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: scipio_usmc on May 07, 2014, 12:17:26 AM
-
A number of sites contain numerous lies about Sheila's mental health including the lie that a few months before the murders Ferguson wrote upon releasing her that he thought she could harm her family. Others misrepresent that she had been violent in the past with others and distort the timeline to make it appear events that occurred in 1983 had in fact occurred in 1985.
For instance, Farhad Emami talked about shortly after she was released in 1983. He claimed she relapsed and had a psychotic epsiode where she didn't want anyone to touch her or go near her. She didn't attack anyone, the only person she supposedly hit was herself, but she didn't want anyone to touch her and made a commotion as they tried. She wanted to be left alone. This happened in 1983 not 1985.
In early 1985 she relapsed because she stopped taking her medication and instead was taking drugs. Drugs like cocaine and LSD are known to exacerbate mental illness. They can cause delusions and hallucinations even in people who don't have mental illness. Because of this she was prescribed a very powerful drug and it was administered by injection so that she would not fall into the same trap as in the past of skipping treatment.
Haloperidol is so powerful that a different drug is given to counteract the treatment, usually Procyclidine. Haloperidol has serious side effects. It causes tremors, loss of dexterity and often leaves people in a near zombie state. While it does a very good job of preventing relapses it also does a good job of preventing someone from leading a normal life. It tranquilizes too well, causes dexterity loss and even has longterm harmful health consequences (blood pressure and health conditions hat determine longevity) For this reason the goal is to reduce dosage to the minimum level necessary to prevent relapses.
Procyclidine also has side effects including, insomnia, and if given in too high a dosage it will cause agitation. So you need the right mix of Procyclidine to make sure it is not undoing the soothing effects of the Haloperidol.
The Procyclidine was not causing agitation but was causing insomnia. For that reason her Haloperidol was reduced to 100MG so that she would not need as much Procyclidine. She stopped taking Procyclidine and thus it was not found in her system.
Bamber supporters try to pretend that the fact she stopped taking it would increase her chance of having mental problems. Quite the contrary, without taking Procyclidine she would be constantly drowsy, sleep without waking up overnight, would have dexterity problems and docile. So the fact she stopped taking it actually makes it even less likely for her to relapse not moreso.
Next they claim the reduction in dosage in half means she would have Haloperidol withdrawal and be agitated. First of all, 200MG is way too much for a mild case like Sheila's. Today we have a great body of medical journals and studies not available in 1985. 200MG is what only the most severe cases warrant. There is virtually no difference in relapse rate between those taking 200MG and 100MG the effectiveness is virtually the same but the side effects are much worse. In fact there is not that much difference in effectiveness between 50MG and 100MG. 100MG was more than enough to keep her docile, especially since she was not taking any Procyclidine.
If she was going to experience withdrawal then she would have felt it much sooner. It would not take 4 weeks for withdrawal to suddenly kick in. There is no evidence at all that she was withdrawaing and agitated. Rather the available evidence is that she was just as docile as when she was taking 200MG only now she could sleep.
Bamber supporters always want to ignore the surrounding evidence. She was docile for the weeks prior to the murders and even docile on the night of the murders. While she had problems sleeping in the past once she reduced her dosages and stopped taking Procyclidine she had no problem sleeping through the night. So there is no evidence at all she started to relapse.
This presents numerous problems for Bamber's defenders. In the past when did she relapse and why? When she stopped taking her anti-psychotic drug and/or used hard drugs. But she didn't use such drugs while at WHF so that can't account for her relapsing. Her anti-psychotic medication was being injected so she had no opportunity to stop taking it and indeed Haloperidol was in her system at the time she died.
When people relapse they don't instantly have the worst delusions ever and become immediately violent. They deterioriate over time and things get worse and worse and if no treatment happns then they could progress into violence.
Yet the claim here is that Sheila suddenly relapsed without warning, that she woke up and had this relapse at 3AM in the morning while everyone else was asleep and that it was so severe that it caused her to attack her family in their beds. Maybe if she had taken hard drugs or even had taken Procyclidine so she could not sleep this might seem somewhat possible but there are no documented cases of someone on Haloperidol alone and no other drugs of any kind having the ability to wake up and do such.
Even worse for Bamber defenders her latest relapse featured her not being concerned about her family causing problems for her but rather her own concept of good versus evil. Her family did not figure into her delusions at all. So that makes it evne less liekly she would have a delusion where she felt the need to kill anyone in her family let alone her beloved children and father.
The fact remains that documented psychotic murder cases involve killers who either were not being treated, who stopped taking their medication or took hard drugs that induced psychosis. Yet we are supposed to believe her medication jsut suddenly stopped working, she woke up and went on the first violent rampage ever in her life and it was to kill everyone in their beds.
Not only do we have to ignore the complete lack of evidence that this occurred, we are supposed to ignore the complete lack of evidence she was involved. She went into a crazy frenzy and managed the murders without getting any evidence on her body at all. No blood spatter, no gun shot residue not even, nothing on her feet walking through areas with blood and broken crockery, and not even an abrasion on her hands despite supposedly delivering the beating Nevill suffered which broke the stock of the gun.
We also are told to ignore all evidence that the crimes were planned in advance. It's just coincidence that the kitchen phone was unplugged, hidden and replaced with the bedroom phone.
Plus Julie is lying and the evidence found in and on the suppressor was planted by someone. last we have to ignore that Nevill would have been unable to speak over the phone and pretend he ran down to the kitchen to make the call, back upstairs to the bedroom and that in her crazy frenzy Sheila chose not to shoot him in the kitchen but rather to march him back upstairs to shoot her parents together.
So she was in a crazy frenzy but still in total control and thinking about how she wanted to ideally kill everyone in their beds.
-
That poster ^^^ 8@??)(
-
perhaps you would like to show us the full statement of Farhad Emami or a link so we can make an informed judgement of what he thought about her mental health - whether it is 1983 or 1985 I don't think is relevant.
Thank you
-
perhaps you would like to show us the full statement of Farhad Emami or a link so we can make an informed judgement of what he thought about her mental health - whether it is 1983 or 1985 I don't think is relevant.
Thank you
Whether it is 1983 or 1985 is not relevant? Then why do they lie and claim it was in 1985?
It does indeed matter that it was not in 1985. Her mental state in 1985 is what matters not 1983. Her 1985 breakdown, release and anything that happened after is what is most relevant in trying to assess her mental health around the time of the murders.
That is why there are lies about Ferguson stating upon release she could hurt her family, he said no such thing ever but especially not in 1985.
Go back to the blue board and try to find evidence from 1985 and then come back to me. Or petition Tesko to approve my membership request and let me post there so you can all try to gang up on me.
-
sorry , have not got a clue what you are on about ? I thought this was a discussion forum and wondered where I could see the full statement.
My mistake .
Thanks for the welcome.
-
sorry , have not got a clue what you are on about ? I thought this was a discussion forum and wondered where I could see the full statement.
My mistake .
Thanks for the welcome.
It is a discussion forum. You suggested it made no difference if his comment was in 1983 or not but it makes quite a bit of difference.
I have not found any copies of his testimony in full only excerpts which include claims she was beating herself and banging on walls. (anything good he might have said has not been published only the bad things) That's the best they could do to find claims from him that she was violent, it was not towards others. Freddie was giving her hard drugs then cried to her father about the mental problems it caused, what a winner he was.
The only person who did testify she was violent with was her ex husband. He said she through pots and pans at him when they were married. That was before her treatment began and not all that unusual from a wife even without mental problems. If her father was killed with a pan that would be more credible as somethign she might have done though shy her father would still be a major question.
This pro-Bamber site provide a breakdown of the time he supposedly witnessed her breating walls:
"About a month after Sheila came out of St Andrews for the first time, she contacted Freddie and he gave her money. He said she appeared well but he could see that she had not completely recovered. He goes on to describe an incident which occurred the following time he went to her apartment."
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it
That following time is suposedly when she was beating walls because the phone went dead.
She got out of the hospital in September 1983 so that means she borrowed the money in October 1983 and he visited her in again in October or November.
So this clearly didn't happen in 1985.
The Appeal Decision from 2002 provides more information about 1985 which is much more relevant than 1983.
"On 3 March 1985 Sheila Caffell was re-admitted to hospital in Northampton. Then she was agitated, very disturbed and in an anxious state. Her thinking was again very involved with the concepts of good and evil, but on this occasion more directly related to excessive religious ideas. She made no reference to any thoughts concerning her children or parents. As before she responded to treatment and was discharged on 29 March 1985."
So during this stay she didn't discuss having problems with her parents or children and gave no indication she had any reason to do harm to them.
In general though she had serious problems with her mother. She didn't mention her mother during thsi breakdown but had in the past. So if just her mother had been killed it might be more likely she was involved in that. But to har her father and children doesn't fit her profile.
"When told on 8 August 1985 that Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then herself, Dr Ferguson said this did not fit "his concept" of his patient. He did not feel she was someone who would actually be violent to her children or towards her father, although she was a highly disturbed woman and had expressed disturbed feelings towards her mother.
In cross-examination Dr Ferguson agreed that Mrs Caffell's condition was well known to her family. There had never been manifestations of violence either when her illness was being managed or when in a highly disturbed state in hospital. In the context of what was alleged to have occurred Dr Ferguson found it possible to conceive of Sheila Caffell wanting to harm her mother or herself but "difficult to conceptualise her harming her children or her father". He had always felt Sheila loved and cared for her children and saw her father as a very secure, caring and strong support in her life."
-
Could I just say having seen the above comments for the first time that there is no need to be so aggressive towards new members.
Some new members have told me that they feel intimidated by established members and are thus afraid to post in many cases. This is unacceptable.
New members must be treated with respect at all times, they should be helped when they ask questions and politely corrected when they make obvious mistakes. We were all newbies at one time, please remember that.
Nuff said!
-
perhaps you would like to show us the full statement of Farhad Emami or a link so we can make an informed judgement of what he thought about her mental health - whether it is 1983 or 1985 I don't think is relevant.
Thank you
Hi Guiness
Sorry I missed you. Please reconsider and give it another whirl.
Scipio The Lady in Red on Blue aka Caroline has put a call out for you on the Announcement thread. Might be your lucky night 8(0(*. Best dust yourself down with your best talc just in case 8(0(*
-
Hi Guiness
Sorry I missed you. Please reconsider and give it another whirl.
Scipio The Lady in Red on Blue aka Caroline has put a call out for you on the Announcement thread. Might be your lucky night 8(0(*. Best dust yourself down with your best talc just in case 8(0(*
If I were posting on blue everyone would be aware of it. There would be sparks flying.
But since you bring up Caroline it is funny how she went from a princess to being in the doghouse for daring to doubt Jeremy.
There is so much evidence against Jeremy she ignores and yet a minor issue has her questioning him.
Jeremy knew how much money was in his father's wallet. He revealed that when he accused police of stealing his wallet to Ann Eaton but in fact she took it not police. So she told police about th eincident where he was upset about the wallet with several hundred pounds being missing. It is unclear whether she was telling them so they knew she didn't steal it or so police would not think any of them did it.
In any event they never bothered to ask Jeremy how he knew how much money his father had in his wallet. So Caroline put it upon herself to ask him and he would not answer her and instead played games to avoid answering her. Since he refused to provide any answers and intentionally avoided it she thinks maybe he did murder them and checked the wallet after he did so. He either checked before they were killed or after but why would he be looking at all? It is in fact suspicious. it is not determinitive though, all the evidence laid out here is determinitive. It is funny how it took something so small to make her suspicious but none of the overwhelming evidence.
The more significant aspect of this is that police did indeed botch the case but such was in his favor, they did a poor job of taking care to catch him. The things they did prejudiced the prosecution not Jeremy. They were too foolish to ask him how he knew how much money was in the wallet. They also failed to inspect his clothing and body for evidence on the day of the murders. They also leaked details that could have been used to prove he was the killer. If they didn't disclose the location of the bodies right away then they would have had even more evidence against him because he told Julie the twins had been shot in bed. If that wasn't released then it would be even stronger proof he had to be the killer because it is a detail only the killer would know. The fact they missed so many opportunities by giving him the benefit of the doubt speaks against the claim they were trying to frame him. They tried too hard to believe him.
-
I have always been prepared to give Jeremy the benefit of the doubt had the slightest glimmer of anything positive appeared. All the boasts and promises made by Tesko over the years have come to a big fat zero. Nuff said imo.
-
I have always been prepared to give Jeremy the benefit of the doubt had the slightest glimmer of anything positive appeared. All the boasts and promises made by Tesko over the years have come to a big fat zero. Nuff said imo.
Even after his claims are proved false he refuses to admit it and keeps up with the distortions.
For instance, the exhibit number for the sound suppressor was changed 2 times. This he claims proves there were multiple suppressors when in fact just the designation changed.
Similarly, the police statements make clear there was 1 person in the kitchen and it was originally thought to be an elderly woman but once they got up close to the body it was determined to be Nevill. Someone offsite who was recording the infromation erroneously thought this meant there were 2 people in the kitchen but the statements of those present make clear that is not the case. This is used by him and his pals to falsely assert there were 2 bodies in the kitchen and Sheila was moved. He even insists Sheila was still alive and that police shot her.
Even though the dispatcher insisted in his statement that he received a call from the internal police line and listed the caller as a cop on the form Tesko insists that Nevill himself made the call to this dispatcher and he is lying. ALl his claims are in this vein, distortions
His claims are all shams otherwise he claims he has evidence that proves something in particular but is not ready to release it and we are just expected to believe he has evidence that proves what he claims.
At the end of the day the evidence of Jeremy's guilt is overwhelming but there are some for whatever reason who choose to ignore it and to pretend he is innocent and in order to do so they make up ridiculous things and assert a grand conspiracy where Julie, the farm secretary, Jeremy's extended family and all the police and forensic personnel conspired together to frame him and are all liars.
-
Even after his claims are proved false he refuses to admit it and keeps up with the distortions.
For instance, the exhibit number for the sound suppressor was changed 2 times. This he claims proves there were multiple suppressors when in fact just the designation changed.
Similarly, the police statements make clear there was 1 person in the kitchen and it was originally thought to be an elderly woman but once they got up close to the body it was determined to be Nevill. Someone offsite who was recording the infromation erroneously thought this meant there were 2 people in the kitchen but the statements of those present make clear that is not the case. This is used by him and his pals to falsely assert there were 2 bodies in the kitchen and Sheila was moved. He even insists Sheila was still alive and that police shot her.
Even though the dispatcher insisted in his statement that he received a call from the internal police line and listed the caller as a cop on the form Tesko insists that Nevill himself made the call to this dispatcher and he is lying. ALl his claims are in this vein, distortions
His claims are all shams otherwise he claims he has evidence that proves something in particular but is not ready to release it and we are just expected to believe he has evidence that proves what he claims.
At the end of the day the evidence of Jeremy's guilt is overwhelming but there are some for whatever reason who choose to ignore it and to pretend he is innocent and in order to do so they make up ridiculous things and assert a grand conspiracy where Julie, the farm secretary, Jeremy's extended family and all the police and forensic personnel conspired together to frame him and are all liars.
To be fair, the blue forum hasn't always been so naff - a few years ago it was really very good. It was informative, and well moderated, and Mike was generous with his time and sharing his information. It wasn't a forum for silly squabbles and mothers' meetings, and endless cyclical discussions about trivia that had been thrashed out many times already. It would certainly never have been used as a place for Mrs H to air her grievances and publicly unravel. It's a shame you missed the best of the blue, Scipio, you'd have enjoyed it.
-
To be fair, the blue forum hasn't always been so naff - a few years ago it was really very good. It was informative, and well moderated, and Mike was generous with his time and sharing his information. It wasn't a forum for silly squabbles and mothers' meetings, and endless cyclical discussions about trivia that had been thrashed out many times already. It would certainly never have been used as a place for Mrs H to air her grievances and publicly unravel. It's a shame you missed the best of the blue, Scipio, you'd have enjoyed it.
It sounds though that since the evidence didn't prove Jeremy's innocence as hoped that plan B has been to resort to the sorts of things I mentioned. I like arguing so don't mind it but some of the people there remind me of someone else I debated on the History Channel forum. Someone else had the best line and sadly I cna't take credit for it. The poster was from Europe under the moniker da_elf. People didn't expect much because of this moniker but he was quite clever. Her wrote proving another infamous poster (I won't mention his moniker) wrong is easy what is difficult is to convince him you have done so. That seems on point for Tesko.
-
Even after his claims are proved false he refuses to admit it and keeps up with the distortions.
For instance, the exhibit number for the sound suppressor was changed 2 times. This he claims proves there were multiple suppressors when in fact just the designation changed.
Similarly, the police statements make clear there was 1 person in the kitchen and it was originally thought to be an elderly woman but once they got up close to the body it was determined to be Nevill. Someone off site who was recording the information erroneously thought this meant there were 2 people in the kitchen but the statements of those present make clear that is not the case. This is used by him and his pals to falsely assert there were 2 bodies in the kitchen and Sheila was moved. He even insists Sheila was still alive and that police shot her.
Even though the dispatcher insisted in his statement that he received a call from the internal police line and listed the caller as a cop on the form Tesko insists that Nevill himself made the call to this dispatcher and he is lying. ALL his claims are in this vein, distortions
His claims are all shams otherwise he claims he has evidence that proves something in particular but is not ready to release it and we are just expected to believe he has evidence that proves what he claims.
At the end of the day the evidence of Jeremy's guilt is overwhelming but there are some for whatever reason who choose to ignore it and to pretend he is innocent and in order to do so they make up ridiculous things and assert a grand conspiracy where Julie, the farm secretary, Jeremy's extended family and all the police and forensic personnel conspired together to frame him and are all liars.
An excellent synopsis scipio of how the facts have been distorted by Team Bamber. It's all fluff and flannel at the end of the day but it was fun while it lasted.
-
It is my firm belief that the murders are bound up with complex psychological reasons pertaining to 'closed' adoptions from the so-called baby scoop era. Especially with regard to June's mental illness circa 1959 and the potential for SC to have developed an 'attachment disorder' as a result of this. I believe SC was tipped over the age by her reunion with her birth mother which took place just weeks before the murders. Just because these aspects of the case have rarely been touched on doesn't IMO mean they have no relevance.
Perhaps I should start a relevant thread with links etc? As a taster:
Adoptees at greater risk of psychological problems than non-adopted peers:
Reuben Pannor MSW and author of Adoption Triangle:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/01/local/la-me-reuben-pannor-20130101
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdlOJ-_mal0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Exploring Links Between Adoption and Suicide
http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/archive/JCUPRD_045179
Understanding Adoptees Who Kill
http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/understanding-adoptees-who-kill.php
-
It still remains physically impossible for Sheila to have committed the murders ergo Bamber is guilty!
-
It still remains physically impossible for Sheila to have committed the murders ergo Bamber is guilty!
Exactly, by introducing the fake phone call from dad Nevill, Jeremy Bamber effectively shot himself in the foot. Fact is, it was him or Sheila who did it and Sheila is ruled out by so much hard evidence.
Jeremy Bamber is guilty...99%
-
Tim/John
If It was physically impossible for SC to have committed the murders and JB shot himself in the foot by inventing the infamous phone call then on what basis did the CCRC refer JB's case to CoA? My understanding is that the referral was based on the silencer evidence being potentially discredited. Surely if other evidence was strong ie that it was physically impossible for SC to have carried out the murders, or that evidence existed showing that NB did not make the said call then the CCRC would not have referred?
In the absence of satellite/digital technology there's no evidence to confirm the call was made or wasn't made? We can speculate and analyse it until the cows come home but we will be no further forward today than the defense/prosecution were circa 3 decades ago. Surely a conviction should not be based on whether or not a phone call was made when there's no evidence to confirm either way?
I accept that on the surface the prosecution's case is compelling but when I dig deeper I have to run with the defense.
The defense was largely based on SC's mental illness. In this regard the main expert witness was Dr Ferguson. IMO he was conflicted: he treated the adoptive mother, June, in 1959 and then again in 1982. He treated the adopted daughter, Sheila, in 1983 and 1985. There's something very wrong here in many respects.
Then we have the under statement of under statements in the CoA document where June's mental illness is written off as an obsession with religion. Dr F's WS states that June's mental illness circa 1959 was based on severe depression caused by her decision to adopt SC. No mention of this at trial or CoA hearing >@@(*&)
14. June Bamber was also 61 years old. Religion had always played a strong part in her life. In her latter years her interest in this regard had to an extent come to dominate her thinking, to a point that might have been thought to be obsessive. In 1982, she received treatment at a psychiatric hospital in Northampton.
Dr Ferguson - June and Sheila's psychiatrist 1959 - 1985
« on: February 28, 2012, 08:28:AM »
Dr Ferguson (Dr F) was a consultant psychiatrist with many years experience.
1. Upon treating June in 1959 for severe depression caused by her decision to adopt Sheila in 1957, Dr F should have been aware that Sheila was at risk of an 'attachment disorder'. (An attachment disorder is the failure to bond with the primary caregiver resulting in various emotional and psychological problems as evidenced throughout Sheila's troubled life. It is a basic psychological disorder analogous with raised blood pressure in the medical world). Furthermore Sheila would have been at particular risk having already been separated from one primary caregiver ie her birth mother.
2. Did Dr F recommend follow-up treatment in 1959 to ensure Sheila was not adversely affected?
3. When Sheila arrived in Dr F's clinic in 1983, some 24 years after June's treatment for depression, he
should not have been at all surprised to a) find her there and b) find her there with the issues she presented - one of which was commenting on June's lack of warmth towards her. All would have been highly predictable and the obvious outcome of 1959. All exacerbated by adoption psychology which Dr F should have at least been aware of although he makes no reference to this.
4. Was Sheila schizophrenic? If she was, then given the above it is highly likely that it was the result of an attachment disorder, adoption psychology and her difficult relationship with June ie social rather than biology alone. Neuroscientists have found that early trauma, as suffered by Sheila, can change brain chemistry. Psychologists are also much more in agreement now that social factors play a big part in determining whether or not a person develops schizophrenia.
5. Dr F's witness statement refers to the fact that he was mindful of Neville paying the cost of Sheila's private treatment. Was Dr F conflicted? Who was his duty of care to during the period 1959 - 1985, the adoptive parents paying his fees or the emotionally abused adoptee?
6. Was Sheila aware that June suffered severe depression in 1959 as a result of adopting her? Is this something Dr F discussed with Sheila or witheld?
7. Having read Dr F's witness statement and the court of appeal document '02 he seems less than forthcoming. At the court of appeal hearing '02 there is no mention of June's depression in 1959 or the causes of it. Overall he appears very reticent.
8. Sheila met her birth mother weeks before the murders. When Dr F was asked what effect this might have on Sheila's mental state he said he didn't know. At trial he stated that he found it difficult to conceptualise Sheila harming her children or Neville. If he didn't know what effect meeting her birth mother would have on her mental state, just weeks before the murders, how could he be so sure this would not adversely affect Sheila's view of her children and Neville?
9. Had Jeremy have been acquitted the spotlight would have fallen on Dr F, professionally, for not appreciating the gravity of the situation and doing more from 1959 - 1985.
It strikes me that Sheila's mental illness/schizophrenia has largely been viewed as a random event ie having no connection with June's depression in 1959, her early social experiences, adoption psychology and lifelong difficult relationship with June.
-
Maybe Sheila was deeply affected by her adoption, and June's early depression (equally, Bamber could have been just as affected) but we can never know for sure. We DO know that Bamber is very motivated by greed - he admitted that was the reason for the caravan park break-in - and it's borne out by his recent cruel behaviour towards Daisy, who was doing her best to help him. And it can't be denied that Bamber had ample time to hide any incriminating evidence, while Sheila didn't. She couldn't have wiped the gun, yet her prints should have been all over it.
-
Maybe Sheila was deeply affected by her adoption, and June's early depression (equally, Bamber could have been just as affected) but we can never know for sure. We DO know that Bamber is very motivated by greed - he admitted that was the reason for the caravan park break-in - and it's borne out by his recent cruel behaviour towards Daisy, who was doing her best to help him. And it can't be denied that Bamber had ample time to hide any incriminating evidence, while Sheila didn't. She couldn't have wiped the gun, yet her prints should have been all over it.
Well said as always Pugsy! And how did Sheila get the bullet oil and gunfire residue of her hands, body and clothing?
Holly you just have to look at the last CCRC appeal. The defence was given so much leeway to present a coherent case for Bamber. They were given extension after extension. The file was even closed and reopened. NGB & McKay were bigging the new evidence up saying that they really had something and perhaps Bamber was innocent after all!
What these legal professionals and all their American rent-an-expert produced was an absolute farce. I was embarrassed for them! The CCRC bent over backwards to accommodate Bamber's 'dream team' and all we could do is laugh out loud when the TV programme presented their codswallop new evidence ....... as laymen, we all asked "is that it?"
I do appreciate Sheila had periods of disturbing mental illness but she had never exhibited any violent tendencies and as Dr. Ferguson said, she would never have hurt her boys or her adored Daddy!
I am of the exactly the same opinion as the Appeal Court judges; the more I know about the case, the more I am absolutely convinced there isn't a snowballs chance in hell Bamber is innocent!
As you said yaself Holly, the evidence for guilt is compelling! 8@??)(
-
Maybe Sheila was deeply affected by her adoption, and June's early depression (equally, Bamber could have been just as affected) but we can never know for sure. We DO know that Bamber is very motivated by greed - he admitted that was the reason for the caravan park break-in - and it's borne out by his recent cruel behaviour towards Daisy, who was doing her best to help him. And it can't be denied that Bamber had ample time to hide any incriminating evidence, while Sheila didn't. She couldn't have wiped the gun, yet her prints should have been all over it.
I understand from posters on Blue that SC was placed with foster carers when June was hospitalised in 1959 to treat severe depression caused by her decision to adopt SC? I don't know how reliable this is but someone must have looked after SC? I would have thought NB and PB could have managed between them? To my mind this is the most important aspect of the case. There is a positive correlation between early attachment experiences and psychopathy:
http://interpersonaabpri.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/paper-1_khetrapal.pdf
It is often said JB is a cold blooded killer/psychopath but there's no evidence of this:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
It strikes me that the early experiences of SC and JB in terms of attachment to a primary care giver are quite marked. Perhaps further evidence of this/adoption experience is that SC sought out her birth mother and JB didn't until after his failed appeal in 2002.
If SC was responsible then I think she must have showered and changed her clothes. There's some evidence to support this theory by way of the buckets. If the clothes left to soak amounted to 2 pairs of knickers stained with menstrual blood and a pair of training bottoms then why two buckets? The clothes would be left to soak in cold water so no chance of colours running. Why 2 buckets (photo) or even 3 buckets (AE's WS)? Why no ref to the buckets/clothing by raid team, SoC Officer or police photographer? Why were these bloodied exhibits not taken away for analysis?
JB initially said he broke into OCP to demonstrate lax security but when pushed came clean and said it was based on greed!? Plenty of folk are greedy: bankers, MP's (expenses) even Peter Eaton based on BW's Stokenchurch report.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1045.msg29871#msg29871
Is there a positive correlation between murder and greed?
It is clear from the soc photos of SC that her arm was moved. EP confirmed they moved the rifle without wearing gloves. Why was SC's fingerprint on the rifle? If JB attempted to put her fingerprints on the rifle once deceased then why only one? If SC moved the rifle early on in the evening after JB supposedly went bunny hunting then again why only one?
72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
-
I understand from posters on Blue that SC was placed with foster carers when June was hospitalised in 1959 to treat severe depression caused by her decision to adopt SC? I don't know how reliable this is but someone must have looked after SC? I would have thought NB and PB could have managed between them? To my mind this is the most important aspect of the case. There is a positive correlation between early attachment experiences and psychopathy:
http://interpersonaabpri.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/paper-1_khetrapal.pdf
It is often said JB is a cold blooded killer/psychopath but there's no evidence of this:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
It strikes me that the early experiences of SC and JB in terms of attachment to a primary care giver are quite marked. Perhaps further evidence of this/adoption experience is that SC sought out her birth mother and JB didn't until after his failed appeal in 2002.
None of which has any relevance to the murders.
If SC was responsible then I think she must have showered and changed her clothes. There's some evidence to support this theory by way of the buckets. If the clothes left to soak amounted to 2 pairs of knickers stained with menstrual blood and a pair of training bottoms then why two buckets? The clothes would be left to soak in cold water so no chance of colours running. Why 2 buckets (photo) or even 3 buckets (AE's WS)? Why no ref to the buckets/clothing by raid team, SoC Officer or police photographer? Why were these bloodied exhibits not taken away for analysis?
There is no reason why she would have showered and changed her clothes nor any evidence she did so. he underwear show she bled in them mestrually and presumably the leggings might or might not have gotten a little blood from same. She had a tampon inserted when killed.
Evidence she changed would be another nightgown found or even a sleepshirt she could have been wearing. She would not have killed her faily topless. The top is where GSR would be deposited and back spatter would primarily land. There is no evidence at all she had on different clothes, bloody underwear would have her own blood so why would police take them? They would be looking for nightgowns and tops.
JB initially said he broke into OCP to demonstrate lax security but when pushed came clean and said it was based on greed!? Plenty of folk are greedy: bankers, MP's (expenses) even Peter Eaton based on BW's Stokenchurch report.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1045.msg29871#msg29871
Is there a positive correlation between murder and greed?
The primary motives for murder are greed, envy, anger/passion, revenge
It is clear from the soc photos of SC that her arm was moved. EP confirmed they moved the rifle without wearing gloves. Why was SC's fingerprint on the rifle? If JB attempted to put her fingerprints on the rifle once deceased then why only one? If SC moved the rifle early on in the evening after JB supposedly went bunny hunting then again why only one?
72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
It is not quite as easy to make sure someone's fingerprints get on something as people would like to think. When the body dies oils that transfer fingerprints stop cleaning the skin. (Yes we have natural oils that actually clean our skin and these oils leave our prints on objects) so it is harder to plant prints form a dead person. Just putting the hand on won't necessarily leave many if any, you really need to push hard and he had to be careful how he touched her hands and arms because even with gloves if he transferred the blood on her arms then it would be obvious someone else was there manipulating her body. So he had to be careful how he touched her arms and hands.
-
There is an existing thread which looks at mental health issues involving Sheila and the care of the twins.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4264.msg13704#msg13704
-
There is an existing thread which looks at mental health issues involving Sheila and the care of the twins.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4264.msg13704#msg13704
Thank you John.
I have read through all the posts. None of them make reference to June's mental illness 1959 and 1982. I am unable to see June's and SC's mental illnesses as mutually exclusive.
-
Adam on Blue posted this up a few days ago. Does anyone know anything about it?
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/killer-jeremy-bambers-bid-freedom-6981683
-
Adam on Blue posted this up a few days ago. Does anyone know anything about it?
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/killer-jeremy-bambers-bid-freedom-6981683
NGB posted about it. Won't do any good, Holly. SC's mental health problems were known about at trial. No matter how sick she was it can't damage any of the actual evidence that she is innocent.
-
NGB posted about it. Won't do any good, Holly. SC's mental health problems were known about at trial. No matter how sick she was it can't damage any of the actual evidence that she is innocent.
It wouldn't seem like a new ground but I'm not a lawyer. Are you able to tell us what NGB said Mat?
-
It was on the board - that new documents had come to light regarding her mental health. I said that it doesn't matter if it's 1 box or a million - it can't dis-credit the evidence.
-
It was on the board - that new documents had come to light regarding her mental health. I said that it doesn't matter if it's 1 box or a million - it can't dis-credit the evidence.
The jury were aware SC was mentally ill. This was the defenses main line of defense so I would think it would have to be quite compelling to override the silencer and JM's testimony albeit I believe both are unreliable.
-
It wouldn't seem like a new ground but I'm not a lawyer. Are you able to tell us what NGB said Mat?
The bigger problem than trying to suggest it is new is trying to suggest mental health records could prove Jeremy didn't do it. There is no ability for them to prove any such thing.
They need something to eat at the evidence used against Jeremy. Suggesting Sheila could have done it because she had mental problems doesn't deal with any of the evidence that convicted him. Eating away at the evidence that the Court of Appeals feels establishes his guilt is about the only way that his conviction would be vacated.
Trying to convince them that Sheila might have done it through more in depth discussion of her mental state isn't going to do that.
Evidence that contradicts Ferguson's testimony about her not discussing her family or something in that vein could be viewed as new. Even that would be unlikely to carry the day though.
Unless they prove she could have shot herself none of that matters. The testimony that she could not have shot herself is the most compelling evidence against him though there is plenty more. All the potential motive in the world for Sheila to have done it though means nothing if she can't have shot herself.
-
Sheila was doing remarkably well despite her illness and was looking forward to a short break at her old home with the boys, her future was looking brighter. The idea that she suddenly turned into some kind of monster, developed the instantaneous ability to handle a rifle and ammunition which was alien to her, became an expert markswoman and gained superstrength powers which allowed her to beat up her much taller stronger father is quite preposterous.
Time to draw a line under this fiasco.
-
Sheila was doing remarkably well despite her illness and was looking forward to a short break at her old home with the boys, her future was looking brighter. The idea that she suddenly turned into some kind of monster, developed the instantaneous ability to handle a rifle and ammunition which was alien to her, became an expert markswoman and gained superstrength powers which allowed her to beat up her much taller stronger father is quite preposterous.
Time to draw a line under this fiasco.
Your views John are the polar opposite of my own so we will have to agree to disagree. There seems little point in going round in circles debating points that have been done to death.
It strikes me that the beliefs about WHF are akin to religion, ie some believe in gods and some don't, but there's no direct evidence to support the existence of any god or that none exist and so the debate rages on.
-
Your views John are the polar opposite of my own so we will have to agree to disagree. There seems little point in going round in circles debating points that have been done to death.
It strikes me that the beliefs about WHF are akin to religion, ie some believe in gods and some don't, but there's no direct evidence to support the existence of any god or that none exist and so the debate rages on.
While you and other Jeremy supporters take a leap of faith like those who believe in a god(s) there is a fundamental difference in that your leap includes ignoring evidence that proves Jeremy did it that that SHeila coudl nto have. It is not a case of a lack of evidence either way.
You choose to not beleive evidence that proves you to be wrong. You choose to believe that eveyrone except Jeremy was lying and there was a huge conspiracy against him where evidence was faked.
You also choose to ignore how his claims make no sense and nothing he did comports with how a reasonable person in his place would behave.
Many supporters including you go so far as to suggest there was no struggl ein the kitchen and that a dead body was beaten by the killer to try to explain away how Sheila could deliver a beating without breaking a nail even.
Denying relaity and evidence is not merely taking a leap of faith it is intentionally closing your eyes to reality because you don't like reality.
-
While you and other Jeremy supporters take a leap of faith like those who believe in a god(s) there is a fundamental difference in that your leap includes ignoring evidence that proves Jeremy did it that that SHeila coudl nto have. It is not a case of a lack of evidence either way.
You choose to not beleive evidence that proves you to be wrong. You choose to believe that eveyrone except Jeremy was lying and there was a huge conspiracy against him where evidence was faked.
You also choose to ignore how his claims make no sense and nothing he did comports with how a reasonable person in his place would behave.
Many supporters including you go so far as to suggest there was no struggl ein the kitchen and that a dead body was beaten by the killer to try to explain away how Sheila could deliver a beating without breaking a nail even.
Denying relaity and evidence is not merely taking a leap of faith it is intentionally closing your eyes to reality because you don't like reality.
Scipio hi 8**8:/:
Again we will have to agree to disagree hun. I really do appreciate your views and the views of others who happen to be the polar opposite of my own. The only bit of the missing jigsaw for me was the blood 'found' in the silencer but I now see from the pathologist's report that the blood samples taken from the victims did not go to FSS direct but EP first and this raises many ???? for me. I am not alone in this regard. Please see COLP interview with DS Davidson:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=178.msg1787#msg1787
I think it is a commonly held perception amongst the so-called "guilters" that JB supporters are all cranks and weirdoes (perhaps not surprising given the posts by some on Blue) or that others are in it for financial gain or some other reason of personal interest. I disagree I think there are some very principled people who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ. One such person is Michael Turner QC. Does he believe Jeremy Bamber innocent? "Passionately". I know some will say the reason for this is that he failed to defend JB at his CoA hearing but I beg to differ:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
Scipio by all means respond but without wishing to sound rude it's unlikely I will reply as I am simply bored going round in circles. Not just with your good self but any so called "guilter".
Until anything changes by way of JB's CCRC submissions, book launches or whatever I shall stick to defending my character from attack on Blue and having some fun and interesting debates in off-topics. x ?{)(**
-
Scipio hi 8**8:/:
Again we will have to agree to disagree hun. I really do appreciate your views and the views of others who happen to be the polar opposite of my own. The only bit of the missing jigsaw for me was the blood 'found' in the silencer but I now see from the pathologist's report that the blood samples taken from the victims did not go to FSS direct but EP first and this raises many ???? for me. I am not alone in this regard. Please see COLP interview with DS Davidson:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=178.msg1787#msg1787
I think it is a commonly held perception amongst the so-called "guilters" that JB supporters are all cranks and weirdoes (perhaps not surprising given the posts by some on Blue) or that others are in it for financial gain or some other reason of personal interest. I disagree I think there are some very principled people who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ. One such person is Michael Turner QC. Does he believe Jeremy Bamber innocent? "Passionately". I know some will say the reason for this is that he failed to defend JB at his CoA hearing but I beg to differ:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
Scipio by all means respond but without wishing to sound rude it's unlikely I will reply as I am simply bored going round in circles. Not just with your good self but any so called "guilter".
Until anything changes by way of JB's CCRC submissions, book launches or whatever I shall stick to defending my character from attack on Blue and having some fun and interesting debates in off-topics. x ?{)(**
I am well aware the blood was given to the police who in turn sent it to the lab.
How was it packaged? In asealed container and then all 3 samples in a sealed bad. So the lab would be aware if the bag had been opened let alone any of the samples touched.
Is there any evidence that any of the samples were in fact touched? No
I had this very debate last week on blue.
Moreover, the blood itself was sprayed into the barrel of the suppressor not merely dripped in using a dropepr or poured out of a vial. This requires skill to accomplish if it can in fact be done. The lab would have needed to orchestrate any doctoring of evidence. The same thing you rely on makes clear Davidson and other police had no clue as to why the suppressor would be siginficant let alone what that significance was.
The lab kew the significance only because they understood 1) there was a contact wound, 2) that such contact wound would result in drawnback and 3) that such drawback would be in the weapon if it had been used without a suppressor or in the suppressor if the suppressor had been used. So only the lab understood the significance and thus only the lab would have had the understanding and opportunity to doctor the rifle itself by eliminating blood found inside and then planting blood in the suppressor. Only they would knwo to plant it let alone know how and again no one has demonstrated the ability to spray it inside to be distributed in the manner found. There are no documented cases of this ever.
The other piece of evidence she cna't have killed herself is that her body was moved after she died. She was seated when shot, bled for a short while and then was moved flat.
When you factor all the other problems with Jeremy's claims in from staging the box of bullets to Nevill having no reason to call to his reactions not being how someone in his place would act after receiving such a call it becomes even more apparent his claims were a farce and he framed Sheila.
The leap of faith involves insisting that this evidence that proves she didn't shoot herself was doctored by police and the claims of the family and Julie were all lies and that while his claims make no sense and actions make no sense he is nonetheless innocent.
People on the other side ar enot taking aleap of faith but being guided my evidence.
The problem with the police planting claim is tha tthere is no evidence at all to support it and it would require a grand conspiracy including a planting of blood never documented ever before.
There has to be some evidence to establish such or it simply is a leap of faith of major proportions.
The wacky claims involve things like June shooting them, police shooting her and other things of that nature.
The pro-jeremy camp is actively looking for evidence to exonerate Jeremy not trying to look objectively at the evidence to make an objective assessment. The Davidson statement is a perfect example. Peopel who insisted Jeremy wa sinnocent were not relying on the Davidson statement originally. They did not come to their consclusion he was innocent in part because of it. They simply encountered it and said aha look here is someplace the blood that we assert was planted could have come from. They didn't know about it all along and say this is why they think the blood was planted. So what this illustrates is the bias that is driving pro-bamber supporters. They are not being driven by evidence but rather trying to cherry pick what they can to support what they decided ahead of time they want to believe.
Someone objective on the other hand requires evidence that the seals on the samples had been broken and blood thus could have been missing. There needs to be more than that the police were among the chain of custody of the evidence.
You criticize me for being objective and requiring proof of things.
For instance, yes an anti-Jeremy author claimed Jeremy won a marksman badge while at boarding school. He claimed the scool records prove it. These school records were not published though to prove it. School transcripts do not usually include badges that are won. There might be a document provided to the student anouncing it but it would not be on a transcript. So one has to wonder what records he saw and how he had access to records that would be private and need some special disclosure. Authors claim lots of things, I have studied hisotry since a child and read countless books full of claims outright false or that can't be confimred one way or another. An author making a claim doesn't make it true we have to be careful about what is a sourced claim and not. Some people will rely only on an author making a claim. I will not. Unless a claim is footnoted and I can check the footnote to make sure it is right I will not trust it. Part of my job working at school on a history journal and late rin law school on a law journal was ot check footnotes for accuracy. Peoplr submit articles and we had to verify the claims they made were actually backed up by their footnotes. We had to go locate and read the cited source to see if the proposition asserted is ruly there. Half the time it wasn't. Sometimes they cited the wrong case and meant to cite another. Other times they grossly twisted what their source actually was saying. Just because I believe Jeremy is guilty doesn't mean I will toss in evidence that might be bogus to pile on. I don't need to pile on.
People are not accustomed to dealing with a stickler like me but I am this way for a reason. To many untrue things end up clouding the actual facts if one is not like that.
The Amityville horror murder case has had some books published lately with incredibly false claims and a 4 part documentary is being made based on the worst book (2 parts were released so far). The book and documentary asserts the convicted killer was married at the time of the murders and presents her account of the family, trial and various other events. She didn't meet him until 1985 and marry him until 1989. The murders were in 1974 and his conviction 1975. She never med the victims her whole tale is a lie. The author and publisher/producers intentioanlly presented the story of a liar. Countless people have been taken in my their snake pil who are unaware that her claims are all bunk. The convicted killer drastically revised what happened the night of the murders in an attempt to get his conviction vacated. It was exposed as lies in court. The book took these disproved claims and published them along with others. There are people conviced DeFeo's sister killed the parents and siblings because of a book claiming such which in part quoted fake legal documents.
I didn't come to my position on Jeremy's guilt through blind faith it was after careful consideration of the relevant facts that could be satisfactorily established based on evidence.
-
By the way Holly i have foudn access to a statement I wasn't able to find before.
Jerey was described as tkaing an interest in target shooting with his cousin and they woudl have friendly competitions of shooting a brick or the like until it was too sall to shoot anymore and he was described as an adequate shot. There still isn't any evidence he used to shoot rabbits.
Shooting a target and human are 2 different things especially shooting a moving human but it doe sestablish he had decent competentcy with the weapon.
When I do come across information that is new to me I have no problem acknowledging it. Since it was never denied by him he knew how to load and operate the murder weapon though this revelation makes little difference. If he had denied suh this coudl have been used as impeachment testimony but was not particularly significant since there was no dispute. A trial is to resolve material factual disputes.
-
I don't think you'll have read "Blood Relations" being in the U.S., scipio. It's worth getting hold of a copy seeing as you're so interested in the case.
In short, Wilkes describes how Anthony Pargeter was at WHF one day, when Nevill and Jeremy were on their way to the fields to shoot vermin with their new Anschutz. In the meantime Anthony, after fitting a new sight to his own rifle went out around one of the barns to zero it in by firing at a piece of wood. He fired off at least four or five magazines, but wasn't satisfied with it being off target.
When Jeremy returned, Anthony asked him to try it out to see what he thought. He inserted a full magazine and shot all ten into the wooden target at twenty-five yards. Jeremy inspected the results and called out that he thought the rifle was firing correctly. (pg. 58)
-
back to the thread -as far as I can see the jury were not shown all the evidence regarding Sheilas illness - if they had seen all the information that should have been handed over to the defence then I think the picture would have been a different one all together.
-
back to the thread -as far as I can see the jury were not shown all the evidence regarding Sheilas illness - if they had seen all the information that should have been handed over to the defence then I think the picture would have been a different one all together.
As far as I understand it SC's mental illness was the main line of defence at trial but unfortunately no trial transcript exists so its difficult to know what was and wasn't said.
I think there was much more going on with SC than Dr F's diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Also I am unable to see the mental illnesses suffered by SC and June as being mutually exclusive.
As I understand it JB's new submissions to CCRC are to be based around SC's mental illness:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/killer-jeremy-bambers-bid-freedom-6981683
-
A number of sites contain numerous lies about Sheila's mental health including the lie that a few months before the murders Ferguson wrote upon releasing her that he thought she could harm her family. Others misrepresent that she had been violent in the past with others and distort the timeline to make it appear events that occurred in 1983 had in fact occurred in 1985.
For instance, Farhad Emami talked about shortly after she was released in 1983. He claimed she relapsed and had a psychotic epsiode where she didn't want anyone to touch her or go near her. She didn't attack anyone, the only person she supposedly hit was herself, but she didn't want anyone to touch her and made a commotion as they tried. She wanted to be left alone. This happened in 1983 not 1985.
In early 1985 she relapsed because she stopped taking her medication and instead was taking drugs. Drugs like cocaine and LSD are known to exacerbate mental illness. They can cause delusions and hallucinations even in people who don't have mental illness. Because of this she was prescribed a very powerful drug and it was administered by injection so that she would not fall into the same trap as in the past of skipping treatment.
Haloperidol is so powerful that a different drug is given to counteract the treatment, usually Procyclidine. Haloperidol has serious side effects. It causes tremors, loss of dexterity and often leaves people in a near zombie state. While it does a very good job of preventing relapses it also does a good job of preventing someone from leading a normal life. It tranquilizes too well, causes dexterity loss and even has longterm harmful health consequences (blood pressure and health conditions hat determine longevity) For this reason the goal is to reduce dosage to the minimum level necessary to prevent relapses.
Procyclidine also has side effects including, insomnia, and if given in too high a dosage it will cause agitation. So you need the right mix of Procyclidine to make sure it is not undoing the soothing effects of the Haloperidol.
The Procyclidine was not causing agitation but was causing insomnia. For that reason her Haloperidol was reduced to 100MG so that she would not need as much Procyclidine. She stopped taking Procyclidine and thus it was not found in her system.
Bamber supporters try to pretend that the fact she stopped taking it would increase her chance of having mental problems. Quite the contrary, without taking Procyclidine she would be constantly drowsy, sleep without waking up overnight, would have dexterity problems and docile. So the fact she stopped taking it actually makes it even less likely for her to relapse not moreso.
Next they claim the reduction in dosage in half means she would have Haloperidol withdrawal and be agitated. First of all, 200MG is way too much for a mild case like Sheila's. Today we have a great body of medical journals and studies not available in 1985. 200MG is what only the most severe cases warrant. There is virtually no difference in relapse rate between those taking 200MG and 100MG the effectiveness is virtually the same but the side effects are much worse. In fact there is not that much difference in effectiveness between 50MG and 100MG. 100MG was more than enough to keep her docile, especially since she was not taking any Procyclidine.
If she was going to experience withdrawal then she would have felt it much sooner. It would not take 4 weeks for withdrawal to suddenly kick in. There is no evidence at all that she was withdrawaing and agitated. Rather the available evidence is that she was just as docile as when she was taking 200MG only now she could sleep.
Bamber supporters always want to ignore the surrounding evidence. She was docile for the weeks prior to the murders and even docile on the night of the murders. While she had problems sleeping in the past once she reduced her dosages and stopped taking Procyclidine she had no problem sleeping through the night. So there is no evidence at all she started to relapse.
This presents numerous problems for Bamber's defenders. In the past when did she relapse and why? When she stopped taking her anti-psychotic drug and/or used hard drugs. But she didn't use such drugs while at WHF so that can't account for her relapsing. Her anti-psychotic medication was being injected so she had no opportunity to stop taking it and indeed Haloperidol was in her system at the time she died.
When people relapse they don't instantly have the worst delusions ever and become immediately violent. They deterioriate over time and things get worse and worse and if no treatment happns then they could progress into violence.
Yet the claim here is that Sheila suddenly relapsed without warning, that she woke up and had this relapse at 3AM in the morning while everyone else was asleep and that it was so severe that it caused her to attack her family in their beds. Maybe if she had taken hard drugs or even had taken Procyclidine so she could not sleep this might seem somewhat possible but there are no documented cases of someone on Haloperidol alone and no other drugs of any kind having the ability to wake up and do such.
Even worse for Bamber defenders her latest relapse featured her not being concerned about her family causing problems for her but rather her own concept of good versus evil. Her family did not figure into her delusions at all. So that makes it evne less liekly she would have a delusion where she felt the need to kill anyone in her family let alone her beloved children and father.
The fact remains that documented psychotic murder cases involve killers who either were not being treated, who stopped taking their medication or took hard drugs that induced psychosis. Yet we are supposed to believe her medication jsut suddenly stopped working, she woke up and went on the first violent rampage ever in her life and it was to kill everyone in their beds.
Not only do we have to ignore the complete lack of evidence that this occurred, we are supposed to ignore the complete lack of evidence she was involved. She went into a crazy frenzy and managed the murders without getting any evidence on her body at all. No blood spatter, no gun shot residue not even, nothing on her feet walking through areas with blood and broken crockery, and not even an abrasion on her hands despite supposedly delivering the beating Nevill suffered which broke the stock of the gun.
We also are told to ignore all evidence that the crimes were planned in advance. It's just coincidence that the kitchen phone was unplugged, hidden and replaced with the bedroom phone.
Plus Julie is lying and the evidence found in and on the suppressor was planted by someone. last we have to ignore that Nevill would have been unable to speak over the phone and pretend he ran down to the kitchen to make the call, back upstairs to the bedroom and that in her crazy frenzy Sheila chose not to shoot him in the kitchen but rather to march him back upstairs to shoot her parents together.
So she was in a crazy frenzy but still in total control and thinking about how she wanted to ideally kill everyone in their beds.
Gosh, so the pathological liar, Jeremy Bamber and his ever-changing small bunch of hapless campaigners tell such ridiculous lies — lies that can so easily be discounted — and he wonders why people roll their eyes when he starts another “new” appeal...
-
Gosh, so the pathological liar, Jeremy Bamber and his ever-changing small bunch of hapless campaigners tell such ridiculous lies — lies that can so easily be discounted — and he wonders why people roll their eyes when he starts another “new” appeal...
I've learned a few things tonight
With reference to "For instance, yes an anti-Jeremy author claimed Jeremy won a marksman badge while at boarding school. He claimed the school records prove it. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4035.msg156156#msg156156
I read that and would have used it to illustrate Bamber's prowess with a gun and possibly might even have already done so, without realising there's no provenance for it.
I think there is already enough anecdotal evidence to attest to his familiarity with the Anschutz without embroidering it by making a statement without backing it up.
-
Rob,
I’ve listed below all the statistics for schizophrenics.
Worldwide there’s 51 million diagnosed schizophrenics
In the UK there’s 250,000 cases
Australia actually has more than the UK: they have 285,000, which is interesting given their population is only about 25Million compared to 67Million in the UK. I wonder why that is?
Whatever, schizophrenia is indeed treatable, usually improves, and in 25% cases they make a complete recovery. So when someone said on here that Sheila’s doctor told Colin Sheila would get worse, that was wrong and untrue.
Most schizophrenics are never violent, but you will have the extremely rare case where one will murder randomly; strangers, family, neighbours, anyone; but it’s INCREDIBLY rare and if they do go on a rampage they don’t do it in an orderly fashion. They don’t creep around quietly. They don’t load rifles and put silencers on them. They don’t then kill themselves too. They just walk casually around the street killing anyone they see. They don’t try and hide it. If the police came they would try and shoot them too.
So, you see, all this schizophrenic blaming Jeremy Bamber tries to do doesn’t make sense. Those murders weren’t carried out by a schizophrenic who’d suddenly gone berserk. He’s just an evil psychopath blaming the very woman HE killed for greed.
Going by how many people worldwide have schizophrenia and going by the incredibly rare occupancies where one does randomly kill, the chances of being killed by one is higher than winning the lottery, which is 45Million to one...
Schizophrenia and Violence
People with schizophrenia are far more likely to harm themselves than be violent toward the public. Violence is not a symptom of schizophrenia.
News and entertainment media tend to link mental illnesses including schizophrenia to criminal violence. Most people with schizophrenia, however, are not violent toward others but are withdrawn and prefer to be left alone. Drug or alcohol abuse raises the risk of violence in people with schizophrenia, particularly if the illness is untreated, but also in people who have no mental illness
After 10 years, of the people diagnosed with schizophrenia:
25% Completely Recover
25% Much Improved, relatively independent
25% Improved, but require extensive support network
15% Hospitalized, unimproved
10% Dead (Mostly Suicide)
After 30 years, of the people diagnosed with schizophrenia:
25% Completely Recover
35% Much Improved, relatively independent
15% Improved, but require extensive support network
10% Hospitalized, unimproved
15% Dead (Mostly Suicide
The Prevalance Rate for schizophrenia is approximately 1.1% of the population over the age of 18 (source: NIMH) or, in other words, at any one time as many as 51 million people worldwide suffer from schizophrenia, including;
6 to 12 million people in China (a rough estimate based on the population)
4.3 to 8.7 million people in India (a rough estimate based on the population)
2.2 million people in USA
285,000 people in Australia
Over 280,000 people in Canada
Over 250,000 diagnosed cases in Britain
-
Like eveything else psychology and psychiatry has moved on since JB's trial.
Dr Ferguson diagnosed SC with paranoid schizophrenia but how do we know she wasn't comorbid?
If SC was responsible what's to say her actions had nothing to do with her diagnosis?
-
In response to posts on the other thread that schizophrenics don't murder, of course they do.
-
In response to posts on the other thread that schizophrenics don't murder, of course they do.
Robert Napper.
-
In response to posts on the other thread that schizophrenics don't murder, of course they do.
The case of Rachel James throws up some interesting features:
- Adopted at birth
- Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia
- Reunited with her birth mother
- Used recreational drugs
- Murdered one of her young sons. Attempted to murder the other. Attempted suicide.
If you believe SC was responsible, as I do, it seems to present a mirror image. Rachel James didn't have access to a firearm but had she done she would undoubtedly have murdered both sons and taken her own life at that time.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rachel-james-grieving-dad-hits-123282
-
I am well aware the blood was given to the police who in turn sent it to the lab.
How was it packaged? In asealed container and then all 3 samples in a sealed bad. So the lab would be aware if the bag had been opened let alone any of the samples touched.
Is there any evidence that any of the samples were in fact touched? No
I had this very debate last week on blue.
Moreover, the blood itself was sprayed into the barrel of the suppressor not merely dripped in using a dropepr or poured out of a vial. This requires skill to accomplish if it can in fact be done. The lab would have needed to orchestrate any doctoring of evidence. The same thing you rely on makes clear Davidson and other police had no clue as to why the suppressor would be siginficant let alone what that significance was.
The lab kew the significance only because they understood 1) there was a contact wound, 2) that such contact wound would result in drawnback and 3) that such drawback would be in the weapon if it had been used without a suppressor or in the suppressor if the suppressor had been used. So only the lab understood the significance and thus only the lab would have had the understanding and opportunity to doctor the rifle itself by eliminating blood found inside and then planting blood in the suppressor. Only they would knwo to plant it let alone know how and again no one has demonstrated the ability to spray it inside to be distributed in the manner found. There are no documented cases of this ever.
The other piece of evidence she cna't have killed herself is that her body was moved after she died. She was seated when shot, bled for a short while and then was moved flat.
When you factor all the other problems with Jeremy's claims in from staging the box of bullets to Nevill having no reason to call to his reactions not being how someone in his place would act after receiving such a call it becomes even more apparent his claims were a farce and he framed Sheila.
The leap of faith involves insisting that this evidence that proves she didn't shoot herself was doctored by police and the claims of the family and Julie were all lies and that while his claims make no sense and actions make no sense he is nonetheless innocent.
People on the other side ar enot taking aleap of faith but being guided my evidence.
The problem with the police planting claim is tha tthere is no evidence at all to support it and it would require a grand conspiracy including a planting of blood never documented ever before.
There has to be some evidence to establish such or it simply is a leap of faith of major proportions.
The wacky claims involve things like June shooting them, police shooting her and other things of that nature.
The pro-jeremy camp is actively looking for evidence to exonerate Jeremy not trying to look objectively at the evidence to make an objective assessment. The Davidson statement is a perfect example. Peopel who insisted Jeremy wa sinnocent were not relying on the Davidson statement originally. They did not come to their consclusion he was innocent in part because of it. They simply encountered it and said aha look here is someplace the blood that we assert was planted could have come from. They didn't know about it all along and say this is why they think the blood was planted. So what this illustrates is the bias that is driving pro-bamber supporters. They are not being driven by evidence but rather trying to cherry pick what they can to support what they decided ahead of time they want to believe.
Someone objective on the other hand requires evidence that the seals on the samples had been broken and blood thus could have been missing. There needs to be more than that the police were among the chain of custody of the evidence.
You criticize me for being objective and requiring proof of things.
For instance, yes an anti-Jeremy author claimed Jeremy won a marksman badge while at boarding school. He claimed the scool records prove it. These school records were not published though to prove it. School transcripts do not usually include badges that are won. There might be a document provided to the student anouncing it but it would not be on a transcript. So one has to wonder what records he saw and how he had access to records that would be private and need some special disclosure. Authors claim lots of things, I have studied hisotry since a child and read countless books full of claims outright false or that can't be confimred one way or another. An author making a claim doesn't make it true we have to be careful about what is a sourced claim and not. Some people will rely only on an author making a claim. I will not. Unless a claim is footnoted and I can check the footnote to make sure it is right I will not trust it. Part of my job working at school on a history journal and late rin law school on a law journal was ot check footnotes for accuracy. Peoplr submit articles and we had to verify the claims they made were actually backed up by their footnotes. We had to go locate and read the cited source to see if the proposition asserted is ruly there. Half the time it wasn't. Sometimes they cited the wrong case and meant to cite another. Other times they grossly twisted what their source actually was saying. Just because I believe Jeremy is guilty doesn't mean I will toss in evidence that might be bogus to pile on. I don't need to pile on.
People are not accustomed to dealing with a stickler like me but I am this way for a reason. To many untrue things end up clouding the actual facts if one is not like that.
The Amityville horror murder case has had some books published lately with incredibly false claims and a 4 part documentary is being made based on the worst book (2 parts were released so far). The book and documentary asserts the convicted killer was married at the time of the murders and presents her account of the family, trial and various other events. She didn't meet him until 1985 and marry him until 1989. The murders were in 1974 and his conviction 1975. She never med the victims her whole tale is a lie. The author and publisher/producers intentioanlly presented the story of a liar. Countless people have been taken in my their snake pil who are unaware that her claims are all bunk. The convicted killer drastically revised what happened the night of the murders in an attempt to get his conviction vacated. It was exposed as lies in court. The book took these disproved claims and published them along with others. There are people conviced DeFeo's sister killed the parents and siblings because of a book claiming such which in part quoted fake legal documents.
I didn't come to my position on Jeremy's guilt through blind faith it was after careful consideration of the relevant facts that could be satisfactorily established based on evidence.
I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded text.
-
The case of Rachel James throws up some interesting features:
- Adopted at birth
- Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia
- Reunited with her birth mother
- Used recreational drugs
- Murdered one of her young sons. Attempted to murder the other. Attempted suicide.
If you believe SC was responsible, as I do, it seems to present a mirror image. Rachel James didn't have access to a firearm but had she done she would undoubtedly have murdered both sons and taken her own life at that time.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rachel-james-grieving-dad-hits-123282
That is absolutely awful.
I do wonder what would have been said about Sheila had she survived the WHF massacre. IMO, it's easier to blame/condemn somebody if they are alive.
-
Like eveything else psychology and psychiatry has moved on since JB's trial.
Dr Ferguson diagnosed SC with paranoid schizophrenia but how do we know she wasn't comorbid?
If SC was responsible what's to say her actions had nothing to do with her diagnosis?
Dr Ferguson never diagnosed Sheila with Paranoid Schizophrenia: he diagnosed her with “MILD Schizophrenia “
She displayed no symptoms of other MH issues, and most certainly wasn’t diagnosed a PSYCHOPATH
You’re now trying to suggest maybe Sheila had other issues, and the reason you’re doing that is you’re desperate to try and pin the murders on her, despite the courts proving irrefutably that Jeremy was GUILTY
You’re coming up with wishful thinking scenarios because in YOUR head you don’t want to accept the FACT Jeremy is a mass murderer, despite it being proved beyond all doubt that he is.
I thought you didn’t like hypothesis? I thought you only wanted FACTS with cites. Yet you post up imaginary ideas from your own head, and find that acceptable even though they’re laughably wrong
-
In response to posts on the other thread that schizophrenics don't murder, of course they do.
Nowhere near as frequently as psychopaths do...
-
Robert Napper.
ONE psychopath
He killed RANDOM women
-
The case of Rachel James throws up some interesting features:
- Adopted at birth
- Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia
- Reunited with her birth mother
- Used recreational drugs
- Murdered one of her young sons. Attempted to murder the other. Attempted suicide.
If you believe SC was responsible, as I do, it seems to present a mirror image. Rachel James didn't have access to a firearm but had she done she would undoubtedly have murdered both sons and taken her own life at that time.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rachel-james-grieving-dad-hits-123282
Why do you keep banging on about adoptive children?
Adoptive children grow up in warm loving homes with parents who adore and nurture them. How many weirdos seek to adopt a child? Maybe one in a million.
Whatever, Jeremy Bamber is an evil psychopath and even his own biological father said that. So what does that tell you? Or are you saying you know better than him?
-
Why do you keep banging on about adoptive children?
Adoptive children grow up in warm loving homes with parents who adore and nurture them. How many weirdos seek to adopt a child? Maybe one in a million.
Whatever, Jeremy Bamber is an evil psychopath and even his own biological father said that. So what does that tell you? Or are you saying you know better than him?
The trouble is, Spy, providing the prospective parents were financially comfortable and regular church goers, their suitability as parents wasn't gone into. Few of them fitted the bill as "weirdos".....................Oh, and for the record, I take great exception to your casual and thoughtless comment that "Adoptive children grow up in warm loving homes with parents who adore and nurture them" and don't you DARE tell me how many such you know personally. Good luck to those. Many DON'T!!!!!
-
I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded text.
Unless of course the author writes something you agree with! A person making a statement doesn't make it true either - but you pick and choose from those also. Basically, you would only believe something it followed your line of thought making the effort of posting cites (in your case - and a few others) ..... pointless.
-
Unless of course the author writes something you agree with! A person making a statement doesn't make it true either - but you pick and choose from those also. Basically, you would only believe something it followed your line of thought making the effort of posting cites (in your case - and a few others) ..... pointless.
If one has gone to the effort of finding a cite, only to have it torn apart and criticized as meaningless, it's discouraging.
-
Dr Ferguson never diagnosed Sheila with Paranoid Schizophrenia: he diagnosed her with “MILD Schizophrenia “
She displayed no symptoms of other MH issues, and most certainly wasn’t diagnosed a PSYCHOPATH
You’re now trying to suggest maybe Sheila had other issues, and the reason you’re doing that is you’re desperate to try and pin the murders on her, despite the courts proving irrefutably that Jeremy was GUILTY
You’re coming up with wishful thinking scenarios because in YOUR head you don’t want to accept the FACT Jeremy is a mass murderer, despite it being proved beyond all doubt that he is.
I thought you didn’t like hypothesis? I thought you only wanted FACTS with cites. Yet you post up imaginary ideas from your own head, and find that acceptable even though they’re laughably wrong
May I suggest you check your sources before making assertions? Dr Ferguson diagnosed Sheila Caffell with paranoid
schizophrenia in 1983.
-
The case of Rachel James throws up some interesting features:
- Adopted at birth
- Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia
- Reunited with her birth mother
- Used recreational drugs
- Murdered one of her young sons. Attempted to murder the other. Attempted suicide.
If you believe SC was responsible, as I do, it seems to present a mirror image. Rachel James didn't have access to a firearm but had she done she would undoubtedly have murdered both sons and taken her own life at that time.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rachel-james-grieving-dad-hits-123282
And someone else who failed to take their medication
https://www.heart.co.uk/dunstable/news/local/inquest-woman-burned-train/
-
The trouble is, Spy, providing the prospective parents were financially comfortable and regular church goers, their suitability as parents wasn't gone into. Few of them fitted the bill as "weirdos".....................Oh, and for the record, I take great exception to your casual and thoughtless comment that "Adoptive children grow up in warm loving homes with parents who adore and nurture them" and don't you DARE tell me how many such you know personally. Good luck to those. Many DON'T!!!!!
April, don’t tell ME what I can say! Who do you think you are?
I’m speaking from personal experience, OK?!
If you think married couples jump through hoops to adopt a child without WANTING a child to love, you must have a strange thought process.
ALL families, regardless of whether they’ve been adopted, can have problems.
And don’t you DARE tell me that MANY adoptive children are brought up by weirdos!
That’s utter nonsense. You can’t tar EVERYONE with the same brush. If you had an unfortunate upbringing you were unlucky, but you’re in the minority.
-
April, don’t tell ME what I can say! Who do you think you are?
I’m speaking from personal experience, OK?!
If you think married couples jump through hoops to adopt a child without WANTING a child to love, you must have a strange thought process.
ALL families, regardless of whether they’ve been adopted, can have problems.
And don’t you DARE tell me that MANY adoptive children are brought up by weirdos!
That’s utter nonsense. You can’t tar EVERYONE with the same brush. If you had an unfortunate upbringing you were unlucky, but you’re in the minority.
"You can't tar EVERYONE with the same brush"!!!!! That's EXACTLY what you're doing when you claim that ALL adopted children are bought up by loving parents -and bear in mind whilst you're mouthing off at me, that "weirdos" is your own, all encompassing expression, NOT mine.
Do you know that there's a counselling agency dedicated to those who've been damaged by adoption? They wouldn't do that for a handful. Do you have such an overblown sense of your own self importance that you believe you're the only one here to have any personal experiences which matter? I can only speak from personal experience, OK! It's my only frame of reference. I'm fully aware that ALL families have problems. I'm only talking about families which include adopted children, NOR am I talking about what happens now -hopefully, they're more careful about where, and with whom, children are placed.
Do I "think married couples jump through hoops to adopt a child without WANTING a child to love"? Sadly, some do. Some are prepared to put up with the mess and inconvenience they believe a small child will cause because they believe the child, as an adult, will be useful to them later. Their plans for the child stretch no further than it giving up it's right to a full life by becoming their full time carer -without asking it's permission- on the grounds they'd believe it would want to out of gratitude.
The ignorance, behind your blind belief that everything in the adoption garden is rosy, is an insult to those for whom it's been anything but.
-
"You can't tar EVERYONE with the same brush"!!!!! That's EXACTLY what you're doing when you claim that ALL adopted children are bought up by loving parents -and bear in mind whilst you're mouthing off at me, that "weirdos" is your own, all encompassing expression, NOT mine.
Do you know that there's a counselling agency dedicated to those who've been damaged by adoption? They wouldn't do that for a handful. Do you have such an overblown sense of your own self importance that you believe you're the only one here to have any personal experiences which matter? I can only speak from personal experience, OK! It's my only frame of reference. I'm fully aware that ALL families have problems. I'm only talking about families which include adopted children, NOR am I talking about what happens now -hopefully, they're more careful about where, and with whom, children are placed.
Do I "think married couples jump through hoops to adopt a child without WANTING a child to love"? Sadly, some do. Some are prepared to put up with the mess and inconvenience they believe a small child will cause because they believe the child, as an adult, will be useful to them later. Their plans for the child stretch no further than it giving up it's right to a full life by becoming their full time carer -without asking it's permission- on the grounds they'd believe it would want to out of gratitude.
The ignorance, behind your blind belief that everything in the adoption garden is rosy, is an insult to those for whom it's been anything but.
So you’re saying married couples adopt a young child, go through all the hard work of bringing them up, including the huge financial costs, just so they can look after them when they become old and infirm?!
Never thought of that one before, and your suggestion couples give up their freedom, devote time to raising their adopted child, spending hundreds of thousands doing it — just so they can become personal careers for when THEY’RE older is not only a strange reason — it doesn’t add up!
Why not save all those hundreds of thousands and employ a personal live-in carer when they’re older?!
You talk as though some couples adopt to get themselves a slave. How about people who “adopt” animals? Are they after a slave? When couples can’t adopt a child they often compensate by buying themselves a pet — who they usually ADORE and spoil. If you’re saying humans aren’t capable of loving their adopted child as much as a dog or a cat, we will have to agree to disagree.
You’re also forgetting that if a couple adopt a child who’s, say, a toddler or older, then often that child will already be damaged in some way. Maybe you’re taking statistics from that group, rather than where couples adopt BABIES (such as the Bambers’ did) in which they haven’t been subjected to a horrendous upbringing by a parent who could be a drug addict, mentally unstable, cruel, neglectful etc. Of course those children will already be affected, and that’ll make the adoption process harder. But adopting a baby doesn’t bring with it the trauma the child may have been subjected to.
-
So you’re saying married couples adopt a young child, go through all the hard work of bringing them up, including the huge financial costs, just so they can look after them when they become old and infirm?!
Never thought of that one before, and your suggestion couples give up their freedom, devote time to raising their adopted child, spending hundreds of thousands doing it — just so they can become personal careers for when THEY’RE older is not only a strange reason — it doesn’t add up!
Why not save all those hundreds of thousands and employ a personal live-in carer when they’re older?!
You talk as though some couples adopt to get themselves a slave. How about people who “adopt” animals? Are they after a slave? When couples can’t adopt a child they often compensate by buying themselves a pet — who they usually ADORE and spoil. If you’re saying humans aren’t capable of loving their adopted child as much as a dog or a cat, we will have to agree to disagree.
You’re also forgetting that if a couple adopt a child who’s, say, a toddler or older, then often that child will already be damaged in some way. Maybe you’re taking statistics from that group, rather than where couples adopt BABIES (such as the Bambers’ did) in which they haven’t been subjected to a horrendous upbringing by a parent who could be a drug addict, mentally unstable, cruel, neglectful etc. Of course those children will already be affected, and that’ll make the adoption process harder. But adopting a baby doesn’t bring with it the trauma the child may have been subjected to.
As usual you are insisting that your opinions are the correct ones. People have children for a variety of reasons and adoptees are no different. Both natural and adopting parents can find parenting a lot more difficult than they expected it to be.
Making sweeping statements such as "Adoptive children grow up in warm loving homes with parents who adore and nurture them." simply demonstrate your inability to understand the many reasons why people adopt and the challenges they face once they have a real live child with all it's needs and wants to deal with.
June Bamber, for example, doesn't seem to have been physically demonstrative and she ended up with a daughter who was desperate for cuddles and who felt the lack of them deeply. Not every parent, natural or adoptive can meet their children's needs.
-
As usual you are insisting that your opinions are the correct ones. People have children for a variety of reasons and adoptees are no different. Both natural and adopting parents can find parenting a lot more difficult than they expected it to be.
Making sweeping statements such as "Adoptive children grow up in warm loving homes with parents who adore and nurture them." simply demonstrate your inability to understand the many reasons why people adopt and the challenges they face once they have a real live child with all it's needs and wants to deal with.
June Bamber, for example, doesn't seem to have been physically demonstrative and she ended up with a daughter who was desperate for cuddles and who felt the lack of them deeply. Not every parent, natural or adoptive can meet their children's needs.
Well, I’m hardly going to give an opinion I don’t agree with, am I?!
From my studies — including firsthand knowledge — all adoptee parents crave a family. They’ll even PAY for a surrogate baby.
To suggest they only want a child as a future carer is absurd.
Nor do I understand you saying that people have children “for a variety of reasons”
Name these “variety of reasons”, Gunit
Going by MYSELF, including everyone I know, people have children because they WANT children. It’s human nature. It’s normal to procreate. Men are hardwired to spread their seed, and most women are hardwired to be maternal and get broody.
You’ll find a small minority of women who don’t want children; even like children; but in the grand scheme of things nature makes that abnormal. We’re programmed to want children.
As for raising children, there can be difficult times — that’s normal. But that happens whether children are adopted or your biological own.
You’re trying to throw the blame for Jeremy Bamber being a psychopath on June and Nevill, and that’s BS. Psychopaths are BORN with their brains wired up wrong. It’s quite likely instinct told June and Nevill that Jeremy wasn’t “right” even when he was a child, and that may have caused June to throw herself into religion as a form of escape.
No-one will ever know what all their true feelings were, but Jeremy was very vocal how much he hated them...which kind of makes all this repulsive BS he does getting TB reading sickly lies by their graves look as false as all his other lies when he denied killing them, but got convicted die to overwhelming evidence.
-
So you’re saying married couples adopt a young child, go through all the hard work of bringing them up, including the huge financial costs, just so they can look after them when they become old and infirm?!
Never thought of that one before, and your suggestion couples give up their freedom, devote time to raising their adopted child, spending hundreds of thousands doing it — just so they can become personal careers for when THEY’RE older is not only a strange reason — it doesn’t add up!
Why not save all those hundreds of thousands and employ a personal live-in carer when they’re older?!
You talk as though some couples adopt to get themselves a slave. How about people who “adopt” animals? Are they after a slave? When couples can’t adopt a child they often compensate by buying themselves a pet — who they usually ADORE and spoil. If you’re saying humans aren’t capable of loving their adopted child as much as a dog or a cat, we will have to agree to disagree.
You’re also forgetting that if a couple adopt a child who’s, say, a toddler or older, then often that child will already be damaged in some way. Maybe you’re taking statistics from that group, rather than where couples adopt BABIES (such as the Bambers’ did) in which they haven’t been subjected to a horrendous upbringing by a parent who could be a drug addict, mentally unstable, cruel, neglectful etc. Of course those children will already be affected, and that’ll make the adoption process harder. But adopting a baby doesn’t bring with it the trauma the child may have been subjected to.
You ask a lot of questions, Spy, but it shows a willingness to accept that things are not always as we'd like them to be. I will answer each point to the best of my ability.
I am, indeed, saying SOME couples have done exactly that.
I agree. It doesn't add up. However, think of the kudos. SUCH generous parents. All the money they've spent on that child.
A live in carer would be a stranger. A grown-up child would have been 'trained' and controlled to do the parents'.
bidding without question.
They would, of course, deny it, but "a slave" is exactly what they want, or at least, unquestioning slave-like devotion and gratitude which they believe is their right. Most people love their children and animals alike. I believe animals can be a substitute for children. I have witnessed some, who need to have control, who love their animals more than their children because animals -dogs more than cats- obey commands. For these people, it probably won't be any different it the child in question is adopted or biological. It's about the parent's inability to love unconditionally.
No, I'm not forgetting that now, because there's no longer a stigma attached to being a single parent, there are fewer babies available for adoption. This means that older children are likely to bring a whole life's worth of baggage with them that no child should have. At the very least there will be trust issues. It takes true love, devotion and patience to help them through it to a place where they feel safe. But, there's always the separation issue. A baby spends 9 months in it's mother's w..b. It hears her voice. It's senses her moods. It's widely known that by six weeks old, a baby reacts to it's mother's voice, the sound of her approaching, her smell and her touch. Remove the safety of everything which is "mother" to a helpless child and we're left with a child experiencing fear. I haven't touched on rejection, but however much an adopted child might be assured that "mummy really wanted to keep you but she couldn't", the hard fact remains that mummy made the choice -the reasons, to a child, won't be understood- to give her child away.
One would hope that adoption was no more complicated than childless people with love to give can be put together with a motherless child who need a home and everyone lives happily ever after. Sadly, it can prove to be a minefield. One desperate mother shared with me that she'd had to disown her adopted daughter, because having spent thousands on her education and supporting her through university, she'd been persuaded by her biological family, that she'd be happier working in a supermarket. Such proved to be the case. This child had been 'rescued' from a family who'd survived on their wits and benefits for generations, and placed with a professional family who had huge expectations of her -it COULD have been a golden opportunity- but she preferred the warmth and acceptance she felt within her biological family. Such was the adoptive mother's determination that her's was the right path for her daughter, there was never going to be a happy resolution. How similar is this case to that of the Bamber's...................and, indeed, my own?
-
Well, I’m hardly going to give an opinion I don’t agree with, am I?!
From my studies — including firsthand knowledge — all adoptee parents crave a family. They’ll even PAY for a surrogate baby.
To suggest they only want a child as a future carer is absurd.
Nor do I understand you saying that people have children “for a variety of reasons”
Name these “variety of reasons”, Gunit
Going by MYSELF, including everyone I know, people have children because they WANT children. It’s human nature. It’s normal to procreate. Men are hardwired to spread their seed, and most women are hardwired to be maternal and get broody.
You’ll find a small minority of women who don’t want children; even like children; but in the grand scheme of things nature makes that abnormal. We’re programmed to want children.
As for raising children, there can be difficult times — that’s normal. But that happens whether children are adopted or your biological own.
You’re trying to throw the blame for Jeremy Bamber being a psychopath on June and Nevill, and that’s BS. Psychopaths are BORN with their brains wired up wrong. It’s quite likely instinct told June and Nevill that Jeremy wasn’t “right” even when he was a child, and that may have caused June to throw herself into religion as a form of escape.
No-one will ever know what all their true feelings were, but Jeremy was very vocal how much he hated them...which kind of makes all this repulsive BS he does getting TB reading sickly lies by their graves look as false as all his other lies when he denied killing them, but got convicted die to overwhelming evidence.
You're entitled to an opinion so long as you acknowledge it is an opinion. You have an unfortunate habit of posting your opinions as if they are facts. Your above statement, for example, would have benefitted from having the phrase 'in my opinion' added.
Women have been known to get pregnant because all their friends are doing it, because time is running out or to try to heal a failing relationship. Adoption may be considered for the same reasons.
-
Well, I’m hardly going to give an opinion I don’t agree with, am I?!
From my studies — including firsthand knowledge — all adoptee parents crave a family. They’ll even PAY for a surrogate baby.
To suggest they only want a child as a future carer is absurd.
Nor do I understand you saying that people have children “for a variety of reasons”
Name these “variety of reasons”, Gunit
Going by MYSELF, including everyone I know, people have children because they WANT children. It’s human nature. It’s normal to procreate. Men are hardwired to spread their seed, and most women are hardwired to be maternal and get broody.
You’ll find a small minority of women who don’t want children; even like children; but in the grand scheme of things nature makes that abnormal. We’re programmed to want children.
As for raising children, there can be difficult times — that’s normal. But that happens whether children are adopted or your biological own.
You’re trying to throw the blame for Jeremy Bamber being a psychopath on June and Nevill, and that’s BS. Psychopaths are BORN with their brains wired up wrong. It’s quite likely instinct told June and Nevill that Jeremy wasn’t “right” even when he was a child, and that may have caused June to throw herself into religion as a form of escape.
No-one will ever know what all their true feelings were, but Jeremy was very vocal how much he hated them...which kind of makes all this repulsive BS he does getting TB reading sickly lies by their graves look as false as all his other lies when he denied killing them, but got convicted die to overwhelming evidence.
I believe humans ideally want to invest in and nurture their own genetic offspring not the offspring of others.
Who grows up thinking that one day they'll find someone to settle down with and adopt? Adoption is second choice for most couples who find themselves infertile after often a long and painful journey.
June Bamber was so distraught when she found herself unable to conceive she ended up having a breakdown that required in-patient psychiatric care in 1955 long before either SC or JB had even been conceived. Given she experienced another for the same reason in 1959 after adopting SC suggests she had not come to terms with the loss of not having birth children.
-
Well, I’m hardly going to give an opinion I don’t agree with, am I?!
From my studies — including firsthand knowledge — all adoptee parents crave a family. They’ll even PAY for a surrogate baby.
To suggest they only want a child as a future carer is absurd.
Nor do I understand you saying that people have children “for a variety of reasons”
Name these “variety of reasons”, Gunit
Going by MYSELF, including everyone I know, people have children because they WANT children. It’s human nature. It’s normal to procreate. Men are hardwired to spread their seed, and most women are hardwired to be maternal and get broody.
You’ll find a small minority of women who don’t want children; even like children; but in the grand scheme of things nature makes that abnormal. We’re programmed to want children.
As for raising children, there can be difficult times — that’s normal. But that happens whether children are adopted or your biological own.
You’re trying to throw the blame for Jeremy Bamber being a psychopath on June and Nevill, and that’s BS. Psychopaths are BORN with their brains wired up wrong. It’s quite likely instinct told June and Nevill that Jeremy wasn’t “right” even when he was a child, and that may have caused June to throw herself into religion as a form of escape.
No-one will ever know what all their true feelings were, but Jeremy was very vocal how much he hated them...which kind of makes all this repulsive BS he does getting TB reading sickly lies by their graves look as false as all his other lies when he denied killing them, but got convicted die to overwhelming evidence.
Oh dear, Spy. That tight and secure little bubble you inhabit certainly cushions you from the many problems experienced by those of us in the real world.
So everyone you know has children because they want children? Well, bully for them. Ask the woman, pregnant with another child when her baby is only 6 weeks old, how badly she wants another child. Ask the woman whose husband is out of work, how welcome is her pregnancy. The list is endless, of women pregnant with babies who won't be a welcome addition to their families.
Certainly, those wanting to adopt, "CRAVE" babies, but until you know what are their agendas, you won't know the full story. It MIGHT be no deeper than all their friends are having babies and they feel left out. It MAY be that they've got the 'right' sized house, the car, the holidays, and the income and a baby is next on their check list. The "CRAVING" will be just as strong.
It's not possible to give a definitive cause of psychopathy. Jeremy MAY have had a genetic predisposition to it. It MAY have been caused by being dropped on his head in infancy, possibly resulting in a hairline skull fracture and frontal lobe damage. We don't know where it started, but as with his sense of entitlement, we know where it ended.
-
I believe humans ideally want to invest in and nurture their own genetic offspring not the offspring of others.
Who grows up thinking that one day they'll find someone to settle down with and adopt? Adoption is second choice for most couples who find themselves infertile after often a long and painful journey.
June Bamber was so distraught when she found herself unable to conceive she ended up having a breakdown that required in-patient psychiatric care in 1955 long before either SC or JB had even been conceived. Given she experienced another for the same reason in 1959 after adopting SC suggests she had not come to terms with the loss of not having birth children.
I entirely agree with those sentiments. Adoption, for the most part, IS a second choice. It's never at the top of anyone's life plan. Small wonder, then, if some adopted children feel as if they're second best.
-
I entirely agree with those sentiments. Adoption, for the most part, IS a second choice. It's never at the top of anyone's life plan. Small wonder, then, if some adopted children feel as if they're second best.
https://youtu.be/Y3pX4C-mtiI
-
You ask a lot of questions, Spy, but it shows a willingness to accept that things are not always as we'd like them to be. I will answer each point to the best of my ability.
I am, indeed, saying SOME couples have done exactly that.
I agree. It doesn't add up. However, think of the kudos. SUCH generous parents. All the money they've spent on that child.
A live in carer would be a stranger. A grown-up child would have been 'trained' and controlled to do the parents'.
bidding without question.
They would, of course, deny it, but "a slave" is exactly what they want, or at least, unquestioning slave-like devotion and gratitude which they believe is their right. Most people love their children and animals alike. I believe animals can be a substitute for children. I have witnessed some, who need to have control, who love their animals more than their children because animals -dogs more than cats- obey commands. For these people, it probably won't be any different it the child in question is adopted or biological. It's about the parent's inability to love unconditionally.
No, I'm not forgetting that now, because there's no longer a stigma attached to being a single parent, there are fewer babies available for adoption. This means that older children are likely to bring a whole life's worth of baggage with them that no child should have. At the very least there will be trust issues. It takes true love, devotion and patience to help them through it to a place where they feel safe. But, there's always the separation issue. A baby spends 9 months in it's mother's w..b. It hears her voice. It's senses her moods. It's widely known that by six weeks old, a baby reacts to it's mother's voice, the sound of her approaching, her smell and her touch. Remove the safety of everything which is "mother" to a helpless child and we're left with a child experiencing fear. I haven't touched on rejection, but however much an adopted child might be assured that "mummy really wanted to keep you but she couldn't", the hard fact remains that mummy made the choice -the reasons, to a child, won't be understood- to give her child away.
One would hope that adoption was no more complicated than childless people with love to give can be put together with a motherless child who need a home and everyone lives happily ever after. Sadly, it can prove to be a minefield. One desperate mother shared with me that she'd had to disown her adopted daughter, because having spent thousands on her education and supporting her through university, she'd been persuaded by her biological family, that she'd be happier working in a supermarket. Such proved to be the case. This child had been 'rescued' from a family who'd survived on their wits and benefits for generations, and placed with a professional family who had huge expectations of her -it COULD have been a golden opportunity- but she preferred the warmth and acceptance she felt within her biological family. Such was the adoptive mother's determination that her's was the right path for her daughter, there was never going to be a happy resolution. How similar is this case to that of the Bamber's...................and, indeed, my own?
I can only go by my experience and knowledge, and I’ve never come across ANY couples who decide to adopt so that in 40 odd years time their child will look after them in their old age.
You’re suggesting these parents are selfish, possibly lazy, only thinking of themselves when they get older — so decide to have all the trials and tribulations raising a family brings to everyone (adopted or not); the huge expense; lack of freedom etc...when none of us can read into the future; have no idea if we’ll die before our time; no idea if our children decide to emigrate; no idea about how our futures will turn out, but decide to adopt a child as a form of insurance that if we’re lucky enough to get old we’ll have them at our beck and call.
I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense to me.
And whilst it’s true that we’re all genetically wired to want our own flesh and blood, that doesn’t mean we’re incapable of loving.
We love our pets, don’t we?
We love our spouses.
We love our close friends.
We’re not biologically related but we still love them.
Some parents adopt children when they already have their own. Some parents adore children and want to give less fortunate children a warm, loving home. Look at Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt: they’ve adopted three children and have three biological children too. Although no-one knows, going by what you read and see in the pictures, those adopted children always look happy, appear secure, and are obviously loved. I’m sure Angeline and Brad didn’t adopt them so they could care for them when they get old!
You’re also forgetting that not all adopted children are just “given away” by an unloving mother. Some mothers are forced to if they’re young teenagers. Some are forced to if they’re unfit. Just because a child has been adopted it doesn’t mean the mother wasn’t heartbroken and fought to keep them.
And take orphans. If they tragically lose their parents and a loving couple adopt them, does that mean they won’t bond and love each other because their biological parents are dead? Even animals: dogs, birds, apes etc will adopt an orphaned pup, or even steal one at times.
I agree it must play on a child’s mind why they were adopted, which is why most parents keep it from them until they’re old enough to understand. It’s terribly sad that any child should have to be adopted, and thankfully, in this day and age with contraception etc, there’s fewer babies needing homes.
I certainly believe it’s far better for a child to be adopted by a warm, stable family rather than being brought up by neglectful parents who are alcoholics, abusive, drug addicted and living on sink estates. Likewise, I think anything is better than for a child being brought up in a children’s home where they’re often subjected to abuse, bullying and have no-one at all who’s close to them and cares.
-
You're entitled to an opinion so long as you acknowledge it is an opinion. You have an unfortunate habit of posting your opinions as if they are facts. Your above statement, for example, would have benefitted from having the phrase 'in my opinion' added.
Women have been known to get pregnant because all their friends are doing it, because time is running out or to try to heal a failing relationship. Adoption may be considered for the same reasons.
IN MY OPINION the women who get pregnant because all their friends are doing it are often teenage girls.
Older mothers whose biological clock is ticking may try and get pregnant before it’s too late, which proves they must have maternal feelings and want to procreate.
In some rare cases a woman may get pregnant to try and save her marriage, which is wrong, and often fails...
But none of those mentioned would be accepted for adoption. Have you ever heard of a teenage girl adopting a baby/toddler or child? It can’t happen. Nor can it happen if a woman is getting older and doesn’t have the home life needed for a child to be raised in.
Again, I go back to the fact, and it is, that families with biological children can have just as many problems as adopted families can. They may manifest themselves in different ways, but it doesn’t mean the children aren’t loved.
Sheila absolutely adored Nevill, as he did her. In CAL’s book she states how Sheila loved dressing up, proudly holding her dad’s arm as he took her with him to functions. He too was incredibly proud of her and showed off her Bacardi advertisement to his colleagues and workers; they were very close and loved each other dearly.
I suspect IN MY OPINION that Jeremy was jealous of Sheila. He wasn’t capable of feeling love — he told Julie that (cite: CAL’s book) and said he knew there was something wrong with him.
-
https://youtu.be/Y3pX4C-mtiI
Brilliant. Thank-you.
-
I entirely agree with those sentiments. Adoption, for the most part, IS a second choice. It's never at the top of anyone's life plan. Small wonder, then, if some adopted children feel as if they're second best.
I know it must be hard to take but how could it be anything else? I guess the act of adoption is a second choice but the child is the first choice from that option. I suppose it depends on motive for adoption - in some cases it doesn't seem to be out of a need to love the child.
-
I know it must be hard to take but how could it be anything else? I guess the act of adoption is a second choice but the child is the first choice from that option. I suppose it depends on motive for adoption - in some cases it doesn't seem to be out of a need to love the child.
I doubt it's a problem that can be solved, Caroline. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that it's one which is acknowledged.
-
I doubt it's a problem that can be solved, Caroline. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that it's one which is acknowledged.
There are clearly people who don't have any idea of the problems associated with adoption. In the past it was thought that church-going, financially stable people with a desire for a child was all that was required. I think there's a greater awareness these days that more is needed.
Sheila Bamber was quite clear that her adoptive mother was unable to meet her emotional needs, despite being seen as an ideal candidate by the authorities.
-
There are clearly people who don't have any idea of the problems associated with adoption. In the past it was thought that church-going, financially stable people with a desire for a child was all that was required. I think there's a greater awareness these days that more is needed.
Sheila Bamber was quite clear that her adoptive mother was unable to meet her emotional needs, despite being seen as an ideal candidate by the authorities.
I think June's strongly held religious beliefs need factoring in too:
"Mc Whinnie also refers to her study about the conditions of religious affiliation for prospective adopters. Her study again shows that other factors are important here, and it should not be assumed that because the adopters are members of a church they would make sympathetic adopters. In fact it would seem important to assess particularly carefully the attitudes of those who hold very rigid religious beliefs since these, if unduly puritanical, might lead them to finding difficulty in accepting illegitimacy and the child born to unmarried parents"
-
The above is from the following:
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/adopted-children-how-they-grow-up/author/alexina-mary-mcwhinnie/
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/scotsman-uk/obituary.aspx?n=alexina-mary-nee-dobson--mcwhinnie-maisie&pid=185172100
-
There are clearly people who don't have any idea of the problems associated with adoption. In the past it was thought that church-going, financially stable people with a desire for a child was all that was required. I think there's a greater awareness these days that more is needed.
Sheila Bamber was quite clear that her adoptive mother was unable to meet her emotional needs, despite being seen as an ideal candidate by the authorities.
But Gunit, Sheila developed schizophrenia in her early 20s (possibly earlier), and studies prove that schizophrenia is a condition that develops regardless of their upbringing and environment. Which means, had Sheila been brought up by her biological mother she’d still have developed schizophrenia.
How do you know Sheila’s biological mother would have been able to cope with Sheila’s problems? She’d have been just as affected as June was.
You seem to forget that June was Sheila’s mother....
-
But Gunit, Sheila developed schizophrenia in her early 20s (possibly earlier), and studies prove that schizophrenia is a condition that develops regardless of their upbringing and environment. Which means, had Sheila been brought up by her biological mother she’d still have developed schizophrenia.
How do you know Sheila’s biological mother would have been able to cope with Sheila’s problems? She’d have been just as affected as June was.
You seem to forget that June was Sheila’s mother....
Sheila told her friend June wasn't demonstrative, so Sheila's need for cuddles wasn't met.
-
There are clearly people who don't have any idea of the problems associated with adoption. In the past it was thought that church-going, financially stable people with a desire for a child was all that was required. I think there's a greater awareness these days that more is needed.
Sheila Bamber was quite clear that her adoptive mother was unable to meet her emotional needs, despite being seen as an ideal candidate by the authorities.
Was she?
-
But Gunit, Sheila developed schizophrenia in her early 20s (possibly earlier), and studies prove that schizophrenia is a condition that develops regardless of their upbringing and environment. Which means, had Sheila been brought up by her biological mother she’d still have developed schizophrenia.
How do you know Sheila’s biological mother would have been able to cope with Sheila’s problems? She’d have been just as affected as June was.
You seem to forget that June was Sheila’s mother....
We'll never know how their relationship might have developed, but Colin remarked on how relaxed Sheila was with Christine, compared to her more formal relationship with June. Not only did June appear to be demonstratively distant from Sheila, she appeared not to understand her.
-
But Gunit, Sheila developed schizophrenia in her early 20s (possibly earlier), and studies prove that schizophrenia is a condition that develops regardless of their upbringing and environment. Which means, had Sheila been brought up by her biological mother she’d still have developed schizophrenia.
How do you know Sheila’s biological mother would have been able to cope with Sheila’s problems? She’d have been just as affected as June was.
You seem to forget that June was Sheila’s mother....
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15586309/
There might be a predisposition towards it with the environment exacerbating.
Does anyone believe Stefan Kiszko would have been diagnosed with schizophrenia if he hadn't suffered a gross injustice?
From 1979 onwards, Kiszko developed schizophrenia whilst in prison and began to suffer from delusions, one being that he was the victim of a plot to incarcerate an innocent tax-office employee so the effects of imprisonment would be tested on him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
-
But Gunit, Sheila developed schizophrenia in her early 20s (possibly earlier), and studies prove that schizophrenia is a condition that develops regardless of their upbringing and environment. Which means, had Sheila been brought up by her biological mother she’d still have developed schizophrenia.
How do you know Sheila’s biological mother would have been able to cope with Sheila’s problems? She’d have been just as affected as June was.
You seem to forget that June was Sheila’s mother....
Had SC's birth mother brought her up and if SC had 'problems' her bm might well have taken the view the problems run in the family and/or it was down to her parenting. With adopted families any problems can be blamed on the 'bad blood' theory.
A self-fulfilling prophecy might even have played out between June and SC. It was a very complicated and toxic relationship imo.
-
There are clearly people who don't have any idea of the problems associated with adoption. In the past it was thought that church-going, financially stable people with a desire for a child was all that was required. I think there's a greater awareness these days that more is needed.
Sheila Bamber was quite clear that her adoptive mother was unable to meet her emotional needs, despite being seen as an ideal candidate by the authorities.
I don't think that was anything to do with being adopted though, there are many children who have parents who do not 'bond' emotionally with their children. And children can sense this at a very early age.
-
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15586309/
There might be a predisposition towards it with the environment exacerbating.
Does anyone believe Stefan Kiszko would have been diagnosed with schizophrenia if he hadn't suffered a gross injustice?
From 1979 onwards, Kiszko developed schizophrenia whilst in prison and began to suffer from delusions, one being that he was the victim of a plot to incarcerate an innocent tax-office employee so the effects of imprisonment would be tested on him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
If we are going to factor in adoption as lead signal of guilt then we should also bring JB's guilt via the same reasons.
Drug use could also be factored in by both Sheila and Jeremy- children from very close, loving backgrounds get sucked into that world via peer groups. Hence why I am not too convinced the adoption status plays any significant part on Sheilas relationship to send her into a frenzied murderer- especially her children and the bloody violent manner in which each execution took place.
I mean to hit all targets perfectly many times and to miss her own- having to shoot herself twice- is nothing short of fanciful!
-
I don't think that was anything to do with being adopted though, there are many children who have parents who do not 'bond' emotionally with their children. And children can sense this at a very early age.
True but in this case the adoptive mother, June Bamber, suffered severe depression as a result of her decision to adopt. This depression required in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment when SC was 2 yoa. What sort of care was SC receiving in the lead up to all of this? And the hospitilastaion of June caused yet another caregiver to disappear.
-
If we are going to factor in adoption as lead signal of guilt then we should also bring JB's guilt via the same reasons.
Drug use could also be factored in by both Sheila and Jeremy- children from very close, loving backgrounds get sucked into that world via peer groups. Hence why I am not too convinced the adoption status plays any significant part on Sheilas relationship to send her into a frenzied murderer- especially her children and the bloody violent manner in which each execution took place.
I mean to hit all targets perfectly many times and to miss her own- having to shoot herself twice- is nothing short of fanciful!
See above post. SC may well have suffered an 'attachment disorder' . There's no evidence June was mentally ill when JB was a baby/small child.
-
If we are going to factor in adoption as lead signal of guilt then we should also bring JB's guilt via the same reasons.
Drug use could also be factored in by both Sheila and Jeremy- children from very close, loving backgrounds get sucked into that world via peer groups. Hence why I am not too convinced the adoption status plays any significant part on Sheilas relationship to send her into a frenzied murderer- especially her children and the bloody violent manner in which each execution took place.
I mean to hit all targets perfectly many times and to miss her own- having to shoot herself twice- is nothing short of fanciful!
There were 7 bullets used on June and 8 on Neville so don't over estimate the killer's ability to deliver lethal shots.
Sheila's first shot into her neck region very nearly killed her, first shot. IMO she was totally paralysed after that shot.
-
See above post. SC may well have suffered an 'attachment disorder' . There's no evidence June was mentally ill when JB was a baby/small child.
I am sorry Holly, I just don't think this is a good enough reason behind the slaughter of a whole family.
I also can't understand why Neville managed to make a phone call. He had a lot of bullets IN HIM- did frenzied Sheila, go away and leave him and as he made the calls she went back down and shot him some more?
Her treatment was to make her sedentary -she wasn't on speed!
-
I am sorry Holly, I just don't think this is a good enough reason behind the slaughter of a whole family.
I also can't understand why Neville managed to make a phone call. He had a lot of bullets IN HIM- did frenzied Sheila, go away and leave him and as he made the calls she went back down and shot him some more?
Her treatment was to make her sedentary -she wasn't on speed!
You don't know if Nevill had been in bed. The phone call obviously was before Nevill had suffered any shots.
-
There were 7 bullets used on June and 8 on Neville so don't over estimate the killer's ability to deliver lethal shots.
Sheila's first shot into her neck region very nearly killed her, first shot. IMO she was totally paralysed after that shot.
But Jeremy didn't deliver the shots to show off the prowess with which he won prizes for shooting at school. He delivered them to look as if a mentally ill and gun ignorant person had delivered them.
-
You don't know if Nevill had been in bed. The phone call obviously was before Nevill had suffered any shots.
You don't know that. You don't know the order of the shooting spree, where it started ...
If Sheila was suicidal she would have killed herself. Not take put the whole family!
-
But Jeremy didn't deliver the shots to show off the prowess with which he won prizes for shooting at school. He delivered them to look as if a mentally ill and gun ignorant person had delivered them.
well, make up your mind, were the shots perfect or not? "I mean to hit all targets perfectly many times" is what you said earlier. Now it is "delivered them to look as if a mentally ill and gun ignorant person had delivered them."
-
well, make up your mind, were the shots perfect or not? "I mean to hit all targets perfectly many times" is what you said earlier. Now it is "delivered them to look as if a mentally ill and gun ignorant person had delivered them."
"Delivered them to look as if a mentally ill and gun ignorant person delivered them" is my stance. The shot between June's eyes would have killed her immediately. I believe Jeremy was capable of killing the all with one, perfectly aimed shot. Had he, it would have been perfectly obvious that Sheila wasn't behind the gun.
I have no recall of saying "I mean to hit all targets perfectly many times". It doesn't sound like my phraseology, but perhaps they were taken out of context? However, it remains that haphazard though the shots were, they all found a home.
-
"Delivered them to look as if a mentally ill and gun ignorant person delivered them" is my stance. The shot between June's eyes would have killed her immediately. I believe Jeremy was capable of killing the all with one, perfectly aimed shot. Had he, it would have been perfectly obvious that Sheila wasn't behind the gun.
I have no recall of saying "I mean to hit all targets perfectly many times". It doesn't sound like my phraseology, but perhaps they were taken out of context? However, it remains that haphazard though the shots were, they all found a home.
Sorry, I got my wires crossed there for a moment. I thought both comments were made by MTI not you.
-
Sheila told her friend June wasn't demonstrative, so Sheila's need for cuddles wasn't met.
That’s sad.
But some parents’, whether biological or adoptee ones can be cold.
Some people have difficulty being tactile or showing their emotions: no-one knows why June was like that, but whatever her difficulties were she’d have possibly treated all other children she had like that, regardless of whether they were her biological children or not.
You often hear of strict, stiff upper-lip fathers who never show physical affection to their children. Not so much with women, but there are some who find it hard to display physical affection. I wonder if June’s sister, Pamela, was/is similar? Remember, they could have been brought up not to show affection — it’s possible.
Reading what I have about June and Nevill I get the impression he was tactile, open and affectionate, whereas June was the very opposite. I suspect he too felt neglected in some ways. He told Barbara that June wasn’t the same girl as when he’d met her, so besides her psychological problems she may have had other problems she either hid or were never discovered. I feel sorry for her: it doesn’t sound like she was a happy, contented woman.
-
Was she?
Yes she was based on what we're told by those close to SC ie CC, FE and TT.
-
I am sorry Holly, I just don't think this is a good enough reason behind the slaughter of a whole family.
I also can't understand why Neville managed to make a phone call. He had a lot of bullets IN HIM- did frenzied Sheila, go away and leave him and as he made the calls she went back down and shot him some more?
Her treatment was to make her sedentary -she wasn't on speed!
I agree an attachment disorder per se would not cause an individual to annihilate his/her family. But what it can do is produce a hair-trigger response to stimuli. If something goes fundamentally wrong in the attachment phase the brain is wired up differently.
https://youtu.be/iGDqJYEi_Ks
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/tdp.v3.28647
https://nypost.com/2017/11/02/brain-scans-reveal-how-badly-emotional-abuse-damages-kids/amp/
A recent study found a correlation between filicide and adult attachment style (developed from childhood).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24841064/
-
That’s sad.
But some parents’, whether biological or adoptee ones can be cold.
Some people have difficulty being tactile or showing their emotions: no-one knows why June was like that, but whatever her difficulties were she’d have possibly treated all other children she had like that, regardless of whether they were her biological children or not.
You often hear of strict, stiff upper-lip fathers who never show physical affection to their children. Not so much with women, but there are some who find it hard to display physical affection. I wonder if June’s sister, Pamela, was/is similar? Remember, they could have been brought up not to show affection — it’s possible.
Reading what I have about June and Nevill I get the impression he was tactile, open and affectionate, whereas June was the very opposite. I suspect he too felt neglected in some ways. He told Barbara that June wasn’t the same girl as when he’d met her, so besides her psychological problems she may have had other problems she either hid or were never discovered. I feel sorry for her: it doesn’t sound like she was a happy, contented woman.
Afaik June's sister and niece did not suffer any form of mental illness unlike June and SC. Surely this in itself tells you all you need to know when the two women were not genetically related.
-
I don't think that was anything to do with being adopted though, there are many children who have parents who do not 'bond' emotionally with their children. And children can sense this at a very early age.
One of the points frequently made here is that the Bambers were loving caring parents who did everything they could for their children. The problem was that they had two children who, unlike their cousins, weren't keen on living similar lives to their parents.
-
One of the points frequently made here is that the Bambers were loving caring parents who did everything they could for their children. The problem was that they had two children who, unlike their cousins, weren't keen on living similar lives to their parents.
But although they were not genetically related the fact they were sent away to boarding school didn't help. Had they gone to local schools they might well have hung out with local children through shared activities, youth clubs, young farmers, local boozers etc.
-
JB's birth family seem more practical and akin to the Bamber's. Whereas SC's birth family seem more academic and esoteric; most don't have an uncle who is an Oxford educated poet or a grandfather who was a Prof in theology.
-
But although they were not genetically related the fact they were sent away to boarding school didn't help. Had they gone to local schools they might well have hung out with local children through shared activities, youth clubs, young farmers, local boozers etc.
Two ways of seeing it. There are those who won't allow their children to mix with the 'types' they may later be employing, and those who believe it's important that their children get to know, and become friends with, those they may later employ. Both are now relatively outdated as farms require less and less manual labour, with only the vast estates of aristos requiring those who work in agriculture.
-
Two ways of seeing it. There are those who won't allow their children to mix with the 'types' they may later be employing, and those who believe it's important that their children get to know, and become friends with, those they may later employ. Both are now relatively outdated as farms require less and less manual labour, with only the vast estates of aristos requiring those who work in agriculture.
I'd never have thought of seeing it that way, not being acquainted with the ways of old established farming families. Thank you.
-
But although they were not genetically related the fact they were sent away to boarding school didn't help. Had they gone to local schools they might well have hung out with local children through shared activities, youth clubs, young farmers, local boozers etc.
You're pushing against an open door here. The alleged abuse he suffered whilst being farmed out to boarding school must surely have helped to form the twisted mind. It's now suggested through clinical trials, that major life trauma may disrupt the normal pattern of medial prefrontal and amygdala regulation.
-
You're pushing against an open door here. The alleged abuse he suffered whilst being farmed out to boarding school must surely have helped to form the twisted mind. It's now suggested through clinical trials, that major life trauma may disrupt the normal pattern of medial prefrontal and amygdala regulation.
If we stretch that a little further, it may be seen that a child who doesn't want to go to boarding school and is angry with it's parents for sending them, it can easily be seen that the child would blame it's parents for the abuse inflicted on it there.
-
If we are going to factor in adoption as lead signal of guilt then we should also bring JB's guilt via the same reasons.
Drug use could also be factored in by both Sheila and Jeremy- children from very close, loving backgrounds get sucked into that world via peer groups. Hence why I am not too convinced the adoption status plays any significant part on Sheilas relationship to send her into a frenzied murderer- especially her children and the bloody violent manner in which each execution took place.
I mean to hit all targets perfectly many times and to miss her own- having to shoot herself twice- is nothing short of fanciful!
That’s a really good point — why wouldn’t have Sheila killed herself with just one shot? Seeing how proficient she was (according to liar Jeremy) she managed to hit every target — even shooting June point blank between her eyes — yet couldn’t shoot herself properly!
And why didn’t she shoot herself in her temple or head?
-
See above post. SC may well have suffered an 'attachment disorder' . There's no evidence June was mentally ill when JB was a baby/small child.
But June also had a major depressive episode prior to adopting Sheila, so you can’t blame her second episode being caused by adopting Sheila.
Many people suffering depression can become ill again; sometimes outside elements can bring on an episode, and sometimes it happens for not reason at all. She may have had a chemical imbalance, anything.
-
That’s a really good point — why wouldn’t have Sheila killed herself with just one shot? Seeing how proficient she was (according to liar Jeremy) she managed to hit every target — even shooting June point blank between her eyes — yet couldn’t shoot herself properly!
And why didn’t she shoot herself in her temple or head?
Whoever pulled the trigger didn't kill her outright. How can you use that as evidence way or the other?
Sheila - " yet couldn’t shoot herself properly!"
Jeremy - "yet couldn’t shoot her properly!"
Third party - "yet couldn’t shoot her properly!"
I think it is easy not to shoot yourself properly. Not everyone really wants to die.
-
Whoever pulled the trigger didn't kill her outright. How can you use that as evidence way or the other?
Sheila - " yet couldn’t shoot herself properly!"
Jeremy - "yet couldn’t shoot her properly!"
Third party - "yet couldn’t shoot her properly!"
I think it is easy not to shoot yourself properly. Not everyone really wants to die.
There was NO third party. So just put that out your head.
You’re right, most people don’t want to die unless they’re suicide bombers or have some kind of huge depression.
Had Sheila shot herself in the throat, considering she immediately began haemorrhaging furiously, so much so her neck ballooned up and she must have been in severe pain where the bullet had torn the through her throat, crushed her vertebrae, and blood was gurgling up almost drowning her — she must have thought she was about to die any moment (which she would have done eventually.
Which begs the question: why would she shoot herself a second time thinking she was about to die any second, and how did she get the strength to lift the rifle again, aim it a second time, and pull the trigger when she was partially paralysed?
And how could she have done that using just one arm????
Her left arm was tucked up bent around her head and armpit. That arm would have been resting down by her body, as would her right arm too. After being shot her body would have involuntarily shook and her muscles would have twitched uncontrollably to the floor, and the gun would have flown away from her onto the floor.
It’s astonishing how stupid the police were when finding her so obviously staged.
-
If we stretch that a little further, it may be seen that a child who doesn't want to go to boarding school and is angry with it's parents for sending them, it can easily be seen that the child would blame it's parents for the abuse inflicted on it there.
Exactly. So we potentially have incremental physiological and psychological detrimental changes occurring through childhood and adolescence, coupled with this festering frustration and anger. Almost perfect for the incubation of a psychopath.
-
There was NO third party. So just put that out your head.
You’re right, most people don’t want to die unless they’re suicide bombers or have some kind of huge depression.
Had Sheila shot herself in the throat, considering she immediately began haemorrhaging furiously, so much so her neck ballooned up and she must have been in severe pain where the bullet had torn the through her throat, crushed her vertebrae, and blood was gurgling up almost drowning her — she must have thought she was about to die any moment (which she would have done eventually.
Which begs the question: why would she shoot herself a second time thinking she was about to die any second, and how did she get the strength to lift the rifle again, aim it a second time, and pull the trigger when she was partially paralysed?
And how could she have done that using just one arm????
Her left arm was tucked up bent around her head and armpit. That arm would have been resting down by her body, as would her right arm too. After being shot her body would have involuntarily shook and her muscles would have twitched uncontrollably to the floor, and the gun would have flown away from her onto the floor.
It’s astonishing how stupid the police were when finding her so obviously staged.
You say it was "obviously staged" yet you deny there could have been a third party.
Most of the points you have made I agree with, except for this bit: "and blood was gurgling up almost drowning her". I think that was only after the second shot that her mouth flooded with blood.
Maybe Taff Jones thought only a mental schizophrenic mother would kill both her young children. He can't have been looking so much as Sheila but at those kids. He could have been totally wrong, but if he really checked out Sheila surely he would have seen it didn't add up to suicide.
-
Exactly. So we potentially have incremental physiological and psychological detrimental changes occurring through childhood and adolescence, coupled with this festering frustration and anger. Almost perfect for the incubation of a psychopath.
Almost perfect for the development of emotional disturbance and/or mental health problems, I agree.
I'm not sure whether psychopathy is something one is born with, or whether it can be acquired, so can't comment on that.
-
But June also had a major depressive episode prior to adopting Sheila, so you can’t blame her second episode being caused by adopting Sheila.
Many people suffering depression can become ill again; sometimes outside elements can bring on an episode, and sometimes it happens for not reason at all. She may have had a chemical imbalance, anything.
Yes June did have a breakdown in 1955 due to her inability to conceive (Source: CAL).
Post adopting SC she had another breakdown in 1959 again requiring in-patient psychiatric care. We are told by Dr Ferguson this was caused by June's decision to adopt.
-
Almost perfect for the development of emotional disturbance and/or mental health problems, I agree.
I'm not sure whether psychopathy is something one is born with, or whether it can be acquired, so can't comment on that.
I'm not entirely sure it matters. It could be argued that every surgeon who has ever sliced into someone's chest or brain is on the psychopathic spectrum, as might be anyone prepared to take huge financial risks.
-
Almost perfect for the development of emotional disturbance and/or mental health problems, I agree.
I'm not sure whether psychopathy is something one is born with, or whether it can be acquired, so can't comment on that.
Google James Fallon, no one explains it better and with good reason.
-
You say it was "obviously staged" yet you deny there could have been a third party.
Most of the points you have made I agree with, except for this bit: "and blood was gurgling up almost drowning her". I think that was only after the second shot that her mouth flooded with blood.
Maybe Taff Jones thought only a mental schizophrenic mother would kill both her young children. He can't have been looking so much as Sheila but at those kids. He could have been totally wrong, but if he really checked out Sheila surely he would have seen it didn't add up to suicide.
The SECOND party staged it!
Jeremy!
You’re wrong about the shots. The first shot was the one that caused her to haemorrhage profusely — the pathologist established that. And you can see the ballooning in her neck
The second shot killed her instantly.
-
I'm not entirely sure it matters. It could be argued that every surgeon who has ever sliced into someone's chest or brain is on the psychopathic spectrum, as might be anyone prepared to take huge financial risks.
A lot of surgeons do have psychopathic tendencies, but use them to their (and others) benefit.
-
Google James Fallon, no one explains it better and with good reason.
I did !! Thank you for that, Caroline.