Liklihood of Sheila resisting during the massacre:

[snow66!]

Your 100 pieces of bullshit will never convince anyone.

I dont think i could have put that better myself Dave!

[Jane]

Well his first statement does seem to hint at this Jane.Its also worrying that he says Sheilas psychotic episodes got worse each time,that she was a difficult case and hated visiting the farm and seeing her mother.She was very ill Jane.

You're implying she had numerous episodes. We can only go by what Dr Ferguson witnessed, just TWO. The first when she was taken in as a new and undiagnosed patient. She left the hospital diagnosed and medicated. The second admission came about because she hadn't taken the prescribed medication and had failed to keep back up appointments, resulting in a second breakdown. Dr Ferguson was aware it could escalate and took the decision to medicate intravenously, She was adequately and theraputically medicated.

Perhaps you should take time to read the tox report which Rob kindly posted. It was first mentioned as backing up supporters claims of her being under/over medicated, and her blood/urine flooded with illicit substances. It doesn't do that. She was negative for illicits, and had only a "slight positive" for cannabis, which rules out claims of her having smoked it heavily in recent days/during her stay at the farm. There were adequate and theraputic levels of Haloperidol found.

[snow66!]

You're implying she had numerous episodes. We can only go by what Dr Ferguson witnessed, just TWO. The first when she was taken in as a new and undiagnosed patient. She left the hospital diagnosed and medicated. The second admission came about because she hadn't taken the prescribed medication and had failed to keep back up appointments, resulting in a second breakdown. Dr Ferguson was aware it could escalate and took the decision to medicate intravenously, She was adequately and theraputically medicated.

Perhaps you should take time to read the tox report which Rob kindly posted. It was first mentioned as backing up supporters claims of her being under/over medicated, and her blood/urine flooded with illicit substances. It doesn't do that. She was negative for illicits, and had only a "slight positive" for cannabis, which rules out claims of her having smoked it heavily in recent days/during her stay at the farm. There were adequate and theraputic levels of Haloperidol found.

Hi Jane,what a beautiful morning.I have indeed read the tox report that Rob posted.So,lets see,what you are basically saying is,with that amount of Haloperidol in her system,a psychotic episode could not occur.Well that is not what Ferguson said in his report,he said that is what must have happened.Although he did say she had never been violent,but i think he meant there was no way of predicting what could happen in Sheilas case.In other words,i think he meant himself and the NHS were in no way responsible for what had happened.

[Jane]

Hi Jane,what a beautiful morning.I have indeed read the tox report that Rob posted.So,lets see,what you are basically saying is,with that amount of Haloperidol in her system,a psychotic episode could not occur.Well that is not what Ferguson said in his report,he said that is what must have happened.Although he did say she had never been violent,but i think he meant there was no way of predicting what could happen in Sheilas case.In other words,i think he meant himself and the NHS were in no way responsible for what had happened.

Saying something "must have happened" is a very long way from saying one believes it happened. It's more DISbelief. You're putting words in his mouth by claiming to "think he meant". His 'evidence' was his experience of Sheila, who he'd treated during her sporadic crises, over three years. He'd have had conversations with her in therapy sessions. She'd never shown violent tendencies, in crisis and unmedicated. Why would it occur to him that she -or any other patient similar to her- would become so when well and theraputically medicated. I don't recall being told that Haloperidol had been taken off the market because it was causing otherwise non violent patients to become so, and it would most certainly have been investigated.

You're attempting to put words in my mouth, too. It's not possible to make such a claim as you're suggesting I am. It's way too sweeping and there are far too many variables to be taken into consideration.

[snow66!]

To be quite honest Jane,i have no doubt Sheila MAY have been the culprit.Let me try and let you understand my thinking regarding Sheila.Ok,we all know you need a motive to commit a crime,and in Sheilas case this would have been because she was severely mentally ill.She had bizarre thoughts of good and evil and at times was what can only be described as insane.She WAS very ill,and this was ONGOING and hard to control.This is fact.With this in mind,i think it is fairly reasonable to believe she WAS capable of carrying out the massacre,IF another psychotic episode occurred.Anyway,that is my thinking anyway.So,motive is not a problem for me.The biggest problem for me,like many others i suppose,is IF Sheila was capable of using and re-loading the rifle.Although the fact there is controversy over whether APs rifle was present that night,as it SHOULD have been,may lessen this problem to a fair degree.As for Sheila being spotlessly clean,again this is debatable,especially with the illegal destruction of the night dress.As for the evidence that appearsd after the farm was vacated,and the witness statements after it became five murders,i generally ignore for obvious reasons.The evidence can only be described as dodgy,and the statements are contrived to suit.No the only problem for me is the handling of the rifle,and i cant find much info on the web regarding this.But what it boils down to is,Sheila had the motive,the means and of course the oppertunity.As did JB if you believe his motive was inheritance.So,to cut a long story short Jane,i still have doubt.

[Jane]

To be quite honest Jane,i have no doubt Sheila MAY have been the culprit.Let me try and let you understand my thinking regarding Sheila.Ok,we all know you need a motive to commit a crime,and in Sheilas case this would have been because she was severely mentally ill.She had bizarre thoughts of good and evil and at times was what can only be described as insane.She WAS very ill,and this was ONGOING and hard to control.This is fact.With this in mind,i think it is fairly reasonable to believe she WAS capable of carrying out the massacre,IF another psychotic episode occurred.Anyway,that is my thinking anyway.So,motive is not a problem for me.The biggest problem for me,like many others i suppose,is IF Sheila was capable of using and re-loading the rifle.Although the fact there is controversy over whether APs rifle was present that night,as it SHOULD have been,may lessen this problem to a fair degree.As for Sheila being spotlessly clean,again this is debatable,especially with the illegal destruction of the night dress.As for the evidence that appearsd after the farm was vacated,and the witness statements after it became five murders,i generally ignore for obvious reasons.The evidence can only be described as dodgy,and the statements are contrived to suit.No the only problem for me is the handling of the rifle,and i cant find much info on the web regarding this.But what it boils down to is,Sheila had the motive,the means and of course the oppertunity.As did JB if you believe his motive was inheritance.So,to cut a long story short Jane,i still have doubt.

You're choosing to ignore that she was theraputically medicated. You appear to be claiming to know more about it than the tox report by so doing. You're claiming it was necessary for her to have had a motive. Uncontrolled mental illness can't be claimed as being such. Sheila's was controlled.

How many sufferers of illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, heart disease and many others are leading full and active lives because they're medicated? That medication may need to be tweaked every now and again, but providing they take it, they're well. They cannot be said to be, like you insist on claiming Sheila was, with a theraputic dose of medication in her system, very ill.

[David1819]

To be quite honest Jane,i have no doubt Sheila MAY have been the culprit.

Jane once believed Sheila was the culprit and had a very factually coherent view on this case. But that all changed when Caroline had an "exchange of ideas" with the "honest and honourable" Paul Harrison. 

[Roch]

Jane once believed Sheila was the culprit and had a very factually coherent view on this case. But that all changed when Caroline had an "exchange of ideas" with the "honest and honourable" Paul Harrison. 

David, I think the reality is that Jane harboured disquiet and doubts about her original stance but chose not to voice them. It then looked as if she had committed an about-face in league with another member. But the truth probably wasn't that simple.

[Jane]

David, I think the reality is that Jane harboured disquiet and doubts about her original stance but chose not to voice them. It then looked as if she had committed an about-face in league with another member. But the truth probably wasn't that simple.

That is, indeed, so, Roch. It's also something I've stated numerous times -not that I consider it to be more than a passing interest to anyone else, unlike David, who seems to believe the reason for his change of mind is no one else's business, yet considers it to be his duty to keep other posters informed by bringing long past history into focus, in the same way he seems to derive pleasure from revealing/embroidering/exaggerating/lying about another poster's drinking habits. The question is, does David do this out of loyalty to the forum and what it stands for, or is it simply that he gets some sort of amusement and pleasure out of telling tales about other posters?

[Adam]

That is, indeed, so, Roch. It's also something I've stated numerous times -not that I consider it to be more than a passing interest to anyone else, unlike David, who seems to believe the reason for his change of mind is no one else's business, yet considers it to be his duty to keep other posters informed by bringing long past history into focus, in the same way he seems to derive pleasure from revealing/embroidering/exaggerating/lying about another poster's drinking habits. The question is, does David do this out of loyalty to the forum and what it stands for, or is it simply that he gets some sort of amusement and pleasure out of telling tales about other posters?

David did eventually give his two reasons for his stance change -

There was no blood in the rifle barrel.

There was no blood on Nevill's side of the bed.

---------

Both are easily explained but for David it negated his 'all the forensics point to Jeremy' statement.

[David1819]

David, I think the reality is that Jane harboured disquiet and doubts about her original stance but chose not to voice them. It then looked as if she had committed an about-face in league with another member. But the truth probably wasn't that simple.

And she held that view for 28 years? 

[guest29835]

You're choosing to ignore that she was theraputically medicated. You appear to be claiming to know more about it than the tox report by so doing. You're claiming it was necessary for her to have had a motive. Uncontrolled mental illness can't be claimed as being such. Sheila's was controlled.

How many sufferers of illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, heart disease and many others are leading full and active lives because they're medicated? That medication may need to be tweaked every now and again, but providing they take it, they're well. They cannot be said to be, like you insist on claiming Sheila was, with a theraputic dose of medication in her system, very ill.

A key fact that you don't mention is that, due to medical negligence, her dose was radically reduced.  This in itself is high risk.

You also ignore that sedation is merely a possible side-effect of Haloperidol.  Haloperidol is a tranquilising drug that is not intended for sedation.  There is no evidence she was sedated, though again, I accept it is possible she was.

Nobody has denied that she had Haloperidol in her but it's unclear whether a low residual concentration of Haloperidol could be sedating given that Haloperidol is not an optimum sedative. It also does seem to be the case that low doses of Haloperidol can be just as effective as high doses (though of what effect they are is unclear to me, and I need to do more research). 

[guest29835]

Was the word 'zombie' used or not?

I am aware of Pamela Boutflour having given 7 statements to Essex Police during the period August to October 1985.  Not one of those statements mentions any remotely resembling what you claim.

You say this is a statement dated 10th. September 1985. I have 7 statements, but there is no statement from Pamela Boutflour of that date. 

Please post up this missing statement of 10th. September 1985 or tell us your source.

Thank you.

This has not been answered, so I am going to assume that there was no statement of 10th. September 1985 from Pamela Boutflour and the word 'zombie' (or derivations thereof) was not used.

[Rob_]

You're choosing to ignore that she was theraputically medicated. You appear to be claiming to know more about it than the tox report by so doing. You're claiming it was necessary for her to have had a motive. Uncontrolled mental illness can't be claimed as being such. Sheila's was controlled.

How many sufferers of illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, heart disease and many others are leading full and active lives because they're medicated? That medication may need to be tweaked every now and again, but providing they take it, they're well. They cannot be said to be, like you insist on claiming Sheila was, with a theraputic dose of medication in her system, very ill.

100s of people die early each week because of diabetes. People with diabetes from 35 - 65 are 3 to 4 times more likely to die prematurely.

[snow66!]

Jane once believed Sheila was the culprit and had a very factually coherent view on this case. But that all changed when Caroline had an "exchange of ideas" with the "honest and honourable" Paul Harrison. 

Hi dave,funnily enough i have been reading through the witness statements tonight,and this same argument about the Haloperidol back in 2012 appeared.And yes Jane was arguing in favour of JB.But of course everyone is free to change their mind as Roch says.AND,funnily enough Steve was using the word ,zombie,back then too.I havent come across any of Carolines posts,but i may look them up and see her argument for guilt.