Bamber's 1985 claim that Sheila committed child abuse:

[Adam]

Bamber told Liz Rimmington 'I'm the only one who knew Sheila was going back into the nut house'.

This is surely another lie. As both Neville and June would know before him. How would Bamber know ? There is no guarantee Neville and June would tell him.

Was there any evidence that Sheila was going to be hospitalised again ?

[scipio_usmc]

No, its not the same, MM was released and police never bothered him again, but in Sheila Caaffels case, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents continued to be involved in the lives of Sheila and her two children for years afterwards, suggesting that there may well have been abuse of the children in this particular case...

The child protection case was closed they were not monitoring her and the kids.  That she used social services of finding jobs and other purposes is not in any way related to the issue of whether being monitored by a child protection agency. In many ways being monitored by a child protection agency is equivalent to the parole process.  They meet periodically and can stop by when they desire...

[mike tesko]

The child protection case was closed they were not monitoring her and the kids.  That she used social services of finding jobs and other purposes is not in any way related to the issue of whether being monitored by a child protection agency. In many ways being monitored by a child protection agency is equivalent to the parole process.  They meet periodically and can stop by when they desire... Where does it mention that involvement of the Social services, social workers, foster Carers, foster parents had been terminated, and the case of protection was ended by the time of the shootings? There is no evidence of official closure, so how do you work that out? The care and safety of childrens lives and upbringing involves on ongoing process that once started does not automaticcaly come to an end when the child victims reach 6 years of age...

[scipio_usmc]

Where does it mention that involvement of the Social services, social workers, foster Carers, foster parents had been terminated, and the case of protection was ended by the time of the shootings? There is no evidence of official closure, so how do you work that out? The care and safety of childrens lives and upbringing involves on ongoing process that once started does not automaticcaly come to an end when the child victims reach 6 years of age...

The case was closed in December 1982.

[lookout]

Yes,I would imagine that Neville chased the interfering busybodies as their presence wouldn't have gone down too well,him being a magistrate and all that.
On the other hand,because the Bambers weren't aware of EVERYTHING because of Sheila living in London,they'd also not have been aware of the odd outburst either,although I would have thought that latterly " Freddie " would have put them in the picture as he'd visited WHF on a couple of occasions.

I liken Sheila to the late Princess Diana at times as both had stifled lives,controlled and even she threw hissy fits but it didn't mean that she was either mentally ill or unbalanced,and her life came to a sticky end with someone who NOBODY approved of.

[guest154]

The case was closed in December 1982.

I think a lot of the problem is people not caring that social services closed the case because they didn't find anything.
Social services are in investigative organisation, them being involved doesn't mean any harm has been caused or anyone is guilty of anything.

But then again I think its easy to throw around words like "social services" "medical records" etc when it comes to Sheila, to create a big story.

Ignoring the fact that the case was closed.

[nugnug]

Lets get the facts right, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents did not get involved in the lives of Sheila Caffell and her two young Children, for nothing. She was ill, and probably abused her children through being unwell mentally. Essex police gathered an abundance of evidence in support of this matter, most of which, if not all of it was deliberately withheld until after the trial in October 1986...

it means they suspected it it doesnt neccarsly mean it happend.

[nugnug]

I think a lot of the problem is people not caring that social services closed the case because they didn't find anything.
Social services are in investigative organisation, them being involved doesn't mean any harm has been caused or anyone is guilty of anything.

But then again I think its easy to throw around words like "social services" "medical records" etc when it comes to Sheila, to create a big story.

Ignoring the fact that the case was closed.

well they get it wrong a lot both ways.

cases are wrongly closed somtimes.

[guest154]

well they get it wrong a lot both ways.

cases are wrongly closed somtimes.

So? Got any evidence THIS one was? No.

[lookout]

But many were. Baby P and Victoria Climbie to name 2. Children weren't at risk !! They never are !!

[nugnug]

what that socail servises get things wrong and wrongly close cases somtimes do you read the newspapers.

ever heard of tracy right baby p victoria climbe the islington child abuse scandel.

[Jane]

what that socail servises get things wrong and wrongly close cases somtimes do you read the newspapers.

ever heard of tracy right baby p victoria climbe the islington child abuse scandel.

But many were. Baby P and Victoria Climbie to name 2. Children weren't at risk !! They never are !!

Funny how, the FEW times they get it wrong and they're hounded up hill and down dale, but they're ignored for the MANY times they get it right. MOST human beings DON'T get it right 100% of the time.

[nugnug]

but we all know they somtimes get it wrong so the fact they closed the case doesnt necasrly mean a lot.


of somtimes they get it wrong the other way and wrongly acuse people.

[Adam]

Funny how, the FEW times they get it wrong and they're hounded up hill and down dale, but they're ignored for the MANY times they get it right. MOST human beings DON'T get it right 100% of the time.

A bit like the police.

[lookout]

All because social services lack the ability to see past a person's denials.