Other cases where adoptions have gone horribly wrong resulting in murder

[Nicholas]

Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature. 

Kerry Daynes has never met with JB.  A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes.  Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient.  KD's opinion is worthless. 

I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland.  The former I spoke with on the phone.  The latter I received an email from.  Both blamed the producers.

Please provide evidence for your claims!

[Nicholas]

Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature. 

Kerry Daynes has never met with JB.  A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes.  Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient.  KD's opinion is worthless. 

I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland.  The former I spoke with on the phone.  The latter I received an email from.  Both blamed the producers.

You have never met Jeremy Bamber!

[Nicholas]

Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature. 

Kerry Daynes has never met with JB.  A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes.  Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient. KD's opinion is worthless. 

I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland.  The former I spoke with on the phone.  The latter I received an email from.  Both blamed the producers.

Kerry Daynes opinion is based on her observations of Jeremy Bamber. You only claim her opinion is worthless because you believe Bamber to be "normal."

Kerry Dayne's gave an objective and reasoned observation.

[Nicholas]

Stephanie do you honestly think the likes of Prof Egan would make the following assessment without going through all JB's records?

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

What do you mean when you say all of Jeremy Bambers records?

[Nicholas]

Popular belief has always been that Jeremy Bamber has psychopathy. 

WHERE DID THIS BELIEF ORIGINATE

In truth Jeremy Bamber has been examined by over 27 different psychologists, none of them have found him to have a personality disorder of any variety, nor any mental illness, nor any indication of psychopathy.

WHERE ARE THE 27 DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS? THE PUBLIC HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM BECAUSE JEREMY BAMBER HAS NEVER DISLCOSED THEM

WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THE WORD OF A CONVICTED MASS MURDERER WHO ADMITTED TO ROBBING HIS FAMILIES BUSINESS AND STAGIMG THE CRIME SCENE 5 MONTHS BEFORE THE MURDERS

Jeremy Bamber is and always has been psychologically well adjusted especially considering the psychological trauma he suffered as a result of losing his family in such tragic circumstance, being hounded by the media and being falsely accused and convicted as a family annihilator.

SPECULATION PROVES NOTHING

Professor Vincent Egan, BSc. (Hons).,Ph.D., D. Clin. Psy. Chartered Clinical Psychologist, Chartered Forensic Psychologist, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, University of Leicester, recently carried out a psychological assessment of Jeremy Bamber for a category A risk assessment review and he stated in his 14 page report:

WHERE IS THE 14 PAGE REPORT?

AND WHAT WAS THE REPORT BASED ON?

 “Jeremy has been previously assessed using the PCL-R and found non-psychopathic. My own assessment also found he did not meet caseness for clinical psychopathy, or even mild psychopathy.” He goes on to state “He did not meet caseness for any of the personality disorder dimensions.”

WHAT WAS PROF EGAN'S REPORT BASED ON?

It has also been further suggested that Jeremy Bamber has used “Impression Management” to dupe the assessor into believing he has no psychopathy, nevertheless Professor Egan applied further tests to take this into account and noted:

WHAT TESTS DID PROF EGAN APPLY?

“To examine whether Jeremy was exaggerating how he presented himself, he also completed the BIDR (Paulus, 1998). On this measure Jeremy was within the low-normal range for impression management and self-deception enhancement. These results suggest he was not presenting himself in an excessively anodyne way to bias the assessor.”

WHAT DID PROF EGAN BASE HIS FINDINGS ON? WHERE IS THE COMPLETED BIDR?

Professor Egan comments, “These findings suggest it is hard to sustain the view that Jeremy Bamber is so expert in deceptive self-presentation as to maintain this front for over a variety of different assessors, different assessment instruments and different times” 

WHAT DIFFERENT ASSESSORS, ASSESSMENTS, INSTRUMENTS AND DIFFERENT TIMES?

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR EACH REPORT, OR WERE THEY ALL BASED ON THE SAME THEME?

The assessment concludes with “Dangerous violent persons tend to be angry, alienated, impulsive and out of control, and none of these qualities appear to reflect Mr Bamber. Quite what the motive would be for something like the index offence being carried out by Mr Bamber again is very speculative, as is the proposition in the first place."

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? ISNT THIS YET FURTHER SPECULATION ON PROF EGANS BEHALF?

UNLESS JEREMY BAMBER CONFESSES TO HIS CRIMES - ALL HIS REPORTS ARE BASED ON HIS CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE, IN OTHER WORDS BAMBERS REPORTS ARE BASED ON HIS DENIAL

Furthermore, the BIDR is a self assessment, need I say more.

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~dpaulhus/research/SDR/downloads/CHAPTERS/1991%20RSW%20chapter/RSW%2091%20part2.pdf

[Holly Goodhead]

Let's be clear here Holly. Your email to Kerry Daynes was extremely personal. You chose to post it on a public forum. I chose to respond to your post and give you my opinion., not dissimilar to what you did with Kerry Daynes.

What's the problem? Why do you appear to be unable to take constructive critism? Why do you have to make things personal?

You stated:
I replied with what I did based on your above post. I follow the evidence. Nothing more nothing less.

In what way was it extremely personal?  It related to the facts of the case.  Nothing to do with her personal life or mine. 

If a lay person or professional wants to offer up opinion using medium for communication then others are entitled to respond/agree/disagree/discuss/debate. 

[Holly Goodhead]

You have never met Jeremy Bamber!

I'm a lay person posting on a forum.  KD is a qualified psychologist.

[Holly Goodhead]

Please provide evidence for your claims!

The emails I sent are here.

The responses are for the day of reckoning along with the emails sent to MT QC and others.   

[Caroline]

Stephanie you have been advised previously to refrain from making comments of a personal nature. 

Kerry Daynes has never met with JB.  A bit like an optician giving an opinion without examining the eyes.  Or a dentist proposing treatment without examining the teeth. Or a heart surgeon making a diagnosis without even examining the heart/patient.  KD's opinion is worthless. 

I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland.  The former I spoke with on the phone.  The latter I received an email from.  Both blamed the producers.

She gave her opinion on what kind of person Bamber must be if guilty and she wasn't wrong. Someone who could kill five people, including two sleeping children, take no responsibility and crave public attention in any way possible - would indeed be a psychopath.

[Holly Goodhead]

She gave her opinion on what kind of person Bamber must be if guilty and she wasn't wrong. Someone who could kill five people, including two sleeping children, take no responsibility and crave public attention in any way possible - would indeed be a psychopath.

She went further than that eg suggesting he felt incredibly rejected on many fronts.  How could she possibly know?  Oh and claiming he was sexually promiscuous when there's no evidence for this and even if it was true what is being suggested? 

Why don't we hear from a psychologist who has actually assessed JB?  Maybe because all those who have assessed him diagnosed him as 'normal' and that's not the angle the producers are looking for. 

[Nicholas]

Why don't we hear from a psychologist who has actually assessed JB?  Maybe because all those who have assessed him diagnosed him as 'normal' and that's not the angle the producers are looking for.

Do you purposefully ignore the evidence or can you really not see it?

So bottom line is ALL of Jeremy Bambers assessments are based on his DENIAL, making them ALL meaningless!

But if we are to go back to before his trial, it was found by his defence team that he suffered from psychopathy.

Holly there are no reports based on a guilty Jeremy Bamber, just biased reports based on his denial!

I cannot fathom why you and his supporters cannot see this?

[Caroline]

She went further than that eg suggesting he felt incredibly rejected on many fronts.  How could she possibly know?  Oh and claiming he was sexually promiscuous when there's no evidence for this and even if it was true what is being suggested? 

Why don't we hear from a psychologist who has actually assessed JB?  Maybe because all those who have assessed him diagnosed him as 'normal' and that's not the angle the producers are looking for.

If her were guilty! She was giving her opinion on what may have contributed to his becoming a psychopath. What is being suggested is that the traits of a psychopath are pretty much in line with descriptions of his persona be individuals who knew him. She was given certain information and gave her opinion. She did nothing wrong.

Prior to his conviction, he was also described as a psychopath. I don't know if he was tested by the psychologist who made this claim but I don't know that he wasn't either.

[Nicholas]

She went further than that eg suggesting he felt incredibly rejected on many fronts.  How could she possibly know?  Oh and claiming he was sexually promiscuous when there's no evidence for this and even if it was true what is being suggested? 

Why don't we hear from a psychologist who has actually assessed JB?  Maybe because all those who have assessed him diagnosed him as 'normal' and that's not the angle the producers are looking for.

Bamber was assessed prior to his trial but he won't allow this assessment to be placed in the public domain

Jeremy Bambers behaviour is far from normal! But be my guest and attempt to promote him as such, it's not me it will reflect badly on.

[Nicholas]

I'm a lay person posting on a forum.  KD is a qualified psychologist.

And she was spot on!

You are basing your assumptions on psychology assessments which are based on Bamber maintaining innocence.

[Nicholas]

I also sent emails to two other psychologists who contributed to the docu/dramas: David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland.  The former I spoke with on the phone.  The latter I received an email from.  Both blamed the producers.

The emails I sent are here.

The responses are for the day of reckoning along with the emails sent to MT QC and others.

I don't believe you received written replies from those people you claim to have emailed where they stated the producers were to blame

I think you are making it up Holly! https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/tv/1031939/murder-expert-says-she-is-being-stalked/

And your emails to Michael Turner QC are totally irrelevant. So irrelevant, I have no idea why you mentioned them in the first place?

I concur with Myster http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6849.msg292355#msg292355

You stated back then: "If she responds I will not post her reply without seeking her approval beforehand."

You also stated: "I would really like to see 'Killing mum and dad' or similar title.  It was the one JB made a formal complaint about which featured psychologist Kerry Danes. "

Yes I agree we have no real idea how affected or unaffected Sheila and Jeremy were by being adopted. There's much evidence Sheila was troubled eg her poor start in life, what appeared to be a difficult relationship with June and her reunion with her birth mother. Perhaps Jeremy was troubled but suppressed it.  Much more is known now about the psychology of adoption hence the apology from Julia Gillard, former PM of Australia, re the poor practices carried out in the 50's - 70's.  The expert witnesses at trial: Dr Ferguson, Dr Bradley and Prof Knight made no reference to adoption at all  >@@(*&)  Those that have offered up comment since eg Kerry Danes and David Holmes also made no reference.  It would be good to see the likes of Dr Brodzinsky, Dr Grotevant, Dr Kirschner and Dr Verrier who specialise in adoption to provide opinion.  For example:

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/about/dbrodzinsky.php