The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?

[Nicholas]

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.


 

Lol - "smug" & " insufferable" springs to mind 

[Nicholas]

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.

Perhaps I wrongly assumed you were aware of my past link to Simon Hall?

Not dissimilar to Bamber he maintained innocence and launched a "high profile" public campaign. The CCRC referred his case back to the COA in 2010. His conviction was upheld in early 2011. He confessed his guilt in 2013 and hung himself in 2014.

I am fully aware of the controversy surrounding psychopathy now but hold my hands up to being naive back then; especially in relation to cluster b personality types.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on bran scan evidence in criminal trials and how a hyperthetically future re- trial may play out.

Btw I've found your posts a breath of fresh air both here and on blue, all things considered. Your posts appear to have garnered a lot of interest. You'll have most certainly rattled Bamber cage anyway 

Putting what you see as my "anti-Bamber bias" aside and looking at this case from a pro Bamber point of view, what do you have to say to him and his supporters (and the supposed fence sitters) in relation to the way in which Bamber has played out his public campaign these past 3 decades?

[LuminousWanderer]

Lol - "smug" & " insufferable" springs to mind 

Please bear in mind that I can't know what is behind what people post.  This is a decontextualised medium.  That being so, we must ask: what is the point of the above post?  What's the relevance of it?  This poster has a very long record of inflammatory postings on two different forums related to the Bamber case, to the extent that on the blue forum it would appear there is an entire thread dedicated to discussing her behaviour.  She has also been warned repeatedly on here and ignores those warnings and thereby disrespects the moderators.

I am asked to report incidents to the moderators of this Forum, but that then leads to this behaviour being buried and deleted.  I'd prefer her posts stay up and to highlight them, so that people can see for themselves the tactics used by dogmatic and emotionally-driven people.  This poster provides us with an interesting case study in the genre.  She is rather obsessed with the Bamber case and psychopaths.  She is convinced of his guilt, as if it were a singular fact, and will brook no gainsayers. 

To recap, I am asked by a moderator of this Forum to explain the basis of my knowledge of the legal system, and I explain it and indeed go further in an effort to help my questioner.  My post was therefore relevant, at least to that post if not the thread generally, and it was civil and - I think - knowledgeable to some degree.  Agree or disagree with me about the substance of what I said, that's fine.

Moving forward, in so far as I may post here from time-to-time, I should like to keep the discussion on all aspects of the Bamber case rational, civil and relevant, but I will defend myself against people, like the individual above, who clearly harbour an agenda and try to take discussions off-course with inanities.

[LuminousWanderer]

Perhaps I wrongly assumed you were aware of my past link to Simon Hall?

Not dissimilar to Bamber he maintained innocence and launched a "high profile" public campaign. The CCRC referred his case back to the COA in 2010. His conviction was upheld in early 2011. He confessed his guilt in 2013 and hung himself in 2014.

I am fully aware of the controversy surrounding psychopathy now but hold my hands up to being naive back then; especially in relation to cluster b personality types.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on bran scan evidence in criminal trials.

Btw I've found your posts a breath of fresh air both here and on blue, all things considered. Your posts appear to have garnered a lot of interest. You'll have most certainly rattled Bamber cage anyway 

I have no current interest in Simon Hall, whoever he is.  My interest is in Jeremy Bamber's case.  That's what this Forum is for.  I welcome discussion of analogous cases, but I don't see how your summary helps me understand the Bamber case.

Guilty people do maintain their innocence.  We know this.  We know that that might be the case with Jeremy Bamber.  For one thing, if he confessed he would be immediately in danger among Category A prisoners as an admitted double child killer.  So he has an incentive to lie, the lies being part of a self-preservation strategem.  I acknowledge and accept this possibility.  But none of us need to be told this.  We know. 

Simon Hall's case tells me nothing about whether Jeremy Bamber is falsely protesting his innocence.  Simon Hall is Simon Hall. Jeremy Bamber is Jeremy Bamber.  There may be things to learn from the Simon Hall case - legal reasoning often is based on analogies - but what Simon Hall did or didn't do is no proof or indication of anything about Jeremy Bamber.

Turning to psychopathy, I treat it as a thesis only and any assertion of psychopathy is nothing more than a thesis statement and an allegation, not a diagnosis.  That said, let me be clear that I am not an expert in psychology or psychiatry.  I comment as a layman entirely - and I may well be wrong, but if I am wrong, then I'm in very good company, stellar company in fact.

I wouldn't say that I am 'naive' about human nature.  I have encountered lots of different types of people, including people who would be broadly considered sociopaths (a different thing to a 'psychopath').  I have lived in and among such people, shared cells with them in the toughest prisons - including multiple murderers (including a man who was once on Britain's equivalent of death row), including sadistic drug lords and terrorists, etc., and I was once charged with terrorist offences myself as well as other things.  I am not a babe in the wood walking round in a rosy daze, innocently oblivious to human nature.

I do accept that there are people who have a diminished conscience.  What I don't accept is psychopathy as anything more than a tenuous academic thesis.  It so happens that neither does mainstream psychiatry, which is quite telling given that there would be every incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to see a large sub-set of the population diagnosed as psychopaths.  Which is not, I accept, proof of anything, and as I have already observed, there are recognised personality disorders that are analogous to psychopathy.

[Nicholas]

Please bear in mind that I can't know what is behind what people post.  This is a decontextualised medium.  That being so, we must ask: what is the point of the above post?  What's the relevance of it?  This poster has a very long record of inflammatory postings on two different forums related to the Bamber case, to the extent that on the blue forum it would appear there is an entire thread dedicated to discussing her behaviour.  She has also been warned repeatedly on here and ignores those warnings and thereby disrespects the moderators.

I am asked to report incidents to the moderators of this Forum, but that then leads to this behaviour being buried and deleted.  I'd prefer her posts stay up and to highlight them, so that people can see for themselves the tactics used by dogmatic and emotionally-driven people.  This poster provides us with an interesting case study in the genre.  She is rather obsessed with the Bamber case and psychopaths.  She is convinced of his guilt, as if it were a singular fact, and will brook no gainsayers. 

To recap, I am asked by a moderator of this Forum to explain the basis of my knowledge of the legal system, and I explain it and indeed go further in an effort to help my questioner.  My post was therefore relevant, at least to that post if not the thread generally, and it was civil and - I think - knowledgeable to some degree.  Agree or disagree with me about the substance of what I said, that's fine.

Moving forward, in so far as I may post here from time-to-time, I should like to keep the discussion on all aspects of the Bamber case rational, civil and relevant, but I will defend myself against people, like the individual above, who clearly harbour an agenda and try to take discussions off-course with inanities.

Was this done privately or on the board, I must have missed it.

[Nicholas]

I have no current interest in Simon Hall, whoever he is.  My interest is in Jeremy Bamber's case.  That's what this Forum is for.  I welcome discussion of analogous cases, but I don't see how your summary helps me understand the Bamber case.

Guilty people do maintain their innocence.  We know this.  We know that that might be the case with Jeremy Bamber.  For one thing, if he confessed he would be immediately in danger among Category A prisoners as an admitted double child killer.  So he has an incentive to lie, the lies being part of a self-preservation strategem.  I acknowledge and accept this possibility.  But none of us need to be told this.  We know. 

Simon Hall's case tells me nothing about whether Jeremy Bamber is falsely protesting his innocence.  Simon Hall is Simon Hall. Jeremy Bamber is Jeremy Bamber.  There may be things to learn from the Simon Hall case - legal reasoning often is based on analogies - but what Simon Hall did or didn't do is no proof or indication of anything about Jeremy Bamber.

Turning to psychopathy, I treat it as a thesis only and any assertion of psychopathy is nothing more than a thesis statement and an allegation, not a diagnosis.  That said, let me be clear that I am not an expert in psychology or psychiatry.  I comment as a layman entirely - and I may well be wrong, but if I am wrong, then I'm in very good company, stellar company in fact.

I wouldn't say that I am 'naive' about human nature.  I have encountered lots of different types of people, including people who would be broadly considered sociopaths (a different thing to a psychopath).  I have lived in and among such people, shared cells with them in the toughest prisons - including multiple murderers (including a man who was once on Britain's equivalent of death row), including sadistic drug lords and terrorists, etc., and I was once charged with terrorist offences myself as well as other things.  I am not a babe in the wood walking round in a rosy daze, innocently oblivious to human nature.

I do accept that there are people who have a diminished conscience.  What I don't accept is psychopathy as anything more than a tenuous academic thesis.  It so happens that neither does mainstream psychiatry, which is quite telling given that there would be every incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to diagnose a large sub-set of the population as psychopaths.  Which is not, I accept, proof of anything, and as I have already observed, there are recognised personality disorders that are analogous to psychopathy.

My question was

"I'd be interested to hear your opinion on bran scan evidence in criminal trials."

And if you recall I'd used the Barry George re-trial as an example?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg454996#msg454996

Sorry if I touched a nerve..

[LuminousWanderer]

Was this done privately or on the board, I must have missed it.

See above.  If Holly disagrees with me, or receives different advice, or has further questions, I am sure she will return to explain.

[Nicholas]

See above.  If Holly disagrees with me, or receives different advice, or has further questions, I am sure she will return to explain.

I've seen above http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg454287#msg454287 unless you are going to say I haven't gone far enough back?

[LuminousWanderer]

My question was

"I'd be interested to hear your opinion on bran scan evidence in criminal trials."

And if you recall I'd used the Barry George re-trial as an example?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg454996#msg454996

Sorry if I touched a nerve..

I will be pleased to be corrected on this point, but if I understand rightly, there was no suggestion that Barry George had any sort of personality disorder and there is no known diagnosis of such in his case.

I regard neuroscience (and cognitive science, for what matter), which I believe is the root field for brain scan evidence, as a pseudoscience and not a rigorous discipline.  However in the context of criminal trials, the usefulness of such evidence is going to depend on what is being asserted by the party relying on the evidence (and to an extent, also depends on which party instructed the expert and why).  It's a very broad question.  I note that neuroscience is not neurology and, if I understand correctly, brain scan experts tend to be qualified in the former field rather than the latter. 

However, I note, c.f. to my own point, that the expert who gave evidence in your example, the Barry George case, was in fact a neuropsychiatrist and therefore presumably a registered medical doctor.

I don't see the relevance of this to Jeremy Bamber's case as it stands today.  If he confesses, the facts speak for themselves and are considered well-proved.  If he continues to assert his innocence, I very much doubt he will be able to argue that he lacked the planning capacity to carry out such a scheme as that's not in itself exculpatory in the context of the evidence in this case.  Each case has to be looked at as fact-specific.  I'm not very familiar with the Barry George case, but I imagine one reason his lawyers made the brain scan argument is that there was common ground between the Crown and the appellant about the facts of the case, the only dispute being over who did it.  That's won't be the case in Jeremy Bamber's appeal.

The bottom line is that appeal evidence has to undermine the murder conviction, not prove points in isolation or pursue vendettas.  Everybody looking at this case would do well to remember that basic point.

[LuminousWanderer]

I've seen above http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg454287#msg454287 unless you are going to say I haven't gone far enough back?

Never mind, it doesn't matter now.  Holly will pick it up if she needs to.

[Nicholas]

I will be pleased to be corrected on this point, but if I understand rightly, there was no suggestion that Barry George had any sort of personality disorder and there is no known diagnosis of such in his case.

I regard neuroscience (and cognitive science, for what matter), which I believe is the root field for brain scan evidence, as a pseudoscience and not a rigorous discipline.  However in the context of criminal trials, the usefulness of such evidence is going to depend on what is being asserted by the party relying on the evidence (and to an extent, also depends on which party instructed the expert and why).  It's a very broad question.  I note that neuroscience is not neurology and, if I understand correctly, brain scan experts tend to be qualified in the former field rather than the latter. 

However, I note, c.f. to my own point, that the expert who gave evidence in your example, the Barry George case, was in fact a neuropsychiatrist and therefore presumably a registered medical doctor.

I don't see the relevance of this to Jeremy Bamber's case as it stands today.  If he confesses, the facts speak for themselves and are considered well-proved.  If he continues to assert his innocence, I very much doubt he will be able to argue that he lacked the planning capacity to carry out such a scheme as that's not in itself exculpatory in the context of the evidence in this case.  Each case has to be looked at as fact-specific.  I'm not very familiar with the Barry George case, but I imagine one reason his lawyers made the brain scan argument is that there was common ground between the Crown and the appellant about the facts of the case, the only dispute being over who did it.  That's won't be the case in Jeremy Bamber's appeal.

The bottom line is that appeal evidence has to undermine the murder conviction, not prove points in isolation or pursue vendettas.  Everybody looking at this case would do well to remember that basic point.

I'm unsure if you are intentionally missing my point or you are still playing catch up?

I will break it down for you..

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..

I agree with this

"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.

And I presume Essex police knew this when they arrested and charged Bamber - their view will be the same now as it was then - do you agree?

[LuminousWanderer]

I'm unsure if you are intentionally missing my point or you are still playing catch up?

I will break it down for you..

I agree with this

I'm not trying to intentionally miss any point.  I have addressed your argument in every particular and then some.  Jeremy Bamber does not have learning difficulties.  He can write letters.  He can think and is of at least average intelligence.  That's enough.  If you're trying to show me that he is, or might be, a psychopath, I have already addressed what I think about this unsupported opinion or speculation of yours, which in my view rises only a little above the intellectual level of one of those American true crime thrillers they used to broadcast on a Wednesday night.  In any event, his lawyers will never submit him to a brain scan to prove or disprove this, even if it could be provable, and even if they did for some reason, brain scans that align or not with a thesis of psychopathy are not in and of themselves proof of anything in the context of this case because the other evidence would still stand. 

From the defence point-of-view, I can imagine a scenario where the defence argue at appeal that brain scans show a diminished capacity for planning, but that would have to be in conjunction with other evidence that actually casts doubt on the conviction, which in turn raises a doubt, Q.E.D., about why the neuoscientific evidence would be needed at all.  Either the conviction is legally safe or not.  Brain scans in and of themselves won't cast doubt on the conviction, and you also have to contend with the problem that this is 33 years and counting after the event. 

That's apart from my belief, as stated above, that neuroscience is not rigorous, and in the sense of the type of evidence you propose, it wouldn't be taken seriously - regardless of the reason for it.  More importantly, it wouldn't affect his conviction one way or the other, as it's not relevant given that other evidence does prove he was the perpetrator.  You may of course disagree with my legal prognosis.

[Nicholas]

I'm not trying to intentionally miss any point.  I have addressed your argument in every particular and then some.  Jeremy Bamber does not have learning difficulties.  He can write letters.  He can think and is of at least average intelligence.  That's enough.  If you're trying to show me that he is, or might be, a psychopath, I have already addressed what I think about this unsupported opinion or speculation of yours, which in my view rises only a little above the intellectual level of one of those American true crime thrillers they used to broadcast on a Wednesday night.  In any event, his lawyers will never submit him to a brain scan to prove or disprove this, even if it could be provable, and even if they did for some reason, brain scans that align or not with a thesis of psychopathy are not in and of themselves proof of anything in the context of this case because the other evidence would still stand. 

From the defence point-of-view, I can imagine a scenario where the defence argue at appeal that brain scans show a diminished capacity for planning, but that would have to be in conjunction with other evidence that actually casts doubt on the conviction, which in turn raises a doubt, Q.E.D., about why the neuoscientific evidence would be needed at all.  Either the conviction is legally safe or not.  Brain scans in and of themselves won't cast doubt on the conviction, and you also have to contend with the problem that this is 33 years and counting after the event. 

That's apart from my belief, as stated above, that neuroscience is not rigorous, and in the sense of the type of evidence you propose, it wouldn't be taken seriously - regardless of the reason for it.  More importantly, it wouldn't affect his conviction one way or the other, as it's not relevant given that other evidence does prove he was the perpetrator.  You may of course disagree with my legal prognosis.

It's not MY unsupported opinion or speculation - re psychopathy - it's what his defence were told pre trial

He's spent the last 30 years claiming there's nothing wrong with him and even completed 27 tests to prove this point

You're going off on tangents... I get the impression you are doing it on purpose

Anyway -

Bamber's brain was fully developed by the time of the murders - seems you have totally missed the point after all.

A simple brain scan will show his supporters that they've been duped and (from firsthand experience) I imagine this is something the CCRC would want confirmation of before they even consider his current application (if they have one?)

Maybe one of Bambers supporters will remind the CCRC - though I doubt after their dealings with the Simon Hall case they will have forgotten?

I've yet to see the CCRC make public their findings following unsuccessful referrals to the COA but they DO say they will go away and see what lessons can be learned etc...

Finally for now, as we've been posting back and forth today, you appeared to lose all rationale and indeed common sense and went off in another direction entirely...  Why was that?

I have no current interest in Simon Hall, whoever he is.  My interest is in Jeremy Bamber's case.  That's what this Forum is for.  I welcome discussion of analogous cases, but I don't see how your summary helps me understand the Bamber case.

Guilty people do maintain their innocence.  We know this.  We know that that might be the case with Jeremy Bamber.  For one thing, if he confessed he would be immediately in danger among Category A prisoners as an admitted double child killer.  So he has an incentive to lie, the lies being part of a self-preservation strategem.  I acknowledge and accept this possibility.  But none of us need to be told this.  We know. 

Simon Hall's case tells me nothing about whether Jeremy Bamber is falsely protesting his innocence.  Simon Hall is Simon Hall. Jeremy Bamber is Jeremy Bamber.  There may be things to learn from the Simon Hall case - legal reasoning often is based on analogies - but what Simon Hall did or didn't do is no proof or indication of anything about Jeremy Bamber.

Turning to psychopathy, I treat it as a thesis only and any assertion of psychopathy is nothing more than a thesis statement and an allegation, not a diagnosis.  That said, let me be clear that I am not an expert in psychology or psychiatry.  I comment as a layman entirely - and I may well be wrong, but if I am wrong, then I'm in very good company, stellar company in fact.

I wouldn't say that I am 'naive' about human nature.  I have encountered lots of different types of people, including people who would be broadly considered sociopaths (a different thing to a 'psychopath').  I have lived in and among such people, shared cells with them in the toughest prisons - including multiple murderers (including a man who was once on Britain's equivalent of death row), including sadistic drug lords and terrorists, etc., and I was once charged with terrorist offences myself as well as other things.  I am not a babe in the wood walking round in a rosy daze, innocently oblivious to human nature.

I do accept that there are people who have a diminished conscience.  What I don't accept is psychopathy as anything more than a tenuous academic thesis.  It so happens that neither does mainstream psychiatry, which is quite telling given that there would be every incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to see a large sub-set of the population diagnosed as psychopaths.  Which is not, I accept, proof of anything, and as I have already observed, there are recognised personality disorders that are analogous to psychopathy.

"Simon Hall is Simon Hall - Jeremy Bamber is Jeremy Bamber" what's that all about?

Holly kindly started a thread in order for comparisons to be made re the 2 cases http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8523.0 maybe it's time you started practicing what you preach to others.

Please bear in mind that I can't know what is behind what people post.  This is a decontextualised medium.  That being so, we must ask: what is the point of the above post?  What's the relevance of it?  This poster has a very long record of inflammatory postings on two different forums related to the Bamber case, to the extent that on the blue forum it would appear there is an entire thread dedicated to discussing her behaviour.  She has also been warned repeatedly on here and ignores those warnings and thereby disrespects the moderators.

I am asked to report incidents to the moderators of this Forum, but that then leads to this behaviour being buried and deleted.  I'd prefer her posts stay up and to highlight them, so that people can see for themselves the tactics used by dogmatic and emotionally-driven people.  This poster provides us with an interesting case study in the genre.  She is rather obsessed with the Bamber case and psychopaths.  She is convinced of his guilt, as if it were a singular fact, and will brook no gainsayers. 

To recap, I am asked by a moderator of this Forum to explain the basis of my knowledge of the legal system, and I explain it and indeed go further in an effort to help my questioner.  My post was therefore relevant, at least to that post if not the thread generally, and it was civil and - I think - knowledgeable to some degree.  Agree or disagree with me about the substance of what I said, that's fine.

Moving forward, in so far as I may post here from time-to-time, I should like to keep the discussion on all aspects of the Bamber case rational, civil and relevant, but I will defend myself against people, like the individual above, who clearly harbour an agenda and try to take discussions off-course with inanities.

I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions. 

First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there.  I don't know if he is guilty or not.  If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread.  My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe. 

If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.

[LuminousWanderer]

You're going off on tangents... I get the impression you are doing it on purpose

You do come across a bit obnoxiously in these posts.  Can I politely ask you to please calm down and please think about how you put yourself across on a public forum to other people?  Obviously I don't come across perfectly at times, but I'm really not trying to provoke you here.  I think I've posted calm, measured and rational responses to everything you've said, at no point "going off on tangents".

One point you do make interests me. 

It's not MY unsupported opinion or speculation - re psychopathy - it's what his defence were told pre trial

What is your evidence that the defence were told before trial that he is a psychopath?  Who told the defence this?  What were/are that person's qualifications?  Was that evidence admitted into evidence?  If not, why not, given that the defence have an obligation of disclosure?

[Nicholas]

Turning to psychopathy, I treat it as a thesis only and any assertion of psychopathy is nothing more than a thesis statement and an allegation, not a diagnosis.  That said, let me be clear that I am not an expert in psychology or psychiatry.  I comment as a layman entirely - and I may well be wrong, but if I am wrong, then I'm in very good company, stellar company in fact.

I wouldn't say that I am 'naive' about human nature.  I have encountered lots of different types of people, including people who would be broadly considered sociopaths (a different thing to a 'psychopath').  I have lived in and among such people, shared cells with them in the toughest prisons - including multiple murderers (including a man who was once on Britain's equivalent of death row), including sadistic drug lords and terrorists, etc., and I was once charged with terrorist offences myself as well as other things.  I am not a babe in the wood walking round in a rosy daze, innocently oblivious to human nature.

I do accept that there are people who have a diminished conscience.  What I don't accept is psychopathy as anything more than a tenuous academic thesis.  It so happens that neither does mainstream psychiatry, which is quite telling given that there would be every incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to see a large sub-set of the population diagnosed as psychopaths.  Which is not, I accept, proof of anything, and as I have already observed, there are recognised personality disorders that are analogous to psychopathy.

What did your pre-trial assessments reveal about you?

You are preaching to the choir. If as you claim you've been in prison you'll understand how the system works, especially in mass murder cases like this.