Organised crime and terrorism. It's not clever and it's nothing to be proud of. It does mean I have some unique experiences: including being cross-examined by leading QCs, being sentenced by the top judges to all-expenses paid holidays in some of Her Majesty's Most Salubrious Establishments, serving time among some of the most dangerous offenders and around the dispersal prisons - including in Close Supervision Centres as a Category AA offender - knife/razor fights with prisoners, the list goes on. (Note: I never met or knew of Jeremy Bamber).
Being convicted of something you didn't do is an occupational hazard for serious criminals at that level and normally happens not because the police are malicious or corrupt, but simply because diligent police officers can fit the evidence around known criminals - and if I'm honest, the criminals have no cause for complaint. That's the way it is in the real world. You have to take the rough with the smooth.
Occasionally I would encounter an earnest middle-class person (either a fellow prisoner or some well-intentioned professional) who would say: "You really MUST appeal!" I would laugh at the naiveté. You choose to be a criminal, then you can take responsibility for the consequences, fair or not.
I have no ill-feeling towards the criminal justice system or the police or judges, and I will defend them when appropriate. I remain entirely neutral on the question of Bamber's culpability. I have no axe to grind whatsoever.
If I get irate, then I apologise, but that's not because of my background. I am actually quite an erudite person, if I may say so. Rather, it's because I'm human and the way these discussions go and how posters sometimes behave. I strongly dislike people who bring dogmas and tribal psychology into what should be strictly legal science.
That's all about me. If I come on here, it will be because I want to discuss relevant aspects of the case, not my memoirs.
Your eruditeness speaks for itself.
My argument is that Bamber is equally clued up but he's slipped up over the years, giving away numerous clues to his character, motives, guilt etc and because of the "dogmas and tribal psychology" to which you refer, he too has found this a stumbling block amongst his supporters/campaign team. Though this won't have been the case with his legal teams;at least not as heightened as it appears with those he's been closest too, friends, acquaintances ..
Because he is high up on the psychopathy spectrum and IMO guilty (I concede, you have laid out the case against him well and I see it that way also, apart from JM"s evidence, hence why at times I too can appear irate), his slip ups are big give aways as to what's lurking beneath his facade.
"I strongly dislike people who bring dogmas and tribal psychology into what should be strictly legal science." I sense that from Bamber also. But what I've witnessed with him over the years, is he plays people off against each other and because of their irrational beliefs and behaviours, they end up showing the other side to Bamber.
The other main points are he appears unable to take responsibility and appears incapable of self reflection.
He just doesn't seem to
care. He doesn't give a toss. He knows the words but not the music.
You could argue that I'm bias because of my experiences but I don't believe all those who are fighting to clear their names are of the same make-up as Bamber and Hall. Prior to prison, both men had sexual relationships with men as well as women. Their need to dominate others is apparent.
"The psychopaths (anti social personality disordered) extreme ego-centeredness is consistent with his shallow emotions, absence of empathy, and ongoing use of others by manipulating or forcing them to support him
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on those criminals who are not of normal criminal elememt and how they are they treated by their fellow inmates.
