What Time Roughly Was The Bedroom Telephone Put In The Kitchen?

[G-Unit]

So it maybe relied upon, because it's in Barbara Willson's WS -despite that she wasn't there- that 'things weren't right', 'Nevill wasn't himself', but when "Bert" witnessed a contretemps between Nevill and Jeremy, so abusive that it reduced Nevill to tears, it can be dismissed.

There are all kinds of people using the internet. Some have perfect recall and quote what they have heard or read completely correctly. Others don't. Without a checkable source there's no way of knowing what's correct and what isn't.

Information offered with a verifiable source can be offered as opinion, not as fact.

[APRIL]

There are all kinds of people using the internet. Some have perfect recall and quote what they have heard or read completely correctly. Others don't. Without a checkable source there's no way of knowing what's correct and what isn't.

Information offered with a verifiable source can be offered as opinion, not as fact.

Given that so many of those who either knew the Bambers personally or gave witness statements -some which may not have been accurate- have died, it becomes increasingly difficult to check for accuracy.

[G-Unit]

Given that so many of those who either knew the Bambers personally or gave witness statements -some which may not have been accurate- have died, it becomes increasingly difficult to check for accuracy.

I'll try to make it clear.

1. You tell me that x said y. I check x's statement and I can confirm that x did say y. What he said may be true or untrue, but he definately said it.

2. You tell me that y said x. As there's no statement I can't check whether y said it or not. You could have made it up, disremembered y's exact words or even disremembered who said it.

1 has a checkable source and 2 doesn't. Therefore 1 can be given more weight than 2 can.

[Brietta]

The only reason being that someone believed it helped their case to find these things out, ergo, those who delivered the opinions were asked. Presumably, it was considered, either to be a foregone conclusion, that anyone was unquestionably a psychopath who could slaughter their entire family, OR it wasn't believed it wouldn't be conducive to Jeremy's case for such a diagnosis to be known. But known it most definitely was, whether you choose to accept that or not.................

................And whilst we're on THAT subject, I probably know more people, who were close to the Bambers, than anyone here -and that's not a boast, it's an reasonable claim given that I live close and these people are my friends. Their names have never been seen in papers because, being close to the Bambers, they'd have refused to give interviews. Nor are there any witness statements from them, because they probably weren't asked. It does NOT make what they say, lies or irrelevancies. I will NOT, under any circumstances, reveal any names. I had enough problems on another forum when something I said in naivety -being an internet virgin- resulted in me being threatened with the police and having my qualifications revoked. There are still those supporters for whom nothing gives more pleasure than to hound and intimidate those who believe Jeremy to be a murderer. Information, concerning those who choose to remain private, won't come from me.

          Very well said.

[Caroline]

I'll try to make it clear.

1. You tell me that x said y. I check x's statement and I can confirm that x did say y. What he said may be true or untrue, but he definately said it.

2. You tell me that y said x. As there's no statement I can't check whether y said it or not. You could have made it up, disremembered y's exact words or even disremembered who said it.

1 has a checkable source and 2 doesn't. Therefore 1 can be given more weight than 2 can.

You you can accuse X and Y of being dishonest if what they said doesn't suit.

[Caroline]

People who prefer to remain private should not be revealed, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Anything they may have said however, can't be relied on in debates for various reasons. Firstly it's hearsay. Secondly it's anonymous hearsay. The only way it can be aired is as opinion; i.e. "I heard that..." Claiming these opinions as facts is not tenable imo.

Then you can just ignore it then can't you?

[APRIL]

I'll try to make it clear.

1. You tell me that x said y. I check x's statement and I can confirm that x did say y. What he said may be true or untrue, but he definately said it.

2. You tell me that y said x. As there's no statement I can't check whether y said it or not. You could have made it up, disremembered y's exact words or even disremembered who said it.

1 has a checkable source and 2 doesn't. Therefore 1 can be given more weight than 2 can.

Actually, because I don't post for your benefit, I'm really not concerned whether you believe me or not, nor what you choose to give weight to. I feel certain there will be some here, be they supporters or detractors, who won't question my integrity, or that of those who knew the Bambers well.

[G-Unit]

Actually, because I don't post for your benefit, I'm really not concerned whether you believe me or not, nor what you choose to give weight to. I feel certain there will be some here, be they supporters or detractors, who won't question my integrity, or that of those who knew the Bambers well.

It doesn't matter to me, I'm just pointing out why information supported by a cite is evidence. Information without one is rumour. It's nothing to do with integrity, it's to do with demonstrable accuracy. Even a person of integrity can make mistakes.

Meanwhile;

It has always been forum policy to provide cites where appropriate. It is also good etiquette.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11555.msg599970#msg599970

[Miss Taken Identity]

I'll try to make it clear.

1. You tell me that x said y. I check x's statement and I can confirm that x did say y. What he said may be true or untrue, but he definately said it.

2. You tell me that y said x. As there's no statement I can't check whether y said it or not. You could have made it up, disremembered y's exact words or even disremembered who said it.

1 has a checkable source and 2 doesn't. Therefore 1 can be given more weight than 2 can.

Although I agree with your post- wholeheartedly. People can deduce from someones behavior and form an educated opinion.  JB gave his diagnosis with his sister.  Mental health can change hour to hour in patients.

The fact the JB claimed his sister went berserk/had a psychotic moment as she was prone to- he claims -so is therefore responsible for the killings, where as the medication she was taking was sedentary in effect.

To say the psychiatrist have given evidence about her diagnosis in court, they did NOT claim she was guilty of such crimes. And to be fair as I have said before, the diagnosis is like an MOT only relevant from the last consultation. AND  further more they were not present at the time of the murders. not much weight can be given really.

[G-Unit]

Although I agree with your post- wholeheartedly. People can deduce from someones behavior and form an educated opinion.  JB gave his diagnosis with his sister.  Mental health can change hour to hour in patients.

The fact the JB claimed his sister went berserk/had a psychotic moment as she was prone to- he claims -so is therefore responsible for the killings, where as the medication she was taking was sedentary in effect.

To say the psychiatrist have given evidence about her diagnosis in court, they did NOT claim she was guilty of such crimes. And to be fair as I have said before, the diagnosis is like an MOT only relevant from the last consultation. AND  further more they were not present at the time of the murders. not much weight can be given really.

What's behind this discussion is the difference between fact and opinion. Some claim Jeremy Bamber is a diagnosed psychopath, but they are unable to provide any evidence to support their claim. He may well be a psychopath and he may have been diagnosed by an eminent psychiatrist, but the evidence amounts to a claim by a journalist who offered no evidence to support his claim.

[Robittybob1]

What's behind this discussion is the difference between fact and opinion. Some claim Jeremy Bamber is a diagnosed psychopath, but they are unable to provide any evidence to support their claim. He may well be a psychopath and he may have been diagnosed by an eminent psychiatrist, but the evidence amounts to a claim by a journalist who offered no evidence to support his claim.

Psychopathic tendencies are a lot more common than we realise.
"Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons."  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/#7ba3d436791e

[G-Unit]

Psychopathic tendencies are a lot more common than we realise.
"Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons."  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/#7ba3d436791e

Fascinating as that is, Rob, it's irrelevant unless you have evidence showing that someone in this case was assessed and diagnosed as psychopathic by an accredited person.

[Robittybob1]

Fascinating as that is, Rob, it's irrelevant unless you have evidence showing that someone in this case was assessed and diagnosed as psychopathic by an accredited person.

I thought the rate was much higher than 1%.  Sorry, it was just an aside.  From memory, there were rates of 20% of the population had some tendency but that might just be my memory.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What's behind this discussion is the difference between fact and opinion. Some claim Jeremy Bamber is a diagnosed psychopath, but they are unable to provide any evidence to support their claim. He may well be a psychopath and he may have been diagnosed by an eminent psychiatrist, but the evidence amounts to a claim by a journalist who offered no evidence to support his claim.

If it were proven that he had been diagnosed a psychopath would that change your opinion any re: who committed the murders?

[G-Unit]

If it were proven that he had been diagnosed a psychopath would that change your opinion any re: who committed the murders?

No, and we're wandering off topic now.