Author Topic: New Program featuring an interview with Barbara Wilson, former WHF secretary.  (Read 28167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline goatboy

Arrgh lost my reply...for a repeat...

Has he ever met with JB to undertake an assessment in a formal setting to offer professional opinion?  Did he have permission from JB/relevant authorities?  (Not sure he needs permission actually as JB has been found guilty) 

His areas of specialism do not appear to pertain to the murders at WHF.

Imo the Mark Williams-Thomas programme made a fatal mistake in not including some professional opinion re the family dynamics particularly June's mental illness circa 1959 and the issues raised in my post above which seem to get overlooked and yet I am convinced herein lies the answer.

I guess it depends on who you choose to believe the likes of Kerry Danes and David Holmes neither of which I believe have met with JB, or the likes of Vincent Egan who have the relevant authority to meet and assess JB in a formal setting:

http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/

It will not be down to me whether or not David Holmes is reprimanded his professional body will see to that.

Ideally he would have had an interview with Bamber, but look at it this way. Would you object to a psychologist assessing Ted Bundy or Ed Gein without having actually met them but by analysing information already in the public domain? Obviously Bamber is still alive but the information is still there. The law says that he is a murderer even if you don't agree that he is. There is independent evidence to his behaviour before and after the murderers which could be said to be evidence of psycopathic behaviour.

I agree that perhaps June is the key to everything. One of her children was a paranoid schizophrenic, the other a psychopathic killer. We can't say genetics was involved because they were adopted. Was their upbringing vital in the way they both turned out? And was June responsible? Colin Caffel seemed to think so in his book. He had very few nice things to say about June (though got on well with Nevill apparently).

Offline Holly Goodhead

Ideally he would have had an interview with Bamber, but look at it this way. Would you object to a psychologist assessing Ted Bundy or Ed Gein without having actually met them but by analysing information already in the public domain? Obviously Bamber is still alive but the information is still there. The law says that he is a murderer even if you don't agree that he is. There is independent evidence to his behaviour before and after the murderers which could be said to be evidence of psycopathic behaviour.

I agree that perhaps June is the key to everything. One of her children was a paranoid schizophrenic, the other a psychopathic killer. We can't say genetics was involved because they were adopted. Was their upbringing vital in the way they both turned out? And was June responsible? Colin Caffel seemed to think so in his book. He had very few nice things to say about June (though got on well with Nevill apparently).

As far as I can see those that have been convicted of horrific crimes either in the UK or elsewhere in the world have been found to have some mental illness/personality disorder as with those you have identified above.  Not so with Bamber.  Despite ongoing assessments no professional who has actually met with him has ever identified any personality disorder and/or mental illness.  I can't see anything in his background either eg anti-social behaviour, violent conduct, etc. Sure there's lots of rumours and myths but imo nothing of substance.

I believe June's mental illness in 1959 is key but I don't believe she is responsible as such for the outcomes.  She seems a decent woman and typical of her age and background but I don't think she was a suitable adoptive mother and should never have been approved by the authorities as a suitable adopter.  This may seem harsh but Sheila should have been removed from the Bambers care permanently in 1959 when June was first admitted to St Andrews for psychiatric treatment caused by her decision to adopt Sheila (Dr Ferguson's wit stat).  The fact that the authorities were not alerted and the fact that the Bambers were allowed to go on and adopt another child beggars belief.

I blame the authorities for approving the Bambers as suitable adopters and Dr Ferguson for not raising the alarm.  Perhaps I should add that Nevill seems perfect adoptive father material but he was part of a couple and for that reason sadly as a couple they should not have been approved as suitable adopters.

As you said Sheila was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic; Jeremy has been found guilty in a court of law of slaying his entire immediate family to death and June had two bouts of serious mental illness requiring in-patient psychiatric care.  Something not right and I think that something is the key and has been overlooked. Its also interesting to note that Jeremy's full birth siblings are well adjusted individuals. >@@(*&) >@@(*&) >@@(*&) 
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Redblossom

  • Guest
The programme was bloody awful....quite cringeworthy actually, as some kind of documentary, so stilted, so full of amateurish deductions passed off as fact.....still,must say, the old copper in the bow tie convinced me with the two reasons he gave


Putting the silencer back in the  cupboard  which contained the sisters blood so she couldnt have murdered the family
Telling his girlfriend what he did

The motives given were weak IMO..ie money......hatred and frustrationI can buy....... bizarre case

As for the old biddy secretary..... Sorry.....she came across all wrong as well




« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 05:24:39 PM by Redblossom »

Offline John


As for the old biddy secretary..... Sorry.....she came across all wrong as well

I take it you are referring to Mrs Barbara Wilson.  Please explain what you mean by all wrong?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

The evidence is very precise in the Bamber case.  It came down to the shooter being Jeremy or someone engaged by Jeremy or Sheila.  Sheila is excluded by virtue of the evidence which leaves only the first two possibilities.  Whether Jeremy did it or had someone else do it is irrelrvant.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 08:31:33 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Redblossom

  • Guest
I take it you are referring to Mrs Barbara Wilson.  Please explain what you mean by all wrong?

I found her insincere, pontificating, unbelievable and embelleshing.....could just be her manner....i guess....

Offline Myster

OLD BIDDY SECRETARY !!!!   8()(((@# ... she was the mainstay of the programme, along with Bob Miller (Chief Hugo Boss after-dinner speaker)
Barbara Wilson gets my vote as chief witness for the prosecution any day !  8((()*/ 8((()*/ 8((()*/

You'll be old one day !!!
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Redblossom

  • Guest
OLD BIDDY SECRETARY !!!!   8()(((@# ... she was the mainstay of the programme, along with Bob Miller (Chief Hugo Boss after-dinner speaker)
Barbara Wilson gets my vote as chief witness for the prosecution any day !  8((()*/ 8((()*/ 8((()*/

You'll be old one day !!!

Lol keep your hair on.......i dont really care, must put tin hat on in future....when posting my views....

Bob miller was believable, she wasnt ok? JMO!

And I repeat it was a shit  programme...so shit that it probably was counterproductive if it was trying  to convince people of his guilt.....so he exhibited a couple wierdo activities.....and annoyed his adoptive family, stole some money, etc etc....it wss a pile of pooh vis a vis portraying the case....

Ps im already old so ......my comments werent ageist just biddyish
 
 @)(++(*


« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 08:55:51 PM by Redblossom »

Offline Myster

Why do you keep editing, re-editing, re-re-editing, etc., etc. your posts, Red ?

So first you say "the old copper in the bow tie convinced me with the two reasons he gave"

And then it was "so shit that it probably was counterproductive if it was trying  to convince people of his guilt"
Make your mind up. 8((()*/
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline goatboy

You don't think it's believable that money was his motivation?

You don't think it important or significant that he robbed the caravan park? It showed a) he had complete contempt for his parents b) he was motivated by money c) he had form for committing a crime and trying to make it look as if someone else had done it.

Of course he was motivated by greed. If he wasn't he'd have confessed by now. If he one day manages to get his conviction overturned he will become very rich. That's why he keeps trying. If he can't then even if he ever did get released he would be penniless. I think he'd prefer to be in jail than free and broke.

The bit where he put the silencer back in the cupboard was misleading. Surely it would have been discovered like that, as everyone watching the programme would have thought. But he actually put it back in the box first. I think people find it hard to believe he put it back and risking the police finding it, but firstly if he had disposed of it anywhere else this it would have eventually been found and would have proved Sheila was not the murderer. Secondly by suggesting to police what had happened he would have been sure there was no need for a fingertip search of the house as the circumstances presented made it an open and shut case for the police.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 09:23:15 PM by goatboy »

Redblossom

  • Guest
Why do you keep editing, re-editing, re-re-editing, etc., etc. your posts, Red ?

So first you say "the old copper in the bow tie convinced me with the two reasons he gave"

And then it was "so shit that it probably was counterproductive if it was trying  to convince people of his guilt"
Make your mind up. 8((()*/



I make no apology, I often edit for afterthoughts, rarely to delete thoughts

There is no dichotomy here. In general I thought the whole show was tattish....doesnt mean everything in it was...ok?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 10:49:57 PM by Redblossom »

Redblossom

  • Guest
You don't think it's believable that money was his motivation?

You don't think it important or significant that he robbed the caravan park? It showed a) he had complete contempt for his parents b) he was motivated by money c) he had form for committing a crime and trying to make it look as if someone else had done it.



no I dont think its imprtant that he stole a grand off the caravn park, big deal, thousands of people have done this off others and their own families......


To gun down in cold blood your  whole family is not a money motivated crime......JMO.....and that is one reason I did not  like this c5 programme which pushed that as the only motive..it just didnt flow or make sense to me..if that docu made me thnk anything, it was he wanted his freedom from the family, not their money......even though he may have got some if he got away with it......JMO
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 10:54:50 PM by Redblossom »

Offline Myster

I suppose this wasn't a money motivated crime either ! 8-)(--)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-21966005
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Redblossom

  • Guest
I suppose this wasn't a money motivated crime either ! 8-)(--)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-21966005

Im not saying they dont exist...I just personally didnt see it as such.....the man if he did what he did must have been thick to think he could get away with it.....what moron juggles a few hundred grand profit with a life in prison, dont make sense to me, and he disnt come across as a thick person......not just for money anyway....maybe hes thick then


Maybe he was on drugs at the time...tell me....as you and loads of other posters here have researched this case deeply...Im just a bystander offering off cut snippet opinions....
« Last Edit: November 18, 2013, 06:28:12 PM by Redblossom »

Offline Holly Goodhead

How come you're a Newbie Red Blossom with 4659 posts and membership since Apr '13?  I'm a Newbie  too but only 164 posts and membership since Mar '13. 

I thought the programme was counter-productive as it was so awful.  Hated the cheap melo-drama of it all which I thought was an insult to the victims who died in the most horrific circumstances.  Was it really necessary to show a cute little sign identifying the twins' bedroom as "Boys Room"?   

I asked a work colleague to watch who knew next to nothing about the case apart from me wittering on about how I believe Bamber is innocent.  She obviously had this in the back of her mind but said had she not and just watched the programme she would have thought he was guilty.

I think all those that appeared before the cameras truly believe Bamber is guilty based on their interpretation and perceptions. In this regard they all came over well.  I don't share their views at all but there we have it.  I guess that's what makes it fascinating.

As far as I can see there's absolutely no evidence that Bamber is a) any greedier than Joe Average or that b) he hated his parents.  Not condoning the caravan park break-in but I don't think the fact that he stole a few hundred quid from the family firm is evidence of either.  It's something he paid a very high price for as it portrays him in a bad light especially with the jury but apart from this it seems to me he had an unblemished record.  There are plenty in high office that have done far worse!

Loved the way Bob Miller presents.  Plus of course the bow ties (thanks for info John v.interesting)
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?