Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[ajross]

Hello, lookout, I feel that the lack of professionalism must rest on my own shoulders. It was remiss of me to pass it on, but, like Mat, I found it interesting and thought that you, too, would think the same.

Do you work in this field then?

[Bridget]

Bridget, hi. Gosh, this would be so much easier if I was clever enough to get it all into one post!!! The "two" were, I guess, who ever were responsible for assessing the mental health of prisoners, within that particular health authority.

Thanks April.

To reply to more than one post, once you've finished typing one reply and before clicking 'post', scroll down and look for the next one you want to address (they appear below the reply box) and click the 'insert quote' button in the top right hand corner. Then you get this:

What the heck? I didn't post anything, I just said it was an interesting post.

Ignore it Mat, she wants you to react.

[JackiePreece]

Mat look up the defination of a troll and yes I take screen shots of everything, I have new software on my computer

If I hadnt taken a screenshot a couple of weeks ago I couldnt have proved you were a liar

It is my favourite hobby at the moment and only since you have been around

[Nuala]

Can we have an end to the goading and rows. Thankyou.

[Roch]

Mat look up the defination of a troll and yes I take screen shots of everything, I have new software on my computer

If I hadnt taken a screenshot a couple of weeks ago I couldnt have proved you were a liar

It is my favourite hobby at the moment and only since you have been around

Jackie, this kind of posting is inflammatory.  You had made some peace with Mat very recently. 

[ajross]

Sorry to contiune my running commentary of Wilkes but I have read a few more chapters which have posed a question? What is general opinion of the original defence team? Wilkes sets them up as sort A-team with a challenge, they believed they could win but don't necessarily believe his innocence rather than the idea of an 'angle'. Wilkes then goes on to change tack a little, he moves away from the police and Bamber and establishes Sheila as an incredibly troubled individual which I think is widely accepted but gives evidence from people who didn't necessarily know her very well.

[Nuala]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jackie, the ban mechanism has not been functioning for a while. It is now working again. If you continue to goad others, including me, I shall use it.

[Roch]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

| understand you have concerns about that issue.  We're better off keeping it off the forum though.

[ajross]

I don't want to be impertinent but could we please try and stick to the topic on this one. This thread has had some really good discussion on it until now. I understand that some people have reservations and suspicions of others and that is natural but can it take place somewhere else?

[guest154]

Ignore it Mat, she wants you to react.

You're right, I will.

[ajross]

In the hope of getting an answer i'll repeat my question as it may have got lost in the posts. Can anybody give me their assessment of the original defence team? From what I have just read they seemed very capable.

[Roch]

In the hope of getting an answer i'll repeat my question as it may have got lost in the posts. Can anybody give me their assessment of the original defence team? From what I have just read they seemed very capable.

What have you just read AJ?

[guest154]

In the hope of getting an answer i'll repeat my question as it may have got lost in the posts. Can anybody give me their assessment of the original defence team? From what I have just read they seemed very capable.

It's a hard one. They lost the case so  they didn't do perfectly. Is that because they didn't attack the correct aspects of the case or because they had so much information withheld from them that they had their hands tied behind their back? Could be a bit of both.
Maybe the Jury didn't like the look of Bamber - and trusted Julie more.
I don't think the original defence team ever did enough to prove innocence.

[Jane]

April,
Mat has an agenda just like Bridget they are both members of the Lamberton forum where they put all sorts of propaganda over the internet

Jackie, hi and thankyou for the advice.

Do you work in this field then?

Hello, ajross. I am conversant with client confidentiality.

Thanks April.

To reply to more than one post, once you've finished typing one reply and before clicking 'post', scroll down and look for the next one you want to address (they appear below the reply box) and click the 'insert quote' button in the top right hand corner. Then you get this:

Ignore it Mat, she wants you to react.

Hi, Bridget and thankyou for the useful. Hope I've got it right.

[Roch]

It's a hard one. They lost the case so  they didn't do perfectly. Is that because they didn't attack the correct aspects of the case or because they had so much information withheld from them that they had their hands tied behind their back? Could be a bit of both.
Maybe the Jury didn't like the look of Bamber - and trusted Julie more.
I don't think the original defence team ever did enough to prove innocence.

That's a fair post.