Pat Brown's Take On JB's Case (and David Bain's)

[Rob_]

She picked out the salient points: the murder weapon being left on the settle and not locked away, Neville would telephone police himself if injured, not leave it to a proxy, Sheila's appearance made it unlikely she was involved in a fight with her father, Jeremy embellished a story about Nicholas and Daniel being taken away from their mother, when it was Colin who had charge anyway.

Robin was supposed to be wearing gloves when there was no point if he were bent on suicide, the ridiculous typewritten part-ungrammatical sentence left on the computer, when it was Arawa who was the star of the family,  the marks on David's person in contrast to the tiny scratch on Robin.

I did not think she had studied the case in any depth Steve so stopped watching.

[Jane]

I tried to watch this a while ago but like you thought she was glazing over a lot of detail.  I stopped watching it after 20 minutes or so.

I thought she picked out the salient points very succinctly. She made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, how easy it is to pull out individual points as -allegedly!- denoting innocence, but it's only the evidence as a whole which is pertinent.

I'd previously known nothing at all about the David Bain case. I really can't believe that a second jury found him innocent.

[Steve_uk]

I thought she picked out the salient points very succinctly. She made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, how easy it is to pull out individual points as -allegedly!- denoting innocence, but it's only the evidence as a whole which is pertinent.

I'd previously known nothing at all about the David Bain case. I really can't believe that a second jury found him innocent.

A few paragraphs here give reasons: https://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bain-david.htm

[Rob_]

I thought she picked out the salient points very succinctly. She made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, how easy it is to pull out individual points as -allegedly!- denoting innocence, but it's only the evidence as a whole which is pertinent.

I'd previously known nothing at all about the David Bain case. I really can't believe that a second jury found him innocent.

I knew about the David Blain case but have not looked at it in detail so not fair to comment.

Evidence as a whole? what does that mean?

There should be tons of damming circumstantial evidence from Julie but there is nothing.   

[Steve_uk]

I knew about the David Blain case but have not looked at it in detail so not fair to comment.

Evidence as a whole? what does that mean?

There should be tons of damming circumstantial evidence from Julie but there is nothing.

He brazenly admitted to police he could enter property whether secure or insecure windows. The murder weapon was in his charge and no evidence Sheila ever discussed killing via rifle. Evidence from several witnesses that he disliked, even hated his parents. No alibi as such.

Julie's evidence corroborated what the relatives suspected.

[Jane]

I knew about the David Blain case but have not looked at it in detail so not fair to comment.

Evidence as a whole? what does that mean?

There should be tons of damming circumstantial evidence from Julie but there is nothing.

I don't believe she thought Julie's evidence as being necessary! It was the alleged call from Nevill which waved the first red flag for her.

[Steve_uk]

I don't believe she thought Julie's evidence as being necessary! It was the alleged call from Nevill which waved the first red flag for her.

She's unique in her insights. I rate her higher than Kerry Danes, Emma Kenny. Professor David Wilson is good too.

[snow66!]

She's unique in her insights. I rate her higher than Kerry Danes, Emma Kenny. Professor David Wilson is good too.

Has prof Wilson ever covered JB, Steve?

[Rob_]

I don't believe she thought Julie's evidence as being necessary! It was the alleged call from Nevill which waved the first red flag for her.

You miss my point it's the lack of evidence from Julie I find alarming.

[Steve_uk]

Has prof Wilson ever covered JB, Steve?

I don't think he has Snow66! I do like In the Footsteps of Killers.

[Steve_uk]

You miss my point it's the lack of evidence from Julie I find alarming.

She's a criminal profiler, so she looks at the murder scene primarily, though she did at the beginning classify crimes into various types as regards characteristics, thus she titles this video as family annihilators.

[Jane]

You miss my point it's the lack of evidence from Julie I find alarming.

Well, it does rather put paid to supporters' claim that he wouldn't have been convicted if Julie hadn't spoken. Interesting that she also dismisses the relatives' evidence.

[Steve_uk]

Well, it does rather put paid to supporters' claim that he wouldn't have been convicted if Julie hadn't spoken. Interesting that she also dismisses the relatives' evidence.

I would have thought the Jeremy supporters would have been pleased Pat Brown didn't dwell on them, which she probably dismissed as hearsay.

[Jane]

I would have thought the Jeremy supporters would have been pleased Pat Brown didn't dwell on them, which she probably dismissed as hearsay.

Should have clarified that such is my belief! She has totally disregarded, as irrelevant, the two information sources so frequently attacked by supporters.

[Rob_]

Well, it does rather put paid to supporters' claim that he wouldn't have been convicted if Julie hadn't spoken. Interesting that she also dismisses the relatives' evidence.

Perhaps I should watch it all? Without Julie I don't see how you can get the case to court even?