sorry , have not got a clue what you are on about ? I thought this was a discussion forum and wondered where I could see the full statement.
My mistake .
Thanks for the welcome.
It is a discussion forum. You suggested it made no difference if his comment was in 1983 or not but it makes quite a bit of difference.
I have not found any copies of his testimony in full only excerpts which include claims she was beating herself and banging on walls. (anything good he might have said has not been published only the bad things) That's the best they could do to find claims from him that she was violent, it was not towards others. Freddie was giving her hard drugs then cried to her father about the mental problems it caused, what a winner he was.
The only person who did testify she was violent with was her ex husband. He said she through pots and pans at him when they were married. That was before her treatment began and not all that unusual from a wife even without mental problems. If her father was killed with a pan that would be more credible as somethign she might have done though shy her father would still be a major question.
This pro-Bamber site provide a breakdown of the time he supposedly witnessed her breating walls:
"About a month after Sheila came out of St Andrews for the first time, she contacted Freddie and he gave her money. He said she appeared well but he could see that she had not completely recovered. He goes on to describe an incident which occurred the following time he went to her apartment."
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-itThat following time is suposedly when she was beating walls because the phone went dead.
She got out of the hospital in September 1983 so that means she borrowed the money in October 1983 and he visited her in again in October or November.
So this clearly didn't happen in 1985.
The Appeal Decision from 2002 provides more information about 1985 which is much more relevant than 1983.
"On 3 March 1985 Sheila Caffell was re-admitted to hospital in Northampton. Then she was agitated, very disturbed and in an anxious state. Her thinking was again very involved with the concepts of good and evil, but on this occasion more directly related to excessive religious ideas. She made no reference to any thoughts concerning her children or parents. As before she responded to treatment and was discharged on 29 March 1985."
So during this stay she didn't discuss having problems with her parents or children and gave no indication she had any reason to do harm to them.
In general though she had serious problems with her mother. She didn't mention her mother during thsi breakdown but had in the past. So if just her mother had been killed it might be more likely she was involved in that. But to har her father and children doesn't fit her profile.
"When told on 8 August 1985 that Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then herself, Dr Ferguson said this did not fit "his concept" of his patient. He did not feel she was someone who would actually be violent to her children or towards her father, although she was a highly disturbed woman and had expressed disturbed feelings towards her mother.
In cross-examination Dr Ferguson agreed that Mrs Caffell's condition was well known to her family. There had never been manifestations of violence either when her illness was being managed or when in a highly disturbed state in hospital. In the context of what was alleged to have occurred Dr Ferguson found it possible to conceive of Sheila Caffell wanting to harm her mother or herself but "difficult to conceptualise her harming her children or her father". He had always felt Sheila loved and cared for her children and saw her father as a very secure, caring and strong support in her life."
