Jeremy Bamber

IsThisTheLife said:
Bamber never murdered anyone. May you live to see your misplaced worship of authority.
Click to expand...
Wasting time round here but it is the most obvious nonsensical moj I ever saw. The relatives stitched him good and proper to steal the farm.
 
Samson said:
Wasting time round here but it is the most obvious nonsensical moj I ever saw. The relatives stitched him good and proper to steal the farm.
Click to expand...
One of the most obvious and most repulsive in terms of those relatives, particularly Robert Boutflour and his daughter Ann Eaton (the real psychopaths in this story IMO).

Boutflour used his masonic old-boy connections to members of the City of London Police to get them to intercede after the Essex police closed the case.

Just repulsive, there's no other word for them.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Wasting time round here but it is the most obvious nonsensical moj I ever saw. The relatives stitched him good and proper to steal the farm.
Click to expand...
Actually, let's remember that what motivated their extraordinary behaviour (and in mitigation, if you can call it that) was what they had to lose if Jeremy Bamber had remained free and had taken control of the estate;

Neville Bamber owned land that he had informally 'leased', gratis, to Boutflour and others (whose names I forget) for years. They were faced with that cosy arrangement coming to an abrupt end.
 
IsThisTheLife said:
Well, it follows from what you seem to be arguing - if someone commits premeditated mass murder and the psychs say they're not mad, then they must be bad, no?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are capable of doing bad things. As shown by the fact they murdered someone/many people.
 
RolandRat said:
Yes, they are capable of doing bad things. As shown by the fact they murdered someone/many people.
Click to expand...
In fairness, Life will have studied the case more than you.
That is the way of the world. The more you look deep into the case, the worse it looks for the Home Secretaries and their callous disregard for the truth.
 
IsThisTheLife said:
Actually, let's remember that what motivated their extraordinary behaviour (and in mitigation, if you can call it that) was what they had to lose if Jeremy Bamber had remained free and had taken control of the estate;

Neville Bamber owned land that he had informally 'leased', gratis, to Boutflour and others (whose names I forget) for years. They were faced with that cosy arrangement coming to an abrupt end.
Click to expand...
David Boutflour was one of the earnest inheritors I think.
I did a transcript here or IA that picks it apart will check.

Here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11544250&postcount=274
 
Last edited:
IsThisTheLife said:
Bamber has had many psychological evaluations, including one over a period of c. two weeks with dozens of hours of face-to-face conversation - no trace of a personality disorder has ever been found in him.
Click to expand...
I didn't say he had a personality disorder.
Could you explain how you have "no problem" believing that he could kill three adults and two young children in cold blood, since presumably that would require a severe personality disorder?
Click to expand...

Because I've seen intelligent people do stupid things. I've seen people lose their temper and do violent things, although, on a personal level, nothing that would rise to the level of causing serious injury.
 
Samson said:
In fairness, Life will have studied the case more than you.
That is the way of the world. The more you look deep into the case, the worse it looks for the Home Secretaries and their callous disregard for the truth.
Click to expand...

This doesn't actually relate to my post. Have you quoted the right person?
 
Matthew Best said:
Just like Heidi Blake?
Click to expand...


There has been a lot written about this case. ISTM Bamber's latest angle, from the GUARDIAN is:

In finding him guilty of the massacre, he believes the court besmirched his family’s name.
Click to expand...

The crime writer journalists make money by feeding the public's fascination. They put forward 'alternative theories'; in this case, the alternative theory is 'schizophrenic Sheila did it' and Hattenstone tries to make a big issue out of possible police misconduct and the press getting Bamber's smile at the funeral all wrong. They spend ages looking for errors or 'things overlooked' in court testimony.

They don't really grasp that typographical errors are only relevant if they have an impact on how the jury would have decided the case. In any criminal case you will find some error or other if one digs hard enough. But the criterion for a jury to find 'guilty' is simply Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. That DOESN'T mean 'no doubt whatsoever' as so many think it does, which is why it has now been simplified to the standard of 'being sure'.

In any criminal case it can be argued 'there could be an alternative explanation/perpetrator' or 'What if, the police and the courts got it wrong?'

For some people, it only takes 'an investigative journalist' like Hattenstone to plant the seed of doubt, which then turns into, 'Wow, it's not beyond reasonable doubt at all as this journalist in the New York Post has written 17,000 words casting doubt on the verdict'. Or 'Simon Hattenstone thinks the police might have been overzealous' not realising Hattenstone has carefully crafted his entire article to provide all kinds of doubts in the mind of the reader with the key claim inserted in that Bamber was only convicted because of a belief he hated his adoptive parents as they were harsh sticklers for Christian standards. So if Bamber can prove - Hattenstone's logic leads us to this conclusion - that far from it, 'Bamber never had no grudge against his parents, who were wonderful and kind, and he'd never hurt a hair on their heads'. What's more it besmirches the murder victims by painting them as someone who were asking to be murdered because of their 'orrible 'arshness'.


And besides, we all know that schizophrenics are dangerous crazed mass killers...


.
.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
There was no reasoning from you worth responding to. Just the usual word salad that ignored everything presented in the two articles.
Click to expand...
OK then. I have read both articles, and much, much, more about Barber's murders.
I consider him very clearly guilty, a dangerous, manipulative psychopath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Were Israelis warned to stay away from WTC prior to 9/11?
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
Scared Chicken
S
M
Taking your Soul back....
2
Replies
78
Views
3K
Yahzi
Y
Darat
Pope confirms Roman Catholic Church separation
Replies
24
Views
2K
Roadtoad
Roadtoad
dimossi
Bible and Spanking Children
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
242
Views
27K
shemp
shemp

Back
Top Bottom