Jeremy Bamber - What it means to be in Prison today

[abs]

Oh, i see.
Was it the same incident or seperate ones?

I think there was only this one interview.
BTW, after hearing it, I actually got more doubts about Jeremy´s innocense. He voluntered too many details around the phonecall from Ralph. He talked about what he had had to eat, I believe, a bath, such things. That is actually a sign of deception. He could also just have been on edge about that particular question, because of course he knows that so much hangs on that, and that many do not believe him.

[Andrea]

Do you still have doubts, abs? Or are you undecided?

[abs]

Do you still have doubts, abs? Or are you undecided?

I have always been undecided. I think JB was convicted on very little evidence. Two of the jurors apparently had the same view.

[starryian]

Do you still have doubts, abs? Or are you undecided?

I have always been undecided. I think JB was convicted on very little evidence. Two of the jurors apparently had the same view.

Abs, I have been meaning to ask you. Is it the conviction on 'little evidence' part or do you believe Sheila could have done it?
Incidently the divided jury is not such a big thing. So did the jury at the trial of Peter Sutcliffe. It means very little in terms of a conviction - 3 would have been different. A majority decision is all that is required for a conviction.
The 'very little evidence' was actually substantial circumstantial evidence. You see Abs, the inter-woven subtle lies and behaviour that Bamber spun and exhibited in this case case are greater than the sum of their parts. One has to take a step back and look at this case on a wider scale. Mere small incidences do not seem relavent nor damning when first looked at, but taken together, as a whole in becomes a much more clearer. I would very much like to hear your views on how you think Sheila could have done it. It follows; considering that you are unsure. that you must consider the very real possibility that Sheila committed the murders.  If it is possible to show Sheila could not have committed the crime then Bamber MUST have. Bamber had backed himself into a corner by claiming to have received the call from his father. It wasn’t possible in the mid-1980s for BT to tell what calls had been placed when, so there was no evidence to support or disprove his claim. But if Nevil hadn’t telephoned, there was no way Jeremy could have known about the murders unless he’d been somehow involved. If the call had happened, Bamber had no reason to lie about its contents, and Nevill’s statement that Sheila had gone crazy with a gun. Therefore the only possible culprits were Sheila or himself – and forensic evidence strongly suggested Sheila didn’t do it.
I would like your thoughts on this Abs. They would be most helpful.

[puglove]

If, when the police broke in, Ralph's head was in the Aga scuttle, who placed it there? And why? It's logged that they looked through the window, his long, grey hair flopped forward, they thought it was a female body. There is no way that Sheila could have man-handled his heavy body into such a position. So, who?

[puglove]

If, when the police broke in, Ralph's head was in the Aga scuttle, who placed it there? And why? It's logged that they looked through the window, his long, grey hair flopped forward, they thought it was a female body. There is no way that Sheila could have man-handled his heavy body into such a position. So, who?

AND. Sheila never moved after the first shot. Her face would have been splattered with blood. So that blows the kitchen theory out of the water.

[ActualMat]

If, when the police broke in, Ralph's head was in the Aga scuttle, who placed it there? And why? It's logged that they looked through the window, his long, grey hair flopped forward, they thought it was a female body. There is no way that Sheila could have man-handled his heavy body into such a position. So, who?

AND. Sheila never moved after the first shot. Her face would have been splattered with blood. So that blows the kitchen theory out of the water.

Very true. It seems that people come up with these big idea, spend all this money on tests and spent a ton of mans hours talknig about the silencer - when really the basic key facts (like the one you've just stated) speak volumes.

[John]

Agreed, I must admit I hadn't thought of how it would look to relatives affected by a crime if its perpetrator appeared to be given preferential treatment. I cannot imagine how the relatives must have felt finding out that a radio station actually let Bamber call them to claim his innocence. There should be laws against this and whoever allowed this should have been punished.

That was indeed a step too far.  It has been tightened up much since that fiasco.  Jeremy is only allowed to telephone certain named individuals now using his own pin code and as with all prisoners phone calls they are routinely monitored and recorded.  The higher the security cat the more they are monitored.

John 'tightening up' or just plain brushed under the carpet? Bamber is clearly, for a convicted mass-muderer - enjoying unparalled access to the media which I think (and folks we need to fight fire with fire) a breach of the rights of the relatives of the victims of Bamber. I for one and many others I have spoken to know all about Jeremy Bamber and his 'rights' He speaks about them often enough.
He has lauded them loudly and unashamedly. He once refused to work - as was the remit of all prisoners to earn money for petty luxuries. He claimed a breach of his 'human rights' and got a doctor (Hmmm, we seem to have been here before) to sign a note (is there anybody that Bamber has come into contact with that he hasn't been able to manipulate?) saying he couldn't work due to some illness of other. The doctor conveniently had seemed to have forgotten Bamber's daily squash games before breakfast and his constant use of the prison gym.
Whatever the cause of the sudden amnesia by the prison doctor, it seems to have allowed Bamber to not undertake physical work like other prisoners.
Don't know how others may feel but it left me feeling feeling rather concerned. The relatives must be absolutely mortified. This is NOT fit punishment for a convicted mass-murderer and a child-killer. What does everyone else think about this issue?

i understand where you are coming from Ian and I have come up against this question before on a number of occasions.

When I enquired about the prison ethos I was told that prison is not there to implement punishment.  It is considered that the denial of ones right to freedom is sufficient punishment.  Now before you shoot (sorry) the messenger, this is what I was told by senior prison officers and deputy governors. 

This is official thinking.

[John]

I wonder what the Twins (Daniel and Nicholas) dad thinks of it, poor man. 

As a father of three sons I have often wondered how Colin felt at the time of the murders and what he feels now.  It is unimaginable the pain he must have encountered to lose such beautiful children in such a manner.  He had custody of them and I am sure he sometimes wonders if only; if only he hadn't left them to the farm. But he wasn't to know the evil that lurked there!

It must also have hurt to find out that it was the guy you trusted and who had shared your bereavement with was the guy who actually did it.

[John]

I don´t think Jeremy Bamber has access to the media - at all. That is, directly. He has people on the outside who believe he is innocent, and there is no way to stop their access to media and www. Jeremy can write his blogs by hand, send them as letters and someone on the outside will publish them.
You would have to put him in isolation if you wanted that stopped. The same goes for any other prisoner.

You are correct of course abs.  I think those who said he has access to the media probably meant that.  He cannot talk to the media unless he gets prior permission from the Governor and I don't think somehow that that would be forthcoming any more.

[starryian]

Agreed, I must admit I hadn't thought of how it would look to relatives affected by a crime if its perpetrator appeared to be given preferential treatment. I cannot imagine how the relatives must have felt finding out that a radio station actually let Bamber call them to claim his innocence. There should be laws against this and whoever allowed this should have been punished.

That was indeed a step too far.  It has been tightened up much since that fiasco.  Jeremy is only allowed to telephone certain named individuals now using his own pin code and as with all prisoners phone calls they are routinely monitored and recorded.  The higher the security cat the more they are monitored.

John 'tightening up' or just plain brushed under the carpet? Bamber is clearly, for a convicted mass-muderer - enjoying unparalled access to the media which I think (and folks we need to fight fire with fire) a breach of the rights of the relatives of the victims of Bamber. I for one and many others I have spoken to know all about Jeremy Bamber and his 'rights' He speaks about them often enough.
He has lauded them loudly and unashamedly. He once refused to work - as was the remit of all prisoners to earn money for petty luxuries. He claimed a breach of his 'human rights' and got a doctor (Hmmm, we seem to have been here before) to sign a note (is there anybody that Bamber has come into contact with that he hasn't been able to manipulate?) saying he couldn't work due to some illness of other. The doctor conveniently had seemed to have forgotten Bamber's daily squash games before breakfast and his constant use of the prison gym.
Whatever the cause of the sudden amnesia by the prison doctor, it seems to have allowed Bamber to not undertake physical work like other prisoners.
Don't know how others may feel but it left me feeling feeling rather concerned. The relatives must be absolutely mortified. This is NOT fit punishment for a convicted mass-murderer and a child-killer. What does everyone else think about this issue?

i understand where you are coming from Ian and I have come up against this question before on a number of occasions.

When I enquired about the prison ethos I was told that prison is not there to implement punishment.  It is considered that the denial of ones right to freedom is sufficient punishment.  Now before you shoot (sorry) the messenger, this is what I was told by senior prison officers and deputy governors. 

This is official thinking.

No problems John. I understand. The question I have is this; If the prison system is not there to punish and it is not there to rehabilitate (Bamber's whole life tariff make's that impossible) it then beggars the question.....................what is it there for? As it does not even deny the very rights that the murderer denied their victims.

[John]

No problems John. I understand. The question I have is this; If the prison system is not there to punish and it is not there to rehabilitate (Bamber's whole life tariff make's that impossible) it then beggars the question.....................what is it there for? As it does not even deny the very rights that the murderer denied their victims.

The official line is that the deprivation of liberty is what prison is about and not a means to inflict punishment.

[Tim Invictus]

Bamber doesn't have much access to the media thankfully. He has no internet access, media interviews are not allowed and after his call to that radio station his phone list is limited and monitored; just as it should be. I don't like reading Bamber's 'Official Blog' on his 'official' website
but these are either made up by his supporters or he dictates them and they are published for him.

Think about it ... have you ever seen a media interview with Bamber? We all know he adores both himself and any publicity and he would be all over the media if he was allowed access. I think Bamber is well tethered and I am pleased about that. I think there are but a small handfull of photos of him since the trial and very few media comments from him.

[John]

Bamber doesn't have much access to the media thankfully. He has no internet access, media interviews are not allowed and after his call to that radio station his phone list is limited and monitored; just as it should be. I don't like reading Bamber's 'Official Blog' on his 'official' website
but these are either made up by his supporters or he dictates them and they are published for him.

Think about it ... have you ever seen a media interview with Bamber? We all know he adores both himself and any publicity and he would be all over the media if he was allowed access. I think Bamber is well tethered and I am pleased about that. I think there are but a small handfull of photos of him since the trial and very few media comments from him.

Its women like Lorna Lake and Sarah Hanover who are keeping his face in the media.  You will notice that their own pics are carefully edited!!



Sarah Hanover

[Dillon]

I was reading some of the Bamber Supporters Club Forum posts yesterday and came across one from someone called " Lookout" ( a clone of who ? ) who bemoaned the lack of media attention backing his pleas of innocence.
To paraphrase, the post then went on to state that Bamber could not be guilty because he had always maintained that he was innocent all these years. Peculiar logic ! I do not think that Bamber is all that stupid and understands full well the consequences of admitting his guilt. Despite all the facilities such as a good library, gym, classes etc high security prisons are not very nice places because of the sort of people who mainly inhabit them. Tough armed robbers and the like are not over keen on fellow inmates who have abused children; in Bamber's case two little defenceless 6 year olds shot repeatedly in their sleep. So his ability to survive in this environment would be severely compromised. Don't forget that he has already been attacked in a potentially life threatening way. Moreover I am sure that he realises that an admission of guilt would in no way guarantee his release on parole in the forseeable future. If he were to admit his guilt, I guess that his loyal little band of beleivers would rapidly melt away. No big payouts or lucrative book contracts or motivational lecture tours etc either. Just a miserable existence under an assumed identity for a man in his 50's with few skills living on benefits in a bail hostel or council flat miles from where he grew up. Enough to drive anyone to console themselves with cheap wine and cider. Almost a far worse punishment then being in gaol. So Bamber has to stick to his lie.