Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.  (Read 280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« on: March 28, 2018, 02:33:10 AM »
I personally believe whole life orders (as they are now known) are wrong and cruel.  I am not soft on people like Bamber: if we rest on the formality of his conviction and put aside the still-ripe question of whether that conviction is legally safe, I think he should have been hung.  But hanging was abolished for murder in this country long before this tragedy and so he got a life term, and we are where we are.  My view is that keeping people in prison for decades on end is cruel.  If we're keeping him alive, he has a duty to rehabilitate himself, and the system has a duty to support him and provide him with temporary release opportunities, etc..

Even if Bamber did it, notwithstanding the horrific nature of his crimes, I hope he can be allowed to progress through the prison system with a view to eventual release, or at least imprisonment in the Open Estate.  The latter is common for elderly lifers, though in Bamber's case there would be a question mark over his safety, even among minimum security offenders.

Obviously nobody would want to see the release of predatory sex killers - for example, Peter Sutcliffe - but even in those sorts of cases, there should always be a theoretical possibility of release.  The system should be able to review the risk of even the worst lifers on the same basis as the others and there would seem to be no reason why that can't happen. 

A couple of further points I should add to this, which I think are of some relevance:

First, there is - I believe - a standing policy in HM Prison Service now that every effort should be made to avoid a 'Death In Custody'.  This means that even dangerous lifers are placed in a hospice or in a hospital when they are approaching death.  I suspect the reason for this isn't compassion or munificence as much as a legal strategy to avoid the inevitable conspiracy theories and investigations when somebody dies in custody, but it's not nice to allow somebody to die in prison anyway - even if the individual is a horrible sadistic killer, it's important to set a better example by giving them a dignified death. 

I mention this because it shows that the system isn't averse to the idea of 'releasing' controversial offenders.  It's not a great leap to suppose that you could release somebody like Jeremy Bamber in very old age on compassionate grounds.

Second, I note that offenders like Sutcliffe and Ian Brady are/were not held in prisons, but in secure hospitals.  I'm not attempting to compare Bamber with those individuals, but my personal view is that anybody who commits murders of the kind committed by Bamber (assuming that he did it), needs 'help' - serious help.  Yes, punishment as well.  But if we're going to have a system without the death penalty (and to be clear, I personally favour capital punishment for people like Bamber - but we don't have that, so that part of my view is academic entirely), then I don't agree with warehousing these people.  I think some work should have been done to treat him, because he must be disturbed, and to try and get him into a mindset that could allow him to be re-integrated back into society.  In my (unqualified layman's) opinion, that can only be achieved in some sort of therapeutic setting.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 02:51:40 AM by LuminousWanderer »

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2018, 09:34:55 AM »
I personally believe whole life orders (as they are now known) are wrong and cruel.  I am not soft on people like Bamber: if we rest on the formality of his conviction and put aside the still-ripe question of whether that conviction is legally safe, I think he should have been hung.  But hanging was abolished for murder in this country long before this tragedy and so he got a life term, and we are where we are.  My view is that keeping people in prison for decades on end is cruel.  If we're keeping him alive, he has a duty to rehabilitate himself, and the system has a duty to support him and provide him with temporary release opportunities, etc..

Even if Bamber did it, notwithstanding the horrific nature of his crimes, I hope he can be allowed to progress through the prison system with a view to eventual release, or at least imprisonment in the Open Estate.  The latter is common for elderly lifers, though in Bamber's case there would be a question mark over his safety, even among minimum security offenders.

Obviously nobody would want to see the release of predatory sex killers - for example, Peter Sutcliffe - but even in those sorts of cases, there should always be a theoretical possibility of release.  The system should be able to review the risk of even the worst lifers on the same basis as the others and there would seem to be no reason why that can't happen. 

A couple of further points I should add to this, which I think are of some relevance:

First, there is - I believe - a standing policy in HM Prison Service now that every effort should be made to avoid a 'Death In Custody'.  This means that even dangerous lifers are placed in a hospice or in a hospital when they are approaching death.  I suspect the reason for this isn't compassion or munificence as much as a legal strategy to avoid the inevitable conspiracy theories and investigations when somebody dies in custody, but it's not nice to allow somebody to die in prison anyway - even if the individual is a horrible sadistic killer, it's important to set a better example by giving them a dignified death. 

I mention this because it shows that the system isn't averse to the idea of 'releasing' controversial offenders.  It's not a great leap to suppose that you could release somebody like Jeremy Bamber in very old age on compassionate grounds.

Second, I note that offenders like Sutcliffe and Ian Brady are/were not held in prisons, but in secure hospitals.  I'm not attempting to compare Bamber with those individuals, but my personal view is that anybody who commits murders of the kind committed by Bamber (assuming that he did it), needs 'help' - serious help.  Yes, punishment as well.  But if we're going to have a system without the death penalty (and to be clear, I personally favour capital punishment for people like Bamber - but we don't have that, so that part of my view is academic entirely), then I don't agree with warehousing these people.  I think some work should have been done to treat him, because he must be disturbed, and to try and get him into a mindset that could allow him to be re-integrated back into society.  In my (unqualified layman's) opinion, that can only be achieved in some sort of therapeutic setting.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Are psychopaths like Bamber treatable https://www.elsevier.com/connect/psychopaths-what-are-they-and-how-should-we-deal-with-them
"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: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2018, 03:58:39 PM »
Are psychopaths like Bamber treatable https://www.elsevier.com/connect/psychopaths-what-are-they-and-how-should-we-deal-with-them

Interesting, thanks.

I'm not sure I go along the concept of 'psychopaths', but it is fascinating.

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2018, 04:23:30 PM »
Interesting, thanks.

I'm not sure I go along the concept of 'psychopaths', but it is fascinating.

How would you describe a person who Murders 5 family members (including 2 young sleeping boys)



"Who Does That?
By Sandra L. Brown, MA

"Part of our goal at The Institute is not only to help survivors heal from the aftermath of a PLR (Pathological Love Relationship), but also to help prevent future relationships with pathologicals. In prevention, The Institute helps survivors to spot overt, glaring pathology. The overt pathology is easy to identify:
Few would argue that mothers who drown their children, like Susan Smith or Andrea Yates, arenít terribly disordered.
Those who shoot people they donít know, or commit a drive-by shooting clearly have pathological motives.
Those who sexually abuse children and then hide the sexual offenders, like the Catholic Church has done, are the face of evil.
Horrendous hate crimes that torture hundreds, thousands, or millions of peopleó like war crimes or the Holocaustóillustrate that severe pathology is behind the motivation of that type of hate.
The deranged that break into homes to beat the elderly for money, like Phillip Garrett who terrorized those in assisted living facilities, have a notable bent of sheer brutality. 
Terrorists who commit the taking of hostages and inflict psychological torture, like the infamous Stockholm Bank Robbery (which resulted in the term Stockholm Syndrome), are identifiable as probable psychopaths.
The rapist who preys on the vulnerable, or the rapist who rapes a woman in front of her own husband, is overtly vile.
The violent anti-socials that are frequent gang members or thugs, like James Manley, who murdered my father.
Serial killers, like Ted Bundy, who raped and killed at least 36 women, leave no doubt that he was the worst of the worst psychopaths.
The ordering of killing a pregnant woman and her unborn child, like schizophrenic psychopath Charlie Manson did, makes our blood run cold.
Cult leaders who usher hundreds to death, like Jim Jones, remind us of the power and persuasion of pathology.
Chronic re-offending domestic violence abusers, like O.J. Simpson and Mike Tyson, convince us that all DV is not treatable, and some abuser brutality increases with each crime, and are obviously disordered.
The babbling grandiosity of narcissism, as seen in Charlie Sheen, reminds us that even the rich and famous carry and display their pack of pathology for all to see.
White-collar scam artists, like Bernie Madoff, who rob millions of dollars from thousands of people, remind us that not all pathology is physically violentósome do it with panache and a tie on.
​​​​​​​These forms of pathology are recognizable by most of society. Many would agree that these people are horribly disordered and probably dangerous for life.

But being able to spot pathology in less overt and even frequently hidden acts, yet equally as damaging, is where most of us fall shortóincluding professionals in the criminal justice and mental health systems. Itís also where survivors of PLRs are likely to trip up yet again, since the types of behaviors pathologicals perpetrate can vary, causing confusion to the unsuspecting, highly tolerant, and emotionally understanding survivor.

Low empathy is at the core of a cluster of pathological disorders that correlates to inevitable harm when it crosses the paths of others. Low empathy has its roots in reduced conscience, remorse, and guilt. Without empathy, pathologicals find pleasure in harming others. While they might not cackle aloud in public when a dog is hit by a car, they nonetheless live in the shadows of enjoying the physical or emotional destruction of others.

Sadistic? Absolutely! But often itís sadistic behind closed doors, or as sheltered reputations behind fictitious names, or online identities.

Why arenít these pathological disorders better identified? That is the million-dollar question, since the main judicial, social, and mental systems of our society deal with this particular cluster of pathological disorders day in and day out. Why are they actively dealing with Cluster Bs?  Because these disorders represent the majority of white- and blue-collar crimes that cataclysmically smash into our lives, even if they are never identified as crimes. The reason society has not cohesively named this cluster of disorders as the center of their focus is because each system has its own view of the behaviors associated with the pathologicalís disorders:
Law enforcement calls them the bad guys (if they are even caught).
Mental health systems call them patients.
Domestic violence organizations call them abusers.
Batterer intervention programs call them perpetrators.
Criminal defense attorneys call them clients.
Sexual assault centers call them rapists or sexual offenders.
Financial institutions call them swindlers.
The online world calls them trolls.
Victims call them predators.
Children and adolescents call them cyberbullies.
The swindled call them con artists.
The judicial system calls them criminals (or not, if they are never identified).
Churches call them evil or unredeemed.
Website owners call them hackers.
The defamed call them cyberstalkers.
Parents call them pedophiles.
Jails call them inmates.
Prisons call them high-security risks.
The FBI calls them targets and terrorists.
As each system deals with its own view of a specific act the person has done, we miss the wider category that these people fall under. We miss the bigger implication of what goes with that category. We miss the fact that those with these pathological disorders have largely low, or no, positive treatment outcomes. Each system dealing with a behavior only sees the person through their own behavioral specialty. Yet we are all talking about the same disorders in action.

When we ask ďWho does that?Ē we immediately become brothers and sisters in the same battle against pathology. We begin to see the who within the act, the disorder that perpetrates these same acts, behaviors, or crimes. Itís the same subset of disorders that have different focuses, but the same outcome: inevitable harm.https://www.thetraumatherapistproject.com/podcast/sandra-l-brown-ma/
« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 04:27:29 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 Angelo222

Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2018, 08:05:53 PM »
The extended family wouldn't be able to sleep in their beds at night if Jeremy Bamber were ever released?  He is still perceived as a risk to family members and to witnesses who testified against him at his trial.

On that basis he will never get out.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 01:36:51 PM by John »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2018, 11:06:55 AM »
I personally believe whole life orders (as they are now known) are wrong and cruel.  I am not soft on people like Bamber: if we rest on the formality of his conviction and put aside the still-ripe question of whether that conviction is legally safe, I think he should have been hung.  But hanging was abolished for murder in this country long before this tragedy and so he got a life term, and we are where we are.  My view is that keeping people in prison for decades on end is cruel.  If we're keeping him alive, he has a duty to rehabilitate himself, and the system has a duty to support him and provide him with temporary release opportunities, etc..

Even if Bamber did it, notwithstanding the horrific nature of his crimes, I hope he can be allowed to progress through the prison system with a view to eventual release, or at least imprisonment in the Open Estate.  The latter is common for elderly lifers, though in Bamber's case there would be a question mark over his safety, even among minimum security offenders.

Obviously nobody would want to see the release of predatory sex killers - for example, Peter Sutcliffe - but even in those sorts of cases, there should always be a theoretical possibility of release.  The system should be able to review the risk of even the worst lifers on the same basis as the others and there would seem to be no reason why that can't happen. 

A couple of further points I should add to this, which I think are of some relevance:

First, there is - I believe - a standing policy in HM Prison Service now that every effort should be made to avoid a 'Death In Custody'.  This means that even dangerous lifers are placed in a hospice or in a hospital when they are approaching death.  I suspect the reason for this isn't compassion or munificence as much as a legal strategy to avoid the inevitable conspiracy theories and investigations when somebody dies in custody, but it's not nice to allow somebody to die in prison anyway - even if the individual is a horrible sadistic killer, it's important to set a better example by giving them a dignified death. 

I mention this because it shows that the system isn't averse to the idea of 'releasing' controversial offenders.  It's not a great leap to suppose that you could release somebody like Jeremy Bamber in very old age on compassionate grounds.

Second, I note that offenders like Sutcliffe and Ian Brady are/were not held in prisons, but in secure hospitals.  I'm not attempting to compare Bamber with those individuals, but my personal view is that anybody who commits murders of the kind committed by Bamber (assuming that he did it), needs 'help' - serious help.  Yes, punishment as well.  But if we're going to have a system without the death penalty (and to be clear, I personally favour capital punishment for people like Bamber - but we don't have that, so that part of my view is academic entirely), then I don't agree with warehousing these people.  I think some work should have been done to treat him, because he must be disturbed, and to try and get him into a mindset that could allow him to be re-integrated back into society.  In my (unqualified layman's) opinion, that can only be achieved in some sort of therapeutic setting.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Define what you mean by "cruel" and based on your knowledge of the CJS and having been in prison for terrisim offences and armed robbery (is that right?) what kind of help do you suggest for people like Bamber. What kind of help were you given, if any?

I am the guy from facebook and the Hanratty argument is mine. I felt it highly appropriate to the situtation.
There are striking similarities in both cases as regards denial. Whether or not Hanratty was actually a clinical psychopath will probably never be known, what we do know is that the DNA found at the crime scene matched his,  and therefore there is a extremely high probability that Hanratty is a murderer and a rapist. I believe the rape may be the cause of Hanratty's reluctance to admit to the crime, rather than the murder.  Who knows?
Bamber I believe, denies it persistently for several reasons. First and foremost he is aware that an admission of any sort would, almost certainly condemn him to a whole life tariff with virtually no hope of a retrial, Denial, however, affords Bamber the possibility - at least in theory - that his case may be referred to the Court of Appeal and he could be released, even on a technicality.
Secondly, Bamber's overbearing arrogance. This well-documented and clearly obnoxious side to Bamber's personality, I believe played and continues to play a huge part in his reluctance to admit that he is responsible for this heinous crime. Put simply, he simply cannot admit to himself and others that he is a cowardly murderer who ambushed 5 defenseless people one man , two women and two children. Lastly I believe that Bamber has portrayed himself - as narcissistic psychopaths often do - in the role of the victim. In was not him who committed the murders but his sister. Everyone else is lying. His relatives are trying to frame him. The police are out to get him. Anyone but him. This is one of the key traits of a psychopath - Denial and then shifting the blame. Psychopaths are adept at this. However, there is one last aspect to why I think Bamber persistently denies responsibility and readers may find this somewhat strange; Bamber has such total contempt for those people that he so brutally murdered, that he feels they are unworthy of his imprisonment for their murder. He feels it is highly unjust that a man such as himself should spend any time at all incarcerated just because of them. In effect Bamber may feel a sense of injustice not for the fact that he is serving time for murder, but because the people that he murdered are unworthy of the time he is serving. They were nothing to him and therefore any punishment thats is administered should follow suit. To any right-thinking individual it sounds extremely strange. However, to a narcissistic psychopath this type of thinking makes perfect sense
.

I agree with the above




« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 11:22:50 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 Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2018, 11:31:51 AM »
I personally believe whole life orders (as they are now known) are wrong and cruel.  I am not soft on people like Bamber: if we rest on the formality of his conviction and put aside the still-ripe question of whether that conviction is legally safe, I think he should have been hung.  But hanging was abolished for murder in this country long before this tragedy and so he got a life term, and we are where we are.  My view is that keeping people in prison for decades on end is cruel.  If we're keeping him alive, he has a duty to rehabilitate himself, and the system has a duty to support him and provide him with temporary release opportunities, etc..

Even if Bamber did it, notwithstanding the horrific nature of his crimes, I hope he can be allowed to progress through the prison system with a view to eventual release, or at least imprisonment in the Open Estate.  The latter is common for elderly lifers, though in Bamber's case there would be a question mark over his safety, even among minimum security offenders.

Obviously nobody would want to see the release of predatory sex killers - for example, Peter Sutcliffe - but even in those sorts of cases, there should always be a theoretical possibility of release.  The system should be able to review the risk of even the worst lifers on the same basis as the others and there would seem to be no reason why that can't happen. 

A couple of further points I should add to this, which I think are of some relevance:

First, there is - I believe - a standing policy in HM Prison Service now that every effort should be made to avoid a 'Death In Custody'.  This means that even dangerous lifers are placed in a hospice or in a hospital when they are approaching death.  I suspect the reason for this isn't compassion or munificence as much as a legal strategy to avoid the inevitable conspiracy theories and investigations when somebody dies in custody, but it's not nice to allow somebody to die in prison anyway - even if the individual is a horrible sadistic killer, it's important to set a better example by giving them a dignified death. 

I mention this because it shows that the system isn't averse to the idea of 'releasing' controversial offenders.  It's not a great leap to suppose that you could release somebody like Jeremy Bamber in very old age on compassionate grounds.

Second, I note that offenders like Sutcliffe and Ian Brady are/were not held in prisons, but in secure hospitals.  I'm not attempting to compare Bamber with those individuals, but my personal view is that anybody who commits murders of the kind committed by Bamber (assuming that he did it), needs 'help' - serious help.  Yes, punishment as well.  But if we're going to have a system without the death penalty (and to be clear, I personally favour capital punishment for people like Bamber - but we don't have that, so that part of my view is academic entirely), then I don't agree with warehousing these people.  I think some work should have been done to treat him, because he must be disturbed, and to try and get him into a mindset that could allow him to be re-integrated back into society.  In my (unqualified layman's) opinion, that can only be achieved in some sort of therapeutic setting.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

The problem is people like Bamber think they are above the law; take Douglas Vinter for example

"Douglas Vinter would never claim to be a good man. Far from it. And his criminal record backs that up. He was given a life sentence for murdering a fellow worker, released on licence after 10 years and then given a whole-life sentence after killing his wife. It doesn't get much worse than that. He knows he has done terrible things and understands that he should serve a long time in prison. What he doesn't accept is being locked up till he dies, irrespective of his behaviour. "I'm young and fit and I've maybe got another 50 years of life as a category A prisoner left. Torture every single day. I actually pray for a heart attack or cancer," he said in a letter written to the Guardian a couple of years ago.

Perhaps his strongest argument against the whole-life tariff came in a disturbing letter he wrote a few months later. "I am sitting in the segregation unit and have been for a number of weeks. I was involved in a stabbing (not fatal) on the wing. You see how I can admit in a letter to an offence as serious as that. It's because the judge when he sentenced me to natural life gave me an invisible licence that said that I can breach any laws I want, no matter how serious, and the law can't touch me. I'm above the law. I said to the governor, don't waste any money on investigations, just give me another life sentence for my collection. They don't mean anything any more."

He subsequently stabbed in the eye Roy Whiting, the killer of eight-year-old Sarah Payne, and was a couple of weeks ago given an indefinite sentence with a notional five-year minimum jail term to serve in addition to his whole-life sentence https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/dec/05/whole-life-prison-sentence-human-rights
"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: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2018, 01:15:16 PM »
 
The problem is people like Bamber think they are above the law; take Douglas Vinter for example

"Douglas Vinter would never claim to be a good man. Far from it. And his criminal record backs that up. He was given a life sentence for murdering a fellow worker, released on licence after 10 years and then given a whole-life sentence after killing his wife. It doesn't get much worse than that. He knows he has done terrible things and understands that he should serve a long time in prison. What he doesn't accept is being locked up till he dies, irrespective of his behaviour. "I'm young and fit and I've maybe got another 50 years of life as a category A prisoner left. Torture every single day. I actually pray for a heart attack or cancer," he said in a letter written to the Guardian a couple of years ago.

Perhaps his strongest argument against the whole-life tariff came in a disturbing letter he wrote a few months later. "I am sitting in the segregation unit and have been for a number of weeks. I was involved in a stabbing (not fatal) on the wing. You see how I can admit in a letter to an offence as serious as that. It's because the judge when he sentenced me to natural life gave me an invisible licence that said that I can breach any laws I want, no matter how serious, and the law can't touch me. I'm above the law. I said to the governor, don't waste any money on investigations, just give me another life sentence for my collection. They don't mean anything any more."

He subsequently stabbed in the eye Roy Whiting, the killer of eight-year-old Sarah Payne, and was a couple of weeks ago given an indefinite sentence with a notional five-year minimum jail term to serve in addition to his whole-life sentence https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/dec/05/whole-life-prison-sentence-human-rights

What's that saying? "If you can't do the time don't do the crime."

I don't envy prison staff and Governors having to deal with men like Vinter and Bamber but what are they doing about men like this and their "invincible licenses?" What's the state doing about it?

What is in the prison security files of men like this and why are they deemed too dangerous to ever be released from prison?

Shouldn't the Government be putting out public warnings for men like this? Should they lose their right to publicly campaign, in the process terrorise their surviving victims and indeed their unsuspecting victims?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 01:23:08 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 John

Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2018, 01:51:50 PM »
Posters are reminded to comment strictly according to the thread topic otherwise posts run the risk of being expunged.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Samson

Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2018, 11:19:13 AM »
The extended family wouldn't be able to sleep in their beds at night if Jeremy Bamber were ever released?  He is still perceived as a risk to family members and to witnesses who testified against him at his trial.

On that basis he will never get out.
The extended family planted evidence and stole his money.
There are tribes that would consider him a threat if released for that reason, but I would trust Bamber and avoid the putrid stench of his family, who should be bundled into his vacant cage.

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2018, 11:36:52 AM »
The extended family planted evidence and stole his money.
There are tribes that would consider him a threat if released for that reason, but I would trust Bamber and avoid the putrid stench of his family, who should be bundled into his vacant cage.

You have no evidence of this whatsoever. Just the word of a con man. What does that tell you.

Jeremy Bamber was given an opportunity at his trial to present his defence. Like many guilty men in his position he failed to do so because he was guilty and was caught banged to rights.

The "putrid stench" to which you refer is the smell of a coward. A highly disturbed and disordered individual who can not and will not admit to his crimes. A narcissist. A man who blames everyone else for his wrong doings and is incapable of recognising and owning his wrong doings. A man who seeks out his thrills at the expense and detriment of all others. A man who is without conscience. A man who has been served a full life tariff because he is too dangerous to ever be allowed back into mainstream society.


He is a pariah who preys upon the weaknesses of our criminal justice system

He preys about the naivity of others - including those who work for and represent the criminal justice system

Men like this will go to great lengths to stop the ugly truth from being exposed

And they often recruit like minded people to do their bidding

"Low empathy is at the core of a cluster of pathological disorders that correlates to inevitable harm when it crosses the paths of others. Low empathy has its roots in reduced conscience, remorse, and guilt. Without empathy, pathologicals find pleasure in harming others. While they might not cackle aloud in public when a dog is hit by a car, they nonetheless live in the shadows of enjoying the physical or emotional destruction of others
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 11:57:19 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 Samson

Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2018, 12:13:31 PM »
You have no evidence of this whatsoever. Just the word of a con man. What does that tell you.

Jeremy Bamber was given an opportunity at his trial to present his defence. Like many guilty men in his position he failed to do so because he was guilty and was caught banged to rights.

The "putrid stench" to which you refer is the smell of a coward. A highly disturbed and disordered individual who can not and will not admit to his crimes. A narcissist. A man who blames everyone else for his wrong doings and is incapable of recognising and owning his wrong doings. A man who seeks out his thrills at the expense and detriment of all others. A man who is without conscience. A man who has been served a full life tariff because he is too dangerous to ever be allowed back into mainstream society.


He is a pariah who preys upon the weaknesses of our criminal justice system

He preys about the naivity of others - including those who work for and represent the criminal justice system

Men like this will go to great lengths to stop the ugly truth from being exposed

And they often recruit like minded people to do their bidding

"Low empathy is at the core of a cluster of pathological disorders that correlates to inevitable harm when it crosses the paths of others. Low empathy has its roots in reduced conscience, remorse, and guilt. Without empathy, pathologicals find pleasure in harming others. While they might not cackle aloud in public when a dog is hit by a car, they nonetheless live in the shadows of enjoying the physical or emotional destruction of others
It is beyond obvious what happened, Holly graciously came to IA and filled in the missing parts for us, the proof that Sheila shot Neville from the landing as he raced up, alerted by the volley of shots that nearly killed his wife.
I have no idea why you don't see the obvious, motives, alibis, relatives fearful of their leased land being controlled by a 23 year old partial miscreant.
Nothing could be plainer from the get go.

Offline Samson

Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2018, 12:19:27 PM »
This thread questions the life tariff, but first he should never have been a suspect. He wasn't until the clever dicks saw an angle for a bizarre mini series, that could never collide with a real crime scene.
I check in seldom, but with deepening despair at the continuing asinine stupidity of mother England in perpetuating this hoax.

By the way the crime reconstruction that Carol Ann Lee repeated in her book which was the best official effort is impossible at every turn, this alone should give pause to Luminous Wanderer in his endeavours to look for a safe conviction.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 12:26:10 PM by Samson »

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2018, 12:36:50 PM »
This thread questions the life tariff, but first he should never have been a suspect. He wasn't until the clever dicks saw an angle for a bizarre mini series, that could never collide with a real crime scene.
I check in seldom, but with deepening despair at the continuing asinine stupidity of mother England in perpetuating this hoax.

By the way the crime reconstruction that Carol Ann Lee repeated in her book which was the best official effort is impossible at every turn, this alone should give pause to Luminous Wanderer in his endeavours to look for a safe conviction.

I am in the process of looking into stopping men like Jeremy Bamber, serving whole life tariffs, from being given free reign to cause further harm and suffering to the surviving relatives and other unsuspecting victims
"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 Samson

Re: Jeremy Bamber's whole life tariff review.
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2018, 12:41:43 PM »
I am in the process of looking into stopping men like Jeremy Bamber, serving whole life tariffs, from being given free reign to cause further harm and suffering to the surviving relatives and other unsuspecting victims
Which explains to me you have not analysed the crime scene and the best reconstruction the prosecutors offered.

But Holly has.

Your noble work is inappropriate for an innocent man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xci1a3yE0PM