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 April 14, 2018, 03:32:00 PM
-
This thread is strictly to discuss and debate cases where members of adoptive families have either murdered within, including adopted adults murdering their own biological children, or have murdered a member(s) of the connected biological family..
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/13/north-carolina-incest-father-told-mother-killed-daughter-wife-and-their-child-in-shocking-911-call.html
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/04/12/victims-apparent-double-murder-suicide-identified-father-daughter-incest-couple/23409969/
-
I do recall reading a book (a rarity in itself for me) entitled 'The Primal Wound' which contained a section on 'genetic sexual attraction' (GSA). This is supposedly where adult adoptees reunite with their birth parents and fall in love! I'm pleased to say this didn't happen to me.
Page 8:
http://www.scstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Birth-Relatives-Information-Pack-2017.pdf
However there's no getting away from the fact these reunions and relationships are complex. I do wonder how SC coped reuniting with her BM which coincidentally took place a few weeks before the tragedy at WHF.
-
This article highlights Bambers case https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/anatomy-of-family-murder-killing-spree-home-invasion-a7639966.html
though I'm unsure if in the other cases they were adopted; you would need to research that I guess
-
I do recall reading a book (a rarity in itself for me) entitled 'The Primal Wound' which contained a section on 'genetic sexual attraction' (GSA). This is supposedly where adult adoptees reunite with their birth parents and fall in love! I'm pleased to say this didn't happen to me.
Page 8:
http://www.scstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Birth-Relatives-Information-Pack-2017.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43747225
However there's no getting away from the fact these reunions and relationships are complex. I do wonder how SC coped reuniting with her BM which coincidentally took place a few weeks before the tragedy at WHF.
http://people.com/crime/father-incest-biological-daughter-kills-3-murder-suicide/
How do you think Jeremy Bamber felt knowing there would be no such reunion in his case. His bio parents weren't interested, as you know.
It's more often than not the men who murder in these cases Holly. Women tend to internalise their emotions; men on the other hand can become violent and murder.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/20/man-who-murdered-adopted-daughter-was-jekyll-and-hyde-character
Are these cases similar to families without connection to adoption? Or does adoption pose additional problems and risks of something going seriously awry?
-
This article highlights Bambers case https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/anatomy-of-family-murder-killing-spree-home-invasion-a7639966.html
though I'm unsure if in the other cases they were adopted; you would need to research that I guess
Thanks but I can't open the link.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/20/man-who-murdered-adopted-daughter-was-jekyll-and-hyde-character
Are these cases similar to families without connection to adoption? Or does adoption pose additional problems and risks of something going seriously awry?
I only have experience of Simon Hall and you've made it clear you aren't interested in his case so I'm going to leave you to it Holly 8((()*/
-
http://people.com/crime/father-incest-biological-daughter-kills-3-murder-suicide/
How do you think Jeremy Bamber felt knowing there would be no such reunion in his case. His bio parents weren't interested, as you know.
It's more often than not the men who murder in these cases Holly. Women tend to internalise their emotions; men on the other hand can become violent and murder.
Thanks. The link relates to the case above.
According to JB's birth parents they rejected his attempts to reunite, post last appeal I believe, on the basis they believe he's guilty of the crimes convicted of.
-
Didn't Freud say something about Mothers and Sons and Fathers and Daughters?
Not something that ever made any sense to me, but it certainly does happen between Fathers and Daughters, although almost always motivated by the father, often forcibly.
In this case there was no long standing relationship when she was a child, so possibly something to do him having first chosen her mother, a likeness perhaps.
Biologically it is not a good idea so there must be something that prevents the majority from even thinking about this. And something not quite right with those who do.
-
Thanks but I can't open the link.
Try googling-
the anatomy of family murder and the warning signs and signals to look out for
-
Didn't Freud say something about Mothers and Sons and Fathers and Daughters?
Not something that ever made any sense to me, but it certainly does happen between Fathers and Daughters, although almost always motivated by the father, often forcibly.
In this case there was no long standing relationship when she was a child, so possibly something to do him having first chosen her mother, a likeness perhaps.
Biologically it is not a good idea so there must be something that prevents the majority from even thinking about this. And something not quite right with those who do.
Yes I think you're right. Something to do with psychosocial development that prevents most family members feeling sexually attracted to other members. Obviously these reunions miss out on all of this.
-
I only have experience of Simon Hall and you've made it clear you aren't interested in his case so I'm going to leave you to it Holly 8((()*/
I didn't say I wasn't interested in SH's case per se Stephanie. I said this thread is about triad members: adoptees, adopters and biological parents murdering within the triad. And adoptees who murder their birth children.
-
Try googling-
the anatomy of family murder and the warning signs and signals to look out for
Thanks. Will do.
-
Here's a case where an adoptee murdered her birth children. Her ex-partner commented:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rachel-james-grieving-dad-hits-123282
Marc said: “She decided to find her real mum in America and that’s when she began to flip.”
-
I didn't say I wasn't interested in SH's case per se Stephanie. I said this thread is about triad members: adoptees, adopters and biological parents murdering within the triad. And adoptees who murder their birth children.
Simon Hall alledged his victim represented his adoptive mother? Why didn't he murder his adoptive mother; why choose someone who allegedly represented her?
-
Here's a case where an adoptee murdered her birth children. Her ex-partner commented:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rachel-james-grieving-dad-hits-123282
Marc said: “She decided to find her real mum in America and that’s when she began to flip.”
what do the experts have to say? We say all kinds of things when we are in shock. Maybe it was nothing more than coincidence
-
I do recall reading a book (a rarity in itself for me) entitled 'The Primal Wound' which contained a section on 'genetic sexual attraction' (GSA). This is supposedly where adult adoptees reunite with their birth parents and fall in love! I'm pleased to say this didn't happen to me.
Page 8:
http://www.scstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Birth-Relatives-Information-Pack-2017.pdf
However there's no getting away from the fact these reunions and relationships are complex. I do wonder how SC coped reuniting with her BM which coincidentally took place a few weeks before the tragedy at WHF.
I do know of a case where this occurred. The bio father being only 16 years senior to his daughter. No mediator was involved when the meeting took place over a weekend, but a lot of alcohol was, as was the father's second wife -the daughter's bio mother having died- who was roughly the same age as the daughter. The weekend was an unmitigated disaster!!!
I've often wondered how went Sheila's meeting with Christine. There must have been a gamut of emotions from them both. I would be interesting to know if they were entirely truthful with each other and to know if Sheila opened up about her relationship with June.
-
I didn't say I wasn't interested in SH's case per se Stephanie. I said this thread is about triad members: adoptees, adopters and biological parents murdering within the triad. And adoptees who murder their birth children.
Here is some of what Simon Hall had to say on his adoption and family etc https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/
and here re adoption, murder and family..
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/simon-hall-letters/
"So you reject him too, and now he slates you online. It’s sh*t like that can turn a man into a rapist because he’ll have a power complex. A ticking time bomb! I’ve seen them walking these landings
Unless of course that too is a deflection and that’s actually a fragment of his own screwed up personality? Like the closet “straight man” who beats up gay’s to try to hide his own feelings about his true sexuality… perhaps he’s actually a ‘secret of his own?
.
-
There are a lot of cases in past history regarding Ruling Families wherein fathers married daughters and brothers married sisters. Something to do with keeping the bloodline pure, and no one seems to have had a problem with this at the time.
In Hawaii once upon a time this was common practice. And they just bumped off any disabled or damaged children. No one seems to have made a fuss about this either. A bad one. Get rid of it. Have another one. Very sensible under the circumstances. Until The Missionaries came along.
But in Egypt it seems to have been more about the Ruling Family and retaining power. Tutankhamun was disabled, although not massively, although I don't know much about his head, or brain power as such. However, he did die young.
But none of these people seem to have had any trouble mating with Siblings or Parents.
It is now very much against The Law, for obvious reasons. Although I don't think anyone actually does anything about these people living together so long as they don't breed. And who would need or be able to know anyway.
-
There are a lot of cases in past history regarding Ruling Families wherein fathers married daughters and brothers married sisters. Something to do with keeping the bloodline pure, and no one seems to have had a problem with this at the time.
Yes, like the Borgias *&^^&
-
Yes, like the Borgias *&^^&
Not really. The Pope wasn't trying to keep his bloodline pure or trying to breed another Pope. He just wanted to get his end away without anyone knowing what he was up to. Sainted man that he was supposed to be.
-
Not really. The Pope wasn't trying to keep his bloodline pure or trying to breed another Pope. He just wanted to get his end away without anyone knowing what he was up to. Sainted man that he was supposed to be.
Do you mean Pope Alexander VI? He sounds like a psychopath. 8((()*/
"Appearance and personality
Contemporary accounts suggest that Rodrigo was "handsome, with a very cheerful countenance and genial bearing. He was gifted with the quality of being a smooth talker and of choice eloquence. Beautiful women were attracted to him and excited by him in quite a remarkable way, more strongly than how 'iron is drawn to a magnet'."[12] Rodrigo Borgia was also an intelligent man with an appreciation for the arts and sciences and an immense amount of respect for the Church. He was capable and cautious, considered a "political priest" by some. He was a gifted speaker and great at conversation. Additionally, he was "so familiar with Holy Writ, that his speeches were fairly sparkling with well-chosen texts of the Sacred Books".[Note 2][14][Note 3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI
No I wasn't referring to him, nevermind..
-
I do know of a case where this occurred. The bio father being only 16 years senior to his daughter. No mediator was involved when the meeting took place over a weekend, but a lot of alcohol was, as was the father's second wife -the daughter's bio mother having died- who was roughly the same age as the daughter. The weekend was an unmitigated disaster!!!
I've often wondered how went Sheila's meeting with Christine. There must have been a gamut of emotions from them both. I would be interesting to know if they were entirely truthful with each other and to know if Sheila opened up about her relationship with June.
It would be interesting to hear from members of SC's birth family who met with her and their account of meetings and SC. I recall from CAL SC held a dinner party for CJ, PJ and her birth maternal grandparents. I believe the maternal bio grandmother was disturbed by all SC's questions. All we really hear is the good news from CC and SC's bestie. Perhaps a bit like JB's syrupy version of family life at WHF on his blog which makes the set up sound like the Waltons.
-
what do the experts have to say? We say all kinds of things when we are in shock. Maybe it was nothing more than coincidence
I think this sort of thing often falls under the radar.
It was reading about this case and around the same time being reminded of WHF in the papers that aroused my interest in JB's case.
-
I think this sort of thing often falls under the radar.
It was reading about this case and around the same time being reminded of WHF in the papers that aroused my interest in JB's case.
I don't follow Holly? What makes you interested in murder?
-
It would be interesting to hear from members of SC's birth family who met with her and their account of meetings and SC. I recall from CAL SC held a dinner party for CJ, PJ and her birth maternal grandparents. I believe the maternal bio grandmother was disturbed by all SC's questions. All we really hear is the good news from CC and SC's bestie. Perhaps a bit like JB's syrupy version of family life at WHF on his blog which makes the set up sound like the Waltons.
That could be held under PII or maybe Jezza knows what was said but has kept it to himself all these years?
Surely you spoke to him about this in your communications?
Maybe you are coming out of denial Holly and recognising Bambers "syrupy" BS for what it is? They were far from the "Waltons"
-
I don't follow Holly? What makes you interested in murder?
Well I mean baby scoop era adoptions took place in a completely different era. At the time the adoption orders were formalised through the courts identities were withheld meaning adopted children were unable to identify their birth parents and vice-versa for birth parents. In 1975/76 the law changed allowing adoptees access to their original birth cert and adoption records. This identifying info meant adoptees who wanted to know more and/or meet their birth parents could do so. However apart from a compulsory 20 min meet with a social worker that's it. One is left to get on with it! So there's little reliable data on outcomes. If it sends some over the edge who is going to connect the dots? If indeed there are dots to be connected.
I'm not interested in murder per se. I just read about the Rachael James case about the time JB's case was in the papers re his 2011/12 CCRC submission and it just got me thinking about whether adoption played a role.
-
That could be held under PII or maybe Jezza knows what was said but has kept it to himself all these years?
Surely you spoke to him about this in your communications?
Maybe you are coming out of denial Holly and recognising Bambers "syrupy" BS for what it is? They were far from the "Waltons"
I've exchanged about 20 pieces of correspondence with JB. From memory only the first exchange mentioned adoption.
I don't believe I'm in denial. I believe I've undertaken an in-depth analysis of the case over a long period of time and my conclusion is that JB is innocent. Of course I might be wrong.
I think all the stuff on his blog is ott but that's a matter for him. It doesn't affect the way I view his case.
-
I've exchanged about 20 pieces of correspondence with JB. From memory only the first exchange mentioned adoption.
I don't believe I'm in denial. I believe I've undertaken an in-depth analysis of the case over a long period of time and my conclusion is that JB is innocent. Of course I might be wrong.
I think all the stuff on his blog is ott but that's a matter for him. It doesn't affect the way I view his case.
What do you mean about the stuff on his blog being ott? Aren't his letters like that then?
-
I've exchanged about 20 pieces of correspondence with JB. From memory only the first exchange mentioned adoption.
I don't believe I'm in denial. I believe I've undertaken an in-depth analysis of the case over a long period of time and my conclusion is that JB is innocent. Of course I might be wrong.
I think all the stuff on his blog is ott but that's a matter for him. It doesn't affect the way I view his case.
Don't tell me - your letter to him mentioned adoption; he avoided the subject?
-
Well I mean baby scoop era adoptions took place in a completely different era. At the time the adoption orders were formalised through the courts identities were withheld meaning adopted children were unable to identify their birth parents and vice-versa for birth parents. In 1975/76 the law changed allowing adoptees access to their original birth cert and adoption records. This identifying info meant adoptees who wanted to know more and/or meet their birth parents could do so. However apart from a compulsory 20 min meet with a social worker that's it. One is left to get on with it! So there's little reliable data on outcomes. If it sends some over the edge who is going to connect the dots? If indeed there are dots to be connected.
I'm not interested in murder per se. I just read about the Rachael James case about the time JB's case was in the papers re his 2011/12 CCRC submission and it just got me thinking about whether adoption played a role.
There are channels which can be used. Can't recall the acronym but it's something about adopting and fostering. They do the leg work and act as mediators. They require payment for BC's etc plus £50 admin? Unless they're bound by client confidentiality, they might be prepared to give stats.
-
Don't tell me - your letter to him mentioned adoption; he avoided the subject?
No not at all. At the time adoption was making headlines. The gov produced a report and was on a drive to increase adoptions. I disagreed with the report and wrote to David Cameron. I made ref to the Bamber family as a past example of what imo was a poorly arranged adoption. I sent a copy to JB.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-narey-report-a-blueprint-for-the-nations-lost-children-7b2ktmcrf0w
-
There are channels which can be used. Can't recall the acronym but it's something about adopting and fostering. They do the leg work and act as mediators. They require payment for BC's etc plus £50 admin? Unless they're bound by client confidentiality, they might be prepared to give stats.
That might well be the case now but when SC and I met our birth mothers 1985 and 1986 respectively it was the 20 min session with a social worker. From memory it was simply a sort of tick box exercise.
Yes there's some statistical data now but bearing in mind when SC and I met with our BM's we were among the first from the baby scoop era post change in law.
-
That might well be the case now but when SC and I met our birth mothers 1985 and 1986 respectively it was the 20 min session with a social worker. From memory it was simply a sort of tick box exercise.
Yes there's some statistical data now but bearing in mind when SC and I met with our BM's we were among the first from the baby scoop era post change in law.
I really can't recall when I applied for my pre adoption papers but I was allocated a social worker who explained my bio mother's background. It wasn't possible for her to do more than that.
-
I really can't recall when I applied for my pre adoption papers but I was allocated a social worker who explained my bio mother's background. It wasn't possible for her to do more than that.
Yes that's how it was then.
-
Well I mean baby scoop era adoptions took place in a completely different era. At the time the adoption orders were formalised through the courts identities were withheld meaning adopted children were unable to identify their birth parents and vice-versa for birth parents. In 1975/76 the law changed allowing adoptees access to their original birth cert and adoption records. This identifying info meant adoptees who wanted to know more and/or meet their birth parents could do so. However apart from a compulsory 20 min meet with a social worker that's it. One is left to get on with it! So there's little reliable data on outcomes. If it sends some over the edge who is going to connect the dots? If indeed there are dots to be connected.
I'm not interested in murder per se. I just read about the Rachael James case about the time JB's case was in the papers re his 2011/12 CCRC submission and it just got me thinking about whether adoption played a role.
I missed this, sorry Holly. Thanks for the reply!
-
No not at all. At the time adoption was making headlines. The gov produced a report and was on a drive to increase adoptions. I disagreed with the report and wrote to David Cameron. I made ref to the Bamber family as a past example of what imo was a poorly arranged adoption. I sent a copy to JB.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-narey-report-a-blueprint-for-the-nations-lost-children-7b2ktmcrf0w
So you did mention adoption.
Did he reply to you regarding what you'd written to DC?
-
That might well be the case now but when SC and I met our birth mothers 1985 and 1986 respectively it was the 20 min session with a social worker. From memory it was simply a sort of tick box exercise.
Yes there's some statistical data now but bearing in mind when SC and I met with our BM's we were among the first from the baby scoop era post change in law.
What makes you think SC's experience was the same/or similar as yours Holly, or have I misunderstood what you are trying to get across?
And what makes you think SC guilty, when all the evidence points away from her and has her brother banged to rights?
This was a carefully planned execution.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/20/man-who-murdered-adopted-daughter-was-jekyll-and-hyde-character
Are these cases similar to families without connection to adoption? Or does adoption pose additional problems and risks of something going seriously awry?
"The labelling Theory of Crime is associated with Interactionism – the Key ideas are that crime is socially constructed, agents of social control label the powerless as deviant and criminal based on stereotypical assumptions and this creates effects such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, the criminal career and deviancy amplification.
Interactionists argue that people do not become criminals because of their social background, but rather argue that crime emerges because of labelling by authorities. They see crime as the product of micro-level interactions between certain individuals and the police, rather than the result of external social forces such as socialisation or blocked opportunity structures.
Four Key concepts associated with Interactionist theories of deviance
https://revisesociology.com/2016/08/20/labelling-theory-crime-deviance/
-
No not at all. At the time adoption was making headlines. The gov produced a report and was on a drive to increase adoptions. I disagreed with the report and wrote to David Cameron. I made ref to the Bamber family as a past example of what imo was a poorly arranged adoption. I sent a copy to JB.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-narey-report-a-blueprint-for-the-nations-lost-children-7b2ktmcrf0w
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-essex-david-cameron-vows-to-ensure-murderers-like-steve-wright-and-jeremy-bamber-die-in-prison-1-3171981
-
What makes you think SC's experience was the same/or similar as yours Holly, or have I misunderstood what you are trying to get across?
We are all individuals so same or similar experiences are likely to be perceived differently. However there are no doubt similarities in perceptions of experience hence we have:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adoption-Reunion-Handbook-Elizabeth-Trinder/dp/0470094222
And what makes you think SC guilty, when all the evidence points away from her and has her brother banged to rights?
What evidence are you referring to?
This was a carefully planned execution.
I'm only aware of 3 cases of mass murder by shooting within domestic dwellings: Bamber, Bain, DeFeo.
I will stick with Bamber and Bain whereby both cases use .22 rifles (low powered). In the case of JB the potential perps were JB or SC. JB was a marksman at Greshams. SC had virtually no experience. In the Bain case both potential perps: David Bain and Robin Bain were both experienced with firearms. If you think JB was responsible how do you explain the following:
Bambers: Victims: 3 x adults, 2 children = 25/26 gunshot wounds
Bain: Victims: 5 x adults = 7 gunshot wounds
The WHF soc is anything but carefully planned. It's amateurish and manic.
-
No not at all. At the time adoption was making headlines. The gov produced a report and was on a drive to increase adoptions. I disagreed with the report and wrote to David Cameron. I made ref to the Bamber family as a past example of what imo was a poorly arranged adoption. I sent a copy to JB.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-narey-report-a-blueprint-for-the-nations-lost-children-7b2ktmcrf0w
Do you think it's fair to make such claims regarding the Bamber family adoptions, when none of them are able to defend themselves against your allegations?
-
Do you think it's fair to make such claims regarding the Bamber family adoptions, when none of them are able to defend themselves against your allegations?
There's nothing to defend against. It's there for all to see warts n all.
June Bamber suffered a mental breakdown in 1955 due to her inability to conceive birth children. In 1957 the Bambers looked to adopt SC formalising the process in 1958. In 1959 June suffered a further breakdown due to her decision to adopt. I understand SC was placed in the care of foster parents whilst June received in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment. When June returned to WHF a 17 year old nanny was taken on full-time to care for SC. In 1961 the Bambers adopted JB.
- June suffered 3 mental breakdowns: 1955, 1959 and 1982
- SC suffered 2 mental breakdowns: 1983 and 1985
- JB was found guilty of murdering his entire immediate adoptive family
- No shared genes.
- All the above mental breakdowns required in-patient psychiatric treatment.
Do you think the Bambers would be approved to adopt today?
-
There's nothing to defend against. It's there for all to see warts n all.
June Bamber suffered a mental breakdown in 1955 due to her inability to conceive birth children. In 1957 the Bambers looked to adopt SC formalising the process in 1958. In 1959 June suffered a further breakdown due to her decision to adopt. I understand SC was placed in the care of foster parents whilst June received in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment. When June returned to WHF a 17 year old nanny was taken on full-time to care for SC. In 1961 the Bambers adopted JB.
- June suffered 3 mental breakdowns: 1955, 1959 and 1982
- SC suffered 2 mental breakdowns: 1983 and 1985
- JB was found guilty of murdering his entire immediate adoptive family
- No shared genes.
- All the above mental breakdowns required in-patient psychiatric treatment.
Do you think the Bambers would be approved to adopt today?
Your question is neither here nor there Holly and is completely irrelevant to debate.
But do you recognise how your email to Kerry Daynes (and other related forum posts) focus on June and Sheila, yet you appear oblivious to Jeremy Bamber, presumably because his annual prison assessments suggest he isn't a psychopath nor does he suffer from mental health.
In reality Holly Jeremy Bamber has not been transparent.
Whilst he has suggested his 27 assessments showed him to not be a psychopath and has placed this info the public domain in order to gain support, none of us are aware of what formed the basis of his assessments nor indeed how he chose to answer the questions posed by the assessor.
Why do think Jeremy Bamber has chosen to allow his murdered victims backgrounds to be judged and scrutinised by all?
Why do you think he's placed more and more information into the public domain over the years, focusing on his murdered victims and indeed surviving relatives but has at no time been transparent about himself? Does this not stand out to you like it does me and many others?
-
June Bamber suffered a mental breakdown in 1955 due to her inability to conceive birth children. In 1957 the Bambers looked to adopt SC formalising the process in 1958. In 1959 June suffered a further breakdown due to her decision to adopt. I understand SC was placed in the care of foster parents whilst June received in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment. When June returned to WHF a 17 year old nanny was taken on full-time to care for SC. In 1961 the Bambers adopted JB.
- June suffered 3 mental breakdowns: 1955, 1959 and 1982
- SC suffered 2 mental breakdowns: 1983 and 1985
- JB was found guilty of murdering his entire immediate adoptive family
- No shared genes.
- All the above mental breakdowns required in-patient psychiatric treatment.
So where is Jeremy Bamber in your observations?
What about his quite apparent personality disorder?
Why do you ONLY focus on Sheila and June?
-
Your question is neither here nor there Holly and is completely irrelevant to debate.
I doubt those that work in related fields will agree with your sentiments.
But do you recognise how your email to Kerry Daynes (and other related forum posts) focus on June and Sheila, yet you appear oblivious to Jeremy Bamber, presumably because his annual prison assessments suggest he isn't a psychopath nor does he suffer from mental health.
I go where the evidence takes me Stephanie. Nothing more nothing less. In the same way I reject David's FEB and a lot of other stuff put out there by supporters I disagree with your claims that JB suffers or has suffered from some mental illness or personality disorder. Why? Because you have no evidence to back up your assertions. Claims that JB is withholding all manner of records just doesn't wash with me. Much the same way I don't believe there's a mountain of evidence under pii that could assist the defence.
In reality Holly Jeremy Bamber has not been transparent.
In reality you have no evidence to suggest he hasn't been.
Whilst he has suggested his 27 assessments showed him to not be a psychopath and has placed this info the public domain in order to gain support, none of us are aware of what formed the basis of his assessments nor indeed how he chose to answer the questions posed by the assessor.
Stephanie do you honestly think the likes of Prof Egan would make the following assessment without going through all JB's records?
https://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
-
So where is Jeremy Bamber in your observations?
Normal
What about his quite apparent personality disorder?
What PD? Stephanie JB has never been diagnosed with any PD or mental illness but if it makes you happy to think otherwise be my guest.
Why do you ONLY focus on Sheila and June?
That's a difficult question. Do you think it might be because they were both diagnosed with mental illnesses and both spent time in psychiatric hospitals?
Stephanie I go where the evidence takes me.
[/quote]
-
Normal
What PD? Stephanie JB has never been diagnosed with any PD or mental illness but if it makes you happy to think otherwise be my guest.
That's a difficult question. Do you think it might be because they were both diagnosed with mental illnesses and both spent time in psychiatric hospitals?
Stephanie I go where the evidence takes me.
What, in your opinion, is normal Holly? Define a normal Jeremy Bamber.
Do you think it's normal for someone to burgle their families own business and stage the crime scene?
-
I go where the evidence takes me Stephanie. Nothing more nothing less.
Your evidence takes you to where you want it to take you because you refuse to accept or indeed acknowledge Jeremy Bambers behaviour before the murders, leading up to his trial, during his trial and the decades following.
It's all there in black and white but you need to be objective and reasoned in order to recognise it.
-
That's a difficult question. Do you think it might be because they were both diagnosed with mental illnesses and both spent time in psychiatric hospitals?
Again Holly this is where you are unable to remain objective or reasoned.
First off, June Bamber was a victim. Full stop.
Being diagnosed with a mental illness and having spent time in a psychiatric hospital, did not make Sheila Caffell a murderer.
If you are suggesting Sheila Caffell was affected by her mothers mental health then you cannot rule out the fact Jeremy Bamber wasn't affected either.
Just because he claims to have no mental health issues or a personality disorder, does not make it a fact.
Prison psychologists and indeed prison psychiatrists regularly get their diagnosis WRONG. Off the top of my head, Simon Hall is one example, John Worboys is another.
Maybe you and the rest of Bambers supporters should look into the facts of what makes up a UK prisoners psychology assessment, instead of taking the word of a man who we know for a fact robbed his murdered family members 5 months before they were murdered.
You claim you do not know what a pre trial assessment is and because you don't know what one is you dismiss it.
That's not following the evidence Holly.
-
What, in your opinion, is normal Holly? Define a normal Jeremy Bamber.
As normal as me and the next person.
Do you think it's normal for someone to burgle their families own business and stage the crime scene?
I'm not condoning what JB and JM did but is it normal for a majority shareholder to say you can have a raise when you learn to live properly? Family businesses can be complicated eg The Brothers and Dallas.
-
Again Holly this is where you are unable to remain objective or reasoned.
First off, June Bamber was a victim. Full stop.
Being diagnosed with a mental illness and having spent time in a psychiatric hospital, did not make Sheila Caffell a murderer.
If you are suggesting Sheila Caffell was affected by her mothers mental health then you cannot rule out the fact Jeremy Bamber wasn't affected either.
SC was dependent on June leading up to her breakdown in 1959. June's next breakdown was 1982. JB escaped all of this.
Just because he claims to have no mental health issues or a personality disorder, does not make it a fact.
Prison psychologists and indeed prison psychiatrists regularly get their diagnosis WRONG. Off the top of my head, Simon Hall is one example, John Worboys is another.
Maybe you and the rest of Bambers supporters should look into the facts of what makes up a UK prisoners psychology assessment, instead of taking the word of a man who we know for a fact robbed his murdered family members 5 months before they were murdered.
You claim you do not know what a pre trial assessment is and because you don't know what one is you dismiss it.
That's not following the evidence Holly.
The fact JB hasn't been diagnosed with any PD or mental illness doesn't make him not guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
I don't need to know about JB's prison file etc to believe if there was anything untoward Prof Egan wouldn't have committed to the following statement:
https://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
In the same way that I rely upon Dr Vanezis over David's claims. I rely upon Prof Egan over your claims.
I go where the evidence takes me.
-
As normal as me and the next person.
I don't know you are normal Holly. None of us know you are normal.
Infact, your numerous posts over all these many years, along with your behaviour (that you regularly tell us about in your many posts), appears to suggest otherwise:
i.e. emailing numerous experts in their field, people you've never met or are ever likely to meet, but you've seen on TV or read about, in order to give your lay persons opinion on a convicted mass murderer you have equally never met or are ever likely to meet.
I would not call this normal behaviour Holly.
Maybe it's your perception of yourself that makes you perceive Jeremy Bamber to be normal? Have you ever considered this?
-
SC was dependent on June leading up to her breakdown in 1959. June's next breakdown was 1982. JB escaped all of this.
The fact JB hasn't been diagnosed with any PD or mental illness doesn't make him not guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
I don't need to know about JB's prison file etc to believe if there was anything untoward Prof Egan wouldn't have committed to the following statement:
https://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
In the same way that I rely upon Dr Vanezis over David's claims. I rely upon Prof Egan over your claims.
I go where the evidence takes me.
Where is your evidence to support your claim that "JB escaped all of this?"
Please point me to the part of prof Egans report where he states that JB was not affected by Junes mental health.
The fact is Holly, prof Egan, as you know, has not taken this into consideration.
That's just one fact. How many others facts do you think prof Egan failed to take into consideration?
Please provide me with prof Egans full report, NOT the edited version Bamber has placed into the public domain.
-
Popular belief has always been that Jeremy Bamber has psychopathy.
WHERE DID THIS BELIEF ORIGINATE
In truth Jeremy Bamber has been examined by over 27 different psychologists, none of them have found him to have a personality disorder of any variety, nor any mental illness, nor any indication of psychopathy.
WHERE ARE THE 27 DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS? THE PUBLIC HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM BECAUSE JEREMY BAMBER HAS NEVER DISLCOSED THEM
WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THE WORD OF A CONVICTED MASS MURDERER WHO ADMITTED TO ROBBING HIS FAMILIES BUSINESS AND STAGIMG THE CRIME SCENE 5 MONTHS BEFORE THE MURDERS
Jeremy Bamber is and always has been psychologically well adjusted especially considering the psychological trauma he suffered as a result of losing his family in such tragic circumstance, being hounded by the media and being falsely accused and convicted as a family annihilator.
SPECULATION PROVES NOTHING
Professor Vincent Egan, BSc. (Hons).,Ph.D., D. Clin. Psy. Chartered Clinical Psychologist, Chartered Forensic Psychologist, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, University of Leicester, recently carried out a psychological assessment of Jeremy Bamber for a category A risk assessment review and he stated in his 14 page report:
WHERE IS THE 14 PAGE REPORT?
AND WHAT WAS THE REPORT BASED ON?
“Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” He goes on to state “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.”
WHAT WAS PROF EGAN'S REPORT BASED ON?
It has also been further suggested that Jeremy Bamber has used “Impression Management” to dupe the assessor into believing he has no psychopathy, nevertheless Professor Egan applied further tests to take this into account and noted:
WHAT TESTS DID PROF EGAN APPLY?
“To examine whether Jeremy was exaggerating how he presented himself, he also completed the BIDR (Paulus, 1998). On this measure Jeremy was within the low-normal range for impression management and self-deception enhancement. These results suggest he was not presenting himself in an excessively anodyne way to bias the assessor.”
WHAT DID PROF EGAN BASE HIS FINDINGS ON? WHERE IS THE COMPLETED BIDR?
Professor Egan comments, “These findings suggest it is hard to sustain the view that Jeremy Bamber is so expert in deceptive self-presentation as to maintain this front for over a variety of different assessors, different assessment instruments and different times”
WHAT DIFFERENT ASSESSORS, ASSESSMENTS, INSTRUMENTS AND DIFFERENT TIMES?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR EACH REPORT, OR WERE THEY ALL BASED ON THE SAME THEME?
The assessment concludes with “Dangerous violent persons tend to be angry, alienated, impulsive and out of control, and none of these qualities appear to reflect Mr Bamber. Quite what the motive would be for something like the index offence being carried out by Mr Bamber again is very speculative, as is the proposition in the first place.”
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? ISNT THIS YET FURTHER SPECULATION ON PROF EGANS BEHALF?
UNLESS JEREMY BAMBER CONFESSES TO HIS CRIMES - ALL HIS REPORTS ARE BASED ON HIS CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE, IN OTHER WORDS BAMBERS REPORTS ARE BASED ON HIS DENIAL
-
So bottom line is ALL of Jeremy Bambers assessments are based on his DENIAL, making them ALL meaningless!
But if we are to go back to before his trial, it was found by his defence team that he suffered from psychopathy.
-
SC was dependent on June leading up to her breakdown in 1959. June's next breakdown was 1982. JB escaped all of this.
The fact JB hasn't been diagnosed with any PD or mental illness doesn't make him not guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
I don't need to know about JB's prison file etc to believe if there was anything untoward Prof Egan wouldn't have committed to the following statement:
https://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
In the same way that I rely upon Dr Vanezis over David's claims. I rely upon Prof Egan over your claims.
I go where the evidence takes me.
Holly there are no reports based on a guilty Jeremy Bamber, just biased reports based on his denial!
I cannot fathom why you and his supporters cannot see this?
-
Holly there are no reports based on a guilty Jeremy Bamber, just biased reports based on his denial!
I cannot fathom why you and his supporters cannot see this?
Research into these facts is minimal.
The UK needs more studies carried out, similar to the one below, in particular relating to prisoners who claim they are an alleged miscarriage of justice.
"Sex offenders in denial: a study into a group of forensic psychologists' attitudes regarding the corresponding impact upon risk assessment calculations and parole eligibility
"A considerable proportion of convicted sex offenders maintain a stance of innocence and thus do not engage in recommended treatment programmes. As a result, such offenders are often deemed to have outstanding criminogenic needs which may negatively impact upon risk assessment procedures and parole eligibility. This paper reports on a study that aimed to investigate a group of forensic psychologists' attitudes regarding the impact of denial on risk assessment ratings as well as parole eligibility. Participants completed a confidential open-ended questionnaire. Analysis indicated that considerable variability exists among forensic psychologists in regards to their beliefs about the origins of denial and what impact such denial should have on post-prison release eligibility. In contrast, there was less disparity regarding beliefs about the percentage of innocent yet incarcerated sex offenders. This paper also reviews current understanding regarding the impact of denial on recidivism as well as upon general forensic assessments.
-
I don't know you are normal Holly. None of us know you are normal.
Infact, your numerous posts over all these many years, along with your behaviour (that you regularly tell us about in your many posts), appears to suggest otherwise:
i.e. emailing numerous experts in their field, people you've never met or are ever likely to meet, but you've seen on TV or read about, in order to give your lay persons opinion on a convicted mass murderer you have equally never met or are ever likely to meet.
I would not call this normal behaviour Holly.
Maybe it's your perception of yourself that makes you perceive Jeremy Bamber to be normal? Have you ever considered this?
Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature.
Kerry Daynes has never met with JB. A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes. Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient. KD's opinion is worthless.
I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland. The former I spoke with on the phone. The latter I received an email from. Both blamed the producers.
-
Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature.
Kerry Daynes has never met with JB. A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes. Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient. KD's opinion is worthless.
I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland. The former I spoke with on the phone. The latter I received an email from. Both blamed the producers.
Let's be clear here Holly. Your email to Kerry Daynes was extremely personal. You chose to post it on a public forum. I chose to respond to your post and give you my opinion., not dissimilar to what you did with Kerry Daynes.
What's the problem? Why do you appear to be unable to take constructive critism? Why do you have to make things personal?
You stated:
As normal as me and the next person.
I replied with what I did based on your above post. I follow the evidence. Nothing more nothing less.
-
Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature.
Kerry Daynes has never met with JB. A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes. Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient. KD's opinion is worthless.
I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland. The former I spoke with on the phone. The latter I received an email from. Both blamed the producers.
Please provide evidence for your claims!
-
Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature.
Kerry Daynes has never met with JB. A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes. Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient. KD's opinion is worthless.
I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland. The former I spoke with on the phone. The latter I received an email from. Both blamed the producers.
You have never met Jeremy Bamber!
-
Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature.
Kerry Daynes has never met with JB. A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes. Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient. KD's opinion is worthless.
I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland. The former I spoke with on the phone. The latter I received an email from. Both blamed the producers.
Kerry Daynes opinion is based on her observations of Jeremy Bamber. You only claim her opinion is worthless because you believe Bamber to be "normal."
Kerry Dayne's gave an objective and reasoned observation.
-
Stephanie do you honestly think the likes of Prof Egan would make the following assessment without going through all JB's records?
https://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
What do you mean when you say all of Jeremy Bambers records?
-
Popular belief has always been that Jeremy Bamber has psychopathy.
WHERE DID THIS BELIEF ORIGINATE
In truth Jeremy Bamber has been examined by over 27 different psychologists, none of them have found him to have a personality disorder of any variety, nor any mental illness, nor any indication of psychopathy.
WHERE ARE THE 27 DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS? THE PUBLIC HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM BECAUSE JEREMY BAMBER HAS NEVER DISLCOSED THEM
WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THE WORD OF A CONVICTED MASS MURDERER WHO ADMITTED TO ROBBING HIS FAMILIES BUSINESS AND STAGIMG THE CRIME SCENE 5 MONTHS BEFORE THE MURDERS
Jeremy Bamber is and always has been psychologically well adjusted especially considering the psychological trauma he suffered as a result of losing his family in such tragic circumstance, being hounded by the media and being falsely accused and convicted as a family annihilator.
SPECULATION PROVES NOTHING
Professor Vincent Egan, BSc. (Hons).,Ph.D., D. Clin. Psy. Chartered Clinical Psychologist, Chartered Forensic Psychologist, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, University of Leicester, recently carried out a psychological assessment of Jeremy Bamber for a category A risk assessment review and he stated in his 14 page report:
WHERE IS THE 14 PAGE REPORT?
AND WHAT WAS THE REPORT BASED ON?
“Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” He goes on to state “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.”
WHAT WAS PROF EGAN'S REPORT BASED ON?
It has also been further suggested that Jeremy Bamber has used “Impression Management” to dupe the assessor into believing he has no psychopathy, nevertheless Professor Egan applied further tests to take this into account and noted:
WHAT TESTS DID PROF EGAN APPLY?
“To examine whether Jeremy was exaggerating how he presented himself, he also completed the BIDR (Paulus, 1998). On this measure Jeremy was within the low-normal range for impression management and self-deception enhancement. These results suggest he was not presenting himself in an excessively anodyne way to bias the assessor.”
WHAT DID PROF EGAN BASE HIS FINDINGS ON? WHERE IS THE COMPLETED BIDR?
Professor Egan comments, “These findings suggest it is hard to sustain the view that Jeremy Bamber is so expert in deceptive self-presentation as to maintain this front for over a variety of different assessors, different assessment instruments and different times”
WHAT DIFFERENT ASSESSORS, ASSESSMENTS, INSTRUMENTS AND DIFFERENT TIMES?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR EACH REPORT, OR WERE THEY ALL BASED ON THE SAME THEME?
The assessment concludes with “Dangerous violent persons tend to be angry, alienated, impulsive and out of control, and none of these qualities appear to reflect Mr Bamber. Quite what the motive would be for something like the index offence being carried out by Mr Bamber again is very speculative, as is the proposition in the first place."
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? ISNT THIS YET FURTHER SPECULATION ON PROF EGANS BEHALF?
UNLESS JEREMY BAMBER CONFESSES TO HIS CRIMES - ALL HIS REPORTS ARE BASED ON HIS CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE, IN OTHER WORDS BAMBERS REPORTS ARE BASED ON HIS DENIAL
Furthermore, the BIDR is a self assessment, need I say more.
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~dpaulhus/research/SDR/downloads/CHAPTERS/1991%20RSW%20chapter/RSW%2091%20part2.pdf
-
Let's be clear here Holly. Your email to Kerry Daynes was extremely personal. You chose to post it on a public forum. I chose to respond to your post and give you my opinion., not dissimilar to what you did with Kerry Daynes.
What's the problem? Why do you appear to be unable to take constructive critism? Why do you have to make things personal?
You stated:
I replied with what I did based on your above post. I follow the evidence. Nothing more nothing less.
In what way was it extremely personal? It related to the facts of the case. Nothing to do with her personal life or mine.
If a lay person or professional wants to offer up opinion using medium for communication then others are entitled to respond/agree/disagree/discuss/debate.
-
You have never met Jeremy Bamber!
I'm a lay person posting on a forum. KD is a qualified psychologist.
-
Please provide evidence for your claims!
The emails I sent are here.
The responses are for the day of reckoning along with the emails sent to MT QC and others.
-
Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature.
Kerry Daynes has never met with JB. A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes. Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient. KD's opinion is worthless.
I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland. The former I spoke with on the phone. The latter I received an email from. Both blamed the producers.
She gave her opinion on what kind of person Bamber must be if guilty and she wasn't wrong. Someone who could kill five people, including two sleeping children, take no responsibility and crave public attention in any way possible - would indeed be a psychopath.
-
She gave her opinion on what kind of person Bamber must be if guilty and she wasn't wrong. Someone who could kill five people, including two sleeping children, take no responsibility and crave public attention in any way possible - would indeed be a psychopath.
She went further than that eg suggesting he felt incredibly rejected on many fronts. How could she possibly know? Oh and claiming he was sexually promiscuous when there's no evidence for this and even if it was true what is being suggested?
Why don't we hear from a psychologist who has actually assessed JB? Maybe because all those who have assessed him diagnosed him as 'normal' and that's not the angle the producers are looking for.
-
Why don't we hear from a psychologist who has actually assessed JB? Maybe because all those who have assessed him diagnosed him as 'normal' and that's not the angle the producers are looking for.
Do you purposefully ignore the evidence or can you really not see it?
So bottom line is ALL of Jeremy Bambers assessments are based on his DENIAL, making them ALL meaningless!
But if we are to go back to before his trial, it was found by his defence team that he suffered from psychopathy.
Holly there are no reports based on a guilty Jeremy Bamber, just biased reports based on his denial!
I cannot fathom why you and his supporters cannot see this?
-
She went further than that eg suggesting he felt incredibly rejected on many fronts. How could she possibly know? Oh and claiming he was sexually promiscuous when there's no evidence for this and even if it was true what is being suggested?
Why don't we hear from a psychologist who has actually assessed JB? Maybe because all those who have assessed him diagnosed him as 'normal' and that's not the angle the producers are looking for.
If her were guilty! She was giving her opinion on what may have contributed to his becoming a psychopath. What is being suggested is that the traits of a psychopath are pretty much in line with descriptions of his persona be individuals who knew him. She was given certain information and gave her opinion. She did nothing wrong.
Prior to his conviction, he was also described as a psychopath. I don't know if he was tested by the psychologist who made this claim but I don't know that he wasn't either.
-
She went further than that eg suggesting he felt incredibly rejected on many fronts. How could she possibly know? Oh and claiming he was sexually promiscuous when there's no evidence for this and even if it was true what is being suggested?
Why don't we hear from a psychologist who has actually assessed JB? Maybe because all those who have assessed him diagnosed him as 'normal' and that's not the angle the producers are looking for.
Bamber was assessed prior to his trial but he won't allow this assessment to be placed in the public domain
Jeremy Bambers behaviour is far from normal! But be my guest and attempt to promote him as such, it's not me it will reflect badly on.
-
I'm a lay person posting on a forum. KD is a qualified psychologist.
And she was spot on!
You are basing your assumptions on psychology assessments which are based on Bamber maintaining innocence.
-
I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland. The former I spoke with on the phone. The latter I received an email from. Both blamed the producers.
The emails I sent are here.
The responses are for the day of reckoning along with the emails sent to MT QC and others.
I don't believe you received written replies from those people you claim to have emailed where they stated the producers were to blame
I think you are making it up Holly! https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/tv/1031939/murder-expert-says-she-is-being-stalked/
And your emails to Michael Turner QC are totally irrelevant. So irrelevant, I have no idea why you mentioned them in the first place?
I concur with Myster http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6849.msg292355#msg292355
You stated back then: "If she responds I will not post her reply without seeking her approval beforehand."
You also stated: "I would really like to see 'Killing mum and dad' or similar title. It was the one JB made a formal complaint about which featured psychologist Kerry Danes. "
Yes I agree we have no real idea how affected or unaffected Sheila and Jeremy were by being adopted. There's much evidence Sheila was troubled eg her poor start in life, what appeared to be a difficult relationship with June and her reunion with her birth mother. Perhaps Jeremy was troubled but suppressed it. Much more is known now about the psychology of adoption hence the apology from Julia Gillard, former PM of Australia, re the poor practices carried out in the 50's - 70's. The expert witnesses at trial: Dr Ferguson, Dr Bradley and Prof Knight made no reference to adoption at all >@@(*&) Those that have offered up comment since eg Kerry Danes and David Holmes also made no reference. It would be good to see the likes of Dr Brodzinsky, Dr Grotevant, Dr Kirschner and Dr Verrier who specialise in adoption to provide opinion. For example:
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/about/dbrodzinsky.php
-
She went further than that eg suggesting he felt incredibly rejected on many fronts. How could she possibly know? Oh and claiming he was sexually promiscuous when there's no evidence for this and even if it was true what is being suggested?
I think you've gone too far in all honesty.
Imo Holly you need to reign in your online and off line behaviour. Do you not recognise the fact that by doing the bidding for a dangerous psychopath like Jeremy Bamber your behaviour indirectly impacts negatively on the lives of others, like for example innocent people like Kerry Daynes http://www.itv.com/news/2018-04-19/strangers-website-offer-escalated-to-terrifying-stalking-ordeal-for-tv-forensic-psychologist-kerry-daynes/ *&^^&
What people like you do Holly isn't right, you take things too far without thinking about the consequences of your actions.
-
Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature.
Kerry Daynes has never met with JB. A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes. Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient. KD's opinion is worthless.
I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland. The former I spoke with on the phone. The latter I received an email from. Both blamed the producers.
Exactly. So why bother writing to her?
You know how TV works. It's all FAKE.