Author Topic: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?  (Read 1187 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2018, 07:14:41 PM »
Fair enough.  Shall we accept there was some misunderstanding between us and move on?

So it seems from Dr Fallon and Prof Baron-Cohen that psychopathy ie erosion or lack of empathy (inability to feel the pain of another) is caused by certain genes but those that go on to commit anti-social acts have usually suffered abuse/neglect too so in effect it is gene environment interaction?

That's about the size of it.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #46 on: April 11, 2018, 02:26:16 PM »
As the debate is about JB v SC I guess we need to consider what a brain scan from SC might reveal.  Although as per the experts quoted in this thread it seems psychopathy is caused by carrying certain genes and being exposed to an environment of abuse and neglect. 

I think the problem is abuse and neglect conjures up low-socio economic families or single parents leading chaotic lives not middle class families like the Bambers where one or both parents suffer a mental illness and possibly emotional problems eg linked to their infertility.  Until I see some evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe SC was adversely affected by June's mental illness circa 1959. 


Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
"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

Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2018, 03:09:23 PM »
This thread is about why Bamber has campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath Holly

Yes and many of the posts make ref to brain scans including your post #1.  Given the whole hub of the debate is JB or SC are you saying my posts above are unrelated to the thread and off-topic?


Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #50 on: May 02, 2018, 12:59:25 PM »
This thread is about why Bamber has campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath Holly

John Worboys conned the prison and associated agencies but was eventually found out.

I firmly believe Jeremy Bamber has also conned the prison and associated agencies, including in relation to all his assessments; but will in time be also be caught out.

Whilst I appreciate the two cases are different the basis of the two cases are the same.



"On Wednesday 28 March 2018, the High Court handed down its landmark judgment in the case of John Worboys, upholding the challenge by two of his victims to the Parole Board’s decision to release him. The judgment runs to over fifty pages and does not make for easy reading, so here’s a breakdown of this unusual and complex case.

What is this case about in a nutshell?

On 13 March 2009, Worboys (now known as John Radford) was convicted of 19 serious sexual offences involving twelve victims, and was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a minimum term of 8 years. Upon expiry of that minimum term, Worboys became eligible for release, subject to satisfying the Parole Board that his incarceration was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. On 26 December 2017, the Parole Board directed his release. The decision, as with all decisions of the Parole Board, was taken in private and no reasons are allowed to be published under Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules 2016. Judicial review proceedings were instituted to challenge both the decision to release Worboys, and the legality of Rule 25.

Who was involved in the challenge?

There were three sets of linked proceedings. The first was instituted by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. The second challenge was by two women, DSD and NBV, the latter of whom was a victim who gave evidence at Worboys’ trial, the former of whom was not involved in the criminal proceedings (a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, not DSD), and obtained a civil settlement against him. The third challenge was by News Group Newspapers Ltd, and was directed solely to the legality of Rule 25.

What was the Court’s decision?

Sadiq Khan fell at the first hurdle – the Court ruled that he did not have “standing” to bring a Judicial Review against the Parole Board – that is, he did not have a sufficient interest in the decision. However DSD and NBV, and News Group Newspapers, who did have standing (being, for want of a better expression, directly affected by the issues raised), succeeded in their challenge on both limbs.

So the Parole Board was wrong to direct that Worboys should be released?

No. Not exactly. Judicial Review is (very broadly speaking) concerned with process, rather than outcome. The Court did not rule that the Parole Board was wrong to assess Worboys as fit for release. Rather, the Court held that the Parole Board decision was not rational, in that it had failed to undertake further inquiry into “the circumstances of Worboys’ offending and in particular the extent to which the limited way he described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability”.

What further inquiry should have been undertaken?

The dossier before the Parole Board appeared disconcertingly light on key materials. There was not a copy of the prosecution opening speech, nor the judge’s sentencing remarks, from Worboys’ trial, which contained important summaries of the circumstances of the offences. Nor was there a copy of the judgment of the High Court in the proceedings brought against the Metropolitan Police by some of Worboys’ victims, which contained further detail as to how he carried out his crimes, including the discovery of a “rape kit” in Worboys’ car, containing, among other things, condoms and strips of Nytol. Nor was there any information concerning the wider offences alleged against Worboys by other women, including some with whom he had reached civil settlements (said to be “without admission of liability”).

This all matters because until 2015, Worboys had continued to deny his guilt and was pursuing routes of appeal, before, in May 2015, performing a remarkable volte face and admitting the offences of which he had been convicted. That this came only 9 months before he was eligible for release might by itself have raised eyebrows. But more importantly, what he said to the professionals when he did admit his offences did not sit easily with the evidence at trial. He appeared to redraw the limits of his criminality, for example asserting that he had only once used Nytol to drug his victims, and minimising the extent to which he had sexually assaulted them. He also maintained that the only offences he had committed were those of which he had been convicted, notwithstanding the view expressed by the police that he had committed over a hundred like offences.

The Parole Board relied heavily upon a number of reports from offender managers and psychologists. While his offender managers opposed release, several psychologists were in favour. However, in arriving at their views, these psychologists appeared to accept at face value what Worboys had told them and concluded that he had taken “full responsibility” for his actions.”

Read more here: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/your-questions-answered-on-the-unusual-and-complex-john-worboys-case/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 06:11:35 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: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #51 on: May 02, 2018, 01:43:49 PM »
John Worboys conned the prison and associated agencies but was eventually found out.

I firmly believe Jeremy Bamber has also conned the prison and associated agencies, including in relation to all his assessments; but will in time be also be caught out.

Whilst I appreciate the two cases are different the basis of the two cases are the same.



"On Wednesday 28 March 2018, the High Court handed down its landmark judgment in the case of John Worboys, upholding the challenge by two of his victims to the Parole Board’s decision to release him. The judgment runs to over fifty pages and does not make for easy reading, so here’s a breakdown of this unusual and complex case.

What is this case about in a nutshell?

On 13 March 2009, Worboys (now known as John Radford) was convicted of 19 serious sexual offences involving twelve victims, and was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a minimum term of 8 years. Upon expiry of that minimum term, Worboys became eligible for release, subject to satisfying the Parole Board that his incarceration was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. On 26 December 2017, the Parole Board directed his release. The decision, as with all decisions of the Parole Board, was taken in private and no reasons are allowed to be published under Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules 2016. Judicial review proceedings were instituted to challenge both the decision to release Worboys, and the legality of Rule 25.

Who was involved in the challenge?

There were three sets of linked proceedings. The first was instituted by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. The second challenge was by two women, DSD and NBV, the latter of whom was a victim who gave evidence at Worboys’ trial, the former of whom was not involved in the criminal proceedings (a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, not DSD), and obtained a civil settlement against him. The third challenge was by News Group Newspapers Ltd, and was directed solely to the legality of Rule 25.

What was the Court’s decision?

Sadiq Khan fell at the first hurdle – the Court ruled that he did not have “standing” to bring a Judicial Review against the Parole Board – that is, he did not have a sufficient interest in the decision. However DSD and NBV, and News Group Newspapers, who did have standing (being, for want of a better expression, directly affected by the issues raised), succeeded in their challenge on both limbs.

So the Parole Board was wrong to direct that Worboys should be released?

No. Not exactly. Judicial Review is (very broadly speaking) concerned with process, rather than outcome. The Court did not rule that the Parole Board was wrong to assess Worboys as fit for release. Rather, the Court held that the Parole Board decision was not rational, in that it had failed to undertake further inquiry into “the circumstances of Worboys’ offending and in particular the extent to which the limited way he described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability”.

What further inquiry should have been undertaken?

The dossier before the Parole Board appeared disconcertingly light on key materials. There was not a copy of the prosecution opening speech, nor the judge’s sentencing remarks, from Worboys’ trial, which contained important summaries of the circumstances of the offences. Nor was there a copy of the judgment of the High Court in the proceedings brought against the Metropolitan Police by some of Worboys’ victims, which contained further detail as to how he carried out his crimes, including the discovery of a “rape kit” in Worboys’ car, containing, among other things, condoms and strips of Nytol. Nor was there any information concerning the wider offences alleged against Worboys by other women, including some with whom he had reached civil settlements (said to be “without admission of liability”).

This all matters because until 2015, Worboys had continued to deny his guilt and was pursuing routes of appeal, before, in May 2015, performing a remarkable volte face and admitting the offences of which he had been convicted. That this came only 9 months before he was eligible for release might by itself have raised eyebrows. But more importantly, what he said to the professionals when he did admit his offences did not sit easily with the evidence at trial. He appeared to redraw the limits of his criminality, for example asserting that he had only once used Nytol to drug his victims, and minimising the extent to which he had sexually assaulted them. He also maintained that the only offences he had committed were those of which he had been convicted, notwithstanding the view expressed by the police that he had committed over a hundred like offences.

The Parole Board relied heavily upon a number of reports from offender managers and psychologists. While his offender managers opposed release, several psychologists were in favour. However, in arriving at their views, these psychologists appeared to accept at face value what Worboys had told them and concluded that he had taken “full responsibility” for his actions.”

Read more here: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/your-questions-answered-on-the-unusual-and-complex-john-worboys-case/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

The Judges summing up in the Jeremy Bamber case:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=273.0
"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: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #52 on: May 02, 2018, 01:48:43 PM »
The Judges summing up in the Jeremy Bamber case:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=273.0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43930342

"Victims of crime could find it simpler to challenge parole decisions, as part of a major overhaul of the Parole Board process.
Justice Secretary David Gauke is proposing reforms after the decision, which was overturned, to grant parole to serial sex-offender John Worboys.
Under the changes victims would get more information about cases and it would be easier to challenge decisions
.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guaranteed-support-for-victims-of-crime
"Victims of crime will now be able to hold the criminal justice system to account for the support it provides and be backed by a clear set of entitlements thanks to a statutory new Victims Code, Victims’ Minister Helen Grant announced today.

A simple new Code – written for victims rather than the ‘System’ for the first time - has today been put out to consultation to ensure it gives victims what they need. It tells people what they can expect from the moment they report a crime to the end of a trial, and who to demand help from if it is not provided.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 01:54:27 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: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #53 on: May 02, 2018, 01:56:15 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43930342

"Victims of crime could find it simpler to challenge parole decisions, as part of a major overhaul of the Parole Board process.
Justice Secretary David Gauke is proposing reforms after the decision, which was overturned, to grant parole to serial sex-offender John Worboys.
Under the changes victims would get more information about cases and it would be easier to challenge decisions
.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guaranteed-support-for-victims-of-crime
"Victims of crime will now be able to hold the criminal justice system to account for the support it provides and be backed by a clear set of entitlements thanks to a statutory new Victims Code, Victims’ Minister Helen Grant announced today.

A simple new Code – written for victims rather than the ‘System’ for the first time - has today been put out to consultation to ensure it gives victims what they need. It tells people what they can expect from the moment they report a crime to the end of a trial, and who to demand help from if it is not provided.


I am of the opinion that Jeremy Bambers psychological assessments, the ones he uses to dupe his victims, will in the near future be scrutinised and brought up to date.

Thus his public campaign to suggest he isn't a psychopath will cease.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 03:42:48 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: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2018, 06:15:01 PM »


The Parole Board relied heavily upon a number of reports from offender managers and psychologists. While his offender managers opposed release, several psychologists were in favour. However, in arriving at their views, these psychologists appeared to accept at face value what Worboys had told them and concluded that he had taken “full responsibility” for his actions.”

Read more here: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/your-questions-answered-on-the-unusual-and-complex-john-worboys-case/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

And THIS is how Jeremy Bamber has duped so many! 

"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: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #55 on: May 02, 2018, 07:27:10 PM »
And THIS is how Jeremy Bamber has duped so many!

Although Bamber has never taken ANY responsibility!

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2018, 10:15:53 PM »
Although Bamber has never taken ANY responsibility!

And he won't, even when his psychopathy is exposed - and it WILL be!

Nothing is ever his fault!
"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: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #57 on: May 04, 2018, 07:02:40 PM »
Does anyone know if Jeremy Bamber has had an adjudications these past 33 years or so. I presuming he had one in relation to the violent attack on another prisoner https://www.thefreelibrary.com/KILLER+BAMBER'S+BROKEN+BOTTLE+JAIL+ATTACK.-a061330122

The home office said there would be an enquire regarding this; did it happen? Can we find out?

What prison courses, if any, has Bamber completed in relation to his violent attack on another inmate and

Did the prison forensic psychologists who assessed Bamber take this violent offence into consideration when completing their assessments of him?

What did Prof Egan have to say about Bamber in relation to this violent episode?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 07:09:18 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: 1970
  • Total likes: 45
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath?
« Reply #58 on: May 04, 2018, 07:12:28 PM »
It appears obvious to me that many of Bambers supporters seem unaware that before his trial, a pre trial report would have been carried out on him. This is a pre requisite for violent offenders. Where is it? What does it say?

"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"