UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: G-Unit on March 18, 2020, 03:41:27 PM
-
The Company iformation is here;
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00557667/filing-history?page=1
The earliest Annual Return for this business is 1995 and there are three directors; Robert and Pamela Boutflour and Ann Eaton. No shareholders are listed.
In 1996 the directors are the same and the shareholders are listed. Pamela Boutflour has 4200, June Bamber (deceased) 4250, Ann Eaton & Jeremy Bamber 750 each and Robert Boutflour 50.
In 1997 nothing has changed except Basil Cook is now listed as holding June Bamber's 4250 shares as executor of her estate.
There are no changes in 1998 or 1999.
In 2000 the same three directors are in place, but Robert Boutflour now has 2175 shares (his original 50 plus half of June Bamber's), Pamela Boutflour's and Jeremy Bamber's shares remain as before and Ann Eaton has 2875 (her original 750 plus half of June Bamber's).
It seems to have taken a long time to settle the Bamber's wills.
-
Robert Boutflour has been the Company Secretary up to July 2001, when he resigns, being replaced by Sarah Jane Eaton, Ann Eaton's daughter.
In 2003 the directors remain the same but a new shareholder has been added. Robert Boutflour has now got his original 50 shares and his son David has the 2125 shares which Robert got from June Bamber's estate.
In 2004 the same directors are in place, but the shareholders are different. Pamela B has 4950 (plus 750) and they appear to be the ones Jeremy Bamber owned as his are in the sold or transferred column.
It seems Jeremy sold his shares to pay legal fees. He was paid £18,750
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3721220.stm
In 2005 the share capital is reduced by 750. It seems the company has bought the 750 shares which belonged to Jeremy as Pamela B is now back to owning 4200. Ann Eaton has lost 50 shares, making her total 2825 and her daughter has the 50 shares.
In 2006 both Robert and Pamela Boutflour reduce their holdings, which go to Ann Eaton. She now has 7025, Pamela 50, David 2125 and Sarah Jane (now Robinson) 50.
In 2010 Ann Eaton shares reduce to 50 and Sarah Jane's increase to 7025. Ann Eaton resigns as a director.
In 2012 Pamela Boutflour resigns as a director. In 2013 Colin Downie is appointed. He resigns in 2017 leaving just one director; Sarah Jane Robinson.
At present Sarah Jane seems to be the only director and the majority shareholder.
-
Robert Boutflour has been the Company Secretary up to July 2001, when he resigns, being replaced by Sarah Jane Eaton, Ann Eaton's daughter.
In 2003 the directors remain the same but a new shareholder has been added. Robert Boutflour has now got his original 50 shares and his son David has the 2125 shares which Robert got from June Bamber's estate.
In 2004 the same directors are in place, but the shareholders are different. Pamela B has 4950 (plus 750) and they appear to be the ones Jeremy Bamber owned as his are in the sold or transferred column.
It seems Jeremy sold his shares to pay legal fees. He was paid £18,750
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3721220.stm
In 2005 the share capital is reduced by 750. It seems the company has bought the 750 shares which belonged to Jeremy as Pamela B is now back to owning 4200. Ann Eaton has lost 50 shares, making her total 2825 and her daughter has the 50 shares.
In 2006 both Robert and Pamela Boutflour reduce their holdings, which go to Ann Eaton. She now has 7025, Pamela 50, David 2125 and Sarah Jane (now Robinson) 50.
In 2010 Ann Eaton shares reduce to 50 and Sarah Jane's increase to 7025. Ann Eaton resigns as a director.
In 2012 Pamela Boutflour resigns as a director. In 2013 Colin Downie is appointed. He resigns in 2017 leaving just one director; Sarah Jane Robinson.
At present Sarah Jane seems to be the only director and the majority shareholder.
Not sure what the Eatons business history has to do with the murders either.
-
The Company iformation is here;
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00557667/filing-history?page=1
The earliest Annual Return for this business is 1995 and there are three directors; Robert and Pamela Boutflour and Ann Eaton. No shareholders are listed.
In 1996 the directors are the same and the shareholders are listed. Pamela Boutflour has 4200, June Bamber (deceased) 4250, Ann Eaton & Jeremy Bamber 750 each and Robert Boutflour 50.
In 1997 nothing has changed except Basil Cook is now listed as holding June Bamber's 4250 shares as executor of her estate.
There are no changes in 1998 or 1999.
In 2000 the same three directors are in place, but Robert Boutflour now has 2175 shares (his original 50 plus half of June Bamber's), Pamela Boutflour's and Jeremy Bamber's shares remain as before and Ann Eaton has 2875 (her original 750 plus half of June Bamber's).
It seems to have taken a long time to settle the Bamber's wills.
Why are you showing such interest in a business that’s not yours?
It’s got nothing to do with you — nor has it anything to do with the fact Jeremy Bamber killed all his family
As it happens, all it does show is that the Boutflours have always been shareholders and directors...
It also shows that June resigned as secretary in 1977 and Robert Boutflour took over that position
I don’t know how au fait you are with companies, but I am — I’m a shareholder of a Limited Company and I was also a director until I resigned. A directorship isn’t as grand as you may think: anyone can become a director providing they have no criminal convictions...so you won’t see the perp Jeremy Bamber on there ever again 8(0(*
-
Not sure what the Eatons business history has to do with the murders either.
The police and experts all initially considered the case to be murder/suicide. A review of the case a month later by a DCI who hadn't been involved in the case initially concluded murder/suicide.
The relatives were able to exert a great deal of influence on the investigation from the finding of the silencer to convincing everyone it was possible for JB to exit the farmhouse leaving it secured from within. I think the fact they went on to inherit the Bamber estate which JB would have inherited had he not been convicted is relevant especially to those of us who believe JB might be/is the victim of a moj.
-
Families know who their black sheep are.
-
Families know who their black sheep are.
Or those they see as cuckoos or parasites as the RSPB refers to them.
-
Or those they see as cuckoos or parasites as the RSPB refers to them.
Hmmmm, there seem to be something personal in that comment. Don't you think your judgement is somewhat biased because you share the adoption aspect?
-
Hmmmm, there seem to be something personal in that comment. Don't you think your judgement is somewhat biased because you share the adoption aspect?
I think it was personal when the Bamber children were called cuckoos by their older cousins.
-
I think it was personal when the Bamber children were called cuckoos by their older cousins.
Except we only have Bambers word on that.
-
Except we only have Bambers word on that.
RB seemed keen to relay the 'b........ tale'.
-
RB seemed keen to relay the 'b........ tale'.
Given the Bamber's preference to keep everything in house, and assuming such as event occurred, how would RB get to hear about kids in the playground being nasty?
We are told by CC the extended family did not know SC was mentally unwell and yet RB claims to have known that JB was referred to as 'the b........' at school which must have been some 8 years prior to the murders!?
I think it's more likely that this was how RB viewed JB than JB's peers at Greshams.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Given the Bamber's preference to keep everything in house, and assuming such as event occurred, how would RB get to hear about kids in the playground being nasty?
We are told by CC the extended family did not know SC was mentally unwell and yet RB claims to have known that JB was referred to as 'the b........' at school which must have been some 8 years prior to the murders!?
I think it's more likely that this was how RB viewed JB than JB's peers at Greshams.
In the above diary entry RB finishes by saying no one had heard about June dropping her babies and yet June was clearly bothered about it since she discussed such with Dr Ferguson years after the event:
-
In the above diary entry RB finishes by saying no one had heard about June dropping her babies and yet June was clearly bothered about it since she discussed such with Dr Ferguson years after the event:
Dr Ferguson's stat:
-
RB seemed keen to relay the 'b........ tale'.
How is that proof he was called a Cuckoo?
-
RB seemed keen to relay the 'b........ tale'.
What are you implying, Holly?
I watched the interview with RB when he said Jeremy had said that some of the children at his school called him a B****** after he’d told a few boys he was adopted: RB actually said children can be cruel (which is true) and felt sorry for Jeremy!
However, Jeremy wasn’t popular at school; he was seen as arrogant and petulant even back then; and was generally disliked. If it is true that some of the boys called him the B word — and we only have Jeremy’s word for that — my guess is that, cruel as it is, if a child is mean, arrogant and disliked, they will get teased/taunted by equally unpleasant children.
Whether it’s true or not is anyone’s guess, but if it is, that’s no excuse for Jeremy to kill all his family.
-
The police and experts all initially considered the case to be murder/suicide. A review of the case a month later by a DCI who hadn't been involved in the case initially concluded murder/suicide.
The relatives were able to exert a great deal of influence on the investigation from the finding of the silencer to convincing everyone it was possible for JB to exit the farmhouse leaving it secured from within. I think the fact they went on to inherit the Bamber estate which JB would have inherited had he not been convicted is relevant especially to those of us who believe JB might be/is the victim of a moj.
Yes, and the police — the main one being the inept DCI Jones — failed dearly in their initial investigation. So thank goodness it was brought to their attention hw sloppy they’d been at not pursuing all angles!
And as it happens, all the other police officers DID suspect Jeremy Bamber from day one — but DCI Jones was an arrogant bully and not particularly intelligent IMO. It was DS Jones who was the truly intelligent one...and had he been in charge of the case poor Sheila’s name wouldn’t have been dragged through the mud.
You’re trying to imply that the Eatons created irrefutable evidence, which is utterly ridiculous.
They couldn’t have sprayed Sheila’s blood into the silencer to form the exact same pattern of back spatter — nor could they have got her blood, let alone even known her blood group.
And all the other overwhelming evidence against Jeremy Bamber, which the Eaton’s didn’t even know about, was enough to convict him even without the silencer.
-
Yes, and the police — the main one being the inept DCI Jones — failed dearly in their initial investigation. So thank goodness it was brought to their attention hw sloppy they’d been at not pursuing all angles!
And as it happens, all the other police officers DID suspect Jeremy Bamber from day one — but DCI Jones was an arrogant bully and not particularly intelligent IMO. It was DS Jones who was the truly intelligent one...and had he been in charge of the case poor Sheila’s name wouldn’t have been dragged through the mud.
You’re trying to imply that the Eatons created irrefutable evidence, which is utterly ridiculous.
They couldn’t have sprayed Sheila’s blood into the silencer to form the exact same pattern of back spatter — nor could they have got her blood, let alone even known her blood group.
And all the other overwhelming evidence against Jeremy Bamber, which the Eaton’s didn’t even know about, was enough to convict him even without the silencer.
ALL the other police officers suspected Jeremy Bamber from day 1????
-
ALL the other police officers suspected Jeremy Bamber from day 1????
Yes, they did
The very first officer on the scene was suspicious of Jeremy, and other officers who came alone were too — but DCI Taff Jones insisted it was a murder/suicide because he didn’t do the most basic checks and wanted to go off and play golf. There was even rumours that he was suffering from a brain tumour, such was his bizarre behaviour.
And the pathologist was also uneasy about Sheila killing herself: in fact, he was furious when he discovered DCI Jones had withheld vital information from him when he carried out the post mortems
-
Yes, they did
The very first officer on the scene was suspicious of Jeremy, and other officers who came alone were too — but DCI Taff Jones insisted it was a murder/suicide because he didn’t do the most basic checks and wanted to go off and play golf. There was even rumours that he was suffering from a brain tumour, such was his bizarre behaviour.
And the pathologist was also uneasy about Sheila killing herself: in fact, he was furious when he discovered DCI Jones had withheld vital information from him when he carried out the post mortems
It's not impossible that 'Welsh' Jones stuck to his not guilty guns because he wanted -needed- that to be the case to stop him looking incompetent. The series may have embroidered his character slightly, but I've been told by two independent sources who knew him personally and had regular dealings with him, that how he was portrayed wasn't far short of the mark. He was my friend's late husband's immediate senior. My friend's late husband, was adamant that he was guilty. Made for a rather difficult working relationship.
-
Yes, they did
The very first officer on the scene was suspicious of Jeremy, and other officers who came alone were too — but DCI Taff Jones insisted it was a murder/suicide because he didn’t do the most basic checks and wanted to go off and play golf. There was even rumours that he was suffering from a brain tumour, such was his bizarre behaviour.
And the pathologist was also uneasy about Sheila killing herself: in fact, he was furious when he discovered DCI Jones had withheld vital information from him when he carried out the post mortems
This has to stop. You are posting up way too much misinformation. If you wish to assert something you need to either post up a cite/source supporting your assertion or make clear what you're asserting is your opinion.
The most senior officer first at soc was Chief Sup Harris who accepted the soc as murder/suicide along with police surgeon Dr Craig (as per statements in library).
DCI Jones did not go off to play golf. He went to a pre-arranged meeting at Chelmsford GPO with Chief Sup Harris. (CAL's book).
The pathologist (Dr Vanezis) did not find anything to contradict murder/suicide and confirms the only dissenter was DS Jones (pathology reports as per library).
On what basis was Dr Vanezis "furious" with DCI Jones? If you're unable to substantiate you need to make clear it's your opinion.
-
It's not impossible that 'Welsh' Jones stuck to his not guilty guns because he wanted -needed- that to be the case to stop him looking incompetent. The series may have embroidered his character slightly, but I've been told by two independent sources who knew him personally and had regular dealings with him, that how he was portrayed wasn't far short of the mark. He was my friend's late husband's immediate senior. My friend's late husband, was adamant that he was guilty. Made for a rather difficult working relationship.
I absolutely agree.
Taff Jones only stayed at the SOC for 15 minutes — that’s shocking.
Whatever his reasons were to wrap the case up all “tidy” as the Welsh say, is anyone’s guess, but from what I’ve heard about him, he was an extremely difficult man and dreadfully arrogant.
Not sure if he was short — he looked it in the drama — but if he was, maybe he was suffering from a Napoleon complex. He certainly seemed to have a giant chip on his shoulder, and a colleague of his said Taff wouldn’t have admitted he was wrong “in a thousand years” — which shows he had ego problems, besides being incompetent, sloppy, and not that bright. It beggars belief how he got to the rank of DCI, but back then it was all “old school” and “who knew who”...
Thank God Stan Jones was intelligent and honourable.
-
It's not impossible that 'Welsh' Jones stuck to his not guilty guns because he wanted -needed- that to be the case to stop him looking incompetent. The series may have embroidered his character slightly, but I've been told by two independent sources who knew him personally and had regular dealings with him, that how he was portrayed wasn't far short of the mark. He was my friend's late husband's immediate senior. My friend's late husband, was adamant that he was guilty. Made for a rather difficult working relationship.
Why would DCI Jones look incompetent when a higher ranking officer officer accepted the scene as murder/suicide long before DCI Jones even arrived?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=157.msg1746#msg1746
-
This has to stop. You are posting up way too much misinformation. If you wish to assert something you need to either post up a cite/source supporting your assertion or make clear what you're asserting is your opinion.
The most senior officer first at soc was Chief Sup Harris who accepted the soc as murder/suicide along with police surgeon Dr Craig (as per statements in library).
DCI Jones did not go off to play golf. He went to a pre-arranged meeting at Chelmsford GPO with Chief Sup Harris. (CAL's book).
The pathologist (Dr Vanezis) did not find anything to contradict murder/suicide and confirms the only dissenter was DS Jones (pathology reports as per library).
On what basis was Dr Vanezis "furious" with DCI Jones? If you're unable to substantiate you need to make clear it's your opinion.
I’m off out so don’t have time to post links and proof, but what I can tell you, Holly, EVERYTHING I post has been verified by witnesses unless I say otherwise
Maybe you’re spending too much time reading the wrong links, and that’s why you’re missing the correct information
Such as the Bamber ones created by his batty team who tell so many lies; distort so many things; they all look extremely odd.
However, to appease you I’ll post the links later
Have a swell day 😷
-
I absolutely agree.
Taff Jones only stayed at the SOC for 15 minutes — that’s shocking.
Whatever his reasons were to wrap the case it all “tidy” as the Welsh say, is anyone’s guess, but from what I’ve heard about him too he was an extremely difficult man and dreadfully arrogant.
Not sure if he was short — he looked it in the drams — but if he was maybe he was suffering from a Napoleon complex. He certainly seemed to have a giant chip on his shoulder, and a colleague of his said Taff wouldn’t have admitted he was wrong “in a thousand years” — which shows he had ego problems, besides being incompetent, sloppy, and not that bright. It beggars belief how he got to the rank of DCI, but back then it was all “old school” and “who knew who”...
Thank God Stan Jones was intelligent and honourable.
Napoleon complex, or LMS, certainly comes to mind. There's a story -probably apocryphal!!- doing the rounds which has him standing on the feet of those to whom he was giving a bxxxxxxing to prevent them from walking away! It seems as if he may have had kow towing down to a fine art.
-
Napoleon complex, or LMS, certainly comes to mind. There's a story -probably apocryphal!!- doing the rounds which has him standing on the feet of those to whom he was giving a bxxxxxxing to prevent them from walking away! It seems as if he may have had kow towing down to a fine art.
APRIL we're interested in facts not stories!
-
APRIL we're interested in facts not stories!
I can't swear that it's NOT a fact, only allowing that it may not have been.
-
I can't swear that it's NOT a fact, only allowing that it may not have been.
I've never understood the DCI Jones bashing when a) he wasn't responsible for accepting the soc as murder/suicide and b) he died in a tragic accident May '86 and hasn't been around to defend himself.
-
I absolutely agree.
Taff Jones only stayed at the SOC for 15 minutes — that’s shocking.
Whatever his reasons were to wrap the case it all “tidy” as the Welsh say, is anyone’s guess, but from what I’ve heard about him too he was an extremely difficult man and dreadfully arrogant.
Not sure if he was short — he looked it in the drams — but if he was maybe he was suffering from a Napoleon complex. He certainly seemed to have a giant chip on his shoulder, and a colleague of his said Taff wouldn’t have admitted he was wrong “in a thousand years” — which shows he had ego problems, besides being incompetent, sloppy, and not that bright. It beggars belief how he got to the rank of DCI, but back then it was all “old school” and “who knew who”...
Thank God Stan Jones was intelligent and honourable.
You are forgetting Chief Sup Harris arrived on the scene long before DCI Jones and along with police surgeon Dr Craig the pair accepted the scene as murder/suicide.
DCI Jones became the fall guy, unfortunately quite literally, when he fell from a ladder carrying out some DIY at home and met his untimely death. It's easy for everyone, including TV producers, to denigrate an officer that died less than a year after the murders.
-
You are forgetting Chief Sup Harris arrived on the scene long before DCI Jones and along with police surgeon Dr Craig the pair accepted the scene as murder/suicide.
DCI Jones became the fall guy, unfortunately quite literally, when he fell from a ladder carrying out some DIY at home and met his untimely death. It's easy for everyone, including TV producers, to denigrate an officer that died less than a year after the murders.
Having got the 'gen' from Jeremy, they probably didn't see anything to immediately suggest it wasn't. I wouldn't have thought it the place of a police surgeon to make a definitive pronouncement on COD.
I think it's worth considering that the TV producers didn't make ad hoc personalities for the characters. I have NO wish to speak ill of the dead -and I DO allow for some embroidery- but it seems that 'Welsh' Jones was not, irrelevant of whether his colleagues believed Jeremy innocent or guilty, generally liked.
-
Yes, they did
The very first officer on the scene was suspicious of Jeremy, and other officers who came alone were too — but DCI Taff Jones insisted it was a murder/suicide because he didn’t do the most basic checks and wanted to go off and play golf. There was even rumours that he was suffering from a brain tumour, such was his bizarre behaviour.
And the pathologist was also uneasy about Sheila killing herself: in fact, he was furious when he discovered DCI Jones had withheld vital information from him when he carried out the post mortems
Where are you getting all this stuff from?????
-
Having got the 'gen' from Jeremy, they probably didn't see anything to immediately suggest it wasn't. I wouldn't have thought it the place of a police surgeon to make a definitive pronouncement on COD.
I think it's worth considering that the TV producers didn't make ad hoc personalities for the characters. I have NO wish to speak ill of the dead -and I DO allow for some embroidery- but it seems that 'Welsh' Jones was not, irrelevant of whether his colleagues believed Jeremy innocent or guilty, generally liked.
Clearly it is a pathologists role to determine cod. He/she should have been called to soc along with a ballistics expert and a biologist.
As it was Chief Sup Harris and Dr Craig accepted the soc as murder/suicide. DCI Jones played no part in this decision so why is his name always dragged up? Could it be that he died in a tragic accident shortly after the murders so just became the fall guy to the point tv producers are happy to ignore facts because in doing so it makes a more entertaining drama?
-
Clearly it is a pathologists role to determine cod. He/she should have been called to soc along with a ballistics expert and a biologist.
As it was Chief Sup Harris and Dr Craig accepted the soc as murder/suicide. DCI Jones played no part in this decision so why is his name always dragged up? Could it be that he died in a tragic accident shortly after the murders so just became the fall guy to the point tv producers are happy to ignore facts because in doing so it makes a more entertaining drama?
I agree entirely that there should have been a pathologist in attendance.
I can fully see why it was accepted as murder/suicide. It was supposed to convey that. What you say may be correct about how Jones has been painted, but I'm willing to bet, when questions were asked, they didn't colour him hugely other than how he'd been experienced. It may simply have been that he lacked social skills and allowances weren't made? The 'top brass' didn't appear to have problems with him. Might that have been because he never questioned decisions?
-
Clearly it is a pathologists role to determine cod. He/she should have been called to soc along with a ballistics expert and a biologist.
As it was Chief Sup Harris and Dr Craig accepted the soc as murder/suicide. DCI Jones played no part in this decision so why is his name always dragged up? Could it be that he died in a tragic accident shortly after the murders so just became the fall guy to the point tv producers are happy to ignore facts because in doing so it makes a more entertaining drama?
All Craig did was to pronounce death. It's well documented that DCI Jones was adamant about the murder suicide decision LONG BEFORE any drama.
-
All Craig did was to pronounce death. It's well documented that DCI Jones was adamant about the murder suicide decision LONG BEFORE any drama.
Families are always difficult to deal with because they have preconceptions which affect how they see things. In this case the family found an ally in DCI Jones' second in command who began to check out things they told him behind his boss's back. No wonder DCI Jones got annoyed.
-
Families are always difficult to deal with because they have preconceptions which affect how they see things. In this case the family found an ally in DCI Jones' second in command who began to check out things they told him behind his boss's back. No wonder DCI Jones got annoyed.
But such arrogance to disregard the views of those who'd known Sheila and Jeremy all their lives.
-
Families are always difficult to deal with because they have preconceptions which affect how they see things. In this case the family found an ally in DCI Jones' second in command who began to check out things they told him behind his boss's back. No wonder DCI Jones got annoyed.
I think you mean DS Jones?
-
But such arrogance to disregard the views of those who'd known Sheila and Jeremy all their lives.
Reading the statements of Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton they didn't know Jeremy and Sheila well at all. They were able to list everything the Bambers had spent on them though.
Sheila did visit Ann once in 1984 and there seemed to be some tension. Her Aunt June spoke to Ann later, saying "Accept people for what they are, lovie. Don't try and turn them into something they are not. Perhaps you ought to look into yourself a bit more."
w/s 13/09/85
-
Reading the statements of Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton they didn't know Jeremy and Sheila well at all. They were able to list everything the Bambers had spent on them though.
Sheila did visit Ann once in 1984 and there seemed to be some tension. Her Aunt June spoke to Ann later, saying "Accept people for what they are, lovie. Don't try and turn them into something they are not. Perhaps you ought to look into yourself a bit more."
w/s 13/09/85
Kind of at odds with some of the comments previously levelled at June recently.
-
Why would DCI Jones look incompetent when a higher ranking officer officer accepted the scene as murder/suicide long before DCI Jones even arrived?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=157.msg1746#msg1746
They were buddies
And what you’re forgetting is that high ranking officers give out orders; they no longer do the donkey work
When the other officers said it “looked” like murder/suicide due to Jeremy’s (false) account, and the house appearing to be locked and them having no idea about the easy access Jeremy had to enter and escape, he took their word for it
It’s now known the police were uncompensated, inept, sloppy and didn’t do their job thoroughly. If it hadn’t been for the likes of DS Stan Jones the real perp, Jeremy Bamber would have probably got away with it...
-
Kind of at odds with some of the comments previously levelled at June recently.
It's obvious that June loved her children, but her daughter found her behaviour difficult. Dr Ferguson said that when he first worked with Sheila in 1983 she saw her mother as a threat to her and didn't want to visit WHF. She thought her mother was over-protective. (w/s 8/8/85). Nevertheless when he discharged her her parents took her to their home for a few weeks.
In my opinion June had the best of intentions but was unable to understand how her beliefs and actions affected her daughter. When Sheila fell pregnant for the second time with Colin Caffell her parents offered to buy them a flat provided they married before the baby was born. June also tried to persuade them to leave London. (CAL page 43).
People shouldn't be bribed into marrying.
-
It's obvious that June loved her children, but her daughter found her behaviour difficult. Dr Ferguson said that when he first worked with Sheila in 1983 she saw her mother as a threat to her and didn't want to visit WHF. She thought her mother was over-protective. (w/s 8/8/85). Nevertheless when he discharged her her parents took her to their home for a few weeks.
In my opinion June had the best of intentions but was unable to understand how her beliefs and actions affected her daughter. When Sheila fell pregnant for the second time with Colin Caffell her parents offered to buy them a flat provided they married before the baby was born. June also tried to persuade them to leave London. (CAL page 43).
People shouldn't be bribed into marrying.
They wouldn't have seen it that way nor would they be the only parents who tried to get their children to marry in similar circumstances.
-
It's obvious that June loved her children, but her daughter found her behaviour difficult. Dr Ferguson said that when he first worked with Sheila in 1983 she saw her mother as a threat to her and didn't want to visit WHF. She thought her mother was over-protective. (w/s 8/8/85). Nevertheless when he discharged her her parents took her to their home for a few weeks.
In my opinion June had the best of intentions but was unable to understand how her beliefs and actions affected her daughter. When Sheila fell pregnant for the second time with Colin Caffell her parents offered to buy them a flat provided they married before the baby was born. June also tried to persuade them to leave London. (CAL page 43).
People shouldn't be bribed into marrying.
Of course, an alternative interpretation of "over protective" is controlling. It maybe that Sheila felt it would be disrespectful -even ungrateful?- to describe June as being such when it was probably done because "I know what's best for you".I really don't feel that Sheila would have had any other option than to meekly allow her mother to dictate the terms of her recuperation. It has to be remembered that Dr Ferguson was a psychiatrist, not a counselor. The two disciplines are frequently at odds with each other.
June, partly because she and her adopted daughter were SO different, really only knew what would be best for June. I wonder if Sheila was ever consulted about what SHE would like to happen?
-
Of course, an alternative interpretation of "over protective" is controlling. It maybe that Sheila felt it would be disrespectful -even ungrateful?- to describe June as being such when it was probably done because "I know what's best for you".I really don't feel that Sheila would have had any other option than to meekly allow her mother to dictate the terms of her recuperation. It has to be remembered that Dr Ferguson was a psychiatrist, not a counselor. The two disciplines are frequently at odds with each other.
June, partly because she and her adopted daughter were SO different, really only knew what would be best for June. I wonder if Sheila was ever consulted about what SHE would like to happen?
Not if June was anything like my mum!!
"You know I always know best." was what she always said to me---mind you, that was 10-15 years before the WHF tragedy.
-
Not if June was anything like my mum!!
"You know I always know best." was what she always said to me---mind you, that was 10-15 years before the WHF tragedy.
Mrswah, did you misinterpret me? I'd thought I'd described June, like many other mothers, as knowing, better than their daughters, what was good for them. I'll allow that, in the case of shared genes, such MAY, at times, be so, but i'd argue, until I'm blue in the face, that in the case of adoption, such would be more by luck than good judgement.
-
They wouldn't have seen it that way nor would they be the only parents who tried to get their children to marry in similar circumstances.
I'm not talking about how they saw it, I'm talking about what it was.
-
Of course, an alternative interpretation of "over protective" is controlling. It maybe that Sheila felt it would be disrespectful -even ungrateful?- to describe June as being such when it was probably done because "I know what's best for you".I really don't feel that Sheila would have had any other option than to meekly allow her mother to dictate the terms of her recuperation. It has to be remembered that Dr Ferguson was a psychiatrist, not a counselor. The two disciplines are frequently at odds with each other.
June, partly because she and her adopted daughter were SO different, really only knew what would be best for June. I wonder if Sheila was ever consulted about what SHE would like to happen?
Sheila spent 'hours' discussing her mother with Tora Tomkinson. Both were adopted and had 'wonderful' adoptive fathers and hard to please mothers. Tora says June was very critical of Sheila and very dogmatic. She only saw Sheila rebel once against her mother. CAL page 87
I seems June was more likely to dictate what Sheila should do than listen to what Sheila actually wanted to do. Perhaps because she had decided, as she told Tora, that Sheila 'didn't know how to cope'. Tora didn't agree, and saw that the constant criticism wore Sheila down.
It seems true that Sheila didn't cope, but while her mother paid her bills she was never going to learn how.
-
Sheila spent 'hours' discussing her mother with Tora Tomkinson. Both were adopted and had 'wonderful' adoptive fathers and hard to please mothers. Tora says June was very critical of Sheila and very dogmatic. She only saw Sheila rebel once against her mother. CAL page 87
I seems June was more likely to dictate what Sheila should do than listen to what Sheila actually wanted to do. Perhaps because she had decided, as she told Tora, that Sheila 'didn't know how to cope'. Tora didn't agree, and saw that the constant criticism wore Sheila down.
It seems true that Sheila didn't cope, but while her mother paid her bills she was never going to learn how.
Of course, it might be said that June paid the bills as a way of ensuring that Sheila never learned how to cope? It MAY be that she saw it as a way of curtailing the activities which led to pregnancy? Constantly putting Sheila down would ensure she never had the confidence to try to cope alone.
-
Mrswah, did you misinterpret me? I'd thought I'd described June, like many other mothers, as knowing, better than their daughters, what was good for them. I'll allow that, in the case of shared genes, such MAY, at times, be so, but i'd argue, until I'm blue in the face, that in the case of adoption, such would be more by luck than good judgement.
I may well have misinterpreted you-----I often do misinterpret people----apologies!
I did think you had described June as knowing better than her daughter, and I replied (slightly tongue in cheek) that my mother was the same! (as you say, like many other mothers).
My mother and I were very different, even though I wasn't adopted. I'd say we got on well two thirds of the time. My daughters are not adopted either, but they are nothing like me, and nothing like each other. Interesting, isn't it
-
I may well have misinterpreted you-----I often do misinterpret people----apologies!
I did think you had described June as knowing better than her daughter, and I replied (slightly tongue in cheek) that my mother was the same! (as you say, like many other mothers).
My mother and I were very different, even though I wasn't adopted. I'd say we got on well two thirds of the time. My daughters are not adopted either, but they are nothing like me, and nothing like each other. Interesting, isn't it
Interesting and fascinating, Mrswah. Blows several misconceptions out of the water. Note to self. Must beware of generalizations!!!
-
I may well have misinterpreted you-----I often do misinterpret people----apologies!
I did think you had described June as knowing better than her daughter, and I replied (slightly tongue in cheek) that my mother was the same! (as you say, like many other mothers).
My mother and I were very different, even though I wasn't adopted. I'd say we got on well two thirds of the time. My daughters are not adopted either, but they are nothing like me, and nothing like each other. Interesting, isn't it
My daughters too! One is like the reincarnation of my mother in law, but that's fine as we were very alike. I still haven't worked my other daughter out, but she's not like either me or her sister.
-
I may well have misinterpreted you-----I often do misinterpret people----apologies!
I did think you had described June as knowing better than her daughter, and I replied (slightly tongue in cheek) that my mother was the same! (as you say, like many other mothers).
My mother and I were very different, even though I wasn't adopted. I'd say we got on well two thirds of the time. My daughters are not adopted either, but they are nothing like me, and nothing like each other. Interesting, isn't it
I don't think it's that surprising. Mothers and daughters are from different generations xo not sure why they would be the same? They have different experiences and influences.
-
I don't think it's that surprising. Mothers and daughters are from different generations xo not sure why they would be the same? They have different experiences and influences.
Yes, I do think that is part of it: people are products of the times in which they live, and of course, we are all influenced by whom we meet going through life.
One of my daughters is very much like my mother in law in personality, and the other is more like my husband than me. My son is the one who is most like me, but only in some ways.
I've had very little experience of relationships between adoptees and their adoptive parents, so not for me to comment. I did read that Sheila Caffell felt a strong affinity with her birth mother when she met her.
-
Clearly it is a pathologists role to determine cod. He/she should have been called to soc along with a ballistics expert and a biologist.
As it was Chief Sup Harris and Dr Craig accepted the soc as murder/suicide. DCI Jones played no part in this decision so why is his name always dragged up? Could it be that he died in a tragic accident shortly after the murders so just became the fall guy to the point tv producers are happy to ignore facts because in doing so it makes a more entertaining drama?
The pathologist did INDEED go to WHF the next day, with the police officers who were all convinced Jeremy was the murderer
Then Taff Jones stormed in, purple with rage, and shouted “What’s HE doing here?!!” As he pointed at Vanezis
Taff Jones sounds like he was a big, big bully; extremely rude; and possibly worried that if it was discovered his theory was wrong (not to mention how he hadn’t secured soc), he’d have lost his job — which in the event he did.
He was a useless officer, and it’s true, he wasn’t well-liked.
Thank God the intelligent DS Jones made sure Jeremy didn’t get away with mass murder.
-
I don't think it's that surprising. Mothers and daughters are from different generations xo not sure why they would be the same? They have different experiences and influences.
Yes , I agree. The influence and difference could be the religious acrimony between the two. Perhaps the parents did not approve and or were ashamed of Sheilas lifestyle.
My friends' whole family disowned him when he told them he was gay and in a good relationship with a male.