Bamber controlling a fully fit Sheila.

[Jane]

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 ?

But what on earth would HG, or anyone else have said, Lookout. I'd fully support what you say if her words had indicated that she was thinking about suicide, but they weren't. She said, following asking if Helen had ever thought about it, she'd contemplated it, as in "had once".

I really don't know that everyone knew her to have been under mental health care. I think this may have been something which wasn't mentioned. It may have been the reason they went privately? Even now, mental health is often something to be ashamed of. How much more so when June, from a respected and respectable family, was struck by it.

[Adam]

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

Thank you David.

Going by the WS's, authors, Bamber's appearance an hour after the massacre & the crime scene, Sheila put up no resistance.

[guest29835]

Thank you David.

Going by the WS's, authors, Bamber's appearance an hour after the massacre & the crime scene, Sheila put up no resistance.

Dr. Bradley's evidence does not lend any support to the idea that Sheila was sedated.  He says Haloperidol does have sedative side-effects, but only may do so, and then only moderately.  His trial evidence is just a recitation of conventional medical opinion.  I do agree that we can't rule out the possibility she was sedated, especially given that she was still on illicit drugs and drinking around about the same time.  Yet you have nothing conclusive that Sheila was sedated, and as I keep saying, even if she was in some sort of sedative state, that does not preclude her as the killer.  Sedation is not the same as asleep.  She could have committed the massacre while she was sedated, indeed while she was still well under the influence of the medicated tranquilisers she was prescribed.

I asked you a while ago whether the prosecution theory depends on Sheila being sedated, and you did say that it doesn't and that she needn't have been sedated at all.  This accords, I think, with the position taken by the prosecution at trial.  The prosecution made a big thing of the sedation theory, but their case didn't rest on it in so many words.  They left the question open as it wasn't essential for them to prove, and to that extent, I would agree with the prosecution at trial that, if Jeremy did this, how he subdued Sheila is another grey area in the case that can only be explained by Jeremy himself, in so far as it matters at all. 

That having been noted, since this is something we are discussing, perhaps you could also explain how this all works if Sheila is not sedated?  Is it just that you think Sheila was half-asleep and taken by surprise and this made her pliant enough for Jeremy to position her and fire the first shot?  In other words, Jeremy relied on the surprise factor and Sheila not being disturbed by all the noise.

Or are you saying Sheila slept through the whole thing and was asleep even when Jeremy shot her?

Or don't you know?

Personally, my view is that Sheila was already in the main bedroom (possibly she slept there that night instead of Nevill) and Jeremy simply pinned her to the floor before she could react, but got off the first shot before she was prone.

Sheila just said 'yes' or 'no' for 3 minutes on the phone.

Exactly the behaviour she exhibited to Dr. Illiffe in March 1985, before she was medicated.  This suggests her monosyllabic answers may have been due to mood or her underlying condition, or just general anger or sulkiness.  Often a child when angry or sulky will answer monosyllabically.  I don't wish to malign or belittle Sheila, but her condition made her in effect a ward of her parents and may have made her feel powerless as people around her discussed her and assumed to know what was best for her.

'Yes' and 'No' answers in the sense Pamela Boutflour described are not a typical sign of tiredness, I must add.  I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this point - or trying to make the evidence fit your conclusions.

CAL got the information from Sheila's best friend. Snow66! has posted her name.

Among Carol Ann Lee's sources was Claire Powell's book from the early 1990s.  She specifically attributes it.  In any case, Sheila's dosage was dropped and nobody is suggesting Sheila could not get up on the morning of 6th. August 1985.

Maybe CAL spoke to Michael Horsnell. She is an investigstive author.

Or maybe she has got his statement.

His WS not being online is neither here or there.

Are you serious?  If we don't have the statement, we don't know that what we're being told is a reliable account of what the witness stated.  It becomes just an author's interpretation of what somebody else has said.  Authors have agendas and debts of honour.  This is just basic stuff.

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.

Now I understand what you mean.  Of course, this is a back-to-front way of thinking you adopt.  You start from a conclusion and make the evidence fit. 

I believe Jeremy did have minor injuries, to his hands if I remember rightly. Obviously those injuries weren't considered of any evidential significance as he was a hands-on farmer anyway.  He had no injuries to his face.  What does this evidence tell us?  Not much really, but if anything, it favours Jeremy and points to Sheila because she had moderately-long fingernails.  They weren't as long as people say, but they were long enough to cause injury in a struggle. If Jeremy were the killer, common-sense tells me that she would scratch him, especially on the face.  Even if he were wearing a mask, he could still be injured in this way, but maybe he did wear a mask and that was enough to avoid injury?  Or maybe she was asleep or too tired to fight?  Or, as I suspect, she was in the main bedroom and he caught her quite by surprise?  Overall, I don't know if we can conclude anything.

[Adam]

Yes my view is Sheila slept through it all.

But similar to her being sedated/uncordinated or not, it is not vitally important.

If Sheila did wake from the downstairs kitchen fight & go into the main bedroom, Bamber would have to deal with it. Which he would do. 

He had just shot & given a 6.4 male a brutal beating for goodness sake.

[Adam]

I created this thread to confirm Bamber was going ahead regardless. He had already stolen Junes bike.

However the numerous sources on Sheila's recent condition also rules her out as a suspect.

Always nice to have a cherry on top.

[guest29835]

Yes my view is Sheila slept through it all.

But similar to her being sedated/uncordinated or not, it is not vitally important.

If Sheila did wake from the downstairs kitchen fight & go into the main bedroom, Bamber would have to deal with it. Which he would do. 

He had just shot & given a 6.4 male a brutal beating for goodness sake.

At least we've got that clear.

There isn't a comparison with Nevill because, remember, Jeremy could kill Nevill any which way he liked, as long as it could be attributed to Sheila.  Killing Sheila was a trickier affair.

[snow66!]

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.

Hiya Jane.If you read my post again you will find that all i said was that it is strange that Sheila never told Dr Fergusson about any suicidal thoughts.I did not say that she mentioned suicide and therefore went on kill herself.I am not cherry picking,and besides how many times have we heard the phrase 'I could kill anyone uncle Bobby' and such like,

[lookout]

But what on earth would HG, or anyone else have said, Lookout. I'd fully support what you say if her words had indicated that she was thinking about suicide, but they weren't. She said, following asking if Helen had ever thought about it, she'd contemplated it, as in "had once".

I really don't know that everyone knew her to have been under mental health care. I think this may have been something which wasn't mentioned. It may have been the reason they went privately? Even now, mental health is often something to be ashamed of. How much more so when June, from a respected and respectable family, was struck by it.

In HG's statement, she went on to say that Sheila said she'd contemplated suicide on " more than one occasion " and HG had thought it odd at the time. Sheila was rolling one " reefer " after another while she was talking ( chain-smoking ) then the subject of the white witch came up. Then kept up the conversation about ridding the evil in the world and how June had told her that she'd lost her soul.
Sheila had asked HG if she had any recent knowledge of another relative, namely a Susan Burgess, though at this stage HG was beginning to get a bit scared as Sheila had been talking " strange " for an hour.

Both HG and her mother had attended the funerals but neither spoke to anyone.

[guest29835]

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.

I believe Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., in his closing speech, may have specifically referred to the alternate possibilities in the case, though I don't have a a transcript.  The examination and cross-examination of Dr. Hugh Ferguson at trial specifically and explicitly addresses the possibility of Sheila as the killer, as I believe does John Bradley's evidence.  The cross-examination of David Boutflour considers the question of whether Sheila ever fired a gun, at all, anywhere.  The evidence of Colin Caffell also addressed it.  The evidence of Malcolm Fletcher was preoccupied at length with the question of the supposed difficulty of loading the magazine.  One of the points on which Judge Drake ridiculed the defence was the theory that Sheila returned the silencer to the gun cupboard.  I don't have the full transcript, but if memory serves, I think Drake does refer the jury to the possibility of Sheila as the culprit.

My point is that the theory of Sheila as the killer was a central theme of the trial.  She was on trial - and rightly so, just not officially so.  I think this was a unique criminal trial in that respect.  That said, it wasn't for the jury to pronounce Sheila guilty (or innocent), their job was purely to decide whether the evidence against Jeremy Bamber was sufficient to convict him.  If they had acquitted him (which I think they should have done), it does not necessarily follow from this that the jury would have been saying that Sheila did it, even if that would be considered the necessary unspoken implication in some quarters.

[guest29835]

Hiya Jane.If you read my post again you will find that all i said was that it is strange that Sheila never told Dr Fergusson about any suicidal thoughts.I did not say that she mentioned suicide and therefore went on kill herself.I am not cherry picking,and besides how many times have we heard the phrase 'I could kill anyone uncle Bobby' and such like,

Just remind me: is there any evidence at all that Sheila had suicidal thoughts at any point?  If so, when?  To whom did she confide?  She did say certain things that were out of place, such as "All people are bad and should be killed" (according to Barbara Wilson, I think) and her delusions about her sons, and so forth.

It's a fascinating situation in which each of the suspects, Jeremy and Sheila, said strange things that could be twisted to look incriminating.  You have the added layer of realisation that Jeremy himself must have been aware of some of what Sheila was saying and doing and possibly formed a murder plan on that basis, believing all of Sheila's odd behaviour would be recalled and she could thereby be framed, whether alive or dead from suicide.

Sheila could have survived one shot from Jeremy and then told the police: "But it was a masked man that did it!  He came in the middle of the night and shot us all!"

Who would have believed her?  An interesting counter-factual scenario to consider.  Would we now have fora and innocence campaigns for Sheila, locked up in Broadmoor or Rampton?  Free Sheila!  Or would libel laws put paid to such a campaign?  What evidence could avail such a campaign?  Interestingly, the evidential position might be reversed in those alternate circumstances: the silencer evidence would become the more important factor; Julie Mugford's evidence could be more open to question, assuming Jeremy confided in her, because her account would be testable against Sheila's.

[snow66!]

I believe Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., in his closing speech, may have specifically referred to the alternate possibilities in the case, though I don't have a a transcript.  The examination and cross-examination of Dr. Hugh Ferguson at trial specifically and explicitly addresses the possibility of Sheila as the killer, as I believe does John Bradley's evidence.  The cross-examination of David Boutflour considers the question of whether Sheila ever fired a gun, at all, anywhere.  The evidence of Colin Caffell also addressed it.  The evidence of Malcolm Fletcher was preoccupied at length with the question of the supposed difficulty of loading the magazine.  One of the points on which Judge Drake ridiculed the defence was the theory that Sheila returned the silencer to the gun cupboard.  I don't have the full transcript, but if memory serves, I think Drake does refer the jury to the possibility of Sheila as the culprit.

My point is that the theory of Sheila as the killer was a central theme of the trial.  She was on trial - and rightly so, just not officially so.  I think this was a unique criminal trial in that respect.  That said, it wasn't for the jury to pronounce Sheila guilty (or innocent), their job was purely to decide whether the evidence against Jeremy Bamber was sufficient to convict him.  If they had acquitted him (which I think they should have done), it does not necessarily follow from this that the jury would have been saying that Sheila did it, even if that would be considered the necessary unspoken implication in some quarters.

Good evening Gascoigne.As you may know,at the end of CALs book,after the trial she writes----One former member of the investigation team who does not wish to be named asked the jury foreman afterwards if there had been a deciding factor.He was told; 'it was all down to the judges summing up.He directed  us to find Jeremy guilty and thats why we did,in the end.If it hadnt been for the judge telling us what we should do,he would have walked free.'

[Steve_uk]

Just remind me: is there any evidence at all that Sheila had suicidal thoughts at any point? If so, when?  To whom did she confide?  She did say certain things that were out of place, such as "All people are bad and should be killed" (according to Barbara Wilson, I think) and her delusions about her sons, and so forth.

It's a fascinating situation in which each of the suspects, Jeremy and Sheila, said strange things that could be twisted to look incriminating.  You have the added layer of realisation that Jeremy himself must have been aware of some of what Sheila was saying and doing and possibly formed a murder plan on that basis, believing all of Sheila's odd behaviour would be recalled and she could thereby be framed, whether alive or dead from suicide.

Sheila could have survived one shot from Jeremy and then told the police: "But it was a masked man that did it!  He came in the middle of the night and shot us all!"

Who would have believed her?  An interesting counter-factual scenario to consider.  Would we now have fora and innocence campaigns for Sheila, locked up in Broadmoor or Rampton?  Free Sheila!  Or would libel laws put paid to such a campaign?  What evidence could avail such a campaign?  Interestingly, the evidential position might be reversed in those alternate circumstances: the silencer evidence would become the more important factor; Julie Mugford's evidence could be more open to question, assuming Jeremy confided in her, because her account would be testable against Sheila's.

Lookout explained this in #307. Your final paragraph is quite absurd.

[snow66!]

Just remind me: is there any evidence at all that Sheila had suicidal thoughts at any point?  If so, when?  To whom did she confide?  She did say certain things that were out of place, such as "All people are bad and should be killed" (according to Barbara Wilson, I think) and her delusions about her sons, and so forth.

It's a fascinating situation in which each of the suspects, Jeremy and Sheila, said strange things that could be twisted to look incriminating.  You have the added layer of realisation that Jeremy himself must have been aware of some of what Sheila was saying and doing and possibly formed a murder plan on that basis, believing all of Sheila's odd behaviour would be recalled and she could thereby be framed, whether alive or dead from suicide.

Sheila could have survived one shot from Jeremy and then told the police: "But it was a masked man that did it!  He came in the middle of the night and shot us all!"

Who would have believed her?  An interesting counter-factual scenario to consider.  Would we now have fora and innocence campaigns for Sheila, locked up in Broadmoor or Rampton?  Free Sheila!  Or would libel laws put paid to such a campaign?  What evidence could avail such a campaign?  Interestingly, the evidential position might be reversed in those alternate circumstances: the silencer evidence would become the more important factor; Julie Mugford's evidence could be more open to question, assuming Jeremy confided in her, because her account would be testable against Sheila's.

The mention of suicide is in Helen Grimsters witness statement in the Archives Gascoigne.

[snow66!]

Lookout explained this in #307. Your final paragraph is quite absurd.

Dont you think thats interesting Steve?

[Jane]

In HG's statement, she went on to say that Sheila said she'd contemplated suicide on " more than one occasion " and HG had thought it odd at the time. Sheila was rolling one " reefer " after another while she was talking ( chain-smoking ) then the subject of the white witch came up. Then kept up the conversation about ridding the evil in the world and how June had told her that she'd lost her soul.
Sheila had asked HG if she had any recent knowledge of another relative, namely a Susan Burgess, though at this stage HG was beginning to get a bit scared as Sheila had been talking " strange " for an hour.

Both HG and her mother had attended the funerals but neither spoke to anyone.

I'm certain it wasn't the sort of conversation HG had ever previously experienced and I'll bet she wasn't comfortable with it!!! I'm not certain that the visit took place just prior to Sheila's death. If it did, it wasn't marijuana in those roll ups she was chain smoking because she tested negative for such.

 I get the feeling that Sheila was bored. In need of adult conversation, and here she was with an innocent girl who hadn't a clue about how Sheila lived her life and couldn't contribute. Whilst I'm convinced she'd have been shocked at talk of suicide, I wonder, if we're all digging deep and being honest, how many of us haven't thought about it? I don't mean actually going through with it, rather wondering what effect doing it would have on others? Would they mourn us? Would they feel guilty? In Sheila's case, would the mother for whom she could do nothing right feel guilty? I can't help but wonder if she engineered the whole conversation to shock. HG would have told her mother who would undoubtedly have told June who'd have been totally convinced Sheila had "sold her soul to the devil.