For Those That Believe JB Guilty...

[Holly Goodhead]

I must confess I didn't, having never read a tabloid in my life. Therefore yes I agree that is wholly inappropriate.

At the same time we know what the gutter press is like, they would have insisted on lurid details and photographs such as those, these swine know what sells newspapers.

As you said I think we can forgive her taking into account her age, and there is no doubt this thoroughly decent young woman deserved every penny following her ordeal at the hands of this evil psychopath.

This is contrary to expert evidence:

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

[John]

This is contrary to expert evidence:

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

Several people including his own counsel made reference to Jeremy displaying the classic signs of a psychopath yet as you point out, psychiatrists have as far as we know never made such a clinical diagnosis.  However, it is known that some psychopaths do see the condition diminish and even disappear in later life.  I suggest the more recent results have come about on that basis with his metal status at the time of the murders being undiagnosed.

[Tim Invictus]

Holly dearest I wonder how deeply you thought about your topic before posting it? 'For those who believe Jeremy guilty'. Don't you find it telling just who those people are?

All Jeremy's remaining family that he didn't murder including Colin Cafel, the twins father, who didn't for one second suspect Jeremy until he learned the facts of the murders and immediately knew Sheila could not have done it!

All the coppers on the case who were exposed to the facts and JB's character (except one too stubborn to admit he was wrong)!

Julie Mugford and all her friends who knew Jeremy. (Is there anyone JB ever knew before conviction who supports his innocence?)

The High Court judge was obviously convinced JB was guilty. All the many judges at the CCRC who have reviewed the case ....  like wise. One making the highly unusual comment stating that the more they review the case the more utterly convinced they are that justice has been done.

10 of 12 jurors got it right.

Have you read Colin's book Holly? I don't see how anyone who has read that very moving book could doubt his honestly and he knew Sheila better than anyone left alive.

PS: A great friend of mine bought me that book .... a lovely surprise!

[david1819]

Holly dearest I wonder how deeply you thought about your topic before posting it? 'For those who believe Jeremy guilty'. Don't you find it telling just who those people are?

All Jeremy's remaining family that he didn't murder including Colin Cafel, the twins father, who didn't for one second suspect Jeremy until he learned the facts of the murders and immediately knew Sheila could not have done it!

All the coppers on the case who were exposed to the facts and JB's character (except one too stubborn to admit he was wrong)!

Julie Mugford and all her friends who knew Jeremy. (Is there anyone JB ever knew before conviction who supports his innocence?)

The High Court judge was obviously convinced JB was guilty. All the many judges at the CCRC who have reviewed the case ....  like wise. One making the highly unusual comment stating that the more they review the case the more utterly convinced they are that justice has been done.

10 of 12 jurors got it right.

Have you read Colin's book Holly? I don't see how anyone who has read that very moving book could doubt his honestly and he knew Sheila better than anyone left alive.

PS: A great friend of mine bought me that book .... a lovely surprise!

Appeal to Common Belief

(also known as: appeal to accepted belief, appeal to democracy, appeal to widespread belief, appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, appeal to the number, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum consensus gentium, appeal to the mob, appeal to the gallery, consensus gentium, mob appeal, social conformance, value of community, vox populi)

When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.

Logical Form:

A lot of people believe X.
Therefore, X must be true.

Link - Appeal to Common Belief

[APRIL]

Several people including his own counsel made reference to Jeremy displaying the classic signs of a psychopath yet as you point out, psychiatrists have as far as we know never made such a clinical diagnosis.  However, it is known that some psychopaths do see the condition diminish and even disappear in later life.  I suggest the more recent results have come about on that basis with his metal status at the time of the murders being undiagnosed.

John, both I and one of my blue friends can testify to incidences of psychiatrists who believe him to be a psychopath. They came across him/had conversations with him in the course of their duties Neither has given a WS, presumably because they were never asked.

[Holly Goodhead]

Several people including his own counsel made reference to Jeremy displaying the classic signs of a psychopath yet as you point out, psychiatrists have as far as we know never made such a clinical diagnosis.  However, it is known that some psychopaths do see the condition diminish and even disappear in later life.  I suggest the more recent results have come about on that basis with his metal status at the time of the murders being undiagnosed.

Afaik this reference from JB's defence counsel was made in Wilkes' book.  How reliable is it?  I don't believe this 'expert' has ever been publicly identified so we have no confirmation of his/her identity and qualifications/experience.  Do defence counsel discuss their cases with book authors especially when the defendant/appellant maintains innocence?   Assuming the information is correct did the person actually meet with JB and if so what tools did he/she use to make such an assessment? 

If someone is so psychopathic they are capable of murdering small children sleeping in their beds is it possible to change from this mindset to 'normal'? 

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly dearest I wonder how deeply you thought about your topic before posting it? 'For those who believe Jeremy guilty'. Don't you find it telling just who those people are?

All Jeremy's remaining family that he didn't murder including Colin Cafel, the twins father, who didn't for one second suspect Jeremy until he learned the facts of the murders and immediately knew Sheila could not have done it!

All the coppers on the case who were exposed to the facts and JB's character (except one too stubborn to admit he was wrong)!

Julie Mugford and all her friends who knew Jeremy. (Is there anyone JB ever knew before conviction who supports his innocence?)

The High Court judge was obviously convinced JB was guilty. All the many judges at the CCRC who have reviewed the case ....  like wise. One making the highly unusual comment stating that the more they review the case the more utterly convinced they are that justice has been done.

10 of 12 jurors got it right.

Have you read Colin's book Holly? I don't see how anyone who has read that very moving book could doubt his honestly and he knew Sheila better than anyone left alive.

PS: A great friend of mine bought me that book .... a lovely surprise!

Hi Tim

Yes I read CC's book nearly 5 years ago now.  It offered an insight into the dynamics of the Bamber family.
 
To lose 1 child is every parent's nightmare let alone 2 in such awful circumstances.

Afaik none of those mentioned in your post had any experience of mass shootings?  The only peacetime mass shootings I am aware of in the UK involve uncontested cases of murder/suicide: Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derrick Bird etc.  I don't believe the UK had the expertise mid 80's to analyse the SoC to determine JB or SC.  WHF required experts in ballistics, bloodstain analysis and pathology of gunshot wounds.  In JB's case the expert evidence was either lacking or woefully inadequate.  I assume CC was to a large degree dependent on the information he received from others.   

[Holly Goodhead]

John, both I and one of my blue friends can testify to incidences of psychiatrists who believe him to be a psychopath. They came across him/had conversations with him in the course of their duties Neither has given a WS, presumably because they were never asked.

But without an identity and credentials I find these sorts of claims unreliable.  I also find the psychologists in the docu/dramas: Kerry Daynes, David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland unreliable when it is clear none of them have even met with JB let alone formally assessed him and/or considered the other members of the family with long histories of mental illness. 
 
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6891.msg295342#msg295342

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6968.msg300445#msg300445

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6849.msg292112#msg292112

[APRIL]

But without an identity and credentials I find these sorts of claims unreliable.  I also find the psychologists in the docu/dramas: Kerry Daynes, David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland unreliable when it is clear none of them have even met with JB let alone formally assessed him and/or considered the other members of the family with long histories of mental illness. 
 
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6891.msg295342#msg295342

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6968.msg300445#msg300445

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6849.msg292112#msg292112

You're entitled to find them so -in your opinion- but it doesn't make them wrong. In both cases to which I refer, they did interview him. Family history MAY indicate chains of mental illness but it can't be said that because mental illness isn't familial, it doesn't develop in another family member. I would agree, however, that docu. doctors are only voicing their opinions.

[Holly Goodhead]

You're entitled to find them so -in your opinion- but it doesn't make them wrong. In both cases to which I refer, they did interview him. Family history MAY indicate chains of mental illness but it can't be said that because mental illness isn't familial, it doesn't develop in another family member. I would agree, however, that docu. doctors are only voicing their opinions.

I would expect health professionals such as medi doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists etc to take patient confidentiality seriously even in an era when maybe they were not duty bound by the data protection act etc.  If they are going around discussing sensitive information with others unconnected then I would question the integrity and professionalism of such individuals.

https://www.igt.hscic.gov.uk/KnowledgeBaseNew/DH_Protection%20and%20Use%20of%20Confidential%20Information%20in%20Prisons.pdf

It seems prisoners do have rights in this regard too. 

The Bamber family wasn't a biological family.  It was a family engineered socially and rubber-stamped by a legal process known as adoption.  And yet we have a mentally ill adoptive mother, a mentally ill adopted daughter and according to some a psychopathic mass murdering adopted son.  Afaik none of the birth families: Bamber, Speakman, Marshams or Jays have any history of mental illness/personality disoders.  This is what I would like the psychologists and psychiatrists to address.     

[Caroline]

I would expect health professionals such as medi doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists etc to take patient confidentiality seriously even in an era when maybe they were not duty bound by the data protection act etc.  If they are going around discussing sensitive information with others unconnected then I would question the integrity and professionalism of such individuals.

https://www.igt.hscic.gov.uk/KnowledgeBaseNew/DH_Protection%20and%20Use%20of%20Confidential%20Information%20in%20Prisons.pdf

It seems prisoners do have rights in this regard too. 

The Bamber family wasn't a biological family.  It was a family engineered socially and rubber-stamped by a legal process known as adoption.  And yet we have a mentally ill adoptive mother, a mentally ill adopted daughter and according to some a psychopathic mass murdering adopted son.  Afaik none of the birth families: Bamber, Speakman, Marshams or Jays have any history of mental illness/personality disoders.  This is what I would like the psychologists and psychiatrists to address.     

How does that make then wrong about Bamber?

[Holly Goodhead]

How does that make then wrong about Bamber?

Who are these people?  What are their credentials?  When, where and how did they assess JB?  Where's the evidence? 

[Caroline]

Who are these people?  What are their credentials?  When, where and how did they assess JB?  Where's the evidence?

In his prison files I suspect - bet the CT won't be asking for those to be made public.

[Holly Goodhead]

In his prison files I suspect - bet the CT won't be asking for those to be made public.

I have no idea what's in JB's prison file.  I'm sure you will agree that seeing is believing.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg401188.html#msg401188

[APRIL]

Who are these people?  What are their credentials?  When, where and how did they assess JB?  Where's the evidence?

I'm certain that you know it isn't possible for me to reveal that but I can vouch for them having legitimate access to Jeremy. I don't know what evidence you require, but I'm very certain that neither of the persons I refer to were asked to provide evidence above and beyond what was their remit. This in no way invalidates their opinions.