It is never too late to change ones mind.

[Angelo222]

Could we have more debate and less mud slinging please girls.  In my view changing ones mind often reflects a healthy knowledge of a case as long as it only occurs once or twice.  Any more is pure silly imo.

[Holly Goodhead]

http://www.perspegrity.com/papers/NCDD08_Uncertainty_Methods-workshopHandout.pdf

[Caroline]

Could we have more debate and less mud slinging please girls.  In my view changing ones mind often reflects a healthy knowledge of a case as long as it only occurs once or twice.  Any more is pure silly imo.

In a nutshell - thought he was guilty, heard a few things that might suggest he wasn't, realised they were BS and that I was right the first time.

[Myster]

http://www.perspegrity.com/papers/NCDD08_Uncertainty_Methods-workshopHandout.pdf

I hope you don't expect everybody to read through all that psychobull. 

There might have been a chance... if it was as amusing as Tesko's OCD rifle rants.

Just put each other on IGNORE. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I hope you don't expect everybody to read through all that psychobull. 

There might have been a chance... if it was as amusing as Tesko's OCD rifle rants.

Just put each other on IGNORE. 

Hmmm I would hardly call a document produced by the following from one of the world's top unis "psychobull"

http://www.tommurray.us/

[Myster]

Ask anyone else here of their opinion - APRIL, Caroline, John, sika, scipio, pugsy, et al, and they'll agree with me that it's pure gibberish!

[Holly Goodhead]

Ask anyone else here of their opinion - APRIL, Caroline, John, sika, scipio, pugsy, et al, and they'll agree with me that it's pure gibberish!

I have always been interested in understanding how others form opinions about the case:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2624.msg84471.html#msg84471

I don't care if I'm the only person in the world that thinks JB is the victim of a MoJ and in all probability innocent.  I will not be changing my mind unless something I haven't considered causes me to rethink.

[John]

I have always been interested in understanding how others form opinions about the case:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2624.msg84471.html#msg84471

I don't care if I'm the only person in the world that thinks JB is the victim of a MoJ and in all probability innocent.  I will not be changing my mind unless something I haven't considered causes me to rethink.

You are unique Holly in that you appear to still believe that Jeremy might be innocent despite the overwhelming evidence against him.  That is your right and you have gone to a lot of trouble to examine the evidence in some depth. My only qualm would be that you tend to look for the sinister in every event when the true nature of it is there for all to see.

I have found from experience that there is usually some single event in which the determination of any case will succeed or fall.  Can I ask you which event you consider that to be in this case?

[scipio_usmc]

I have always been interested in understanding how others form opinions about the case:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2624.msg84471.html#msg84471

I don't care if I'm the only person in the world that thinks JB is the victim of a MoJ and in all probability innocent.  I will not be changing my mind unless something I haven't considered causes me to rethink.

You made up your mind without consideration of the evidence and have decided to stand by it no matter what thus choose to make up nonsense to try to refute the evidence.

You and others like you remind me of people who get swindled by Nigerian scammers and would rather give the scammers every last dime they own rather than to admit they got scammed and stop sending money.   

[Holly Goodhead]

You made up your mind without consideration of the evidence and have decided to stand by it no matter what thus choose to make up nonsense to try to refute the evidence.

You and others like you remind me of people who get swindled by Nigerian scammers and would rather give the scammers every last dime they own rather than to admit they got scammed and stop sending money.

You mean your ill-informed theories about draw-back, back spatter and GSR where you refuse to take into account that SIZE MATTERS!



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Holly Goodhead]

You made up your mind without consideration of the evidence and have decided to stand by it no matter what thus choose to make up nonsense to try to refute the evidence.

You and others like you remind me of people who get swindled by Nigerian scammers and would rather give the scammers every last dime they own rather than to admit they got scammed and stop sending money.

And you and others like you remind me of:

[Holly Goodhead]

You are unique Holly in that you appear to still believe that Jeremy might be innocent despite the overwhelming evidence against him.  That is your right and you have gone to a lot of trouble to examine the evidence in some depth. My only qualm would be that you tend to look for the sinister in every event when the true nature of it is there for all to see.

I have found from experience that there is usually some single event in which the determination of any case will succeed or fall.  Can I ask you which event you consider that to be in this case?

I think it's probably best I stop there you John...

[Amazon]

Hello posters, long time no posty....

I have always believed JB to be guilty but I have also believed that, if one applied the standards of the JB police investigation in 1985 to how these would be viewed during a trial nowadays, the result might have been different. So, I kinda have a foot in both camps from a CJS perspective. The standard of police investigations in the 70's and 80's was often shocking despite, in the vast majority of cases, a genuine desire on the part of individual police officers themselves to get the 'right result'. In those days, hierarchy often led to a herd mentality which, hopefully, is far less tolerated today.

JB's case I feel is more cut and dried than most, as his own alibi made it him or Sheila, narrowing the possible scenarios. However, I still think about how convinced I was that Simon Hall was innocent - as a lawyer, not as a result of cr*p spewed by his wife etc.

Anyhoo, hope you all are well :) I'll have to stop by more often.

[Holly Goodhead]

Hello posters, long time no posty....

I have always believed JB to be guilty but I have also believed that, if one applied the standards of the JB police investigation in 1985 to how these would be viewed during a trial nowadays, the result might have been different. So, I kinda have a foot in both camps from a CJS perspective. The standard of police investigations in the 70's and 80's was often shocking despite, in the vast majority of cases, a genuine desire on the part of individual police officers themselves to get the 'right result'. In those days, hierarchy often led to a herd mentality which, hopefully, is far less tolerated today.

JB's case I feel is more cut and dried than most, as his own alibi made it him or Sheila, narrowing the possible scenarios. However, I still think about how convinced I was that Simon Hall was innocent - as a lawyer, not as a result of cr*p spewed by his wife etc.

Anyhoo, hope you all are well :) I'll have to stop by more often.

Yes please do stop by more often. 

I am reminded of DI Miller's comment's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OlvzCVrmc&feature=youtu.be&t=40s

"It was a shocking crime in an area where there was very little or no crime"

I don't believe those responsible for analysisng the SoC: police officers, staff at FSS, and perhaps to a lesser degree the pathologist, had the training and experience to deal with a SoC such as WHF.  When you consider modern forensic science and how experts work together to form conclusions there's no comparison with how the SoC was treated at WHF.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes please do stop by more often. 

I am reminded of DI Miller's comment's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OlvzCVrmc&feature=youtu.be&t=40s

"It was a shocking crime in an area where there was very little or no crime"

I don't believe those responsible for analysisng the SoC: police officers, staff at FSS, and perhaps to a lesser degree the pathologist, had the training and experience to deal with a SoC such as WHF.  When you consider modern forensic science and how experts work together to form conclusions there's no comparison with how the SoC was treated at WHF.

I started watching this yesterday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02l4pjs

Two further episodes to follow.

Many thanks to Jan on Blue for highlighting