Talk:Karla Homolka

I couldn't work out who said what...
From Psychiatric evaluation:

//Graham Glancy, a forensic psychiatrist hired by Bernardo's chief defence lawyer, John Rosen, had offered an alternative theory to explain Homolka's behaviour, noted Williams in Invisible Darkness, his first book on the case. "She appears to be a classic example of hybristophilia, an individual who is sexually aroused by a partner's violent sexual behaviour, Glancy suggested." Williams later reversed his opinion about her//

The first sentence is hard to follow and could perhaps do with some brackets or something. But if Williams is quoted merely as the source for Glancy's opinion, then we have not been told Williams's opinion, as people often mention opinions they do not agree with in academic writing, meaning that we have been told that Williams reversed his opinion without having been told what that opinion was!

Also, is the name of the defence lawyer necessary or helpful in that particular place, or does it just add to the difficulty of following the sentence?

I was too confused to try to sort this out! FloweringOctopus (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)