Other cases where adoptions have gone horribly wrong resulting in murder

[Nicholas]

Here's a case where an adoptee murdered her birth children.  Her ex-partner commented:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rachel-james-grieving-dad-hits-123282

Marc said: “She decided to find her real mum in America and that’s when she began to flip.”

what do the experts have to say? We say all kinds of things when we are in shock. Maybe it was nothing more than coincidence

[APRIL]

I do recall reading a book (a rarity in itself for me) entitled 'The Primal Wound' which contained a section on 'genetic sexual attraction' (GSA).  This is supposedly where adult adoptees reunite with their birth parents and fall in love!  I'm pleased to say this didn't happen to me.

Page 8:

http://www.scstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Birth-Relatives-Information-Pack-2017.pdf

However there's no getting away from the fact these reunions and relationships are complex.  I do wonder how SC coped reuniting with her BM which coincidentally took place a few weeks before the tragedy at WHF.

I do know of a case where this occurred. The bio father being only 16 years senior to his daughter. No mediator was involved when the meeting took place over a weekend, but a lot of alcohol was, as was the father's second wife -the daughter's bio mother having died- who was roughly the same age as the daughter. The weekend was an unmitigated disaster!!!

I've often wondered how went Sheila's meeting with Christine. There must have been a gamut of emotions from them both. I would be interesting to know if they were entirely truthful with each other and to know if Sheila opened up about her relationship with June.

[Nicholas]

I didn't say I wasn't interested in SH's case per se Stephanie.  I said this thread is about triad members: adoptees, adopters and biological parents murdering within the triad.  And adoptees who murder their birth children.

Here is some of what Simon Hall had to say on his adoption and family etc https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/

and here re adoption, murder and family..
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/simon-hall-letters/

"So you reject him too, and now he slates you online. It’s sh*t like that can turn a man into a rapist because he’ll have a power complex. A ticking time bomb! I’ve seen them walking these landings

Unless of course that too is a deflection and that’s actually a fragment of his own screwed up personality? Like the closet “straight man” who beats up gay’s to try to hide his own feelings about his true sexuality… perhaps he’s actually a ‘secret of his own?
.

[Eleanor]

There are a lot of cases in past history regarding Ruling Families wherein fathers married daughters and brothers married sisters.  Something to do with keeping the bloodline pure, and no one seems to have had a problem with this at the time.

In Hawaii once upon a time this was common practice.  And they just bumped off any disabled or damaged children.  No one seems to have made a fuss about this either.   A bad one.  Get rid of it.  Have another one.  Very sensible under the circumstances. Until The Missionaries came along.

But in Egypt it seems to have been more about the Ruling Family and retaining power.  Tutankhamun  was disabled, although not massively, although I don't know much about his head, or brain power as such.  However, he did die young.

But none of these people seem to have had any trouble mating with Siblings or Parents.

It is now very much against The Law, for obvious reasons.  Although I don't think anyone actually does anything about these people living together so long as they don't breed.  And who would need or be able to know anyway.

[Nicholas]

There are a lot of cases in past history regarding Ruling Families wherein fathers married daughters and brothers married sisters.  Something to do with keeping the bloodline pure, and no one seems to have had a problem with this at the time.

Yes, like the Borgias 

[Eleanor]

Yes, like the Borgias 

Not really.  The Pope wasn't trying to keep his bloodline pure or trying to breed another Pope.  He just wanted to get his end away without anyone knowing what he was up to.  Sainted man that he was supposed to be.

[Nicholas]

Not really.  The Pope wasn't trying to keep his bloodline pure or trying to breed another Pope.  He just wanted to get his end away without anyone knowing what he was up to.  Sainted man that he was supposed to be.

Do you mean Pope Alexander VI? He sounds like a psychopath. 

"Appearance and personality   
Contemporary accounts suggest that Rodrigo was "handsome, with a very cheerful countenance and genial bearing. He was gifted with the quality of being a smooth talker and of choice eloquence. Beautiful women were attracted to him and excited by him in quite a remarkable way, more strongly than how 'iron is drawn to a magnet'."[12] Rodrigo Borgia was also an intelligent man with an appreciation for the arts and sciences and an immense amount of respect for the Church. He was capable and cautious, considered a "political priest" by some. He was a gifted speaker and great at conversation. Additionally, he was "so familiar with Holy Writ, that his speeches were fairly sparkling with well-chosen texts of the Sacred Books".[Note 2][14][Note 3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI

No I wasn't referring to him, nevermind..

[Holly Goodhead]

I do know of a case where this occurred. The bio father being only 16 years senior to his daughter. No mediator was involved when the meeting took place over a weekend, but a lot of alcohol was, as was the father's second wife -the daughter's bio mother having died- who was roughly the same age as the daughter. The weekend was an unmitigated disaster!!!

I've often wondered how went Sheila's meeting with Christine. There must have been a gamut of emotions from them both. I would be interesting to know if they were entirely truthful with each other and to know if Sheila opened up about her relationship with June.

It would be interesting to hear from members of SC's birth family who met with her and their account of meetings and SC.  I recall from CAL SC held a dinner party for CJ, PJ and her birth maternal grandparents.  I believe the maternal bio grandmother was disturbed by all SC's questions.  All we really hear is the good news from CC and SC's bestie.  Perhaps a bit like JB's syrupy version of family life at WHF on his blog which makes the set up sound like the Waltons. 

[Holly Goodhead]

what do the experts have to say? We say all kinds of things when we are in shock. Maybe it was nothing more than coincidence

I think this sort of thing often falls under the radar.

It was reading about this case and around the same time being reminded of WHF in the papers that aroused my interest in JB's case. 

[Nicholas]

I think this sort of thing often falls under the radar.

It was reading about this case and around the same time being reminded of WHF in the papers that aroused my interest in JB's case.

I don't follow Holly? What makes you interested in murder?

[Nicholas]

It would be interesting to hear from members of SC's birth family who met with her and their account of meetings and SC.  I recall from CAL SC held a dinner party for CJ, PJ and her birth maternal grandparents.  I believe the maternal bio grandmother was disturbed by all SC's questions.  All we really hear is the good news from CC and SC's bestie.  Perhaps a bit like JB's syrupy version of family life at WHF on his blog which makes the set up sound like the Waltons.

That could be held under PII or maybe Jezza knows what was said but has kept it to himself all these years? 

Surely you spoke to him about this in your communications?

Maybe you are coming out of denial Holly and recognising Bambers "syrupy" BS for what it is? They were far from the "Waltons"

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't follow Holly? What makes you interested in murder?

Well I mean baby scoop era adoptions took place in a completely different era.  At the time the adoption orders were formalised through the courts identities were withheld meaning adopted children were unable to identify their birth parents and vice-versa for birth parents.  In 1975/76 the law changed allowing adoptees access to their original birth cert and adoption records.  This identifying info meant adoptees who wanted to know more and/or meet their birth parents could do so.  However apart from a compulsory 20 min meet with a social worker that's it.  One is left to get on with it!  So there's little reliable data on outcomes.  If it sends some over the edge who is going to connect the dots?  If indeed there are dots to be connected. 

I'm not interested in murder per se.  I just read about the Rachael James case about the time JB's case was in the papers re his 2011/12 CCRC submission and it just got me thinking about whether adoption played a role. 

[Holly Goodhead]

That could be held under PII or maybe Jezza knows what was said but has kept it to himself all these years? 

Surely you spoke to him about this in your communications?

Maybe you are coming out of denial Holly and recognising Bambers "syrupy" BS for what it is? They were far from the "Waltons"

I've exchanged about 20 pieces of correspondence with JB.  From memory only the first exchange mentioned adoption.

I don't believe I'm in denial.  I believe I've undertaken an in-depth analysis of the case over a long period of time and my conclusion is that JB is innocent.  Of course I might be wrong.

I think all the stuff on his blog is ott but that's a matter for him.  It doesn't affect the way I view his case. 

[Nicholas]

I've exchanged about 20 pieces of correspondence with JB.  From memory only the first exchange mentioned adoption.

I don't believe I'm in denial.  I believe I've undertaken an in-depth analysis of the case over a long period of time and my conclusion is that JB is innocent.  Of course I might be wrong.

I think all the stuff on his blog is ott but that's a matter for him.  It doesn't affect the way I view his case.

What do you mean about the stuff on his blog being ott? Aren't his letters like that then?

[Nicholas]

I've exchanged about 20 pieces of correspondence with JB.  From memory only the first exchange mentioned adoption.

I don't believe I'm in denial.  I believe I've undertaken an in-depth analysis of the case over a long period of time and my conclusion is that JB is innocent.  Of course I might be wrong.

I think all the stuff on his blog is ott but that's a matter for him.  It doesn't affect the way I view his case.

Don't tell me - your letter to him mentioned adoption; he avoided the subject?