Will Jeremy Bamber confess in the end?

[John]

Unlike say Myra Hindley whose only supporter was the eccentric Lord Longford, JB has a diverse mix of people supporting him including 'establishment' figures.  I know of one high profile person who is not publicly known about.  I imagine it's possible there are others too.

I know Hindley was never considered a MoJ, rightly so.  However, Lord  Longford supported her efforts for parole. 

As you said Tim, JB distances himself from Blue for obvious reasons.   Be assured the heavyweights don't post on Blue.  Why would they?

I wouldn't describe NGB as disingenuous insofar as his belief that JB is the victim of a MoJ, but I think he's a massive disappointment insofar as his management of Blue goes.  He accused me of "attacking" the mods over some ridiculously childish comment I made about encouraging Patti to join me in a girl gang to oppose the Knitting Circle.  Oh and he went through the roof when I used the term "Knitting Circle" as it originated from this forum.  I wouldn't have minded if the standards were/are consistently high across the board but they mostly certainly are not.  The moderation is truly awful - the criteria must be lack of ability to act impartially at all times.  I could say much but perhaps less is more.

I will NEVER forgive NGB for presiding over my ban and shabby treatment.  A complete lack of balls to stand up to those who eventually turned on him.. 

Up pops Gladys...'forgiveness is good for the soul' as he thumbs the bible for spiritual guidance...

My understanding is that Hartley accused ngb1066 of treating members differently and effectively called him a liar.  There was an exchange between the two which was deleted so I can only assume words were exchanged.  All very weird and if they aren't careful there wont be many real debaters left.

[Holly Goodhead]

My understanding is that Hartley accused ngb1066 of treating members differently and effectively called him a liar.  There was an exchange between the two which was deleted so I can only assume words were exchanged.  All very weird and if they aren't careful there wont be many real debaters left.

I always got on well with Hartley despite our very different views on WHF.  When I first joined Blue I learned a lot about the case from his posts.  Bridget too.  Although they didn't convert me!  Hartley made a significant contribution to the library/archives.

I'm not sure about the background to his lasts posts ie prior to his ban but they seemed out of character for him.  He was normally Mr Diplomat just taking things to the wire!  I often wished he had have been a bit naughtier!  I think he accused NGB of not believing JB is the victim of a MoJ and effectively lying  &%+((£  He had a spat with Patti too a couple of weeks back and I think a temporary ban was imposed then. Perhaps he just got bored going round in circles and/or frustrated that others don't share his view when to him it is patently obvious  &%+((£

I have no idea how posters on Blue can keep going round and round in circles, like a friggin hamster on a wheel, debating the same stuff over and over again.  Is there an objective? And if so what is it?  How many threads do they currently have going on those damned phone calls.  All of which are a variation on a theme and that doesn't include the historic phone threads 

[puglove]

I always got on well with Hartley despite our very different views on WHF.  When I first joined Blue I learned a lot about the case from his posts.  Bridget too.  Although they didn't convert me!  Hartley made a significant contribution to the library/archives.

I'm not sure about the background to his lasts posts ie prior to his ban but they seemed out of character for him.  He was normally Mr Diplomat just taking things to the wire!  I often wished he had have been a bit naughtier!  I think he accused NGB of not believing JB is the victim of a MoJ and effectively lying  &%+((£  He had a spat with Patti too a couple of weeks back and I think a temporary ban was imposed then. Perhaps he just got bored going round in circles and/or frustrated that others don't share his view when to him it is patently obvious  &%+((£

I have no idea how posters on Blue can keep going round and round in circles, like a friggin hamster on a wheel, debating the same stuff over and over again.  Is there an objective? And if so what is it?  How many threads do they currently have going on those damned phone calls.  All of which are a variation on a theme and that doesn't include the historic phone threads 

I've had a quick squiz on blue but, blimey, it's more boring than ever. It's like eating a horrible, dry old biscuit and, without Hartley, no jam in the middle.     

[John]

Hartley always bounces back so no doubt we will hear from him in the fullness of time.

[Myster]

Cooee Holly - you still going round in circles too with all that psychobabble?... when the answer's as obvious and straightforward as a game of Cluedo! - Farmer Jezz did it in the bedroom with the rifle... period, fullstop, end of story.
Leave a few of those cry smileys for other posters, please!... we're running short. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Cooee Holly -you still going round in circles too with all that psychobabble?... when the answer's as obvious and straightforward as a game of Cluedo! - Farmer Jezz did it in the bedroom with the rifle... period, fullstop, end of story.
Leave a few of those cry smileys for other posters, please!... we're running short. 

If by this you mean my theories surrounding the psychology of adoption, June's mental illness circa 1959, science of neglect and SC suffering an attachment disorder, then yes this still very much forms the basis of my thinking that JB is the victim of a MoJ.  If other aspects of the case pointed towards JB being guilty then I would ditch my theories but to my mind they don't.  I think JB's defence at trial was very poor and I don't buy excuses about evidence being withheld and fabricated (although I do believe some evidence was fabricated).  I think the defence had enough for an acquittal.  The Jeremy supporters could do with being a bit more critical of the defence rather than singling out prosecution witnesses for criticism and worse.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

My psychobabble is reinforced further when I hear the likes of tv psychologists eg Kerry Danes (Killing mum and dad), David Holmes (Slaughter at the farm) and Katherine Ramsland (Behind mansion doors) ignoring the above and claiming that JB suffered from psychopathy, sibling rivalry, sense of abandonment, and narcissistic immunity.  It is clear that the tv psychologists have not researched the case histories of the victims and JB.  Moreover none of them have met with JB to carry out proper assessments.  Those who have carried out proper assessments have found JB to be without any mental illness and/or personality disorder(s).

  x

[Tim Invictus]

June and Neville gave two unwanted and unloved children a fantastic home. They wanted for nothing  and indeed had an enviable childhood 'down on the farm'! Neither had to struggle to find a job and the roofs over their heads were a gift from their excellent and highly respected parents!

Holly I find your insinuations that somehow both J. and S. were somehow placed in a position of neglect and/or abuse with June and Neville is totally without foundation! Your tag line 'justice for S. and J.' is an unwarranted and unjustified insult to murder victims!

Just my opinion .... you personally are always respectful in putting your opinions but I do not agree with you on this subject.

[adam]

Interestingly he won't confess.

However if he had not been convicted, once things had blown over he would certainly have at least hinted of his involvement.

Fooling the police would not be something he would be able keep quiet for long.  Prior to being a suspect he had already told Julie and started living it up.

He also abruptly said to Liz Rimmington soon after the massacre ' only I know what really happened that night'.

[guinness]

But he did that before he was convicted anyway ? He told Julie about his involvement ?

[adam]

But he did that before he was convicted anyway ? He told Julie about his involvement ?

Exactly. If he did not get convicted or arrested, he would have boasted or hinted to people he trusted of his perfect crime.

[guinness]

Was not exactly the perfect crime though was it. Fancy telling Julie the hitman story when he was not really that convinced about their relationship. And then to top it all mentioning a man who had a cast iron alibi?

Its seems in fact he was the most stupid of men . Not an evil murderer who planned every detail.

As you have managed to convince lots of others of his guilt - what is your opinion - stupid or clever?

[david1819]

No, I don't think so. I believe Hall confessed because he believed he could come across as being rehabilitated and one day released back into society. Bamber doesn't have that luxury due to the whole life tariff, he will always maintain his innocence.

I thought the whole life tariff is there because he has not confessed? Showing no remorse or culpability for the crime ect.

John Cooper (The Gameshow Killer) is in the same position as Bamber, Killed multiple people but claims innocence therefore whole life tariff. 

I could be wrong, but if them two did have parole its still 99% they would die in prison.

[Caroline]

I thought the whole life tariff is there because he has not confessed? Showing no remorse or culpability for the crime ect.

John Cooper (The Gameshow Killer) is in the same position as Bamber, Killed multiple people but claims innocence therefore whole life tariff. 

I could be wrong, but if them two did have parole its still 99% they would die in prison.

You don't just get a WLT because you haven't confessed but there is no chance that it would be overturned and parole given unless there is a confession - and even then, it depends on the circumstances of the crime. I don't think a WLT has ever been overturned? However, you can't get parole without rehabilitation and you can't be rehabilitated without taking responsibility for your crime.

[david1819]

You don't just get a WLT because you haven't confessed but there is no chance that it would be overturned and parole given unless there is a confession - and even then, it depends on the circumstances of the crime. I don't think a WLT has ever been overturned? However, you can't get parole without rehabilitation and you can't be rehabilitated without taking responsibility for your crime.

You can get a WLT quashed then given a new tariff with the possibility of parole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs#Quashed_whole-life_tariffs

Since Bamber was sentenced at 24, If he dies in prison which is very likely he may well serve the longest prison time in British history.

What is his motive thou? once all avenues and appeals exhausted then what?

[John]

A confession would have to include the name of his co conspirator(s).