Was Sheila at an increased risk of suicide?

[scipio_usmc]

There was no generalised risk with SC only a very real risk due to June's depression caused by her decision to adopt SC which resulted in the WHF tragedy.  As previously stated SC should have been removed from the Bamber's care when June was admitted for psychiatric treatment in 1959 and as a couple they should have been prevented from adopting further children.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3860.msg144564#msg144564

Most adoptees fair as well as their non-adopted peers.  It is widely accepted that attachment is the major cause of problems in adoption:

There was no real risk except in your mind.  You are not a doctor and making up a load of nonsense.  Worse yet, you twist facts to suit your agenda.  For instance, you raise the general issue of her telling Freddie she didn't like being preached to about her lack of morals.  You ignore that this wa sin the past and that near the time of the murders Sheial had become religious and began bonding with her mother over religion.  This came form Collin someone actually seeing her and speaking to her. When your deceptions are stripped away you have zilch to raise to suggest Sheila would do a thing to harm anyone.  You just have you pathetic non-scientific opinion that because she was an adoptee that put her at risk.

Your mumbo jumbo attacking adoptees just demonstrates your own problems with being adopted and suggest you yourself should seek help.

With respect to the murder sit woudl nto matter if Sheila had told her doctr she wanted to kill her family and kill herself.  If that had been the case then the evidence proves that she didn't do it and that Jeremy used such as a pretext to frame her figuring he would get away with it.  There is no way she coudl have killed herself without getting GSR on her hands and clothing, could have shot eveyrone else without getting blood from her mother and father on her body, no way she coudl have bashed her father without being injured by the stock when it broke, no way she could have toucnhed a bloody weapon without getting her prints in the blood unless she was wearing gloves, no way her blood would not have gotten into the barrel of the weapon unless the moderator were attached when she was shot, no way for her blood to spray into the moderator and end up ont he first 8 baffles unless the moderator were attached when she was shot, so way she could have removed the oderator after her death and put it away in the closet, no way she could have moved her body flat and put the gun on her chest after she was dead, no way she could have opened and closed the bible in a pool of her blood that formed after her death...

Even if she told a million peopel she wanted to kill everyone and then commit suicide it still would not be able to establish she actually did so in the face of the above physical evidence.

You just dismiss all the evidence includign Julie's testimony say it is all bogus and lies so you can then present your tripe about adoption.  It is just pathetic you really should seek help.

[Holly Goodhead]

There was no real risk except in your mind.  You are not a doctor and making up a load of nonsense.  Worse yet, you twist facts to suit your agenda.  For instance, you raise the general issue of her telling Freddie she didn't like being preached to about her lack of morals.  You ignore that this wa sin the past and that near the time of the murders Sheial had become religious and began bonding with her mother over religion.  This came form Collin someone actually seeing her and speaking to her. When your deceptions are stripped away you have zilch to raise to suggest Sheila would do a thing to harm anyone.  You just have you pathetic non-scientific opinion that because she was an adoptee that put her at risk.

Your mumbo jumbo attacking adoptees just demonstrates your own problems with being adopted and suggest you yourself should seek help.

With respect to the murder sit woudl nto matter if Sheila had told her doctr she wanted to kill her family and kill herself.  If that had been the case then the evidence proves that she didn't do it and that Jeremy used such as a pretext to frame her figuring he would get away with it.  There is no way she coudl have killed herself without getting GSR on her hands and clothing, could have shot eveyrone else without getting blood from her mother and father on her body, no way she coudl have bashed her father without being injured by the stock when it broke, no way she could have toucnhed a bloody weapon without getting her prints in the blood unless she was wearing gloves, no way her blood would not have gotten into the barrel of the weapon unless the moderator were attached when she was shot, no way for her blood to spray into the moderator and end up ont he first 8 baffles unless the moderator were attached when she was shot, so way she could have removed the oderator after her death and put it away in the closet, no way she could have moved her body flat and put the gun on her chest after she was dead, no way she could have opened and closed the bible in a pool of her blood that formed after her death...

Even if she told a million peopel she wanted to kill everyone and then commit suicide it still would not be able to establish she actually did so in the face of the above physical evidence.

You just dismiss all the evidence includign Julie's testimony say it is all bogus and lies so you can then present your tripe about adoption.  It is just pathetic you really should seek help.

No I am not a doctor that is why I have posted so many links to hear what the doctors say about adoption, attachment, maternal depression, suicide and mental illness.  I link it in to my twitter account for my followers to read.    The audience hear is too small to spread my message 

I posted earlier on this thread asking if you can keep to topic please.  This thread is to discuss whether SC was at an increased risk of suicide only.  Thank you.

[Holly Goodhead]

There was no real risk except in your mind.  You are not a doctor and making up a load of nonsense.  Worse yet, you twist facts to suit your agenda.  For instance, you raise the general issue of her telling Freddie she didn't like being preached to about her lack of morals.  You ignore that this wa sin the past and that near the time of the murders Sheial had become religious and began bonding with her mother over religion.  This came form Collin someone actually seeing her and speaking to her. When your deceptions are stripped away you have zilch to raise to suggest Sheila would do a thing to harm anyone.  You just have you pathetic non-scientific opinion that because she was an adoptee that put her at risk.

Your mumbo jumbo attacking adoptees just demonstrates your own problems with being adopted and suggest you yourself should seek help.

With respect to the murder sit woudl nto matter if Sheila had told her doctr she wanted to kill her family and kill herself.  If that had been the case then the evidence proves that she didn't do it and that Jeremy used such as a pretext to frame her figuring he would get away with it.  There is no way she coudl have killed herself without getting GSR on her hands and clothing, could have shot eveyrone else without getting blood from her mother and father on her body, no way she coudl have bashed her father without being injured by the stock when it broke, no way she could have toucnhed a bloody weapon without getting her prints in the blood unless she was wearing gloves, no way her blood would not have gotten into the barrel of the weapon unless the moderator were attached when she was shot, no way for her blood to spray into the moderator and end up ont he first 8 baffles unless the moderator were attached when she was shot, so way she could have removed the oderator after her death and put it away in the closet, no way she could have moved her body flat and put the gun on her chest after she was dead, no way she could have opened and closed the bible in a pool of her blood that formed after her death...

Even if she told a million peopel she wanted to kill everyone and then commit suicide it still would not be able to establish she actually did so in the face of the above physical evidence.

You just dismiss all the evidence includign Julie's testimony say it is all bogus and lies so you can then present your tripe about adoption.  It is just pathetic you really should seek help.

You misunderstand the system.  The jury were told by Dr F that he did not regard SC as a suicide risk:

"He said she had spoken of suicidal thoughts although he did not regard her as a suicide risk".

(Point 84, CoA doc)

In the light of what is now known about adoption, maternal depression, attachment, suicide, mental illness and neuroscience, this in itself is sufficient grounds of appeal to CCRC/CoA as it may well have affected the jury's deliberations and verdict.

It is absolutely not necessary to take apart the prosecution's case as no one other than the jurors know what weight they applied to the various aspects.  It is taken as a whole.  If some new evidence appears, cue above, the CoA judges ask one simple question 'had the jury have known about this would they have returned a different verdict'.  I am not going round in circles with you arguing the toss.  Take it or leave it.

[scipio_usmc]

You misunderstand the system.  The jury were told by Dr F that he did not regard SC as a suicide risk:

"He said she had spoken of suicidal thoughts although he did not regard her as a suicide risk".

(Point 84, CoA doc)

In the light of what is now known about adoption, maternal depression, attachment, suicide, mental illness and neuroscience, this in itself is sufficient grounds of appeal to CCRC/CoA as it may well have affected the jury's deliberations and verdict.

It is absolutely not necessary to take apart the prosecution's case as no one other than the jurors know what weight they applied to the various aspects.  It is taken as a whole.  If some new evidence appears, cue above, the CoA judges ask one simple question 'had the jury have known about this would they have returned a different verdict'.  I am not going round in circles with you arguing the toss.  Take it or leave it.

You misunderstand the system not me.

The jury heard that she told her doctor that BEFORE she received treatment she thought about suicide. The judry heard that she didn't talk about such after and that he didn't consider her a risk.

Generalized claims that some adoptees kill themselves doesn't have any bearing at all on his testimony where he evaluated her based on speaking to her and treating her. In fact the jury already heard that she had thought about suicide before she was ttreated so already were aware she thought about it but didn't act.  She didn't act before being treated though that is the main time it happens.  Schitzos who kill themselves or others virtually always do so before they are diagnosed and treated or post treatment when they stop their medication.  You were challenged to post an example of someone who committed murder suicide while on their medication but couldn't.

The crap you keep posting didn't change Ferguson's assessments.  The only thing that managed to change Ferguson's assessment was the notion that Sheila was told her kids would be taken away from her and given to her ex-husband.  This was actually raised in the 2002 appeal but the judges rejected the argument because Ferguson was under the impression that she had been told such but the evidence was that her exhusband never gave the parents the letter Ferguson was shown and Colin never spoke to them verbally about the subject.

The crap you keep raising doesn't change Ferguson's mind and make him think she would have killed herself or others.  It doesn't undercut what he told the jury.  There is ZERO chance of the COA deciding that the jury woudl have decided Ferguson's assessment wasn't accurate and thus that there should be a new trial where the jury hears the BS you keep spouting.

 

   

 

[Holly Goodhead]

You misunderstand the system not me.

The jury heard that she told her doctor that BEFORE she received treatment she thought about suicide. The judry heard that she didn't talk about such after and that he didn't consider her a risk.

Generalized claims that some adoptees kill themselves doesn't have any bearing at all on his testimony where he evaluated her based on speaking to her and treating her. In fact the jury already heard that she had thought about suicide before she was ttreated so already were aware she thought about it but didn't act.  She didn't act before being treated though that is the main time it happens.  Schitzos who kill themselves or others virtually always do so before they are diagnosed and treated or post treatment when they stop their medication.  You were challenged to post an example of someone who committed murder suicide while on their medication but couldn't.

The crap you keep posting didn't change Ferguson's assessments.  The only thing that managed to change Ferguson's assessment was the notion that Sheila was told her kids would be taken away from her and given to her ex-husband.  This was actually raised in the 2002 appeal but the judges rejected the argument because Ferguson was under the impression that she had been told such but the evidence was that her exhusband never gave the parents the letter Ferguson was shown and Colin never spoke to them verbally about the subject.

The crap you keep raising doesn't change Ferguson's mind and make him think she would have killed herself or others.  It doesn't undercut what he told the jury.  There is ZERO chance of the COA deciding that the jury woudl have decided Ferguson's assessment wasn't accurate and thus that there should be a new trial where the jury hears the BS you keep spouting.

You misunderstand it is not just that adoptees are at increased risk of suicide but that SC was put at further risk due to June's mental illness resulting in a 'disorganised attachment'. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

I am not going to keep repeating myself.  I have provided numerous links to world class experts eg professors and doctors mostly drawn from Ivy league universities.  If you wish to refer to this research, not available at JB's trial, as "crap" and "BS" then that is up to you.

[scipio_usmc]

You misunderstand it is not just that adoptees are at increased risk of suicide but that SC was put at further risk due to June's mental illness resulting in a 'disorganised attachment'. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

I am not going to keep repeating myself.  I have provided numerous links to world class experts eg professors and doctors mostly drawn from Ivy league universities.  If you wish to refer to this research, not available at JB's trial, as "crap" and "BS" then that is up to you.

The one who doesn't understand is you.  You neither comprehend the medical issues you are bandying about nor do you understand the law nor do you care about the evidence that proves Jeremy is guilty. [ moderated ]

There are 2 kinds of evidence can can be considered on appeal.  New factual evidence and new scientific evidence.  To constitute new factual evidence it has to be evidence the defense wasn't aware of and reasonably had no way to be aware of at the time of the murders.  The only way this is usually met is if there was some sort of wrongdoing that concealed the evidence.  Sometimes it is lying itself that is considered new evidence.

To mean anything this new evidence has to eat away at a major pillar of the case and enable a jury to have acquited had they been aware of such.

New scientific evidence means applying a newly available science to physical evidence in the case and this new science undermines phycial evidence that was used to convict.

The crap you keep talking about qualifies as neither new scientific evidence nor new factual evidence.  It is not some new science that can be applied to the physical evidence.

Even if it had some way to be counted as a new scientific principle, which it doesn.t it still would not mean a thing to the COA because it doesn't eat away at any of the lillars of the case and could not have caused the jury to acquit.  The jury already heard that Sheila thought about suicide before she was treated, that is vastly superior to your theoretical mumbo jumbo tha tmaybe she could have thought about suicide because she was adopted.  Your mumbo jumbo that maybe she thought about it is inferior to evidence she actual did think about it and that superior evidence the jury already heard.

Your argument the case is unsafe because of the mumbo jumbo you are spouting is absolutely absurd and could not be further from the truth.  You don't understand legal principles at all.

In the meantime there is no doubt that Jeremy is guilty which is why you are stuck with really bad arguments to pretend otherwise like trying to pretend the evidence in the moderator was planted though you have no idea who could have done it or how let alone evidence someone did so.
 

[John]

Unlike SC, JB showed not interest in reuniting with his birth family until he contacted them in the early noughties after his failed 2002 appeal:

Do you not think that in itself is odd Holly and did he really expect them to welcome him with open arms after the murders?   That in itself smacks of delusion.

[APRIL]

Do you not think that in itself is odd Holly and did he really expect them to welcome him with open arms after the murders?   That in itself smacks of delusion.

John, I harbour the -probably mistaken- belief that EVERY biological mother, who has ever handed her child over to be adopted, will experience the umbilical tug when given the chance to meet with her child in later years. I find particularly poignant and painful Jeremy's adoption story. The natural child of BOTH parents, who find his presence an inconvenience, give him up for adoption, only to go on, marry and have more children!!!! I'm not sure who I feel would live in greater denial -pretence that it didn't matter- they or Jeremy. I'm fairly confident it would have given rise to much internalized anger in him. You're right that it might be thought odd -unreasonable?- if they HAD welcomed him with open arms, but I doubt that, where they were concerned, reason had much to do with Jeremy's thinking.

[John]

John, I harbour the -probably mistaken- belief that EVERY biological mother, who has ever handed her child over to be adopted, will experience the umbilical tug when given the chance to meet with her child in later years. I find particularly poignant and painful Jeremy's adoption story. The natural child of BOTH parents, who find his presence an inconvenience, give him up for adoption, only to go on, marry and have more children!!!! I'm not sure who I feel would live in greater denial -pretence that it didn't matter- they or Jeremy. I'm fairly confident it would have given rise to much internalized anger in him. You're right that it might be thought odd -unreasonable?- if they HAD welcomed him with open arms, but I doubt that, where they were concerned, reason had much to do with Jeremy's thinking.

I very much agree.   He had every reason to be resentful especially when he found out about his biological family.  I could be wrong but wasn't it Sheila who encouraged him to seek them out initially after she herself had had some success researching her own background?

[APRIL]

I very much agree.   He had every reason to be resentful especially when he found out about his biological family.  I could be wrong but wasn't it Sheila who encouraged him to seek them out initially after she herself had had some success researching her own background?

I'm not totally certain about it John, but I suspect it to be more likely than not. I imagine Sheila would have felt guilty about trying to locate her biological family so persuading Jeremy to to the same would probably have made her feel more comfortable about what she was doing.

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you not think that in itself is odd Holly and did he really expect them to welcome him with open arms after the murders?   That in itself smacks of delusion.

All the research shows that more females than males seek out their birth parents:

Page 29 (See PDF below):

"Turning to the proportions of out-of-family men and women adoptees
who applied for their birth records, it is most revealing to consider the
cumulative proportions by successive ages of men and women who
applied for copies of their birth entries. These cumulative proportions
are depicted in Figures 2a and 2b. They confirm what was suggested
from Figures 1b and 1c, that the proportions of women applying by
ages 18 to 25 were higher than the proportions of men. They also show
that the cumulative proportions of women who had applied by every
age were much higher than those of men".

Jeremy's WS:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4562

"I would like to add at this stage that about 7 or 8 years ago our parents informed us that if we wanted to know who our real parents were then we should contact the adoption agency.  We had been told since the age of 6 or 7 years that we had been adopted.  I chose not to know although Sheila chose to find out.  She found out who her mother was and corresponded with her.  She also received a visit from her natural mother in May this year.  I do not know the details of her mother".

As far as JB's birth parents go imo they should be more concerned with understanding how JB was placed in an adoptive family where the adoptive mother had already received in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment for serious depression caused by adopting SC. 

The fact JB's birth parents went on to marry and had two further children together and then turned their back on JB in his hour of need, regardless of anything, is imo unforgiveable.   

[Myster]

As far as JB's birth parents go imo they should be more concerned with understanding how JB was placed in an adoptive family where the adoptive mother had already received in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment for serious depression caused by adopting SC. 

Why are you so insistent that the adoption issue was at the root of June's mental problems when Wilkes states that her severe depression began on hearing the news that she would never be able to have children of her own after having an operation to remove an ovarian cyst... nothing at all to do with Sheila's adoption which took place a year or so earlier.  Even after making a full recovery in Northampton, they decided to go ahead and adopt Jeremy two years later.  Why would she take on another child if the first one created such problems?

[APRIL]

Why are you so insistent that the adoption issue was at the root of June's mental problems when Wilkes states that her severe depression began on hearing the news that she would never be able to have children of her own after having an operation to remove an ovarian cyst... nothing at all to do with Sheila's adoption which took place a year or so earlier.  Even after making a full recovery in Northampton, they decided to go ahead and adopt Jeremy two years later.  Why would she take on another child if the first one created such problems?

I think it's possible that June, who may never have been naturally maternal, failed to bond with Sheila in  the way she THOUGHT she would. It may even be that she found herself torn between wanting a child but NOT wanting Sheila. These things are never black or white. Perhaps if they were and we could FEEL in  terms of black or white, breakdowns such as June experienced wouldn't happen as frequently.

[Holly Goodhead]

Why are you so insistent that the adoption issue was at the root of June's mental problems when Wilkes states that her severe depression began on hearing the news that she would never be able to have children of her own after having an operation to remove an ovarian cyst... nothing at all to do with Sheila's adoption which took place a year or so earlier.  Even after making a full recovery in Northampton, they decided to go ahead and adopt Jeremy two years later.  Why would she take on another child if the first one created such problems?

This is what Dr F states in his WS:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4692.msg200242.html#msg200242

"I can say that June after suffering a long period of childlessness was examined and eventually an ovarian cyst was removed.  She made a decision to adopt and having done this suffered severe depressions.  This was around 1959.  She required e.c.t as an in patient and made a full recovery."

Yes I firmly believe that 'attachment and loss' are at the heart of the WHF murders and June and SC's mental illness.  The fact most might not have an understanding of 'attachment and loss', including those advising JB in a professional capacity past and quite possibly present, doesn't mean that it's not where it's  at  .  A Google search will return some 37,000,000 returns on 'attachment and loss'. 

In any event if a woman becomes so depressed on learning that she will not bear children of her own how well prepared/equipped do you think she is to adopt a baby?  NB and June adopted SC in 1957.  June received in-patient psychiatric treatment and electro-convulsive treatment in 1959.  How well do you think June bonded with SC during this period?  And what about the quality of care?

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

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/

[david1819]

Being adopted myself and considering both scenarios I cannot see how it would have a direct impact on the motives but may have a subconscious influence on events leading up to the killings.

If Jeremy committed the crime, I have pointed out that similar crimes have been committed by biological children of the parents and siblings they murdered. Sef Gonzales and the Menendez Brothers to name a few. However in both these cases Sef Gonzales and the Menendez Brothers had extremely strict parents that constantly set them unrealistic goals and had ambitions for them that they could not possibly meet, Jose Menendez their father expected them to become PHD graduates and Champion tennis players at the same time! Did Neville and June do the same for Jeremy? All in all its a combination of deep hatred for your parents along with a selfish financial incentive to kill them.

If Shelia committed the act (should not really be considered a crime as such) Well you can't really make much sense of someone who is Paranoid Schizophrenic combined with religious views that can make one more concerned about judgment in the belief of the life after.

Symptoms are described on the NHS website

belief held with complete conviction, even though it is based on a mistaken, strange or unrealistic view. It may affect the way people behave. Delusions can begin suddenly or may develop over weeks or months.

Some people develop a delusional idea to explain a hallucination they are having. For example, if they have heard voices describing their actions, they may have a delusion that someone is monitoring their actions. Someone experiencing a paranoid delusion may believe they are being harassed or persecuted. They may believe they are being chased, followed, watched, plotted against or poisoned, often by a family member or friend.
Some people who experience delusions find different meanings in everyday events or occurrences. They may believe people on TV or in newspaper articles are communicating messages to them alone, or that there are hidden messages in the colours of cars passing in the street
 

 
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Schizophrenia/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

June however being religious and who could not give birth may have considered her position a punishment from God ect. That could have had effects on how the children where raised. 

There is also allot we don't know about the family and how life was inside WHF. Allot is gossip rumors and chatter, The only people who could give anyone a good insight into the family life as a whole is June and Nevill both dead and Jeremy is not a reliable source for obvious reasons. Some things we simply will not have an answer for.