Was the twins' future up for discussion?

[mrswah]

I don't think she meant that.

Neither do I.

So, is "birth mother" the correct term to use, or "biological mother", or what?

[APRIL]

I've posted the following previously and I think it's the best possible description of the dynamics:

Infertility is not usually something that "happens".  Rather, it is a reality that is forced on a couple over a period of months which then stretch on into years.  It includes anxieties about sexual performance and bodily intergrity.  It includes medical investigations and the possibility of drugs and of surgical interventions.  It includes the allocation of responsbility for the infertility - to the man, to the woman or to both.  And it requires mourning.

I use the term "mourning" deliberately, as infertility implies some very significant losses.  There is the loss of an image of oneself or of one's partner as biologically intact and capable of conceiving a child.  There is the loss of the hoped-for status of biolgocial parent (which includes a fantasy of presenting a grandchild to one's own parents).  And there is the loss of the hoped-for biological child, a child who carried both one's own genes and one's own dreams.  This last loss, is for many people, an especially painful one.  Paradoxically (except within a psychoanalytic framework) it is this loss of which they often are not conscious.  Fantasies regarding their imagined biological child often remain hidden until they are exposed by a discrepancy between the real adopted child and the imagined biological child.

Unfortunately the adoptive parents' fantasies regarding their (nonexistent) biological child are not at all inactive.  They silently colour many aspects of the relationship between the adoptive parents and their adopted child.  And, of course they are not alone in this process; sooner or later the adopted child also develops his own fantasies about his biological parents.

These fantasies whether they reside within an adoptive parent or within the adopted child - are not necessarily pathogenic.  However, the clinical literature contains many examples of families in which such fantasies prevented one person from seeing the real person in front of them.  (The adopted playwright, Edward Albee, uses an especially powerful example of such fantasies as the focal point for his play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  In this play the "son" of the two major protagonists, George and Martha, is gradually revealed to be a fantasy - a fantasy who has himself wondered if, perhaps, he was adopted.)

If the adoptive parents are to be able to see their adopted child for whom he is, and if the adopted child is to be able to see his adoptive parents for whom they are, they must mourn the loss of their respective fantasied biological child and fantasied biological parents.  The lost (fantasied) relationships must be mourned before the new (real adoptive) relationships can flourish".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Adoption-David-M-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737

In my own case, there's no evidence of my adopted mother's infertility. Her fantasies of what/who her adopted child would become/think was always an alien concept -although I tried- to the person I was, and totally polarized to the person I became. My parents, their values and my upbringing were as close as makes no difference to the Bamber family unit, which is why I had some empathy with Jeremy.

[Common sense]

The Twins have No Future.  The whole Thread is Off Topic.

I agree. Bamber has been taking cheap shots at Sheila's mental state since he met Myall & Bews at WHF and continues to do so through his reprehensible CT.

The evidence that she could have snapped is thin. It's not impossible taken in isolation but her illness made her an ideal patsy and that's what Bamber wanted everyone to believe. If she hadn't been ill, he would have had to come up with a different plan.

There is not a shred of evidence that Sheila did it and nor will there ever be, no matter how hard JB & supporters try to blacken her name.

[Nicholas]

The Twins have No Future.  The whole Thread is Off Topic.

Started by Holly

Who appears to have veered onto another topic entirely

[Nicholas]

I agree. Bamber has been taking cheap shots at Sheila's mental state since he met Myall & Bews at WHF and continues to do so through his reprehensible CT.

The evidence that she could have snapped is thin. It's not impossible taken in isolation but her illness made her an ideal patsy and that's what Bamber wanted everyone to believe. If she hadn't been ill, he would have had to come up with a different plan.

There is not a shred of evidence that Sheila did it and nor will there ever be, no matter how hard JB & supporters try to blacken her name.

Mark Newby is also culpable

Mark Newby has claimed, ‘I can’t say anything other than it was Sheila’
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mirror/20200121/282978221960529

[Holly Goodhead]

Started by Holly

Who appears to have veered onto another topic entirely

At least there's a tenuous link unlike some threads that go off-topic!

Anyway stay calm and keep posting 

[Holly Goodhead]

Neither do I.

So, is "birth mother" the correct term to use, or "biological mother", or what?

I think if you look through literature on the subject the references have changed from natural to biological to birth.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

WHOA!!! This is going WAY too far. I haven't attempted to read a specific meaning to the words he spoke, or to assess what he MAY have meant. I DO have reservations about his view that Sheila had  a "mild" case, as I know about what Schizophrenia does/doesn't do, even more so does Dr Ferguson when he told Colin that Sheila -and I can ONLY believe it to have been his initial assessment of her- would, presumably without medical intervention, worsen. He must have sent her home adequately medicated, ie to prevent a re-occurrence. Re the "mild" case? Maybe it was his way of reassuring Colin? I'm just guessing he'd have made a judgement call about what Colin was capable of taking on board.

Exactly: Dr Ferguson said Sheila needed medication to keep her MILD Schizophrenia under control.

He didn’t diagnose her with Schizophrenia at first; it was towards the end that he said she had a mild form of it. No doctor would lie about a patient’s diagnoses to their next-of-kin in order to reassure them, April.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Dr Ferguson told Colin that Sheila would always have the illness and that relapses would become more frequent and intense. [CAL p115]. That was why he decided to keep the boys with him. June wanted them to stay at White House Farm, but they didn't want to go and became upset. Colin allowed her to see them at Sheila's flat, but that also upset them when she made them kneel and pray. [CAL p116].

It seems to me that the twins would be staying with Colin going forward and that June's influence on them would be restricted by him. I find it believable therefore that June, fearing losing any influence or even contact in the future, was likely to be racking her brains for a different solution.

You cherry pick.

And distort.

Dr Ferguson said Sheila’s condition would worsen IF she didn’t have regular medication. The whole POINT of medication is to allay the symptoms of the illness and live a normal life.

You’re just making assumptions what June was thinking: and you’re a stickler for insisting everyone sticks to the rules and only puts up proven evidence...😳

Whatever, it doesn’t matter what June thought: Colin had custody, not her.

[APRIL]

Exactly: Dr Ferguson said Sheila needed medication to keep her MILD Schizophrenia under control.

He didn’t diagnose her with Schizophrenia at first; it was towards the end that he said she had a mild form of it. No doctor would lie about a patient’s diagnoses to their next-of-kin in order to reassure them, April.

STOP!!! You don't have to take my word for it. Just refer to CAL, the relevant excerpt from whom has been posted by G-Force. By the way, I don't recall accusing Dr Ferguson of lying.

[Nicholas]

IMO SC suffered a disorganised attachment as a result of June's serious mental illness when SC was circa 2 yoa.  The following study shows a correlation between adult disorganised attachment styles and filicide:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261874950_Mothers_who_murdered_their_child_An_attachment-based_study_on_filicide

You’ve mentioned this several times before Holly on various threads

It's not just the effect of adoption but the effect of June's mental illness on SC at a crucial stage of her development with the potential for a 'disorganised attachment'.

Maggie may I remind you that you adopted 2 babies from Sri Lanka in the mid 80's - late 80's.  These adoptions are known as international adoptions and have unique features in terms of ethnicity  and race.  Please do not confuse other types of adoption eg domestic closed adoptions from the so-called baby scoop era.  If you want to make comparisons you need to compare apples with apples not apples with pears!

It would also help if you could quote from reliable sources using peer reviewed research and studies.

All the research shows maternal depression has an adverse affect on babies/children including the risk of forming an insecure attachment eg disorganised attachment putting the baby/child at risk in adult life of a  propensity towards aggression, violence, suicide and filicide.  Having adopted SC, June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment.  I would suggest this was not your typical adoptive mother.  I doubt you will find any relevant expert anywhere who disagrees but if it makes you happy you keep beating the drum.  June didn't suffer depression or any mental illness requiring in-patient psychiatric care when JB was a baby/child and it's this that sets the 2 adoptees apart. 

You have no experience of domestic closed adoptions from the so-called baby scoop era. 

If you're that interested, and it seems to be the only forum topic that interests you enough to emerge from your 'hidden' status, I would suggest you look at David Brodzinsky's book:  The psychology of adoption and skip Nancy Verrier's: The Primal Wound.   

There's no evidence JB had the sort of emotional problems you want to pin on him nor that JB/SC were looking for love and were heavy drug users.  Why don't you just stick to the facts?!

All victims were described in the pathology reports as being "well nourished".  No doubt it mean something specific to a pathologist.

I didn't necessarily mean women that you know intimately, but women that you observe in your local community/workplace etc eg shops, banks, PO etc that have long nails and are constantly putting stress on their nails through their work duties.

I think children absorb a lot from their environment without actually needing detailed explanations.  They are often like sponges surprising parents and others with their new found knowledge/skill without any apparent direct explanations/instructions?  SC was a farmer's daughter and no doubt both consciously and subconsciously observed NB and others loading and firing weapons?  I think it is accepted SC went beating so if she was that opposed to shooting surely she would have declined?   DB is on record as saying SC had very little experience with guns.  I am not sure how much experience is required to load and fire a rifle at mainly stationary targets at close range?  I hope that doesn't sound facetious - its not meant to be - I genuinely have no idea?  Also we have no idea whether SC had school friends etc that may have lived on farms and therefore been exposed to some further experience?  Same for the farmhand SC had a relationship with as a teenager?

Yes I stand corrected it was Sandra Elston.  I think I was getting muddled with another friend/acquaintance who was nurse Caroline Heath?  By all accounts it sounds as though SC was lacking in confidence, gullible, insecure and sought reassurance from others (all features of a 'disorganised attachment') but this might not have been the case with those she knew intimately eg she threw pots and pans at Colin and struck him.   I am not sure that the lack of confidence etc would prevent her from loading and firing a weapon in an environment she was very familiar with against her family due to a distortion in her mind/thinking as a result of her mental illness? 

Simples!  The evidence is overwhelming:

Failure to bond with a primary care giver, in this case due to numerous abrupt changes and June's severe mental illness, is likely to give rise to a 'disorganised attachment'.  This in turn causes neurobiological and neurochemical changes in the brain/body leading to a lack of empathy, propensity towards aggression, violence and suicide.  This was not discussed at trial as it is based on new scientific evidence made over the last 3 decades. 

JB's defence will assert the above and that it accounts for the extreme level of violence inflicted on the victims.  It will be down to the prosecution to counter. 

The 3 CoA judges will be mindful of how the jury would have interpreted the above had it have been available at trial.

I would recommend anyone interested simply Google disorganised attachment’ along with other key words like 'neuroscience', 'neurobiology' and 'neurochemistry'

JB looks the spitting image of my adopted brother in that photo.  Even wearing the same shirt.

The camera never lies or does it?  Interesting to note that JB has his arm around June and SC chose to pick up the dog and hold it with both hands?   &%+((£  Did SC want to incl the dog and excl June or am I getting a bit carried away?   &%+((£

I doubt you will find a psychologist, psychiatrist, neuroscientist in the world that will agree that boarding school had an adverse effect on SC/JB over June's mental illness circa 1959 which resulted in another separation from a 'primary caregiver' for SC and the potential for an 'attachment disorder' eg 'disorganised'.  This is all now fully supported by neuroscience showing that attachment (or lack of) neglect (defined as unresponsiveness) changes brain architecture giving rise to aggression and violence. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg167782#msg167782

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

I don't think so, no. 

I firmly believe that SC's mental illness was rooted in her early POOR relationships with primary caregivers which gave rise to a 'disorganised attachment' and other mental illness.  This is pretty much the basis for my believing JB is the victim of a MoJ so I SINCERELY hope I am right!  My explanation:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

Rufus May, a clinical psychologist, was diagnosed as a schizophrenic and he seems to be of the opinion that his mental illness was environmental rather than genetic. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_May

http://www.rufusmay.com/

The following is an interview by Prof Jim Al-Khalili (President of British Humanist Society  ) and Sir Robin Murray, Scottish Psychiatrist, re mental illness/schizophrenia.  It also features Rufus May at 24.30 in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bwmvt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Murray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Al-Khalili

I wonder if Stefan Kiszko would have been diagnosed with schizophrenia during his incarceration had he not suffered one of the worst MoJ in British criminal history?  Plse see 'Life inside':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

If anyone is interested in understanding more about the title thread I've have just done a Google search on 'Disorganised attachment suicide' with 1,750,000 hits.  I've tried typing various permutations with the following key words which return varying numbers in hits:

Disorganised attachment, neuroscience, neurobiology, neurochemistry, aggression, violence, suicide

[Angelo222]

You’ve mentioned this several times before Holly on various threads

No disrespect to Holly but she has to believe that Sheila was suffering from disorganised attachment to have any hope of liberating Jeremy Bamber.  Colin Caffell was best placed in this territory however and had he seen any signs that she was a danger to the twins or herself for that matter, he would not have left them with her.

[Holly Goodhead]

You’ve mentioned this several times before Holly on various threads

Yes, thanks Nicholas perhaps interesting for the newcomers.

[Eleanor]

Nevill wasn’t horrible or mentally ill, Eleanor. He was the very opposite. Well-liked for his gregarious, fun-loving nature, kindness, generosity and understanding nature. That’s a dreadful slur to make!

Incidentally, psychopaths such as Jeremy are either born with psychopathy or may develop it due to a head injury. It isn’t caused by upbringing at all — it’s a personality disorder that’s untreatable and incurable.

And yet Nevil was prepared to encourage his mentally unstable wife to adopt two small children that she couldn't care for.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The only problem you have is that there's not a shred of evidence to substantiate your post.

I don’t have a problem: Dr Ferguson’s statement is actually in CAL’s book.

I don’t have it at the moment, but I certainly shall post the link