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: Holly Goodhead on November 12, 2017, 10:35:05 AM
-
James (known as Jim) was the patriarch and a manager at OCP. It seems he suspected JB of the OCP burglary from the off and made his views known long before JM 'came forward'.
Robert (aka Rob) was Jim's son and at the time of the tragedy a serving officer with the MET.
Louise was Jim's daughter. As it happened she was in Australia when JB visited and the pair shared some accommodation for a while.
It seems the Carrs disliked JB and went out of their way to make their views known. I have no idea whether their views were justified and JB was an unlikeable character or these people were just busy bodies and/or resented JB for whatever reason(s) or had some other reason(s) to talk badly about him. Regardless like most lay witnesses they could offer nothing of evidential value.
More to follow...
-
I've taken the following from CAL's book. For those that have the book you will need to refer to 'Carr' in the index and then look up the pages. I'm reading from a Kindle version and I think the page numbers differ based on size of screen.
It seems DS Jones interviewed JC on Tue 13th Aug. It isn't clear who instigated this interview. JC told DS Jones he disliked JB and suspected him of the OCP burglary.
Following the interview JC passed his suspicions on to RWB. Surprised he hadn't done so before. Anyway he also advised RWB that he had heard a rumour that registered letters from Scotland regularly arrived at Bourtree Cottage containing cash for drugs. I would be surprised if JC didn't advise DS Jones of this. So again by the time JM was interviewed in Sept it seems DS Jones was armed with details of OCP and drugs which he was able to put to JM rather than JM spilling the beans.
More to follow...
-
I think everyone suspected Bamber of the caravan burglary. Didn't RB say 'we all know who that was'. Bamber said himself he would be the number 1 suspect.
The COA says Julie told the police about the caravan break in -
On 10 September she made a further statement. In the course of the taking of that statement, she spoke about smoking cannabis that the appellant had purchased. She then spoke of other things that she suggested the appellant had done and she went on to say:
"I would like to tell you about the burglary I committed with Jeremy."
-
On Wed 14th Aug Robert Carr (RC) a Sargent with the MET attended a pre-arranged meeting at Witham with DI's Miller, Cook and DS Jones. He discussed his concerns about JB as someone who had known the Bambers most of his life but admitted much of it was speculation.
The following day JC wrote to RWB feeding back RC's meeting with the officers which can be read here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=580.msg17683#msg17683
Immediately after the meeting the 3 officers scrutinised the soc photos. Someone noticed the paint on the silencer was a similar colour to the Aga surround and they decided to visit the farm that evening to investigate, on the pretext of measuring up for floor plans.
-
I think everyone suspected Bamber of the caravan burglary. Didn't RB say 'we all know who that was'. Bamber said himself he would be the number 1 suspect.
The COA says Julie told the police about the caravan break in -
On 10 September she made a further statement. In the course of the taking of that statement, she spoke about smoking cannabis that the appellant had purchased. She then spoke of other things that she suggested the appellant had done and she went on to say:
"I would like to tell you about the burglary I committed with Jeremy."
It must be right then. I can't see the CoA getting it wrong!
-
In July 1980 JB departed for Australia. Staying first at a flat in Sydney whose occupants included Louise Carr. She disliked sharing her home with JB.
"He was not interested in normal tourist pursuits or in finding work, his only interests seemed to be the sunny weather and money".
Jeremy then left for Brisbane securing several months work on a sugar plantation in Queensland before flying to New Zealand where he stayed with relatives for a month. The relative being NB's cousin: Cris Nevill. As it happened CN was in the UK when the tragedy happened.
-
It must be right then. I can't see the CoA getting it wrong!
Yes supporters do not like the COA. Or Wilkes's book.
The COA is an independent body & Wilkes's book is an unbiased book. However both brutally highlight Bamber's guilt with a mountain of incriminating evidence.
Wilkes's book introduction says there is 'overwhelming' evidence against Bamber. The COA said 'the more they look at the case, the more they believe the jury were right'
-
Yes supporters do not like the COA. Or Wilkes's book.
The COA is an independent body & Wilkes's book is an unbiased book. However both brutally highlight Bamber's guilt with a mountain of incriminating evidence.
Wilkes's book introduction says there is 'overwhelming' evidence against Bamber. The COA said 'the more they look at the case, the more they believe the jury were right'
If the CoA is further supported by the likes of Roger Wilkes it must be right then!
It's widely accepted across the globe that England has the best judicial system in the world. A system that has served as a blueprint for the former colonies and others. Must be right then!
-
James (known as Jim) was the patriarch and a manager at OCP. It seems he suspected JB of the OCP burglary from the off and made his views known long before JM 'came forward'.
Robert (aka Rob) was Jim's son and at the time of the tragedy a serving officer with the MET.
Louise was Jim's daughter. As it happened she was in Australia when JB visited and the pair shared some accommodation for a while.
It seems the Carrs disliked JB and went out of their way to make their views known. I have no idea whether their views were justified and JB was an unlikeable character or these people were just busy bodies and/or resented JB for whatever reason(s) or had some other reason(s) to talk badly about him. Regardless like most lay witnesses they could offer nothing of evidential value.
More to follow...
JC's wife, Dorothy Carr nee Barker, was a wartime friend of June's.
June often invited the 3 Carr children (Robert, Louise and ?) to the farm as company for her son but they came to dread being asked. 'Jeremy was a moody, bossy and sometimes cruel child,' Robert Carr recalled. '[He] could be very cruel to animals and he used to take great delight in throwing stones at water hen chicks and hitting farm animals with sticks. He did not have a warm relationship with his parents. Robert much preferred Sheila, a timid but very pleasant-natured girl' who 'always used to get upset whenever [Jeremy] used to be cruel to the animals, and he used to take great delight in carrying on and leaving her in tears'.
-
And from JC:
'He was growing up to be quite a nasty piece of work. For any time I wanted him to do something, if he did not want to, at his young age he would tell me I was just an employee and he would tell his father how I behaved'.
So were the Carrs views of JB a fair assessment of his character? Or were their judgements clouded by something? Maybe envy if they perceived JB had an easy life with everything handed to him on a plate by his parents?
-
I would say that Jim Carr got to know the young Jeremy Bamber pretty well and disliked him intensely.
Just out of interest Holly, has anyone gone on record to say what a fine young gentleman he was?
-
I would say that Jim Carr got to know the young Jeremy Bamber pretty well and disliked him intensely.
Just out of interest Holly, has anyone gone on record to say what a fine young gentleman he was?
Lookout! 8)-)))
-
I would say that Jim Carr got to know the young Jeremy Bamber pretty well and disliked him intensely.
Just out of interest Holly, has anyone gone on record to say what a fine young gentleman he was?
John, I'm inclined to believe that Jim Carr's view of Jeremy -based on his long term knowledge of him- is probably a fair reflection of how MOST of the people in this area, who had any contact with him, see him. I only know of one person -a co in-law of my cousin and a local vicar- who is more generous.....................and even she has never gone as far as describing him as being "a fine young gentleman".
-
I would say that Jim Carr got to know the young Jeremy Bamber pretty well and disliked him intensely.
Just out of interest Holly, has anyone gone on record to say what a fine young gentleman he was?
Plenty of people were supportive of him whilst on remand/during trial:
The Howies. The female was a cousin of June's who along with her sister was orphaned at a young age and went on to be brought up by June's parents alongside June and PB. The cousin whose name escapes me went on to marry local farmer Thomas Howie. The family were very supportive wanting to put up bail.
Jean Boutell, June's long serving housekeeper.
Proprietors/managers of places JB hung out in:
Burnham Country Club
The Chequers
Snooker hall
Past and present girlfriends:
Suzette Ford (and her 3 children all very fond of JB)
Greaves sisters: Veronica and Anji
The bottom line is none of these people ie above or those who appear to have disliked JB were able to offer anything of evidential value.
-
John, I'm inclined to believe that Jim Carr's view of Jeremy -based on his long term knowledge of him- is probably a fair reflection of how MOST of the people in this area, who had any contact with him, see him. I only know of one person -a co in-law of my cousin and a local vicar- who is more generous.....................and even she has never gone as far as describing him as being "a fine young gentleman".
But how well did any of these people know JB? How much time did they spend in each others company? He was sent to Board at Greshams/Norfolk from the age of 8 only returning during hols to live on a remote farm. When he returned to the area he was in the main either travelling abroad or working remotely on the farm.
The Carrs appear to have been a family of average means. Did envy play a part:
- JB privately educated
- JB attractive looking
- JB had own pad/car funded by the farm albeit for putting in a shift but safe in the knowledge more would be coming his way regardless of his family's untimely deaths.
I remember covering prejudice on my psychology course and experiments and research showed some people are consciously and sub-consciously prejudiced against anyone remotely different. In the minds of some different = bad!
Remember the case of Christopher Jefferies who was a perfectly decent law abiding person and yet was suddenly deemed a monster by all including the media when Joanne Yates went missing.
-
Lookout! 8)-)))
I find it incredibly disturbing that an almost 80 year old blinkered, bigoted woman has such an unhealthy, idealised concept of a child-killer she will never know or meet. She's been slightly more circumspect since her daughter has been aware of her inappropriate passion, but it's far too little, too late. Appalling. %56&
-
I find it incredibly disturbing that an almost 80 year old blinkered, bigoted woman has such an unhealthy, idealised concept of a child-killer she will never know or meet. She's been slightly more circumspect since her daughter has been aware of her inappropriate passion, but it's far too little, too late. Appalling. %56&
They say it takes all sorts to make a world Puglove. You also forgot Jackie Preece, shes taking him to the airport and putting him on a plane to New Zealand on his release you know. Poor dear @)(++(*
-
They say it takes all sorts to make a world Puglove. You also forgot Jackie Preece, shes taking him to the airport and putting him on a plane to New Zealand on his release you know. Poor dear @)(++(*
May I ask if you took Jackie up on her invitation to ride 1 of her 2 horses followed by lunch at her local gastro pub?
-
I find it incredibly disturbing that an almost 80 year old blinkered, bigoted woman has such an unhealthy, idealised concept of a child-killer she will never know or meet. She's been slightly more circumspect since her daughter has been aware of her inappropriate passion, but it's far too little, too late. Appalling. %56&
I've certainly detected a change. Probably a restraining influence.
-
James (known as Jim) was the patriarch and a manager at OCP. It seems he suspected JB of the OCP burglary from the off and made his views known long before JM 'came forward'.
Robert (aka Rob) was Jim's son and at the time of the tragedy a serving officer with the MET.
Louise was Jim's daughter. As it happened she was in Australia when JB visited and the pair shared some accommodation for a while.
It seems the Carrs disliked JB and went out of their way to make their views known. I have no idea whether their views were justified and JB was an unlikeable character or these people were just busy bodies and/or resented JB for whatever reason(s) or had some other reason(s) to talk badly about him. Regardless like most lay witnesses they could offer nothing of evidential value.
More to follow...
Their suspicions were justified as Jeremy DID burgle the caravan park. The fact that they thought of him (and were right) does really say something about his character. They obviously had reason to suspect him - everyone else can't be wrong and Jeremy right. I don't think it's a case of like or dislike - they just knew what he was like.
-
Their suspicions were justified as Jeremy DID burgle the caravan park. The fact that they thought of him (and were right) does really say something about his character. They obviously had reason to suspect him - everyone else can't be wrong and Jeremy right. I don't think it's a case of like or dislike - they just knew what he was like.
There can be no doubt the burglary was wrong and he paid a high price for it at his trial. I'm not condoning what he did but imo he was aggrieved that AE was earning more than him for the same role and responsibilities. When this was highlighted June told him he would be entitled to more when he learned to live properly. He was a grown man and it wasn't for June as a controlling director to attempt to control JB's lifestyle by determining his income.
If all these people 'just knew what he was like' in terms of honesty or rather dishonesty why did they have him living with them?
-
There can be no doubt the burglary was wrong and he paid a high price for it at his trial. I'm not condoning what he did but imo he was aggrieved that AE was earning more than him for the same role and responsibilities. When this was highlighted June told him he would be entitled to more when he learned to live properly. He was a grown man and it wasn't for June as a controlling director to attempt to control JB's lifestyle by determining his income.
If all these people 'just knew what he was like' in terms of honesty or rather dishonesty why did they have him living with them?
Why did they have him living with them? I think that is pretty obvious - he was their son! I don't think June was trying to control his lifestyle, she was trying to make him take and own some responsibility. He wanted all of the perks without putting in the graft. He seem to me to be someone who has a sense on entitlement and that would rub anyone up the wrong way.
-
Why did they have him living with them? I think that is pretty obvious - he was their son! I don't think June was trying to control his lifestyle, she was trying to make him take and own some responsibility. He wanted all of the perks without putting in the graft. He seem to me to be someone who has a sense on entitlement and that would rub anyone up the wrong way.
I was referring to the Carr family ie if they disliked JB why have him sharing accomm in Oz with Louise Carr?
My interpretation of June's 'when you learn to live properly' was based on the fact JB had JM staying over at his cottage which June didn't agree with hence the offer to buy JM a property.
-
I was referring to the Carr family ie if they disliked JB why have him sharing accomm in Oz with Louise Carr?
My interpretation of June's 'when you learn to live properly' was based on the fact JB had JM staying over at his cottage which June didn't agree with hence the offer to buy JM a property.
I don't think there is any indication that the Carr family didn't necessarily 'like' Bamber, they just knew what he was like. Also, he was in NZ years before the incident at the caravan park - had the robbery occurred 'before' NZ, you might have a point but .....
June may have been a bit puritanical, lots of parents are, they were a bit old-fashioned, but Bamber wasn't chained to a tractor and got to enjoy his free time the way he wanted - he took no notice of June.
-
I don't think there is any indication that the Carr family didn't necessarily 'like' Bamber, they just knew what he was like. Also, he was in NZ years before the incident at the caravan park - had the robbery occurred 'before' NZ, you might have a point but .....
June may have been a bit puritanical, lots of parents are, they were a bit old-fashioned, but Bamber wasn't chained to a tractor and got to enjoy his free time the way he wanted - he took no notice of June.
According to CAL the Carrs disliked playing with JB as children. Louise Carr said she also disliked sharing her house with him in Oz. So why invite him to stay in the first place?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8633.msg430541#msg430541
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8633.msg430452#msg430452
It seems JB brushed off June's religiosity but as a controlling director (42%) of OCP June was able to dictate JB's income. I'm pretty sure if you and I had identical roles and responsibilities and the manager decided I would receive a higher income on the basis I was married and you weren't or vice-versa we wouldn't be best pleased.
-
According to CAL the Carrs disliked playing with JB as children. Louise Carr said she also disliked sharing her house with him in Oz. So why invite him to stay in the first place?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8633.msg430541#msg430541
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8633.msg430452#msg430452
It seems JB brushed off June's religiosity but as a controlling director (42%) of OCP June was able to dictate JB's income. I'm pretty sure if you and I had identical roles and responsibilities and the manager decided I would receive a higher income on the basis I was married and you weren't or vice-versa we wouldn't be best pleased.
But supposing one of you showed that they were more diligent/more enthusiastic/more deserving of a higher salary? How would either of you feel if one of you put all the effort in and the other received the same salary for doing little/nothing?
-
But supposing one of you showed that they were more diligent/more enthusiastic/more deserving of a higher salary? How would either of you feel if one of you put all the effort in and the other received the same salary for doing little/nothing?
But I don't believe this was the case here. AE and JB were minority shareholders (8%). According to AE's WS's she and JB sang from the same hymn sheet in terms of how OCP should be developed and run. There's no evidence of anyone saying JB didn't fulfil what was required of him?
-
According to CAL the Carrs disliked playing with JB as children. Louise Carr said she also disliked sharing her house with him in Oz. So why invite him to stay in the first place?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8633.msg430541#msg430541
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8633.msg430452#msg430452
It seems JB brushed off June's religiosity but as a controlling director (42%) of OCP June was able to dictate JB's income. I'm pretty sure if you and I had identical roles and responsibilities and the manager decided I would receive a higher income on the basis I was married and you weren't or vice-versa we wouldn't be best pleased.
Did they invite him or did he invite himself? Why did they dislike playing with him? It seems that quite a lot of people had an adverse reaction to Jeremy - it says more about him, than them!
I don't for one moment believe that Jeremy's position relied on his just being married.
-
Did they invite him or did he invite himself? Why did they dislike playing with him? It seems that quite a lot of people had an adverse reaction to Jeremy - it says more about him, than them!
I don't for one moment believe that Jeremy's position relied on his just being married.
No idea who invited who but having to endure someone for a few hours during the course of a social is one thing having to share your home is another. Even if he invited himself they could just say 'sorry, no room in the inn'!
A lot of people seem to have had an adverse reaction to JB after the event and yet were quite happy in his company beforehand including having sex with him, accepting his generosity and living with him eg JM, LR, MD and MW.
-
No idea who invited who but having to endure someone for a few hours during the course of a social is one thing having to share your home is another. Even if he invited himself they could just say 'sorry, no room in the inn'!
A lot of people seem to have had an adverse reaction to JB after the event and yet were quite happy in his company beforehand including having sex with him, accepting his generosity and living with him eg JM, LR, MD and MW.
There is some suggestion that the shared home was a hostel -although I can't verify it- which could put a rather different interpretation on it. It seems to me that there were more who had a simple gut reaction about Jeremy's character, than who accepted his hospitality/had sex with him...................although, arguably, it's possible they MAY have done both.
-
There is some suggestion that the shared home was a hostel -although I can't verify it- which could put a rather different interpretation on it. It seems to me that there were more who had a simple gut reaction about Jeremy's character, than who accepted his hospitality/had sex with him...................although, arguably, it's possible they MAY have done both.
But if we take the example of LR, MD and MW. They all worked with JB and lived with him over a period of months. LR even arranged a dinner date between JB and her close friend, JM. LR then went on to have sex with him. At what point did she get bad vibes about the guy?
-
No idea who invited who but having to endure someone for a few hours during the course of a social is one thing having to share your home is another. Even if he invited himself they could just say 'sorry, no room in the inn'!
A lot of people seem to have had an adverse reaction to JB after the event and yet were quite happy in his company beforehand including having sex with him, accepting his generosity and living with him eg JM, LR, MD and MW.
I am sure there are many people in your life, as there are in mine, who you don't much care for. They might be described as a bit of a tit and some might even be family members or ex-boyfriends. You just put up with them, however, if they were convicted of murder, you may feel vindicated in your dislike and verbalise it if asked to do so.
You say 'generosity' others may view it differently 'buying friends' 'showing off' .......... just depends on where you sit in the argument. The difference between us and the people mentioned here, is that they knew him and there doesn't seem many who are prepared to come to his defence - I think that speaks volumes about the kind of person he was/is.
-
But if we take the example of LR, MD and MW. They all worked with JB and lived with him over a period of months. LR even arranged a dinner date between JB and her close friend, JM. LR then went on to have sex with him. At what point did she get bad vibes about the guy?
Given that there are still those now who seem to have an itch for him, I guess he gave off hot enough sexual vibes to mask the other ones, at least long enough for a quickie.
-
I am sure there are many people in your life, as there are in mine, who you don't much care for. They might be described as a bit of a tit and some might even be family members or ex-boyfriends. You just put up with them, however, if they were convicted of murder, you may feel vindicated in your dislike and verbalise it if asked to do so.
You say 'generosity' others may view it differently 'buying friends' 'showing off' .......... just depends on where you sit in the argument. The difference between us and the people mentioned here, is that they knew him and there doesn't seem many who are prepared to come to his defence - I think that speaks volumes about the kind of person he was/is.
In my last post, I've asked who Bamber used as witnesses in his defence during trial. A chartered surveyor and a sales person. Who were these people? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5130.msg432702#msg432702
"Jeremy would put over a face of being a very sort of nice person and then he would go and do something really nasty," she said. "There seemed to be an awful lot of bickering.
"Sometimes when Jeremy came up they would have a hectic row ... Whenever Jeremy was around the atmosphere was so different.
-
Sadly passed away yesterday 8(8-)) Seems like yesterday I was cutting David Cassidy pics out of the Jackie magazine to pin to my bedroom walls. Great times: David Cassidy, Jackie magazine with the 'Dear Cathy and Claire' problem page.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24054765
SC and JB were both adopted as babies and brought up by NB and June. Both went to boarding school. What separates them is that SC had a number of primary caregivers during the first 3/4 years of her life whereas JB didn't. June also suffered mental illness requiring in-patient psychiatric care in the early crucial years of SC's development which again wasn't the case with JB. All the science underpinning 'attachment' shows that babies/infants who fail to form secure attachments with caregivers are at risk of suffering the types of issues we know SC suffered.
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/
Recent research shows a correlation between adult attachment styles and filicide ie mothers with disorganised attachment styles are more likely to commit filicide than those with mental illness and/or from low socio-economic groups:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213414001458
RECENT research also suggests Bamber fit the profile of a mass murderer to a tee NOT his sister
"The research, compiled and analyzed carefully-controlled data on mass murderers who used guns and acted on a personal - not political or religious - motives.
The first cluster of murderers had an average age of 23, and the second averaged 41 years old.
Dr King says that these two ages closely track the beginning and end of the period when men are most attractive as mates. In other words, when they have reproductive status and value.
The behaviors and traits of the first, younger group, align more closely with how we usually, and most comfortably, think of killers. These young men tend to have a history of trouble with law, mental illness.
Dr King says that this is an age at which these young men are supposed to be acquiring status, but are struggling to succeed in society. ‘They were, in fact, acquiring signs that they were on a fast track to reproductive oblivion,’ he wrote on his Psychology Today blog.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4953458/Evolutionary-drivers-mass-murder-older-men.html#ixzz4zNBwamZr
-
RECENT research also suggests Bamber fit the profile of a mass murderer to a tee NOT his sister
"The research, compiled and analyzed carefully-controlled data on mass murderers who used guns and acted on a personal - not political or religious - motives.
The first cluster of murderers had an average age of 23, and the second averaged 41 years old.
Dr King says that these two ages closely track the beginning and end of the period when men are most attractive as mates. In other words, when they have reproductive status and value.
The behaviors and traits of the first, younger group, align more closely with how we usually, and most comfortably, think of killers. These young men tend to have a history of trouble with law, mental illness.
Dr King says that this is an age at which these young men are supposed to be acquiring status, but are struggling to succeed in society. ‘They were, in fact, acquiring signs that they were on a fast track to reproductive oblivion,’ he wrote on his Psychology Today blog.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4953458/Evolutionary-drivers-mass-murder-older-men.html#ixzz4zNBwamZr
"Male humans swim in worlds of status like trout swim in complex currents of water. Anyone who is not aware of this (or in denial about it) finds things like the high rates of male suicide or the fact that males are massively over-represented in apparently senseless crimes, utterly baffling. (2) Glib talk of “toxic masculinity” barely scratches the surface of what is going on. (3) “Toxic” does not explain the half of it, and it is worth noting that even the most toxic of masculinity does not put off all possible sexual partners. As Ogas and Gaddam (2012) note “It turns out that killing people is an effective way to elicit the attention of many women: virtually every serial killer, including Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and David Berkowitz, has received love letters from large numbers of female fans” (p. 98). (4)
Remember—we have done the genetic analysis and most males (60 percent) do not reproduce. Status is exquisitely linked to male reproductive success, and males who were blind to its ups and downs have simply not had descendants. Call it “face”; call it “honor”; call it “status” or call it “prestige”. We are all descended from men who cared about it. (5)
We might have tamed it somewhat in modern society. We give it useful outlets. Sport. Awards at work. Elaborate rituals where we show that a person has so much status to spare, that they can even survive being roasted by professional comedians. Sometimes, in some individuals, and for reasons that we still do not understand, this pressure to value status can go very badly awry. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hive-mind/201710/mass-killings-evolutionary-perspective
-
I am sure there are many people in your life, as there are in mine, who you don't much care for. They might be described as a bit of a tit and some might even be family members or ex-boyfriends. You just put up with them, however, if they were convicted of murder, you may feel vindicated in your dislike and verbalise it if asked to do so.
You say 'generosity' others may view it differently 'buying friends' 'showing off' .......... just depends on where you sit in the argument. The difference between us and the people mentioned here, is that they knew him and there doesn't seem many who are prepared to come to his defence - I think that speaks volumes about the kind of person he was/is.
But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her? Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration. One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.
If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example. LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983. At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters. The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB. LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple. Success on a plate! At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB.
LR was effectively JB's boss. She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter. They worked together. Lived together in a shared house. Shagged together. She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders! At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?
Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place. If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role? Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress? Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker? And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!?
If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB.
The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution. I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB.
I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously.
-
But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her? Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration. One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.
If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example. LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983. At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters. The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB. LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple. Success on a plate! At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB.
LR was effectively JB's boss. She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter. They worked together. Lived together in a shared house. Shagged together. She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders! At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?
Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place. If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role? Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress? Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker? And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!?
If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB.
The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution. I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB.
I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously.
Caroline hasn't suggested people found Bamber a bit of a 'tit' - she was generalising in order to get her point across.
But you now appear to have taken this generalisation as literal and ran with it?
In summing up, Judge Drake stated:
"It shows that you, young man though you are, have a warped, callous and evil mind concealed beneath an outwardly presentable and civilized manner.
"CONCEALED BENEATH AN OUTWARDLY PRESENTABLE AND CIVILISED MANNER"
Unless you have experienced an individual like this first hand (especially one who had murdered) I imagine for some people it's difficult to get your head around.
What the content of your post to me suggests is that Jeremy Bamber was a charmer and even when he did the dirty on someone he would come out smelling of roses.
What I don't understand is why you are choosing to blame everyone else for his character flaws, infidelities, criminal behaviours etc..
"Incidentally, after a lifetime of studying psychopaths Dr Hare cannot immediately identify a psychopath at a first meeting, or even after a twenty or thirty minute conversation. They are adept at masking their true nature and our natural instinct to judge people on first impressions works in their favour. http://www.remorselessfiction.com/chameleons.html
-
But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her? Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration. One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.
If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example. LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983. At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters. The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB. LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple. Success on a plate! At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB.
LR was effectively JB's boss. She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter. They worked together. Lived together in a shared house. Shagged together. She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders! At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?
Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place. If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role? Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress? Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker? And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!?
If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB.
The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution. I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB.
I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously.
"A psychopath can appear strong, naive, dominant, honest, submissive, trustworthy, worldly, or whatever he or she believes will get others to respond positively to manipulative overtures...."
From Snakes in Suits - Babiak and Hare
-
Caroline hasn't suggested people found Bamber a bit of a 'tit' - she was generalising in order to get her point across.
But you now appear to have taken this generalisation as literal and ran with it?
In summing up, Judge Drake stated:
"It shows that you, young man though you are, have a warped, callous and evil mind concealed beneath an outwardly presentable and civilized manner.
"CONCEALED BENEATH AN OUTWARDLY PRESENTABLE AND CIVILISED MANNER"
Unless you have experienced an individual like this first hand (especially one who had murdered) I imagine for some people it's difficult to get your head around.
What the content of your post to me suggests is that Jeremy Bamber was a charmer and even when he did the dirty on someone he would come out smelling of roses.
What I don't understand is why you are choosing to blame everyone else for his character flaws, infidelities, criminal behaviours etc..
"Incidentally, after a lifetime of studying psychopaths Dr Hare cannot immediately identify a psychopath at a first meeting, or even after a twenty or thirty minute conversation. They are adept at masking their true nature and our natural instinct to judge people on first impressions works in their favour. http://www.remorselessfiction.com/chameleons.html
Please refrain from making comments of this nature as they have the potential to sow discord on the open forum. Caroline is more than capable of responding to my posts.
-
But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her? Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration. One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.
If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example. LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983. At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters. The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB. LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple. Success on a plate! At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB.
LR was effectively JB's boss. She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter. They worked together. Lived together in a shared house. Shagged together. She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders! At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?
Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place. If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role? Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress? Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker? And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!?
If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB.
The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution. I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB.
I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously.
"They will lie almost reflexively and also engage in very predatory, planned lying.
They really enjoy pulling a fast one on other people, and they don't feel bad about doing it.
Dr. Ronald Schouten, Director of Law and Psychiatry Services at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
http://www.remorselessfiction.com/identifying.html
* Superficially charming
* Very glib
* Sometimes transparently dishonest - yet shrugs it off as nothing if exposed
* Often devious
* Suspicious of others' motives (thinks the worst of people)
* Doing exceptionally well in his (or her) career by screwing colleagues over
* Promiscuous and regularly hurts people's feelings (maybe deliberately)
* Failing to accept responsibility for their actions
* Exhibiting a well developed sense of entitlement
* Exhibiting a very big ego
* Convinced you should think the world of them as they certainly do...
"If the person has all - or even most - of these characteristics then you probably know a psychopath.
-
But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her? Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration. One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.
If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example. LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983. At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters. The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB. LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple. Success on a plate! At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB.
LR was effectively JB's boss. She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter. They worked together. Lived together in a shared house. Shagged together. She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders! At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?
Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place. If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role? Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress? Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker? And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!?
If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB.
The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution. I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB.
I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously.
"psychopaths regard people as 'instruments of gratification' and 'as disposable things to be used'.
http://www.remorselessfiction.com/non-criminal-psychopaths.html
-
But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her? Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration. One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.
If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example. LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983. At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters. The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB. LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple. Success on a plate! At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB.
LR was effectively JB's boss. She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter. They worked together. Lived together in a shared house. Shagged together. She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders! At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?
Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place. If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role? Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress? Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker? And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!?
If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB.
The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution. I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB.
I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously.
Unless we know the circustances of how and why they ended up sleeping together, all you're doing is adding your own interpretation of events. Bamber must have got something from these friendships too - he isn't/wasn't exactly a benifactor.
Not sure where you got the idea that the police used drugs - but that is quite some accuation with no evidence. If the police used drugs on you, would you let it lie? Other than Julie. who else was given imunity?
-
Unless we know the circustances of how and why they ended up sleeping together, all you're doing is adding your own interpretation of events. Bamber must have got something from these friendships too - he isn't/wasn't exactly a benifactor.
It seems to me they were all just a regular bunch of young people hanging out together. It happens all the time where people have a few drinks/drugs, inhibitions are lowered and young single people have sex. It's neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. I guess some might argue JM/LR were scorned women ie JB dumped JM and LR may have felt used but IMO I don't think this influenced the prosecution case against JB.
The point I was endeavouring to make is the relationships had endured for at least 2 years where members of the group had experience of JB in a variety of settings: work, social, house sharing, sex which implies to me they knew him fairly well and appreciated his company.
8@??)(
Not sure where you got the idea that the police used drugs - but that is quite some accuation with no evidence. If the police used drugs on you, would you let it lie? Other than Julie. who else was given imunity?
The idea about the drug angle comes from MM's WS and to a lesser extent JM's and SB's. I think it is reasonable to expect EP to have a consistent policy on drugs but this doesn't appear to be the case here. When JB was first arrested under caution he voluntarily handed over cannabis in his possession. Based on the interview transcripts I've read he wasn't cautioned/charged over this or even asked a single question about drugs. Some will say EP were interested in the murders not a piddly bit of weed but this argument doesn't seem to stack up given he was charged at the magistrates court over OCP. When MM was interviewed under caution he was read the riot act about the cannabis found on his person and told the cannabis plants found at his home would be sent for analysis. His alibi for the night of the murders was a woman by the name of Mavis Southgate who he was having a sexual relationship with. He was also having a sexual relationship with Christine Bacon ,mother of his young child, and asked about her use of drugs. He told EP she was an infrequent user of cannabis. The police then knocked her up at dawn to carry out a search of her home and take her in for questioning. No idea what was or wasn't 'found' at CB's.
JM's WS claims JB's neighbours tipped off the drugs squad about JB's cannabis plants who visited JB's cottage pre tragedy to take a look. JB got wind of this and destroyed the plants. Again this doesn't seem to make sense given EP's stance with MM.
SB's WS claims she didn't like JB bringing drugs into the house she shared with JM, James Richard and Charles ?. SB said she was specifically concerned as JR and C? were attached to the army and if the drugs came to light they would be kicked out. SB refers to the drug squad.
Imo EP used the drug angle to intimidate witnesses into supporting the prosecution against JB.
-
It seems to me drugs were swept under the carpet. This can be evidenced by the fact the CoA doc refers to OCP and JM's cheque fraud but doesn't touch on JB growing cannabis etc and JM selling on around campus. The reason for this imo is down to the fact all prosecuction witnesses were sold the idea JB was guilty and threatened with various drug related offences.
If there's anything still held under pii imo it could relate to drugs (including possibly the opium poppies) and various prosecution witnesses involved with drugs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity
Public-interest immunity (PII), previously known as Crown privilege, is a principle of English common law under which the English courts can grant a court order allowing one litigant to refrain from disclosing evidence to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the public interest. This is an exception to the usual rule that all parties in litigation must disclose any evidence that is relevant to the proceedings. In making a PII order, the court has to balance the public interest in the administration of justice (which demands that relevant material is available to the parties to litigation) and the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of certain documents whose disclosure would be damaging. PII orders have been used in criminal law against large organised criminal outfits and drug dealers where the identity of paid police informants could be at risk.