If recent Arizona tests true, Silencer evidence manufactured...

[Nuala]

Hi Nuala

Thank you for sharing this with me.  I've always felt an affinity with you so your post might explain why  .  Plus we both have Irish ancestry.  My maternal grandfather was Irish.  My partner's father was Irish.  My paternal grandparents were Scots.  So my children are almost pure Celts.  Lovely  .

Hope your cat is ok.

Goodnight

Egap1

x

Same here, egap, I've always felt an afinity with you too. My cat is good thanks, he still has a reasonable quality of life and has been out in the garden in the sun and shade all day, having a lovely, lazy time.

Good night to you too x

[guest154]

You think it's credible that Jeremy Bamber pre-planned using his sister's mental health issues, to (falsely) portray her as having killed her own children?  I find that that notion lacks credibility.  What precedent in 1984/5 did he use

Yes, absolutely! Which is whey he was asked about her illness at the seen and gave so much information about it. Which is why he spoke about the conversation that supposedly took place that night about fostering the twins out...

It was ALL based around her mental health issues.

[Bridget]

You think it's credible that Jeremy Bamber pre-planned using his sister's mental health issues, to (falsely) portray her as having killed her own children?  I find that that notion lacks credibility.  What precedent in 1984/5 did he use, to make such a notion not just credible to him self but also likely to be credible to everyone else?  Had there been a spate or cluster of similar crimes leading up to the mid 80's which would potentially lend credibility to this particular incident also being a mentally unwell mother killing her own children?

Is it purely coincidence (in relation to defence based claims today) that his first reactions noted at the scene were to blame the raid team?

Yes I think it's credible, he still does it today. Why did he need a precedent? The police fell for it at first, and people still do today.

[mike tesko]

Yes, absolutely! Which is whey he was asked about her illness at the seen and gave so much information about it. Which is why he spoke about the conversation that supposedly took place that night about fostering the twins out...

It was ALL based around her mental health issues.

Ralph called the police at 3:26am, and told the officer that his daughter had got one of his guns and was going berserk - he recorded the details of the telephone number from where the call was made to the police (whf). So Ralph must have been in on it, as well...

[mike tesko]

Yes I think it's credible, he still does it today. Why did he need a precedent? The police fell for it at first, and people still do today.

Since Ralph called the police from whf, and told them that his daughter had got one of his guns (3:26am) and that she was going berserk, Ralph must have been in on the plan to use Sheila's mental health issues as well? Jeremy never told Malcolm Bonnet that he was Sheila's dad, and that she was his daughter, or that Sheila had got one of his dads guns, and so Bonnet could not relay that information to PC West for him to make the mistake of writing it down wrongly. In any event there is no evidence from Bonnet saying that he told PC West exactly what PC West recorded at 3:26am, except at the bottom of the message where West makes mention that the son contacted the police and reported a telephone call from father, etc...

The 3:26am telephone log consists of two separate messages, first part from Ralph, second part from Bonnet reporting what Jeremy had told him, whereas, the other telephone log times at 3:36am, is all about what Jeremy told the police when he made his call to the police...

[Bridget]

Bridget, my understand of schizophrenics is that while they are on meds they are safe from the worst ravages of their illness. The minute they decide they no longer need meds can spell danger for themselves and others. When Sheila asked her doctor, a locum I believe, to adjust her meds, a chain of events with potentially tragic outcome was set in motion. Firstly, her meds should never have been halved, should not even have been reduced without strict monitoring. This appears not to have happened. Perhaps it was because Sheila wasn't within reach of her regular doctor, maybe she managed to avoid seeing any doctor or maybe her illness was tightening its' grip on her and she saw doctors as instruments of the Devil. For whatever reason, it seems she may have fallen through her safety net.

We know the farm wasn't a place of peace and harmony for her at the best of times, added to which, her boys didn't consider it their favourite place to be either and then during the drive, her estranged husband says he's met somebody else. Might she have felt that he was abandoning her. Hard enough for her to cope with on full meds, but expecting her to cope with all that stress without her full theraputic dose, would, IMO, be asking too much of her.

I think it can reasonably be assumed that by the time she reached the farm she was experiencing huge emotional turmoil which probably caused her illness to gain a tighter hold, which in turn, could have caused Sheila to loosen her grip on reality.

Hi April,

I just want to say first of all that I find your and Egap's posts in particular on this subject both interesting and insightful, and I hope that I don't detract from that when I say that although I accept that all of the things you describe are true for some people to varying degrees, it is entirely speculative to say that it applies to Sheila, and that it caused her to massacre her family.

[mike tesko]

Hi April,

I just want to say first of all that I find your and Egap's posts in particular on this subject both interesting and insightful, and I hope that I don't detract from that when I say that although I accept that all of the things you describe are true for some people to varying degrees, it is entirely speculative to say that it applies to Sheila, and that it caused her to massacre her family.

The same speculative logic used and relied upon to persecute Jeremy, no less...

[Jane]

Good morning Bridget

I don't agree that it's entirely speculative in Sheila's case but then I would say that wouldn't I ?   In any event I think this is best determined by a forensic psychologist/psychiatrist who specialises in attachment disorders, adoption pscyhology and adoption reunions.  Also one that is without any conflicts of interest - I have concerns that Dr Fergsuon who treated June and Sheila throughout 1958 to 1985 and was paid privately by the adoptive parents may have been conflicted  .  Anyway I feel sure that the case will eventually find itself back at the CoA and if the defence feel there's some mileage in this area I'm sure it will be explored.

It's certainly no more speculative than JB being labelled a psychopath, motivated by money/greed and resentful.  There's absolutely no evidence to support these assertions whatsoever.  In the same way that the DNA results 17/20 from the silencer and 13/20 from the population at large are utterly meaningless as a % cannot be applied and therefore it is inadmissible as evidence.

Blimey I think I've been let off lightly here.  If Maggie was around...I hope she doesn't go through all the posts when she returns or I'll be in for it big style  .

Egap, hi, good morning. I imagine that had Sheila and I, perhaps you, too, had the benefit of being raised in a family unit such a Maggie's, our outcomes may have been decidedly different!!!!!

[Jane]

Good morning April1

Yes I agree and I've told Maggie this often enough but I don't understand why she feels the need to 'protect' June when it's obvious to most that she was a TOTALLY unsuitable adoptive mother.

Egap, I guess if our own adoptive mothers had been "good enough" it would be hard for us to see what the other side was like and we certainly would be unlikey to have the insight we now have, because they weren't(good enough).

[Bridget]

Good morning Bridget

I don't agree that it's entirely speculative in Sheila's case but then I would say that wouldn't I ?   In any event I think this is best determined by a forensic psychologist/psychiatrist who specialises in attachment disorders, adoption pscyhology and adoption reunions.  Also one that is without any conflicts of interest - I have concerns that Dr Fergsuon who treated June and Sheila throughout 1958 to 1985 and was paid privately by the adoptive parents may have been conflicted  .  Anyway I feel sure that the case will eventually find itself back at the CoA and if the defence feel there's some mileage in this area I'm sure it will be explored.

It's certainly no more speculative than JB being labelled a psychopath, motivated by money/greed and resentful.  There's absolutely no evidence to support these assertions whatsoever.  In the same way that the DNA results 17/20 from the silencer and 13/20 from the population at large are utterly meaningless as a % cannot be applied and therefore it is inadmissible as evidence.

Blimey I think I've been let off lightly here.  If Maggie was around...I hope she doesn't go through all the posts when she returns or I'll be in for it big style  .

All fair points, I don't pretend to have the definitive answer either.

I think the pair of you are in for the high jump when Maggie gets back!

[susan]

Morning April1  reading with interest your posts with egap1 re. adoption.  I don,t profess to know anything about adoption but perhaps Motherhood did not come up to June,s expectations and therefore did the best she was able to with Sheila and Jeremy. I for one have often wondered how it would be possible to give away your own child for adoption I could never have done it whatever the circumstances but in saying that I would never have adopted if I had had no children of my own don,t wish to sound a heartless creature I,m far from that I just don,t think the maternal instinct in me is as strong as other women.  Then again maybe its easy for me to talk when the situation never arose.

[Jane]

Hi April1

Yes I agree but all adoptive parents were to some degree let down by the lack of pre and post adoption counselling so I do have some sympathy for them.  But in June's case I think she could have had all the counselling in the world and she would still have been TOTALLY unsuitable which is borne out by the fact that she suffered severe depression as a direct result of adopting Sheila.  Sheila should have been removed from the Bambers care and placed with an adoptive family with a proven track record.  The Bambers should have been prevented from adopting any further children.  This may sound harsh but the risks were too great and sadly those risks were allowed to be played out and ended in tragedy  .

You and I have lived to tell the tale 

Egap, I imagine it goes without saying that I'm in full agreement with all you've said.

[Roch]

Yes I think it's credible, he still does it today. Why did he need a precedent? The police fell for it at first, and people still do today.

I think you may have misunderstood my question.  What widely known precedent was there back then, to afford credibility to the notion that a mother would slay her own children due to mental health issues?

[susan]

Hi april1  thanks for that I found it very interesting and agree the most important thing for a child is warmth and love whether adopted or not.  June probably inwardly could not accept her two adoptive children were born out of wedlock and this is why her religious beliefs were instilled into Sheila more than Jeremy as she would be horrified at Sheila having children out of wedlock.  A very complicated state of affairs and I feel after reading certain articles that June never bonded with Sheila not sure about Jeremy but Ralph bonded with both of them.

[Bridget]

I think you may have misunderstood my question.  What widely known precedent was there back then, to afford credibility to the notion that a mother would slay her own children due to mental health issues?

I did understand it, but with all due respect, it's a daft question. The notion was clearly credible to the police for about a month - what do you think they said to him - "well unless you can name a few we're not going to believe you"? Has the prosecution ever tried to use the apparent (according to you, I haven't looked) lack off a precedent to discredit his story?