Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?

[Holly Goodhead]

Actually thinking about it JM was working at the time of the tragedy as when JB called her at circa 5am he told her not to go to work.  Also he gave her a cheque for £400 in respect of loss of earnings due to all the time she had off work post tragedy.  I think she was working in a kindergarten in London? 

So maybe the bike was for her use in London?  According to her WS's post tragedy JB asked her if she wanted anything from the house and she asked for the bike.   

[APRIL]

It would have been a long way for her to cycle from Goldhanger to Witham station. Had she wanted it for getting to school in London -although August would still have been school holidays, surely- I'd have thought Jeremy would have taken it to the station for her.

[Holly Goodhead]

It would have been a long way for her to cycle from Goldhanger to Witham station. Had she wanted it for getting to school in London -although August would still have been school holidays, surely- I'd have thought Jeremy would have taken it to the station for her.

Yes I'm not suggesting there was ever any intention to use the bike as part of the journey to London.  Maybe kindergartens operated all year round in London/1980's?  I'm unsure exactly where she was working at the time of the tragedy but by all accounts she was committed to some type of work in London at the time.

It seems the bike was for JM's use whilst at JB's pad when he was working and would provide a means of transport to the bus stop in Tolleshunt D'arcy with links to Colchester.  Her mother lived in Colchester and she went to school there so I'm assuming she wanted to hook up with friends/family for coffee/lunch.   

[APRIL]

Yes I'm not suggesting there was ever any intention to use the bike as part of the journey to London.  Maybe kindergartens operated all year round in London/1980's?  I'm unsure exactly where she was working at the time of the tragedy but by all accounts she was committed to some type of work in London at the time.

It seems the bike was for JM's use whilst at JB's pad when he was working and would provide a means of transport to the bus stop in Tolleshunt D'arcy with links to Colchester.  Her mother lived in Colchester and she went to school there so I'm assuming she wanted to hook up with friends/family for coffee/lunch.

It's not a journey I'd have wanted to do but -although it's relative, roads would have been quieter then- the last bus back from Colchester was probably around 6pm so she wouldn't have had to travel it at night.

[Nicholas]

WHY do Bamber supporters vilify JM?


And HOW are her actions comparble to this women's

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41763408

[Nicholas]

Nugnug posted today -

"you cant convincly say that a hitman did it but you know exactly what happened her statements about the hitman and the order contradict each other.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422550.html#msg422550

 
JM's statements are reflective of Bambers personality (where she has relayed to the police what he has told her)

[scipio_usmc]

Why they vilify her is quite simple.  They don't want to face he is guilty, the things that he told and did like breaking in to the Caravan site to steal money puts him in a bad light and thus they insist she lied or even make up that she was the ring leader.

It's a matter of their agenda driving things.

[John]

WHY do Bamber supporters vilify JM?


And HOW are her actions comparble to this women's

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41763408

Because in their mind she did the dirty on him.

[Holly Goodhead]

But this doesn't really explain how on the one hand I see JB as the victim of a MoJ and on the other hand don't believe JM deserves the vilification she receives from some quarters.

[steve_trousers]

WHY do Bamber supporters vilify JM?


And HOW are her actions comparble to this women's

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41763408

Further to Scipio's response, JM's testimony is the one piece of evidence his supporters can't just explain away with a diagram or some other bollocks. It was damning. So they besmirch her character at every opportunity.

There was no good reason for anyone to question this brave, thoroughly decent and conscionable woman's testimony. Remember what she told the court had the ring of truth about it.

[Holly Goodhead]

Further to Scipio's response, JM's testimony is the one piece of evidence his supporters can't just explain away with a diagram or some other bollocks. It was damning. So they besmirch her character at every opportunity.

There was no good reason for anyone to question this brave, thoroughly decent and conscionable woman's testimony. Remember what she told the court had the ring of truth about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny". Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed's murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was "foolish but we were young" and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko, unlike her friends, who all had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted

In this day and age of forensic science I think it's time to call time on lay witness testimony.

[steve_trousers]

Hi Holly, you cannot compare 2 completely different cases, we have been here before. It's like when you compare Tracie Andrews with Sheila Caffell, apples and oranges.

Unlike the 2 very questionable witnesses in the Kischko case, Julie Mugford was indeed a credible witness. Enough of the jury believed her. That did as much if not more to sway a jury than the forensics.
I know we disagree on this but I think her day in court is the main reason Bamber will never see the light of day. unless he confesses which I still reckon is a possibility

[Nicholas]

Why they vilify her is quite simple.  They don't want to face he is guilty, the things that he told and did like breaking in to the Caravan site to steal money puts him in a bad light and thus they insist she lied or even make up that she was the ring leader.

It's a matter of their agenda driving things.

What about the difference in agendas between the disordered and non disordered personalities?


"With disordered characters, what we commonly perceive as unconscious defenses (e.g., denial) are more often deliberate tactics of impression-management, manipulation, and responsibility-avoidance. http://counsellingresource.com/features/2008/10/08/denial-as-defense-mechanism/

[Nicholas]

Because in their mind she did the dirty on him.

"Why are people so often in denial?

In the psychological sense, denial is a defense mechanism in which a person, faced with a painful fact, rejects the reality of that fact. They will insist that the fact is not true despite what may be overwhelming and irrefutable evidence.

There are three forms of denial. Simple denial is when the painful fact is denied altogether. Minimisational denial is when the painful fact is admitted but its seriousness is downplayed. Transference denial is when the painful fact is admitted, the seriousness also admitted, but one's moral responsibility in the situation involving the painful fact is downplayed.

When a person is in denial, they engage in distractive or escapist strategies to reduce stress and help them cope. The effect upon psychological well-being in doing this is unclear. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/29/the_odd_body_denial/

[Nicholas]

Further to Scipio's response, JM's testimony is the one piece of evidence his supporters can't just explain away with a diagram or some other bollocks. It was damning. So they besmirch her character at every opportunity.

There was no good reason for anyone to question this brave, thoroughly decent and conscionable woman's testimony. Remember what she told the court had the ring of truth about it.

"Psychological manipulation can be defined as the exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits and/or privileges at the victim’s expense.

It is important to distinguish healthy social influence from psychological manipulation. Healthy social influence occurs between most people, and is part of the give and take of constructive relationships. In psychological manipulation, one person is used for the benefit of another. The manipulator deliberately creates an imbalance of power, and exploits the victim to serve his or her agenda.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201510/14-signs-psychological-and-emotional-manipulation



JM was psychologically manipulated by Bamber. She was another of his victims

Certain types of people choose to exploit victims like JM to serve their own agendas