Dr Ferguson (Dr F) was a consultant psychiatrist with many years experience.
1. Upon treating June in 1959 for severe depression caused by her decision to adopt Sheila in 1957, Dr F should have been aware that Sheila was at risk of an 'attachment disorder'. (An attachment disorder is the failure to bond with the primary caregiver resulting in various emotional and psychological problems as evidenced throughout Sheila's troubled life. It is a basic psychological disorder analogous with raised blood pressure in the medical world). Furthermore Sheila would have been at particular risk having already been separated from one primary caregiver ie her birth mother.
2. Did Dr F recommend follow-up treatment in 1959 to ensure Sheila was not adversely affected?
3. When Sheila arrived in Dr F's clinic in 1983, some 24 years after June's treatment for depression, he
should not have been at all surprised to a) find her there and b) find her there with the issues she presented - one of which was commenting on June's lack of warmth towards her. All would have been highly predictable and the obvious outcome of 1959. All exacerbated by adoption psychology which Dr F should have at least been aware of although he makes no reference to this.
4. Was Sheila schizophrenic? If she was, then given the above it is highly likely that it was the result of an attachment disorder, adoption psychology and her difficult relationship with June ie social rather than biology alone. Neuroscientists have found that early trauma, as suffered by Sheila, can change brain chemistry. Psychologists are also much more in agreement now that social factors play a big part in determining whether or not a person develops schizophrenia.
5. Dr F's witness statement refers to the fact that he was mindful of Neville paying the cost of Sheila's private treatment. Was Dr F conflicted? Who was his duty of care to during the period 1959 - 1985, the adoptive parents paying his fees or the emotionally abused adoptee?
6. Was Sheila aware that June suffered severe depression in 1959 as a result of adopting her? Is this something Dr F discussed with Sheila or witheld?
7. Having read Dr F's witness statement and the court of appeal document '02 he seems less than forthcoming. At the court of appeal hearing '02 there is no mention of June's depression in 1959 or the causes of it. Overall he appears very reticent.
8. Sheila met her birth mother weeks before the murders. When Dr F was asked what effect this might have on Sheila's mental state he said he didn't know. At trial he stated that he found it difficult to conceptualise Sheila harming her children or Neville. If he didn't know what effect meeting her birth mother would have on her mental state, just weeks before the murders, how could he be so sure this would not adversely affect Sheila's view of her children and Neville?
9. Had Jeremy have been acquitted the spotlight would have fallen on Dr F, professionally, for not appreciating the gravity of the situation and doing more from 1959 - 1985.
It strikes me that Sheila's mental illness/schizophrenia has largely been viewed as a random event ie having no connection with June's depression in 1959, her early social experiences, adoption psychology and lifelong difficult relationship with June.
Pamela Boutflour's witness statement shows no signs of hostility towards Sheila or Jeremy unlike the witness statements provided by other members of the extended family. I would guess the reason for this is that Pamela cared for Sheila in 1959 whilst June was receiving treatment as an in-patient for her depression caused by adopting Sheila, and witnessed first-hand June's attitude towards Sheila and its detrimental effect.
