Letter contents written by Colin Caffell to Ralph Bamber sparks off shootings

[lebaleb]

The fact that June mentioned the fostering of the children to Colin's mother proves that it was something she was thinking might happen. although she was against the idea. The conversation that evening may have revolved around trying to get Sheila to make more effort with the boys otherwise they might end up being fostered. More like a warning or, to Sheila, a threat.

[Jane]

ngb1066 say that the Bambers had little regard for Colin Caffell and I'm inclined to agree. I feel he was not, nor ever had been, fully accepted as one of "us." I sense that it may have suited them to have greater control of their grandchildrens' lives, encouraging them towards their lifestyle, gradually weaning them away from their father. Was he an aetheist? Just an after thought. As to any legal rights Colin had regarding the twins, Neville was a magistrate and I imagine he would be fairly confident that Social Workers wouldn't be breathing down his neck for trying to provide a stable lifestyle for his only grandchildren.

[Patti]

Having looked at the letter again. Colin says that Sheila had just come out of hospital and that the twins were 5 years old.

So this must mean the letter was written in June 1985, for the last time Sheila was in hospital was 1983 which would mean the twins would have been much younger....

[Patti]

Evening Patti,  Sheila was last in hospital around the spring of 85.  It's in Dr F's stats:

June 1959
June 1981
Sheila 1983
Sheila 1985

Hi egap, thank you...so the letter must have been written in June 1985...Have you done the experiment? 

[tyler]

Hi Vidic

I hope you don't think this is too harsh, but my view is that when June was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in 1959 to treat severe depression requiring ect caused by her decision to adopt Sheila in 1958, the authorities should have intervened and removed Sheila.  Sheila should then have been placed with another adoptive family with a proven track record.  The Bambers should have been prevented from adopting any futher children.

Egap1.I dont think that Junes depression a year after adopting Sheila was due to the adoption.It was around that time that June had tests carried out on why she could not conceive and was found to have a growth on her ovary.She was told that she would never be able to have natural children.I believe it was this news that was the cause of her severe depression.

[tyler]

What everyone seems to have forgotten,on this thread,is that Jeremy never said that fostering was being discussed necessarily in the context of full time.He just said that it was being discussed.
And no matter how much we all think that Colin seems a lovely man and was a great father,the reality was that June did not agree.She believed that he was taking drugs (albeit smoking dope) and would also have been aware that Colin would have to work.
It may not have actually been talk of fostering that triggered Sheila that fateful evening (if that is indeed what happened).It may have been that June and Nevill were insisting that Sheila return to Essex where they would be in a better position to help her,and Sheila may have not taken kindly to her last piece of independance being taken away.It was no secret that she hated the country lifestyle,which is why she chose to live in London.

[Jane]

Hi Vidic

I hope you don't think this is too harsh, but my view is that when June was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in 1959 to treat severe depression requiring ect caused by her decision to adopt Sheila in 1958, the authorities should have intervened and removed Sheila.  Sheila should then have been placed with another adoptive family with a proven track record.  The Bambers should have been prevented from adopting any futher children.

This is part of the point I was trying to make. The Bambers were, socially, very well  placed  and maybe it was this fact that made it possible for them to slip through nets which those less well placed could not. Which authority, in those days, would have removed children from a couple of such high social standing? Blind eyes being turned?

[Jane]

Morning April1

Spot on.  I'm in the process of to taking this up with various bods in the adoption world.  Rest assured it will be pursued vigorously!

Hi, egap1, morning to you, too, and should you need anyone elses' input, or if I can help in any way........

[Roch]

What everyone seems to have forgotten,on this thread,is that Jeremy never said that fostering was being discussed necessarily in the context of full time.He just said that it was being discussed.

Exactomundo.  This in my opinion is a very important point.

[maggie]

Exactomundo.  This in my opinion is a very important point.

Yes Roach.....he also said he wasn't really listening but was in the laundry room eating something.  He did comment that Sheila wasn't responding when he was there.  There 's no guarantee that she was listening at all but may have been more interested in her own head, she was extremely withdrawn at that time apparently so I have read.

[Bridget]

What everyone seems to have forgotten,on this thread,is that Jeremy never said that fostering was being discussed necessarily in the context of full time.He just said that it was being discussed.

That may be correct, but wasn't his reasoning that that conversation was the catalyst for Sheila doing what he claims she did? Why would she be so concerned at the prospect of day fostering, the boys had had it before.

[maggie]

That may be correct, but wasn't his reasoning that that conversation was the catalyst for Sheila doing what he claims she did? Why would she be so concerned at the prospect of day fostering, the boys had had it before.

Did Jeremy suggest that the talk of fostering may have caused Sheila to go 'beserk' or is that another assumption.  I know he said June and Neville were having a conversation about it and that Sheila wasn't participating.

[Bridget]

Did Jeremy suggest that the talk of fostering may have caused Sheila to go 'beserk' or is that another assumption.  I know he said June and Neville were having a conversation about it and that Sheila wasn't participating.

I believe that was his argument yes, but accept that I may have picked that up from one of the theories posted here.

[bloggs and son]

You could use this argument to explain Sheila's alleged rampage about any subject then, if she had no rational thought?

Roch, when she was at WHF she had help with the children already. If it is a mothers help being approached then this was no different from before. And I simply do not believe that the bamber's would ever have contemplated voluntarily placing them in care, nor had they any right to.

I know someone in a similar position as Sheila was. She has a daughter but also had a problem with drugs at the time and so without the permission of the child's father the child was put into the care of the grandmother and grandfather. This young woman must now get a court order to get back the custody of her child.
I should think that Ralph and June with Colin's permission could have got custody of Sheila and Colin's children and also have them fostered out? It might have proved to be a long process though?

[lookout]

Hi Grahame,,,Another tricky area. Grandparents have rights concerning the welfare of their grandchildren,and it's usual for social services to take this preferred route rather than to foster the children out. Foster care is a last resort if you like,,where, if there is known proof that the children are in danger,then a court order is used to gain access to collect the children.

If the children concerned did go into a foster home, then a signature of one of the parents would have been necessary in order to meet the voluntary requirements.

In that case you know about Grahame,yes,the mother will have to get a court order in which to get back her daughter,as the childs' mother will have to prove to the court that the child isn't neglected in any way,,but the court then have to be satisfied that the mother is attending a rehabilitation programme in order to wean her off drugs so that she can devote her time to the welfare of the child.

If the Bambers' had gained custody of the twins,they wouldn't have been put into care,unless June felt that she couldn't cope,then the law wouldn't have allowed an adoption in the first place.
Had they have still been alive,there would have been support for the children from social services which would have saved them from going into care,always supposing they'd have been living with their father.

Why is it that the children always suffer in times of divorce,separation,etc etc.? It's criminal. It's cruel.