Bamber controlling a fully fit Sheila.

[Adam]

Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:

The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour.  It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case.  His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual.  It's not a reliable claim.

Says Carol Ann Lee.

None of these statements support what you say.  If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers. 

We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement.  Mike has not posted it to the Forum.  Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective.  Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.

This has been gone over and over.  You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening.  Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated.  It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent.  It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.

And her dosage was reduced. 

I don't see how this helps your point.  As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.

Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.

Sheila was on Haloperiodal. Which has strong sedative & cordination effects.

This together with my 11 other sources shows Sheila put up no resistance.

[Adam]

Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:

The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour.  It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case.  His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual.  It's not a reliable claim.

Says Carol Ann Lee.

None of these statements support what you say.  If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers. 

We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement.  Mike has not posted it to the Forum.  Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective.  Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.

This has been gone over and over.  You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening.  Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated.  It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent.  It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.

And her dosage was reduced. 

I don't see how this helps your point.  As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.

Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.

The dosage still had to be very strong to do the job it is supposed to do.

Sedative and cordination being just two of the multiple side effects.

[Adam]

Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:

The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour.  It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case.  His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual.  It's not a reliable claim.

Says Carol Ann Lee.

None of these statements support what you say.  If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers. 

We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement.  Mike has not posted it to the Forum.  Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective.  Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.

This has been gone over and over.  You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening.  Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated.  It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent.  It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.

And her dosage was reduced. 

I don't see how this helps your point.  As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.

Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.

You said Sheila may scratch or hit a fully clothed Bamber.

The evidence is Sheila's condition during his reconnaissance made Bamber not consider this a deterrent.

His appearance an hour after the massacre shows Sheila did not hit or scratch him.

[Adam]

Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:

The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour.  It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case.  His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual.  It's not a reliable claim.

Says Carol Ann Lee.

None of these statements support what you say.  If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers. 

We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement.  Mike has not posted it to the Forum.  Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective.  Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.

This has been gone over and over.  You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening.  Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated.  It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent.  It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.

And her dosage was reduced. 

I don't see how this helps your point.  As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.

Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.

The crime scene shows Sheila put up no resistance.

[Adam]

Wow, I give multiple sources from the following people -

Wilkes

CAL

Michael Horsnell.

Bamber

PB

Julie

Tora Tompkinson

The Crime scene.

Multiple effects of -Haloperiodal

Bamber's appearance 1 hour after the massacre.

---------

Still QC won't accept Sheila was a sitting duck on the night.

[Adam]

Wow, I give multiple sources from the following people -

Wilkes

CAL

Michael Horsnell.

Bamber

PB

Julie

Tora Tompkinson

The Crime scene.

Multiple effects of -Haloperiodal

Bamber's appearance 1 hour after the massacre.

---------

Still QC won't accept Sheila was a sitting duck on the night.

Not to worry. My thread post says Bamber was going ahead regardless.

He had stolen June's bike before Sheila arrived for goodness sake.

[Adam]

Bamber would be more concerned about Nevill than Sheila.

I don't blame him.

[Jane]

If we look at the Emani incident and then the two examples of spoken word incidents that Snow refers to, then look at the bigger picture as you put it (ie she died and the actual concept that it was by her own hand was no suprise to Colin) , how else are we supposed to view it. Is the bigger picture, not also giving consideration to whether or not all components mentioned above were available to the jury at trial? How can the jury consider the bigger picture, if they weren't provided with it?

There was nothing more the jury needed to know of Sheila. It wasn't she who was on trial. I'm certain they'd have learned all that was considered necessary from the defence, but despite that, the jury made the decision to convict JB.

It's perfectly possible that, during disagreements, she'd threatened to take her own life -after all, hadn't she told Helen Grimster that she'd (at some, unspecified, time) contemplated suicide?- so reasonable for Colin to have drawn such a conclusion. I believe he changed his mind when he was told about the boys.

[Adam]

Sheila being docile & uncoordinated is not essential for guilters.

Sheila was one of three adults inside. Even if fully alert, the weakest of the three.

But as it happens, everything suggests Sheila was very docile & uncordinated on the night.

This is a bonus for guilters as it rules Sheila out as a suspect.

[Roch]

There was nothing more the jury needed to know of Sheila. It wasn't she who was on trial. I'm certain they'd have learned all that was considered necessary from the defence, but despite that, the jury made the decision to convict JB.

It's perfectly possible that, during disagreements, she'd threatened to take her own life -after all, hadn't she told Helen Grimster that she'd (at some, unspecified, time) contemplated suicide?- so reasonable for Colin to have drawn such a conclusion. I believe he changed his mind when he was told about the boys.

I don't buy all this Sheila not on trial nonsense. By default, she was on trial - because it was asserted during trial that it was either Jeremy or Sheila. 

If any statements or other testimony that indicated Sheila expressed morbid sentiments regarding her self or others was actively suppressed, then the jury were not given the full picture.  I think that's 'criminal'.

If any such evidence didn't come to light as a result of Rivlin's team choosing to disregard it, then on the one hand the prosecution couldn't be blamed for that - but on the other hand, an accurate picture was not presented at court.

[Jane]

I don't buy all this Sheila not on trial nonsense. By default, she was on trial - because it was asserted during trial that it was either Jeremy or Sheila. 

If any statements or other testimony that indicated Sheila expressed morbid sentiments regarding her self or others was actively suppressed, then the jury were not given the full picture.  I think that's 'criminal'.

If any such evidence didn't come to light as a result of Rivlin's team choosing to disregard it, then on the one hand the prosecution couldn't be blamed for that - but on the other hand, an accurate picture was not presented at court.

Would you have had them do, as does Snow, offer those sound-bites which sound particularly incriminating? She talked of committing suicide OR at one moment she'd contemplated it. How about she said she might harm her sons OR she said she was afraid she might. Besides which, if all of those "incriminating" sound-bites were taken from times when she was unmedicated, they could be ruled out, because she was adequately and theraputically medicated at the time of her death.

I get that you "don't buy this Sheila not on trial nonsense" because you believe JB is innocent. I don't recall Sheila ever being named as a possible culprit so despite what the judge said, it's doubtful that the jury -other than perhaps the two not guilty's- gave it any consideration.

[Adam]

Sheila maybe saying something weeks, months or years before the massacre does not assist Bamber.

My 12 sources are from hours before or after the massacre. Apart from Toro Tompkinson, which was a week earlier.

Haloperiodal was administered to negate Sheila's serious condition.

The crime scene evidence shows the multiple powerful side effects made Sheila unable to resist. 

[lookout]

Would you have had them do, as does Snow, offer those sound-bites which sound particularly incriminating? She talked of committing suicide OR at one moment she'd contemplated it. How about she said she might harm her sons OR she said she was afraid she might. Besides which, if all of those "incriminating" sound-bites were taken from times when she was unmedicated, they could be ruled out, because she was adequately and theraputically medicated at the time of her death.

I get that you "don't buy this Sheila not on trial nonsense" because you believe JB is innocent. I don't recall Sheila ever being named as a possible culprit so despite what the judge said, it's doubtful that the jury -other than perhaps the two not guilty's- gave it any consideration.

Jane, it's never a good thing when/ if anyone mentions suicide, whether adequately medicated or not----it's a red flag whether or not it's carried through and when it was mentioned to Helen Grimster, whoever she may have told should have immediately contacted Sheila's GP, them already knowing that she'd been in the care of St. Andrews. Everyone knew that Sheila was under mental health care ? Didn't they ?

It's often said that those who intend to take their lives give no indication but Sheila who was already ill would/ should have made the matter more seriously taken than it was done. Because it was ignored by those who'd known that Sheila had spoken about suicide, were they expecting it ?   

[Adam]

Haloperidol is an antipsychotic medicine that is used to treat schizophrenia.

It had to be very strong to control Sheila's schizophrinia. Strong side effects being inevitable.

The side effects for Sheila were so strong she asked for her dosage to be reduced.

This meant her schizophrinia was still under control, however the side effects would still appear sometimes.

The evidence is the strong side effects were last taking control of Sheila on the massacre night.

[David1819]

Here is what the defence psychiatrist said about the levels of Haloperidol in Sheila.