Other cases where adoptions have gone horribly wrong resulting in murder

[APRIL]

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.

There are channels which can be used. Can't recall the acronym but it's something about adopting and fostering. They do the leg work and act as mediators. They require payment for BC's etc plus £50 admin? Unless they're bound by client confidentiality, they might be prepared to give stats.

[Holly Goodhead]

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

No not at all.  At the time adoption was making headlines.  The gov produced a report and was on a drive to increase adoptions.  I disagreed with the report and wrote to David Cameron.  I made ref to the Bamber family as a past example of what imo was a poorly arranged adoption.  I sent a copy to JB. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-narey-report-a-blueprint-for-the-nations-lost-children-7b2ktmcrf0w

[Holly Goodhead]

There are channels which can be used. Can't recall the acronym but it's something about adopting and fostering. They do the leg work and act as mediators. They require payment for BC's etc plus £50 admin? Unless they're bound by client confidentiality, they might be prepared to give stats.

That might well be the case now but when SC and I met our birth mothers 1985 and 1986 respectively it was the 20 min session with a social worker.  From memory it was simply a sort of tick box exercise.

Yes there's some statistical data now but bearing in mind when SC and I met with our BM's we were among the first from the baby scoop era post change in law. 

[APRIL]

That might well be the case now but when SC and I met our birth mothers 1985 and 1986 respectively it was the 20 min session with a social worker.  From memory it was simply a sort of tick box exercise.

Yes there's some statistical data now but bearing in mind when SC and I met with our BM's we were among the first from the baby scoop era post change in law.

I really can't recall when I applied for my pre adoption papers but I was allocated a social worker who explained my bio mother's background. It wasn't possible for her to do more than that.

[Holly Goodhead]

I really can't recall when I applied for my pre adoption papers but I was allocated a social worker who explained my bio mother's background. It wasn't possible for her to do more than that.

Yes that's how it was then.

[Nicholas]

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.

I missed this, sorry Holly. Thanks for the reply!

[Nicholas]

No not at all.  At the time adoption was making headlines.  The gov produced a report and was on a drive to increase adoptions.  I disagreed with the report and wrote to David Cameron.  I made ref to the Bamber family as a past example of what imo was a poorly arranged adoption.  I sent a copy to JB. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-narey-report-a-blueprint-for-the-nations-lost-children-7b2ktmcrf0w

So you did mention adoption.

Did he reply to you regarding what you'd written to DC?

[Nicholas]

That might well be the case now but when SC and I met our birth mothers 1985 and 1986 respectively it was the 20 min session with a social worker.  From memory it was simply a sort of tick box exercise.

Yes there's some statistical data now but bearing in mind when SC and I met with our BM's we were among the first from the baby scoop era post change in law.

What makes you think SC's experience was the same/or similar as yours Holly, or have I misunderstood what you are trying to get across?

And what makes you think SC guilty, when all the evidence points away from her and has her brother banged to rights?

This was a carefully planned execution.

[Nicholas]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/20/man-who-murdered-adopted-daughter-was-jekyll-and-hyde-character

Are these cases similar to families without connection to adoption?  Or does adoption pose additional problems and risks of something going seriously awry?

"The labelling Theory of Crime is associated with Interactionism – the Key ideas are that crime is socially constructed, agents of social control label the powerless as deviant and criminal based on stereotypical assumptions and this creates effects such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, the criminal career and deviancy amplification.

Interactionists argue that people do not become criminals because of their social background, but rather argue that crime emerges because of labelling by authorities. They see crime as the product of micro-level interactions between certain individuals and the police, rather than the result of external social forces such as socialisation or blocked opportunity structures.

Four Key concepts associated with Interactionist theories of deviance

https://revisesociology.com/2016/08/20/labelling-theory-crime-deviance/

[Nicholas]

No not at all.  At the time adoption was making headlines.  The gov produced a report and was on a drive to increase adoptions.  I disagreed with the report and wrote to David Cameron.  I made ref to the Bamber family as a past example of what imo was a poorly arranged adoption.  I sent a copy to JB. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-narey-report-a-blueprint-for-the-nations-lost-children-7b2ktmcrf0w

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-essex-david-cameron-vows-to-ensure-murderers-like-steve-wright-and-jeremy-bamber-die-in-prison-1-3171981

[Holly Goodhead]

What makes you think SC's experience was the same/or similar as yours Holly, or have I misunderstood what you are trying to get across?

We are all individuals so same or similar experiences are likely to be perceived differently.  However there are no doubt similarities in perceptions of experience hence we have:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adoption-Reunion-Handbook-Elizabeth-Trinder/dp/0470094222

And what makes you think SC guilty, when all the evidence points away from her and has her brother banged to rights?

What evidence are you referring to? 

This was a carefully planned execution.

I'm only aware of 3 cases of mass murder by shooting within domestic dwellings: Bamber, Bain, DeFeo.

I will stick with Bamber and Bain whereby both cases use .22 rifles (low powered).  In the case of JB the potential perps were JB or SC.  JB was a marksman at Greshams.  SC had virtually no experience.  In the Bain case both potential perps: David Bain and Robin Bain were both experienced with firearms.  If you think JB was responsible how do you explain the following:

Bambers:  Victims: 3 x adults, 2 children = 25/26 gunshot wounds

Bain: Victims: 5 x adults = 7 gunshot wounds

The WHF soc is anything but carefully planned.  It's amateurish and manic.

[Nicholas]

No not at all.  At the time adoption was making headlines.  The gov produced a report and was on a drive to increase adoptions.  I disagreed with the report and wrote to David Cameron.  I made ref to the Bamber family as a past example of what imo was a poorly arranged adoption.  I sent a copy to JB. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-narey-report-a-blueprint-for-the-nations-lost-children-7b2ktmcrf0w

Do you think it's fair to make such claims regarding the Bamber family adoptions, when none of them are able to defend themselves against your allegations?

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you think it's fair to make such claims regarding the Bamber family adoptions, when none of them are able to defend themselves against your allegations?

There's nothing to defend against.  It's there for all to see warts n all. 

June Bamber suffered a mental breakdown in 1955 due to her inability to conceive birth children.  In 1957 the Bambers looked to adopt SC formalising the process in 1958.  In 1959 June suffered a further breakdown due to her decision to adopt.  I understand SC was placed in the care of foster parents whilst June received in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment.  When June returned to WHF a 17 year old nanny was taken on full-time to care for SC.  In 1961 the Bambers adopted JB.

- June suffered 3 mental breakdowns: 1955, 1959 and 1982
- SC suffered 2 mental breakdowns: 1983 and 1985
- JB was found guilty of murdering his entire immediate adoptive family
- No shared genes. 
- All the above mental breakdowns required in-patient psychiatric treatment.

Do you think the Bambers would be approved to adopt today?

[Nicholas]

There's nothing to defend against.  It's there for all to see warts n all. 

June Bamber suffered a mental breakdown in 1955 due to her inability to conceive birth children.  In 1957 the Bambers looked to adopt SC formalising the process in 1958.  In 1959 June suffered a further breakdown due to her decision to adopt.  I understand SC was placed in the care of foster parents whilst June received in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment.  When June returned to WHF a 17 year old nanny was taken on full-time to care for SC.  In 1961 the Bambers adopted JB.

- June suffered 3 mental breakdowns: 1955, 1959 and 1982
- SC suffered 2 mental breakdowns: 1983 and 1985
- JB was found guilty of murdering his entire immediate adoptive family
- No shared genes. 
- All the above mental breakdowns required in-patient psychiatric treatment.

Do you think the Bambers would be approved to adopt today?

Your question is neither here nor there Holly and is completely irrelevant to debate.

But do you recognise how your email to Kerry Daynes (and other related forum posts) focus on June and Sheila, yet you appear oblivious to Jeremy Bamber, presumably because his annual prison assessments suggest he isn't a psychopath nor does he suffer from mental health.

In reality Holly Jeremy Bamber has not been transparent.

Whilst he has suggested his 27 assessments showed him to not be a psychopath and has placed this info the public domain in order to gain support, none of us are aware of what formed the basis of his assessments nor indeed how he chose to answer the questions posed by the assessor.

Why do think Jeremy Bamber has chosen to allow his murdered victims backgrounds to be judged and scrutinised by all?

Why do you think he's placed more and more information into the public domain over the years, focusing on his murdered victims and indeed surviving relatives but has at no time been transparent about himself? Does this not stand out to you like it does me and many others?

[Nicholas]

June Bamber suffered a mental breakdown in 1955 due to her inability to conceive birth children.  In 1957 the Bambers looked to adopt SC formalising the process in 1958.  In 1959 June suffered a further breakdown due to her decision to adopt.  I understand SC was placed in the care of foster parents whilst June received in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment.  When June returned to WHF a 17 year old nanny was taken on full-time to care for SC.  In 1961 the Bambers adopted JB.

- June suffered 3 mental breakdowns: 1955, 1959 and 1982
- SC suffered 2 mental breakdowns: 1983 and 1985
- JB was found guilty of murdering his entire immediate adoptive family
- No shared genes. 
- All the above mental breakdowns required in-patient psychiatric treatment.

So where is Jeremy Bamber in your observations?

What about his quite apparent personality disorder?

Why do you ONLY focus on Sheila and June?