What on earth are you waiting to see? If it's a successful appeal based on psychological guff then I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed.
Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence that Sheila Caffell had psychopathic tendencies... total nonsense!
And BTW, June's depression was just as likely to arise from her inability to have children after the cyst operation than from her adoption of Sheila. I'm sure both parents were over the moon when they took her on board.
When you refer to "psychological guff" I assume you are referring to my claim that SC suffered an attachment disorder (evolutionary basis for survival), most likely disorganised? I appreciate most have no knowledge of attachment in terms of infant bonding with caregivers during the critical period of 0 - 3 years, but I can assure you it is a very real phenomenon supported by decades of research and scientific evidence across all relevant disciplines and across all cultures. Furthermore it is admissible as evidence in the English courts. Please refer to the British Psychologicial Society as follows:
http://www.bps.org.uk/Click on "Psychology and public", "Find a psychologist", "Directory of expert witnesses". Litigation experience = "Criminal". Tick = "Assessment of attachment styles"
I'm not sure the National Scientific Council On The Developing Child can be written off as "psychological guff"
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/activities/council/council_members/However unpalatable and unseemly it might appear that an attractive, slim young mother was capable of the level of aggression and violence inflicted on the victims of WHF, from a psychological perspective SC's disrupted and dysfunctional start to life makes her the likely perp and not JB. And yes she more than likely did suffer from psychopathy - affectionless psychopathy - this is supported by decades of research and scientific evidence not just from a psychological perspective but biological and chemical too ie the stress caused to an infant by an insecure attachment, especially disorganised, is capable of changing the body's biology and chemistry including the architecture of the brain permanently (see link above).
Lets take another look:
- July 1957 - July/August 1957 = Birth mother
- July/August 1957 - October 1957 = Childrens home, Box Wilts
- October 1957 - ? 1959 = NB and June Bamber until June became so depressed as a result of her decision to adopt (SC) she required in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment. At this point SC was placed in foster care.
? 1959 - ? = Foster care
? = NB and June Bamber
The fact most dont see the significance in the above does not mean it is not capable of finding it ways before appeal court judges for them to decide whether it makes JB's conviction unsafe. The prosecution will have a fight on their hands like no other to counter it.
Most aren't adopted. Those that are adopted, at or around birth, usually go from birth mothers/parents to adoptive parents. They dont spend time in a childrens home pending adoption. Once placed with adoptive parents most (I would say 99.99%) dont end up going to foster carers as a result of their adoptive mother suffering severe depression due to her decision to adopt, so much so the adoptive mother requires in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment. It is the culmulative effect on SC of a number of abrupt changes in primary caregivers. And one has to question (surely) the quality of care June provided (or lack of) physical (fed, watered, changed, bathed) and emotional (comforted, soothed, receptive) in the lead up to her admission to hospital in 1959. The fact SC was then sent away to boarding school at 8 yoa with an insecure/disorganised attachment is yet another stressor/trauma. It (attachment disorder) is evidenced based too with SC: expelled from school twice, underachieved at school, no further education (save finishing school/secretarial course and bearing in mind SC attended a fee paying school and hailed from a birth family of academics) two unplanned teen pregnancies resulting in termination, sacked from her job as a trainee hairdresser, unable to hold down a permanent job, unable to form stable realtionships, difficulty parenting children with social services involved, use of recreational drugs, depression, suicide ideation, mental illness, immature (Dr F), under confident (Dr F).
Dr Ferguson's exact words copied from his WS:
"I can say that June after suffering a long period of childlessness was examined and eventually an ovarian cyst was removed. She made a decision to adopt and having done this suffered severe depressions. This was around 1959. She required e.c.t as an in patient and made a full recovery."
I have not seen it mentioned anywhere that June suffered from cancer and/or had part of her reproductive system removed which led to hormonal problems and depression as you appear to be claiming?
I am sure June was a very decent woman on all fronts who had good intentions when she adopted SC. However the fact is she was not suitable to adopt evidenced by the fact it caused her to become severely depressed requiring in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment. An inability to bear children (for whatever reason(s)) doesnt by default make a woman a suitable adopter. June clearly had not accepted the loss of not having birth children. Was she able to accept illegitimate children given her religiosity? Dr Alexina Mc Whinnie from Dundee university highlights the following in her study:
http://www.originsnsw.com/mentalhealth/id5.html"Mc Whinnie also refers to her study about the conditions of religious affiliation for prospective adopters. Her study again shows that other factors are important here, and it should not be assumed that because the adopters are members of a church they would make sympathetic adopters. In fact it would seem important to assess particularly carefully the attitudes of those who hold very rigid religious beliefs since these, if unduly puritanical, might lead them to finding difficulty in accepting illegitimacy and the child born to unmarried parents"
The fault is with the authorities that approved June and for lack of screening. The fact SC was not permanently removed from the Bamber's care and they were allowed to adopt JB beggars belief. And what of Dr Ferguson's role in all of this ie treating June in 1959 for severe depression caused by her decision to adopt SC and then some two plus decades later treating SC for psychiatric problems/mental illness? Was he forthcoming at trial? Imo a resounding NO! How come I covered attachment on the first year of a psychology degree course in the early 80's, which I didnt even complete, and some three decades later was able to recall it and relate it to WHF and Dr F wasnt? I accept the research and science supporting attachment has moved on significantly during the last 3 decades but I believe enough was known at the time of JB's trial for Dr F to have been more forthcoming. And what about his diagnosis and treatment of SC? Was he conflicted? How could he say to SC (when the Bambers were paying him privately for SC's treatment) 'actually I think your issues stem from the fact that your adoptive mother became severely depressed as a result of adopting you'? Did NB ask Dr F to keep things hushed up in 1959 fearful that if social services were advised SC may have been permanently removed from the Bamber's care and they may have been prevented from adopting more children? Why was SC placed with foster carers? Why was NB unable to care for SC supported by other family members eg June's sister Pamela? Were the wider family aware of June's hospitalisation and the reasons for it? (In 1959 DB was circa 12 yoa and AE circa 10 yoa). CC states the following in his book:
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
Were the relatives genuinely concerned or was it a case of hollow words? If genuinely concerned why were they unable to care for SC in 1959 instead of her being placed in foster care? If they were aware that NB and June placed SC in foster then why did they find the idea that June (and NB?) discussed with SC the idea of having the twins fostered so unlikely? AE and RB both rubbished the idea that June (and NB?) were discussing with SC that the twins could be fostered locally. Were SC and JB aware of June's depression as adults? CC makes no reference to it in his book. The only reference I have seen to it is Dr F's WS and Wilkes book where Wilkes simply makes ref to Dr F's WS ie that June required in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment due to her decision to adopt.
How's that for long-winded?
