidence or  known truth. At best, certain statements can indicate a higher probability of deception, but there's no one verbal cue that accurately predicts deception.

However, certain words or groups of words can signal an area in an utterance wherein deception is likely to occur. If the conversation is important, knowing where potential deception resides can provide a distinct advantage, in business or social interactions.

"First, in order to not remember what you did, you must first have an extant memory of the event. By definition, to not remember something you must have initially stored the information in your memory. The lack of memory indicates that the memory is stored in the brain but that the person cannot retrieve it. Truthful people typically respond, “I don’t know.” Lack of memory suggests the person cannot retrieve a memory and, therefore, does not know what happened. Honest people strive to do anything they can to retrieve the memory of an event. Deceptive people do not want to reveal remembered information for fear of revealing the truth.

The second trap is similar. A person cannot say, “I don’t remember doing that,” unless the person remembers what he or she actually did. The word “that” suggests the person did not remember doing a specific set of actions. In order to say, “I didn’t do that,” the person has to know what he or she did do. Logically, how can a person say he or she does not remember doing something when they have no memory of the event? The word “that” suggests memory of an event.

The questioner’s response to this gambit should be, “What do you remember doing?” Honest people will tell you what they remember doing, to support their alibi. Dishonest people usually cling to the lack of memory by saying, “I don’t know what I did.” Here the questioner's response should be, “If you don’t know what you did, it is possible that you did exactly what I described.” Deceptive people make no attempt to retrieve a memory of an action for fear of revealing the truth.

The key to detecting deception is to listen carefully to what someone tells you. Words do not simply fall from people’s mouths. They have meaning and are a direct representation of what a person is thinking: Words can, and do, reveal deception. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201611/5-things-people-commonly-say-when-theyre-lying
« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 11:56:58 AM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2018, 11:40:26 AM »
And he's entirely right to do so, in fairness.  It's normal that the defence would want complete control of their own tests.  If I were Bamber, I would insist on the same or not have the tests done.  There is nothing improper in this, and any experts appointed have an overriding duty to the court.

Have you got anything to back up your various assertions above? 

As I see it post trial the convicted are pretty much up a creek without a paddle.  The appeals process can swing into action as it did for JB in 1989.  If this fails thereafter the defendant is dependent on finding others to do his/her bidding.  In JB's case he has no family support, income (to speak of) or capital.  He's reliant on supporters to assist in a variety of ways eg case research, funding tests, emotional support and experts/lawyers to act pro bono or to be paid by supporters as until such time his case is referred back to CoA his case isn't eligible for any funding. 

I read an article recently by Michael Mansfield QC where he said the problem with looking at cases involving a potential MoJ is that it takes a lawyer 6 months to review the case.  That's a lot of hours and a lot of dosh!

If programme makers want to instruct their own experts then what are JB's defence going to do about this?  We have already seen with the 'Killing Mum and Dad' docu/drama aired by Sky tv that JB lost his legal battle against expert opinion have we not? 

Author Roger Wilkes funded some tests on JB's behalf in exchange for JB's input to RW's book.  This had nothing to do with JB's defence.  The test results were sent to the publishers.

If I want to hand over forensic test results that I may have undertaken in the UK or elsewhere to a programme maker or any media outlet then there's nothing legally preventing me from doing so is there? 

As I far as I can see experts have an overriding duty to adhere to their professional code of conduct and thereafter to those instructing them and funding their expertise. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1612
  • Total likes: 31
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2018, 11:48:21 AM »
Have you got anything to back up your various assertions above? 

As I see it post trial the convicted are pretty much up a creek without a paddle.  The appeals process can swing into action as it did for JB in 1989.  If this fails thereafter the defendant is dependent on finding others to do his/her bidding.  In JB's case he has no family support, income (to speak of) or capital.  He's reliant on supporters to assist in a variety of ways eg case research, funding tests, emotional support and experts/lawyers to act pro bono or to be paid by supporters as until such time his case is referred back to CoA his case isn't eligible for any funding. 

I read an article recently by Michael Mansfield QC where he said the problem with looking at cases involving a potential MoJ is that it takes a lawyer 6 months to review the case.  That's a lot of hours and a lot of dosh!

If programme makers want to instruct their own experts then what are JB's defence going to do about this?  We have already seen with the 'Killing Mum and Dad' docu/drama aired by Sky tv that JB lost his legal battle against expert opinion have we not? 

Author Roger Wilkes funded some tests on JB's behalf in exchange for JB's input to RW's book.  This had nothing to do with JB's defence.  The test results were sent to the publishers.

If I want to hand over forensic test results that I may have undertaken in the UK or elsewhere to a programme maker or any media outlet then there's nothing legally preventing me from doing so is there? 

As I far as I can see experts have an overriding duty to adhere to their professional code of conduct and thereafter to those instructing them and funding their expertise.

But Holly if you refer back to one of Bambers old blogs, he states he didn't face the problems other prisoners had in relation to his own investigations in his case. He's never been bitter, he's said, and he talks like he's found prison a breeze all thanks to what his parents taught him when he was younger. Re read his blogs.

Plus, lawyers don't usually work on one case at a time and have other commitments to consider. Bamber's not had the worries of paying bills, putting food on the table, keeping a roof over his head etc, so he hasn't had to deal with that emotional burden. And many prisoners go on to form relationships with other inmates - especially those serving long sentences.  http://theconversation.com/prisoners-have-sex-so-let-them-have-condoms-14107

"The term heteroflexible has been used by sexual health workers to describe the behaviour of men
in prison who identify as heterosexual but are flexible about having sex with men while in prison. There is anecdotal evidence but little data and a lack of research on the impact of prison on sexual behaviour or sexual orientation.
https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/consensual_sex_in_prison.pdf

And let us not forget, some prisoners are willing to take payment for sex.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2018, 12:20:51 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1612
  • Total likes: 31
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2018, 12:03:44 PM »
Just an observation but LM's posts on blue appear more reasoned and objebtive on blue, than they were here. Wonder why? Anyone else notice that?
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Caroline

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2018, 12:19:07 PM »
Just an observation but LM's posts on blue appear more reasoned and objebtive on blue, than they were here. Wonder why? Anyone else notice that?

I think perhaps he is playing devil's advocate after all. One thing though, Nevil couldn't have been in front of the door. He ended up in front of the aga which protrudes from the wall to allow for the chimney. It's impossible for him to have been shunted around a corner in order to finish up in the position depicted in the CS photos.

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1612
  • Total likes: 31
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2018, 12:23:14 PM »
I think perhaps he is playing devil's advocate after all. One thing though, Nevil couldn't have been in front of the door. He ended up in front of the aga which protrudes from the wall to allow for the chimney. It's impossible for him to have been shunted around a corner in order to finish up in the position depicted in the CS photos.

 8((()*/

Interesting though how their posts here were emotive at times, yet not as I can see, displayed over there?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2018, 12:28:36 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2018, 03:56:02 PM »
Does he have an appointed firm of solicitors to assist him with another application to the CCRC? If so, that will be why Bamber or those around him don't want to deal with others.  For perfectly understandable reasons, his solicitors will not allow him to accept input or expertise from anybody else while they are instructed.  If he were to start taking advice from other lawyers or experts appointed otherwise than through his own solicitors, those solicitors might then consider themselves compromised or professionally embarrassed and might ask to terminate their relationship with him.

I've no idea if JB currently has legal representation in place. 

Again do you have anything to back up your assertions?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg454800#msg454800

If JB has legal representation how do we know if they're any good?  Why not open it up?  Competition can be a force for good resulting in players upping their game?

That's strange, that he would not take up your offer.  It could be that he doesn't want you to arrange the tests as he wants control of the choice of experts.  Maybe let him and his lawyers decide on the experts to be appointed and you offer to contribute to the cost, if that's what you want to do?

What tools does JB have at his disposal to make such decisions?  I'm not impressed by the lawyers involved historically.  Too many bad decisions, mistakes and oversights IMO.  You appear to hold lawyers in high esteem?  Lawyers are lawyers.  They are not expert witnesses.  I'm neither a lawyer or an expert witness and it isn't necessary to be either to assist JB.  Anyone with the ability to analyse, communicate, critically evaluate and carry out research can assist JB if they feel his case is worthy of such.  There's nothing to prevent anyone funding tests and using the info however they wish is there? 

Especially if he did it and he has had to maintain a front of denial all this time. 

There is a secondary question in all this of whether he should be allowed to progress through the prison system anyway, with a view to eventual release or at least imprisonment in the Open Estate.  I do think whole life orders are wrong.  Although his crime - if he did it - was absolutely horrific, I would hope that as he enters old age he will at least be allowed to serve his time in a lower security environment (subject to safety considerations), with maybe eligibility for the temporary home release scheme.

My understanding is that JB is one of the few prisoners in UK on a whole life tariff where life means life.  If the convictions are not quashed I doubt his prison category will ever be downgraded other than if his health and mobility required a different environment.  Think his conviction will be quashed by CoA though. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline adam

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2018, 10:47:53 AM »
The problem is supporters come up with impossible theories but then stonewall questions about it.

David and Buddy believe several relatives fabricated the silencer without police assistance. By scrapping period blood off wet underwear. But then refuse to say how the relatives knew essential facts in order to do this -

Did Sheila receive contact shots ?

Who else received contact shots ?

What weapon did Sheila use ?

How long were Sheila's arms ?

What is back splatter ?

Were the shots into Sheila likely to cause back splatter ?

Did the rifle barrel already have back splatter inside ?

Did the kitchen crime scene photos show the aga ?

How is it possible to convincingly scratch the aga ?

What other evidence showed Sheila was certainly the killer. At the time Taff Jones was rejecting the relatives views ?

Did the police already have a silencer with evidence on ?

How can blood be falsely inserted into a silencer to cause the back splatter effect ?

Had the police already included the found bloodless silencer in their inventory ?

Would this evidence, if accepted be sufficient  to get a conviction ?

Were the police still investigating the case and finding evidence incriminating Bamber ?

How many years in prison would they get if found to be fabricating the silencer ? 

--------------

David and Buddy are being hugely optimistic. Expecting the relatives to be as innovative, efficient, brave,  clever, determined & callous enough to successfully attempt this in such a short time scale.  Without having the above essential information. But neither of them will budge on the relatives doing this.

This highlights why Bamber wanted the Blue forum shut down. The crazy theories are more of a hinderence than help to him. Even Trudies vlogs were stopped which were a lot more mild.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 11:26:41 AM by adam »

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2018, 11:46:59 AM »
This highlights why Bamber wanted the Blue forum shut down. The crazy theories are more of a hinderence than help to him. Even Trudies vlogs were stopped which were a lot more mild.

I have to say, one or two people over on that 'blue' forum are off their heads.  So much so, I'm starting to wonder if they've been tapping Bamber for illicit substances.

On a serious note, Bamber does need to be realistic in the arguments he puts forward.  And, as I've tried to explain to the people on 'blue', the arguments put forward to the CCRC (and, by extension, to the appellate judges), have to challenge his murder conviction, not exercise vendettas.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2018, 12:00:51 PM »
Again do you have anything to back up your assertions?

Yes.  I'm a self-educated man, but I am very knowledgeable about the law - more so than some practising solicitors.  In fact, some weeks ago, I was explaining the intricacies of trust law to a solicitor who specialises in private client work, which may be more a commentary on standards in that profession than my cognitive abilities.  Nevertheless, I know things.  I read books.  I have a lot of experience of criminal law and practice and the ways of the courts, including how evidence is collected, the different types of evidence, how witnesses are adduced, etc..  And I've also spent a lot of time in the sort of place where you have time to read lots of books, especially law-related books, among other materials.

If you think I'm wrong (and I may be, I'm not omniscient and don't pretend to be), then we can either leave it or you can consult a practising solicitor, who - I believe - may well confirm that when a defendant or appellant needs to obtain expert evidence, he will (as a rule, exceptions allowing) seek to control the selection of expert(s), the terms of reference and sometimes (depending on the field or discipline involved), the methodology and (if applicable) technology used.  The point is that that is perfectly normal and there is nothing suspicious about it, and any defendant or appellant who is not allowed this freedom by a would-be benefactor may well turn down that help on the basis that the outcome of an undirected expert may be unhelpful or even prejudicial.  The defendant or appellant in any criminal case is perfectly entitled to take this view, there is nothing wrong with it - to the contrary, it would be strange otherwise.  However, at all times, the first duty of the expert is to the court and nothing changes that. 

I accept that sometimes would-be appellants seeking to overturn wrongful convictions avail themselves of the help of third parties who direct the expert evidence themselves, without input from the appellant, but that doesn't change what I have said, which is that a directed expert is the normal practice, provided that at all times the expert retains his autonomy and independence as an expert and fulfils his overriding duty to justice. 

In other words, and to put it plainly - he must follow the instructions of the defendant in terms of what he is looking for and (sometimes, if the field or discipline of the expert makes this appropriate) how and in what manner he looks for it, but he can't fabricate evidence or findings, or produce misleading findings or in any way lie, exaggerate or mislead the court about material matters.  Nor can he overstep his conclusions without making it clear that he is only proffering an opinion.  Nor should be misrepresent his expertise.

I hope that explains it fully.


 

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1612
  • Total likes: 31
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2018, 12:39:25 PM »
On a serious note, Bamber does need to be realistic in the arguments he puts forward.  And, as I've tried to explain to the people on 'blue', the arguments put forward to the CCRC (and, by extension, to the appellate judges), have to challenge his murder conviction, not exercise vendettas.

Bambers claimed he wants a retrial because he wants ALL the evidence to come out. Personally I cannot ever see his case getting back to the COA, but if he were to ever have a re-trial I'd like to see a similar argument to that put forward at Barry George's re-trial.

"George's defence team argued in court that he lacked the capability to carry out the meticulously-planned execution-style killing.
Scans of his brain showed "severely abnormal" results and some tests placed him in the lowest 1% of the population for his memory and planning abilities."

He's claimed for 33 years now he's not a psychopath. I bet his brain scans would prove otherwise.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 12:42:06 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #44 on: April 02, 2018, 12:57:29 PM »
Bambers claimed he wants a retrial because he wants ALL the evidence to come out. Personally I cannot ever see his case getting back to the COA, but if he were to ever have a re-trial I'd like to see a similar argument to that put forward at Barry George's re-trial.

"George's defence team argued in court that he lacked the capability to carry out the meticulously-planned execution-style killing.
Scans of his brain showed "severely abnormal" results and some tests placed him in the lowest 1% of the population for his memory and planning abilities."

He's claimed for 33 years now he's not a psychopath. I bet his brain scans would prove otherwise.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but if we assume that Bamber did this and if we also assume that the Crown's case theory is - more or less - correct, then Bamber's crime demonstrates sophisticated criminal planning abilities.  He fabricated a telephone call from Nevill.  He concealed the moderator in the gun cupboard to exclude that evidence.  He staged the crime scene to portray a murder-suicide.  He knew where everybody slept and presumably waited until the early hours to be certain Nevill was in bed (remember, it was a summer night), possibly so that he could manufacture a kill series that would assist his inheritance prospects.  He play-acted in front of the police and at the funeral in front of his extended family and the public (in effect, mocking poor Colin Caffell - arguably the biggest surviving victim of all). Etc., etc.  You know this case better than me: you'll come up with points of your own, I'm sure.

You follow my point, I assume.  This is cold, cold stuff.  There is simply no prospect of the Court of Appeal, or indeed the Parole Board, or the Secretary of State for Justice, accepting a defence, appeal or argument that this wasn't carefully planned and that Bamber was somehow mentally or psychologically debilitated.  That train has left the station.

Personally, I take a very liberal attitude to criminal justice - but I do favour hanging and I think Bamber should have been hung after the failure of his first appeal.  Which, by the way, is not to say I think he did it: I take no view on that one way or the other.  I simply can't.  I wasn't there.  But what I do think is, if you're convicted for five murders, including two kids, you're for the rope.

I do not accept he is a psychopath.  I don't believe 'psychopaths' exist.  I think the whole thesis of psychopathy is pseudo-science and runs dangerously close to absolving criminals of responsibility for their wrong-doing.  In that regard, you may wish to note that psychopathy is not, per se, recognised as a mental illness (though I accept there are analogous personality disorders). 

I do accept that, regardless of his guilt or innocence, Jeremy Bamber has something seriously wrong with him in the upstairs department.  Despite my (justifiable) scorn for the former Miss Julie Mugford and her joke Toytown evidence, I happen to think she was probably telling the truth about what he told her - if so, it might be as well that Jeremy has spent his life in confinement.  Any man who has conversations like that with his girlfriend has a screw loose. 
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 01:01:23 PM by LuminousWanderer »