Witheld Docs

[Jane]

Doctor Ferguson was not happy at Sheila leaving the clinic when she did. We'll never know why now,I don't suppose.
One thing I do know is that if she was admitted under section 3,that she'd have been deemed a danger to herself and others. Is this the reason that we haven't seen her medical reports ??

I would have thought, as it was an emergency admission, s4 might have been more applicable. Dr Ferguson wasn't happy about her early departure but seemed not to have the authority to countermand it. As Sheila was never on trial, it seems reasonable that her personal reports haven't been released.

[lookout]

I would have thought, as it was an emergency admission, s4 might have been more applicable. Dr Ferguson wasn't happy about her early departure but seemed not to have the authority to countermand it. As Sheila was never on trial, it seems reasonable that her personal reports haven't been released.

I'm aware that Sheila wasn't on trial but it would have assisted all round if her state of mind leading up to the murders,had been as sound as people imagined that it had been.
To have withheld this sort of information made the trial even more unfair than it already was.

Not forgetting that this wasn't Sheila's first admission !

[David1819]

I'm aware that Sheila wasn't on trial

She was. Its a trial within a trial.

[lookout]

She was. Its a trial within a trial.

Well,yes,I see your meaning and I was slightly hesitant when I wrote it as I thought about it afterwards.

[Reader]

I think she did try and reason in her own mind, the mind that later wrote a Maths textbook for Canadian schoolchildren

She didn't write a mathematics textbook for Canadian schoolchildren.

[Caroline]

She didn't write a mathematics textbook for Canadian schoolchildren.

Yes she did https://www.amazon.co.uk/Learning-Pathway-Mathematics-Instruction-Assessment/dp/1553793587

[Reader]

No, she didn't. That's not a mathematics textbook (it's about the teaching and assessment of mathematics) and it's for teachers, not children.

[Steve_uk]

No, she didn't. That's not a mathematics textbook (it's about the teaching and assessment of mathematics) and it's for teachers, not children.

I think you're splitting hairs really. The point I was trying to make with it was that Julie had a logical type brain and not the Mills and Boon type mind which might well have been capable of fabricating stories.

[Reader]

How mathematics is taught has been a hot topic for a long time, so Julie would have had no trouble finding opinions on the matter. She could also use her own experiences as a child. However, that doesn't imply that she had a logical mind, just an interest in improving the education of children.

[David1819]

I think you're splitting hairs really. The point I was trying to make with it was that Julie had a logical type brain and not the Mills and Boon type mind which might well have been capable of fabricating stories.

She had a female type brain.

"Naturally, manipulation with and without its sexual connotation is the predominant purview of the feminine. Some men blindly dabble in Machiavellianism out of anger, frustration or a lust for power, but fewer yet vocationally refine their Machiavellian capacity to a degree beyond woman’s ability. Indeed, much the scope of Illimitable Men is aiding one in this endeavour. You see, the majority of men are effectively clueless in matters of Machiavellianism. Women on the other hand are Machiavellian as water is wet. You’d be hard pressed to find a woman who isn’t Machiavellian, female autists come to mind as a possible exception.

The idiotic man is limited most by morality, the intelligent man, by rationalism, and the woman, neither. For women Machiavellianism is the de facto status quo, her natural way of both conscious and subconscious interaction with the world. Things don’t have to “be logically or morally right” for women to believe in an idea or exhibit specific behaviour. Women have been observed to make noble, moral arguments, whilst surreptitiously behaving contrary to the repute of said opinion.

It is in all the “glory” of dissociation that women can easily manipulate themselves into believing falsehoods via pseudo-rationalisation. This makes them incredibly compelling, as it grants them the capacity to bear-faced lie with a seemingly pure conviction; this is something typical of the feminine, but deemed psychopathic in nature when depicted by the masculine".

[Caroline]

No, she didn't. That's not a mathematics textbook (it's about the teaching and assessment of mathematics) and it's for teachers, not children.

It's ultimately for children's education as such, it's for children. It seems your earlier comment to Steve was just to contradict. There is being pedantic and there is Reader!

[Reader]

Steve_uk suggested that Julie tried to reason in her own mind.  She could hardly reason in anyone else's mind. To suggest she was good at reasoning, he then mentioned that she (her mind) had written a mathematics textbook for Canadian schoolchildren. Very little reasoning ability (and probably no mathematical reasoning ability) is needed to write a book that proposes particular methods of teaching and assessing mathematics.

[Caroline]

Steve_uk suggested that Julie tried to reason in her own mind.  She could hardly reason in anyone else's mind. To suggest she was good at reasoning, he then mentioned that she (her mind) had written a mathematics textbook for Canadian schoolchildren. Very little reasoning ability (and probably no mathematical reasoning ability) is needed to write a book that proposes particular methods of teaching and assessing mathematics.

Have you written one?

[Reader]

No, I find writing rather tedious. I learnt how to do précis writing at school, but don't remember much else in relation to writing.

[Steve_uk]

Does anyone know what is alleged to have written in PC Nicholas Milbank's pocketbook(page 16 of 34)?

http://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber#page=15