The name's Bond

[GUT]

Hello GUT,

Even if you are being paid, it is still an opinion is it not?

c.d.

Yes it is, but if being paid and holding out expertise you can be sued over an opinion, such as those financiers mentioned earlier.

[c.d.]

Yes it is, but if being paid and holding out expertise you can be sued over an opinion, such as those financiers mentioned earlier.

I don't want to get into a big thing about this because the court will have to decide the validity of their defense. But if I am asked what is the best movie ever made and I say "in my opinion" it is X. How can any answer I give be wrong? I agree that if you are being paid that there needs to be some basis for your opinion but ultimately you are still giving an opinion. You are being paid to give an opinion whether that opinion turns out to be right or wrong is another matter.

c.d.

[GUT]

I don't want to get into a big thing about this because the court will have to decide the validity of their defense. But if I am asked what is the best movie ever made and I say "in my opinion" it is X. How can any answer I give be wrong? I agree that if you are being paid that there needs to be some basis for your opinion but ultimately you are still giving an opinion. You are being paid to give an opinion whether that opinion turns out to be right or wrong is another matter.

c.d.

But the issue is was the opinion given negligently and did a loss flow from same so if I hold out I'm an expert in financial advise, tell you to invest in X, when even the most cursory of checks would show X is on the brink, or your lawyer tells you that in his opinion there is no need to do a title search, when any competent lawyer would do one, and then charge you for that advice, I'm open to a law suit. That's why professionals carry professional indemnity insurance.

But yeah probably off topic and a rather complicated area of law.

[elmore 77]

I would suspect that someone of bonds stature would not have to take the risk of killing and mutilating out on the streets.

Hi Abby,he may have done both,indoors and out.Psychopaths don't conform to our expectations,their mentality is outside of normal peoples experience.They have a capacity for violence that is dreadful,really scary.If I'm right(and I'm confident I am) we have a psychopath running about with an amputation knife,who could kill in the blink of an eye

[elmore 77]

Hello Elmore,

It is common nowadays to have trials where both sides present expert witnesses all of whom have impeccable credentials and who come to completely different conclusions. It doesn't necessarily imply that someone is lying. They are simply giving their opinions.

You seem to be concluding that Bond was lying simply because you don't agree with his opinions.

c.d.

Hi C.D.
He makes a false statement.We all know there is evidence of anatomical knowledge shown by the killer,but he is trying to tell us otherwise and it's not true

[DJA]

I'm an expert in financial advise

ROFL

[GUT]

Hi C.D.
He makes a false statement.We all know there is evidence of anatomical knowledge shown by the killer,but he is trying to tell us otherwise and it's not true

We don't all know that.

Some hold that opinion, others don't.

[elmore 77]

I go with the people who did the autopsies and Prosector ,who taught surgery

[DJA]

Given that he carried chalk immediately before the start of the teaching term,do you reckon that like Prosector he was an anatomy teacher!

[Observer]

I go with the people who did the autopsies and Prosector ,who taught surgery

How can you "go", with Prosector, after ruling out Doctor Bond for the sole reason that he didn't actualy (apart from Kelly) view any of the bodies? He making his assesment that the killer did not possess any skill in either surgery or anatomy by reading and iterpreting the case notes of the other doctors? Isn't that exactly what Prosector has done?

[GUT]

I go with the people who did the autopsies and Prosector ,who taught surgery

Bond was closer to the action than Prosector, he even had the chance to talk to those who did the autopsies, so how is Prosector more reliable than Bond??

Now I am confused.

[DJA]

Interpreter!

[GUT]

Beats me what happened there.

[SuspectZero]

Bond was closer to the action than Prosector, he even had the chance to talk to those who did the autopsies, so how is Prosector more reliable than Bond??

Now I am confused.

I have to go with you on this one. Bond is more reliable. He had first hand knowledge and access to medical experts who also had such knowledge. Prosector did not, and is only interpreting case notes. There is a big difference.

[Wickerman]

There's just a little bit of 'Apples & Oranges' there.

Prosector made his detailed analysis on Eddowes mutilations, not the Kelly case. And, Dr. Bond only studied case notes of the Eddowes murder (along with the case notes of the murders previous to Kelly), though he was present at the Kelly post-mortem.

The two are not truly compatible.