Jeremy Bamber claimed the twins were to be fostered.

[Holly Goodhead]

As Pointed out recently June discussed her concerns with CC's mother re the twins being fostered. CC's mother made no mention of CC having custody of the twins.  She said she doubted it on the basis the twins had two good families.

SC and CC were divorced in 1982.  SC was not admitted for any psychiatric care until 1983. Although SC and CC appear to have made amicable arrangements re child care I haven't seen any formal legal arrangements via a court order? 30 years ago attitudes towards lone working fathers and a girlfriend may have been different to what they are today?


17

[Caroline]

As Pointed out recently June discussed her concerns with CC's mother re the twins being fostered. CC's mother made no mention of CC having custody of the twins.  She said she doubted it on the basis the twins had two good families.

SC and CC were divorced in 1982.  SC was not admitted for any psychiatric care until 1983. Although SC and CC appear to have made amicable arrangements re child care I haven't seen any formal legal arrangements via a court order? 30 years ago attitudes towards lone working fathers and a girlfriend may have been different to what they are today?

I didn't say 'legally', however, he was the primary carer and neither Nevill or June could foster out his children without his permission.

[Holly Goodhead]

I didn't say 'legally', however, he was the primary carer and neither Nevill or June could foster out his children without his permission.

You said we only have JB's word for the foster care arrangement.  Which is true based on any conversations that took place on 6th/7th Aug.  However a few weeks before the tragedy June had a tel con with CC's mother where June expressed her concerns that the twins might be placed in foster care on the basis Social Services might intervene and take responsibility for the twins.

[scipio_usmc]

You said we only have JB's word for the foster care arrangement.  Which is true based on any conversations that took place on 6th/7th Aug.  However a few weeks before the tragedy June had a tel con with CC's mother where June expressed her concerns that the twins might be placed in foster care on the basis Social Services might intervene and take responsibility for the twins.

June fearing social services would take them doesn't mean that such was a rational realistic concern. It fails to take into account Collin at all.

We have only Jeremy's word that on the night of the murders they suggested part-time fostering of the kids to Sheila.  We have no way to know whether 1) they suggested such to her at a prior time but he made up it was right before to make it sound like the murders were linked, or 2) they had not spoken to her at all about such and Jeremy made it up; or 3) they really did talk about it to her on the day of the murders.  Since Jeremy is not reliable we have no idea which is the case.

HOWEVER, even if we do take his claims as true they mean little.  They supposedly suggested part time fostering help like she welcomed in the past.  If she welcomed it in the past and didn't consider it to amount to her losing her kids at that time why would she perceive it as such now?  If she had not done it in the past then the claim she misinterpreted it as meaning she would lose custody would be more credible. Moreover, he did not claim she got angry at the suggestion. Getting angry and saying she didn't want to lose custody of her kids would be an indication she misunderstood and thought she was going to lose her kids.  But Jeremy described her as barely reacting and not being upset. He probably figured that if he suggested she got mad and was arguing with them that at that point she should have gone to arm herself so instead said she barely reacted and they planned to discuss it again later. The implication being they discussed it again later int he middle of the night and at that point she snapped.

But it is not credible they discussed it again in the middle of the night even let alone that they did and then she snapped as a result. It is not credible she would be worried about part time foster help and misinterpret it as losing her kids and not credible it would panic her to the point of killing everyone and committing suicide.

[Caroline]

You said we only have JB's word for the foster care arrangement.  Which is true based on any conversations that took place on 6th/7th Aug.  However a few weeks before the tragedy June had a tel con with CC's mother where June expressed her concerns that the twins might be placed in foster care on the basis Social Services might intervene and take responsibility for the twins.

According to Jermey, the conversation was about having the twins fostered and yet just weeks before the tragedy, June was 'concerned; for them NOT to be fostered?

[adam]

I don't know why there would be conversations about fostering. CC would have something to say about that. The twins had been brought up for six years, so to suddenly have them fostered would be surprising.

The twins were 6 and about to go to or already at school. Which would take up a large part of the day. If Sheila and CC had managed for the first 6 years, surely the next 6 years would be easier than bringing up two babies who needed 24/7 attention.

The twins had two parents. Plus two grandparents who were fit enough to help out. If they could afford to financially support Sheila in London, they could afford a nanny for her. But if CC was spending the most time with them, then Sheila would want to spend all of her allocated time with the twins, rather than reducing the time she spent with them.

If Bamber was right about Sheila moving into his cottage, then the grandparents would be even more available to assist. 

At the most the grandparents wanted to make life easier for CC and Sheila. Either by paying for help or helping out themselves. Sheila would be pleased and grateful, rather than go and kill everyone.

[John]

I think it more likely that Sheila and the twins were to be brought back home, at least to the cottage in Goldhanger.  That would have effectively killed two birds with the one stone.  On the one hand it would have got Jeremy and Julie out of the cottage and it would provide a stable base for Sheila and the kids.

Jeremy would have been extremely pissed at the thought of it.

[scipio_usmc]

I think it more likely that Sheila and the twins were to be brought back home, at least to the cottage in Goldhanger.  That would have effectively killed two birds with the one stone.  On the one hand it would have got Jeremy and Julie out of the cottage and it would provide a stable base for Sheila and the kids.

Jeremy would have been extremely pissed at the thought of it.

Julie already moved from Goldhanger. She was living with roommates at the time of the murders.  Had she still been living at Goldhanger Jeremy would have had her lie to alibi him.

[Holly Goodhead]

According to Jermey, the conversation was about having the twins fostered and yet just weeks before the tragedy, June was 'concerned; for them NOT to be fostered?

I believe there are many different forms of foster care.  It appears June was concerned social services would intervene and place the twins in permanent foster care.

According to JB, June was 'encouraging' SC to relocate to Essex where she could be helped to care for the twins by foster day carers and no doubt NB and June too.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think it more likely that Sheila and the twins were to be brought back home, at least to the cottage in Goldhanger.  That would have effectively killed two birds with the one stone.  On the one hand it would have got Jeremy and Julie out of the cottage and it would provide a stable base for Sheila and the kids.

Jeremy would have been extremely pissed at the thought of it.

SC was an adult entitled to make her own life choices.  Did she want to be "brought back home".  SC went to boarding school at 10 yoa returning to WHF/Essex during school hols.  At 16/17 yoa she moved to London.  Was WHF/Essex ever "home" to SC?

As far as I'm aware SC didn't have any of her own friends in Essex just friends of the family.  Whereas in London she had a wide network of acquaintances, friends, CC and his family.

SC didn't drive which isn't a problem in London but in rural Essex would be very restrictive. 

I would imagine to SC life in rural Essex without transport and June breathing down her neck would be her idea of hell on earth.  I thought most agreed SC was the most likely author of "I hate this place" inscribed on the inside of a wardrobe door at WHF?

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't know why there would be conversations about fostering. CC would have something to say about that. The twins had been brought up for six years, so to suddenly have them fostered would be surprising.

The twins were 6 and about to go to or already at school. Which would take up a large part of the day. If Sheila and CC had managed for the first 6 years, surely the next 6 years would be easier than bringing up two babies who needed 24/7 attention.

The twins had two parents. Plus two grandparents who were fit enough to help out. If they could afford to financially support Sheila in London, they could afford a nanny for her. But if CC was spending the most time with them, then Sheila would want to spend all of her allocated time with the twins, rather than reducing the time she spent with them.

If Bamber was right about Sheila moving into his cottage, then the grandparents would be even more available to assist. 

At the most the grandparents wanted to make life easier for CC and Sheila. Either by paying for help or helping out themselves. Sheila would be pleased and grateful, rather than go and kill everyone.

I think a crisis point had been reached:

- The twins had come to the attention of their teacher over concerns about their home life and its effect on their school performance
- The twins told CC's mother they were having to get themselves ready for school in the morning - 5 yoa at the time
- Dr F informed CC following SC's second breakdown that she was psychotic and had schizophrenia; that she would always have the illness and at more frequent intervals
- CC wanted NB to encourage SC to allow him to have full custody of the twins

If June was unhappy about JM staying over at JB's pad she surely would have been aghast at her young grandsons living with their father and whatever girlfriend was around?

The Bambers must have realised without SC as an ally the above was a distinct possibility.  They may have even pitched it to SC that CC would be granted full custody of the twins unless she agreed to move back to Essex where they could assist caring for the twins along with foster day carers.  SC was then stuck between a rock and a hard place: CC having full custody of the twins with SC remaining in London or SC moving back to WHF/Essex with the twins under June's watchful eye.

CC's letter to NB uploaded and part of CC's WS confirming his discussion with Dr F.  I appreciate CC didn't actually send the letter to NB but the important thing is that CC had serious concerns about the twins which were probably shared by the Bambers.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Caroline]

I think a crisis point had been reached:

- The twins had come to the attention of their teacher over concerns about their home life and its effect on their school performance
- The twins told CC's mother they were having to get themselves ready for school in the morning - 5 yoa at the time
- Dr F informed CC following SC's second breakdown that she was psychotic and had schizophrenia; that she would always have the illness and at more frequent intervals
- CC wanted NB to encourage SC to allow him to have full custody of the twins

If June was unhappy about JM staying over at JB's pad she surely would have been aghast at her young grandsons living with their father and whatever girlfriend was around?

The Bambers must have realised without SC as an ally the above was a distinct possibility.  They may have even pitched it to SC that CC would be granted full custody of the twins unless she agreed to move back to Essex where they could assist caring for the twins along with foster day carers.  SC was then stuck between a rock and a hard place: CC having full custody of the twins with SC remaining in London or SC moving back to WHF/Essex with the twins under June's watchful eye.

CC's letter to NB uploaded and part of CC's WS confirming his discussion with Dr F.  I appreciate CC didn't actually send the letter to NB but the important thing is that CC had serious concerns about the twins which were probably shared by the Bambers.

There is nothing other than Jeremy's word to say that June had suggested foster care for the twins and from what you have previously posted, June was concerned that it might happen not that she was in favour of it. Colin was already the primary carer and as the letter was never sent, they had no idea of how strongly Colin felt about June's influence

[Holly Goodhead]

There is nothing other than Jeremy's word to say that June had suggested foster care for the twins and from what you have previously posted, June was concerned that it might happen not that she was in favour of it. Colin was already the primary carer and as the letter was never sent, they had no idea of how strongly Colin felt about June's influence

As I've previously pointed out there's a huge difference between permanent foster care and day care.  The twins/SC had previously experienced foster day care.

June discussed her concerns with CC's mother that the twins would be placed in foster care.

[scipio_usmc]

As I've previously pointed out there's a huge difference between permanent foster care and day care.  The twins/SC had previously experienced foster day care.

June discussed her concerns with CC's mother that the twins would be placed in foster care.

Let's put this in perspective. Sheila has a second breakdown and is in the looney bin (yeah I know not being nice blah blah blah) so June told her counterpart that she was concerned about the kids being taken away by the welfare system. June's counterpart said don't worry I am sure that the government will not do that since their father and extended families can help care for them and in fact while in the hospital Collin largely was watching them. June's irrational fears of the state taking the away were allayed by her counterpart's straight head.

The day care is different but perhaps not totally unrelated. PERHAPS June fears were not fully allayed and as a result she felt day care would be a good way to make sure the state didn't intervene. It could be that she just was thinking of Sheila and wanted to help her but there is still a chance she felt lessening the burden on Sheila would result in the state not intervening.  This is all immaterial though.

The material issue is IF June did suggest day care would Sheila have become despondent over the thought and have decided to kill her kids and herself and even her parents. The professional treating her said no. He based his opinion on the fact that 1) she had already used day care so was familiar with it and understood it was not loosing custody of her kids; 2) she not only was familiar with it but had welcomed it in the past so likely would still view such favorably; 3) Jeremy's claim that after such was suggested she didn't react badly to it and wasn't disturbed.

From the defense perspective this sucks she didn't react badly in the past to such assistance and according to the defendant she didn't react badly to suggestions of getting such aid again. That doesn't leave a very strong argument for the defense.

The defense would have had more luck arguing she misinterpreted this as losing custody of her kids if she had never used day care before so was unfamiliar with it and someone reliable had seen her react strongly against the suggestion saying she didn't want to give up custody. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Let's put this in perspective. Sheila has a second breakdown and is in the looney bin (yeah I know not being nice blah blah blah) so June told her counterpart that she was concerned about the kids being taken away by the welfare system. June's counterpart said don't worry I am sure that the government will not do that since their father and extended families can help care for them and in fact while in the hospital Collin largely was watching them. June's irrational fears of the state taking the away were allayed by her counterpart's straight head.

The day care is different but perhaps not totally unrelated. PERHAPS June fears were not fully allayed and as a result she felt day care would be a good way to make sure the state didn't intervene. It could be that she just was thinking of Sheila and wanted to help her but there is still a chance she felt lessening the burden on Sheila would result in the state not intervening.  This is all immaterial though.

The material issue is IF June did suggest day care would Sheila have become despondent over the thought and have decided to kill her kids and herself and even her parents. The professional treating her said no. He based his opinion on the fact that 1) she had already used day care so was familiar with it and understood it was not loosing custody of her kids; 2) she not only was familiar with it but had welcomed it in the past so likely would still view such favorably; 3) Jeremy's claim that after such was suggested she didn't react badly to it and wasn't disturbed.

From the defense perspective this sucks she didn't react badly in the past to such assistance and according to the defendant she didn't react badly to suggestions of getting such aid again. That doesn't leave a very strong argument for the defense.

The defense would have had more luck arguing she misinterpreted this as losing custody of her kids if she had never used day care before so was unfamiliar with it and someone reliable had seen her react strongly against the suggestion saying she didn't want to give up custody.

Whether June's fears were genuine to her or whether she was using it in an attempt to gain control one way or another we will probably never know.

As far as I am aware neither parent had custody rights in the legal sense.  Following their separation and subsequent divorce the twins lived with SC.  During SC's first breakdown, around June '83, the twins went to live with CC.  When SC left hospital the twins went back to live with SC.  During SC's second breakdown, around Mar '85, the twins once again went to live with CC.  When SC left hospital the twins remained with CC.

It is obvious from the letter CC drafted to NB, post SC's second breakdown, he had serious concerns over SC's ability to care for the twins due to her mental illness and was not prepared to relinquish his role as full-time parent back to SC:

- The twins were just 6 yoa at the time they were murdered.
- They were having to get themselves ready for school and then wake SC
- Teachers were concerned about their school performance and home life to the point the headmistress discusssed with CC
- The twins complained to CC and his parents that SC wasn't listening to them; or heard what they were saying; or answered their questions
 - Dr F informed CC following SC's second breakdown that she was psychotic and had schizophrenia; that she would always have the illness and at more frequent intervals

No caring parent would expose their children to the above.  It is very sad but SC was simply not fit to parent the twins unsupervised due to her mental illness.

CC said SC wanted him back.  Did SC want CC back for himself or did she realise it was the only way the twins would be living with her full-time again?

Following SC's second breakdown from CC's mother WS:

- SC was upset and wished the twins were back with her again
- SC cried in her arms and this was the first time she had ever seen SC show any emotion
- SC was very upset and miserable about her life and she wanted her children to live with her again
- SC stayed with her for a few hours and was obviously unhappy and distressed