Author Topic: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:  (Read 14026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #180 on: January 07, 2017, 04:36:PM »
That describes SOME bi-polar sufferers, not ALL.




Without medication they're all deadly. They're the most likeliest to kill rather than schizophrenics. This is why I've always been doubtful of Sheila's diagnosis,including the medication. You've got to admit,it wasn't doing her any good was it ? There was nothing consistent about her moods,they were either high or low and she must have felt really terrible,hence her request to lower the strength of her injection. Anyone who's " out of it " doesn't notice these things. Sheila wasn't stupid.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #181 on: January 07, 2017, 04:56:PM »



Without medication they're all deadly. They're the most likeliest to kill rather than schizophrenics. This is why I've always been doubtful of Sheila's diagnosis,including the medication. You've got to admit,it wasn't doing her any good was it ? There was nothing consistent about her moods,they were either high or low and she must have felt really terrible,hence her request to lower the strength of her injection. Anyone who's " out of it " doesn't notice these things. Sheila wasn't stupid.

Those I've known have sunk so low during the low phase that they've not had the energy to get out of bed. During the high phase, they've been busy/hyper active/talking quickly/laughing loudly. I've never known anyone to hallucinate. Sheila went in to the hospital, the second time, unmedicated. She was quite verbal, probably incoherent, but it's never been said that she was violent to anyone. I point blank REFUSE to accept that her spats with Colin were the result of mental illness.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #182 on: January 07, 2017, 05:44:PM »
Those I've known have sunk so low during the low phase that they've not had the energy to get out of bed. During the high phase, they've been busy/hyper active/talking quickly/laughing loudly. I've never known anyone to hallucinate. Sheila went in to the hospital, the second time, unmedicated. She was quite verbal, probably incoherent, but it's never been said that she was violent to anyone. I point blank REFUSE to accept that her spats with Colin were the result of mental illness.





Okay,so by refusing to accept that her display of tantrums were due to mental illness confirms my own argument that there was NOTHING wrong with Sheila on the night that she killed her family,as she'd have been perfectly aware of what she was about to do and certainly had the strength to do it without being drugged-up to the hilt,when she otherwise would have been if she hadn't refused the full quota of Haldol.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #183 on: January 07, 2017, 05:45:PM »



Without medication they're all deadly. They're the most likeliest to kill rather than schizophrenics. This is why I've always been doubtful of Sheila's diagnosis,including the medication. You've got to admit,it wasn't doing her any good was it ? There was nothing consistent about her moods,they were either high or low and she must have felt really terrible,hence her request to lower the strength of her injection. Anyone who's " out of it " doesn't notice these things. Sheila wasn't stupid.

She was medicated, hence why she was sedated.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #184 on: January 07, 2017, 05:55:PM »
She was medicated, hence why she was sedated.




Certainly not fully medicated as she'd been due another injection in a matter of days.Nothing else in her system that indicated that she would have been heavily sedated.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #185 on: January 07, 2017, 06:05:PM »



Certainly not fully medicated as she'd been due another injection in a matter of days.Nothing else in her system that indicated that she would have been heavily sedated.

It doesn't run out like that Lookout and should know that more than most!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #186 on: January 07, 2017, 06:10:PM »




Okay,so by refusing to accept that her display of tantrums were due to mental illness confirms my own argument that there was NOTHING wrong with Sheila on the night that she killed her family,as she'd have been perfectly aware of what she was about to do and certainly had the strength to do it without being drugged-up to the hilt,when she otherwise would have been if she hadn't refused the full quota of Haldol.

B****Y Hell, Lookout, you don't much care whether Sheila was sane or insane, do you. You're just determined that she, not Jeremy, killed her family!!! You speak as if her "tantrums" as you so sickeningly call them, had happened the previous week. They were probably as a reaction to Colin screwing around whilst the were STILL married, which they hadn't been for years.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #187 on: January 07, 2017, 06:18:PM »
B****Y Hell, Lookout, you don't much care whether Sheila was sane or insane, do you. You're just determined that she, not Jeremy, killed her family!!! You speak as if her "tantrums" as you so sickeningly call them, had happened the previous week. They were probably as a reaction to Colin screwing around whilst the were STILL married, which they hadn't been for years.





Domestics then.
What's " sickening " about a tantrum ? Sounds more normal ( because Sheila was ) than a psychotic episode.

No wonder she threw things at CC,going behind her back on her wedding night. EVERY woman would be screeching.Not all are called psychotics because of it.It's a normal/natural reaction to how you're feeling and it carried on like that with Sheila as people around her got on her nerves.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #188 on: January 07, 2017, 06:20:PM »
B****Y Hell, Lookout, you don't much care whether Sheila was sane or insane, do you. You're just determined that she, not Jeremy, killed her family!!! You speak as if her "tantrums" as you so sickeningly call them, had happened the previous week. They were probably as a reaction to Colin screwing around whilst the were STILL married, which they hadn't been for years.
[/quote

It may be that we are all guilty of making excuses. It's human nature once we have made our minds up to see things the way we believe them to be. No one is right or wrong in these debates because we don't have the full facts.

Maybe we should start creating new threads on other aspects of the case too. It's on the ft wesite that there was a policeman ( correct me if I'm wrong) that had indicated Jbs innocence. But wouldn't say any more. How blooming frustrating is that

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #189 on: January 07, 2017, 06:26:PM »
B****Y Hell, Lookout, you don't much care whether Sheila was sane or insane, do you. You're just determined that she, not Jeremy, killed her family!!! You speak as if her "tantrums" as you so sickeningly call them, had happened the previous week. They were probably as a reaction to Colin screwing around whilst the were STILL married, which they hadn't been for years.
[/quote

It may be that we are all guilty of making excuses. It's human nature once we have made our minds up to see things the way we believe them to be. No one is right or wrong in these debates because we don't have the full facts.

Maybe we should start creating new threads on other aspects of the case too. It's on the ft wesite that there was a policeman ( correct me if I'm wrong) that had indicated Jbs innocence. But wouldn't say any more. How blooming frustrating is that

I have no idea what the ft website is about, but I know two policemen personally who believe he's guilty......................along with all those who were personal friends of June and Nevill.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #190 on: January 07, 2017, 06:30:PM »
I have no idea what the ft website is about, but I know two policemen personally who believe he's guilty......................along with all those who were personal friends of June and Nevill.

Oh dear I think you knew full well I meant the ct website Jane. Are you being fesetious?

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #191 on: January 07, 2017, 06:30:PM »
I have no idea what the ft website is about, but I know two policemen personally who believe he's guilty......................along with all those who were personal friends of June and Nevill.

and I also know one or two policeman who also believe he is guilty

“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #192 on: January 07, 2017, 06:31:PM »
Oh dear I think you knew full well I meant the ct website Jane. Are you being fesetious?

Yes but this one was working on the case ! Not a friend of a friend etc

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #193 on: January 07, 2017, 06:34:PM »
Oh dear I think you knew full well I meant the ct website Jane. Are you being fesetious?

I had NO idea that you were referring to the CT website because I don't visit it so I can hardly be accused of being facetious.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #194 on: January 07, 2017, 06:37:PM »
Yes but this one was working on the case ! Not a friend of a friend etc

Actually, Notsure, I believe one of the men I know interviewed Jeremy. There are others, now retired, in the area, who also believe him guilty