Dr Ferguson said that in March '85 Sheila was was in an acute psychotic state. This was reduced with medication but flared up again when the dose was reduced. She was hostile with the nursing staff. He says that faced with what she saw as real threats she "could respond with physical aggression directed to property, to herself or to others". If she thought the children might be removed from her care Ferguson would have expected a very negative reaction. She would have either withdrawn into depression or become angry and vitriolic. [w/s 30/09/86]
Sheila's parents wanted to put her into a nursing home in Bournemouth, according to Pamela Boutflour. This would sever her connections with her London friends, and reduce her contact with Colin and the children. Although she would have objected, judging by the past her parents tended to overule her wishes. She couldn't rely on Colin's support; his priority was the children. She must have felt alone and powerless. Whether that, combined with the reduction in her medication was enough to reignite her psychosis I don't know, but I don't think it can be ruled out.
Sheila never had another psychotic episode after March, so you’re wrong, again. Show me the evidence that Sheila had more episodes afterwards, Gunit. I guarantee you won’t — because she didn’t have any. That one episode in March was dealt with, and on her follow up visits to Dr Ferguson he said she was improving.
Your unqualified assumption that maybe Sheila suddenly had an episode due to her medication having been reduced is rubbish. Medical studies prove that there’s very little difference in the effectiveness between 100mg & 200mg doses, and as Sheila was so listless, tired and weak on that day, that proves the Haloperidol was more than effective and she wasn’t psychotic.
Psychotic episodes don’t suddenly start up in a flash. There’s signs of a lead-up: and she showed no signs at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. She could barely walk. She hadn’t been in a state of severe agitation for days, which are all the signs of an oncoming episode. She was actually docile and tired — not hyperactive, manic and rambling.
The alleged argument the proven liar, Jeremy claimed took place could not have happened as he later tripped himself up and said Sheila was just “sitting there saying nothing”. He engineered a false scenario to try and give a reason why Sheila may have gone “mad”. But if anyone goes “mad” it’s midst argument: they don’t go off to bed, fall asleep, then suddenly wake up at 3am and storm downstairs to pick up a long rifle — that they don’t know how to use — and start shooting the very sons they so desperately don’t want to lose.
It’s also nonsense to suggest she killed everyone because June suggested she should go to Bournemouth for a “rest”.
It wasn’t a permanent proposal; June obviously thought a break away for a fortnight might cheer her up, and Sheila wouldn’t have gone there despite June’s well-meaning suggestion.
You’re just fixated with trying to suggest Sheila suddenly went psychotic, but what you fail to realise, Gunit, is that psychotic episodes don’t occur suddenly: there’s a long, slow lead-up which is apparent to everyone and are independent of outside influences: so even had there been an argument that itself wouldn’t cause a full blown-out psychosis.
It’s irrelevant whether you think it can’t be ruled out, because you’re not a doctor, you’re not specialised, and the courts would never be interested in a stranger’s unqualified opinion.
