Rachel Nickell case

[JimBHibees]

Truly shocking the way that Colin Stagg was hounded for this while being totally innocent. When he was acquitted a policeman said they werent looking for anyone else. Shocking the way that some people can be victimised in this way. Many weaker people than him would have been unable to withstand the onslaught from police, media etc.

[EskbankHibby]

Read the book "jigsaw man" written by forensic psychologist guy (?Mr Britton). He said that the chance of anyone other than Stagg with similar sexual predilections (i.e. that fitted his profile) being in the area of the murder were miniscule.

This guy Mr Britton felt he had done a good job and the judge that freed Stagg (rightly claiming entrapment) was effectively weak.

[hibsbollah]

Staggs counsel disagrees, said he was fitted up from the start. Can the Met EVER get anything right?:bitchy:

[EskbankHibby]

It would now seem he was fitted up as you say Hibsbollah.

Interesting though as having read the book i thought, my god this boy (Stagg) is going to get away with it.

Just shows you about making judgements on limited information, in my case one book written by a guy with a (now) transparent agenda.

[Just Jimmy]

Read the book "jigsaw man" written by forensic psychologist guy (?Mr Britton). He said that the chance of anyone other than Stagg with similar sexual predilections (i.e. that fitted his profile) being in the area of the murder were miniscule.

This guy Mr Britton felt he had done a good job and the judge that freed Stagg (rightly claiming entrapment) was effectively weak.

Paul Britton is his name.

Forensic pyschopathology is not a science, its subjective therefore objective.

This case was a balls up in terms of Stagg being blamed however.

[EskbankHibby]

Paul Britton is his name.

Forensic pyschopathology is not a science, its subjective therefore objective.

This case was a balls up in terms of Stagg being blamed however.

Is that you Mr Britton?

I enjoyed your book, not sure i understand the bit in bold, is that not a bit like saying it's dry therefore it's wet?

Subjective to me means something that is difficult to quantify (i am happy today, oh really, how happy?). Objective on the other hand suggests exact, empirical data which is easy to quantify (how tall are you? 1.6m).

Didnt suggest for a moment that your profession is an exact science, was suggesting that in this particular instance you and others backed the wrong horse but your book certainly does not convey this.

[Hibs Class]

Read the book "jigsaw man" written by forensic psychologist guy (?Mr Britton). He said that the chance of anyone other than Stagg with similar sexual predilections (i.e. that fitted his profile) being in the area of the murder were miniscule.

This guy Mr Britton felt he had done a good job and the judge that freed Stagg (rightly claiming entrapment) was effectively weak.

Interesting article here. This judge did come in for a lot of flak at the time, with the press especially going overboard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7792338.stm

[Just Jimmy]

Is that you Mr Britton?

I enjoyed your book, not sure i understand the bit in bold, is that not a bit like saying it's dry therefore it's wet?

Subjective to me means something that is difficult to quantify (i am happy today, oh really, how happy?). Objective on the other hand suggests exact, empirical data which is easy to quantify (how tall are you? 1.6m).

Didnt suggest for a moment that your profession is an exact science, was suggesting that in this particular instance you and others backed the wrong horse but your book certainly does not convey this.

afraid not, i'll sign your copy tho :greengrin

you are correct, I meant to type therefore not objective.

your last paragraph :thumbsup::greengrin