UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on April 28, 2020, 10:24:21 PM
-
SC and CC divorced in May 1982 and according to CC had joint custody of the twins. I've no idea if this was a formal arrangement through the courts or informal between themselves.
Up until SC's second breakdown on 2nd March 1985, which required in-patient psychiatric care, SC was main carer to the twins.
During SC's hospitalisation the twins went to live with CC. CC claims he became aware through his mother and the twin's teacher and headmistress that SC was unable to meet the twin's basic needs. CC set out his concerns in a letter to NB also seeking his support in "trying to convince" SC it would be best it the twins stayed with him most of the time and SC could see them whenever she wished. The letter was never sent.
CC managed to speak with SC's psychiatrist, Dr Ferguson, and was told SC was psychotic and had schizophrenia which she would always have and at more frequent intervals.
SC was discharged from hospital on 29th March 1985. CC remained main carer to the twins up until 7th August. He saw SC a few times with the twins and during the last couple of weeks leading up to 7th August SC made clear she wanted the twins and CC back.
CC's mother saw SC at her flat in the middle of June. SC broke down in her arms crying, the first time she had ever seen Sheila show any emotion. SC was very upset and miserable about her life and wanted her children to live with her again.
CC's mother had a tel conversation with June after SC's discharge where June conveyed her concerns that because of SC's illness the twins might be placed in foster homes.
It seems to me that various conversations were taking place about the twin's future.
After SC's first breakdown the twins went back to live with SC but this didn't happen after the second breakdown. What did SC think was going to happen short, medium and long term?
Did CC make clear to SC he intended to become full-time carer to the twins?
What did CC's mother say when SC became upset?
What did June and NB say when SC went to stay at WHF? If June was unhappy with SC and JB having sex outside of marriage I'm sure she would not have wanted her grandchildren living with their unemployed father and his girlfriend in a council flat.
-
SC and CC divorced in May 1982 and according to CC had joint custody of the twins. I've no idea if this was a formal arrangement through the courts or informal between themselves.
Up until SC's second breakdown on 2nd March 1985, which required in-patient psychiatric care, SC was main carer to the twins.
During SC's hospitalisation the twins went to live with CC. CC claims he became aware through his mother and the twin's teacher and headmistress that SC was unable to meet the twin's basic needs. CC set out his concerns in a letter to NB also seeking his support in "trying to convince" SC it would be best it the twins stayed with him most of the time and SC could see them whenever she wished. The letter was never sent.
CC managed to speak with SC's psychiatrist, Dr Ferguson, and was told SC was psychotic and had schizophrenia which she would always have and at more frequent intervals.
SC was discharged from hospital on 29th March 1985. CC remained main carer to the twins up until 7th August. He saw SC a few times with the twins and during the last couple of weeks leading up to 7th August SC made clear she wanted the twins and CC back.
CC's mother saw SC at her flat in the middle of June. SC broke down in her arms crying, the first time she had ever seen Sheila show any emotion. SC was very upset and miserable about her life and wanted her children to live with her again.
CC's mother had a tel conversation with June after SC's discharge where June conveyed her concerns that because of SC's illness the twins might be placed in foster homes.
It seems to me that various conversations were taking place about the twin's future.
After SC's first breakdown the twins went back to live with SC but this didn't happen after the second breakdown. What did SC think was going to happen short, medium and long term?
Did CC make clear to SC he intended to become full-time carer to the twins?
What did CC's mother say when SC became upset?
What did June and NB say when SC went to stay at WHF? If June was unhappy with SC and JB having sex outside of marriage I'm sure she would not have wanted her grandchildren living with their unemployed father and his girlfriend in a council flat.
Stuff we can't know.
-
That was Sheila and Colin’s Business.
By the way, Dr Ferguson never said her condition would worsen — wherever did you read that?
I read that Dr Ferguson said Sheila had MILD schizophrenia and it could be treated with medication. He also said Sheila was not a danger to herself OR her sons, and he was more than happy for her to have regular unsupervised access to the boys, including having them at weekends etc. So your version is exaggerated.
But whatever the situation, it wasn’t up to June or Nevill how the boys were to be brought up. And Colin had custody too, so he’d never have allowed June to interfere.
Colin was a decent, warm loving young father and despite Jeremy killing his two beautiful boys, he’s forged a wonderful career for himself and is happily married living in a beautiful home with his wife and daughter. He’s done extremely well to come through such a tragedy and to make such a lovely life for himself — given what heartache Jeremy put him through.
-
Stuff we can't know.
We can't, but it's rather important, since, according to Jeremy, Nevill, June and Sheila were having an argument on this very subject on the evening of the murders.
Some say there was no argument, and that Jeremy made it all up, in order to give a reason why Sheila might "go crazy with a gun."
I can well imagine it happening though. I'm sure Colin had every intention of continuing to have the twins living with him, and I can also imagine June, at least, not being too happy about that. Just my opinion though.
-
We can't, but it's rather important, since, according to Jeremy, Nevill, June and Sheila were having an argument on this very subject on the evening of the murders.
Some say there was no argument, and that Jeremy made it all up, in order to give a reason why Sheila might "go crazy with a gun."
I can well imagine it happening though. I'm sure Colin had every intention of continuing to have the twins living with him, and I can also imagine June, at least, not being too happy about that. Just my opinion though.
But Jeremy’s a pathological liar...and he would have made that up as a reason why Sheila might go mad.
He tripped himself up too — he said Sheila wasn’t saying a word. So how could they have been arguing?
It’s total rubbish.
-
We can't, but it's rather important, since, according to Jeremy, Nevill, June and Sheila were having an argument on this very subject on the evening of the murders.
Some say there was no argument, and that Jeremy made it all up, in order to give a reason why Sheila might "go crazy with a gun."
I can well imagine it happening though. I'm sure Colin had every intention of continuing to have the twins living with him, and I can also imagine June, at least, not being too happy about that. Just my opinion though.
JB was always rather vague about the supposed "fostering conversation" - just as he was vague about what he spoke to Julie about at 3am and Nevill supposedly only managing to utter 7 words.
I don't think this is a coincidence!
Holly's post has set out the facts very well and it seems to me that far from SC seeing this probably fictitious conversation as a threat that the boys would be taken away or fostered, the conversation would have been about getting her help to see them more or perhaps have them live with her permanently again. It would have given her hope.
I've never understood why people think the threat of losing her boys would trigger her, she had already lost them to CCs care.
-
JB was always rather vague about the supposed "fostering conversation" - just as he was vague about what he spoke to Julie about at 3am and Nevill supposedly only managing to utter 7 words.
I don't think this is a coincidence!
Holly's post has set out the facts very well and it seems to me that far from SC seeing this probably fictitious conversation as a threat that the boys would be taken away or fostered, the conversation would have been about getting her help to see them more or perhaps have them live with her permanently again. It would have given her hope.
I've never understood why people think the threat of losing her boys would trigger her, she had already lost them to CCs care.
She hadn't lost them; she shared custody with Colin, and saw the twins regularly.
June and Nevill couldn't actually have done anything at all without Colin's permission, but they might have tried, or, might have hinted to Sheila that she wasn't a fit mother---it's perfectly possible that something like that could have tipped her over the edge.
Jeremy might have been a liar, but that doesn't necessarily mean he lied about everything.
-
She hadn't lost them; she shared custody with Colin, and saw the twins regularly.
June and Nevill couldn't actually have done anything at all without Colin's permission, but they might have tried, or, might have hinted to Sheila that she wasn't a fit mother---it's perfectly possible that something like that could have tipped her over the edge.
Jeremy might have been a liar, but that doesn't necessarily mean he lied about everything.
If he did the murders then he lied about the phone call so it's reasonable to assume he lied about the supposed trigger for Sheila committing 4 murders without leaving a mark or speck of evidence on herself too.
JB said that he, SC, NB + JB were having the conversation and then when asked to elaborate claimed he wasn't really listening. As evidence, this is all just hearsay from JB and not very good hearsay at that.
CC effectively had sole custody from early March until 7th August which was the first time the boys had stayed with her since the breakdown ( as I recall ) so SC would have felt that she had lost the boys already, no matter how much she saw them, they no longer lived with her. J+N loved their grandchildren and would have wanted to help improve the situation.
-
That was Sheila and Colin’s Business.
By the way, Dr Ferguson never said her condition would worsen — wherever did you read that?
I read that Dr Ferguson said Sheila had MILD schizophrenia and it could be treated with medication. He also said Sheila was not a danger to herself OR her sons, and he was more than happy for her to have regular unsupervised access to the boys, including having them at weekends etc. So your version is exaggerated.
But whatever the situation, it wasn’t up to June or Nevill how the boys were to be brought up. And Colin had custody too, so he’d never have allowed June to interfere.
Colin was a decent, warm loving young father and despite Jeremy killing his two beautiful boys, he’s forged a wonderful career for himself and is happily married living in a beautiful home with his wife and daughter. He’s done extremely well to come through such a tragedy and to make such a lovely life for himself — given what heartache Jeremy put him through.
The question is not IF Dr Ferguson told Colin her condition would worsen -unless Colin is lying, he did- but when. It seems to me that it would be a strange diagnosis/prognosis of an adequately medicated patient, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say of a newly admitted patient who has failed to take prescribed medication and not attended follow up appointments.
-
The question is not IF Dr Ferguson told Colin her condition would worsen -unless Colin is lying, he did- but when. It seems to me that it would be a strange diagnosis/prognosis of an adequately medicated patient, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say of a newly admitted patient who has failed to take prescribed medication and not attended follow up appointments.
Colin’s never lied about a thing: everything he’s said has been substantiated. Dr Ferguson never said Sheila would get “worse” — schizophrenia is controllable with medication — and Sheila only had it MILDLY.
None of this fictitious nonsense makes sense: if Dr Ferguson truly said Sheila would get worse arrangements would have been put into place immediately for Colin to have sole custody of the twins, and all visits to Sheila would have been supervised.
It’s all rubbish.
-
The twins didn’t have a future, it was stolen from them by their uncle.
-
That was Sheila and Colin’s Business.
By the way, Dr Ferguson never said her condition would worsen — wherever did you read that?
I read that Dr Ferguson said Sheila had MILD schizophrenia and it could be treated with medication. He also said Sheila was not a danger to herself OR her sons, and he was more than happy for her to have regular unsupervised access to the boys, including having them at weekends etc. So your version is exaggerated.
But whatever the situation, it wasn’t up to June or Nevill how the boys were to be brought up. And Colin had custody too, so he’d never have allowed June to interfere.
Colin was a decent, warm loving young father and despite Jeremy killing his two beautiful boys, he’s forged a wonderful career for himself and is happily married living in a beautiful home with his wife and daughter. He’s done extremely well to come through such a tragedy and to make such a lovely life for himself — given what heartache Jeremy put him through.
Dr Ferguson said that in March '85 Sheila was was in an acute psychotic state. This was reduced with medication but flared up again when the dose was reduced. She was hostile with the nursing staff. He says that faced with what she saw as real threats she "could respond with physical aggression directed to property, to herself or to others". If she thought the children might be removed from her care Ferguson would have expected a very negative reaction. She would have either withdrawn into depression or become angry and vitriolic. [w/s 30/09/86]
Sheila's parents wanted to put her into a nursing home in Bournemouth, according to Pamela Boutflour. This would sever her connections with her London friends, and reduce her contact with Colin and the children. Although she would have objected, judging by the past her parents tended to overule her wishes. She couldn't rely on Colin's support; his priority was the children. She must have felt alone and powerless. Whether that, combined with the reduction in her medication was enough to reignite her psychosis I don't know, but I don't think it can be ruled out.
-
Colin’s never lied about a thing: everything he’s said has been substantiated. Dr Ferguson never said Sheila would get “worse” — schizophrenia is controllable with medication — and Sheila only had it MILDLY.
None of this fictitious nonsense makes sense: if Dr Ferguson truly said Sheila would get worse arrangements would have been put into place immediately for Colin to have sole custody of the twins, and all visits to Sheila would have been supervised.
It’s all rubbish.
I'm as good at finding cites, as are you, but you may take it as read that Dr Ferguson undoubtedly DID tell Colin that Sheila's condition would worsen. It's something Jeremy's supporters have used against Sheila since I first joined a forum. If you fully read my post, you'll have seen my suggestion that it was said when Sheila was first admitted and diagnosed, an assessment of her condition prior to intervention. It was NOT the prognosis she left hospital with, adequately medicated.
-
Dr Ferguson said that in March '85 Sheila was was in an acute psychotic state. This was reduced with medication but flared up again when the dose was reduced. She was hostile with the nursing staff. He says that faced with what she saw as real threats she "could respond with physical aggression directed to property, to herself or to others". If she thought the children might be removed from her care Ferguson would have expected a very negative reaction. She would have either withdrawn into depression or become angry and vitriolic. [w/s 30/09/86]
Sheila's parents wanted to put her into a nursing home in Bournemouth, according to Pamela Boutflour. This would sever her connections with her London friends, and reduce her contact with Colin and the children. Although she would have objected, judging by the past her parents tended to overule her wishes. She couldn't rely on Colin's support; his priority was the children. She must have felt alone and powerless. Whether that, combined with the reduction in her medication was enough to reignite her psychosis I don't know, but I don't think it can be ruled out.
Sheila never had another psychotic episode after March, so you’re wrong, again. Show me the evidence that Sheila had more episodes afterwards, Gunit. I guarantee you won’t — because she didn’t have any. That one episode in March was dealt with, and on her follow up visits to Dr Ferguson he said she was improving.
Your unqualified assumption that maybe Sheila suddenly had an episode due to her medication having been reduced is rubbish. Medical studies prove that there’s very little difference in the effectiveness between 100mg & 200mg doses, and as Sheila was so listless, tired and weak on that day, that proves the Haloperidol was more than effective and she wasn’t psychotic.
Psychotic episodes don’t suddenly start up in a flash. There’s signs of a lead-up: and she showed no signs at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. She could barely walk. She hadn’t been in a state of severe agitation for days, which are all the signs of an oncoming episode. She was actually docile and tired — not hyperactive, manic and rambling.
The alleged argument the proven liar, Jeremy claimed took place could not have happened as he later tripped himself up and said Sheila was just “sitting there saying nothing”. He engineered a false scenario to try and give a reason why Sheila may have gone “mad”. But if anyone goes “mad” it’s midst argument: they don’t go off to bed, fall asleep, then suddenly wake up at 3am and storm downstairs to pick up a long rifle — that they don’t know how to use — and start shooting the very sons they so desperately don’t want to lose.
It’s also nonsense to suggest she killed everyone because June suggested she should go to Bournemouth for a “rest”.
It wasn’t a permanent proposal; June obviously thought a break away for a fortnight might cheer her up, and Sheila wouldn’t have gone there despite June’s well-meaning suggestion.
You’re just fixated with trying to suggest Sheila suddenly went psychotic, but what you fail to realise, Gunit, is that psychotic episodes don’t occur suddenly: there’s a long, slow lead-up which is apparent to everyone and are independent of outside influences: so even had there been an argument that itself wouldn’t cause a full blown-out psychosis.
It’s irrelevant whether you think it can’t be ruled out, because you’re not a doctor, you’re not specialised, and the courts would never be interested in a stranger’s unqualified opinion.
-
I'm as good at finding cites, as are you, but you may take it as read that Dr Ferguson undoubtedly DID tell Colin that Sheila's condition would worsen. It's something Jeremy's supporters have used against Sheila since I first joined a forum. If you fully read my post, you'll have seen my suggestion that it was said when Sheila was first admitted and diagnosed, an assessment of her condition prior to intervention. It was NOT the prognosis she left hospital with, adequately medicated.
I’m not doubting what you read, April, but studies prove that Schizophrenia does not get worse. It CAN do if left untreated, like any illness, but as Schizophrenia is so apparent it’s unlikely anyone would go unnoticed if they had it and not be treated for it.
What or where you read that Dr Ferguson supposedly said Sheila could get worse, I can only assume it was a misquote or had been taken out of context, or was simply just part of Dr Ferguson’s prognosis report and didn’t show the whole thing in its entirety
.
Here’s one link for you, and a screenshot too
https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/schizophrenia-treatment-and-self-help.htm
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I’m not doubting what you read, April, but studies prove that Schizophrenia does not get worse. It CAN do if left untreated, like any illness, but as Schizophrenia is so apparent it’s unlikely anyone would go unnoticed if they had it and not be treated for it.
What or where you read that Dr Ferguson supposedly said Sheila could get worse, I can only assume it was a misquote or had been taken out of context, or was simply just part of Dr Ferguson’s prognosis report and didn’t show the whole thing in its entirety
.
Here’s one link for you, and a screenshot too
https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/schizophrenia-treatment-and-self-help.htm
WHOA!!! This is going WAY too far. I haven't attempted to read a specific meaning to the words he spoke, or to assess what he MAY have meant. I DO have reservations about his view that Sheila had a "mild" case, as I know about what Schizophrenia does/doesn't do, even more so does Dr Ferguson when he told Colin that Sheila -and I can ONLY believe it to have been his initial assessment of her- would, presumably without medical intervention, worsen. He must have sent her home adequately medicated, ie to prevent a re-occurrence. Re the "mild" case? Maybe it was his way of reassuring Colin? I'm just guessing he'd have made a judgement call about what Colin was capable of taking on board.
-
I'm as good at finding cites, as are you, but you may take it as read that Dr Ferguson undoubtedly DID tell Colin that Sheila's condition would worsen. It's something Jeremy's supporters have used against Sheila since I first joined a forum. If you fully read my post, you'll have seen my suggestion that it was said when Sheila was first admitted and diagnosed, an assessment of her condition prior to intervention. It was NOT the prognosis she left hospital with, adequately medicated.
Dr Ferguson told Colin that Sheila would always have the illness and that relapses would become more frequent and intense. [CAL p115]. That was why he decided to keep the boys with him. June wanted them to stay at White House Farm, but they didn't want to go and became upset. Colin allowed her to see them at Sheila's flat, but that also upset them when she made them kneel and pray. [CAL p116].
It seems to me that the twins would be staying with Colin going forward and that June's influence on them would be restricted by him. I find it believable therefore that June, fearing losing any influence or even contact in the future, was likely to be racking her brains for a different solution.
-
It was indeed a situation which fulfilled the parent's needs rather than those of the children.
Normally an Adoption Society choose who will be offered a child for adoption, but in Sheila's case it was her natural grandfather who decided that she should go to the Bambers. Apparently he knew Nevill Bamber from their service with the RAF. [CAL p22]. That was highly unusual and has never been explained, but it happened regardless of June's mental instability. A few months after the adoption June had another breakdown and was given electroshock therapy as an in-patient. Sheila was, therefore, shuffled around quite a bit. A spell with her natural mother, then a couple of months in a children's home, then being cared for by family members and a nanny. There was little chance imo that she and June were able to bond during all that.
I note that you refer to SC's birth mother as her "natural mother". Do you think there's something unnatural about adoptive mothers?
-
I note that you refer to SC's birth mother as her "natural mother". Do you think there's something unnatural about adoptive mothers?
I don't think she meant that.
-
We have several adoptees here - how different were N&J as far as your own experiences go? What preparation did parents receive before having a baby handed to them? Someone having a biological child, have time to prepare both practically and emotionally - it sounds to me like they were left to get on with it. I imagine they did their best and certainly didn't deserve to die in such horrendous circumstances just because they adopted two kids.
I don't think adoptive parents received any preparation; it was a time when women were expected to be maternal by nature. Adoption Societies screened prospective adopters to ensure they were 'respectable'; ie churchgoers of good repute and financially stable. These days they probably have other concerns too, but in those days the emphasis was on providing babies to those unable to conceive rather than on protecting the children from parents unsuited to raising unrelated children.
I'm also sure that the Bambers did their best, but June's unhealthy focus on religion caused problems for the children. Jeremy turned to his father and Sheila felt more comfortable with and closer to her aunt Pamela and granny Speakman than to her mother. June wasn't to blame for what happened but her mental problems obviously contributed, just as they were disturbing her relationship with her grandchildren. They, however, were able to compare her behaviour to that of their father and his family and they had their father to support them. Their mother and uncle had to just endure June's behaviour.
-
I note that you refer to SC's birth mother as her "natural mother". Do you think there's something unnatural about adoptive mothers?
There sometimes is. Especially in this case.
-
We have several adoptees here - how different were N&J as far as your own experiences go? What preparation did parents receive before having a baby handed to them? Someone having a biological child, have time to prepare both practically and emotionally - it sounds to me like they were left to get on with it. I imagine they did their best and certainly didn't deserve to die in such horrendous circumstances just because they adopted two kids.
I've posted the following previously and I think it's the best possible description of the dynamics:
Infertility is not usually something that "happens". Rather, it is a reality that is forced on a couple over a period of months which then stretch on into years. It includes anxieties about sexual performance and bodily intergrity. It includes medical investigations and the possibility of drugs and of surgical interventions. It includes the allocation of responsbility for the infertility - to the man, to the woman or to both. And it requires mourning.
I use the term "mourning" deliberately, as infertility implies some very significant losses. There is the loss of an image of oneself or of one's partner as biologically intact and capable of conceiving a child. There is the loss of the hoped-for status of biolgocial parent (which includes a fantasy of presenting a grandchild to one's own parents). And there is the loss of the hoped-for biological child, a child who carried both one's own genes and one's own dreams. This last loss, is for many people, an especially painful one. Paradoxically (except within a psychoanalytic framework) it is this loss of which they often are not conscious. Fantasies regarding their imagined biological child often remain hidden until they are exposed by a discrepancy between the real adopted child and the imagined biological child.
Unfortunately the adoptive parents' fantasies regarding their (nonexistent) biological child are not at all inactive. They silently colour many aspects of the relationship between the adoptive parents and their adopted child. And, of course they are not alone in this process; sooner or later the adopted child also develops his own fantasies about his biological parents.
These fantasies whether they reside within an adoptive parent or within the adopted child - are not necessarily pathogenic. However, the clinical literature contains many examples of families in which such fantasies prevented one person from seeing the real person in front of them. (The adopted playwright, Edward Albee, uses an especially powerful example of such fantasies as the focal point for his play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? In this play the "son" of the two major protagonists, George and Martha, is gradually revealed to be a fantasy - a fantasy who has himself wondered if, perhaps, he was adopted.)
If the adoptive parents are to be able to see their adopted child for whom he is, and if the adopted child is to be able to see his adoptive parents for whom they are, they must mourn the loss of their respective fantasied biological child and fantasied biological parents. The lost (fantasied) relationships must be mourned before the new (real adoptive) relationships can flourish".
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Adoption-David-M-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737
-
I don't think she meant that.
True. it's just another way of saying birth mother. I don't think that being adopted is always harmful; in fact birth parents can be just as harmful as adoptive parents. Also some children are able to deal with difficult parents and some aren't, just as some children are able to deal with bullies and some aren't. Adoption just adds another layer of difficulty to the challenges of growing up which all children face. In the end it's up to the individual to become someone they're happy being whatever their parent's opinions are. I jettisoned religion and some of my mother's priorities but the Bamber children chose to accept their parent's control to some extent, probably because they never became financially independant.
-
I note that you refer to SC's birth mother as her "natural mother". Do you think there's something unnatural about adoptive mothers?
This thread is titled Twins Future - aren’t you off topic?
-
I've posted the following previously and I think it's the best possible description of the dynamics:
Infertility is not usually something that "happens". Rather, it is a reality that is forced on a couple over a period of months which then stretch on into years. It includes anxieties about sexual performance and bodily intergrity. It includes medical investigations and the possibility of drugs and of surgical interventions. It includes the allocation of responsbility for the infertility - to the man, to the woman or to both. And it requires mourning.
I use the term "mourning" deliberately, as infertility implies some very significant losses. There is the loss of an image of oneself or of one's partner as biologically intact and capable of conceiving a child. There is the loss of the hoped-for status of biolgocial parent (which includes a fantasy of presenting a grandchild to one's own parents). And there is the loss of the hoped-for biological child, a child who carried both one's own genes and one's own dreams. This last loss, is for many people, an especially painful one. Paradoxically (except within a psychoanalytic framework) it is this loss of which they often are not conscious. Fantasies regarding their imagined biological child often remain hidden until they are exposed by a discrepancy between the real adopted child and the imagined biological child.
Unfortunately the adoptive parents' fantasies regarding their (nonexistent) biological child are not at all inactive. They silently colour many aspects of the relationship between the adoptive parents and their adopted child. And, of course they are not alone in this process; sooner or later the adopted child also develops his own fantasies about his biological parents.
These fantasies whether they reside within an adoptive parent or within the adopted child - are not necessarily pathogenic. However, the clinical literature contains many examples of families in which such fantasies prevented one person from seeing the real person in front of them. (The adopted playwright, Edward Albee, uses an especially powerful example of such fantasies as the focal point for his play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? In this play the "son" of the two major protagonists, George and Martha, is gradually revealed to be a fantasy - a fantasy who has himself wondered if, perhaps, he was adopted.)
If the adoptive parents are to be able to see their adopted child for whom he is, and if the adopted child is to be able to see his adoptive parents for whom they are, they must mourn the loss of their respective fantasied biological child and fantasied biological parents. The lost (fantasied) relationships must be mourned before the new (real adoptive) relationships can flourish".
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Adoption-David-M-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737
My mother's dream was for a little blond girl. She got one too, but she didn't get the compliance she didn't realise was part of her dream until it failed to materialise. Then the battle began. In later years she once told me that she envied me because I didn't fear life, I just went for it. It seems life frightened her, which isn't surprising really as she had good reason to be fearful, her life was harder by far than mine was.
-
This thread is titled Twins Future - aren’t you off topic?
Reading the thread 'Sheila's nightdress' it seems to me that being on topic isn't normally something you care about.
-
Dr Ferguson told Colin that Sheila would always have the illness and that relapses would become more frequent and intense. [CAL p115]. That was why he decided to keep the boys with him. June wanted them to stay at White House Farm, but they didn't want to go and became upset. Colin allowed her to see them at Sheila's flat, but that also upset them when she made them kneel and pray. [CAL p116].
It seems to me that the twins would be staying with Colin going forward and that June's influence on them would be restricted by him. I find it believable therefore that June, fearing losing any influence or even contact in the future, was likely to be racking her brains for a different solution.
Many thanks for validating my post, G-Unit
-
This thread is titled Twins Future - aren’t you off topic?
The Twins have No Future. The whole Thread is Off Topic.
-
We have several adoptees here - how different were N&J as far as your own experiences go? What preparation did parents receive before having a baby handed to them? Someone having a biological child, have time to prepare both practically and emotionally - it sounds to me like they were left to get on with it. I imagine they did their best and certainly didn't deserve to die in such horrendous circumstances just because they adopted two kids.
From what I've read about NB he sounds similar to my own adoptive father. Although you would not find my dad having anything to do with religion. In terms of my adoptive mother again she has no interest in religion, although wasn't as anti as my dad, but she is far more Liberal minded than June.
Babies put up for adoption during the so-called 'baby-scoop era' were in the main as a result of societal stigma attached to illegitimacy which was to some extent all bound up with the Church and religion.
To my mind I think June finding herself infertile and adopting children created real paradoxes for her: Why had God denied her birth children and how could she bond with these babies who represented everything she despised ie babies conceived outside of marriage? And this is before you have all the dynamics I described above.
It was only ever going to end in tears 8(8-))
-
True. it's just another way of saying birth mother. I don't think that being adopted is always harmful; in fact birth parents can be just as harmful as adoptive parents. Also some children are able to deal with difficult parents and some aren't, just as some children are able to deal with bullies and some aren't. Adoption just adds another layer of difficulty to the challenges of growing up which all children face. In the end it's up to the individual to become someone they're happy being whatever their parent's opinions are. I jettisoned religion and some of my mother's priorities but the Bamber children chose to accept their parent's control to some extent, probably because they never became financially independant.
My mum wasn't adopted per se, but she was brought up by her grandparents, only finding out that the person she thought was her oldest sister, was actually her birth mother. She had a good childhood but has always felt rejected since finding out aged about 7 years old from another sister (actually her aunt) after a disagreement. It's affected my mum all of her life because it was never openly discussed and I think she always felt like she was a dirty secret. They all probably thought they were doing the best for everyone, but, her real mum (my gran) went on to have other children and my mum missed out on getting to know them and they had no idea about my mum until recently. One big mess really that had ramifications for everyone.
-
I don't think she meant that.
Neither do I.
So, is "birth mother" the correct term to use, or "biological mother", or what?
-
I've posted the following previously and I think it's the best possible description of the dynamics:
Infertility is not usually something that "happens". Rather, it is a reality that is forced on a couple over a period of months which then stretch on into years. It includes anxieties about sexual performance and bodily intergrity. It includes medical investigations and the possibility of drugs and of surgical interventions. It includes the allocation of responsbility for the infertility - to the man, to the woman or to both. And it requires mourning.
I use the term "mourning" deliberately, as infertility implies some very significant losses. There is the loss of an image of oneself or of one's partner as biologically intact and capable of conceiving a child. There is the loss of the hoped-for status of biolgocial parent (which includes a fantasy of presenting a grandchild to one's own parents). And there is the loss of the hoped-for biological child, a child who carried both one's own genes and one's own dreams. This last loss, is for many people, an especially painful one. Paradoxically (except within a psychoanalytic framework) it is this loss of which they often are not conscious. Fantasies regarding their imagined biological child often remain hidden until they are exposed by a discrepancy between the real adopted child and the imagined biological child.
Unfortunately the adoptive parents' fantasies regarding their (nonexistent) biological child are not at all inactive. They silently colour many aspects of the relationship between the adoptive parents and their adopted child. And, of course they are not alone in this process; sooner or later the adopted child also develops his own fantasies about his biological parents.
These fantasies whether they reside within an adoptive parent or within the adopted child - are not necessarily pathogenic. However, the clinical literature contains many examples of families in which such fantasies prevented one person from seeing the real person in front of them. (The adopted playwright, Edward Albee, uses an especially powerful example of such fantasies as the focal point for his play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? In this play the "son" of the two major protagonists, George and Martha, is gradually revealed to be a fantasy - a fantasy who has himself wondered if, perhaps, he was adopted.)
If the adoptive parents are to be able to see their adopted child for whom he is, and if the adopted child is to be able to see his adoptive parents for whom they are, they must mourn the loss of their respective fantasied biological child and fantasied biological parents. The lost (fantasied) relationships must be mourned before the new (real adoptive) relationships can flourish".
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Adoption-David-M-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737
In my own case, there's no evidence of my adopted mother's infertility. Her fantasies of what/who her adopted child would become/think was always an alien concept -although I tried- to the person I was, and totally polarized to the person I became. My parents, their values and my upbringing were as close as makes no difference to the Bamber family unit, which is why I had some empathy with Jeremy.
-
The Twins have No Future. The whole Thread is Off Topic.
I agree. Bamber has been taking cheap shots at Sheila's mental state since he met Myall & Bews at WHF and continues to do so through his reprehensible CT.
The evidence that she could have snapped is thin. It's not impossible taken in isolation but her illness made her an ideal patsy and that's what Bamber wanted everyone to believe. If she hadn't been ill, he would have had to come up with a different plan.
There is not a shred of evidence that Sheila did it and nor will there ever be, no matter how hard JB & supporters try to blacken her name.
-
The Twins have No Future. The whole Thread is Off Topic.
Started by Holly
Who appears to have veered onto another topic entirely
-
I agree. Bamber has been taking cheap shots at Sheila's mental state since he met Myall & Bews at WHF and continues to do so through his reprehensible CT.
The evidence that she could have snapped is thin. It's not impossible taken in isolation but her illness made her an ideal patsy and that's what Bamber wanted everyone to believe. If she hadn't been ill, he would have had to come up with a different plan.
There is not a shred of evidence that Sheila did it and nor will there ever be, no matter how hard JB & supporters try to blacken her name.
Mark Newby is also culpable
Mark Newby has claimed, ‘I can’t say anything other than it was Sheila’
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mirror/20200121/282978221960529
-
Started by Holly
Who appears to have veered onto another topic entirely
At least there's a tenuous link unlike some threads that go off-topic!
Anyway stay calm and keep posting 8((()*/
-
Neither do I.
So, is "birth mother" the correct term to use, or "biological mother", or what?
I think if you look through literature on the subject the references have changed from natural to biological to birth.
-
WHOA!!! This is going WAY too far. I haven't attempted to read a specific meaning to the words he spoke, or to assess what he MAY have meant. I DO have reservations about his view that Sheila had a "mild" case, as I know about what Schizophrenia does/doesn't do, even more so does Dr Ferguson when he told Colin that Sheila -and I can ONLY believe it to have been his initial assessment of her- would, presumably without medical intervention, worsen. He must have sent her home adequately medicated, ie to prevent a re-occurrence. Re the "mild" case? Maybe it was his way of reassuring Colin? I'm just guessing he'd have made a judgement call about what Colin was capable of taking on board.
Exactly: Dr Ferguson said Sheila needed medication to keep her MILD Schizophrenia under control.
He didn’t diagnose her with Schizophrenia at first; it was towards the end that he said she had a mild form of it. No doctor would lie about a patient’s diagnoses to their next-of-kin in order to reassure them, April.
-
Dr Ferguson told Colin that Sheila would always have the illness and that relapses would become more frequent and intense. [CAL p115]. That was why he decided to keep the boys with him. June wanted them to stay at White House Farm, but they didn't want to go and became upset. Colin allowed her to see them at Sheila's flat, but that also upset them when she made them kneel and pray. [CAL p116].
It seems to me that the twins would be staying with Colin going forward and that June's influence on them would be restricted by him. I find it believable therefore that June, fearing losing any influence or even contact in the future, was likely to be racking her brains for a different solution.
You cherry pick.
And distort.
Dr Ferguson said Sheila’s condition would worsen IF she didn’t have regular medication. The whole POINT of medication is to allay the symptoms of the illness and live a normal life.
You’re just making assumptions what June was thinking: and you’re a stickler for insisting everyone sticks to the rules and only puts up proven evidence...😳
Whatever, it doesn’t matter what June thought: Colin had custody, not her.
-
Exactly: Dr Ferguson said Sheila needed medication to keep her MILD Schizophrenia under control.
He didn’t diagnose her with Schizophrenia at first; it was towards the end that he said she had a mild form of it. No doctor would lie about a patient’s diagnoses to their next-of-kin in order to reassure them, April.
STOP!!! You don't have to take my word for it. Just refer to CAL, the relevant excerpt from whom has been posted by G-Force. By the way, I don't recall accusing Dr Ferguson of lying.
-
IMO SC suffered a disorganised attachment as a result of June's serious mental illness when SC was circa 2 yoa. The following study shows a correlation between adult disorganised attachment styles and filicide:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261874950_Mothers_who_murdered_their_child_An_attachment-based_study_on_filicide
You’ve mentioned this several times before Holly on various threads
It's not just the effect of adoption but the effect of June's mental illness on SC at a crucial stage of her development with the potential for a 'disorganised attachment'.
Maggie may I remind you that you adopted 2 babies from Sri Lanka in the mid 80's - late 80's. These adoptions are known as international adoptions and have unique features in terms of ethnicity and race. Please do not confuse other types of adoption eg domestic closed adoptions from the so-called baby scoop era. If you want to make comparisons you need to compare apples with apples not apples with pears!
It would also help if you could quote from reliable sources using peer reviewed research and studies.
All the research shows maternal depression has an adverse affect on babies/children including the risk of forming an insecure attachment eg disorganised attachment putting the baby/child at risk in adult life of a propensity towards aggression, violence, suicide and filicide. Having adopted SC, June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment. I would suggest this was not your typical adoptive mother. I doubt you will find any relevant expert anywhere who disagrees but if it makes you happy you keep beating the drum. June didn't suffer depression or any mental illness requiring in-patient psychiatric care when JB was a baby/child and it's this that sets the 2 adoptees apart.
You have no experience of domestic closed adoptions from the so-called baby scoop era.
If you're that interested, and it seems to be the only forum topic that interests you enough to emerge from your 'hidden' status, I would suggest you look at David Brodzinsky's book: The psychology of adoption and skip Nancy Verrier's: The Primal Wound.
There's no evidence JB had the sort of emotional problems you want to pin on him nor that JB/SC were looking for love and were heavy drug users. Why don't you just stick to the facts?!
All victims were described in the pathology reports as being "well nourished". No doubt it mean something specific to a pathologist.
I didn't necessarily mean women that you know intimately, but women that you observe in your local community/workplace etc eg shops, banks, PO etc that have long nails and are constantly putting stress on their nails through their work duties.
I think children absorb a lot from their environment without actually needing detailed explanations. They are often like sponges surprising parents and others with their new found knowledge/skill without any apparent direct explanations/instructions? SC was a farmer's daughter and no doubt both consciously and subconsciously observed NB and others loading and firing weapons? I think it is accepted SC went beating so if she was that opposed to shooting surely she would have declined? DB is on record as saying SC had very little experience with guns. I am not sure how much experience is required to load and fire a rifle at mainly stationary targets at close range? I hope that doesn't sound facetious - its not meant to be - I genuinely have no idea? Also we have no idea whether SC had school friends etc that may have lived on farms and therefore been exposed to some further experience? Same for the farmhand SC had a relationship with as a teenager?
Yes I stand corrected it was Sandra Elston. I think I was getting muddled with another friend/acquaintance who was nurse Caroline Heath? By all accounts it sounds as though SC was lacking in confidence, gullible, insecure and sought reassurance from others (all features of a 'disorganised attachment') but this might not have been the case with those she knew intimately eg she threw pots and pans at Colin and struck him. I am not sure that the lack of confidence etc would prevent her from loading and firing a weapon in an environment she was very familiar with against her family due to a distortion in her mind/thinking as a result of her mental illness? 8(8-))
Simples! The evidence is overwhelming:
Failure to bond with a primary care giver, in this case due to numerous abrupt changes and June's severe mental illness, is likely to give rise to a 'disorganised attachment'. This in turn causes neurobiological and neurochemical changes in the brain/body leading to a lack of empathy, propensity towards aggression, violence and suicide. This was not discussed at trial as it is based on new scientific evidence made over the last 3 decades.
JB's defence will assert the above and that it accounts for the extreme level of violence inflicted on the victims. It will be down to the prosecution to counter.
The 3 CoA judges will be mindful of how the jury would have interpreted the above had it have been available at trial.
I would recommend anyone interested simply Google disorganised attachment’ along with other key words like 'neuroscience', 'neurobiology' and 'neurochemistry'
JB looks the spitting image of my adopted brother in that photo. Even wearing the same shirt.
The camera never lies or does it? Interesting to note that JB has his arm around June and SC chose to pick up the dog and hold it with both hands? &%+((£ Did SC want to incl the dog and excl June or am I getting a bit carried away? &%+((£
I doubt you will find a psychologist, psychiatrist, neuroscientist in the world that will agree that boarding school had an adverse effect on SC/JB over June's mental illness circa 1959 which resulted in another separation from a 'primary caregiver' for SC and the potential for an 'attachment disorder' eg 'disorganised'. This is all now fully supported by neuroscience showing that attachment (or lack of) neglect (defined as unresponsiveness) changes brain architecture giving rise to aggression and violence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg167782#msg167782
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
I don't think so, no.
I firmly believe that SC's mental illness was rooted in her early POOR relationships with primary caregivers which gave rise to a 'disorganised attachment' and other mental illness. This is pretty much the basis for my believing JB is the victim of a MoJ so I SINCERELY hope I am right! My explanation:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
Rufus May, a clinical psychologist, was diagnosed as a schizophrenic and he seems to be of the opinion that his mental illness was environmental rather than genetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_May
http://www.rufusmay.com/
The following is an interview by Prof Jim Al-Khalili (President of British Humanist Society 8@??)( 8((()*/) and Sir Robin Murray, Scottish Psychiatrist, re mental illness/schizophrenia. It also features Rufus May at 24.30 in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bwmvt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Murray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Al-Khalili
I wonder if Stefan Kiszko would have been diagnosed with schizophrenia during his incarceration had he not suffered one of the worst MoJ in British criminal history? Plse see 'Life inside':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
If anyone is interested in understanding more about the title thread I've have just done a Google search on 'Disorganised attachment suicide' with 1,750,000 hits. I've tried typing various permutations with the following key words which return varying numbers in hits:
Disorganised attachment, neuroscience, neurobiology, neurochemistry, aggression, violence, suicide
-
You’ve mentioned this several times before Holly on various threads
No disrespect to Holly but she has to believe that Sheila was suffering from disorganised attachment to have any hope of liberating Jeremy Bamber. Colin Caffell was best placed in this territory however and had he seen any signs that she was a danger to the twins or herself for that matter, he would not have left them with her.
-
You’ve mentioned this several times before Holly on various threads
Yes, thanks Nicholas perhaps interesting for the newcomers.
-
Nevill wasn’t horrible or mentally ill, Eleanor. He was the very opposite. Well-liked for his gregarious, fun-loving nature, kindness, generosity and understanding nature. That’s a dreadful slur to make!
Incidentally, psychopaths such as Jeremy are either born with psychopathy or may develop it due to a head injury. It isn’t caused by upbringing at all — it’s a personality disorder that’s untreatable and incurable.
And yet Nevil was prepared to encourage his mentally unstable wife to adopt two small children that she couldn't care for.
-
The only problem you have is that there's not a shred of evidence to substantiate your post.
I don’t have a problem: Dr Ferguson’s statement is actually in CAL’s book.
I don’t have it at the moment, but I certainly shall post the link
-
Anyway back to the OP, CC was taking the twins to see SC but it seems they were in effect supervised visits with CC present.
According to CC he was told by Dr F SC was likely to suffer with her illness at increasing intervals and Dr F inferred a poor outlook. The twins were only just 6 yoa so needed taking care of for at least the next 12 years. The Bamber's were not getting younger.
CC certainly realised SC was no longer able to care for the twins and that wasn't going to change. He had no intention in letting SC becoming main carer again.
We know from CC's mother wit stat June expressed her concerns that through SC's illness the twins might be fostered. Maybe June was simply sounding out CC's mother
I don't see why anyone doubts the Bamber's were initiating conversations about the twins future?
-
Please note that the original thread has been separated into three new threads given the frequency of off-topic posts.
Please post according to the thread title. Thank you!
-
Anyway back to the OP, CC was taking the twins to see SC but it seems they were in effect supervised visits with CC present.
According to CC he was told by Dr F SC was likely to suffer with her illness at increasing intervals and Dr F inferred a poor outlook. The twins were only just 6 yoa so needed taking care of for at least the next 12 years. The Bamber's were not getting younger.
CC certainly realised SC was no longer able to care for the twins and that wasn't going to change. He had no intention in letting SC becoming main carer again.
We know from CC's mother wit stat June expressed her concerns that through SC's illness the twins might be fostered. Maybe June was simply sounding out CC's mother
I don't see why anyone doubts the Bamber's were initiating conversations about the twins future?
They may have been but certainly NOT about then being fostered out.
-
I know we shouldn't draw attention to grammatical mistakes but setting aside the fact that I think the title of this thread is in very bad taste could we at least have the decency to recognise that TWO little boys' future were denied them by repositioning the apostrophe in the appropriate place?
-
I don't see why anyone doubts the Bamber's were initiating conversations about the twins future?
They may have been but certainly NOT about then being fostered out.
Spot on Caroline. 8((()*/
Let's not forget that JB lied about NBs phone call, lied about calling Julie first and lied to police about Sheila being proficient with guns, making everything he says suspect.
-
Spot on Caroline. 8((()*/
Let's not forget that JB lied about NBs phone call, lied about calling Julie first and lied to police about Sheila being proficient with guns, making everything he says suspect.
He had to make the supposed conversation sound negative from Sheila's side. He's quite clever in the fact that he didn't over-egg it. I think there was an argument that night but it wasn't with the entire family, it was between him and Nevill. I think that's why Nevill sustained such a brutal attack and arrange in a position of humiliation.
-
I know we shouldn't draw attention to grammatical mistakes but setting aside the fact that I think the title of this thread is in very bad taste could we at least have the decency to recognise that TWO little boys' future were denied them by repositioning the apostrophe in the appropriate place?
We could insert the missing commata in your post while we're at it.
-
He had to make the supposed conversation sound negative from Sheila's side. He's quite clever in the fact that he didn't over-egg it. I think there was an argument that night but it wasn't with the entire family, it was between him and Nevill. I think that's why Nevill sustained such a brutal attack and arrange in a position of humiliation.
I don't believe that. I think Nevill's kecks simply fell down during the violent struggle. He got the most punishment because he put up the most resistance. It was a fight to the death essentially.
-
I don't believe that. I think Nevill's kecks simply fell down during the violent struggle. He got the most punishment because he put up the most resistance. It was a fight to the death essentially.
And that's you privilege.
-
We could insert the missing commata in your post while we're at it.
Do it then, I always love being educated by your good self. Show me my error and I will be eternally grateful.
-
I don't believe that. I think Nevill's kecks simply fell down during the violent struggle. He got the most punishment because he put up the most resistance. It was a fight to the death essentially.
We shall never know if they fell down or not but the evidence no more supports a violent struggle than a one sided brutal attack against an already badly wounded man.
-
We shall never know if they fell down or not but the evidence no more supports a violent struggle than a one sided brutal attack against an already badly wounded man.
OK, so the violent beating of a mortally wounded man, attempting to fight off an armed assailant.
Point being, I think his kecks just fell down.
-
OK, so the violent beating of a mortally wounded man, attempting to fight off an armed assailant.
Point being, I think his kecks just fell down.
likely if he reached up in attempt to disarm Jeremy.
-
OK, so the violent beating of a mortally wounded man, attempting to fight off an armed assailant.
Point being, I think his kecks just fell down.
I've always tended to believe they just fell down but assuming they did, the brutality of the attack suggests more than just an immediate need to subdue NB while the gun was reloaded but something more personal. There is little doubt that he was lifted into his bizarre final position either.
Then there is the unsolved mystery of the burns on his back. CAL posits the theory that he may have been tortured to reveal the whereabouts of hidden valuables or cash.
-
I've always tended to believe they just fell down but assuming they did, the brutality of the attack suggests more than just an immediate need to subdue NB while the gun was reloaded but something more personal. There is little doubt that he was lifted into his bizarre final position either.
Then there is the unsolved mystery of the burns on his back. CAL posits the theory that he may have been tortured to reveal the whereabouts of hidden valuables or cash.
Was it established that they were recently acquired, or was the pathologist unsure?
-
Was it established that they were recently acquired, or was the pathologist unsure?
I think Vanezis was of the opinion they were sustained in the attack but couldn't be certain they weren't older. They remain a mystery.
-
I think Vanezis was of the opinion they were sustained in the attack but couldn't be certain they weren't older. They remain a mystery.
As ambiguities go, that's a bit extreme!!!
-
As ambiguities go, that's a bit extreme!!!
The suppressor would probably get quite hot after 25 rounds in relatively quick succession.
-
The suppressor would probably get quite hot after 25 rounds in relatively quick succession.
Not nearly hot enough to cause those burns and it would take 5 minutes on the aga to reach the required heat.
More likely cigarette burns in my humble opinion but it's a mystery that will never be solved unless Bamber confesses and offers an explanation.
-
The suppressor would probably get quite hot after 25 rounds in relatively quick succession.
MWT and a rifle expert Philip Boyce tried that eight years ago and the barrel (with and without moderator, I think) didn't get hot enough through firing continuously to cause any burns on pigskin. Boyce later elaborated in Bamber's submission that it might get hot enough on the hotplate of the AGA if left there long enough. It was also discussed here a while ago, to the extent that the rifle would need to be inserted in the oven for minutes or even in the combustion chamber for a few seconds through the removable filler plug in the left-hand hotplate.
https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo?t=1139 (https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo?t=1139)
-
Not nearly hot enough to cause those burns and it would take 5 minutes on the aga to reach the required heat.
More likely cigarette burns in my humble opinion but it's a mystery that will never be solved unless Bamber confesses and offers an explanation.
Or cigar
-
Or cigar
Or the missing red-hot fourth casing which might have rebounded off the kitchen wall (AGA side) and landed on Nevill's nape underneath his nightshirt.
-
Or the missing red-hot fourth casing which might have rebounded off the kitchen wall (AGA side) and landed on Nevill's nape underneath his nightshirt.
Trophy?
-
Trophy?
To go with his infant tooth.
-
MWT and a rifle expert Philip Boyce tried that eight years ago and the barrel (with and without moderator, I think) didn't get hot enough through firing continuously to cause any burns on pigskin. Boyce later elaborated in Bamber's submission that it might get hot enough on the hotplate of the AGA if left there long enough. It was also discussed here a while ago, to the extent that the rifle would need to be inserted in the oven for minutes or even in the combustion chamber for a few seconds through the removable filler plug in the left-hand hotplate.
https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo?t=1139 (https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo?t=1139)
I'll take that as a 'no' then.
-
I'll take that as a 'no' then.
Unless you've got a spare Anschutz in your armoury to prove them wrong, Herr General.
-
Unless you've got a spare Anschutz in your armoury to prove them wrong, Herr General.
Tend to require more than a shonky bunny buster.
-
Tend to require more than a shonky bunny buster.
The “bunny buster” you refer to effectively ended the lives of 5 people, remember?
-
MWT and a rifle expert Philip Boyce tried that eight years ago and the barrel (with and without moderator, I think) didn't get hot enough through firing continuously to cause any burns on pigskin. Boyce later elaborated in Bamber's submission that it might get hot enough on the hotplate of the AGA if left there long enough. It was also discussed here a while ago, to the extent that the rifle would need to be inserted in the oven for minutes or even in the combustion chamber for a few seconds through the removable filler plug in the left-hand hotplate.
https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo?t=1139 (https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo?t=1139)
I read somewhere that the tests carried out on the pigs skins were useless as they were already dead, so the results would show up differently.
I suspect the burns were caused after Nevill’s death as they were in too straight a line for him not to have struggled as he was being tortured.
-
I read somewhere that the tests carried out on the pigs skins were useless as they were already dead, so the results would show up differently.
I suspect the burns were caused after Nevill’s death as they were in too straight a line for him not to have struggled as he was being tortured.
You can see the pig skin tests in the "new evidence" documentary with Mark w..ble Thomas but here is a screenshot that they claim "prove" the burns were caused by the muzzle of the gun and not the silencer ( or something else )
The muzzle was heated with a blow lamp for the tests.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You can see the pig skin tests in the "new evidence" documentary with Mark w..ble Thomas but here is a screenshot that they claim "prove" the burns were caused by the muzzle of the gun and not the silencer ( or something else )
The muzzle was heated with a blow lamp for the tests.
I've never thought the marks were burns or that they related to the night of the murders.
At trial Dr V said he was unsure. Prof Knight did not think they were burns.
-
The “bunny buster” you refer to effectively ended the lives of 5 people, remember?
Urgh.....read the conversation back.....Jesus......cba.....whatevs
The point being, it's a wholly inappropriate weapon for an execution, which is what is was. But its choice was necessitated by the need to fit Sheila up, even as incongruent as that was.
Yes, it did the job, but only after repeated attempts on the adults.
Besides, we were discussing the burn marks and didn't need an interjection regarding the blatantly obvious.
-
I've never thought the marks were burns or that they related to the night of the murders.
At trial Dr V said he was unsure. Prof Knight did not think they were burns.
I agree. They don't advance the case at all. Although...
Maybe they were caused by a mysterious device used by AA's men in black?!
-
Urgh.....read the conversation back.....Jesus......cba.....whatevs
The point being, it's a wholly inappropriate weapon for an execution, which is what is was. But its choice was necessitated by the need to fit Sheila up, even as incongruent as that was.
Yes, it did the job, but only after repeated attempts on the adults.
Besides, we were discussing the burn marks and didn't need an interjection regarding the blatantly obvious.
If you work out the maths and physics behind the muzzle velocity you arrive at the leathality:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11191.msg570652#msg570652
And if you want a practical example look no further than the case of David Bain where 5 family members died from gunshot wounds inflicted from a. 22 rifle where 8 cartridges were used.
-
I agree. They don't advance the case at all. Although...
Maybe they were caused by a mysterious device used by AA's men in black?!
NB sustained a serious back injury when the plane he was flying in ww2 crashed. He was hopitalised for months. I've always wondered if the marks were as a result of this. I cant see any evidence anyone checked out his medi records.
-
If you work out the maths and physics behind the muzzle velocity you arrive at the leathality:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11191.msg570652#msg570652
And if you want a practical example look no further than the case of David Bain where 5 family members died from gunshot wounds inflicted from a. 22 rifle where 8 cartridges were used.
The maths in context are way more useful.
In this case it took several rounds to finally dispatch his mother and father.
But if a more suitable weapon was at his disposal, would it be used? Of course it would, but that wasn't possible in this instance due to the necessity to make the pieces of the puzzle fit.
Let's look at it from another angle - how else could Bamber do it any retain any hope of getting away with it?
Hitman? Finding one is difficult, finding one that will kill kids even more so, plus where's the motive?
Robbery gone wrong? Nope. Why kill everyone? Why not just leg it?
Fire? Non starter as I've recently learned - he considered it, but then dismissed it as anything of value would be destroyed and the insurance (that he subsequently reviewed) didn't cover it in his opinion.
As bizarre as it sounds, the only viable mode was the one he cobbled together - the Sheila Went Bonkers angle.
-
Urgh.....read the conversation back.....Jesus......cba.....whatevs
The point being, it's a wholly inappropriate weapon for an execution, which is what is was. But its choice was necessitated by the need to fit Sheila up, even as incongruent as that was.
Yes, it did the job, but only after repeated attempts on the adults.
Besides, we were discussing the burn marks and didn't need an interjection regarding the blatantly obvious.
Why are you so hostile to VS?
-
Why are you so hostile to VS?
I'm not. How dare you, I've never been so insulted since breakfast.
VS and I have a hate / hate / like relationship. She hates me, but she also likes me. I like her. But because my ego doesn't permit me being corrected, I react with conceit, sarcasm and often completely fabricated and unfounded posts.
I've got internet annoyance issues that I'm working through with my therapist. It's a long road.
-
I'm not. How dare you, I've never been so insulted since breakfast.
VS and I have a hate / hate / like relationship. She hates me, but she also likes me. I like her. But because my ego doesn't permit me being corrected, I react with conceit, sarcasm and often completely fabricated and unfounded posts.
I've got internet annoyance issues that I'm working through with my therapist. It's a long road.
Well, given you're on. the same side of the argument, take short cut! 8((()*/
-
Well, given you're on. the same side of the argument, take short cut! 8((()*/
Well while we're on the subject of hostility, I reckon there's a few who could do with reeling in the vitriol a bit on G Unit, Holly and Aggie - and they've hitched their horse to the other wagon.
-
NB sustained a serious back injury when the plane he was flying in ww2 crashed. He was hopitalised for months. I've always wondered if the marks were as a result of this. I cant see any evidence anyone checked out his medi records.
I imagine that scars which are several years old will look very different from those recently acquired.
-
NB sustained a serious back injury when the plane he was flying in ww2 crashed. He was hopitalised for months. I've always wondered if the marks were as a result of this. I cant see any evidence anyone checked out his medi records.
Doesn’t mean it wasn’t checked out - just means Bamber and you are not privy to his private medical records
-
I've never thought the marks were burns or that they related to the night of the murders.
At trial Dr V said he was unsure. Prof Knight did not think they were burns.
You’re not a scientist, pathologist or doctor, Holly — with all due respect your thoughts are of no significance
It’s patently obvious that Nevill wouldn’t have been walking around with three wounds embedded in his back, that were deep and must have caused tremendous pain
It’s irrelevant in a way; if professors can’t explain them Im sure you can’t — or anyone else — except Jeremy.
The fact is, Jeremy killed Nevill and his family; 35 years have passed by; and the marks make no difference to the fact Jeremy is guilty of mass murder and will spend the rest of his empty days in a cell, as he deserves to.