The killlers

[lookout]

How on EARTH could she POSSIBLY know? Are you really prepared to take her word for it or do you just WANT to believe her?

Do we believe other authors ? After all,there have been many quotes from Wilkes's book.Are we also to believe those ?

[nugnug]

How on EARTH could she POSSIBLY know? Are you really prepared to take her word for it or do you just WANT to believe her?

well powell was pro guilt

[Jane]

Do we believe other authors ? After all,there have been many quotes from Wilkes's book.Are we also to believe those ?

Lookout, my take on authors is the same across the board. There ARE moments of truth -that we probably already know- but for the most part they pad out the basics with supposition and speculation to make a better story. Unless they were actually there, it's all they have at their disposal.

[Jane]

well powell was pro guilt

I don't care WHICH side she's on, Nugs. I don't believe ANY of them who tell us what happened when there is no one left alive to confirm or deny. All they're doing is yarn spinning.

[scipio_usmc]

Saying it's ludicrous is not an argument. People having psychotic episodes do ludicrous things, like sometimes murdering people because they falsely perceive them as a threat. Being convinced you are going to win a Nobel prize is ludicrous but that's exactly what my cousin believed.
Ludicrousness or lack of logic, manifest to us, may be an unshakable delusion to a psychotic. Hallucinations are common. Objects may be perceived as larger or smaller than reality.

This is a quote from a medical journal:

'deficits of object-perception and spatial attention shifting are not only associated with schizophrenia, but are common to all psychosis patients. Schizophrenia patients only differed by having abnormally slow right-to-left visual field reorienting. Deficits of object-perception and spatial attention shifting are already present after recent onset of psychosis.'

Going to look in the office closet for a tampon when she had them in her room makes no sense.  TO not only go looking in that closet but to also mistake a large metal object for an object that is much smaller, contained in a wrapper like this is simply stupid:



Nor would such account for the small amount of blood found inside on the first 8 baffles which got there by virtue of being sprayed inside.

And then there is the whole issue that she would have to take it out of herself and put it back...

You surpassed Mike in terms of absurd claims, this is the worst one by far ever made in this case.  It is even worse than claiming they planted blood on multiple moderators.

[scipio_usmc]

Do we believe other authors ? After all,there have been many quotes from Wilkes's book.Are we also to believe those ?

Only when they provide a source to establish they have a solid basis for the claims they are making.  They are not witnesses to any of the events they write about so need to explain what their source is for making claims they make.

[nugnug]

I don't care WHICH side she's on, Nugs. I don't believe ANY of them who tell us what happened when there is no one left alive to confirm or deny. All they're doing is yarn spinning.

no you cant take it as gospel but id give it more sigfifcance if somone who thinks hes guilty says somthing in his favour i mean nobody can acuse her of being a brianwashed suppoerter.

[Jane]

Only when they provide a source to establish they have a solid basis for the claims they are making.  They are not witnesses to any of the events they write about so need to explain what their source is for making claims they make.

And they are unlikely to be able to provide a (believable!!!) source when all players in the scene they've set died long before the book was written. It has the same ring about it as saying someone died whilst they were having a nightmare.

[Jan]

Perhaps it came from Colin? I cant remember exactly what was said in his book but he did say something about feeling guilty about not handing over the letter to NB when he arrived ? There may have been something that made him change his mind?

[lookout]

It would have seemed that their sources were the relatives and Jeremy himself with maybe a little help from EP,I don't know. They did their investigations. They'd have to,to avoid a lawsuit.

As Claire Powell had said,that " it meant reliving a time they would have preferred to forget ", referring to those who'd helped with her book.

[scipio_usmc]

And they are unlikely to be able to provide a (believable!!!) source when all players in the scene they've set died long before the book was written. It has the same ring about it as saying someone died whilst they were having a nightmare.

That is why there are a very limited number of people who could know what happened at the arrival.  Colin would be one, though he supposedly left right away- someone working at the farm who was in the right place at he right time would be the only other potential witnesses.

When you write a book you should not do what we do here.  We typically don't credit well known things.  In writing a book you should credit everything, you should footnote every factual claim you make with a source so the reader knows where you got the claim from and can evaluate whether to believe such source.  For instance if Jeremy is a source of most of the book that surely should be noted but really it should be done with any claim.

In a legal brief to a court (among other legal documents) we have to do that.  Any factual assertion must have the source of the claim in parenthesis after the sentence that makes the claim.  So we have to cite an affidavit, trial transcript or other document for anything we represent to the court because we are not first person witnesses so can't make a claim ourselves we must attribute a claim to a source.  We can't just make factual assertions ourselves.

[Caroline]

Going to look in the office closet for a tampon when she had them in her room makes no sense.  TO not only go looking in that closet but to also mistake a large metal object for an object that is much smaller, contained in a wrapper like this is simply stupid:



Nor would such account for the small amount of blood found inside on the first 8 baffles which got there by virtue of being sprayed inside.

And then there is the whole issue that she would have to take it out of herself and put it back...

You surpassed Mike in terms of absurd claims, this is the worst one by far ever made in this case.  It is even worse than claiming they planted blood on multiple moderators.

I have to agree and like I said, the claim is ludicrous!

[Jan]

That is why there are a very limited number of people who could know what happened at the arrival.  Colin would be one, though he supposedly left right away- someone working at the farm who was in the right place at he right time would be the only other potential witnesses.

When you write a book you should not do what we do here.  We typically don't credit well known things.  In writing a book you should credit everything, you should footnote every factual claim you make with a source so the reader knows where you got the claim from and can evaluate whether to believe such source.  For instance if Jeremy is a source of most of the book that surely should be noted but really it should be done with any claim.

In a legal brief to a court (among other legal documents) we have to do that.  Any factual assertion must have the source of the claim in parenthesis after the sentence that makes the claim.  So we have to cite an affidavit, trial transcript or other document for anything we represent to the court because we are not first person witnesses so can't make a claim ourselves we must attribute a claim to a source.  We can't just make factual assertions ourselves.

I have ready hardly any books about the case - but I guess there are two
 potential reason for perhaps reading them -

1) witnesses can only answer what is asked of them in court and they may wish to say something but not have the opportunity
2) there may have been people who were not called as witnesses who may want to comment about things - not necessarily evidence ,but to refute say for example a comment about someones character.


For example I am guessing that Freddie was not called as a witness ( statement read out) because of his "drug" connections -but having listened to the case he may have had more to say.

So some books could be "interesting" in that respect.

[scipio_usmc]

I have ready hardly any books about the case - but I guess there are two
 potential reason for perhaps reading them -

1) witnesses can only answer what is asked of them in court and they may wish to say something but not have the opportunity
2) there may have been people who were not called as witnesses who may want to comment about things - not necessarily evidence ,but to refute say for example a comment about someones character.


For example I am guessing that Freddie was not called as a witness ( statement read out) because of his "drug" connections -but having listened to the case he may have had more to say.

So some books could be "interesting" in that respect.

Even for those limited purposes you would want the author to attribute claims to specific people including in your example Freddie as opposed to just making a generalized claim something happened without providing any details of how the author supposedly learned of such.

Some books about cases actually quote from testimony and even will have appendices with extended testimony or other documents of interest.  They also sometimes have transcribed interviews the author did with people. I am not trashing books period.  The issue is whether they have such useful things or don't clue one in to where the authors are getting their claims from.   

[Alias]

Perhaps it came from Colin? I cant remember exactly what was said in his book but he did say something about feeling guilty about not handing over the letter to NB when he arrived ? There may have been something that made him change his mind?

He doesn´t say much about Sheila, June or Nevill, but writes about the twins. How they cried and clung to him like never before, begging him to stay. He has to live with this memory, can´t imagine!
I think it must have been open whether he would stay a while or even the night, since the boys reacted like that when he turned on his heel and because he had brought that letter - he would have needed to find the right moment (and guts) to hand it over.
He clearly, for some reason, couldn´t stand being there for one moment and drove off as quickly as he could.