I have been rather critical of her book, there is so much omitted and some evidence distorted also.
You can read more of my views on this from the link below.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10153.msg475000.html#msg475000
I've now listened to her in two or three different interviews, and she doesn't come across as piercingly intelligent. I think her talent is in writing rather than critical thinking. She is not a
denker. Probably half the people who post regularly on this Forum have a better grasp of the case than she does, notwithstanding all the interviews and research she did. I love how in the podcast she got worked up about Jeremy having the dog put down. People have dogs destroyed every day for all sorts of frivolous reasons. As if that proves somebody is a mass murderer.
I doubt she carries out all the research herself for these books anyway. I expect it will be more of a team/committee effort and she is the figurehead/chair, she interviews the key players, she pulls it all together in a manuscript, it's then edited by somebody else, and her name goes on it.
I've been thinking over the point I raised earlier.
To recap:
Book - Affects to be neutral, but strongly implies guilt.
Dramatisation - He's guilty, but door left open for some doubt. Maybe it was Sheila? See zombie scene when she looks out of the bedroom window at Colin. What was going on there then, eh? Who knows? Isn't Jeremy a cad, though? On second thoughts, he must be guilty.
Newspaper articles, podcast, social media - He's definitely guilty, it's so obvious you numpty. What's wrong with you?
The puzzle is: If she's so sure, then why all the caution? Let's face it - a book or TV drama can be just as gripping even when we know who the killer is from the start. If anything, knowing who it is can make it all the more interesting. It all boils down to how you want to write it, whether it's a book or screenplay.
One possible explanation is to do with propaganda. Roch may have some input here, as he takes an interest in these things.
A theory I have about this is that, if the subject-matter is complex, propaganda is optimal when they (whoever 'they' are) use implication to encourage people to come to the desired conclusion, rather than straight-out telling them what to think. This sort of subtle, implied propaganda requires a credo or ethos that brings people to a particular coda: in this case, Jeremy is guilty. The reader or viewer thinks he is watching something neutral and he is being allowed to form his own view that he can then debate with friends, family and work colleagues, when in fact he is being manipulated. This is far more effective than the more explicit, in-your-face type of propaganda used by guilters online that relies on simplifications and mantras repeated over and over and that can get people's backs up.
In the podcast and in her newspaper articles and on social media, Carol Ann Lee perhaps falls into an error of strategy, possibly under encouragement from her anxious backers. She reverts to the strategy of overt propaganda, and many viewers, regardless of IQ/intelligence, will find this obnoxious and annoying. A lot of people don't like having their thinking done for them and are offended by such efforts - one of the reasons I sometimes find dogmatic guilters offensive.
The book and dramatisation are 'smarter' in the sense that the propagandising is more implied, allowing the viewer to believe that what they are watching or reading is truly 'neutral', so that when they do what they are supposed to do and make up their minds that Jeremy is guilty, that conclusion is self-validating and self-affirming.
