The phone call

[Vertigo Swirl]

Presumably they did put themselves forward as adopters but who approved them?

You are the only one here using terms like evil and mentally deranged to describe the Bamber's.

Ehat terms would you use to describe them?  Abusers is one.  Mentally ill appears to be another.  Anything else?

[Holly Goodhead]

Ehat terms would you use to describe them?  Abusers is one.  Mentally ill appears to be another.  Anything else?

Where have I referred to the Bamber's as abusers?

How would you describe a woman with a long history of mental illness requiring in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment dating from 1955 to 1982 and was last diagnosed with psychosis by her psychiatrist? 

[G-Unit]

Yes I agree but June was re-admitted for in-patient psychiatric treatment and ECT in 1959 due to her decision to adopt (SC in 1957).  Why was SC not removed from the Bamber's care and why were they allowed to adopt JB in 1961?

I don't think there was much in the way of follow-up in those days. Once the child was legally theirs they would have been treated just like natural parents. June was also a private patient so it's possible that her doctor was never approached during either process.

[APRIL]

My tagline:

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy,  victims of a poorly arranged closed adoption from the so-called baby-scoop era.

Did the Bamber's arrange and approve themselves as suitable adopters?

I imagine, like other would-be adopters, it required a doctor's letter to their chosen adoption society, outlining the couple's reason for adopting. In the Bambers' case, June's infertility. It can't have been unhelpful if the family gp happened to be a personal friend. I don't know if June's past mental health would have been considered in any way, other than that having a child to care for would solve the problem.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Where have I referred to the Bamber's as abusers?

How would you describe a woman with a long history of mental illness requiring in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment dating from 1955 to 1982 and was last diagnosed with psychosis by her psychiatrist?

Not mentally deranged then?  And what is the "economic abuse" thread all about? 

[Holly Goodhead]

Not mentally deranged then?  And what is the "economic abuse" thread all about?

You appear to be the only one here using disparaging terms to describe those inflicted with mental illness.

If you're interested in the 'economic abuse' thread I suggest you pay it a visit.

All views are welcome but please don't attempt to sow discord for the sake of it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You appear to be the only one here using disparaging terms to describe those inflicted with mental illness.

If you're interested in the 'economic abuse' thread I suggest you pay it a visit.

All views are welcome but please don't attempt to sow discord for the sake of it.

My view is that you are working hard to portray the victims of this crime in a bad light in order to win people over to your point of view that their murderer is an innocent victim who should have his conviction overturned.   I think that is quite reprehensible and I think I should be allowed to express that view without being admonished for “attempting to sow dischord”.

[mrswah]

Yes I agree but June was re-admitted for in-patient psychiatric treatment and ECT in 1959 due to her decision to adopt (SC in 1957).  Why was SC not removed from the Bamber's care and why were they allowed to adopt JB in 1961?

Perhaps there was a shortage of "good Christian" prospective parents.

The adoption society may not have known that June had problems, and they probably saw that Sheila looked well fed and happy, and thought that her new parents were doing a good job.

[APRIL]

Perhaps there was a shortage of "good Christian" prospective parents.

The adoption society may not have known that June had problems, and they probably saw that Sheila looked well fed and happy, and thought that her new parents were doing a good job.

If neither the family gp nor June had revealed information regarding her mental health, the adoption society wouldn't have known I'm inclined to think that rather than compromise himself, the doctor would have revealed it as being a nervous breakdown caused by her inability to conceive, something which could be rectified by adoption. It's not impossible that he believed it to be the case.

[Holly Goodhead]

My view is that you are working hard to portray the victims of this crime in a bad light in order to win people over to your point of view that their murderer is an innocent victim who should have his conviction overturned.   I think that is quite reprehensible and I think I should be allowed to express that view without being admonished for “attempting to sow dischord”.

Examples will assist your argument.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think there was much in the way of follow-up in those days. Once the child was legally theirs they would have been treated just like natural parents. June was also a private patient so it's possible that her doctor was never approached during either process.

I don't know which doc treated June in the 50's for her breakdowns/depression but given the Bamber's seemed to go private for medical matters and education it was probably private.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Examples will assist your argument.

Well for a start you blame the crimes on one of of the murder victims.  For another you have suggested that the Bambers were controlling and “economically abusive” and that this had a bearing on their outcome.  Thirdly you have suggested that June’s state of mind negatively affected her adopted children causing one of them to go berserk and kill everyone in the house.  Have I misunderstood?

[Holly Goodhead]

Perhaps there was a shortage of "good Christian" prospective parents.

The adoption society may not have known that June had problems, and they probably saw that Sheila looked well fed and happy, and thought that her new parents were doing a good job.

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/maternal-depression-can-undermine-the-development-of-young-children/

[Holly Goodhead]

Well for a start you blame the crimes on one of of the murder victims.  For another you have suggested that the Bambers were controlling and “economically abusive” and that this had a bearing on their outcome.  Thirdly you have suggested that June’s state of mind negatively affected her adopted children causing one of them to go berserk and kill everyone in the house.  Have I misunderstood?

The perp was one of two JB or SC.  Initially all concerned thought SC responsible.  If SC was responsible then she was no doubt in some altered state of mind bound up with her long history of mental illness.

I think June probably was economically abusive as per all the literature but I've never suggested this had any sort of bearing on the murders.

All the research suggests June's mental health issues negatively affected SC with the potential to cause an attachment disorder, propensity for suicide, psychopathy, violence and filicide. 

What exactly do you find reprehensible about the above?

[Vertigo Swirl]

The perp was one of two JB or SC.  Initially all concerned thought SC responsible.  If SC was responsible then she was no doubt in some altered state of mind bound up with her long history of mental illness.

I think June probably was economically abusive as per all the literature but I've never suggested this had any sort of bearing on the murders.

All the research suggests June's mental health issues negatively affected SC with the potential to cause an attachment disorder, propensity for suicide, psychopathy, violence and filicide. 

What exactly do you find reprehensible about the above?

If you can’t see what’s reprehensible about it then there’s no point me trying to explain.