Gísli Guðjónsson

[Cambridgecutie]

Here's the bio for the above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%ADsli_Gu%C3%B0j%C3%B3nsson

He is currently assisting the defence in connection with the case of LucyLetby and her "confession".  I understand he is also an expert in false testimony which is what I believe JM's testimony is: JM was coerced by DS Jones into providing the testimony she did based on all sorts of threats: accessory to murder and perjury. 

[Adam]

Julie didn't even testify at the 2002 COA hearing. Although she had flown over.

The chance was in 1986 now she is just used for properganda. 

It is now all about the mysterious 999 call after Sheila killed everyone except herself.

[Cambridgecutie]

And the fact JB is recently on record as saying JM's testimony was based on her being 'a woman scorned' shows how utterly clueless he is. 

[Jonathan]

Gudjonnson got absolutely rinsed by the Court of Appeal in 2024

We see considerable force in the respondent’s submission that Professor Gudjonsson went well beyond the proper ambit of his role. In his written reports and his oral evidence, Professor Gudjonsson in some respects engaged in advocacy of the appellant’s case rather than focusing on objective assessment and dispassionate opinion. Moreover, his explanations for not having included certain matters in his 1991 report were, with respect, unconvincing: if, for example, he had reservations about using his compliance scale to measure what he accepted was a relevant factor, he could have performed the testing and then expressed any necessary qualifications or reservations about the results. Instead, he chose not to do so, and as the passages which we have quoted show, he expressed opinions which were positively adverse to the appellant.

We agree with Dr Beck that it is not clear why Professor Gudjonsson, having interviewed the appellant at length in 1991 and concluded that he was either unable or unwilling to explain his admissions to the police, now feels able to assert that the appellant was unable to do so. Nor is it clear why, if Professor Gudjonsson can now say that the appellant obviously needed a solicitor and an effective appropriate adult at every interview, he did not mention that obvious need in his 1991 report. We note that in his lengthy report to the CCRC in 2003, which included a review of the evidence of Professor Thomas-Peter and Dr Young, Professor Gudjonsson made a number of criticisms of the former, including saying that he did not think Professor Thomas-Peter’s profile and analysis of the case “are sufficiently robust psychologically to constitute new important material”. He quoted passages from Dr Young’s report but did not ascribe to her use of the revised Wechsler scales the importance which he now attaches to those findings. At that time, it remained Professor Gudjonsson’s opinion that the appellant was “unable or unwilling to give a satisfactory explanation for various aspects of his behaviour”.
.
We therefore have considerable reservations about Professor Gudjonsson’s evidence. We think it right formally to receive his evidence as fresh evidence; but for the reasons we have indicated, including the criticisms made of him by Dr Beck, we feel able to attach only limited weight to it. Its importance lies in its confirmation of a number of points made by Dr Beck.

[BarefootDanC]

Here's the bio for the above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%ADsli_Gu%C3%B0j%C3%B3nsson

He is currently assisting the defence in connection with the case of LucyLetby and her "confession".  I understand he is also an expert in false testimony which is what I believe JM's testimony is: JM was coerced by DS Jones into providing the testimony she did based on all sorts of threats: accessory to murder and perjury.

So Julie wasn't lying to the police and to the court to exact revenge on her ex-boyfriend then?

[Adam]

So Julie wasn't lying to the police and to the court to exact revenge on her ex-boyfriend then?

Julie left Bamber on the 27th Aigust to return to London and the job she was abruptly told not to go to at 5am on the 7th August. .

Jones threatened Julie with life in prison for the minor cheque book fraud.

Wait there, she had already completed her 7th Sept WS by then. Back to the drawing board.

[Cambridgecutie]

So Julie wasn't lying to the police and to the court to exact revenge on her ex-boyfriend then?

Yes and no!

Julie lied to many, including the court, because she was *coerced by DS Jones to do so.

*Coerced meaning to persuade an unwilling person to do something by using force or threats; accessory to murder being one such threat.

I seem to recall we have been over this previously. 

[BarefootDanC]

Yes and no!

Julie lied to many, including the court, because she was *coerced by DS Jones to do so.

*Coerced meaning to persuade an unwilling person to do something by using force or threats; accessory to murder being one such threat.

I seem to recall we have been over this previously.

I don't see how it can be yes and no.

Either Julie lied to the police and then to the court to frame Jeremy or she didn't.

If she was lying to frame Jeremy, why would the police need to coerce her into testifying? She was already willing to do it.

[Cambridgecutie]

I don't see how it can be yes and no.

Either Julie lied to the police and then to the court to frame Jeremy or she didn't.

If she was lying to frame Jeremy, why would the police need to coerce her into testifying? She was already willing to do it.

Your post contained two propositions: yes JM lied to the court and no JM didn't lie to exact revenge but to avoid various charges both serious and minor.

[Cambridgecutie]

Never thought I would say this but I"m rather missing Bubo bubo's bizarre conspiracies and snow!'s Aga burns theory. 

[BarefootDanC]

Your post contained two propositions: yes JM lied to the court and no JM didn't lie to exact revenge but to avoid various charges both serious and minor.

Is there any evidence at all that Julie was pressured? Or is it just a theory.

[Bubo bubo]

Is there any evidence at all that Julie was pressured? Or is it just a theory.

A stupid argument if I may say so. If someone exerts pressure on another there is no evidence beyond the two involved and if either tells someone else the other can deny it.

Try this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10693.msg493790.html#msg493790

[David1819]

A stupid argument if I may say so. If someone exerts pressure on another there is no evidence beyond the two involved and if either tells someone else the other can deny it.

Try this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10693.msg493790.html#msg493790

Julie started claiming JB was responsible when eating in Lewisham Pizza Hut with Susan B. There was no pressure there it was just malicious gossiping.

[BarefootDanC]

A stupid argument if I may say so. If someone exerts pressure on another there is no evidence beyond the two involved and if either tells someone else the other can deny it.

Try this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10693.msg493790.html#msg493790

That which may be asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence!

[Bubo bubo]

That which may be asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence!

Exactly but I made it clear that there is no evidence in these situation and was merely suggesting what could have happened not what did happen.