UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: John on May 26, 2012, 01:20:11 AM
-
I came across the following posts on the guilty facebook page this morning and I feel it explains rather well how the psychopath can fool even the most sensible among us.
Duane Troy Dyer wrote...
well i went on a visit to him last week and he stills says he will walk out court a freeman innecent some day
To which Jeremy-Bamber-Child-Killer-is-Guilty-as-Charged replied...
Duane he would say that wouldn't he? Do you really expect this psychopath after 27 years to suddenly put up his hands and say 'actually yeah I did do it' You are commenting about a person who has no guilt, remorse, empathy nor sympathy for anybody or anything but himself. One thing that virtually all psychopaths share is this; they are totally incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. They will deny, deny and deny some more. They will go to their graves denying their complicity even if the act was caught on film and watched by a 100 witnesses - they will still deny vehemently they had anything to do with it. Their self-awareness is extremely poor. They cannot analyse themselves like ordinary people who can correct faults in their behaviour or personality. A narcissistic psychopath such as Bamber will always believe they are right. They see morality and ordinary human emotion as belonging only to the weak. He is playing the persistent denial game because it is all he has left to answer with. The meaningless retort of a clearly guilty individual. This arrogant, self-centred child-murderer knows deep down that he is done for. His last cunning but ultimately futile effort to squirm out of his just punishment, rightly denied him. This appalling monster will never again see the light of day.
As an example of the above I present you with a case from the past. James Hanratty was convicted of the murder of a man and the attempted murder and rape of the man's girlfriend in the early 1960s. Hanratty was sentence to hang. Hanratty immediately went on the defensive and managed to convince a large number of people that he was totally innocent of the crime, including a number of celebrities and politicians of the day. However, all his efforts to obtain a reprieve were in vain, despite a petition signed by more than 90,000 people, Hanratty was hanged by executioner Harry Allen at Bedford Prison on 4 April 1962, still vehemently protesting his innocence. His parents campaigned endlessly and staunchly for a pardon for their son until their deaths. In 2004 the blood and semen evidence gathered at the scene was tested for DNA. Hanratty's remains were exhumed and a sample collected. The only person that committed the offenses was none other than James Hanratty. The DNA analysis was a perfect match. Moral-of the-story: Loud protestations of innocence are not always what they seem.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/30/article-1342569-0018CD7D00000258-582_233x361.jpg)
James Hanratty. Read more... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanratty)
-
In 1991 Bedfordshire Police allowed Bob Woffinden access to their previously undisclosed files on the case. The CCRC report had also revealed the recorded mileage on the Morris Minor which invalidated Skillet's sighting in Brentwood and Trower's in Redbridge Lane. Bob Woffinden writes that there is no evidence that they even saw the same Morris Minor. These anomalies were considered sufficiently significant to justify an appeal against the conviction on behalf of Hanratty's family.
The surviving exhibits from the trial were lost until 1991, when they were found in envelopes in a laboratory drawer. DNA was donated by Hanratty's relatives, which they expected to exonerate him when compared with material on surviving evidence. Results from testing in June 1999 were said to be equivocal.
Hanratty's body was exhumed in 2001 in order to extract DNA. This was compared with mucus preserved in the handkerchief within which the murder weapon had been found wrapped. It was also compared with semen preserved in the underwear worn by Storie when she was raped. No scientific evidence from the crime had previously been linked to Hanratty, yet DNA samples from both sources matched Hanratty's DNA. At the subsequent appeal hearing Michael Mansfield QC, the barrister acting for the Hanratty family, admitted that if contamination could be excluded the DNA evidence demonstrated that Hanratty had committed the murder and rape. He argued that the evidence may have been contaminated because of lax handling procedures. Among the surviving evidential items a vial had been broken which could account for contamination. However, neither sample yielded DNA from any second male source, as would presumably have been expected if another male had committed the crimes and the samples had subsequently been contaminated.
The argument for contamination was dismissed as "fanciful" by the judges, who concluded that the "DNA evidence, standing alone, is certain proof of guilt". Hanratty's family and their supporters have continued to contest this conclusion.
-
Hanratty was innocent.
Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie were defecting to Russia in 1961. It was during the cold war and these places were under surveillance by security. Their intentions were known. The person who was responsible was Peter Alfonso, who occasionally was used by the security services to do their dirty work. The DNA was planted, as Hanratty and Alfonso once shared a room in a bed and breakfast. Paul Cleeland knew Alfonso !
-
Hanratty was innocent.
Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie were defecting to Russia in 1961. It was during the cold war and these places were under surveillance by security. Their intentions were known. The person who was responsible was Peter Alfonso, who occasionally was used by the security services to do their dirty work. The DNA was planted, as Hanratty and Alfonso once shared a room in a bed and breakfast. Paul Cleeland knew Alfonso !
It all sounds to convenient for me Kevin. More conspiracy theories and all that. Why on earth would anyone want to frame Hanratty anyway and especially so when DNA analysis never existed at that time? hmm...
-
Hanratty was innocent.
Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie were defecting to Russia in 1961. It was during the cold war and these places were under surveillance by security. Their intentions were known. The person who was responsible was Peter Alfonso, who occasionally was used by the security services to do their dirty work. The DNA was planted, as Hanratty and Alfonso once shared a room in a bed and breakfast. Paul Cleeland knew Alfonso !
It all sounds to convenient for me Kevin. More conspiracy theories and all that. Why on earth would anyone want to frame Hanratty anyway and especially so when DNA analysis never existed at that time? hmm...
An excellent point Jerry, they had no notion in those days (1961/62) what advances forensic science would eventually make some forty years later.
Hanratty's body was exhumed in 2001 in order to extract DNA. This was compared with mucus preserved in the handkerchief within which the murder weapon had been found wrapped. It was also compared with semen preserved in the underwear worn by Storie when she was raped. No scientific evidence from the crime had previously been linked to Hanratty, yet DNA samples from both sources matched Hanratty's DNA. At the subsequent appeal hearing Michael Mansfield QC, the barrister acting for the Hanratty family, admitted that if contamination could be excluded the DNA evidence demonstrated that Hanratty had committed the murder and rape.
-
Hi everyone. 8((()*/ 8((()*/
I'm glad to back again after a short enforced absence due to being abroad on HMS. Great to see so many participants on here and so many new topics. 8@??)( 8@??)(
First class ship mates!!! 8((()*/ 8((()*/
-
Hi everyone,
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.
-
If Bamber confessed, his fan club, that small band of women of a certain age, would surely desert him (with the possible exception of Preece.) He is indeed a narcissist, he thrives on all that blind adoration. He would lose that after a confession, in the eyes of the world he would always be a pariah. Not quite his style.
-
Irony bypass in Brentwood, then? Maybe a certain elderly lady should have done some research before involving a certain lawyer? 8@??)(
-
Hi everyone,
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.
Excellent post..., well thought out, lucid and to the point! 8@??)(
Liz Rimmington had the "man in denial" well-sussed out when she told Colin Caffell that ...,"Jeremy never believed murder was a crime and thought that morality and social conscience, like religion, were only for the weak".
Liz even told Bamber that she thought he was a psychopath, to which he allegedly freely admitted.
-
Thank you kindly for your comments. Thank you also the the information on Liz. She was obviously a very smart lady.
Thanks again! 8@??)(
-
Interesting post, welcome.
-
Hi everyone,
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 like your comment as well starryian and recommend to admin that they post it on twitter since it gices an excellent insight into Bamber. Good posts peeps!!
Can I also say that I am disgusted at the unprovoked attack on Kevin who came here with the best of intentions and has behaved with admirable restraint while attempts have been made to besmirch him.
-
I would like to calmly remind some people on here that the attacks came from all sides yesterday. just because someone isnt brave enough to add their real name, doesnt mean they didnt take a full active part in attacking others.
-
I would like to calmly remind some people on here that the attacks came from all sides yesterday. just because someone isnt brave enough to add their real name, doesnt mean they didnt take a full active part in attacking others.
I believe I am right in saying that this forum is the only justice forum which allows guest posting and it would be a sad loss imo if such a feature was lost because of the conduct of a few troublesome posters.
-
I am with you on that one! it sometimes turns out to be more of a curse than a blessing and is open to abuse as seen yesterday
-
Another excellent point by starryian which we feel should be copied to this thread.
For all you amateur sleuths out there, just take a while to read this statement put on the Jeremy Bamber Website in regards to Bambers psychopathy. You may have noticed as I did with some alarm, that a person needs to be tested 27 times by 27 psychologists to 'prove' that he was, in fact, not a psychopath.
However, no-one to my knowledge has ever seen these reports nor verified their accuracy or validity. So we only have Bamber's word for this. Further, it seem to run in direct disagreement to the report of a senior, eminent psychologist called actually in by the defense, in an attempt to show that Bamber was, in fact a man with a perfectly normal personality, with no significant psychopathic traits, at Bamber's original trial in 1986. However, it backfired spectacularly when on lengthy examination the psychologist announced to a stunned defense team that Bamber WAS in fact a psychopath. He went further by stating.........'if ever there was a psychopath, Jeremy Bamber is it'. Please read the statement and draw your own conclusions.
Jeremy says:
“As a high profile case, a category ‘A’ prisoner, and a whole life tariff prisoner I have undergone a number of psychological assessments by twenty seven different psychologists. Each carried out numerous tests on me and some interviewed me for twenty hours or more over many weeks.
The most recent assessment of me was carried out last in 2009 by Professor Vincent Egan a Chartered Clinical psychologist and senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Leicester University. He was provided with my complete psychological file and all my medical records. He also interviewed me, and I completed various psychological tests before he wrote his report on me.
His conclusion is that I am not a psychopath. During the last quarter of a century and twenty seven different psychologists, not a single one of these experts has concluded that I show any traits consistent with psychopathy.
On the ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. I have also had 3 P.C.L.R tests that are designed specifically to reveal psychopathy and all 3 concluded the same, I am not a psychopath. Nor do I have any personality disorder.
If you, like I did almost fall off the chair laughing at Bamber's stunning accusation that ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. @)(++(*
We are all doomed.................doomed I tell you!
Ian, your original point about the 27 tests has never been made before so this is novel to the case as far as we can see. If it is true and we only have Bamber's word for it, why indeed had it become necessary to conduct 27 tests? Would two or three not have sufficed. This in itself (if true) would be an indication that there is certainly a question over his mental reasoning.
It should also be pointed out that a test carried out in 2009 will never and could never have provided a definitve answer as to Jeremy Bamber's state of mind in 1985. To state otherwise is folly.
Bamber's own father (Major Leslie Marsham) referred to him as a psychopath shortly after the murders, there is evidence that his own defence team were concerned.
Another quote by David Shaw in his manuscript goes as follows...
The defence lawyers remained bullish in Jeremy's presence, but in private they were mostly gloomy. A week before the trial opened the defence team held a case conference at Rivlin’s chambers and the meeting ended with Edmund Lawson hurrying away in search of some gin and three glasses. An eminent psychiatrist had just expressed his opinion that Jeremy exhibited several classic symptoms of a murdering psychopath.
DAVID SHAW'S "AN INNOCENT MAN"
An eminent psychiatrist indeed, no wonder Bambers own lawyers doubted him...says it all really??
-
Very good points Admin,
Thank you for highlighting that the point has not been made before. It seems to be the main thread on Bamber's website labelled appropriately 'Psychopathy' They were used in order to explain away the notion that Bamber is, in any way, a psychopath.
Indeed you make a good point that his state of mind may have been different in 1985 - or at least insofar as deadly intent goes. In my view Bamber is without doubt, a classic, narcissistic psychopath. A police officer who interviewed Bamber just after the murders described him as having 'something missing' He states 'After speaking with this young man I was immediately struck by his complete lack of care. He just didnt care for anything. It just wasn't right'
I also was struck when reading about Bamber's first arrest at just how unconcerned he was. Roger Wilkes in his excellent appraisal of the case writes "Bamber was lead to the cells he was given food, and went to sleep in just a few moments'...........backtrack right there....'went to sleep in a few moments!!' He was so unconcerned he feel into a deep sleep in the police cells. To his supporters this could mean that he was unconcerned because he was innocent. I beg to differ, even innocent people will worry. This man was being questioned in connection with the murders of FIVE people, two of them children. Normal people dont just fall asleep. Normal people dont display the ostentatious, over-the-top displays of grief that Bamber did at the funerals, normal innocent people are not evasive, and need time to think of an answer during police questioning. This all leads to the same personality trait- psychopathy.
Bamber certainly displayed most, if not all of the main characteristics associated with this deadly personality type. Glibness, superficial charm, compulsive lying, manipulative, grandiose sense of entitlement, inflated sense of self-worth and complete lack of guilt, remorse, empathy or sympathy for others, and tellingly a complete inability to take responsibility for their own actions. In short this is picture-perfect description of very own Bamber's personality traits.
-
Supporters argue that he was in shock and grieving and thats why he behaved the way he did. I lost my dad suddenly, he was also young (47) i acted normally, you wouldnt have thought i had lost my dad to look at me. But then again he wasnt murdered along with 4 other members of my family.
So the shock and grief thing doesnt wash with me. Had my family been brutally killed like that, i would have been distraught, beside myself with grief. I wouldnt have been partying , laughing and going on hollidays and smuggling drugs back.
-
I find the points being made here very interesting. Something else, why was he going to see a lawyer in any event immediately after the murders. This was the job of Nevill's Executor and Trustees. He was just too quick to show his true hand and then fell back into the bereaved son mode just in time for the funerals.
All in all I feel the whole thing was indeed an act, just as Julie Mugford has already indicated.
-
And wasnt he also watching colin closely to see how he was acting? then copying him?
Sorry, but grief doesnt need to be copied it should be felt.
-
And wasnt he also watching colin closely to see how he was acting? then copying him?
Sorry, but grief doesnt need to be copied it should be felt.
Colin realised that JB was watching him so that he could register grief. And yet JB was laughing and joking in the funeral car, and telling JM what he was "going to do to her" after the funeral. However many excuses are made for JB, he did not act like a man who had lost his parents, a man whose two small nephews had been shot as they slept. He acted like all his birthdays had come at once.
-
And wasnt he also watching colin closely to see how he was acting? then copying him?
Sorry, but grief doesnt need to be copied it should be felt.
Colin realised that JB was watching him so that he could register grief. And yet JB was laughing and joking in the funeral car, and telling JM what he was "going to do to her" after the funeral. However many excuses are made for JB, he did not act like a man who had lost his parents, a man whose two small nephews had been shot as they slept. He acted like all his birthdays had come at once.
Evening peeps. Maybe that is because they had Shona. Congratulations to you and the others on being made a mod. You are a great poster and a lovely person to boot!!!
-
The bottom line is, JB was obsessed with money. When he trashed the caravan park and stole the money, knowing the distress and anguish that would cause, he kept and spent the money. If he was concerned about security, that was a bloody clumsy way of proving it. And no one can deny that he acted with indecent haste in sorting out anything valuable at WHF, and doing the same at Sheila's flat. And I will always question why he made a point of finding out where Sheila and the boys would be. He had NEVER done that before.
-
All boiled down to greed, he robbed and trashed the office to highlight weaknesses in the security, but he didnt give the money back, what a joker. He was too greedy to wait for what would have been his had his parents died naturally.
-
The bottom line is, JB was obsessed with money. When he trashed the caravan park and stole the money, knowing the distress and anguish that would cause, he kept and spent the money. If he was concerned about security, that was a bloody clumsy way of proving it. And no one can deny that he acted with indecent haste in sorting out anything valuable at WHF, and doing the same at Sheila's flat. And I will always question why he made a point of finding out where Sheila and the boys would be. He had NEVER done that before.
That was his downfall Shona. If it was a genuine attempt to show that security was lacking at the caravan office then he would have given the money back the next day. As for wasting police time? I don't think the police would have appreciated it.
Bottom line is that he broke in and trashed the place to point the finger of suspicion elsewhere. Now where have we seen that particular ploy or Modus Operandi again??? 8-)(--)
-
Gee whizz Andy...you read my mind again!!!! @)(++(*
-
Hoho John!
Dont worry im not having an Ali Bongo moment 8(0(*
-
All boiled down to greed, he robbed and trashed the office to highlight weaknesses in the security, but he didnt give the money back, what a joker. He was too greedy to wait for what would have been his had his parents died naturally.
He didn't want to share it, Andy. Oh, sorry, IMO!! Why risk any pennies going to Sheila and the boys, and any extended family, when he could have the lot? Remember how he described Sheila and the twins?
What a decent man.
-
I find the points being made here very interesting. Something else, why was he going to see a lawyer in any event immediately after the murders. This was the job of Nevill's Executor and Trustees. He was just too quick to show his true hand and then fell back into the bereaved son mode just in time for the funerals.
All in all I feel the whole thing was indeed an act, just as Julie Mugford has already indicated.
Hello again Andrea and thank you for your excellent, incisive points. I agree. The ostentatious display of grief at the funerals was such a giveaway. A psychopath cannot feel these emotions. In order to make them look genuine they often have to mimic them - hence Bamber's over-the-top theatrics. Bamber dyed his hair, whitened his face to make it look more pale and haggard in contrast to his hair. It was all a completely deceptive act in order to divert the finger of suspicion being pointed at him. There are videos of the funeral and it is highly apparent that when Bamber's appears from the church and he is aware that there are many people outside including a large contingent from the press he switches instantly to 'grief mode' - hands rubbing the eyes, but with no tears, the impression of grief, the staggering walk, the bowed head - all meant to impress those present and those that matter. What he didn't realise was that his display of grief was noticeable because of it sheer exuberance. Bamber had to fake the emotion and had to put it on with in spade-loads, but the problem was his only role-model was Colin Cafell, a man who had lost his ex-wife and mother of his children and both his beloved sons. Colin was grim and clearly in a great deal of emotional pain, but Colin was a rock, supportive of the Eaton's, Boutflour's and indeed Jeremy. With no clear person to copy Bamber reacted the way that he thought people should grieve. The psychopath took centre stage. Colin later remembered noticing Bamber whilst inside the church, glance at his watch and inappropriately state that ' time's up we should be getting out of here' Colin was rightly disgusted.
Other present also overheard him refer to his relatives as he walked into the church 'They are like a bloody pack of vultures. If they think they are going to get a penny, they are sadly mistaken'
Over=arching all this, and this is what I find deeply disturbing. A man can attend the funerals of the very people he had viciously murdered only a short time before, watch the coffins of those he killed pass him by, watch as so many people were suffering around him because of their tragic loss, all the while smiling inside and believing he had gotten clean away with it.
Can there be a better example a a more dispicable, inhuman, monstrous wastrel than this utter waste of oxygen?
I very much doubt it.
-
And wasnt he also watching colin closely to see how he was acting? then copying him?
Sorry, but grief doesnt need to be copied it should be felt.
Colin realised that JB was watching him so that he could register grief. And yet JB was laughing and joking in the funeral car, and telling JM what he was "going to do to her" after the funeral. However many excuses are made for JB, he did not act like a man who had lost his parents, a man whose two small nephews had been shot as they slept. He acted like all his birthdays had come at once.
Evening peeps. Maybe that is because they had Shona. Congratulations to you and the others on being made a mod. You are a great poster and a lovely person to boot!!!
Cheers Mills!!
-
I find the points being made here very interesting. Something else, why was he going to see a lawyer in any event immediately after the murders. This was the job of Nevill's Executor and Trustees. He was just too quick to show his true hand and then fell back into the bereaved son mode just in time for the funerals.
All in all I feel the whole thing was indeed an act, just as Julie Mugford has already indicated.
Hello again Andrea and thank you for your excellent, incisive points. I agree. The ostentatious display of grief at the funerals was such a giveaway. A psychopath cannot feel these emotions. In order to make them look genuine they often have to mimic them - hence Bamber's over-the-top theatrics. Bamber dyed his hair, whitened his face to make it look more pale and haggard in contrast to his hair. It was all a completely deceptive act in order to divert the finger of suspicion being pointed at him. There are videos of the funeral and it is highly apparent that when Bamber's appears from the church and he is aware that there are many people outside including a large contingent from the press he switches instantly to 'grief mode' - hands rubbing the eyes, but with no tears, the impression of grief, the staggering walk, the bowed head - all meant to impress those present and those that matter. What he didn't realise was that his display of grief was noticeable because of it sheer exuberance. Bamber had to fake the emotion and had to put it on with in spade-loads, but the problem was his only role-model was Colin Cafell, a man who had lost his ex-wife and mother of his children and both his beloved sons. Colin was grim and clearly in a great deal of emotional pain, but Colin was a rock, supportive of the Eaton's, Boutflour's and indeed Jeremy. With no clear person to copy Bamber reacted the way that he thought people should grieve. The psychopath took centre stage. Colin later remembered noticing Bamber whilst inside the church, glance at his watch and inappropriately state that ' time's up we should be getting out of here' Colin was rightly disgusted.
Other present also overheard him refer to his relatives as he walked into the church 'They are like a bloody pack of vultures. If they think they are going to get a penny, they are sadly mistaken'
Over=arching all this, and this is what I find deeply disturbing. A man can attend the funerals of the very people he had viciously murdered only a short time before, watch the coffins of those he killed pass him by, watch as so many people were suffering around him because of their tragic loss, all the while smiling inside and believing he had gotten clean away with it.
Can there be a better example a a more dispicable, inhuman, monstrous wastrel than this utter waste of oxygen?
I very much doubt it.
Excellent points Ian, some of which have never before been stated. We are always taken aback at the number of people who like to think he is innocent. We have all thought about this at one time or another but unfortunately the evidence does not bear this out. There can be no place for sentiment in such a dastardly deed.
The police are correct to retain some of the photos under PII but we are quite sure that if these people who continually spout nonsense on behalf of Bamber were shown what Jeremy Bamber had done to his family and the twins in particular we have no doubt that they would think twice about what they do in the name of that sadist.
-
Thanks Admin. I totally concur 8@??)(
-
Bamber Latest Photo
-
Tim, have you seen the pics of scarlet? on the picture thread?
-
Bamber Latest Photo
Phawwww!!!
If we had a Bob index, like they've got a Roch index, that would be an 8!!
-
Bamber Latest Photo
f..kin ell thats funny 8)--))
-
Hi everyone,
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.
Just for the record the Hanratty case has been mentioned quite a few times over the last year or so as a case where fanatical supporters utterly convinced their man is innocent have eventually been proved wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. Unlike Bamber, Hanratty even had his own family believing him innocent but just like Bamber he is as guilty as can be!
I fear it's only Bamber coming clean that would convince his die hard 'fans' .... little chance of that!
-
Would be criminals, before you commit a crime, get a fore-taste of what the world would be like from inside a prison cell by holding a fork up close to your eye.
J. Bamber, Full Sutton.
-
The other day my wife and i bought our 4 year old grandson a jigsaw to keep him occupied whilst we went for a picnic. However, when we returned we found he had managed to plug it in and had cut off several of his fingers.
G Belton, Essex.
-
On saturday nights, it seems i just cant drink enough beer, because every sunday morning i'm still thirsty.
Rochford, North Shields.
-
Whoever said "people say the funniest things" had obviously been reading the jeremy Bamber forum.
S Mckay, leeds.
-
On saturday nights, it seems i just cant drink enough beer, because every sunday morning i'm still thirsty.
Rochford, North Shields.
Mr Rochford has had some beer tonight, but he's determined not to drop a bollock.
We'll see..........
-
The other day my wife and i bought our 4 year old grandson a jigsaw to keep him occupied whilst we went for a picnic. However, when we returned we found he had managed to plug it in and had cut off several of his fingers.
G Belton, Essex.
@)(++(*
-
On saturday nights, it seems i just cant drink enough beer, because every sunday morning i'm still thirsty.
Rochford, North Shields.
Mr Rochford has had some beer tonight, but he's determined not to drop a bollock.
We'll see..........
Drop a bollock? He's like a cross between Buster Gonad and The Brown Bottle
-
My wife says im a drunken b........ for coming home at 3am and pissing in the wadrobe. I say shes a lazy cow who never makes an effort to look nice, and if she gave me a bit now and then i wouldnt have to go looking for it elsewhere.
who is correct? what does the forum think?
Mr Morrison, harlow
-
My wife says im a drunken b........ for coming home at 3am and pissing in the wadrobe. I say shes a lazy cow who never makes an effort to look nice, and if she gave me a bit now and then i wouldnt have to go looking for it elsewhere.
who is correct? what does the forum think?
Mr Morrison, harlow
Can't speak for the entire forum, Toe Rag, but you do sound a bit Viz. But I'm all for freedom of speech.
-
My wife says im a drunken b........ for coming home at 3am and pissing in the wadrobe. I say shes a lazy cow who never makes an effort to look nice, and if she gave me a bit now and then i wouldnt have to go looking for it elsewhere.
who is correct? what does the forum think?
Mr Morrison, harlow
Can't speak for the entire forum, Toe Rag, but you do sound a bit Viz. But I'm all for freedom of speech.
i know a couple of fat slags
-
Last saturday my mate paid £15 for a blow job. yet on my last date i spent near on £40 taking abird out and all i got was a peck on the cheek. i feel i have been ripped off considering the value my mate got for his money.
Mertol, Lincs.
-
My wife says im a drunken b........ for coming home at 3am and pissing in the wadrobe. I say shes a lazy cow who never makes an effort to look nice, and if she gave me a bit now and then i wouldnt have to go looking for it elsewhere.
who is correct? what does the forum think?
Mr Morrison, harlow
Can't speak for the entire forum, Toe Rag, but you do sound a bit Viz. But I'm all for freedom of speech.
i know a couple of fat slags
Don't we all. I also know a couple of drunken bakers and Terry f..kwit. Possibly even Paul Whicker, tall vicar. There's been some pontificating tonight, on the blue forum.
-
People say every dog has its day, how right they are. We got a dog for christmas got bored with it and had it put down boxing day.
M Tesko, Neverland.
-
My wife says im a drunken b........ for coming home at 3am and pissing in the wadrobe. I say shes a lazy cow who never makes an effort to look nice, and if she gave me a bit now and then i wouldnt have to go looking for it elsewhere.
who is correct? what does the forum think?
Mr Morrison, harlow
Can't speak for the entire forum, Toe Rag, but you do sound a bit Viz. But I'm all for freedom of speech.
i know a couple of fat slags
Don't we all. I also know a couple of drunken bakers and Terry f..kwit. Possibly even Paul Whicker, tall vicar. There's been some pontificating tonight, on the blue forum.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* Shona when are you coming to Suffolk?
-
Does Rohypnol work on sheep?...erm my mate wants to know.
Smiffy, clapgate.
-
http://www.roughjusticetv.co.uk/hanrattyfilm.htm
This might be worth a watch.
-
Hanratty was innocent.
Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie were defecting to Russia in 1961. It was during the cold war and these places were under surveillance by security. Their intentions were known. The person who was responsible was Peter Alfonso, who occasionally was used by the security services to do their dirty work. The DNA was planted, as Hanratty and Alfonso once shared a room in a bed and breakfast. Paul Cleeland knew Alfonso !
IMHO
Craigie is well read - his use of the English language knows no bounds.
He had studied people like Hanretty et al and attempts to mimic a mixture of behaviours of these people he has researched to almost an inch of their lives.
He wants to be somebody but he will always be a nobody.
His feelings left him years ago.
He empowers the weak and the bullies.
He attacks the strong and resilent.
He hides from the truth.
He manipulates the minds of others.
Paranoia rules his life.
He lives in a world only known to Craigie.
He attempts to take on the personality of others to attack.
He is everywhere, this is his full time job.
He believes the whole of society is against him and bitterness spurs him on.
He does not feel pain, nor the pain of others.
He plots, he schemes, he lies, he cheats, he will stop at nothing.
He is relentless in his crimes.
He says - he is a keyboard warrior....
In actual fact he cold, creative and devious.
All in all making him one very dangerous man!
-
There is a new piece about the James Hanratty case on the True Justice website:
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
-
Does anyone have any theories on the motives for Hanratty having committed the crimes as stated... Ive always believed Hanratty to be guilty and the DNA evidence appears to totally support this..
But his motive eludes me and what he was doing in the area where he first accosted his victims, unless he had been stalking them. It is of course possible that it was a chance encounter, but still doesn't explain why he should be on foot in that area with a loaded weapon. It seems to me it was a deliberate act, and possibly it was a 'professional hit', paid for by Michael's wife. The fact that Michael was also a top research scientist only adds to the intrigue.
-
I was surprised actually when the DNA evidence proved his guilt. For an experienced car thief he wasn't very good at driving the car away.
-
The DNA evidence is spurious at best.
Can't understand why the defence asked for the test to be carried out as there was always a good chance that his DNA would be found as all the exhibits had been stored, transported to court in the same box. Also the exhibits were handled by the court usher and even members of the jury.
The DNA technique used is only recognised in 4 countries as it's very controversial (Google low copy number DNA to get an insight into this).
The fact that Hanratty's DNA was found is unsurprising as his exhibits had been stored with Valerie Stories exhibits. This, in my opinion, makes the evidence neutral at best, somewhat like the Barry George evidence that originally convicted him but later was of paramount importance for the quashing of the conviction. Considering the small amount of sample that was used in the LCN PCR reaction in Hanratty's caes I'm not altogether surprised they didn't find other DNA.
So my take on this is that just because they found Hanratty's DNA on the sample does not make him guilty as it could have got onto the sample by contamination, hence the evidence neutral scenario, and also the fact that no other DNA was found just means that there was none on the minute sample tested. It should be a given that with all the handling the exchibits had over the trial period and beyond there was DNA from others on the exhibits originally but was not found by the LCN PCR. The fact that no other DNA was found (lack of evidence of other DNA) doesn't in my opinion prove Hanratty's guilt
-
Hi everyone,
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.[b/]
I've never read these posts before but I think they are spot on; especially this one!
-
Very good points Admin,
Thank you for highlighting that the point has not been made before. It seems to be the main thread on Bamber's website labelled appropriately 'Psychopathy' They were used in order to explain away the notion that Bamber is, in any way, a psychopath.
Indeed you make a good point that his state of mind may have been different in 1985 - or at least insofar as deadly intent goes. In my view Bamber is without doubt, a classic, narcissistic psychopath. A police officer who interviewed Bamber just after the murders described him as having 'something missing' He states 'After speaking with this young man I was immediately struck by his complete lack of care. He just didnt care for anything. It just wasn't right'
I also was struck when reading about Bamber's first arrest at just how unconcerned he was. Roger Wilkes in his excellent appraisal of the case writes "Bamber was lead to the cells he was given food, and went to sleep in just a few moments'...........backtrack right there....'went to sleep in a few moments!!' He was so unconcerned he feel into a deep sleep in the police cells. To his supporters this could mean that he was unconcerned because he was innocent. I beg to differ, even innocent people will worry. This man was being questioned in connection with the murders of FIVE people, two of them children. Normal people dont just fall asleep. Normal people dont display the ostentatious, over-the-top displays of grief that Bamber did at the funerals, normal innocent people are not evasive, and need time to think of an answer during police questioning. This all leads to the same personality trait- psychopathy.
Bamber certainly displayed most, if not all of the main characteristics associated with this deadly personality type. Glibness, superficial charm, compulsive lying, manipulative, grandiose sense of entitlement, inflated sense of self-worth and complete lack of guilt, remorse, empathy or sympathy for others, and tellingly a complete inability to take responsibility for their own actions. In short this is picture-perfect description of very own Bamber's personality traits.
Another great post! You described his grandiose sense of entitlement here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=369.msg8280#msg8280
-
Hanratty's body was exhumed. His DNA matched the crime scene. Even then supporters amazingly claimed contamination. The judge generously called this claim 'fanciful'.
It takes a lot of courage to change stance on a convicted criminal after years of support. Bob Woffinden didn't really change stance. He was never part of any campaign. Bamber approached him & Woffinden wrote one article. He then changed his mind and wrote another article.
Several posters have changed stance to guilty & posted they have.
Only David has changed stance to innocent, for non evidence reasons. He did not have the courage to post on the forum he had changed stance.
-
Hi everyone,
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.
Excellent summing-up of Jeremy Bamber’s psychopathy!