Differing statements; Mr Pike and Jean Boutell.

[Holly Goodhead]

Cites have been posted to back that claim up, the cite isn't good enough for you - that's just tough.

I would have thought you would have been a little more circumspect Caro after your involvement with discredited writer Paul Harrison? 

A good author, like CAL, will name their sources.

Talk of an eminent psychiatrist by Wilkes is not worth the paper it's written on if we can't cross reference him/her on the General Medical Register.

https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/the-medical-register

[Caroline]

I would have thought you would have been a little more circumspect Caro after your involvement with discredited writer Paul Harrison? 

A good author, like CAL, will name their sources.

Talk of an eminent psychiatrist by Wilkes is not worth the paper it's written on if we can't cross reference him/her on the General Medical Register.

https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/the-medical-register

What was my 'involvement' with Paul Harrison? He asked if he could use something I posted on the blue forum - I said yes.

CAL didn't name the source for the psychiatrist, she got it from  Wilkes and there is nothing wrong with Wilkes's comment - had it been incorrect, Bamber's legal team would have said so. It might not suit your innocent stance (although you considered he might be a psychopath yourself), but there you go.

Now how about answering my question?

[Holly Goodhead]

What was my 'involvement' with Paul Harrison? He asked if he could use something I posted on the blue forum - I said yes.

CAL didn't name the source for the psychiatrist, she got it from  Wilkes and there is nothing wrong with Wilkes's comment - had it been incorrect, Bamber's legal team would have said so. It might not suit your innocent stance (although you considered he might be a psychopath yourself), but there you go.

Now how about answering my question?

I have to admit to wasting money purchasing Harrison's book which I've since thrown out but from memory he referred to you as a talented researcher? 

Yes CAL did quote Wilkes as her source allowing readers to track back and see the provenance is questionable.

Why would Bamber's legal team pursue?  Which team?  On what basis would they pursue?  Who would provide funding for such? 

Of course I don't think JB is a psychopath.  The comment re the card was tongue in cheek!

How about you identifying the eminent psychiatrist referred to by Wilkes on the GMC register? 

[Caroline]

I have to admit to wasting money purchasing Harrison's book which I've since thrown out but from memory he referred to you as a talented researcher? 

Yes CAL did quote Wilkes as her source allowing readers to track back and see the provenance is questionable.

Why would Bamber's legal team pursue?  Which team?  On what basis would they pursue?  Who would provide funding for such? 

Of course I don't think JB is a psychopath.  The comment re the card was tongue in cheek!

How about you identifying the eminent psychiatrist referred to by Wilkes on the GMC register?

He did indeed refer to me as that,  he was talking about my research on the forum. What else are you implying? I think your tone is down to the fact that you have been unable to answer my question and you've gotten your knickers in a twist but let me remind you that YOU set the challenge and now you're hiding from it. It has implications for your A team and if you don't think there is research out there that found human biological evidence inside a silencer then you didn't research properly!

You don't read things properly Holly, please point to where I used the word 'pursue'? Wilkes was talking about his trial team and anyone could have denied the psychiatrist existed and by the way, so could Bamber. I'm not talking about pursuing a legal case - just simply opening ones gob and declaring that it didn't happen. The devil is in the detail, details you often miss.

[Holly Goodhead]

He did indeed refer to me as that,  he was talking about my research on the forum. What else are you implying? I think your tone is down to the fact that you have been unable to answer my question and you've gotten your knickers in a twist but let me remind you that YOU set the challenge and now you're hiding from it. It has implications for your A team and if you don't think there is research out there that found human biological evidence inside a silencer then you didn't research properly!

You don't read things properly Holly, please point to where I used the word 'pursue'? Wilkes was talking about his trial team and anyone of denied the psychiatrist existed and by the way, so could Bamber. I'm not talking about pursuing a legals case - just simply opening ones gob and declaring that it didn't happen. The devil is in the detail, details you often miss.

Thong actually.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Thong actually.

No wonder you’re so irascible if you spend all your waking hours having your butt flossed by one of them.

[Caroline]

No wonder you’re so irascible if you spend all your waking hours having your butt flossed by one of them.

 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I have to admit to wasting money purchasing Harrison's book which I've since thrown out but from memory he referred to you as a talented researcher? 

Yes CAL did quote Wilkes as her source allowing readers to track back and see the provenance is questionable.

Why would Bamber's legal team pursue?  Which team?  On what basis would they pursue?  Who would provide funding for such? 

Of course I don't think JB is a psychopath.  The comment re the card was tongue in cheek!

How about you identifying the eminent psychiatrist referred to by Wilkes on the GMC register?

Had there been ONE thing in CAL’s book that was wrong, especially where she quoted psychiatrists saying Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath, he would have sued CAL for libel immediately! Don’t be ridiculous, Holly.