Did Sheila Suffer An Attachment Disorder Resulting In Affectionless Psychopathy?

[Steve_uk]

I don’t see it at all like this. People usually behave in a certain way and keep on behaving in that way. Sheila was a pretty,rather gullible girl who liked to be with the in-crowd,but she never used the twins as a weapon against Colin so why should she deprive him of them even if she were in a state of psychosis on Wednesday 7 August 1985? Why would she put pen to paper in hospital and write to Ann Eaton of all people if she had suicidal thoughts in mind;in fact she was ashamed of being incarcerated again,was missing her sons and looking forward to living on the outside again. Why did her birth mother make the trip across the Atlantic Ocean if Sheila had meant nothing to her? From what I have read the effect on Sheila seemed positive.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1989.0.html

The evidence against Jeremy is not flimsy. It’s backed by several witnesses independent of each other whose testimony paints a picture of Jeremy disliking to say the least his adoptive family. The way he behaved after the murders showed him in his true light:a man incapable of grief simply because he didn't feel any.

[lookout]

I don’t see it at all like this. People usually behave in a certain way and keep on behaving in that way. Sheila was a pretty,rather gullible girl who liked to be with the in-crowd,but she never used the twins as a weapon against Colin so why should she deprive him of them even if she were in a state of psychosis on Wednesday 7 August 1985? Why would she put pen to paper in hospital and write to Ann Eaton of all people if she had suicidal thoughts in mind;in fact she was ashamed of being incarcerated again,was missing her sons and looking forward to living on the outside again. Why did her birth mother make the trip across the Atlantic Ocean if Sheila had meant nothing to her? From what I have read the effect on Sheila seemed positive.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1989.0.html

The evidence against Jeremy is not flimsy. It’s backed by several witnesses independent of each other whose testimony paints a picture of Jeremy disliking to say the least his adoptive family. The way he behaved after the murders showed him in his true light:a man incapable of grief simply because he didn't feel any.

Good morning Steve. Those letters to AE were just a way of Sheila trying to prove that everything was hunky dory,,while inside,Sheila would have known that how she was feeling wasn't true at all. Writing to another woman,aside from her mother,would also have made Sheila feel that she had a female " friend " in whom she sounded out as to whether she could confide in her or not. Yet to me,,the letters,,the meeting with her mother,,was almost like Sheilas' swansong in that she knew what was about to happen in the very near future. A sort of tying up of loose-ends if you like,,because,let's face it,,Sheila had years in which to contact her birth mother,,so why leave it until she did.
Why hadn't Sheila contacted Christine before she started to go downhill with her illness when she'd have been more " sound " in her mind.?  After the birth of the twins,for instance.? I'm sure Christine would have been delighted to have seen them then,,and who knows,,a " friendship " could have been kindled because of it,with perhaps more regular visits as the boys grew.
Nothing seemed right with Sheila at all.

[killingeve]

I don’t see it at all like this. People usually behave in a certain way and keep on behaving in that way. Sheila was a pretty,rather gullible girl who liked to be with the in-crowd,but she never used the twins as a weapon against Colin so why should she deprive him of them even if she were in a state of psychosis on Wednesday 7 August 1985? Why would she put pen to paper in hospital and write to Ann Eaton of all people if she had suicidal thoughts in mind;in fact she was ashamed of being incarcerated again,was missing her sons and looking forward to living on the outside again. Why did her birth mother make the trip across the Atlantic Ocean if Sheila had meant nothing to her? From what I have read the effect on Sheila seemed positive.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1989.0.html

The evidence against Jeremy is not flimsy. It’s backed by several witnesses independent of each other whose testimony paints a picture of Jeremy disliking to say the least his adoptive family. The way he behaved after
the murders showed him in his true light:a man incapable of grief simply because he didn't feel any.

Hi Steve_UK

As far as I am aware the letters have never been available to the defence.  I belive they're held under pii.  So we have no knowledge of the contents.  The fact half a dozen letters were exchanged means nothing. We need to know the contents.

If SC was full of the joys of spring why did she not utter one word to the twins or Colin during the car journey from Maida Vale to WHF? 

[tyler]

Brilliant post April! (Sorry can't quote it,am on my phone)

[Jane]

I don’t see it at all like this. People usually behave in a certain way and keep on behaving in that way. Sheila was a pretty,rather gullible girl who liked to be with the in-crowd,but she never used the twins as a weapon against Colin so why should she deprive him of them even if she were in a state of psychosis on Wednesday 7 August 1985? Why would she put pen to paper in hospital and write to Ann Eaton of all people if she had suicidal thoughts in mind;in fact she was ashamed of being incarcerated again,was missing her sons and looking forward to living on the outside again. Why did her birth mother make the trip across the Atlantic Ocean if Sheila had meant nothing to her? From what I have read the effect on Sheila seemed positive.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1989.0.html

The evidence against Jeremy is not flimsy. It’s backed by several witnesses independent of each other whose testimony paints a picture of Jeremy disliking to say the least his adoptive family. The way he behaved after the murders showed him in his true light:a man incapable of grief simply because he didn't feel any.

Which shows just how little of my post you read. I did actually say that she was LONGING to get out. That fact was never in dispute. You have simply chosen to ignore what I said regarding how Dr F saw her then and how her life and hopes went downhill in the next 18 weeks.

Her bio mother, I believe, didn't come to England specifically to see Sheila. How do you think she's have explained the trip to her family who knew nothing of her existence? She was, I believe, en route elsewhere.

[Jane]

Brilliant post April! (Sorry can't quote it,am on my phone)

Thankyou for that, Tyler :)xxx

[Jane]

I don’t see it at all like this. People usually behave in a certain way and keep on behaving in that way. Sheila was a pretty,rather gullible girl who liked to be with the in-crowd,but she never used the twins as a weapon against Colin so why should she deprive him of them even if she were in a state of psychosis on Wednesday 7 August 1985? Why would she put pen to paper in hospital and write to Ann Eaton of all people if she had suicidal thoughts in mind;in fact she was ashamed of being incarcerated again,was missing her sons and looking forward to living on the outside again. Why did her birth mother make the trip across the Atlantic Ocean if Sheila had meant nothing to her? From what I have read the effect on Sheila seemed positive.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1989.0.html

The evidence against Jeremy is not flimsy. It’s backed by several witnesses independent of each other whose testimony paints a picture of Jeremy disliking to say the least his adoptive family. The way he behaved after the murders showed him in his true light:a man incapable of grief simply because he didn't feel any.

I've paid you the courtesy of taking a longer look at what you've written, Steve. It's no surprise to me  that you don't see IT or ANYTHING I write, at all that way as we are obviously diametrically opposed but it may have helped had you not distorted what I said. Unlike your somewhat snide remarks about "psychobabble" I don't recall saying anything derogatory about you as a teacher because, on the whole, I have enormous respect for teachers who I believe don't always have an easy time of it. My own three year stint at teaching wasn't my finest time and wasn't something I proved good at, HOWEVER, I DO understand psychology and it's something which I feel proud to say I'm good at and Steve, I take exception to your sneering comments regarding it and your poor attempts to convey that you know something about it when it's clear that you have as great a working knowledge of it as had I of teaching.

[ngb1066]

I've paid you the courtesy of taking a longer look at what you've written, Steve. It's no surprise to me  that you don't see IT or ANYTHING I write, at all that way as we are obviously diametrically opposed but it may have helped had you not distorted what I said. Unlike your somewhat snide remarks about "psychobabble" I don't recall saying anything derogatory about you as a teacher because, on the whole, I have enormous respect for teachers who I believe don't always have an easy time of it. My own three year stint at teaching wasn't my finest time and wasn't something I proved good at, HOWEVER, I DO understand psychology and it's something which I feel proud to say I'm good at and Steve, I take exception to your sneering comments regarding it and your poor attempts to convey that you know something about it when it's clear that you have as great a working knowledge of it as had I of teaching.

Well said April.  I would add that Steve's understanding of the law is about as good as his understanding of psychology.  Like some teachers he appears to consider himself an expert in every field.  He also displays little humility when he is put right on matters.

 

[Steve_uk]

Well said April.  I would add that Steve's understanding of the law is about as good as his understanding of psychology.  Like some teachers he appears to consider himself an expert in every field.  He also displays little humility when he is put right on matters.

 

It's really a shame that you can only argue your points on Julie's cannabis smuggling with the "joint enterprise" law which is typical of solicitors who have learnt the theory for examination purposes but who cannot apply this on a practical level,whilst of course omitting the charge which puts all drug dealing in the shade,namely accessory to murder. You have simply not convinced me one bit that your pronouncements would stand up in court for one moment.http://articles.latimes.com/1987-02-21/news/mn-4815_1_jerry-hall

[Jane]

It's really a shame that you can only argue your points on Julie's cannabis smuggling with the "joint enterprise" law which is typical of solicitors who have learnt the theory for examination purposes but who cannot apply this on a practical level,whilst of course omitting the charge which puts all drug dealing in the shade,namely accessory to murder. You have simply not convinced me one bit that your pronouncements would stand up in court for one moment.http://articles.latimes.com/1987-02-21/news/mn-4815_1_jerry-hall

Steve, not only are you displaying THE most incredible discourtesy but also the inability to give anyone else credit for what is their field of expertise.

[Steve_uk]

Steve, not only are you displaying THE most incredible discourtesy but also the inability to give anyone else credit for what is their field of expertise.

I've had two experiences with solicitors in the past 20 years or so: one was a custody battle which cost my family an arm and a leg,kept being put back by the courts and was heard eighteen months late..the second was a compensation claim for a member of the family whom I accompanied to a solicitor's office only to see him watching the cricket scores on the computer,glance up from the screen to look at us,take a book from a shelf and quote a sum to which both parties had agreed,then shoo us out of the office again..

[Jane]

I've had two experiences with solicitors in the past 20 years or so: one was a custody battle which cost my family an arm and a leg,kept being put back by the courts and was heard eighteen months late..the second was a compensation claim for a member of the family whom I accompanied to a solicitor's office only to see him watching the cricket scores on the computer,glance up from the screen to look at us,take a book from a shelf and quote a sum to which both parties had agreed,then shoo us out of the office again..

Steve, truly I'm sorry about your horrid and costly experiences but you must understand that not ALL solicitors are the same, in the same way that there are good and bad teachers. How might YOU feel if a parent started slagging you off because their child's previous teacher hadn't come up to scratch. Our past bad experiences are never good reason for our present rudeness and discourtesy to others.

[ngb1066]

It's really a shame that you can only argue your points on Julie's cannabis smuggling with the "joint enterprise" law which is typical of solicitors who have learnt the theory for examination purposes but who cannot apply this on a practical level,whilst of course omitting the charge which puts all drug dealing in the shade,namely accessory to murder. You have simply not convinced me one bit that your pronouncements would stand up in court for one moment.http://articles.latimes.com/1987-02-21/news/mn-4815_1_jerry-hall

For your information I am not a solicitor, I am a barrister.  I not only learned the theory, I was involved in criminal trials for nearly 20 years.  I certainly understand the criminal law very well, unlike you.

You are not only arrogant, you are thoroughly offensive.

   

[Jane]

For your information I am not a solicitor, I am a barrister.  I not only learned the theory, I was involved in criminal trials for nearly 20 years.  I certainly understand the criminal law very well, unlike you.

You are not only arrogant, you are thoroughly offensive.

 

Neil, well done. Sometimes it does us good to call it how we see it

[Steve_uk]

For your information I am not a solicitor, I am a barrister.  I not only learned the theory, I was involved in criminal trials for nearly 20 years.  I certainly understand the criminal law very well, unlike you.

You are not only arrogant, you are thoroughly offensive.

 

You may well be a barrister but you'd have no hope of convicting Julie on drug trafficking if there were no drugs in her possession but only in Jeremy's bag,and it's about time a colleague of yours had a quiet word in your ear and told you so. You also made allegations about conspiracy to murder or accessory to murder which would be laughed out of court. I'm sorry to make it personal as this has not been my way on this site at least,but you should face reality.