What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[Alias]

Caroline, I believe Haloperidol is the same now - as is the case with most of the "old" drugs. The difference from then to now is that now they are administered more carefyully, and perhaps with other meds to counter the side effects.
I am too tired to pummel through any more medical stuff today!

[scipio_usmc]

Ah! But according to scipio the murderer doesn't need to be a crack shot or even a particularly good shot. Now what can we say about this contradiction within the guilty camp?

You don't need to be a crack shot to land rounds at close range. You have to be a competent shot merely.  If there were 1-2 shots in each head or heart that instantly killed the victim and that was all that was needed then that would be indication of more competence than what occurred which was shots to various locations that didn't cause severe injuries so 3 plus rounds were needed for most victims.

Nor is there any informaiton that Jeremy was a crack shot.  The tesimony was that he didn't have much more interest in guns than Sheila and didn't go shooting vermin or anything else.  He admitted he learned how to load and fire the murder weapon but that hardly makes him a marskman with it.  He didn't even know that chambering a round is not cocking the weapon.  He seems to have learned the bare minimum needed to operate it for the murders.  He didn't even remember how many bullets the magazine held when questioned.

He picked a gun not because he liked them and was great with them, it was better than his fire plan.  So he thought anyway, it turned out the house did have valuable antiques.  Tying to start a fire without it looking like arson has its own challenges though anyway.

A knife probably would have been a better tool to suggest Sheila did it.  But knives require more effort to kill, are much more personal to use and much more bloody so more chance of someone stopping you or leaving evidence behind to get caught.
 
Aside from no evidence Sheila would know how to use the murder weapon, she had the added problem of being on medication that made it harder for her to load and operate it.  The dexterity issues make it harder to shoot straight.  Being shorter she also would have been more likely to shoot in an upward trajectory if anyone were standing when shot. 

These are all considerations not determinitive in saying something is impossible. They affect likelihood.

 

[Alias]

Alias, I'm SO sorry, I wasn't testing YOUR knowledge, I was questioning Scipio. I have consulted a psychiatrist friend and she bears out my own assertion that it is HIGHLY DANGEROUS to quickly reduce anti psychotics. It has to be done in slow stages and monitored.

I didn´t think you did, April!

[Jane]

As far as I can see from what I have read, higher dosage is still used in heavier cases, where the patient´s symptoms don´t diminish on lower dosage - up to 300mg in four weeks is the highest reported. At least up to 2008.
Also, it is still very dangerous to HALVE the dose - it is extremely dangerous to do that without monitoring the patient closely. Sheila got her dose halved and was not monitored at all. She was apparently "fine" for a period of time. Haldol injections peak six days after injection, then gradually wear off - halving time about 21 days, which means that Sheila was down on a dangerous less than a quarter of effect, since her last injection had been halved.
Very, very dangerous.

Alias, it also occurs to me that if the dose was so unimportant WHY did Dr F stipulate 150mg? Arguing that 100mg is equally as effective as 200mg ISN'T the point. A consultant set the dose and a locum countermanded his decision.

[Alias]

Alias, it also occurs to me that if the dose was so unimportant WHY did Dr F stipulate 150mg? Arguing that 100mg is equally as effective as 200mg ISN'T the point. A consultant set the dose and a locum countermanded his decision.

I believe Dr. Ferguson stated that he was very upset by this, that he found it highly irresponsible. Which it was.

[Jane]

I believe Dr. Ferguson stated that he was very upset by this, that he found it highly irresponsible. Which it was.

But to my knowledge, it wasn't fully explored in court. I have put questions "out there" and the response was along the lines of "ranks become closed."

[Alias]

But to my knowledge, it wasn't fully explored in court. I have put questions "out there" and the response was along the lines of "ranks become closed."

I can believe that!

[maggie]

Alias, I'm SO sorry, I wasn't testing YOUR knowledge, I was questioning Scipio. I have consulted a psychiatrist friend and she bears out my own assertion that it is HIGHLY DANGEROUS to quickly reduce anti psychotics. It has to be done in slow stages and monitored.

Well we know that it is highly dangerous for psychotic people to reduce or stop their dose of antipsychotic drugs and one of the dangers of doing this is that it can cause suicide attempts and in some cases violent attacks on others or both
 What difference is there between a patient choosing to lower or stop their dose or a professional.  All such changes in drug doses of these powerful and necessary drugs should be closely monitored for that reasons alone.

[Jane]

Well we know that it is highly dangerous for psychotic people to reduce or stop their dose of antipsychotic drugs and one of the dangers of doing this is that it can cause suicide attempts and in some cases violent attacks on others or both
 What difference is there between a patient choosing to lower or stop their dose or a professional.  All such changes in drug doses of these powerful and necessary drugs should be closely monitored for that reasons alone.

Maggie, that is absolutely correct. We Know that someone who is SO depressed that they can't even get out of bed is unlikely to commit suicide because suicide require an energy they simply DON'T have. The danger period is when they feel just a little bit better, something which CAN be achieved by making drastic reductions in their medication  and not monitoring them.

[scipio_usmc]

Alias, it also occurs to me that if the dose was so unimportant WHY did Dr F stipulate 150mg? Arguing that 100mg is equally as effective as 200mg ISN'T the point. A consultant set the dose and a locum countermanded his decision.

At that time they didn't know that 100MG and 200MG had the same efficacy.  At that time they didn't start off at 50MG like is typically the case today.  The studies that I cited and the prescribing instructions are from well after the conviction.  Science doesn't stand still so we have to always keep looking at the most modern scientific data available. 

[scipio_usmc]

Well we know that it is highly dangerous for psychotic people to reduce or stop their dose of antipsychotic drugs and one of the dangers of doing this is that it can cause suicide attempts and in some cases violent attacks on others or both
 What difference is there between a patient choosing to lower or stop their dose or a professional.  All such changes in drug doses of these powerful and necessary drugs should be closely monitored for that reasons alone.

The danger is reducing it to a level that is ineffective.  So they reduce it slowly and monitor to make sure that it is not reduced to a level that is not working anymore. 

At the time of the murders they had no idea that anything above 100MG was essentially worthless.

Today Ferguson would not have started her out at 200MG he would have started her at 50-100 and after some time would try seeing if a 20% reduction from that point lost effectiveness or not to try to ascertain the minimum amount needed to keep her from relapsing. 

Keeping someone on doasges above 100MG is not considered safe and was reduced because of the problems it and the countering agent were causing her.  She was doing better after the reduction than before and the reduction was to the optimal efficacy level.

The most simplistic explanation of schizophrenia is that it caused by overactivity of dopamine in the brain. Haloperidol blocks the receptors that dopamine act upon thus preventing overactivity of dopamine in the brain. This is how it keeps psychotic illness at bay. 

The goal is to find the minimum level of Haloperidol necessary to block the overactivity.  It must be monitored because if you go too low then you will find it is not working and then realizeneed to go back up to the previous level.  That is how you determine the ideal amount.

Since 200 MG doesn't prevent more activity than 100MG it is not really of any value so far as controlling the illness and dropping form 200G to 100MG is not going to suddenly enable overactivity to take place again.

If there is going to be withdrawal issues they would surface shortly after the time of the reduction not 3 weeks later.  Haloperidol controls aggression and agitation.  100MG does so quite well.  If she were going to become aggressive because of withdrawal it would not have waited until 3 weeks later for such to surface. It would not be likely anyway since 100MG is the optimal efficacy dosage.

 

 

[Jane]

The danger is reducing it to a level that is ineffective.  So they reduce it slowly and monitor to make sure that it is not reduced to a level that is not working anymore. 

At the time of the murders they had no idea that anything above 100MG was essentially worthless.

Today Ferguson would not have started her out at 200MG he would have started her at 50-100 and after some time would try seeing if a 20% reduction from that point lost effectiveness or not to try to ascertain the minimum amount needed to keep her from relapsing. 

Keeping someone on doasges above 100MG is not considered safe and was reduced because of the problems it and the countering agent were causing her.  She was doing better after the reduction than before and the reduction was to the optimal efficacy level.

The most simplistic explanation of schizophrenia is that it caused by overactivity of dopamine in the brain. Haloperidol blocks the receptors that dopamine act upon thus preventing overactivity of dopamine in the brain. This is how it keeps psychotic illness at bay. 

The goal is to find the minimum level of Haloperidol necessary to block the overactivity.  It must be monitored because if you go too low then you will find it is not working and then realizeneed to go back up to the previous level.  That is how you determine the ideal amount.

Since 200 MG doesn't prevent more activity than 100MG it is not really of any value so far as controlling the illness and dropping form 200G to 100MG is not going to suddenly enable overactivity to take place again.

If there is going to be withdrawal issues they would surface shortly after the time of the reduction not 3 weeks later.  Haloperidol controls aggression and agitation.  100MG does so quite well.  If she were going to become aggressive because of withdrawal it would not have waited until 3 weeks later for such to surface. It would not be likely anyway since 100MG is the optimal efficacy dosage.

 

 

Scipio, good morning. Sorry, but you can argue your point until you're blue in the face but it is hypothetical. What is accepted now as the norm was unheard of in 1985. Further, whilst you do an excellent job of posting FACTS, you seem to ignore that we're talking about SHEILA, and whilst you tell us -constantly- that 200mg is no more effective than 100mg, you're entirely missing the point that THIS WAS NOT KNOWN so it doesn't apply AND a locum with no more knowledge of Sheila than she read -or NOT- on her notes, countermanded the directions given by a consultant.

By the way, I think the way you dismissed us on red a pretty scummy thing to to. Most of us here don't have problems with you and most of us have been courteous and welcoming even if we don't agree with you. You're not. IMO, the last word in legal knowledge and what you say is just your opinion, to which you're entitled, but it doesn't make you right.

[maggie]

The danger is reducing it to a level that is ineffective.  So they reduce it slowly and monitor to make sure that it is not reduced to a level that is not working anymore. 

At the time of the murders they had no idea that anything above 100MG was essentially worthless.

Today Ferguson would not have started her out at 200MG he would have started her at 50-100 and after some time would try seeing if a 20% reduction from that point lost effectiveness or not to try to ascertain the minimum amount needed to keep her from relapsing. 

Keeping someone on doasges above 100MG is not considered safe and was reduced because of the problems it and the countering agent were causing her.  She was doing better after the reduction than before and the reduction was to the optimal efficacy level.

The most simplistic explanation of schizophrenia is that it caused by overactivity of dopamine in the brain. Haloperidol blocks the receptors that dopamine act upon thus preventing overactivity of dopamine in the brain. This is how it keeps psychotic illness at bay. 

The goal is to find the minimum level of Haloperidol necessary to block the overactivity.  It must be monitored because if you go too low then you will find it is not working and then realizeneed to go back up to the previous level.  That is how you determine the ideal amount.

Since 200 MG doesn't prevent more activity than 100MG it is not really of any value so far as controlling the illness and dropping form 200G to 100MG is not going to suddenly enable overactivity to take place again.

If there is going to be withdrawal issues they would surface shortly after the time of the reduction not 3 weeks later.  Haloperidol controls aggression and agitation.  100MG does so quite well.  If she were going to become aggressive because of withdrawal it would not have waited until 3 weeks later for such to surface. It would not be likely anyway since 100MG is the optimal efficacy dosage.   

I understand what you are saying but this doesn't include an explanation of the effects of halving a high dose of Haloperidol without monitoring the effects on Sheila.  Whatever is stated by guilters there is plenty of information to tell us Sheila was suffering from psychosis generally.  She was regularly smoking cannabis which increases dopamine in various parts of the brain and creates psychosis which would interrupt the treatment of haloperidol.  As the dose of haloperidol was halved and Sheila was due her next injection in a few days time the levels in her body would be low allowing the cannabis to have a stronger psychotic effect on her.  I don't know but as we are making some assumptions I would assume that Sheila was possibly smoking cannabis quite heavily during her stay at the farm as she found these visits stressful, had discovered any hope of a reunion with Colin was now hopeless and her meeting with her adoptive mother shortly before had at the least been disappointing.

Some of Sheila's behaviour the few days she was at the farm before they all died was a cause for concern, running screaming from the monastery, attacking a visitor to the farm and even her withdrawn and unresponsive behaviour reported by Pamela Boutflour the night of the murders are all signs of psychosis.  We know June was very worried about Sheila's behaviour because she said as much to Pamela and was concerned enough to state she wanted to speak to her about it the following day.

[lookout]

I understand what you are saying but this doesn't include an explanation of the effects of halving a high dose of Haloperidol without monitoring the effects on Sheila.  Whatever is stated by guilters there is plenty of information to tell us Sheila was suffering from psychosis generally.  She was regularly smoking cannabis which increases dopamine in various parts of the brain and creates psychosis which would interrupt the treatment of haloperidol.  As the dose of haloperidol was halved and Sheila was due her next injection in a few days time the levels in her body would be low allowing the cannabis to have a stronger psychotic effect on her.  I don't know but as we are making some assumptions I would assume that Sheila was possibly smoking cannabis quite heavily during her stay at the farm as she found these visits stressful, had discovered any hope of a reunion with Colin was now hopeless and her meeting with her adoptive mother shortly before had at the least been disappointing.

Some of Sheila's behaviour the few days she was at the farm before they all died was a cause for concern, running screaming from the monastery, attacking a visitor to the farm and even her withdrawn and unresponsive behaviour reported by Pamela Boutflour the night of the murders are all signs of psychosis.  We know June was very worried about Sheila's behaviour because she said as much to Pamela and was concerned enough to state she wanted to speak to her about it the following day.

Correct,Maggie. Absorption of cannabis and the other noxious substances would have been a lot quicker on account of Sheila having been a lightweight.

Only last week not far from where I am,,a young man had climbed up a pretty big tree,saying he was being chased and followed,,then threatened to jump. He had a chainsaw ! The road had to be closed,and there were police,ambulances and fire engines. As you can guess,,the chap was a heavy cannabis smoker.He was screaming,,poor poor fellow.However after about an hour,,he was rescued and taken to hospital. I have thoughts of what that chap would have done IF someone were chasing him,,and with a chain-saw in his hands.Doesn't bear thinking,,but it would have been a dangerous situation.

[Caroline]

At that time they didn't know that 100MG and 200MG had the same efficacy.  At that time they didn't start off at 50MG like is typically the case today.  The studies that I cited and the prescribing instructions are from well after the conviction.  Science doesn't stand still so we have to always keep looking at the most modern scientific data available.

If you provide the source to these studies people can decide if they want to pay to read them or just read the abstract which is usually free.