Author Topic: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber  (Read 18559 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tyler

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #150 on: July 15, 2014, 04:41:AM »
According to BW and Jean Boutell,a couple of days before the murders Sheila had told them "all people are evil and should be killed". If it is "bogus" as you put it,then take it up with AE as it is contained in one of her statements. And Sheila was not over sedated at the time of the murders. She was due another injection after having only had half her required dose weeks before.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #151 on: July 15, 2014, 05:02:AM »
According to BW and Jean Boutell,a couple of days before the murders Sheila had told them "all people are evil and should be killed". If it is "bogus" as you put it,then take it up with AE as it is contained in one of her statements. And Sheila was not over sedated at the time of the murders. She was due another injection after having only had half her required dose weeks before.

Today we know that 100MG is the maximum safe dosage for Haldol.  Her inital 200MG was way too high.  The reduction to 100MG was still considered too high per Ferguson.  He said that the things she experienced were a sign of being over sedated meaning the dosage was too high.  She was not taking any countering agent to the Haldol, among other things the counter is to counter the sedative properties.   Also per Ferguson the injection woudl last 6 weeks so it was not wearing off.

This statement contains these assessments:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #152 on: July 15, 2014, 07:16:AM »
Easter 1985 according to her statements.


I have not revised anything.  I noted prviously that her monthly injections were given BEFORE the last injection would have worn off thus she was never in a position of being unmedicated.  How does pointing out the exact provision that formed the basis of my position change anything? 

This refutes the claims of those who say she was not medicated at the time of the murders and that her medication had already worn off because she got her last injection almost a month earlier.

There is nothing ambiguous in saying he never viewed her as a threat to herself or anyone else.  There is nothing ambiguous in saying he never felt she could harm her family.  There is nothing ambiguous about saying when she wa son her medicaiton she was a different person and was fine.  There is nothing ambiguous in saying that she had the signs of being over medicated and that such would have made her even less capable of physically carrying out the murders.

All the things I pointed out seriously undermine the claim that she would have been capable of the murders and definitely carried out the murders. I didn't even mention how he undermined the alleged motive because he said Sheila would have welcomed part time foster care as she did in the past.

As I said before mental issues can't overcome the lack of physical evidence that she killed anyone and evidence that she could not have killed herself.  But on the mental issues alone the defense even loses.

When do schizophrenics attack others or commit suicide as a result of their ailment?  1) When they stop their medication 2) BEFORE they undergo successful treatment or 3) when under the influence of narcotics/alcohol.  Do all schizophrenics physically attack others or commit suicide when they are having delusions?  NO!  A small percentage do and thatere are signs when someone is at risk of doing so.  Sheila was assessed as not being at risk for such and there is ZERO evidence of her trying to attack anyone or trying to commit suicide while having delusions.  Did she physically assault Freddie?  No he was scared she would do so but she didn't.  In the meantime she had delusions of him being the devil and that was because she stopped her medication and was doing narcotics.

Since Ferguson saw her as no threat to her faily and this is very damaging to the claims of Jeremy supporters they go through his statements looking for things to twist and say well in 1983 she admitted that prior to her treatment had delusions about her kids and admitted to having suicidal thoughts at time.  Ignored is that he assessed she was not viewed as being at risk of acting upon such thoughts.  No doubt part of the reaosn why is because even though she had such thoughts she had not acted upon them though she had not been undergoing any treatment to deal with her problem.  But also the fact she stopped having such thought after treatment played in as well.  After being treated she stopped having delusions about her family.  Even when she stopped taking her medication and relapsed
she didn't have any delusions about her family.  She was out of control according to Freddie but as soon as Nevill appeared and talked to her she became coherent.   

Her dcotor said she responded well to her treatment, that treatment was via injection so no chance of her missing her medication anymore and after being placed on such medication the best any supporter could come up with as an example of her having issues was to say she flipped out at encountering a stranger in the house.  Most women scream if they suddenly encounter a stranger in their house trying to blame that on her illness demonstrates how little Jeremy supporters really have that such has to be stressed.

The only thing that people who knew her noticed after she came out of treatment was that she had found God and bonded with June over religion and that she was hard to communicate with because she talked very slowly, was often vacant and unusually tired so had been going to bed early.  These are all signs or being over sedated and make it less likely not more liekly for her to have been capable of the murders. 

Last after supposedly being told about the boys being placed in part time foster care she had little reaction and that is according to Jeremy.  Her aunt spoke to her afterwards and she was calm and quiet again rather vacant and went to bed because she was tired. If she didn't react strongly when it was raised then why would she wake up people to kill them?  Why would she be threatened by part time foster help anyway?  Her doctor said she would not be threated by this because she would not view it as her children being taken away. Being overmedicated she would be unlikely to wake up on her own anyway let alone wake up and want to hurt anyone.

At the end of the day there is zilch for the defense to use to establish Sheila would have been likely to harm her family and commit suicide.  Worse there is no evidence she did the unlikely.  Not  ashred of physical evidence to suggest she shot everyone else and beat Nevill.  In particular beating Nevill would have resulted in physical evidence being on her including being injured during the struggle. Last the evidence proves she can't have killed herself.

This is not a close case.  That is why in our debates you can't come up with anything except frustration.




And you accuse ME of only using parts of a statement which work for me!!!!! There IS no ambiguity in what YOU have posted from the statement. The ambiguity lays in what I posted of it where he reveals his concerns about what she MIGHT be capable of under certain circumstances.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #153 on: July 15, 2014, 07:51:AM »
According to BW and Jean Boutell,a couple of days before the murders Sheila had told them "all people are evil and should be killed". If it is "bogus" as you put it,then take it up with AE as it is contained in one of her statements. And Sheila was not over sedated at the time of the murders. She was due another injection after having only had half her required dose weeks before.
Today we know that 100MG is the maximum safe dosage for Haldol.  Her inital 200MG was way too high.  The reduction to 100MG was still considered too high per Ferguson.  He said that the things she experienced were a sign of being over sedated meaning the dosage was too high.  She was not taking any countering agent to the Haldol, among other things the counter is to counter the sedative properties.   Also per Ferguson the injection woudl last 6 weeks so it was not wearing off.

This statement contains these assessments:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html


But you haven't addressed the point that shortly before she died, Sheila said "All people are evil and should be killed."

No-Bits

  • Guest
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #154 on: July 15, 2014, 07:56:AM »

But you haven't addressed the point that shortly before she died, Sheila said "All people are evil and should be killed."

It's up there with Jeremy saying that he "could easily kill his parents" isn't it?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #155 on: July 15, 2014, 08:01:AM »
It's up there with Jeremy saying that he "could easily kill his parents" isn't it?



And both statements were witnessed by others, weren't they?

No-Bits

  • Guest
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #156 on: July 15, 2014, 08:03:AM »


And both statements were witnessed by others, weren't they?

As opposed to?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #157 on: July 15, 2014, 08:07:AM »

No-Bits

  • Guest
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #158 on: July 15, 2014, 08:14:AM »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #159 on: July 15, 2014, 08:33:AM »
Today we know that 100MG is the maximum safe dosage for Haldol.  Her inital 200MG was way too high.  The reduction to 100MG was still considered too high per Ferguson.  He said that the things she experienced were a sign of being over sedated meaning the dosage was too high.  She was not taking any countering agent to the Haldol, among other things the counter is to counter the sedative properties.   Also per Ferguson the injection woudl last 6 weeks so it was not wearing off.

This statement contains these assessments:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html





So it's normal to have delusions about your little boys wanting to seduce you ??

If I remember rightly,there was a furore about the drastic reduction in the Haldol. This was the danger,because it should have been a gradual process,only carried out if there is an improvement in the condition. There wasn't ! Sheilas' condition was chronic and had deteriorated.

None of us were there at the clinic to see her behaviour with the staff when she proved difficult to manage on her last stay in March 1985, saying that they were trying to poison her.
It was after this stay of a couple of months that religion became another part of her life,and her friends worried that it would revert back to her younger years of struggling between good and evil.
This was to become a disturbing force between herself and her mother,and the pattern was repeated.
Sheila,nor her mother were happy about Sheila recuperating at WHF because the atmosphere at the farmhouse with both women at eat others throats.
There was great relief on both sides when Sheila returned home to Maida Vale,but sadly,Sheila took a lot of bitterness with her towards BOTH parents.

Sheila told her friend Sonja that she was very angry towards her parents because of their attitudes towards her after having been ill,and that her mother wasn't listening to Sheilas' complaints,instead,arranging to be sent here or there in order to recover then the " problem " would be solved.
Sadly,Sheila had wanted to see her friend for a talk,but Sonja at the time was busy,,then a month later,Sheila was dead.

I can read between the lines even if nobody else can !! 

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #160 on: July 15, 2014, 09:21:AM »
It's up there with Jeremy saying that he "could easily kill his parents" isn't it?
Alleged, by someone who despised him.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #161 on: July 15, 2014, 09:48:AM »
The more Scipio posts----the more convincing of Jeremys' innocence. It pleases me. ;D

Offline tyler

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #162 on: July 15, 2014, 11:02:AM »
Indeed Graham. RWB had an agenda and there were no witnesses,whereas BW and Jean B did not,and had each other as witnesses.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #163 on: July 15, 2014, 11:09:AM »
Nothing like having your friends as witnesses,and to add to that,the trial at Chelmsford was handy too ! ???

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #164 on: July 15, 2014, 11:24:AM »
Indeed Graham. RWB had an agenda and there were no witnesses,whereas BW and Jean B did not,and had each other as witnesses.
Bamber was a very naive young man and therefore very easily taken advantage of by the wolves of the family who were from the very beginning out to get him so to speak. Those wolves and other wolf packs are still out to savage him. Not content in seeing him already behind bars they continue as some kind of verocious beasts to tear away at him. He himself has said very little compared to their violent rantings. I personally am thoroughly disgusted at the behaviour of these people who parade up and down in their ivory towers. I sometimes wonder what secrets they themselves hide behind closed doors?