Dr. Ian Donaldson Craig 12-11-86

[lookout]

It's not so much that the police lie. They're very sparing with the truth.

[Roch]

Or perhaps the reason that we don't see corruption in this case is because none exists. There is also no reason for the police to have done anything corrupt - I think I've lost count now of how many times I've asked why they would need to lie or falsify evidence and not received an answer.

There are also those who appear to have an aversion to the concept of Jeremy's guilt, and hide behind the police corruption claim every time their argument stalls... just sayin'

I personaly feel that it's flawed reasoning to suggest the police had no reason to be corrupt.  How likely is it that a case would remain notoriously controversial for 27+ years, soley due to the machinations of somebody in prison, who couldn't even work out from the very beginning that if he told his girlfriend, there might be a chance he would end up in prison in the first place?

I also think it's disingenuous of you to suggest that you've never received an answer.  You've received many answers about why police would need to use corrptive practices but on each occasion, you've chosen to write them off.  The entire forum is based around this, so it's not possible for it not to have come up in forum conversation. 

my own view is that he police are not going to deliberately provide evidence of a bungled raid / fabricated case, alongside their official case.  I've already posted about how absurd I feel it is for people to actually consider that the police would kindly evidence their own corruptive practices, in a uniform manner similar to the actual prosecution case, to enable researchers many years later, to satisfy demands that people 'prove' corruption.  It's like suggesting that a Bank which is cooking the books, retains a second record of it's actual (corrupt) accounts and publishes them, alongside the falsified set, just to help anyone who wants to reference that banks' corruptive practices having taken place. 

There are many anomalies regarding date and location of silencer, i.e. custody in two places at once (just one example). No offence but people like you will always continually reject such evidence and sneer at it and scoff at.  So what's the point in even debating? 

[lookout]

A very good post there,Roch.

[Nickos]

Nickos,,I don't mean to insult your intelligence in any way,but could you look up the term,Akathisia.
You see,,there is far more proof that Sheila carried out those killings while the balance of her mind was disturbed.

Akathisia - Okay I have looked it up.

"Akathisia is most often seen as a side effect of antipsychotic medications, such as Antipsychotics[13] such as haloperidol (Haldol),

I cannot see the connection between this, and your comment relating to far more proof that SC carried out the killings.

As far as I am aware SC was never diagnosed with Akathisia.

And the fact that SC was a diagnosed with schizophrenia is still not proof of anything, other than she was ill.

[-Harters-]

I personaly feel that it's flawed reasoning to suggest the police had no reason to be corrupt.  How likely is it that a case would remain notoriously controversial for 27+ years, soley due to the machinations of somebody in prison, who couldn't even work out from the very beginning that if he told his girlfriend, there might be a chance he would end up in prison in the first place?

I also think it's disingenuous of you to suggest that you've never received an answer.  You've received many answers about why police would need to use corrptive practices but on each occasion, you've chosen to write them off.  The entire forum is based around this, so it's not possible for it not to have come up in forum conversation. 

my own view is that he police are not going to deliberately provide evidence of a bungled raid / fabricated case, alongside their official case.  I've already posted about how absurd I feel it is for people to actually consider that the police would kindly evidence their own corruptive practices, in a uniform manner similar to the actual prosecution case, to enable researchers many years later, to satisfy demands that people 'prove' corruption.  It's like suggesting that a Bank which is cooking the books, retains a second record of it's actual (corrupt) accounts and publishes them, alongside the falsified set, just to help anyone who wants to reference that banks' corruptive practices having taken place. 

There are many anomalies regarding date and location of silencer, i.e. custody in two places at once (just one example). No offence but people like you will always continually reject such evidence and sneer at it and scoff at.  So what's the point in even debating?

Bearing all of that in mind, in particular the lack of evidence of police corruption (for whatever bloody reason), why is it that you insist the police were corrupt in this case? 

Then also, again bearing in mind the complete lack of evidence of police corruption in this case (again for whatever bloody reason), why is it that you find it so difficult to comprehend that people aren't going to buy into the accusations without first seeing proof?

I'd suggest that people simply aren't willing to take the leap of faith that you clearly have.

[Jane]

A very good post there,Roch.

Here, Here

[Roch]

Bearing all of that in mind, in particular the lack of evidence of police corruption (for whatever bloody reason), why is it that you insist the police were corrupt in this case? 

Then also, again bearing the complete lack of evidence of police corruption in this case (again for whatever bloody reason) in mind, why is it that you find it so difficult to comprehend that people aren't going to buy into the accusations without first seeing proof?

I'd suggest that people simply aren't willing to take the leap of faith that you clearly have.

We will go round in circles Hartley.  I just cannot take your assessment of the levels of corruption in the case seriously.  I find the statement above ludicrous, given what is known about the silencer and the records relating to it.  Just forget it.   

[lookout]

Akathisia - Okay I have looked it up.

"Akathisia is most often seen as a side effect of antipsychotic medications, such as Antipsychotics[13] such as haloperidol (Haldol),

I cannot see the connection between this, and your comment relating to far more proof that SC carried out the killings.

As far as I am aware SC was never diagnosed with Akathisia.

And the fact that SC was a diagnosed with schizophrenia is still not proof of anything, other than she was ill.

Nickos,,that's because they weren't aware back in the 80's that such a problem existed. As it was with Sheila,nobody ever knew how often she missed/forgot to take her medication.
The worst thing that happened was the reduction in her haloperidol,as that further increased her already fragile condition. Sheila had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.
At the post-mortem,there was the faint trace of her last intramuscular injection of haloperidol and cannabis. No sign of the other prescription drugs that she had been written up for.
She may as well have swallowed TNT for the state the woman was in.

[Roch]

Hi Roch, I believe you may recall that indeed I am willing to accept that there may have been a form of corruption involved (noble cause).

We don't need to go over the detail again, but I believe it helped the Jury reach the right verdict.

Yes, I find your stance far more realistic, in the sense that it accommodates a form of corruption, albeit allegedly with noble motivations.  I do not believe that you would form that opinion, without suspecting that corruption is indeed indicated, in your studies of the case.

[-Harters-]

We will go round in circles Hartley.  I just cannot take your assessment of the levels of corruption in the case seriously.  I find the statement above ludicrous, given what is known about the silencer and the records relating to it.  Just forget it.

Sure thing.

I really do find it quite ludicrous that you can insist that police corruption has occurred in this case without providing evidence that it occurred.

Theories put together, submitted to and refused by the CCRC is not what I would accept as evidence.

We only go around in circles when you make accusations that anybody who holds a different view to your good self, is being obtuse.

[Roch]

Perhaps this diagram might help:-

Mike, I have only just seen this.  Thanks for responding.  I will studdy this after I have finished of checking the thread started by Curious about the phone bills.

[Roch]

Sure thing.

I really do find it quite ludicrous that you can insist that police corruption has occurred in this case without providing evidence that it occurred.

Theories put together, submitted to and refused by the CCRC is not what I would accept as evidence.

We only go around in circles when you make accusations that anybody who holds a different view to your good self, is being obtuse.

I'd rather avoid conflict on this if you don't mind.  There's bags of evidence.  Bags of it.  It's written large all over the case.  The fact that the CCRC have rejected this or that, is not evidence of there being no evidence.  It is evidence that technicalities can be employed to reject evidence, rightly or wrongly, according to how the law is or is not supposed to work.  Perhaps one day the barrier imposed by the CCRC will simply not be enough to contain matters any further.  Maybe I'm wrong and it will.

[-Harters-]

I'd rather avoid conflict on this if you don't mind.  There's bags of evidence.  Bags of it.  It's written large all over the case.  The fact that the CCRC have rejected this or that, is not evidence of there being no evidence.  It is evidence that technicalities can be employed to reject evidence, rightly or wrongly, according to how the law is or is not supposed to work.  Perhaps one day the barrier imposed by the CCRC will simply not be enough to contain matters any further.  Maybe I'm wrong and it will.

A way to avoid conflict would be to perhaps stop suggesting that anybody who holds a different view to yourself to be blind/obtuse/stupid/thick or anything else that you want to dress it up as.

Just saying. 

[-Harters-]

My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either.

So you've decided that corruption exists in this case and there's no room for any other position?

I don't want to take part in a conflict either, but I can't take you at all seriously with comments like the above, particularly when you constantly accuse anybody with a differing view as being single minded and not willing to entertain alternatives.

[Roch]

A way to avoid conflict would be to perhaps stop suggesting that anybody who holds a different view to yourself to be blind/obtuse/stupid/thick or anything else that you want to dress it up as.

Just saying. 

I hadn't suggested any of those things.  What I had communicated is that from my time on the forum, I have noticed that some posters who support the guilty view, in my opinion, display an aversion to the concept of police corruption or are not prepared to accommodate corruption having taken place in this particular case because it would by default effect their stance. 

But if we are going to go down the route you want (which I am trying my best to avoid), I would say that another way to avoid conflcit would be to ditch a supercilious tone, to anyone who holds a different view to you.

Just saying