Stephanie said
And it's duly noted Sandra, as usual, failed to give her opinion on Professor Egan
I tried to explain yesterday that several posts were being made at the time - I did not want to cause confusion by just posting anywhere, then I ran out of time. This habit of Stephanie's of drawing negative inferences because it suits her agenda to do so is as transparent as it is wearing.
My opinion of
any expert who makes public "professional" diagnoses on cases in which s/he has had no involvement is that that expert is behaving in an unprofessional and unreliable manner, and in so doing, bringing the discipline which they represent into disrepute.
Ian Stephen, Paul Eckman and Vince Egan were all apparently guilty of this in the Luke Mitchell case, since none of them had any direct involvement in the case. I have no idea what involvement Vince Egan has had in the Jeremy Bamber case, and can therefore make no comment on anything he is reported to have said about that case.
However, an experience in 2013 creates a proviso to the above - Aamer Anwar was quoted in the Sun apparently making a specific comment regarding the Luke Mitchell case. When I contacted him, he explained that what he had been asked, and his answers to those questions, had been misrepresented in the article, and he went on to print a clear explanation and correction. Therefore, the quotes attributed to these experts may not be accurate, or may not be an accurate representation of their actual opinions of the cases quoted.
Ian Stephen, however, clung tenaciously to his reported "expert opinion" even when, on film, it was pointed out to him that the quotes on which he based his opinion of LM's psychological state were, in fact, lines from a computer game, and he agreed that he had based his entire opinion on what he had read in the newspapers. How can anyone respect an "expert" opinion made on such a basis?
