Jeremy Bamber forum - full stop idle or return?

[Nicholas]

LM stated the following: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9373.msg437254.html#msg437254

"I may need to reach for my tin foil hat, and I hesitate to say this as I’m not naturally one for conspiracy theories, but is it completely inconceivable that Essex Police, or perhaps the Metropolitan Police, might have recruited a civilian or even assigned one of their own officers to post on boards like this and promote an anti-Bamber perspective, the aim being to divert and discourage discussion?  You can imagine that such an operator would be obnoxious and repetitive, and would lie about the case and flame other posters.  Another intriguing thought is that some of the screen handles on here might not be just one individual, but might be several perhaps working to an organised agenda.

It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds.  The Israeli Defence Force have a very large social media operation: their operators are known as hasbara.

I know quite a lot about the police and the way they work internally, and they do have covert media operations and, if there is a significant cover-up of wrong-doing, then it wouldn’t surprise me if they have individuals on the payroll to ‘manage perceptions’ and alert them to case developments.

Probably not, I’m probably allowing my imagination to run away with me.  It’s just a thought.

What does prompt me to think along those lines is that, I have to say this, some anti-Bamber posters seem like very queer people.  I’m neutral about Jeremy Bamber, but I can well understand somebody like Mike becoming committed to overturning the conviction.  It’s the sort of thing that people do campaign about, and I’m willing to give people like Mike and Nigel considerable leeway because I can comprehend why somebody would become impassioned in such a cause. 

What’s baffling me is the other side of it.  It’s not as usual for people to become obsessed with wanting to keep somebody in prison and suppress or divert discussion of the case and lie about it – unless you’re a member of the family or working for the police, then it would make sense.



Appear like psychological projections to me

LM comes across like a hardcore Jeremy Bamber supporter in the guise of fence sitter.. Just saying.. (It's usually Bamber or Roch who comes out with the conspiracy theories)

How on earth could a right thinking, reasonably minded person even suggest Jeremy Bamber is so important that Essex police or any other agency would waste anymore time, energy or resources to spread such ridiculous nonsense about a mass murderer serving a full life tariff? Get real!

LM you propoganda is as see through now as it was once you gave yourself away. By all means pay Holly further compliments in the hope she'll side with you, but do me a favour and drop me out; you're only kidding yourself (and David)

[Nicholas]

Steve_uk to Mike Tesco

Mike's claims "Phenomena is attracted to my mindset"

 

Mike is such a moron!

How many accounts are the mods moderating of his and why do they stay?

[Nicholas]

Mike is such a moron!

How many accounts are the mods moderating of his and why do they stay?

His psychological projections continue, "Essex police dug themselves into a hole that was impossible to climb back out of" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9383.msg437615/topicseen.html#msg437615

No Mike! You and Jeremy Bamber dug your own holes which were impossible to climb back out of!!

"Your cleaver b........!" said Jeremy. He really knew how to stroke your ago and you knew how to stroke his. Monetary gain was what you had in common, along with many other dysfunctional personality traits. 

No ones interested Mike and haven't been for years!

[Holly Goodhead]

Roch re the Mark Dallagher case:

Expert evidence at Trial

As the judge pointed out to the jury, the expertise of ear print comparison “is in its relative infancy” and not many people have become involved with it. Mr Van Der Lugt’s conclusion was that “he was sure that these ear prints were made by this defendant”. Professor Vanezis considered that conclusion to be “highly likely”. So the judge directed the jury as follows –
“If you are sure that Mr Van Der Lugt’s evidence is correct and you accept it then you would be entitled to convict on his evidence alone.Professor Vanezis gave strong evidence, but was not as positive as Mr Van Lugt, it is for you to evaluate his evidence. If you rejected Mr Van Der Lugt’s evidence but accepted Professor Vanezis’ evidence then it is for you to decide whether on the basis of that evidence alone you could be sure that these were this defendant’s ear prints. ..... I direct you that if you reject Mr Van Der Lugt’s evidence and you reject all the other supporting evidence you should not convict this defendant on Professor Vanezis’s evidence alone.”

http://netk.net.au/UK/Dallagher.asp

Anyhow I will leave you and David to your conspiracy theories.

[Holly Goodhead]

Oh and Roch I think you're overlooking:

As the judge pointed out to the jury, the expertise of ear print comparison “is in its relative infancy”...

Ear print comparison was in it's infancy.  You believe Dr Vanezis overlooked minor surface wounds to victims which is basic routine work for pathologists.  Akin to a carpenter hammering nails in planks.  Talking of planks you and David seem like 2 peas in a pod with your wcranky theories

Why would Dr Vanezis overlook what you claim are minor superficial wounds and yet observe and document all manner of unrelated matters such as stretch marks, scars from breast augmentation, tampon inserted and nicotine stains?  Maybe you've spent too much time on Blue with Mike?  Why not sign up here?  A warm welcome awaits!   

Ear print comparison could perhaps be compared with 'drawback' where Fletcher told the court:

457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated".

[Nicholas]

What rubbish is Jackie Preece posting now about me and AA. Everything I have posted about my association with Jeremy can be backed up by evidence & the same goes for AA. We live in the real world here. The main posters on blue who talk absolute sense are Stephanie and Caroline. I was quite spooked when I read Steph's characteristics of a psychopath. I know Jeremy very well and he definitely displays some of these traits.

I can't get my head around why you cannot bring yourself to admit you were wrong about Jeremy Bamber? If as you say you live in the real world, why do you deny the truth? Are you afraid of being judged by others; is that why you flit between reality and illusion?

[Holly Goodhead]

I can't get my head around why you cannot bring yourself to admit you were wrong about Jeremy Bamber? If as you say you live in the real world, why do you deny the truth? Are you afraid of being judged by others; is that why you flit between reality and illusion?

Daisy's views are obviously fluid.  Nothing wrong with this.  Many of us have fluid views on a range of subjects. 

[Nicholas]

"Are You in Denial?

We’re all in denial. We’d barely get through the day if we worried that we or people we love could die today. Life is unpredictable, and denial helps us cope and focus on what we must in order to survive. On the other hand, denial harms us when it causes us to ignore problems for which there are solutions or deny feelings and needs that if dealt with would enhance our lives.

When it comes to codependency, denial has been called the hallmark of addiction. It’s true not only for drug (including alcohol) addicts, but also for their partners and family members. This axiom also applies to abuse and other types of addiction. We may use denial in varying degrees:

First degree: Denial that the problem, symptom, feeling or need exists.
Second degree: Minimization or rationalization.
Third degree: Admitting it, but denying the consequences.
Fourth degree: Unwilling to seek help for it.
Thus, denial doesn’t always mean we don’t see there’s a problem. We might rationalize, excuse, or minimize its significance or effect upon us.

Other types of denial are forgetting, outright lying or contradicting the facts due to self-deception. Deeper still, we may repress things that are too painful to remember or think about.

Denial is a helpful defense. There are many reasons we use denial, including avoidance of physical or emotional pain, fear, shame or conflict. It’s the first defense that we learn as a child. I thought it cute when my 4-year-old son vehemently denied having eaten any chocolate ice cream, while the evidence was smeared all over his mouth. He had lied out of self-preservation and the fear of being punished. Denial is adaptive when it helps us cope with difficult emotions, such as in the initial stages of grief following the loss of a loved one, particularly if the separation or death is sudden. Denial allows our body-mind to adjust to the shock more gradually. https://psychcentral.com/lib/are-you-in-denial/

[Holly Goodhead]

Music, food, and graffiti are some of the simplest examples I could give here, but the real problem with philosophical inflexibility is that is keeps us from considering other perspectives, other value systems, and data compiled in cultures beyond our own. Having rigid belief systems means that we are disallowing our own education, not allowing yourselves to change our minds or grow in any but one direction.

http://exilelifestyle.com/philosophical-fluidity/

[Nicholas]

Music, food, and graffiti are some of the simplest examples I could give here, but the real problem with philosophical inflexibility is that is keeps us from considering other perspectives, other value systems, and data compiled in cultures beyond our own. Having rigid belief systems means that we are disallowing our own education, not allowing yourselves to change our minds or grow in any but one direction.

http://exilelifestyle.com/philosophical-fluidity/

We are debating a cold blooded Murderer NOT music food or graffiti!

[Holly Goodhead]

We are debating a cold blooded Murderer NOT music food or graffiti!

We could be discussing anything.  The fact is people's views change.  With regard to JB's case this can be evidenced by April, Caroline and David who have changed sides so to speak. 

We live in a democracy with free speech.  So long as people don't break the laws of the land they can do as they please.

The fact someone doesn't share your views doesn't mean they are in denial. 

[Holly Goodhead]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9416.msg438486.html#msg438486

Roch I can assure you your guess is totally wrong.

If Stephanie wants to post the sort of stuff she does then it's up to her.  She is not breaking any forum rule(s). 

I only take action if someone breaks the rules set out on the homepage.

[sika]

There have been inappropriate threads on the red forum, directed at members of blue. 

Let us not pretend that the same hasn't/doesn't occur on blue, about members of red.

Neither forum can claim to hold the moral high ground.

[Nicholas]

There have been inappropriate threads on the red forum, directed at members of blue. 

Let us not pretend that the same hasn't/doesn't occur on blue, about members of red.

Neither forum can claim to hold the moral high ground.

Speaking of "the moral high ground" and the blue forum

IMO this sums them up well (in particular the moderators) as I came to learn to my detriment. I feel sure I'm not alone in my observations.


"Why do abusive people lie, spread rumors, and make up malicious gossip? To shame and effectively isolate targets, that’s why.
Narcissistic people are the ultimate social and emotional predators. Truly functional — rather than dysfunctional — they are vicious predators whose only intention is to win at all cost.  Competing in their own mind financially, physically, socially, and emotionally with every single person they encounter,  they project their own negative qualities and errantly presume their targets have similar core values by nature.
It’s totally normal for a person with a Cluster B personality disorder to pathologically lie, gaslight, and smear campaign. It might be absolutely dysfunctional and caustic to themselves and others, but the pattern is stereotypical.
Don’t expect to be able to avoid having to deal with their self-serving antics and shenanigans. Every narcissistic person you know who actively badmouths another person or group without that person or stereotype represented is keeping a major secret from you.
Guess what, “Narcissistic Supply Source”? If you think a narcissistic person is trustworthy because of their special interest or attachment to you, nothing could possibly be further from the truth.
The Narcissist or abusive person who connives to socially harm, damage, or invalidate the fundamental human and civil rights of others understands that what they are doing is morally wrong. They understand that lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating, and attempting to gaslight other people is wrong.
They also know that lying to their friends, family members, and co-workers shows them little to no respect when and if they try recruiting Flying Monkey enablers.
Narcissistic people get off emotionally and psychologically based on the thought of getting away with something.
They tend to only show false versions of remorse for their actions when and if they are caught. Refuse to accept false apologies!
If they can pretend to be the victim and get away with having other people socially target and punish their innocent targets and victims? In the Cluster B person’s mind… all the better.
Feigning false victimization is the social predator’s specialty — when and if Sadism is a part of their psychological makeup.
There is no biologically inspired empathy for those traumatized by their behavior or feelings of guilt inspired by them causing other human beings’ social, emotional, physical, psychological, or spiritual harm.
http://flyingmonkeysdenied.com/2015/11/25/narcissistic-people-lie-smear-campaign-gossip-victims/

[Nicholas]

We could be discussing anything.  The fact is people's views change.  With regard to JB's case this can be evidenced by April, Caroline and David who have changed sides so to speak. 

We live in a democracy with free speech.  So long as people don't break the laws of the land they can do as they please.

The fact someone doesn't share your views doesn't mean they are in denial.

I take on board your comment Holly 

However following my experiences, Jeremy Bamber and Simon Hall could have been cut from the same cloth. And as a surviving victim of a man not dissimilar to Jeremy Bamber, my approach to these cases may differ from other members; as you yourself have recognised.