Author Topic: Brief Thoughts On The Case  (Read 701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21691
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2020, 09:40:AM »
He planned it in his head for months but may have dithered on the night. No consolation to Colin.

Once he fired his first shot into the twins, it was too late to dither.

The rifle would have been fully loaded when going upstairs. He would need all the bullets. No point in it being partially loaded.

Eleven bullets would have been fired in the first main bedroom salvo if he had not fired 2 bullets into the twins first.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2020, 10:06:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2020, 10:13:AM »





Sheila would have been experiencing a pre-psychotic episode as she'd been quiet that night. The calm before the storm as this is classic behaviour of those who are about to strike. Coupled with a less than acceptable dose of Haldol which is a type of anti-psychotic that has to be reduced gradually and not halved in one go as it was done as that can be as dangerous as not having any at all.

The amount of stress that Sheila was under was enough to trigger a psychosis. I can't emphasise enough that over ten years of her life there was an abortion and a couple of mis-carriages before she had the twins and I doubt for one minute that Sheila had any sort of counselling for her losses and this is where her mental health issues would have stemmed from. Then her husband left her for another woman.

Then a mother who wasn't exactly supportive and who had mental health problems herself as for whatever reason she was visiting her GP regularly up until the tragedy. Then the only person in Sheila's life, her father, had shown more concern for his ailing wife so that Sheila had felt abandoned altogether .

Sheila would have only been partially aware if at all at what she was doing on the night of the murders because her mind would have been cut off from reality which is why she also killed her sons. There'd have been no planning involved just a sudden impulse as befits those who have psychosis and all are different in their actions/ signs of an impending attack.   

Thanks.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2020, 10:44:AM »
If I remember correctly the sedation issue is brought up in Dr Bradley's testimony

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9088.msg429208.html#msg429208

Thanks.  Could this be added to the statements archive, please?  I don't recall seeing it there.

That evidence is not good for the Crown.  Not fatal, because Dr Bradley did not treat Sheila, but it doesn't look good for the prosecution when a psychiatrist is less-than-confident about a crucial premise of their entire case.

The problem is that a general psychiatrist, even one who treated Sheila directly, would not necessarily be able to comment expertly on the pharmacological aspects.  Did the Defence consult, even call, pharmacological experts?  Did the Crown?  Did the police even?  I would think you would need two: one at the manufacturing end and another at the academic end to comment on mass effects and experimental studies, assuming research was even done.  Was any research done into the initial development and testing of the psychotropic?

Could we have here the unusual and paradoxical situation of a mass murderer with an unsafe conviction?  A bit like Bain, who looks guilty as sin, but was convicted on rocky evidence.  The only English precedent that comes to mind is the John Bodkin Adams case, where the reversed happened: that was, most probably, an error of impunity.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2020, 10:53:AM »
P. S.

I've noticed that at the end of Bradley's examination, he answers a question from the judge ambiguously.  Is Dr. Bradley saying he would have reduced the dose or wouldn't have done?  It's not clear, but my initial reaction is that he is saying he would not have reduced the dose.  Perhaps doesn't matter terribly one way or the other, since Dr. Bradley wasn't treating her and clinical assessments in psychiatry are quite subjective.




Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2020, 01:37:PM »
Thanks.  Could this be added to the statements archive, please?  I don't recall seeing it there.

That evidence is not good for the Crown.  Not fatal, because Dr Bradley did not treat Sheila, but it doesn't look good for the prosecution when a psychiatrist is less-than-confident about a crucial premise of their entire case.

The problem is that a general psychiatrist, even one who treated Sheila directly, would not necessarily be able to comment expertly on the pharmacological aspects.  Did the Defence consult, even call, pharmacological experts?  Did the Crown?  Did the police even?  I would think you would need two: one at the manufacturing end and another at the academic end to comment on mass effects and experimental studies, assuming research was even done.  Was any research done into the initial development and testing of the psychotropic?

Could we have here the unusual and paradoxical situation of a mass murderer with an unsafe conviction?  A bit like Bain, who looks guilty as sin, but was convicted on rocky evidence.  The only English precedent that comes to mind is the John Bodkin Adams case, where the reversed happened: that was, most probably, an error of impunity.

The drug in question (Haloperidol) is known to make people homicidal and suicidal. Sheila using it does not have any merit to the guilt narrative.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8439.msg401967.html#msg401967

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43683
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2020, 01:49:PM »
There was some controversy about this drug in the late 90's I think as I remember reading conflicting reports about it even to the point of its removal from the market.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2020, 02:20:PM »
Thanks to you both for the information.  Again, if not there already, we could do with the thread in David's link adding to the archive.

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12590
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2020, 07:46:PM »
The drug in question (Haloperidol) is known to make people homicidal and suicidal. Sheila using it does not have any merit to the guilt narrative.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8439.msg401967.html#msg401967
I don't see any of these case studies as comparable to Sheila's predicament. And please make your mind up whether she was under or overmedicated.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2020, 10:16:PM »
I don't see any of these case studies as comparable to Sheila's predicament. And please make your mind up whether she was under or overmedicated.

I'm not sure it's that simple.  Having looked into this further, it seems that Haloperidol is not regarded as an optimum sedative.  Sheila's complaint about it, which initiated the reduction in the monthly intramuscular dosage, was that the drug was making her sleepy, which is not quite the same thing; but even so, if that was regarded as the reason for the reduction in dosage, then it's difficult to see how the fact helps the Crown's case.  Whether the drug causes or contributes to violent thoughts, ideations and behaviour is a different question and those contraindications have a different relationship to dosage.  Could halving Sheila's dosage make her violent?

One crucial point in all this is that on reviewing the trial evidence of Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Angeloglou, it seems that Dr. Ferguson was a continuing guiding influence in Sheila's treatment regimen.  Dr. Angeloglou states that Sheila was supposed to be taking Procyclidene to counteract the sleepiness and he had prescribed her some in April, but I think he assumed that she wasn't taking it.  Yet it seems that the defence psychiatric expert, Dr. Bradley, was sceptical about the decision to reduce Sheila's monthly Haloperidol dosage from 200mg.  Perhaps this is because Dr. Bradley had the benefit of hindsight and Haloperidol has serious interactions with illicit drugs, which can act as contraindications.  Wasn't Sheila involved in drugs? 

Furthermore, Dr. Angeloglou states that the dosage should have been reduced to 150mg, not 100mg, implying that his colleague, Dr. Wilkinson, had errored.  It could equally be that Sheila had asked her to reduce the dosage still further, as there is a clinical bias towards conservatism with Haloperidol.  It's not clear, and it's not clear if the overall decision to reduce her dosage was an instruction from Dr. Ferguson or Dr. Angeloglou own's clinical judgement having received advice from Dr. Ferguson.  Dr. Angeloglou also mentions that Sheila was asked whether she was taking illicit drugs and she denied it; the clinical consequences of this are carefully left open but the implication seems to be that her treatment regimen was based on an assumption that she was not involved in drugs.

Dr Ferguson did give evidence at trial because this is referred to in the examination of Dr Bradley, who was present when the evidence was given, yet I don't see a transcript in the archive.  Is there one available? 

« Last Edit: July 04, 2020, 10:16:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2020, 02:11:AM »
I'm not sure it's that simple.  Having looked into this further, it seems that Haloperidol is not regarded as an optimum sedative.  Sheila's complaint about it, which initiated the reduction in the monthly intramuscular dosage, was that the drug was making her sleepy, which is not quite the same thing; but even so, if that was regarded as the reason for the reduction in dosage, then it's difficult to see how the fact helps the Crown's case.  Whether the drug causes or contributes to violent thoughts, ideations and behaviour is a different question and those contraindications have a different relationship to dosage.  Could halving Sheila's dosage make her violent?

One crucial point in all this is that on reviewing the trial evidence of Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Angeloglou, it seems that Dr. Ferguson was a continuing guiding influence in Sheila's treatment regimen.  Dr. Angeloglou states that Sheila was supposed to be taking Procyclidene to counteract the sleepiness and he had prescribed her some in April, but I think he assumed that she wasn't taking it.  Yet it seems that the defence psychiatric expert, Dr. Bradley, was sceptical about the decision to reduce Sheila's monthly Haloperidol dosage from 200mg.  Perhaps this is because Dr. Bradley had the benefit of hindsight and Haloperidol has serious interactions with illicit drugs, which can act as contraindications.  Wasn't Sheila involved in drugs? 

Furthermore, Dr. Angeloglou states that the dosage should have been reduced to 150mg, not 100mg, implying that his colleague, Dr. Wilkinson, had errored.  It could equally be that Sheila had asked her to reduce the dosage still further, as there is a clinical bias towards conservatism with Haloperidol.  It's not clear, and it's not clear if the overall decision to reduce her dosage was an instruction from Dr. Ferguson or Dr. Angeloglou own's clinical judgement having received advice from Dr. Ferguson.  Dr. Angeloglou also mentions that Sheila was asked whether she was taking illicit drugs and she denied it; the clinical consequences of this are carefully left open but the implication seems to be that her treatment regimen was based on an assumption that she was not involved in drugs.

Dr Ferguson did give evidence at trial because this is referred to in the examination of Dr Bradley, who was present when the evidence was given, yet I don't see a transcript in the archive.  Is there one available?

Here is some info if you are interested

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9527.msg441994.html#msg441994

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2020, 02:17:AM »

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2020, 10:56:PM »
For those who maintain they are sure Jeremy is guilty:

If the explanation for Sheila's incident passivity is that she was asleep, can you explain what - if any - toxicological, pharmacological and/or psychiatric factors there were in keeping her asleep?

Can you also explain your evidence for the silencer having been used in the killings?

At what point does Sheila awaken?  She must have woken.  What do you think happened when she woke?

If Jeremy carried her to the master bedroom without having shot her first, where did he leave the rifle while he was doing this?  Was June dead at this point?

And why aren't Jeremy's fibres on Sheila's nightdress?  Do you think the blood hand print on the nightdress is actually Jeremy's?

Do you think he put Sheila on the bed in the master bedroom (and she was then moved by the police) or on the floor?

If on the floor, why would he do this?

And why do you think he staged Sheila in the master bedroom as opposed to the twins' bedroom?

Why do you think he left her with little or no gunshot residues on her hands, bearing in mind he was staging her killings and you think it was premeditated?  Wouldn't he have given thought to that?

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2020, 11:03:PM »
For those who maintain they are sure Jeremy is guilty:

If the explanation for Sheila's incident passivity is that she was asleep, can you explain what - if any - toxicological, pharmacological and/or psychiatric factors there were in keeping her asleep?

Can you also explain your evidence for the silencer having been used in the killings?

At what point does Sheila awaken?  She must have woken.  What do you think happened when she woke?

If Jeremy carried her to the master bedroom without having shot her first, where did he leave the rifle while he was doing this?  Was June dead at this point?

And why aren't Jeremy's fibres on Sheila's nightdress?  Do you think the blood hand print on the nightdress is actually Jeremy's?

Do you think he put Sheila on the bed in the master bedroom (and she was then moved by the police) or on the floor?

If on the floor, why would he do this?

And why do you think he staged Sheila in the master bedroom as opposed to the twins' bedroom?

Why do you think he left her with little or no gunshot residues on her hands, bearing in mind he was staging her killings and you think it was premeditated?  Wouldn't he have given thought to that?

I’m waiting with baited breath Adam
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21691
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2020, 11:18:PM »
For those who maintain they are sure Jeremy is guilty:

If the explanation for Sheila's incident passivity is that she was asleep, can you explain what - if any - toxicological, pharmacological and/or psychiatric factors there were in keeping her asleep?

Can you also explain your evidence for the silencer having been used in the killings?

At what point does Sheila awaken?  She must have woken.  What do you think happened when she woke?

If Jeremy carried her to the master bedroom without having shot her first, where did he leave the rifle while he was doing this?  Was June dead at this point?

And why aren't Jeremy's fibres on Sheila's nightdress?  Do you think the blood hand print on the nightdress is actually Jeremy's?

Do you think he put Sheila on the bed in the master bedroom (and she was then moved by the police) or on the floor?

If on the floor, why would he do this?

And why do you think he staged Sheila in the master bedroom as opposed to the twins' bedroom?

Why do you think he left her with little or no gunshot residues on her hands, bearing in mind he was staging her killings and you think it was premeditated?  Wouldn't he have given thought to that?

Sheila slept through the massacre. She may have been awake for a few seconds prior to being shot. But would not have known what was happening.

The silencer was available to use. It had Sheila's blood and the aga paint on.

Bamber put the rifle down while he lead/carried Sheila to the main bedroom. June had been shot 5 or 7 times. So dead or negated.

What fibres would be on Sheila's nightdress?

Bamber put Sheila on the floor before shooting her. I do not know why.

I do not know why Bamber put Sheila in the master bedroom. He has to put her somewhere. It was nearer and bigger. With available space to put her on the floor.

Doubtful he thought of gun residue. How would he put gun shot residue on her hands?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Brief Thoughts On The Case
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2020, 11:29:PM »
Sheila slept through the massacre. She may have been awake for a few seconds prior to being shot. But would not have known what was happening.

The silencer was available to use. It had Sheila's blood and the aga paint on.

Bamber put the rifle down while he lead/carried Sheila to the main bedroom. June had been shot 5 or 7 times. So dead or negated.

What fibres would be on Sheila's nightdress?

Bamber put Sheila on the floor before shooting her. I do not know why.

I do not know why Bamber put Sheila in the master bedroom. He has to put her somewhere. It was nearer and bigger. With available space to put her on the floor.

Doubtful he thought of gun residue. How would he put gun shot residue on her hands?

Sheila's the odd one out.  She slept through it all.  Everybody else has insomnia. 

Jeremy can't sleep and he's up killing his family.

Julie wakes up for a 3.15 a.m. phone call.  Must be a light sleeper.  So are Douglas and Susan.

June's a light sleeper too.  So is Nevill.  They somehow heard that silenced rifle.  Or maybe Jeremy woke them up before he shot them?

It's not so much Sheila Alive as Sheila Asleep.  Thanks Adam.