What Happened To The Soil Samples?

[Caroline]

What goes around comes around.

As for misrepresenting, its claimed this individual who has not been named gave him information. So how else can I put it?

You would do well to remember your own words.

Justice is well within his rights not to name people who are not on this forum, it doesn't make what he has said any less relevant.

[David1819]

You would do well to remember your own words.

Justice is well within his rights not to name people who are not on this forum, it doesn't make what he has said any less relevant.

It makes it as credible as informant Z.

[guest7363]

It makes it as credible as informant Z.

You can goad all you like David, your the very last person I would share names with, you have a habit of grassing them up.

The one thing I did say was this,
Great post Caroline, I was told personal information about Bamber from a psychiatrist I won't reveal it because I cannot then back it up unless I get this person on here which I doubt very much. 

This was from a post to Caroline back in August on the forum

[Roch]

It makes it as credible as informant Z.

You mean like an attempt to draw in the gullible?

[guest7363]

You mean like an attempt to draw in the gullible?

Ha Ha the "converted" Roch, in inverted comas by the way.

[Roch]

Ha Ha the "converted" Roch, in inverted comas by the way.

If people don't want to consider a clue then it's a free world.  If you check my posting history for the entire time I have been on the forum, there's a heavy bias towards probable innocence.  In terms of leading on the gullible - why is it one rule for you and a different rule for others?

[guest7363]

If people don't want to consider a clue then it's a free world.  If you check my posting history for the entire time I have been on the forum, there's a heavy bias towards probable innocence.  In terms of leading on the gullible - why is it one rule for you and a different rule for others?

I think in general terms Roch, my evidence which I also shared with you wasn't designed to convert anyone, I was honest when I said I couldn't prove it, like Caroline we both shared evidence, ok it puts you up for ridicule but hey it's not the end of the world.  My argument is, saying they have evidence and not putting it up for scrutiny.  Roch I trust you and would gladly share their names and everything about them, but it's a bit different sharing names on an open forum when I don't have their permission.  I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I don't think anyone who believes Bamber innocent would believe it if he said himself he'd done it. 

[Jane]

You can goad all you like David, your the very last person I would share names with, you have a habit of grassing them up.

The one thing I did say was this,
Great post Caroline, I was told personal information about Bamber from a psychiatrist I won't reveal it because I cannot then back it up unless I get this person on here which I doubt very much. 

This was from a post to Caroline back in August on the forum

Justice, your ethics are commendable. It would be entirely inappropriate to mention, on forum, the name of a professional person who's had contact with Jeremy.

[guest7363]

Justice, your ethics are commendable. It would be entirely inappropriate to mention, on forum, the name of a professional person who's had contact with Jeremy.

Thanks Jane, she knows I use the forum and she never told me I couldn't, it's my decision not to name them. 

[maggie]

You can goad all you like David, your the very last person I would share names with, you have a habit of grassing them up.

The one thing I did say was this,
Great post Caroline, I was told personal information about Bamber from a psychiatrist I won't reveal it because I cannot then back it up unless I get this person on here which I doubt very much. 

This was from a post to Caroline back in August on the forum

With respect Justice, I do find the fact that a professional person spoke to anyone other than a professional colleague about a patient in the prison service or in a hospital setting surprising. 
This is not a reflection on you but all medical professionals like any other person in a position of trust should never do such a thing as far as I am aware.
As a Student Nurse we, like all practitioners ers, signed an oath that we would not repeat anything concerning patients except in a professional capacity.

[guest7363]

With respect Justice, I do find the fact that a professional person spoke to anyone other than a professional colleague about a patient in the prison service or in a hospital setting.  This is not a reflection on you but all medical professionals like any other person in a position of trust should never do such a thing as far as I am aware.
As a Student Nurse we all signed an oath that we would not repeat anything concerning patients except in a professional capacity.

I think because a lot was passed through family Maggie it probably made it a bit different, she never said anything personal other than what she had formed of him and what she thought of him, the fact they are both retired now, maybe this is why I never shared their names.  Yours and Roch thoughts could have been shared with me when I told you about this person in a pm.  How many people in this day and age kiss and tell in books, at least she hasn't made her observations public.

[maggie]

I think because a lot was passed through family Maggie it probably made it a bit different, she never said anything personal other than what she had formed of him and what she thought of him, the fact they are both retired now, maybe this is why I never shared their names.  Yours and Roch thoughts could have been shared with me when I told you about this person in a pm.  How many people in this day and age kiss and tell in books, at least she hasn't made her observations public.

I think there is a difference between a kiss and tell book and discussing a patient.
I don't believe I would be happy if my doctor or specialist discussed anything about me with anyone unless it was professionally necessary and they had my consent.
JB may be a convicted prisoner but he still has the right of privacy.

[Roch]

I think in general terms Roch, my evidence which I also shared with you wasn't designed to convert anyone, I was honest when I said I couldn't prove it, like Caroline we both shared evidence, ok it puts you up for ridicule but hey it's not the end of the world.  My argument is, saying they have evidence and not putting it up for scrutiny.  Roch I trust you and would gladly share their names and everything about them, but it's a bit different sharing names on an open forum when I don't have their permission.  I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I don't think anyone who believes Bamber innocent would believe it if he said himself he'd done it.

As I recall, you were referring to first hand opinion, regarding the state of his mental health / persona etc.  In that sense, all you were doing was passing on an opinion about something not tangible.  I'm not suggesting their opinion is worthless.  Not at all.  But my situation was different in that I was referring to actual evidence that had not yet been officially used - in other words my hands were tied.  I can understand the scepticism in those circs. - but I think it was wrong to label forum members as dishonest / deceitful etc.  In other words, it was to some extent easier for you to show your hand than it is for me to show mine.

[susan]

I think there is a difference between a kiss and tell book and discussing a patient.
I don't believe I would be happy if my doctor or specialist discussed anything about me with anyone unless it was professionally necessary and they had my consent.
JB may be a convicted prisoner but he still has the right of privacy.

Maggie your comments are very true and I had never looked at it like that before JB maybe a convicted prisoner but he has the right to privacy and findings about him should not be discussed with anyone without his permission.

[susan]

As I recall, you were referring to first hand opinion, regarding the state of his mental health / persona etc.  In that sense, all you were doing was passing on an opinion about something not tangible.  I'm not suggesting their opinion is worthless.  Not at all.  But my situation was different in that I was referring to actual evidence that had not yet been officially used - in other words my hands were tied.  I can understand the scepticism in those circs. - but I think it was wrong to label forum members as dishonest / deceitful etc.  In other words, it was to some extent easier for you to show your hand than it is for me to show mine.

Roch
very well said I for one understand the position you are in and I think it is so unfair for posters to turn the situation into a joke like has been happening.