Should Sheila have been removed from the Bambers' care in 1959 when June became depressed?

[Holly Goodhead]

Should Sheila have been removed from the Bambers' care in 1959 when June became depressed as a result of adopting SC?  Do you think an inquiry is needed?  If a woman adopts a child ie June and then suffers severe depression as a result of her decision to adopt that child so much that she requires in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment is it acceptable that the child is allowed to remain with the adopters?  Not only did SC go on to develop a serious mental illness but according to you her adopted brother murdered her.  I find this quite remarkable; an adoptive family ie no genes involved has a mentally ill adoptive mother at the helm which produces a mentally ill adopted daughter and a mass murdering adopted son.  Yet SC and JB appear to come from good genetic stock.  Perhaps you are an apologist for poor adoption practices during the so-called baby scoop era?

Sheila's birth family

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2532.0.html?PHPSESSID=01ba1d3b1ea695efd7af04d3b16c4b7b

Jeremy's birth family

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=281.msg4830#msg4830

AE states she found 3 buckets of clothing left to soak in the kitchen.  One bucket contained what she believes were two pairs of SC's menstrual stained underwear.  She said a second bucket contained a pair of training bottoms.  For whatever reason(s) she did not identify what was in the third bucket.  The fact these buckets were found at the soc and not forensically examined is surely by anyone's standards completely unacceptable. 

AE disposed of the contents.  Why?  Why present certain items to EP eg the silencer which supposedly had blood on/in it, amongst other things, but not other items eg underwear/clothing containing blood?  Was it for AE to determine which items should be subject to forensic examination and which shouldn't?

AE was asked retrospectively by EP how she knew the items of clothing contained menstrual blood and she said it smells different.  My experiment above shows this is not the case.  Perhaps others would care to conduct their own experiments. 

In later statements AE changes her story and the three buckets become two buckets  8-)(--) Perhaps she forgot?  Perhaps it was a genuine error or oversight?  And yet if JB gets confused, or whatever, over the timing/order of the phone calls this is somehow indicative of his guilt?  Sounds to me that it is one rule for one and another for others.

Was the housekeeper, Jean Boutell, asked if it was the norm for stained clothing to be left in soak in the kitchen at WHF?

 

[scipio_usmc]

Should Sheila have been removed from the Bambers' care in 1959 when June became depressed as a result of adopting SC?  Do you think an inquiry is needed?  If a woman adopts a child ie June and then suffers severe depression as a result of her decision to adopt that child so much that she requires in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment is it acceptable that the child is allowed to remain with the adopters?  Not only did SC go on to develop a serious mental illness but according to you her adopted brother murdered her.  I find this quite remarkable; an adoptive family ie no genes involved has a mentally ill adoptive mother at the helm which produces a mentally ill adopted daughter and a mass murdering adopted son.  Yet SC and JB appear to come from good genetic stock.  Perhaps you are an apologist for poor adoption practices during the so-called baby scoop era?

Sheila's birth family

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2532.0.html?PHPSESSID=01ba1d3b1ea695efd7af04d3b16c4b7b

Jeremy's birth family

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=281.msg4830#msg4830

AE states she found 3 buckets of clothing left to soak in the kitchen.  One bucket contained what she believes were two pairs of SC's menstrual stained underwear.  She said a second bucket contained a pair of training bottoms.  For whatever reason(s) she did not identify what was in the third bucket.  The fact these buckets were found at the soc and not forensically examined is surely by anyone's standards completely unacceptable. 

AE disposed of the contents.  Why?  Why present certain items to EP eg the silencer which supposedly had blood on/in it, amongst other things, but not other items eg underwear/clothing containing blood?  Was it for AE to determine which items should be subject to forensic examination and which shouldn't?

AE was asked retrospectively by EP how she knew the items of clothing contained menstrual blood and she said it smells different.  My experiment above shows this is not the case.  Perhaps others would care to conduct their own experiments. 

In later statements AE changes her story and the three buckets become two buckets  8-)(--) Perhaps she forgot?  Perhaps it was a genuine error or oversight?  And yet if JB gets confused, or whatever, over the timing/order of the phone calls this is somehow indicative of his guilt?  Sounds to me that it is one rule for one and another for others.

Was the housekeeper, Jean Boutell, asked if it was the norm for stained clothing to be left in soak in the kitchen at WHF?

Once again you post nothing but nonsense.

Sheila's mental problems were diagnosed as being post natal which carried ove rinto her marruage.  Childbirth and the breakdown of her marriage were diagnosed as the source of her problems not being adopted.

Jeremy murdered out of greed it had nothing to do with adoption.

You seem to suffer from mental problems from being adopted yourself and seem hell bent on blaming the families problems on adoption instead to divert attention fromt he real issues.

You then throw up more smoke with the bloody underwear which mean nothing at all.  Note how every single time I challenge you to explain how clothes soaking in bloody water could transfer flakes of blood inside a suppressor and also to stain only the first 8 with blood and enough blood to be able to accurately test for type that you refuse to respond and just reply with more nonsense.

That right there means you lost the debate, you know you lost so you try to take attention from the debate.

[Holly Goodhead]

Once again you post nothing but nonsense.

Sheila's mental problems were diagnosed as being post natal which carried ove rinto her marruage.  Childbirth and the breakdown of her marriage were diagnosed as the source of her problems not being adopted.

Jeremy murdered out of greed it had nothing to do with adoption.

You seem to suffer from mental problems from being adopted yourself and seem hell bent on blaming the families problems on adoption instead to divert attention fromt he real issues.

You then throw up more smoke with the bloody underwear which mean nothing at all.  Note how every single time I challenge you to explain how clothes soaking in bloody water could transfer flakes of blood inside a suppressor and also to stain only the first 8 with blood and enough blood to be able to accurately test for type that you refuse to respond and just reply with more nonsense.

That right there means you lost the debate, you know you lost so you try to take attention from the debate.

You claim SC's mental illness was caused by childbirth ie post-natal depression and the subsequent breakdown of her marriage.

You claim JB murdered out of greed.

Can you explain the cause of June Bamber's mental illness in 1959?

[scipio_usmc]

You claim SC's mental illness was caused by childbirth ie post-natal depression and the subsequent breakdown of her marriage.

You claim JB murdered out of greed.

Can you explain the cause of June Bamber's mental illness in 1959?

I don't know if June had any mental issues in 1959.  Just because you claim such means nothing at all. You have no credibility whatsoever.  I don't care whether she did or didn't because it is not relevant to the murders so I am not going to bother researching it.

You whine about others hijacking threads and not staying on point but your are the worst offender when it comes to such.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't know if June had any mental issues in 1959.  Just because you claim such means nothing at all. You have no credibility whatsoever.  I don't care whether she did or didn't because it is not relevant to the murders so I am not going to bother researching it.

You whine about others hijacking threads and not staying on point but your are the worst offender when it comes to such.

Well of course you don't want to research it and I fully understand your reasons for this 

Pssst... let me whisper so others don't hear Scipio...According to June's psychologist, Dr Hugh Cameron Ferguson, St Andrews Hospital, Northampton, he states in his witness statements that in 1959 June suffered severe depressions as a result of her decision to adopt SC.  The depression was do severe she required in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment.  This of course means nothing to you but rest assured it's a game changer for JB   

[Andrea]

Hi Holly

I have to agree with scpio on this. The killings were nothing to do with adoption whatsoever.
The Bambers gave Sheila and jb a good upbringing.  I have said before that you place far too much emphasis on adoption. You come across as having a bit of a fixation with it!! I mean that nicely by the way!

Holly, can you look at the crime scene pictures of Sheila and seriously say she was the cause of all that mayhem? Can you?
Sheila didn't have a mark on her, she had a flimsy sleeveless nightie on but didn't have a mark on her.

Bamber had this murder planned, he would have been prepared, gloves etc.
And let's not forget, his house wasn't searched for a month after the killings, giving him ample time to discard of any incriminating evidence. Sheila, also only had her own blood on her. Had she been in any physical fight with her father, there would have been evidence of it, blood.

[Andrea]

Even Bambers own legal team know it could only be jb or sc.

[Joanne]

I think if everyone who ever had a mental health issue had their children removed then it would be devastating on a mass scale. There's not enough places for kids who need fostering and adopting as it is. Its got to be hard enough for people to want to get help when they're feeling bad as it is without fear they'd lose their kids which in itself would cause mass problems, undiagnosed people, people not accessing medication and help. Sometimes life's hard and people shouldn't be judged on their ability or not to cope, when they need help.

[John]

I think if everyone who ever had a mental health issue had their children removed then it would be devastating on a mass scale. There's not enough places for kids who need fostering and adopting as it is. Its got to be hard enough for people to want to get help when they're feeling bad as it is without fear they'd lose their kids which in itself would cause mass problems, undiagnosed people, people not accessing medication and help. Sometimes life's hard and people shouldn't be judged on their ability or not to cope, when they need help.

June undoubtedly had issues before adopting and the stress of dealing with a promiscuous teenage tearaway proved too much for her to deal with on her own even with her faith.  Jeremy too brought stress upon them what with his New Zealand fiasco and the break-in and robbery at Osea Caravan Park.  These were proud people but in their eyes both Sheila and Jeremy had shamed them.

[scipio_usmc]

Well of course you don't want to research it and I fully understand your reasons for this 

Pssst... let me whisper so others don't hear Scipio...According to June's psychologist, Dr Hugh Cameron Ferguson, St Andrews Hospital, Northampton, he states in his witness statements that in 1959 June suffered severe depressions as a result of her decision to adopt SC.  The depression was do severe she required in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment.  This of course means nothing to you but rest assured it's a game changer for JB   

No June's mental health has nothing at all to do with the murders.  JB murdered his family for the wealth.  He made sure he murdered his parents when his sister and her children were there so he would be th eonly heir to inherit everything, he even told this to Julie.

Because all the evidence ewstablishes his guilt you keep trying to defelct from it with nonsense like this.  Your posts on this subject were posted in other threads as you tried to disrupt them. The moderators took these posts and created an independent thread so these claims can die the death they deserve instead fo trying to divert attention from the murder evidence. 

[Joanne]

June undoubtedly had issues before adopting and the stress of dealing with a promiscuous teenage tearaway proved too much for her to deal with on her own even with her faith.  Jeremy too brought stress upon them what with his New Zealand fiasco and the break-in and robbery at Osea Caravan Park.  These were proud people but in their eyes both Sheila and Jeremy had shamed them.

I just think parents of that time expected certain behaviours from their children, they'd have been the same age as my Grandparents (born in the late 1910 up to 1926), a lot of them went to war, always worked, saw the beginning of the NHS and welfare reforms (but never claimed or though about doing so) and conducted themselves in a certain way, so anything less than perfect would have been considered as a 'let down' but that's not to say they (the Bamber's) didn't support their children, just didn't approve of their behaviour.
Was the cause of Mrs Bamber's mental health issues ever 'named'? Was it bouts of depression? Or paranoia etc? I don't think Mrs Bamber's mental health had anything to do with the way Sheila or Jeremy acted to be honest. Jeremy was a liar, thief and a murderer, he was never going to be satisfied if he had to work and share his parents wealth, I think had he pulled it off then he'd be a Viv Nicholson, "I'm going to spend, spend, spend" and would have been bankrupt before he got to thirty. Sheila was ill, she wasn't a bad person, just ill. I think her parents tried to help her the best they could and I also do not believe there was ever a suggestion her children go onto care, Colin was probably a good Dad and the Bamber's would have stepped in if need be, even if they moved Sheila in with them for a while. Poor little boys, shot in their beds. Unforgivable in my eyes.

[John]

I just think parents of that time expected certain behaviours from their children, they'd have been the same age as my Grandparents (born in the late 1910 up to 1926), a lot of them went to war, always worked, saw the beginning of the NHS and welfare reforms (but never claimed or though about doing so) and conducted themselves in a certain way, so anything less than perfect would have been considered as a 'let down' but that's not to say they (the Bamber's) didn't support their children, just didn't approve of their behaviour.
Was the cause of Mrs Bamber's mental health issues ever 'named'? Was it bouts of depression? Or paranoia etc? I don't think Mrs Bamber's mental health had anything to do with the way Sheila or Jeremy acted to be honest. Jeremy was a liar, thief and a murderer, he was never going to be satisfied if he had to work and share his parents wealth, I think had he pulled it off then he'd be a Viv Nicholson, "I'm going to spend, spend, spend" and would have been bankrupt before he got to thirty. Sheila was ill, she wasn't a bad person, just ill. I think her parents tried to help her the best they could and I also do not believe there was ever a suggestion her children go onto care, Colin was probably a good Dad and the Bamber's would have stepped in if need be, even if they moved Sheila in with them for a while. Poor little boys, shot in their beds. Unforgivable in my eyes.

It takes a certain type of psycho to murder two six-year-old boys as they slept.  Even in the criminal fraternity you would be hard pushed to find anyone who would ever do such a thing.  There was no reason to murder the children, they were no threat to anyone, except JEREMY BAMBER of course!

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi Holly

I have to agree with scpio on this. The killings were nothing to do with adoption whatsoever.
The Bambers gave Sheila and jb a good upbringing.  I have said before that you place far too much emphasis on adoption. You come across as having a bit of a fixation with it!! I mean that nicely by the way!

Holly, can you look at the crime scene pictures of Sheila and seriously say she was the cause of all that mayhem? Can you?
Sheila didn't have a mark on her, she had a flimsy sleeveless nightie on but didn't have a mark on her.

Bamber had this murder planned, he would have been prepared, gloves etc.
And let's not forget, his house wasn't searched for a month after the killings, giving him ample time to discard of any incriminating evidence. Sheila, also only had her own blood on her. Had she been in any physical fight with her father, there would have been evidence of it, blood.

Hi Andrea
 
Hope you are having a nice Easter.  Not too many eggs!
 
I certainly think adoption is a key feature of the case.   Perhaps it appears that I am fixated as in the main I am the only poster who makes reference to it.  Which is understandable as I have experience and knowledge about it that others in the main don't.   It is an undeniable fact that a psychology pertains to adoption especially 'closed' adoption.  Please see book link entitled "The Psychology of Adoption".   This was written by Dr David Brodzinsky (psychologist) and Dr Marshall Schechter (psychiatrist) - biographies attached.

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Psychology-Adoption-David-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737#reader_0195082737

 http://articles.philly.com/1999-10-12/news/25507752_1_medical-degree-black-child-smith-college

 http://www.fmhconsultants.com/about-david/

As you will see they are extremely well qualified both in terms of academic qualifications and application/experience in the field.   Marshall Schechter was captain of the medi corps in Europe during world war 2.  The reason I am highlighting this is to illustrate that these individuals are highly regarded mainstream practitioners in their fields of expertise and not mavericks working on the fringes.

I understand what you are saying though as generally speaking if you don't have any direct experience or knowledge about adoption it is not something the general public are well versed in and therefore it is easy to minimise or dismiss it as irrelevant in a case such as the tragedy at WHF.  As I said I think it is a key feature of the case but I think June's mental illness circa 1959 is even more important.  I have posted numerous links in other threads re attachment, effects of maternal depression on those in their care and the science of neglect but....just in case you missed them:

http://www.attachmentexperts.com/whatisattachment.html

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/

 http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/
 
I agree the Bambers were good and decent people.   I don't think anyone could deny this.  However that doesn't necessarily mean that they made good adoptive parents.  I have particular concerns regarding June and her religious beliefs.  Dr Alexina Macwhinnie from Dundee university found the following:

 http://www.originsnsw.com/mentalhealth/id5.html
 
"Mc Whinnie also refers to her study about the conditions of religious affiliation for prospective adopters. Her study again shows that other factors are important here, and it should not be assumed that because the adopters are members of a church they would make sympathetic adopters. In fact it would seem important to assess particularly carefully the attitudes of those who hold very rigid religious beliefs since these, if unduly puritanical, might lead them to finding difficulty in accepting illegitimacy and the child born to unmarried parents" 
 
This is what I believe happened with June ie that she was *unable to accept/bond with SC due to strongly held religious beliefs especially surrounding sexual morality eg SC being conceived and  born to unmarried parents.    This I believe resulted in June's depression circa 1959 and subsequent in-patient psychiatric treatment and ECT treatment which in turn led to SC having lifelong issues associated with an attachment disorder. *Also perhaps her own feelings of loss and grief about her inability to have birth children.  See link below under loss and grief:

http://www.fairfamilies.org/2012/1999/99LifelongIssues.htm

Also I am reminded of the contents of the letter CC wrote which was intended for NB but never sent.  He did however articulate his thoughts and feelings on certain matters.  Here's the link to the letter:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2762.0/nowap.html

I am no longer a member of Blue so I am unable to view it but you are a member so will have this privilege.  I can't recall the exact words but Colin apologises for being so blunt and states that he is not having June f*****g up the minds of the twins in the way that she has with SC's mind. 

I believe SC had the upper hand on 7th Aug.  By that I mean she was in possession of a loaded gun and within seconds was able to fire a number of shots at close range which rendered June and NB defenceless.  It is possible that she showered, possibly washing her hair, and changing her clothes

Helloooooo are you still awake   

[Holly Goodhead]

I think if everyone who ever had a mental health issue had their children removed then it would be devastating on a mass scale. There's not enough places for kids who need fostering and adopting as it is. Its got to be hard enough for people to want to get help when they're feeling bad as it is without fear they'd lose their kids which in itself would cause mass problems, undiagnosed people, people not accessing medication and help. Sometimes life's hard and people shouldn't be judged on their ability or not to cope, when they need help.

I posted up a link on Blue to the World Health Organisation that showed 1 in 4 suffer mental illness during their lifetime.  Albeit many of these cases did not prevent individuals carrying on as normal eg working ie they were identified as having mild depression and/or mild anxiety.  On this basis I agree if everyone had their children removed who had some sort of mental illness it would take several armies to manage it.  That said June's depression imo put SC at particular risk of harm.  The depression which was severe and required in-patient psychiatric care centred around SC ie June's decision to adopt her as per Dr Ferguson's witness statement.  The depression was not from within eg hormonal/chemical or some external unrelated factor eg marital breakdown, loss of job etc.  It was basically an out and out rejection of SC which in my opinion was the root cause of many of the problems SC faced and her mental illness (plse see links above in previous post).

The needs of children must always come first not the needs of infertile couples.  Demand has always outstripped supply of white, healthy new born babies available for adoption in the UK.  Had SC have been removed circa 1959 she clearly would not have been a new born but I don't think she would have been difficult to place with an adoptive family with a good track record.  With the advent of better contraception, availability of abortion and more liberal attitudes towards single motherhood there are now virtually no white, healthy, new born babies for adoption in the UK.  Hence would be Western adopters now have to visit emerging market economy countries eg Sri Lanka to 'acquire' babies from economically disadvantaged vulnerable women.  Imo this is morally wrong and tantamount to colonialism and slavery.

I think the babies/children you refer to in your post might be those that are considered difficult to place based on the fact they are black, minority groups, special needs, sibling groups and/or older

[Holly Goodhead]

June undoubtedly had issues before adopting and the stress of dealing with a promiscuous teenage tearaway proved too much for her to deal with on her own even with her faith.  Jeremy too brought stress upon them what with his New Zealand fiasco and the break-in and robbery at Osea Caravan Park.  These were proud people but in their eyes both Sheila and Jeremy had shamed them.

Based on Dr Ferguson's witness statements there's no record of June having any mental health issues prior to adopting.  She first came to his attention in 1959 when she was admitted to St Andrews psychiatric hospital in Northampton to treat serious depression that stemmed from her decision to adopt.  At this point in time SC was circa 2 yoa and I don't think she could be held responsible for this.

 I don't agree that SC was promiscuous.  Where is the evidence to suggest this was the case?  As far as I can see she did not engage in underage sex or casual sex.  She had a relationship with a farm labourer at WHF which resulted in a pregnancy/termination at 17 yoa.  Soon after this she met CC.  Thereafter it appears she had some sort of relationship with Freddie Emani (spelling?) but even Dr F states it was not clear what the nature of this relationship was.  According to Claire Powell (book author) SC's friends told her that SC was not into casual sex and refer to a couple of brief relationships and its not even clear if these were sexual in nature.  I would hardly describe this as promiscuous from a woman who at the time of her death had been single for many years and was 28 yoa.

Was she a wayward teenager?  She left WHF at 17 for London and just seemed to drift around: finishing college, secretarial college, modelling, hairdressing, shop work, marriage, twins, waitressing, cleaning.  Apart from her use of recreational drugs I am not sure she was much of problem to anyone apart from her mental illness but she can't be held responsible for that?

No idea about any fiasco with JB in New Zealand?  As far as I can see other than the OCP break-in JB's behaviour was exemplary?  One misdemeanour involving the family business, which it seems no one know about other than BW, is unlikely to have caused his parents undue stress?