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

[susan]

Hi egap1  yes and I wont leave the area because of the stray cats what does that tell you about me.  Act and think so much differently when one is somewhat older What age was June when she adopted Sheila?

[Jane]

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.

Susan, hi and good morning. Not for one minute do you sound like a "heartless creature." I think you're right in saying that Motherhood didn't come up to June's expectations, partly, I imagine, because her children didn't meet her expectations. We can, of course, only speculate on what those expectations were about, but I suspect, using my own mother as a yardstick, it was something about perfection, which we know is only an ideal, rarely and fleetingly a reality.......and entirely subjective.

I believe most women gave their babies away in the belief that they would have a better life and I honestly believe it, for the most part, to be true. A small percentage, however, draw the short straw. Bought up between the tenets of being forbidden to answer back and being ordered to stand up for myself, being expected to be strong enough to organize her life and subservient enough to do it the way she wanted, I look at Sheila and think "There but for the grace of God."

I feel that maternal instinct varies from woman to woman, but I can't help thinking, that on a scale of 1-10, a measurement of 10(highly maternal) can be as dysfunctional as a measurement of 1(decidedly unmaternal) and the optimum being a couple of points either side of the middle, "good enough" in psychology speak.

As I've gained more insight, I've been able to become more objective about mothers like June and my own. Their children would have been seen as the answer to whatever prayers they were offering and their expectations of them unrealistically high. They may have expected that their children would show them the love that they, themselves, were uncapable of showing. They may have mapped out a personality and a future that it was impossible for their children to fulfill. Failure to deliver would have been devastating, would have shattered their hopes and dreams. Looking back at it, from a safe distance, I long to put my arms around both these women, but I doubt it would be any more acceptable now, than it was then.

[Roch]

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?

That is a fair answer in one respect.  It was credible enough for them to run with it. 
However my point is, what made Bamber believe it was a credible plan to run with?  Why did he, a 24 year old in the mid 80's, think it was a feasible plan to portray his sister having been responsible for the murder of her own sons, due to mental health? 

Planned, staged suicide (with a single shot) yes.  Staged suicide with two shots and the murder of her own children... passed off as mental health issues... no.  It's so far of a jump that it does not seem credible to me.  I cant buy it at all. 

Now if this attempt to frame his sister was happening now, with all the stories we have had in the news of mothers and fathers killing their own kids, I might find it more credible that somebody would attempt to pull it off.  Because there is massive precedent and it's topical.

[susan]

Hi April1  thanks for the post you have certainly opened my eyes to the problems that could have existed between June and Sheila and maybe Jeremy.   I think Jeremy was an attention seeker maybe he lacked attention as a child.  June,s expectations of how a daughter should be probably does not exist in the real world.  Maggie is the most warm loving caring Mother any child could have.

[Bridget]

That is a fair answer in one respect.  It was credible enough for them to run with it. 
However my point is, what made Bamber believe it was a credible plan to run with?  Why did he, a 24 year old in the mid 80's, think it was a feasible plan to portray his sister having been responsible for the murder of her own sons, due to mental health? 

Planned, staged suicide (with a single shot) yes.  Staged suicide with two shots and the murder of her own children... passed off as mental health issues... no.  It's so far of a jump that it does not seem credible to me.  I cant buy it at all. 

Now if this attempt to frame his sister was happening now, with all the stories we have had in the news of mothers and fathers killing their own kids, I might find it more credible that somebody would attempt to pull it off.  Because there is massive precedent and it's topical.

I doubt that his thinking went much further than do the deed, blame the loony. Are you saying that it would have been inconceivable for a mother with mental health issues to kill her children in the 1980s? Clearly it wasn't, you only have to read the newspaper reports from August 1985, none of them even question it.

The second shot was where it all went wrong for him - that wasn't the plan - but it happened and he had to run with it, he had no choice.

[Roch]

I doubt that his thinking went much further than do the deed, blame the loony. Are you saying that it would have been inconceivable for a mother with mental health issues to kill her children in the 1980s? Clearly it wasn't, you only have to read the newspaper reports from August 1985, none of them even question it.

The second shot was where it all went wrong for him - that wasn't the plan - but it happened and he had to run with it, he had no choice.

For which the angles of trajectory by a murderer, still haven't been properly explained.  You're making quite a leap with your 'do the deed, blame it on the loony' theory aren't you? 

If we dig out earlier newspaper reports of similar crimes, I might be more amenable to the view that there was a precedent available to influence his planning.  And you cant state that nobody questioned things because they clearly did.  There was a trial by media and intense pressure placed upon EP.

[Bridget]

For which the angles of trajectory by a murderer, still haven't been properly explained.  You're making quite a leap with your 'do the deed, blame it on the loony' theory aren't you? 

If we dig out earlier newspaper reports of similar crimes, I might be more amenable to the view that there was a precedent available to influence his planning.  And you cant state that nobody questioned things because they clearly did.  There was a trial by media and intense pressure placed upon EP.

I didn't say no one questioned 'things', I said that no one questioned the fact that a mother with mental illness might have killed her own children. Are you honestly suggesting that because there weren't stories of mothers with mental illness killing their children all over the papers the idea could not have occurred to him?

What leap? It may be an abridged version, but that is exactly what he was convicted of doing.

Don't try to deflect the argument with trajectory theories, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the trajectories preclude Sheila having been murdered

[lookout]

Junes' expectations set a precedent for Sheilas' behaviour in her teenage years,,,rebellion.
It's all very well teaching your child good manners etc,,,but it's another when you try and mould them into your way of thinking. Children,,whether adopted or not,are individuals who should be left to build their own unique character and should be " guided " through their lives,,without regimentation.
Although both children in this case had a very good upbringing and start in life,,at the same time,,it was a pretty strict " regime " and I imagine,overbearing and oppressive at times where neither children were " allowed to be themselves ",,,not what I would say was a normal environment by todays standards of childcare.
I appreciate that things were a lot different in the 80's as" family values " were still being taught,,,and like all others,June and Nevill wanted the best grounding for their children,,,which works for some but not for others,and because Sheila and Jeremy were of different parentage to start with,,genetically this grounding worked for one but not for the other.
Saying that,,you can have exactly the same biological parents of children who are totally different in every way,,,so in a way it's a myth to say that adoptees are any different to biological children.

However,,getting back to Sheila,who was no different from some girls today who happen to mix with " the wrong crowd "and realise that they're missing out on life,,so follow their peers into drinking and drugs,etc ,,and if they're not careful,,descend in a downward spiral of either becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict or both. Dependent on their mindset,,,they'll either stop and think what they're doing to themselves or others,,or they'll go further down the route beyond redemption.
Because there was little or no understanding of Sheilas's behavioural problems as a teenager,,,whatever punishment that was meted out to her would have been the wrong punishment anyway,,and would have pushed Sheila further away from her parents.. The psychology of a growing teenager is indeed complex and takes a lot of understanding,,,for whatever you ask or tell them to do,they'll always do the opposite.
I imagine that Sheila would have been quite a handful,,especially later when she did rely on drugs,and possibly this is why Nevill kept a little supply in his safe in order to keep Sheila" going" rather than her seek a supplier elsewhere. However,,one drug invariably leads to a much stronger one which sadly Sheila yielded to,,,,cocaine. A drug,,which I wouldn't have thought was as readily available then as now,,plus more costly ( I don't know ) hence her having a large debt to her " supplier ". 
Do we know who supplied Sheila with cocaine,,,and who the debt belonged to.?

Let it be known that a paranoid schizophrenic drug-taker,,,who also takes prescription drugs,,,,can move mountains,regardless of their size or whether it's a male or female. It's unklike any other illness because of it being so unpredictable,,,and they're known for skipping their medication and also for killing total strangers as well as family members once they're out of control. Fact.

[Jane]

I didn't say no one questioned 'things', I said that no one questioned the fact that a mother with mental illness might have killed her own children. Are you honestly suggesting that because there weren't stories of mothers with mental illness killing their children all over the papers the idea could not have occurred to him?

What leap? It may be an abridged version, but that is exactly what he was convicted of doing.

Don't try to deflect the argument with trajectory theories, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the trajectories preclude Sheila having been murdered

I think the bottom line is, which ever "side" we favour, we can produce an equal number of pointers with which to accuse the opposite side. But it's not that simple. What was the defining moment that we decided that Sheila or Jeremy was innocent/guilty and what factors contributed to that decision?

In 1985, I had scant knowledge of mental illness and was uncomfortable with the idea of a beautiful, affluent, well educated girl killing her children. Jeremy's attitude went a long way in changing my mind. Good looking, conceited, indolent. More interested in living the high life than in solid citizenship. Much more likely that he did it. Most of this is supposition and prejudice. Mine. But many felt the same, for the same reasons.

All these years on, my views have changed and whilst I no longer believe Jeremy responsible, I feel disinclined to accuse Sheila. Why? Well, if we could take her illness away we would probably find a sensitive, gentle girl who enjoyed her children and didn't have a murderous thought in her body. From biblical times, people were thought to be "possessed," Sheila was. I believe there was a time when June told her she was, which was quite an irony. But whether we see her, as June did, as being possessed by the Devil OR held in the grip of a cruel illness which robbed her of herself, the effect is the same for both. There were times when SHEILA would disappear. She had been over taken/taken over by something over which she had no control.

I feel that this view absolves Sheila from any responsibility. The balance of her mind was disturbed. SHEILA, temporarily, was not there and that much is not conjecture. The  combination of dramatically reduced medication together with Colin's pronouncement that he had found somebody else may have served to push the last part of her out.

There is no more/less supposition about the case for/against Sheila than there is regarding Jeremy. The big difference is that the jury wasn't privy to the whole of Sheila's story.

[lookout]

Hi April,,I'm afraid the jury weren't privy to a lot of things,,including the truth.

I often wonder how members of the jury at that particular time,feel about that same case if they happen to read this forum.? They can talk about the case if they so wish,,freely,that is,without being actually asked about it,,which isn't permitted. They're not allowed to be approached.

[Bridget]

I think the bottom line is, which ever "side" we favour, we can produce an equal number of pointers with which to accuse the opposite side. But it's not that simple. What was the defining moment that we decided that Sheila or Jeremy was innocent/guilty and what factors contributed to that decision?

In 1985, I had scant knowledge of mental illness and was uncomfortable with the idea of a beautiful, affluent, well educated girl killing her children. Jeremy's attitude went a long way in changing my mind. Good looking, conceited, indolent. More interested in living the high life than in solid citizenship. Much more likely that he did it. Most of this is supposition and prejudice. Mine. But many felt the same, for the same reasons.

All these years on, my views have changed and whilst I no longer believe Jeremy responsible, I feel disinclined to accuse Sheila. Why? Well, if we could take her illness away we would probably find a sensitive, gentle girl who enjoyed her children and didn't have a murderous thought in her body. From biblical times, people were thought to be "possessed," Sheila was. I believe there was a time when June told her she was, which was quite an irony. But whether we see her, as June did, as being possessed by the Devil OR held in the grip of a cruel illness which robbed her of herself, the effect is the same for both. There were times when SHEILA would disappear. She had been over taken/taken over by something over which she had no control.

I feel that this view absolves Sheila from any responsibility. The balance of her mind was disturbed. SHEILA, temporarily, was not there and that much is not conjecture. The  combination of dramatically reduced medication together with Colin's pronouncement that he had found somebody else may have served to push the last part of her out.

There is no more/less supposition about the case for/against Sheila than there is regarding Jeremy. The big difference is that the jury wasn't privy to the whole of Sheila's story.

Actually it is, we only have Jeremy's word that Sheila was experiencing any sort of 'episode' that night, and even if we accept his word as to the subject of conversation around the table, it is conjecture that that might have caused such an episode.

[susan]

Hi egap1  thanks for the information at 34 June was mature enough to know her own mind. Perhaps after 9 years of marriage she felt unfulfilled as women did not have careers then like now and maybe her life felt empty.  Back to the garden

[Jane]

Actually it is, we only have Jeremy's word that Sheila was experiencing any sort of 'episode' that night, and even if we accept his word as to the subject of conversation around the table, it is conjecture that that might have caused such an episode.

Bridget, I was trying to move away from Sheila making any rational decisions about what she may have done. Given the circumstances I feel it likely that at some point/points during that stay she would have been "absent." Maybe she was "leaving" when she spoke on the phone that evening?

You are correct, it is conjecture that an "absent" episode was responsible for mass murder, but conjecture is what we turn to when there is no proof and can be used to great effect in both defense and attack and as such, given that there is no concrete proof that Jeremy returned to the farm later that night, that, too, might be seen as conjecture.

[Jane]

Hi Susan

@ 34 yoa you wld have hoped that she did know her own mind but sadly it appears not to have been the case 

By all accounts she was kept quite busy by getting actively involved with the local community, church warden, attending church etc, running of the farm and ocs and I believe her and Nevill played tennis so it sounds like she led quite a busy life. 

If her life felt empty and she was looking for her adopted children to fill the emptiness why adopt and then employ a nanny/send the children away to boarding school miles from home?  I understand Nevill is on record as saying it wldn't have been right for JB rubbing shoulders with folk he might one day have to employ on the farm but something doesn't quite ring true about this. It was a med sized farm not some plc giant.  Why not just send the children to local fee paying schools?  I grew up in a fairly rural area and all the local farming children attended the local fee paying schools.  I wldn't have thought the reasons for this were that the parents didn't want their sons/daughters mingling with folk they might one day have to employ rather they thought they wld receive a better overall education especially with regard to sport.

Too wet here for gardening
(quote)


Egap, the upbringing the children received was very much par for the course in that strata of society, at that time. There were/are numerous fee paying schools in and around the area, but wherever they went locally would necessitate them being taxied, probably in different directions, to different schools, so life would have been made easier by sending them to schools at some distance removed. It may be that his role as magistrate informed Neville's decision to educate Jeremy outside the area and whilst Felsted would have seemed to be the obvious choice, possibly Jeremy didn't pass CE. Neville's supposed comments regarding the rubbing of shoulders with potential future employees does sound somewhat high handed, and if he said it, says much about him as a person.

[susan]

Hi egap1  I think in some cases couples like the Bambers like to fit the typical middle class couple i.e. a boy and a girl both away at school a volvo car and a dog   I am not sure June wanted the children for the good of the children or for herself sometimes women like June have difficulty showing affection and love as they never received it themselves.It is difficult to speculate but just because you don,t show love does not mean you do not  feel it.  Maybe June was cold it really is unfair of me to speculate as I never knew her people who did may speak so differently.