Thanks Gascoigne.So you agree there is no way of knowing what state of sedation Sheila was in that night,and Adams claims of severe drowsiness,allowing her to sleep through the massacre and be aesily manhandled are only speculation.This is just a convenient thing to use,to fit a JB scenario and explain why there is no signs of Sheila fighting for her life or anyone elses.Also,as you say,there was not much Haloperidol left in her system by 7 Aug.And Sheila was also prescribed Procyclidene tablets for the side effects.The bottle of tablets must have been found at the scene,and surely it would have been checked if Sheila had been taking them,by the amount used.Her mum and dad would have been told what meds she was taking, and it is reasonable to assume that they would have made sure she took them,when under their care.And as Jane pointed out,her unresponsiveness and lack of interest may have had more to do with her depression rather than being sedated with drugs.
Yes, the sedation theory comes under the heading of 'speculation'. It has only gained legs because of slovenly terminology in Dr. Ferguson's witness statements, the lazy but widespread belief that somebody with impressive paper credentials must be right and should not be challenged, and the inattention of the defence, who should have instructed an expert pharmacologist or psychopharmacologist. Sedation is possible with Haloperidol, but the idea that this was Sheila's state in this case is misinformed speculation in most cases, because most people are eliding two different neuro-pharmacological effects: in correct clinical language, tranquilisation and sedation are not the same thing.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sheila was sedated. It is possible that she was as a side-effect of Haloperidol, and an informed argument could be made for the notion, but we will never be sure.
Sheila was certainly tranquilised. That is the direct effect of the Haloperidol, it's what the drug is for.
The toxicology results are not my opinion. They are what they are. Sheila was virtually unmedicated by the time she was shot (whether by Jeremy or her own hand) and she had traces of illicit drugs in her system, suggesting the antipsychotic regimen was contraindicated.
The fact the medication dosage was halved is hugely significant and cannot be airily brushed aside. This was medical negligence, pure and simple. That is tacitly admitted. I am not stating anything controversial here. It is established medical canon that withdrawal from antipsychotics should be gradual. Sudden withdrawal is dangerous. Haloperidol is a dangerous enough drug as it is.
Bear in mind these points I am submitting neither assist nor undermine Jeremy's position. I have no axe to grind. I am merely reciting facts to you.
In a nutshell, some people on here are not looking at the case objectively. Instead, they are stretching and twisting facts to suit their narrative. It's actually completely unnecessary to do this. A creditable scenario in which Jeremy is guilty could be constructed without the need to rely on Sheila being sedated. Ironically, if anything, it weakens the prosecution case to argue that position.
