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

[Cambridgecutie]

Yes. Maybe you're a tad jealous. Did you gain a degree Cambridgecutie?

A tad jealous    Do me a favour.  She looks and sounds ridiculous.  If you can't see her for what she is I can!

I called Paul Harrison out as a fake long before it became an established fact.  People seem to have short memories and never learn.  You can read my posts here from 2015 about PH under the username Holly Goodhead 

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6384.0

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/23847427.carlisle-authors-bogus-claims-feature-bbc-programme/

[Cambridgecutie]

..because she doesn't conform to your idea of what a criminal profiler should be.

A criminal profiler is someone who is appropriately qualified and experienced; everything PB isn't!

[Cambridgecutie]

We only have Jeremy's word that the fostering conversation took place that last evening. Pat discusses it at the 46:00 point.

Of course we only have JB's word that the fostering conversation took place that last evening because those who undoutedly heard it and took part in it did not survive.  But that's not what PB said.  She said no one ever heard anyone talk about fostering at any time and that is simply not true.  CC's mother, Mrs Brencher, refers to a telephone conversation she had with June where June shares her concerns that the twins might be placed in foster care.  This has been pointed out to you time and time again.  I can only conclude you simply dismiss out of hand anything that does not fit your narrative:

I remember just after Sheila's second illness I spoke to June Bamber on the phone.  She conveyed to me then of her concern that through Sheila's illness, the boys might be put into foster homes.  She was obviously against this idea.  I told her with a good family like ours I didn't think that the authorities would allow it.

[Steve_uk]

Of course we only have JB's word that the fostering conversation took place that last evening because those who undoutedly heard it and took part in it did not survive.  But that's not what PB said.  She said no one ever heard anyone talk about fostering at any time and that is simply not true.  CC's mother, Mrs Brencher, refers to a telephone conversation she had with June where June shares her concerns that the twins might be placed in foster care.  This has been pointed out to you time and time again.  I can only conclude you simply dismiss out of hand anything that does not fit your narrative:

I remember just after Sheila's second illness I spoke to June Bamber on the phone.  She conveyed to me then of her concern that through Sheila's illness, the boys might be put into foster homes.  She was obviously against this idea.  I told her with a good family like ours I didn't think that the authorities would allow it.

For goodness' sake. June was only expressing her worries as to the fate of Nicholas and Daniel, over which as a grandparent she would have no legal control (this was codified in the Children Act 1989). That's quite different from what you and Jeremy Bamber are insinuating, namely that June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control, which as Pat Brown points out is a nonsense because the boys had been living with Colin since Sheila's second breakdown in March 1985.

[Cambridgecutie]

For goodness' sake. June was only expressing her worries as to the fate of Nicholas and Daniel, over which as a grandparent she would have no legal control (this was codified in the Children Act 1989). That's quite different from what you and Jeremy Bamber are insinuating, namely that June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control, which as Pat Brown points out is a nonsense because the boys had been living with Colin since Sheila's second breakdown in March 1985.

Your interpretation is irrelevant.  The fact remains that independent evidence exists to support JB's claims that fostering was under discussion which is a far cry from PB's claims.  Neither JB or myself have ever said June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control.  This is what JB actually said in his wit stat of 7th Aug '85:

There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems.

At best you are being disingenuous which is not a good look for someone who claims to be a Christian!

[Jane]

I'm guessing you don't like Pat Brown? A glance at the first few lines of your first post about her made that quite clear. I didn't read any further and I didn't click on the link.

It was a post on a FB page which led me to listen to what she had to say. It interested me. She held my interest. As such, frankly, her qualifications -or, as you claim, lack of- meant nothing. There was no nit-picking, in either case. She didn't wait for the stories to unfold before passing her opinion. So a phone call, in both cases, was a red flag. How many times has it been said here that the alleged phone call, and the subsequent response to it, didn't ring true? I believe I likened it to the first cold read-through of a play before the actors had time to get to know their character?

She made it abundantly clear that supporters latch on to tiny pieces of information, which, in their opinion, denote innocence. She looks at the whole piece. She didn't even bring in the star players, yet you choose to pull in bit players, ie Colin's mother. I think this backs up what she says about tiny pieces of information. I've also claimed, ad nauseum, that, from the time the kitchen door was closed to potential observers, JB was the only one who walked out alive, ergo, the narrative was his, and his alone. He was centre stage. She said exactly the same thing, but it's hardly rocket science, is it? The question is, do we believe it?

Over the duration of your posts last evening, I read you becoming more and more angry. Almost as if you felt she had no right to her opinion. Was it her easy style? A qualified expert mentioning family?!! How dreadfully unprofessional! But she wasn't giving a lecture to academics. She was reaching out to a public, most of whom probably won't have academic qualifications, in a way they could understand. I have no problem with that. And when I think about those names here, all with the required qualifications, and how their views/opinions are criticized as being worthless, by those who disagree with their findings, I can only think this is your reason for such intense dislike. Or might it ben that her views are reaching places that yours aren't? Might Steve have a point?

[Adam]

Your interpretation is irrelevant.  The fact remains that independent evidence exists to support JB's claims that fostering was under discussion which is a far cry from PB's claims.  Neither JB or myself have ever said June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control.  This is what JB actually said in his wit stat of 7th Aug '85:

There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems.

At best you are being disingenuous which is not a good look for someone who claims to be a Christian!

Sheila's control? She couldn't control a tin of beans.

The twins were with Colin & his partner. They had been long term.

[Cambridgecutie]

I'm guessing you don't like Pat Brown? A glance at the first few lines of your first post about her made that quite clear. I didn't read any further and I didn't click on the link.

It was a post on a FB page which led me to listen to what she had to say. It interested me. She held my interest. As such, frankly, her qualifications -or, as you claim, lack of- meant nothing. There was no nit-picking, in either case. She didn't wait for the stories to unfold before passing her opinion. So a phone call, in both cases, was a red flag. How many times has it been said here that the alleged phone call, and the subsequent response to it, didn't ring true? I believe I likened it to the first cold read-through of a play before the actors had time to get to know their character?

She made it abundantly clear that supporters latch on to tiny pieces of information, which, in their opinion, denote innocence. She looks at the whole piece. She didn't even bring in the star players, yet you choose to pull in bit players, ie Colin's mother. I think this backs up what she says about tiny pieces of information. I've also claimed, ad nauseum, that, from the time the kitchen door was closed to potential observers, JB was the only one who walked out alive, ergo, the narrative was his, and his alone. He was centre stage. She said exactly the same thing, but it's hardly rocket science, is it? The question is, do we believe it?

Over the duration of your posts last evening, I read you becoming more and more angry. Almost as if you felt she had no right to her opinion. Was it her easy style? A qualified expert mentioning family?!! How dreadfully unprofessional! But she wasn't giving a lecture to academics. She was reaching out to a public, most of whom probably won't have academic qualifications, in a way they could understand. I have no problem with that. And when I think about those names here, all with the required qualifications, and how their views/opinions are criticized as being worthless, by those who disagree with their findings, I can only think this is your reason for such intense dislike. Or might it ben that her views are reaching places that yours aren't? Might Steve have a point?

I have often wondered about the sort of people that get scammed and I now realise that its more than likely the likes of yourself and Steve. 

[Steve_uk]

Re Bain she also dismissed the gurgling sounds DB said he heard coming from Laniet Bain and yet a pathologist said he could not rule this out:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/laniet-bains-gurgling-explainable-pathologist/J2TSQHE2MCRDS2EFDZBLRMDE3Q/

No wonder she is your go to source Steve.

But that's one case, and you transpose it onto Laniet Bain. How many more victims do you know shot three times ( in the left cheek, above the left ear and on the top of the head) and are able to gurgle fifteen minutes later?

[Steve_uk]

And you still don't if Pat Brown is your only source!

I really can't believe you find this woman remotely credible.

And you still don't if your only source is Pat Brown!

You're in good company: ngb1066 and lookout both don't rate her. David1819 thinks Robin was the killer.

[Steve_uk]

And at the end of her 2 hour ramble she had the audacity to say she thinks civil juries (assume she means lay juries) are not good as they are incapable of understanding the evidence!  Oh and she dislikes defence lawyers as they attempt to defend too much!   

I feel for anyone who takes this woman seriously.  Total fake.

Her argument was the defence sometimes concocts a scenario which both lawyer and defendant know to be  fabricated.

[Steve_uk]

Your interpretation is irrelevant.  The fact remains that independent evidence exists to support JB's claims that fostering was under discussion which is a far cry from PB's claims.  Neither JB or myself have ever said June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control.  This is what JB actually said in his wit stat of 7th Aug '85:

There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems.

At best you are being disingenuous which is not a good look for someone who claims to be a Christian!

Julie states it was Jeremy who broached the subject of fostering to sow discord amongst the family unit.

[Steve_uk]

I'm guessing you don't like Pat Brown? A glance at the first few lines of your first post about her made that quite clear. I didn't read any further and I didn't click on the link.

It was a post on a FB page which led me to listen to what she had to say. It interested me. She held my interest. As such, frankly, her qualifications -or, as you claim, lack of- meant nothing. There was no nit-picking, in either case. She didn't wait for the stories to unfold before passing her opinion. So a phone call, in both cases, was a red flag. How many times has it been said here that the alleged phone call, and the subsequent response to it, didn't ring true? I believe I likened it to the first cold read-through of a play before the actors had time to get to know their character?

She made it abundantly clear that supporters latch on to tiny pieces of information, which, in their opinion, denote innocence. She looks at the whole piece. She didn't even bring in the star players, yet you choose to pull in bit players, ie Colin's mother. I think this backs up what she says about tiny pieces of information. I've also claimed, ad nauseum, that, from the time the kitchen door was closed to potential observers, JB was the only one who walked out alive, ergo, the narrative was his, and his alone. He was centre stage. She said exactly the same thing, but it's hardly rocket science, is it? The question is, do we believe it?

Over the duration of your posts last evening, I read you becoming more and more angry. Almost as if you felt she had no right to her opinion. Was it her easy style? A qualified expert mentioning family?!! How dreadfully unprofessional! But she wasn't giving a lecture to academics. She was reaching out to a public, most of whom probably won't have academic qualifications, in a way they could understand. I have no problem with that. And when I think about those names here, all with the required qualifications, and how their views/opinions are criticized as being worthless, by those who disagree with their findings, I can only think this is your reason for such intense dislike. Or might it ben that her views are reaching places that yours aren't? Might Steve have a point?

Absolutely, Jane. It matters not one jot what her qualifications are. She would have been rumbled by now anyhow, as even if she did an online course there would have to be tutors, who would have called her out by now had she been a fraud.

[Steve_uk]

I have often wondered about the sort of people that get scammed and I now realise that its more than likely the likes of yourself and Steve.

You can take her point of view or leave it. Pat Brown is not a monopoly source.

[Rob_]

You can take her point of view or leave it. Pat Brown is not a monopoly source.

She is entitled to her point of view Steve but if she is going to slate someone who has be acquitted on line she should at least study the case in great detail. I don't think she has?