End of project reflection and method of findings selection

What style of source did I use and why?

I used completely secondary sources as the nature of my source meant that I had little option but to look at prior studies and publications about the two offenders and facts. This massively meant that I was looking at others work, asking what it taught me and how reliable it is. As the case is such high profile, it means that many people know about it already so would have a pre-cognitive bias against the two offenders, believing they should have a higher sentence. 

Why did I feel as though this topic was right for me?

I felt as though this topic was perfect for me, as I ambition to study law later on in life, so thought this would be the best avenue to start that pathway. Everyone has heard about the case of James Bulger, and most people believe that they should have received a higher sentence than they should. My question throughout all of this is "why should they have gotten a higher sentence?"; and "should they really have gotten that higher sentence?" I believe that in my findings I have been able to answer those two questions and ultimately if the sentence given to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson was just and fair. 

How has my management been?

There have been gaps in my project, however this was due to personal circumstances. I then had many examinations along the way, so chose to place my EPQ on the backseat to revise more for those subjects. That being said, I do believe that I have managed to sync my research in such a way that it naturally flows, so there are no pieces of research that do not fit within the general pathway the project would expect to go. 

What will my final project look like? 

Below is a mind map of the 2 main ideas I had to publish my findings, however after considering both options heavily my final project will be a dissertation. This is because it favours my style of project (law heavy) so would be more succinct.