Undecided!!

[Kaldin]

if sheila did kill the children then its known as an altruistic killing,where the mother belives that by killing them she is doing it for the best. if shiela is responsible she didnt do it out of hate, she feared they were going to be taken from her, so therefore in her mind killing them then herself they could be together forever. if she was in the grip of a psychosis thats how maybe her thoughts were playing out.

In some ways I suppose I prefer to think that Sheila did it because she was ill, not evil. I know the family don't like her being accused because they said she was a good mother and would never hurt her children. I'm sure she wouldn't have when she was well, but she wasn't suffering from depression or a bad temper, she had schizophrenia, and it sounds quite serious - she was hospitalised twice because of it.

[mb1]

That's what I find most upsetting about the whole situation

Two innocent boys died that day killed it seems by either their mother or their uncle .

Their poor dad must have suffered more than any of us will ever know.

I just find it so hard to believe that a mother could kill her children I know she had mental health problems but still to shoot your own babies is beyond belief.

I also find it strange that they were shot, it seems more execution style than the act of a deranged woman.

It's strange that the child-killer thing isn't mentioned much. The emphasis is usually on Sheila when this crime is talked about.

Can't actually view any of the threads specifically about the children.

Understand that Sheila had had 'dark thoughts' regarding the children before, but either she or others had recognised this and treatment had followed.
If she was going downhill, why didn't they get help for her?
If she was under par, but not worryingly so, what could trigger such rage? The foster thing doesn't add up. They were mainly living with Colin.

Andrea is right about the mis-guided altruism though. However, I don't know of a UK case where the mother shot her children.

[Kaldin]

That's what I find most upsetting about the whole situation

Two innocent boys died that day killed it seems by either their mother or their uncle .

Their poor dad must have suffered more than any of us will ever know.

I just find it so hard to believe that a mother could kill her children I know she had mental health problems but still to shoot your own babies is beyond belief.

I also find it strange that they were shot, it seems more execution style than the act of a deranged woman.

It's strange that the child-killer thing isn't mentioned much. The emphasis is usually on Sheila when this crime is talked about.

Can't actually view any of the threads specifically about the children.

Understand that Sheila had had 'dark thoughts' regarding the children before, but either she or others had recognised this and treatment had followed.
If she was going downhill, why didn't they get help for her?
If she was under par, but not worryingly so, what could trigger such rage? The foster thing doesn't add up. They were mainly living with Colin.

Andrea is right about the mis-guided altruism though. However, I don't know of a UK case where the mother shot her children.

No but then most women don't have access to guns. There seemed to be guns all over the place at White House Farm.

[andrea]

no i never heard of a case of women shooting her kids here in the uk, but whitehouse farm had plenty of guns, if sheila didnt want them suffer she probably thought a gun would have been the quickest most painless way. we all hear plenty of stories or mothers killing their kids then themselves now though, tragically its becoming more and more reported.

[mb1]

True, but as SimonG pointed out even in the US most female gun crimes involve hand guns.

Nowdays, the blood spatter techniques are so advanced that they would have been able to 'layer' them, creating a sequence. They probably would have spent a month in court on that alone. If only...

[joolz1975]

I wouldn't say she was evil anyway if she did it then it was for no other reason than that she was mentally ill, until anybody has suffered from an illness like that then it's hard to understand what torment she was going through.

If JB did it in cold blood then that would make him evil !

Shooting seems strange to me too but then on a farm I suppose it's normal to have guns around. How stupid though knowing a mentally I'll woman was on the property to leave them where she could access them!

Has anybody ever thought that maybe she was talked into it by somebody, sort of influenced ? 

[andrea]

thats a thought! did whf have any handguns?

[mb1]

thats a thought! did whf have any handguns?

I was hoping someone would pick up on that! Great minds...

[andrea]

ha ha mb1, if there were handguns there wonder why its never been mentioned? i certainly havent read anywhere that there were handguns.

[mike tesko]

if sheila did kill the children then its known as an altruistic killing,where the mother belives that by killing them she is doing it for the best. if shiela is responsible she didnt do it out of hate, she feared they were going to be taken from her, so therefore in her mind killing them then herself they could be together forever. if she was in the grip of a psychosis thats how maybe her thoughts were playing out.

-----------------------------------------

I liked this explanation...

[shonapugs]

But if this was an altruistic killing, wouldn't Sheila have killed the boys, then taken her own life there and then? I don't think that it explains the particularly brutal killings of Ralph and June.

[mike tesko]

But if this was an altruistic killing, wouldn't Sheila have killed the boys, then taken her own life there and then? I don't think that it explains the particularly brutal killings of Ralph and June.

-----------------------------------

Ralph and June, were a threat to Sheila and her boys, and both were adults who could put up something of a struggle, or who did not die easily...

[andrea]

if sheila did kill the children then its known as an altruistic killing,where the mother belives that by killing them she is doing it for the best. if shiela is responsible she didnt do it out of hate, she feared they were going to be taken from her, so therefore in her mind killing them then herself they could be together forever. if she was in the grip of a psychosis thats how maybe her thoughts were playing out.

-----------------------------------------

I liked this explanation...

thanks mike

[TheBrilliantMistake]

yeah, forensic techniques have advanced somewhat since 1985

That's very very true, but each generation falls into the trap of believing they are so much better than the last generation, which is usually true, but invites complacency too... the same complacency that occurred in this tragedy.

The police at the time DID do a lot of things well, and they went to great effort to document things, photograph them etc. All of that said, their documentation now seems ambiguous in places, contradictory in others and still there's question marks about certain photos etc etc. (even though it was probably 10 times more complete than the generation before).

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "that couldn't happen today" - The moment that phrase is used, it means it CAN happen again.

I'm of the belief the police didn't do anything to frame Bamber, but that their initial assumption of suicide (which was understandable) led to a HUGE problem in gathering evidence over a month later. Basically, that assumption caused a lot of evidence to be destroyed and afford JB a lot of time to cover tracks (if he did it).

25 years on, we are now looking at the logs and picking holes in discrepancies (which are normal), and reading an awful lot into small phrases. If you believe JB to be innocent, there's a fair amount of stuff that can cast doubt on some events, if you believe JB's guilty, then there's little to really prove otherwise. So to my mind, there's nothing to prove his innocence, just enough to suggest it was possibly not him.

As the law puts it, you must ascertain 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it was him. So far, from what I've read, there is reasonable doubt over some aspects, but I would also say much of it is "beyond reasonable".  We're also not privy to ALL the information and facts.

This crime really does make for a fascinating one. So much mess in the family, it's almost Miss Marple like! You couldn't write a book of this story without people calling it far fetched.

The one this I DO know - the entire family were not 'typical'!

[sarahfarley]

 Well if all this evidence has been produced in appeals.
Why do they still throw them out and stick with the original verdict Guilty??
Plus why is everyone lying about from his friends to the farm helpers etc if he was such a nice guy and if so intelligent why did he try to sell topless pics of his dead sister??