The Lies of Jeremy Bamber

[Nicholas]

I remember reading that some time back Stephanie but thanx for making me laugh again.  I think Mr Ogram needs to get out more.  Jeremy Bamber is a well practised actor.

You think that's funny? Watch this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xsw0k11p7sc&feature=youtu.be

Martin Orgram thinks it "undemocratic" to refer to Bamber as a murderer 

Quite frankly, he comes across as a poncy right wing arrogant toss*r who has a lot to learn.

[John]

You think that's funny? Watch this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xsw0k11p7sc&feature=youtu.be

Martin Orgram thinks it "undemocratic" to refer to Bamber as a murderer 

Quite frankly, he comes across as a poncy right wing arrogant toss*r who has a lot to learn.

Seems he is hung up on the "in conversation with someone in the farmhouse" garbage.  He really needs to get his facts right because had any police officer been in conversation with anyone inside the farmhouse it would have been known about very quickly that morning.  Yet more disinformation and warped interpretation of what actually occurred.

The truth of the matter for those who don't know is that the police attempted to engage with Sheila since Jeremy Bamber claimed that she was running amok inside the farmhouse. As she was in fact dead, shot twice through the neck by her adoptive brother, no response was forthcoming except for the yapping of June Bamber's dog Crispy.

[Holly Goodhead]

Despite my previous requests to remain on-topic I have just removed numerous off-topic posts. 

I accept posts sometimes veer off-topic but the posts just removed didn't contain even a tenuous link to the case of JB/WHF.  This is resulting in unnecessary work for me.   Guests and members expecting to see relevant material are either turned off or having to trawl through reams of posts/text.

Anyone choosing to deliberately flout the rules set on the home page:

* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible

can expect to receive a written warning with the potential for a ban.

[Nicholas]

Despite my previous requests to remain on-topic I have just removed numerous off-topic posts. 

I accept posts sometimes veer off-topic but the posts just removed didn't contain even a tenuous link to the case of JB/WHF.  This is resulting in unnecessary work for me.   Guests and members expecting to see relevant material are either turned off or having to trawl through reams of posts/text.

Anyone choosing to deliberately flout the rules set on the home page:

* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible

can expect to receive a written warning with the potential for a ban.

My mistake I should have requested a mod split the thread and/or started a new one but the problem with many of these cases, they are interlinked by many factors.

Michelle Bates, correct me if I'm wrong, is a patron for Bamber's Campaign? I was attempting to show many of the claims made by Bates are false and/or misleading. So rather than strengthen Bamber's claims of innocence, they weaken them. Doubts still remain in relation to George's factual innocence.

I was also attempting to show how Jeremy Bambers conviction is not political in anyway, shape or form nor indeed if his conviction were to be overturned (it won't) his case alone would topple the criminal system. It won't!

The Mike Tesco's of the world feel hard done by and have a score to settle so to speak. They won't accept responsibility for their actions etc and Jo blogs aren't interested in them/their crimes so they latch onto cases, often referred to as "high profile (which in itself can be misleading), where there has been much publicity to self promote.

[Angelo222]

My mistake I should have requested a mod split the thread and/or started a new one but the problem with many of these cases, they are interlinked by many factors.

Michelle Bates, correct me if I'm wrong, is a patron for Bamber's Campaign? I was attempting to show many of the claims made by Bates are false and/or misleading. So rather than strengthen Bamber's claims of innocence, they weaken them. Doubts still remain in relation to George's factual innocence.

I was also attempting to show how Jeremy Bambers conviction is not political in anyway, shape or form nor indeed if his conviction were to be overturned (it won't) his case alone would topple the criminal system. It won't!

The Mike Tesco's of the world feel hard done by and have a score to settle so to speak. They won't accept responsibility for their actions etc and Jo blogs aren't interested in them/their crimes so they latch onto cases, often referred to as "high profile (which in itself can be misleading), where there has been much publicity to self promote.

I think those would-be high profile individuals who publicly attempt to promote Jeremy Bamber as innocent are merely attempting to increase their own profile and are prepared to support a child murderer in order to do so.  Highly shameful imo.

[Nicholas]

I think those would-be high profile individuals who publicly attempt to promote Jeremy Bamber as innocent are merely attempting to increase their own profile and are prepared to support a child murderer in order to do so.  Highly shameful imo.

Totally.

I've come to learn some people have no scruples. Many are without conscience. I'm not suggesting all are pathological but it does make you wonder?

[Nicholas]

Yes, but that wasn't my point.  "Silencer" is just a colloquial expression.  As I state above, there is strictly no such thing and the significance of that is fairly obvious and I need not spell it out to you.

To recap, Puglove's point was about the presumed mental process of a hypothetical 'guilty Bamber'.  What Puglove is saying is that Bamber must have fathomed-out that the "silencer" would be missed and that that in itself would be a telling indicator of his culpability, therefore - the theory goes - he reasoned that he needed to leave the "silencer" there.

My response to Puglove on that is essentially that Bamber would not have reasoned things out that way, if at all.  I don't believe Bamber would even need to have thought about this.  If we assume the hypothesis that Bamber did it, then intuitively he would have decided to take the "silencer" with him, because (among other reasons):

(i). the moderator wasn't just a circumstantial 'jigsaw piece', it bore and represented forensic and ballistic evidence in its own right, and Bamber had sufficient common-sense and knew enough about guns to realise that not disposing of the "silencer" could, potentially, implicate him; and,

(ii). Bamber was obviously shooting all members of his family that knew about the "silencer".  I accept your point above that members of the extended family might have been aware of it, but would Bamber have factored that in?; and,

(iii). removing the "silencer" was just the obvious reactive thing to do, whereas replacing the "silencer" in the gun case (or wherever it was) was more a proactive thing to do, and in that type of situation, the former is more probable than the latter; and,

(iv). Bamber's knowledge of guns, albeit only that of a 'gun user', would be sufficient for him to realise that ballistic evidence of a moderated firearm would be inconclusive and debatable.  Bamber needed the police to see that everybody had been shot and that the shooter had done the killing and then killed herself (per Bamber's staging of it).  There is an argument that Bamber should have left the moderator with Sheila's body, so as to imply that she had detached it before killing herself, but in that regard see (i) above: the moderator itself was evidence, not just a circumstantial 'piece' in a jigsaw.  So intuitively (if not logically) Bamber has to take the moderator with him and dispose of it so that it is gone forever.  "Buried moderators tell no tales".  As such, my own hypothetical Bamber would subconsciously weigh up the risks of circumstantial evidence versus the risks of forensic evidence, and he would chose to accept the former and eliminate the latter;

(v). following on from (iv) above, Bamber must have realised that he could more easily avoid close questions about a "missing moderator" than he could forensic questions about blood, hairs and other human tissue and other traces on an in situ moderator. 

"A missing moderator, officer?  No, sorry, I know nothing about that.  Sorry, must dash, meeting a new girlfriend you know. Oh, by the way, here's my solicitor's telephone number.  You'll be putting questions to him now, in writing please." 

Bottom line: no moderator, no forensic evidence, police are screwed.  Perhaps they would have found some other forensic basis to charge him anyway, but at the very least in that scenario they have a greatly weaker case against Bamber (it's weak already).

It's for those reasons that I regard the presence of the "silencer" as more incongruous than not if we are working on the basis that Bamber did it.  I acknowledge Puglove's rudimentary logic, and it's not a surprise to see it mentioned because, after all, it forms part of the Crown's case theory.  But logic doesn't always render the correct conclusion and I believe the decision about the "silencer" would be more likely made by a hypothetical 'guilty Bamber' intuitively/sub-consciously.

Seems you answered your own question in the end then over on blue

"It's almost as if he's making a point of being polite. "I better put the moderator back.  It'd be rude not to."  Hells bells!"

Frustrating as it may be, he's unlikely to claim he never used it..... Tucked himself up like a kipper didn't he 

[Nicholas]

Bambers memory may appear poor to his handful of supporters but the rest of us, including the police and Courts, don't forget how he lied said he'd loaded the gun to go back and murder shoot the rabbits

https://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/easter-message-from-jeremy-new.html

March 2018 - We always loved this time of year at the farm mum and me, as it was a time of new beginnings. The new growth of plants in the garden, peony, crocus and snowdrop and many more wild varieties out in the hedgerows alongside our fields of crops.

On our frequent walks together, either mum and I or dad and I, we would have fun picking out all of the new things that had grown, plants that had flowered and birds that were nesting like Jenny Wren’s and Hedge Sparrows. There was also the joy of seeing the baby rabbits hopping about tinged with the knowledge that they would be feasting on our crops if we didn’t keep an eye on them.

So, Easter has always been about new beginnings, and I feel that this is true for me this year. Chelmsford Crown Court has just made new disclosures and the CPS are due to fulfil their disclosure obligations before the end of March, and a CCRC decision on my case will be requested very soon.

New beginnings because new truths have finally come to light after years of being buried beneath layer upon layer of nonsense and misinformation. New chicks emerging from their eggs, all just waiting for the right Easter time to emerge.

I would like to say a big thank you to all those new people who have pushed our team along that little bit further. The big question is, are we there yet? I think we very nearly are.

Happy Easter
Jeremy
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Friday, March 23, 2018

Dangerous Mind Games: How Psychopaths Manipulate & Deceive
8. Playing upon your Emotions. Very often, when confronted with alternative accounts of what happened, psychopaths play upon your emotions. For example, if his girlfriend compares notes with the wife, a psychopath is likely to ask his wife: “Who are you going to believe? Me or her?” This reestablishes complicity with the wife against the girlfriend, testing the wife’s love and loyalty to him. It also functions as a subterfuge. That way he doesn’t have to address the information offered by the other source. To anybody whose judgment remains unclouded by the manipulations of a psychopath, the answer should be quite obvious. Just about any person, even your garden-variety cheater and liar, is far more credible than a psychopath. But to a woman whose life and emotions are wrapped around the psychopath, the answer is likely to be that she prefers to believe him over his girlfriend or anybody else for that matter. Even in such a hopeless situation–if a psychopath’s partner doesn’t want to face the truth about him–it’s still important to share information with her. Psychopaths form co-dependent, addictive bonds with their so-called “loved” ones. They’re as dangerous to their partners as any hard drug is likely to be. If their partners know about their harmful actions and about their personality disorder, then at least they’re willingly assuming the risk. Everyone has the right to make choices in life, including the very risky one of staying with a psychopath. But at least they should make informed choices, so that they know whom they’re choosing and are prepared for the negative consequences of their decision.
Deception constitutes a very entertaining game for psychopaths. They use one victim to lie to another. They use both victims to lie to a third. They spin their web of mind-control upon all those around them. They encourage antagonisms or place distance among the people they deceive, so that they won’t compare notes and discover the lies. Often they blend in aspects of the truth with the lies, to focus on that small grain of truth if they’re caught. The bottom line remains that psychopaths are malicious sophists. It really doesn’t matter how often they lie or how often they tell the truth. Psychopaths use both truth and lies instrumentally, to persuade others to accept their false and self-serving version of reality and to get them under their control. https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/dangerous-mind-games-how-psychopaths-manipulate-and-deceive/

The following are written by Jeremy Bamber and are a tiny example of how he lies and manipulates to controls the minds of his supporters whom hang onto his every word due to the fact he has charmed them with his malicious lies.

March 2016 -
“Dear Mum and Dad, I wish with all my heart I could be there to read my letter to you myself.

"Dad, I know you hated injustice and would have never let me suffer as I have done for the past 30 years for a crime I did not commit.

“There are many times I have felt overwhelmed with sadness because my fight for justice means Sheila is
put centre stage which of course is right, I suppose.

“Her mental health illness means that she was not culpable for her actions in
a legal sense.”

March 2016 - "I can remember dad sitting back with a contented smile on his face, watching his family gorging on chocolate like there was no tomorrow. After an evening filled with fun, silly games, great conversation and laughter, as well as bits of shiny paper everywhere and immense amounts of chocolate, it would be time for bed. We’d often feel sick from the amount of chocolate we had eaten but very happy too.
We don't get Easter eggs in jail but with my freedom just around the corner, I know that next year I will be enjoying Easter with friends, feasting on all the different eggs available these dayls.

April 2015 - "We often wondered if there was life out there or if UFO’s were real and full of alien life. It was a theme we could go back to time and time again. We’d wonder what aliens would be like – what they’d eat – what they’d say and what we’d say to them. Dad was funny, and we’d laugh as he’d adopt a funny voice and ask nonsense questions. It was just our time each day just to ponder, and ensure all was well with our world.

It was a great way for dad to teach his philosophy to me, and I believe his teachings today the same as I ever did. It’s a cornerstone to who we were as a family, ensuring that we were always well grounded within the ebb and flow of the seasons, and it kept our ideas from getting too big. Dad taught me that we were a tiny, tiny part of something huge, that we had almost no influence upon at all. However, he said what we could do was change and influence some of the smaller things around us, especially so if we, together as a local community all pulled together in the same direction.

It’s partly why dad never really liked or trusted central Government and he didn’t believe that this was real democracy at all. He liked the little local Parish Councils, and the village stuff far more, where acts of kindness and generosity really did make a difference. Dad enjoyed doing good deeds, and performing various acts of kindness. He taught me about the importance of appreciating our good fortune, and why it was a good thing to share that with others. He knew we were lucky and that life was to be appreciated in that moment. That was the farmer in him, because nature could change the weather in a heart- beat and ruin our crops but that was out of our control – just had to make the best of it.

I’m often asked how I’ve kept so positive, in light of all I’ve been through during my wrongful imprisonment, and for the most part it’s because of all the wisdom and knowledge given to me by my mum and dad. They taught me that our cup is always half full, and that no matter what, things could be much worse. We should make the very best of the moment and don’t waste a second of our lives because you can never get those seconds back. We should be positive, because like attracts like, and that nothing good ever happened to a serial moaner and complainer.

Above all dad taught me that to overcome any trial or tribulation, we should use the strength within each of us to get us through. No man is an island, and dad knew and taught me that there was strength in numbers, but to succeed, that first step had to be from a strong foundation within. Mum and dad took the time to ensure that I was able to cope with whatever life threw at me, and an ability to enjoy the moment no matter what. I’m forever grateful to mum and dad, because they did a really good job in teaching me about how to be in this world, and how to make the best of things.

I’m looking forward to the next chapter now, and I’m sorry I can’t say any more than that, but dad loved that phrase. “Things always come out in the wash”. The wrongfulness of my conviction is currently on that final spin cycle, so we’ll see very soon if that greasy stain of corruption has been removed – and I’ll hear dad’s words on the Appeal Court steps ringing loud in my ears, “I told you so, things always work out for the best in the end.” I’ve always known that to be true, and so no matter what, I’ve always hope, and for that I owe my parents everything.

[Nicholas]

Mike has a lot of theories about the silencer.

David agrees Sheila received a contact shot in a location where there is high blood flow & blood vessels which would produce back splatter. He believes this shot was with the rifle minus the silencer, although there was no blood in the rifle barrel.

David believes the relatives fabricated the silencer without police assistance, using wet period blood from a bucket & scratching the aga without having seen the kitchen crime scene photos. Deciding the relatives could have done this, was his reason for changing stance from hardcore guilter.

Great posts over on blue Adam! I agree!

"I don't know why David has written in red. Everyone can read. Although red does make things more dramatic.
It's alright Bamber saying the relatives fabricated the silencer. But he has never said how, although it is easy for his view to be put onto the OS

"The likihood that the silencer was not on the rifle when Bamber entered the bathroom window is very slim.
The silencer was an essential accessory for shooting vermin. Nevill wasn't going to spend time & keep putting it off & on. Once it's on, it stays on.
AP said  he saw the silencer on the rifle a few days before the massacre.
Shooting vermin has to be a quick and spontaneous action as & when vermin is seen. So no time to waste putting on a silencer.

[Caroline]

Seems he is hung up on the "in conversation with someone in the farmhouse" garbage.  He really needs to get his facts right because had any police officer been in conversation with anyone inside the farmhouse it would have been known about very quickly that morning.  Yet more disinformation and warped interpretation of what actually occurred.

The truth of the matter for those who don't know is that the police attempted to engage with Sheila since Jeremy Bamber claimed that she was running amok inside the farmhouse. As she was in fact dead, shot twice through the neck by her adoptive brother, no response was forthcoming except for the yapping of June Bamber's dog Crispy.

The log states that at "5:25 Firearms team are in conversation with A PERSON from inside the FARM" (they were, they were being briefed by Bamber JUST before they approached to gain entry). Then a CLEAR distinction is made in the next line "Challenge to PERSONS inside the HOUSE met with no response". Person and persons and farm and house are distinguished! It's just another attempt to bend the truth!

[Caroline]

The lies of Jeremy Bamber - "I immediately called Chelmsford police to inform them of what had happened" 

[Nicholas]

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Jeremy Bambers prison security file is full of complaints made by members of the public.

In 2013/14 a handful of members of the public had contacted the Governor where Simon Hall was incarcerated and made complaints in relation to his behaviour and the behaviour of others (believe it or not)? However all of this information will be noted down and will be used as a factor in relation to the risk a prisoner poses to others etc.

LM you stated: in this thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9353.0.html?PHPSESSID=71v242khhcdn5mden96l4t3nm5

"Realistically, I think if I was Bamber's solicitor, I would be telling him that, his appeals aside, the way forward is to work towards rehabilitation within the prison system, as that does provide a route towards more favourable conditions and temporary release privileges.  The obvious difficulty is that he is a child killer, but there are specialist prisons that would accommodate him and it is definitely possible for a Category B prisoner to move straight to a Category D wing in a closed prison and then work towards temporary release. 
His first move is to have his security classification downgraded from A to B, which shouldn't be too difficult given that has happened before and he was only re-categorised after objections from the family.  I'm surprised that is not being pushed more aggressively.


Do you not think Bamber has already considered this, especially in light of his full life tariff?

I've posted this link before but I do think his supporters should consider it https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2018/04/03/warboys-release-quashed-jake-richards/

And have you considered why Bamber hasn't given his supporters the full facts as to why he remains an A-cat prisoner?

I don't think you've fully thought this through

[Holly Goodhead]

LM you stated: in this thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9353.0.html?PHPSESSID=71v242khhcdn5mden96l4t3nm5

"Realistically, I think if I was Bamber's solicitor, I would be telling him that, his appeals aside, the way forward is to work towards rehabilitation within the prison system, as that does provide a route towards more favourable conditions and temporary release privileges.  The obvious difficulty is that he is a child killer, but there are specialist prisons that would accommodate him and it is definitely possible for a Category B prisoner to move straight to a Category D wing in a closed prison and then work towards temporary release. 
His first move is to have his security classification downgraded from A to B, which shouldn't be too difficult given that has happened before and he was only re-categorised after objections from the family.  I'm surprised that is not being pushed more aggressively.


Do you not think Bamber has already considered this, especially in light of his full life tariff?

I've posted this link before but I do think his supporters should consider it https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2018/04/03/warboys-release-quashed-jake-richards/

And have you considered why Bamber hasn't given his supporters the full facts as to why he remains an A-cat prisoner?

I don't think you've fully thought this through

JB is where he is because currently the system sees him as a mass murdering child killer.  I think his conviction will be quashed.  Whilst his conviction is upheld I don't see his category changing unless his health/mobility requires a different environment and then he will no doubt be moved on health and safety grounds.   

[Nicholas]

JB is where he is because currently the system sees him as a mass murdering child killer.  I think his conviction will be quashed.  Whilst his conviction is upheld I don't see his category changing unless his health/mobility requires a different environment and then he will no doubt be moved on health and safety grounds.

Mob justice (public outcry) will rule out in Bambers case IMO Holly. There's no way he'll ever set foot on terra ferma outside of prison walls

Did you read the Worboys link?

[Holly Goodhead]

Mob justice (public outcry) will rule out in Bambers case IMO Holly. There's no way he'll ever set foot on terra ferma outside of prison walls

Did you read the Worboys link?

You mean this Worboys link on the 'Why has Bamber campaigned to say he isn't a psychopath' thread?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9346.msg455592#msg455592

Yes I did read it thank you but I don't really see the connection between Worboys and JB?  Worboys admitted to his offences so there's no doubt he was guilty of horrible crimes.  He is (was?) being released because the authorities deem that he has served his punishment, been rehabilitated and is no longer a risk, I assume?  I don't know the original term but it wasn't whole life.   

JB was given a 25 year sentence at trial which was subsequently upgraded to a whole life tariff.  Unless his conviction is overturned he will not be released or his category downgraded other than for the reasons I gave above.  There's little doubt in my mind JB's conviction will be overturned based on results from new forensic tests.  His conviction will be quashed and in the eyes of the law he will be deemed innocent.  Of course some will always believe him guilty no matter how compelling the new evidence but I think they will be a minority.