Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[ajross]

Hi ajross

Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed review.  I really enjoyed reading it and noted with interest your comment re what would appear to be Colin's lack of awareness re June's mental illness in 1959.

I wld imagine very few people knew about this incl Sheila, Jeremy and the extended family.  I noted in  Pamela Boutflour's wit stat she refers to June as adopting two babes but she makes no ref of June's mental illness and admission to hospital around that time.   Also Robert Boutflour's wit stat disputes JB's version of a childhood bang to the head which happened around 1963.  And yet it's all documented in Dr Ferguson's wit stat where he states in 1981 June discussed with him a bang to Jeremy's head!  Either the relatives were genuinely unaware or they chose to cover up 

I hope you'll be able to update further as and when.

I'll no doubt add more later but will try and keep it brief. It's interesting that Colin displays a really in depth knowledge of the extended family but doesn't know this about June, with the picture he paints of her relationship with Sheila I would have expected Sheila to have shared this with him, but then Colin makes it very clear that there was no love lost between him and June. It could of course be that all of the family background came from research he did after the murders to help him deal with them. He states that this is a more refined version of the book than the first he started writing. The first draft would surely make an intriguing read. I suspect there would be more raw, uninhibited, unrefined feeling in that draft.

[Jane]

.........I wld imagine very few people knew about this incl Sheila, Jeremy and the extended family.  I noted in  Pamela Boutflour's wit stat she refers to June as adopting two babes but she makes no ref of June's mental illness and admission to hospital around that time.   Also Robert Boutflour's wit stat disputes JB's version of a childhood bang to the head which happened around 1963.  And yet it's all documented in Dr Ferguson's wit stat where he states in 1981 June discussed with him a bang to Jeremy's head!  Either the relatives were genuinely unaware or they chose to cover up  ..............

Hi egap. Not an unusual path for rellies to take and falls under one of three headings- selective memory, denial and/or shame......or any permutation of those three.

[lookout]

Well they managed to keep Sheilas' illness under wraps,,,so everything else prior to that would have been their norm. A lot of things weren't spoken about in some households. Nothing wrong in keeping your privacy just that,,,but when something as tragic as what did happen,,,there remains a lot of unanswered questions because nobody knew what went on in that household.
Everything becomes hearsay and/or guesswork,and as for convicting someone on the strength of hearsay and circumstance, is totally wrong.

[boheme]

Hi ajross/April1/Lookout

I agree with your comments re selective memory/denial/shame/keeping things under wraps but we're talking about one of the greatest criminal trials in recent times and Rivlin et al imo shld have been like  rats up drainpipes with this stuff and digging like little Terriers never letting go.  JB was let down big style.  The info was there for the taking in wit stats and wld have shown the realtives as not being as informed as they liked to think they were.

My concern is that Dr F was in some way conflicted by treating both June and Sheila 1959 - 1985 and being paid privately by the Bambers/adoptive parents.  I don't see how he could have worked with Sheila ie psychotherapy without discussing June's mental in 1959 and the reasons for it.  It appears he didn't do so.  Why?

I would doubt that a Doctor could talk about another patient's treatment, even though they were related....

[lookout]

Hi ajross/April1/Lookout

I agree with your comments re selective memory/denial/shame/keeping things under wraps but we're talking about one of the greatest criminal trials in recent times and Rivlin et al imo shld have been like  rats up drainpipes with this stuff and digging like little Terriers never letting go.  JB was let down big style.  The info was there for the taking in wit stats and wld have shown the realtives as not being as informed as they liked to think they were.

My concern is that Dr F was in some way conflicted by treating both June and Sheila 1959 - 1985 and being paid privately by the Bambers/adoptive parents.  I don't see how he could have worked with Sheila ie psychotherapy without discussing June's mental in 1959 and the reasons for it.  It appears he didn't do so.  Why?

Hi egap,,,it would appear to me that those people such as the relatives,,,solicitor and doctor all had vested interests in that estate of the Bambers,( all scratching each others backs,so to speak ) and to lay the blame purely on Jeremy answered all their prayers.
It was by no means any " motive of Jeremys' ",,,he wouldn't have stood much of a chance under normal circumstances,let alone with what had happened.
As I'd said,,egap,,people rarely spoke about certain things years ago,let alone anyone with " mental " problems,,,and if it was,it was mimed as if on the " Les Dawson " show. Even now there's still a stigma attached to mental illness. It's not spoken about like a bout of flu is.

June was more unwell than it's been stated and would have been a good candidate for treatment of a psychotic drug,,,as some of her  thoughts and actions weren't normal. If she didn't have an understanding of herself then there was little chance of her explaining her own feelings to Sheila,,,,but there was definitely something amiss.

I often wonder if June had a medical problem for her reason to adopt,,as there are all sorts of reasons not to conceive naturally. Or if the problem was psychosomatic,,,,which would account for her outburst to Sheila,when Sheila found herself pregnant at the age of 17,,, and June forced her to have an abortion.
I bet Sheila didn't receive any counselling.! That would have left a deep-seated resentment between June and Sheila, that we know of,,,as from then,,poor Sheila became " a child of the devil ".

[Jane]

Hi ajross/April1/Lookout

I agree with your comments re selective memory/denial/shame/keeping things under wraps but we're talking about one of the greatest criminal trials in recent times and Rivlin et al imo shld have been like  rats up drainpipes with this stuff and digging like little Terriers never letting go.  JB was let down big style.  The info was there for the taking in wit stats and wld have shown the realtives as not being as informed as they liked to think they were.

My concern is that Dr F was in some way conflicted by treating both June and Sheila 1959 - 1985 and being paid privately by the Bambers/adoptive parents.  I don't see how he could have worked with Sheila ie psychotherapy without discussing June's mental in 1959 and the reasons for it.  It appears he didn't do so.  Why?

Egap, regarding your first paragraph, the first thought that sprang to mind was that any question asked were put in such a way that it enabled the rellies ot omit anything which could be useful to defense. The next possibility is that defense was so intimidated by  what prosecution told them they had on Jeremy, pre trial, that all they did was the absolute minimum. So okay, I do lateral thinking, but you said yourself, "the info was there for the taking."

Regarding your concerns re Dr F. I think he was in an invidious position and very close to the edge of what may be considered ethical. I think there may have been a time when he was treating both June and Sheila concurrently, ( I'm not 100% certain of that) but the rules on the treatment of related people may be different in private therapy. However, one rule, I'm certain, remains inviolable for both NHS and private therapy. It is that protecting patient confidentiality. The only time that rule can be relaxed is if a child is believed to be in danger. Otherwise it is sacrosanct.

[Jane]

Hi egap,,,it would appear to me that those people such as the relatives,,,solicitor and doctor all had vested interests in that estate of the Bambers,( all scratching each others backs,so to speak ) and to lay the blame purely on Jeremy answered all their prayers.
It was by no means any " motive of Jeremys' ",,,he wouldn't have stood much of a chance under normal circumstances,let alone with what had happened.
As I'd said,,egap,,people rarely spoke about certain things years ago,let alone anyone with " mental " problems,,,and if it was,it was mimed as if on the " Les Dawson " show. Even now there's still a stigma attached to mental illness. It's not spoken about like a bout of flu is.

June was more unwell than it's been stated and would have been a good candidate for treatment of a psychotic drug,,,as some of her  thoughts and actions weren't normal. If she didn't have an understanding of herself then there was little chance of her explaining her own feelings to Sheila,,,,but there was definitely something amiss.

I often wonder if June had a medical problem for her reason to adopt,,as there are all sorts of reasons not to conceive naturally. Or if the problem was psychosomatic,,,,which would account for her outburst to Sheila,when Sheila found herself pregnant at the age of 17,,, and June forced her to have an abortion.
I bet Sheila didn't receive any counselling.! That would have left a deep-seated resentment between June and Sheila, that we know of,,,as from then,,poor Sheila became " a child of the devil ".

Lookout, I believe the reason for June's in ability to conceive was due to uterine cysts, but whilst I can't be certain of the exact nature of the problem, I know I read it somewhere on the forum. It's possible that the first breakdown resulted from internalized anger because she couldn't have her own child and had failed to bond with her adopted child. It would fit with the unrelistic expectations some women place on adopted children. It really is a very small step from that point to her outburst at Sheila's unplanned pregnancy. Because she couldn't conceive, she'd adopted a child with whom she couldn't bond, that child rubs her face in it by getting pregnant! No way was Sheila going to be allowed to keep her pregnancy. As for getting her some councelling, I rather think it was another of those denial things. I think June would have been too angry and ashamed to tell anybody and I imagine she would have threatened Sheila within an inch of her life if she talked about it with anyone.

[-Harters-]

Lookout, I believe the reason for June's in ability to conceive was due to uterine cysts, but whilst I can't be certain of the exact nature of the problem, I know I read it somewhere on the forum. It's possible that the first breakdown resulted from internalized anger because she couldn't have her own child and had failed to bond with her adopted child. It would fit with the unrelistic expectations some women place on adopted children. It really is a very small step from that point to her outburst at Sheila's unplanned pregnancy. Because she couldn't conceive, she'd adopted a child with whom she couldn't bond, that child rubs her face in it by getting pregnant! No way was Sheila going to be allowed to keep her pregnancy. As for getting her some councelling, I rather think it was another of those denial things. I think June would have been too angry and ashamed to tell anybody and I imagine she would have threatened Sheila within an inch of her life if she talked about it with anyone.

See Dr Hugh Fergusons 18/09/1985 witness statement (page 3): http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html

Extract below:

[Jane]

See Dr Hugh Fergusons 18/09/1985 witness statement (page 3): http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html

Extract below:

Hello, Hartly, I don't think we've spoken before. Good to meet you and thankyou for the link which I found really interesting because I feel very sure that I read a WS from a locum in which she stated that she had halved Sheila's meds and had notified her regular GP of it. Dr F states that although Sheila had requested that her meds be reduced, because of her death, nothing was done about it. Either I have it entirely wrong, which wouldn't be the first time OR it's yet another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

[-Harters-]

Hello, Hartly, I don't think we've spoken before. Good to meet you and thankyou for the link which I found really interesting because I feel very sure that I read a WS from a locum in which she stated that she had halved Sheila's meds and had notified her regular GP of it. Dr F states that although Sheila had requested that her meds be reduced, because of her death, nothing was done about it. Either I have it entirely wrong, which wouldn't be the first time OR it's yet another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Hi April,

It might be a statement from Dr Myrto Angeloglou that you are referring to?

Dated 20/09/85:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1203.0.html

[lookout]

Many  thanks for that information. It's what I'd suspected,,,an ECT,,oh dear,,,usually used as a last resort when medication fails to give a desired result. I doubt this therapy is used as much nowadays as it used to be years ago because of the advancement in drugs to treat mental illnesses.

I used to think that ECT was a cruel treatment as it gave the patient involuntary " seizures " which wasn't pleasant to see. It was used for serious underlying psychotic problems as a " quick-fix " to numb the memory,but was never an overnight success as it created other problems in its wake.

This GP was getting paid for his incompetence.

[Jane]

Many  thanks for that information. It's what I'd suspected,,,an ECT,,oh dear,,,usually used as a last resort when medication fails to give a desired result. I doubt this therapy is used as much nowadays as it used to be years ago because of the advancement in drugs to treat mental illnesses.

I used to think that ECT was a cruel treatment as it gave the patient involuntary " seizures " which wasn't pleasant to see. It was used for serious underlying psychotic problems as a " quick-fix " to numb the memory,but was never an overnight success as it created other problems in its wake.

This GP was getting paid for his incompetence.

It sure as hell fried parts of the brain, but not always the intended parts alone!!!

[-Harters-]

Hi April,

It might be a statement from Dr Myrto Angeloglou that you are referring to?

Dated 20/09/85:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1203.0.html

Or perhaps Dr Wilkinsons statement dated 9/10/1985?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1206.0.html

[Jane]

Or perhaps Dr Wilkinsons statement dated 9/10/1985?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1206.0.html

Yes Hartly!!! You're a step ahead of me. I just looked. It was the first and only time Dr W had seen Sheila and she takes it on her own shoulders to HALVE her meds THEN informs Dr Angelolou afterwards all of which seems not to have made its' way to Dr F.

[lookout]

Yes Hartly!!! You're a step ahead of me. I just looked. It was the first and only time Dr W had seen Sheila and she takes it on her own shoulders to HALVE her meds THEN informs Dr Angelolou afterwards all of which seems not to have made its' way to Dr F.

I noticed that as well,tut tut.