Is this how it's going to work then?

[Caroline R]

I have known two schitzophrenics and unfortunately I find it very difficult not to hold them responsible for their actions. The two that I have known were entirely selfish, self centred and did not care one iota about others. Also they were frequently violent as their medication became ineffective. We can of course read books about the subject. But take it from me that you will never understand the people who have schitzophrenia until you have lived with them. They can be sometimes very frightening and you cannot rely upon their honesty and good humour at all. It gives an entirely false impression of schitzophenia to say that they are continually away with the fairies. They, at least the ones I knew/know were very cold and calculating at times. They certainly do not walk around in a daze.

They are often confused and find it difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality. This is very frightening for them an its this section that can make them violent or unpredictable. But I agree with Nug Nug, to a certain extent, it's hard to generalise.

[maggie]

Thank you for that NN, but you failed conveniently to include the paragraph directly written underneath. Sheila had smoked marijuana sometime before her death and she may of taken sedation medication; this would have made her slow, deliberate and uncoordinated. In fact Pamela Boutflour who spoke with Sheila on the phone the evening before certainly thought she was.

There was no trace of any sedation in Sheila at post mortem Daniel. There was a trace of cannabis....causes psychosis in schizophrenics but the main thing about Sheila's meds at her pm was that there was so little medication in her system.  Some evidence of Halperidol, she was due for her next dose and the previous dose had been massively reduce.  Haloperidol is taken to control psychosis.

[Daniel_day]

Hi Daniel. Does this mean that a psychopath is to be blamed for his/her own condition. Or is it something that he/she cannot control?

Unfortunately yes, they know the difference between right and wrong, and know the consequences. This created the McNaughton Rule (1843)  I'll try my best to eplain it as best I can.
Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The court acquitted McNaughton "by reason of insanity," and he was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. However, the case caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity.
The "McNaughton rule" was a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts. The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."  This is the key phrase Lugg "did not know"
However, adversely, there are many individuals who commit crimes who understand perfectly well what they do and its illegality but who have no obvious mental problems. They are lucid and coherent with no signs of any learning disability or psychotic symptoms. Some of them can be superficially charming and are intelligent enough to be very plausible on first acquaintance. They do not hear voices or think that they are commanded by forces beyond their power to commit crimes. What they do lack is empathy, remorse and a conscience. These individuals are categorised as being apart from the McNaughton Rule, in that they understand the difference between right and wrong and are acting of their own accord.
In the eyes of the law Lugg, this makes them culpable for their actions and can therefore be punished accordingly.
Thanks for the great question Lugg. It is quite a moral dilemma. But you can see the law clearly has distinctions between the two.

[susan]

Hi Daniel

thanks for your reply.  I don't know who examined Jeremy Bamber I just read he had been assessed 27 times and found not to be a psychopath.  If indeed he is a psychopath is this a condition a person is born with and if so we therefore should show some sympathy towards him as he would not have been responsible for his actions.  Do you know if Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper was a psychopath or can a person just be plain evil I have often wondered if a person can be born evil.  Same with the two lads who murdered Jamie Bulger just for a laugh and something to do were they born evil and can such behaviour be cured. I would appreciate your comments on this Daniel as I am totally in the dark on this subject.

[Lugg]

They are often confused and find it difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality. This is very frightening for them an its this section that can make them violent or unpredictable. But I agree with Nug Nug, to a certain extent, it's hard to generalise.

Perhaps you failed to see what I said. This is no "generalisation". I knew/know these people and both were the same.

[Lugg]

Unfortunately yes, they know the difference between right and wrong, and know the consequences. This created the McNaughton Rule (1843)  I'll try my best to eplain it as best I can.
Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The court acquitted McNaughton "by reason of insanity," and he was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. However, the case caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity.
The "McNaughton rule" was a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts. The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."  This is the key phrase Lugg "did not know"
However, adversely, there are many individuals who commit crimes who understand perfectly well what they do and its illegality but who have no obvious mental problems. They are lucid and coherent with no signs of any learning disability or psychotic symptoms. Some of them can be superficially charming and are intelligent enough to be very plausible on first acquaintance. They do not hear voices or think that they are commanded by forces beyond their power to commit crimes. What they do lack is empathy, remorse and a conscience. These individuals are categorised as being apart from the McNaughton Rule, in that they understand the difference between right and wrong and are acting of their own accord.
In the eyes of the law Lugg, this makes them culpable for their actions and can therefore be punished accordingly.
Thanks for the great question Lugg. It is quite a moral dilemma. But you can see the law clearly has distinctions between the two.

Oh right. I can see the difference now. Thank you for explaining that Daniel.

[Daniel_day]

There was no trace of any sedation in Sheila at post mortem Daniel. There was a trace of cannabis....causes psychosis in schizophrenics but the main thing about Sheila's meds at her pm was that there was so little medication in her system.  Some evidence of Halperidol, she was due for her next dose and the previous dose had been massively reduce.  Haloperidol is taken to control psychosis.

I do not believe that she was not sedated maggie. Colin Caffell often refered to Sheila taking sleeping pills as she was a poor sleeper. These may of been flushed through her system by the time the post mortem took place. We have to remember that Pamela phoned at 9:30 or so, and she said that Sheila was noticably 'quiet and unresponsive' she may have taken sedation medication hours earlier. Jeremy even mentioned the point that she was really 'quiet' that evening. I suspect that she was sedated and uncoordinated by these same pills. These 'drug' tests are notoriously unreliable. In 1985 drug testing was still in the stone age. Olympic athletes were taking all kinds of medication that was not being detected. They had just learned to spot sterioids in the system and this was directly afterwards, much less many hours like Sheila's
Sadly, I really don't think that at this distance in time it can now ever be proven one way or another.

[maggie]

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/lie-detector

Particularly paras 4 and 12 up from notes at bottom of page.

Daniel, if you read the above link on the Official website it has an explanation about the lie detector test and Jeremy Bamber's tests for psychopathy.

[nugnug]

so if drug tests werei think a drug test could of picked up wether she had taken sleeping tablets or not even in those days.

what about who killed themselves with sleeping tablets the tests manage to work out they had killed themselves useing sleeping tablets even in those days.

is there any evedence that her doctor had given her sleeping tablets at the time.

[maggie]

I do not believe that she was not sedated maggie. Colin Caffell often refered to Sheila taking sleeping pills as she was a poor sleeper. These may of been flushed through her system by the time the post mortem took place. We have to remember that Pamela phoned at 9:30 or so, and she said that Sheila was noticably 'quiet and unresponsive' she may have taken sedation medication hours earlier. Jeremy even mentioned the point that she was really 'quiet' that evening. I suspect that she was sedated and uncoordinated by these same pills. These 'drug' tests are notoriously unreliable. In 1985 drug testing was still in the stone age. Olympic athletes were taking all kinds of medication that was not being detected. They had just learned to spot sterioids in the system and this was directly afterwards, much less many hours like Sheila's
Sadly, I really don't think that at this distance in time it can now ever be proven one way or another.

That is the problem, anything which doesn't fit with your own particular theory must be wrong. 

I do assure you that in 1985, medicine practiced in this country was NOT in the stone age.  Of course we know more now but a common sleeping pill would be easily detected in the liver. Sheila's behaviour had been strange for a few days enough to worry June to mention it to Pamela Boutflour, her sister and probably the only person apart from Nevill that she spoke to about Sheila's condition. 

We know it is common to be catatonic before an extroverted psychotic episode, this is medical fact, we know Sheila's Haloperidol, her antipsychotic drug was very low in her system.  These are facts.

We have no evidence at all that Sheila was taking sleeping tablets and none were found in her system.  For her to be that dopey all day long from sleeping pills she must have been taking a huge dose which couldn't possibly have completely left her system by the time she was killed. Remember after she was killed nothing changes and nothing else is processed.  Now it's my turn to say to you, you are wrong unless you show evidence to the contrary.. 

[susan]

Hi nugnug  I agree with you if Sheila had taken sleeping pills on the night of the shootings they would have shown up in her body during the pm. Stuff like valium stays in the body for days after you stop taking it. 

[killingeve]

Hi Lugg, Good post,,,I've thought that many a time about the sheer differences in someone deceased and the other alive and incarcerated,,and inside,I've objected strongly at Jeremy having been called a psychopath/murderer and other things... I do have every sympathy for the mentally ill,,having had a belly-full of it last week off the forum where I had a spell of fearing for my life,,but that's another story. I shall be looking at mental illness in a different light. Those poor Bambers,June and Neville suffered every time Sheila was present. I couldn't cope with that,Lugg,,never knowing the minute,it's scary.

My main thoughts are for the living,in this case,,,and my annoyance that people can't see impending violence in those who have schizophrenia. Jeremy has been dealt the worse blow of all and I feel more than utterly sorry for him being caged up for something,( to my mind ) that he took no part in.

Hi Lookout

There's much evidence to suggest that SC also suffered in June's presence.  The following are some examples:

Dr F's wit stats

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6191

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6193

"She said she felt as if she was caught up in a "coven of evil".  These feelings appeared to be involved with her relationship with her adoptive mother and her standards of good and evil".

"She did see that Mrs Bamber was a threat to her, and did not want to visit the BAMBERS at their farm in Essex.  Sheila felt that Mrs Bamber had been over-protective towards her and found it difficult to express warm feelings towards her".

"In hindsight I believe that Sheila would have relapsed into a state of psychosis, probably having a firmly held belief or delusion involving concepts of good and evil, and certainly paranoid, possibly involving her mother."

"Both June and Sheila suffered dillusional states of religion and Sheila's illness was influenced by her mother although I do not think the illnesses were caused by the same problem."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=6197

"I also treated Sheila's adopted mother, Mrs June BAMBER at St Andrew's Hospital, Northants.  I can say that June after sufferingt a long period of childlessness was examined and eventually an ovarian cyst was removed.  She made a decision to adopt and having done this suffered severe depressions.  This was around 1959.  She required ECT as an in-patient and made a full recover.

Farhad Emani (Freddie) wit stats:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=214

"She also had a deep dislike of her stepmother who apparently kept quoting religion at her.  This would upset Sheila and annoy her".

"She would not discuss all her problems, although whenever she visited her father, she would return even more depressed because of her stepmother.  Apparently the stepmother would preach to her about her boyfriends and how it was wrong that she should make love with them and Sheila should remember GOD.  She gradually detoriated until about three weeks before her first breakdown, Nicholas fell out of a taxi when she was returning from her parents.  She blamed herself for this because she was not concentrating on what the children were doing only on Mother's religious rantings".

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=216

"Whilst I was there she telephoned Tara, a close friend.  She was apologising to Tara for a Religious book that her step mother had dropped off at Tara's house a couple of days previously".

"She kept talking about the Devil and God, and stated that God was sitting opposite her and unlike what her stepmother said he in fact loved her".

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=218

"Had it just been her Stepmother who had been killed I could accept it as she disliked her intensely but to think she has killed her father and children is difficult to comprehend".

CC's Letter Intended For NB

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1482.0;attach=7232

"I will not allow her to fuck up the minds of my children in the way I suspect she has your daughters.  I am sorry to be so blunt but that is restrained compared to how I really feel".

Excerpt From Claire Powell's book

Sheila made it clear to her friends that her precarious state of her personal equilibrium stemmed largely from her peculiar relationship with June.  She was morbidly sensitive to any hint of disapproval from her mother.  It was a theme she reverted to constantly.  'She talked about her mother and her background' said Sonja.  'She told me that she and her mother didn't get on.  Sheila told me many times that she could not talk to her mother at all, that there was no form of communication between them.  She  said her mother was never happy with her or with what she did. 

[nugnug]

had she actully been proscribed sleeping tablets that would be a clue.

[Daniel_day]

Hi Daniel

thanks for your reply.  I don't know who examined Jeremy Bamber I just read he had been assessed 27 times and found not to be a psychopath.  If indeed he is a psychopath is this a condition a person is born with and if so we therefore should show some sympathy towards him as he would not have been responsible for his actions.  Do you know if Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper was a psychopath or can a person just be plain evil I have often wondered if a person can be born evil.  Same with the two lads who murdered Jamie Bulger just for a laugh and something to do were they born evil and can such behaviour be cured. I would appreciate your comments on this Daniel as I am totally in the dark on this subject.

Wow! so many interesting questions tonight!. I can see Susan that you have a real thirst for knowledge. I really respect that.
OK I'll try to answer best I can. I am no expert, I have only learned a little on my course. Psychopathy is a lifelong condition although most seem to 'mellow' with age. There is a debate raging at the moment as to whether psychopaths are made and not born and vice versa. Most agree that psychopaths exhib a series of disturbances during their childhood, which may cause them to shut off their emotions completely. For example; American serial killer John Wayne Gacy said that he was 'beaten every day of his childhood by his drunken father and switched off emotionally" This had the effect of him closing of his emotions so he would 'hurt anymore or feel emotional shame' However, some cite that there are many examples of psychopaths having a perfectly normal childhood in terms of a stable, loving family and environment. Serial murderer and psychopath Jeffery Dahmer said that he had 'an idyllic childhood where his parents loved him" but Dahmer developed psychopathic tendencies from a  very young age. I think, Susan the answer to your question lies somewhere in between these two examples. Yes some are born, but also, some, with the right triggers do become psychopaths due to childhood emotional trauma. Once it has developed, it cannot be reversed. It is a bit like saying, "change your entire personality and stop being you" we know that it is virtually impossible. We are what we are. I hope I have in some way answered you question.
Great question again and thanks for asking.

[susan]

Daniel thanks for answering my questions it would appear that the two boys who murdered 2 year Jamie Bulger one of them had a good childhood the other did not so the fact they were both released from prison the Authorities must think they can be cured as it is not normal behaviour to torture and kill an innocent child as they did for fun he was only 2 years old .Peter Sutcliffe I fear was inadequate as a man and that made him commit the crimes he did don't think he heard voices at all.  The mind is a very interesting thing to study and I can fully understand why you are doing so.