Catathymic violence, dissociation and adoption pathology

[John]

Many excuses have been offered as to why Jeremy did what he did but in the end it came down to jealousy and greed.  He knew that his chances of inheriting any substantial assets were diminishing by the day so the thought that Sheila and her twin boys were going to be moving home was the straw which broke the camel's back.   We were always suspicious that Nevill was wise to Jeremy and the recent revelations that he knew who did the robbery at Osea confirms this.

Jeremy was about to lose it all and he knew it!

[puglove]

Many excuses have been offered as to why Jeremy did what he did but in the end it came down to jealousy and greed.  He knew that his chances of inheriting any substantial assets were diminishing by the day so the thought that Sheila and her twin boys were going to be moving home was the straw which broke the camel's back.   We were always suspicious that Nevile was wise to Jeremy and the recent revelations that he knew who did the robbery at Osea confirms this.

Jeremy was about to lose it all and he knew it!

I agree. Holly's right, Sheila seemed to lack the emotional strength and ambition to become a successful model, but we can't possibly imagine how she was affected, or unaffected by adoption, her upbringing, her relationship with Colin etc. What we do have is photographic evidence, post mortem reports and example after example of Bamber's behaviour. Now we know that Ralph (at least) knew who had burgled the caravan park, we have to wonder what the repercussions were - perhaps Ralph and June had discussed disinheritance?

[John]

I agree. Holly's right, Sheila seemed to lack the emotional strength and ambition to become a successful model, but we can't possibly imagine how she was affected, or unaffected by adoption, her upbringing, her relationship with Colin etc. What we do have is photographic evidence, post mortem reports and example after example of Bamber's behaviour. Now we know that Ralph (at least) knew who had burgled the caravan park, we have to wonder what the repercussions were - perhaps Ralph and June had discussed disinheritance?

Remember too that Jeremy sought out his parents wills prior to the murders such was his concern with what they were planning.  Lovely guy!

[Holly Goodhead]

I agree the OCP was a real low down thing to do but I am not sure one ? misdemeanour would cause Nevill and June to change their feelings towards Jeremy so much that they intended to change their wills in favour of others?

Shortly after the murders Julie found a letter in Jeremy's glove compartment which according to Jeremy was from June and in it she apologises over her recent treatment of him.  Another letter from June was read out at trial by Basil Cock in it she thanks Sheila and Jeremy for all that they gave her...I have no idea of the dates of these letters but they seem at odds with Jeremy being disinherited.

I am also mindful of the fact that JM took part in OCP by acting as look-out.  This was not the first time she was involved in crime (cheque book fraud) and yet she was deemed to be a credible prosecution witness  >@@(*&) Were the jury made aware of her involvement in OCP and the separate incident of cheque book fraud?

[Holly Goodhead]

I did think you may not have found the comparison flattering! It's just when you tracked down the psychologist featured in the recent Bamber documentary to berate and threaten him, then boasted about it on this forum I remember thinking that was classic Jackie Preece. She joined this forum to try to convince people of his innocence when she was booted out of the blue forum and had no other outlet to discuss the case. Two things about you which seemed familiar to me.

Please don't go thinking that I would be upset if evidence came to light which proved Bamber was innocent! In the extremely unlikely event this ever happens I would naturally welcome the fact that an innocent man is free, don't go thinking my mind is completely closed on the matter. It's just the wealth of evidence supporting his conviction seems pretty clear to me, I suppose I could try to decide one day that I wanted him to be innocent and go in to the minutiae of the case to try to find something, anything, which suggested he was definitely innocent. But I prefer to weigh up all of the evidence and come to a conclusion based on that.

Regarding the Bamber case, if we are to believe that he is innocent what is certain is that Julie Mugford stood up in court and perjured herself. For what motive? It's not enough to say she was a woman scorned. Most scorned women would have been happy to key his Astra. No one would risk a prison sentence just because they have been jilted. Money? Well apart from the one exclusive interview she's kept her head down ever since. If money was a motivation she could have sold her story many times over, I don't doubt for a second that there are lots of people who would offer a great deal of money for this even today which would make the £25000 she received at the time look like small change. And if she was going to lie why didn't she come out and say outrightly that Bamber admitted his guilt to her? If you read her evidence she never actually states expicitly that he confessed to her. If you're going to lie be creative. Also, how many people would have to have been involved in this conspiracy to convict him if he was innocent? I admire your tenacity and your attention to detail but I really think you are barking up the wrong tree.

I am now responding to your comments re JM.  I think I need to learn how to split quotes.  Bridget did try to help but I think I have a mental block!

Unfortunately a transcript of the trial doesn't exist so we have no real idea of her testimony and the cross examination by Geoffrey Rivlin QC.  I am not sure she was motivated by the 25k from the NoW as much as having the charges dropped against her for the cheque book fraud in exchange for acting as a prosecution witness?  Had she have been charged and ended up with a criminal record that would have been bye bye teaching career.  Were the jury aware of this?

It strikes me that some rather strange goings on took place with JM and Stan Jones with SJ finding JM a safe house, meeting up with her on his days off, escorting her and Susan Battersby to the bank to sort out the cheque book incident.  To my mind its not straightforward and places too many ????? over her impartiality and credibility as a  prosecution witness.

I am also mindful of the fact that in the Stefan Kiszko case four of the prosecution witnesses perjured themselves just for a laugh 

[Holly Goodhead]

I agree. Holly's right, Sheila seemed to lack the emotional strength and ambition to become a successful model, but we can't possibly imagine how she was affected, or unaffected by adoption, her upbringing, her relationship with Colin etc. What we do have is photographic evidence, post mortem reports and example after example of Bamber's behaviour. Now we know that Ralph (at least) knew who had burgled the caravan park, we have to wonder what the repercussions were - perhaps Ralph and June had discussed disinheritance?

Yes I agree we have no real idea how affected or unaffected Sheila and Jeremy were by being adopted. There's much evidence Sheila was troubled eg her poor start in life, what appeared to be a difficult relationship with June and her reunion with her birth mother. Perhaps Jeremy was troubled but suppressed it.  Much more is known now about the psychology of adoption hence the apology from Julia Gillard, former PM of Australia, re the poor practices carried out in the 50's - 70's.  The expert witnesses at trial: Dr Ferguson, Dr Bradley and Prof Knight made no reference to adoption at all  >@@(*&)  Those that have offered up comment since eg Kerry Danes and David Holmes also made no reference.  It would be good to see the likes of Dr Brodzinsky, Dr Grotevant, Dr Kirschner and Dr Verrier who specialise in adoption to provide opinion.  For example:

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/about/dbrodzinsky.php

[John]

Both Sheila and Jeremy undoubtedly suffered from the thought that their natural parents had effectively rejected them but that doesn't turn normal people into murderers.  There was much more going on with Jeremy imo.

[Holly Goodhead]

Both Sheila and Jeremy undoubtedly suffered from the thought that their natural parents had effectively rejected them but that doesn't turn normal people into murderers.  There was much more going on with Jeremy imo.

According to Dr David Kirschner Ph.D, psychologist and psychoanalyst, adoption is often the key  to the psychopathology of adopted killers, yet its importance is rarely noted:

http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/understanding-adoptees-who-kill.php

That is why I think it would be a good idea for a suitably qualified person to review the case in light of the above.