submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[lookout]

Lookout, that's VERY unkind. Mike has told us that everything he tells us IS the truth at the time he says it. It isn't HIS fault that the information keeps changing.

Unless my sight's going,I don't see Mike here ?

[guest154]

You are largely describing yourself all you left out is that you refuse to see the facts as they really are.

I was thinking that.

Lookout, that's VERY unkind. Mike has told us that everything he tells us IS the truth at the time he says it. It isn't HIS fault that the information keeps changing.

Naughty step.

[lookout]

I was thinking that.


Naughty step.

Trust you to put your mutty in. No show without Punch.

[scipio_usmc]

   Are you being ironic deliberately?
    You criticise people for supposedly making assumptions yet you assume that Patti assumes a 50/50 possibility either way. Where does Patti claim that it is a 50/50  chance? Are you just assuming that she does because you have no real examples of Patti's assumptions?
    You also assume that Patti has not evaluated the evidence, based only on the fact that she disagrees with your own assumptions.
    The assumption that the phone call was possible is reasonable and a long winded biased diatribe from scipio does not change anything.

I am not making any assumptions Patti stated the following:

Unfortunately I am not as tunneled as you when there could be an alternative Skip.  My eyes are wide open, if fact they go beyond wide they are vastly open. 
...

Its my opinion that no phone call can be proved one way or the other and to say it did or it did not happen is stalemate, for its unsafe to categorically say one way or the other. On the other hand its a case of what you and I believe.

Evidence speaks, assumptions go no where.

I didn't make any assumptions, Patti was crystal clear. 

Patti has never dealt with the issues I raised which establish the call was not reasonably likely to have occurred.  Nor has any other Jeremy supporter despite being challenged to do so time and again.

Patti chooses to ignore such and just pretend there is no evidence that tells us whether the call happened or didn't and thus there is reasonable doubt over his guilt.  It amounts to creating the fiction the call was possible to create the fiction there is reasonable doubt.

[guest154]

  Were you not aware that she was ill, then, ?
 In Sheila's mind latterly,she thought that everyone was colluding against her to take away her children. Her ex-husband,even her father who she once relied on for support.Everyone was projecting evil,in her mind. She saw her friend Freddie as the Devil. As for her mother,the relationship was always a bad one.

How is it you're so certain of Jeremy's guilt ? Because everyone else says so ??

Yes? So? Doesn't make her a killer. You don't have anything that makes her a killer - just you claim her illness does - it's circumstancial at best - yet you complain the Jeremy evidence is circumstancial.

[maggie]

Yes? So? Doesn't make her a killer. You don't have anything that makes her a killer - just you claim her illness does - it's circumstancial at best - yet you complain the Jeremy evidence is circumstancial.

It may not make her a killer but it could, 22% of women diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia murder, so it isn't an impossibility imo. 

[guest154]

It may not make her a killer but it could, 22% of women diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia murder, so it isn't an impossibility imo.

But there would need to be more evidence to back up the claim. Sheila guilty just because she had paranoid schizophrenia is a stupid arguement unless there is something else to back it up. Injuries sustained on the night, GSR etc.

[maggie]

But there would need to be more evidence to back up the claim. Sheila guilty just because she had paranoid schizophrenia is a stupid arguement unless there is something else to back it up. Injuries sustained on the night, GSR etc.

As Jeremy Bamber didn't sustain any injuries either, why is it a stupid argument?

[guest154]

As Jeremy Bamber didn't sustain any injuries either, why is it a stupid argument?

I said "etc". For Bamber there was Julies testimony there was the silencer. What else was there for Sheila?

Standing up in court and presenting a Sheila is guilty case with the only evidence being "paranoid schizophrenia in her past".....

[Jane]

But there would need to be more evidence to back up the claim. Sheila guilty just because she had paranoid schizophrenia is a stupid arguement unless there is something else to back it up. Injuries sustained on the night, GSR etc.

And whilst a subdued, listless and lethargic Sheila who was taking no interest in her appearance, housework or her children MAY point to being over/under dosed/imminent psychotic episode, it could ALSO point to serious depression which COULD mean she simply wouldn't have had the energy to lift a knife and fork, let alone a gun.

[gringo]

I think it's reasonable to assume Patti meant 50/50, given that she said we can't tell if the call happened or not (got to be one or the other - 50/50). However maybe she didn't mean 50/50 and if not, perhaps she can clear that up by explaining what she did mean? Then we wouldn't need to assume. Also, it was Patti who claimed that believing the call didn't take place (and therefore assuming it meant Jeremy must be guilty) was 'utter rubbish'. Using your own argument, it is also reasonable to assume that the phone call didn't take place - so the 'utter rubbish' comment was also uncalled for and biased?

   I would think it unreasonable to assume that Patti assumes that there is a 50/50 chance of the call happening. Patti believes JB innocent so therefore assumes the call happened.
     Your reasoning is faulty anyway, assuming as it does that the only alternative to not knowing is a 50/50 chance. It is fair to say that we cannot tell whether the call occurred or not, but I would think it more reasonable to assume that Patti places the odds on whether it did or not somewhere between 90/10 and 100/0 given that she believes JB innocent.
     Why would you care enough to know what odds Patti places on it anyway that you would make assumptions in the absence of Patti quoting an accurate percentage for the strength of her belief.

[guest154]

Hopefully Patti will answer for herself what her percentages are and the reasons why - then we can stop guessing. 

[lookout]

It may not make her a killer but it could, 22% of women diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia murder, so it isn't an impossibility imo.

It's all down to Dr Ferguson's report saying that Sheila had deteriorated. I would have liked him to have specified.

[maggie]

And whilst a subdued, listless and lethargic Sheila who was taking no interest in her appearance, housework or her children MAY point to being over/under dosed/imminent psychotic episode, it could ALSO point to serious depression which COULD mean she simply wouldn't have had the energy to lift a knife and fork, let alone a gun.

That is a possibility, am not denying it.  However, am just saying that it isn't out of the question for a paranoid schizophrenic to kill in certain situations.

[gringo]

Hopefully Patti will answer for herself what her percentages are and the reasons why - then we can stop guessing. 

  Why are you guessing? What difference does it make?