Tim/John
If It was physically impossible for SC to have committed the murders and JB shot himself in the foot by inventing the infamous phone call then on what basis did the CCRC refer JB's case to CoA? My understanding is that the referral was based on the silencer evidence being potentially discredited. Surely if other evidence was strong ie that it was physically impossible for SC to have carried out the murders, or that evidence existed showing that NB did not make the said call then the CCRC would not have referred?
In the absence of satellite/digital technology there's no evidence to confirm the call was made or wasn't made? We can speculate and analyse it until the cows come home but we will be no further forward today than the defense/prosecution were circa 3 decades ago. Surely a conviction should not be based on whether or not a phone call was made when there's no evidence to confirm either way?
I accept that on the surface the prosecution's case is compelling but when I dig deeper I have to run with the defense.
The defense was largely based on SC's mental illness. In this regard the main expert witness was Dr Ferguson. IMO he was conflicted: he treated the adoptive mother, June, in 1959 and then again in 1982. He treated the adopted daughter, Sheila, in 1983 and 1985. There's something very wrong here in many respects.
Then we have the under statement of under statements in the CoA document where June's mental illness is written off as an obsession with religion. Dr F's WS states that June's mental illness circa 1959 was based on severe depression caused by her decision to adopt SC. No mention of this at trial or CoA hearing >@@(*&)
14. June Bamber was also 61 years old. Religion had always played a strong part in her life. In her latter years her interest in this regard had to an extent come to dominate her thinking, to a point that might have been thought to be obsessive. In 1982, she received treatment at a psychiatric hospital in Northampton.
Dr Ferguson - June and Sheila's psychiatrist 1959 - 1985
« on: February 28, 2012, 08:28:AM »
Dr Ferguson (Dr F) was a consultant psychiatrist with many years experience.
1. Upon treating June in 1959 for severe depression caused by her decision to adopt Sheila in 1957, Dr F should have been aware that Sheila was at risk of an 'attachment disorder'. (An attachment disorder is the failure to bond with the primary caregiver resulting in various emotional and psychological problems as evidenced throughout Sheila's troubled life. It is a basic psychological disorder analogous with raised blood pressure in the medical world). Furthermore Sheila would have been at particular risk having already been separated from one primary caregiver ie her birth mother.
2. Did Dr F recommend follow-up treatment in 1959 to ensure Sheila was not adversely affected?
3. When Sheila arrived in Dr F's clinic in 1983, some 24 years after June's treatment for depression, he
should not have been at all surprised to a) find her there and b) find her there with the issues she presented - one of which was commenting on June's lack of warmth towards her. All would have been highly predictable and the obvious outcome of 1959. All exacerbated by adoption psychology which Dr F should have at least been aware of although he makes no reference to this.
4. Was Sheila schizophrenic? If she was, then given the above it is highly likely that it was the result of an attachment disorder, adoption psychology and her difficult relationship with June ie social rather than biology alone. Neuroscientists have found that early trauma, as suffered by Sheila, can change brain chemistry. Psychologists are also much more in agreement now that social factors play a big part in determining whether or not a person develops schizophrenia.
5. Dr F's witness statement refers to the fact that he was mindful of Neville paying the cost of Sheila's private treatment. Was Dr F conflicted? Who was his duty of care to during the period 1959 - 1985, the adoptive parents paying his fees or the emotionally abused adoptee?
6. Was Sheila aware that June suffered severe depression in 1959 as a result of adopting her? Is this something Dr F discussed with Sheila or witheld?
7. Having read Dr F's witness statement and the court of appeal document '02 he seems less than forthcoming. At the court of appeal hearing '02 there is no mention of June's depression in 1959 or the causes of it. Overall he appears very reticent.
8. Sheila met her birth mother weeks before the murders. When Dr F was asked what effect this might have on Sheila's mental state he said he didn't know. At trial he stated that he found it difficult to conceptualise Sheila harming her children or Neville. If he didn't know what effect meeting her birth mother would have on her mental state, just weeks before the murders, how could he be so sure this would not adversely affect Sheila's view of her children and Neville?
9. Had Jeremy have been acquitted the spotlight would have fallen on Dr F, professionally, for not appreciating the gravity of the situation and doing more from 1959 - 1985.
It strikes me that Sheila's mental illness/schizophrenia has largely been viewed as a random event ie having no connection with June's depression in 1959, her early social experiences, adoption psychology and lifelong difficult relationship with June.
