I wrote to Elizabeth Yardley and David Wilson telling them I'd like to discuss the Ben Geen case with them and offering to come to Birmingham and give them a talk about the Lucia de Berk case. I pointed out that "being convicted of being a serial killer" is not the same as "being a serial killer". Prof Wilson told me that in criminology one studies people convicted of crimes, full stop. I protested, and they blocked my emails.
It's evident I think that all disciplines have their idea of who can have legitimate questions or concerns. It's a very flat handling of what seems good grounds to offer other insights in the thinking of criminologists. It's hard to understand: it seems pussillimous from a criminology with 30 years experience. Unless he is just satisfied by his own lights of the guilt of Ben Neen. It sounds such a narrow response seeming to say a guilty verdict carries for him the full weight of certainty?
Well, David Wilson has been a prison governor for very many years. I’m sure it’s a hard job. But he’s not an academic, he’s not a thinker. He’s not a social scientist in any good sense of the word and he’s not a psychologist. He does love being in the lime-light.
Read two well researched articles of his ,ome on HCK. Mentions The Dutch case you were instrumental in undoing but no mention of you, Moritz's book mentions the Dutch nurse case but again not you, you appear to be excised or marginalised? Read him on Websleuths too, also good. Quiet an ouvre of books on the criminal mind,too many to dismiss .Seems overlap in your interests so can't think why he wouldn't engage with you.
I told him that I thought that Ben Geen was innocent and that I'd like to discuss the case with him and his colleague, Elizabeth Yardley. I offered to come to Birmingham at my own expense. Seems they found this very threatening.
He does have something of a leveling impact on contradiction, ie brooks no opposition, probably the steel he developed in the prison service. He would probably say a spell dealing with some inmates would develop us. The papers are still good though the new world of the examination of Websleuths for prospective profiling is upon us.
We do not know there is higher incidence of deaths on Lucy's shifts because we have never been told what the ratio was of deaths during her shifts to the number of her shifts, preferably statistically corrected for likely confounding factors.
An FBI profiler, Alan Brantley, gave evidence for the prosecution in the case of Lucia de Berk. He wrote up his experiences in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin https://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gillrd/Brantley_FBI_LEB_jan05.pdf. The psychological features of Lucia de Berk contributed items on Katherine Ramsland's red flag list via an earlier list compiled by Yorker, B. C., Kizer, K. W., Lampe, P., Forrest, A. R. W., Lannan, J. M., & Russell, D. A. (2006). "Serial Murder by Healthcare Professionals". Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(6), 1362–1370.
Other thing would just say don't always agree with you but find you resilient and capable when challenged ,one of the true friends for Lucy I think, however it pans out, she's had a great defender in you, I'm still back and forth with no absolutely settled position. I find it hard to think that somebody at Breadleys level could go mad on an innocent nurse...
Dr. Ann Burgess was in fact the pioneering mind behind criminal profiling. You can read about her work in her book: A killer by design, and the docusereries Mastermind: to think like a killer, is very good too. In short, it was a woman who began it all.
I wrote to Elizabeth Yardley and David Wilson telling them I'd like to discuss the Ben Geen case with them and offering to come to Birmingham and give them a talk about the Lucia de Berk case. I pointed out that "being convicted of being a serial killer" is not the same as "being a serial killer". Prof Wilson told me that in criminology one studies people convicted of crimes, full stop. I protested, and they blocked my emails.
Good grief.
There is definitely a sense amongst the “guilty crew” that the case is determinative, but it is pretty disappointing hearing a criminologist say that!
It's evident I think that all disciplines have their idea of who can have legitimate questions or concerns. It's a very flat handling of what seems good grounds to offer other insights in the thinking of criminologists. It's hard to understand: it seems pussillimous from a criminology with 30 years experience. Unless he is just satisfied by his own lights of the guilt of Ben Neen. It sounds such a narrow response seeming to say a guilty verdict carries for him the full weight of certainty?
Well, David Wilson has been a prison governor for very many years. I’m sure it’s a hard job. But he’s not an academic, he’s not a thinker. He’s not a social scientist in any good sense of the word and he’s not a psychologist. He does love being in the lime-light.
Read two well researched articles of his ,ome on HCK. Mentions The Dutch case you were instrumental in undoing but no mention of you, Moritz's book mentions the Dutch nurse case but again not you, you appear to be excised or marginalised? Read him on Websleuths too, also good. Quiet an ouvre of books on the criminal mind,too many to dismiss .Seems overlap in your interests so can't think why he wouldn't engage with you.
I told him that I thought that Ben Geen was innocent and that I'd like to discuss the case with him and his colleague, Elizabeth Yardley. I offered to come to Birmingham at my own expense. Seems they found this very threatening.
He doesn't like to be criticised. He's irascible, quick to anger.
He does have something of a leveling impact on contradiction, ie brooks no opposition, probably the steel he developed in the prison service. He would probably say a spell dealing with some inmates would develop us. The papers are still good though the new world of the examination of Websleuths for prospective profiling is upon us.
We do not know there is higher incidence of deaths on Lucy's shifts because we have never been told what the ratio was of deaths during her shifts to the number of her shifts, preferably statistically corrected for likely confounding factors.
An FBI profiler, Alan Brantley, gave evidence for the prosecution in the case of Lucia de Berk. He wrote up his experiences in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin https://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gillrd/Brantley_FBI_LEB_jan05.pdf. The psychological features of Lucia de Berk contributed items on Katherine Ramsland's red flag list via an earlier list compiled by Yorker, B. C., Kizer, K. W., Lampe, P., Forrest, A. R. W., Lannan, J. M., & Russell, D. A. (2006). "Serial Murder by Healthcare Professionals". Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(6), 1362–1370.
That is a fascinating insight Richard!
"Remarkably citing a refusal to explain her motive"
Only the true Messiah denies his divinity.
Alright I AM the Messiah. Now — !!
Other thing would just say don't always agree with you but find you resilient and capable when challenged ,one of the true friends for Lucy I think, however it pans out, she's had a great defender in you, I'm still back and forth with no absolutely settled position. I find it hard to think that somebody at Breadleys level could go mad on an innocent nurse...
Dr. Ann Burgess was in fact the pioneering mind behind criminal profiling. You can read about her work in her book: A killer by design, and the docusereries Mastermind: to think like a killer, is very good too. In short, it was a woman who began it all.
Powerful piece, Olly (and you know I don't hesitate to say when I disagree).
cheers G - that one was like wrestling with a bear so it is gratifying indeed to hear that from a discerning critic!