Effects of Haloperidol

[maggie]

I think the quote about the skipping up the lane might have just come from here  - I could be wrong though.

Mmmmmm, it may have done or maybe Scott Lomax? I don't have his book to hand just now but it may have been in his book or it could have been hearsay.   

[Adam]

The only sourced information is in reply 47.

It says Sheila was 'too frail' to committ the massacre, had 'drug induced parkinism' & a week before the massacre 'couldn't get off sofa's without help'. 

[Steve_uk]

I can't find the reference anywhere. It may have been embellished from Julie and Leonard Foakes' remarks about Sheila appearing normal with the twins on the Tuesday afternoon. (2002 Appeal Point 22).

[Adam]

I can't find the reference anywhere. It may have been embellished from Julie and Leonard Foakes' remarks about Sheila appearing normal with the twins on the Tuesday afternoon. (2002 Appeal Point 22).

Len Foakes said he saw Sheila and she seemed happy.The judge said the alleged supper conversation should not be a factor as Bamber said Sheila was non responsive.

It says Halioperidol should be taken just before or after a meal. If Sheila was non responsive to the possibility of having her children taken away, she may well have taken a dose at supper.

Anyway, just before or after supper Sheila would have been oblivious to the world that night & unable to walk down the stairs.

[lookout]

Sheila hadn't taken a dose of anything. Haloperidol had been administered over 3 weeks previous,intramuscularly---------therefore not needing another dose,except medication for its side-effects,which she hadn't taken. NO medication in her body other than what remained of the Haldol.

[Adam]

Sheila hadn't taken a dose of anything. Haloperidol had been administered over 3 weeks previous,intramuscularly---------therefore not needing another dose,except medication for its side-effects,which she hadn't taken. NO medication in her body other than what remained of the Haldol.

Need to see a source. Otherwise the evidence from Bamber is that she was 'non responsive' to suggestions of having her children taken away from her. Which strongly supports the 2002 appeal saying she was under sedation.

Bamber going to supper and then ringing Julie to say 'tonights the night' may have also meant he knew Sheila was totally out of it.

[lookout]

Need to see a source. Otherwise the evidence from Bamber is that she was 'non responsive' to suggestions of having her children taken away from her.

Bamber going to supper and then ringing Julie to say 'tonights the night' may have also meant he knew Sheila was totally out of it.

You have bad memory failure ! Or a selective one !! You'll make anything up if it fits your agenda.

Let me tell you now for what it's worth-----you're on a losing battle and you're struggling !!

[Adam]

You have bad memory failure ! Or a selective one !! You'll make anything up if it fits your agenda.

Let me tell you now for what it's worth-----you're on a losing battle and you're struggling !!

So no source.

Sheila being 'non responsive' to something as emotive as having her children taken away supports the 2002 appeal saying she was under sedation. Quite possibly she had just taken Haloperidol.

To be 'non responsive' & then go 'crazy' a few hours later at 3.00am does not make sense. Once Haloperidol zonks you out, you stay zonked out.

Bamber ringing Julie for the first time in 3 days just before the massacre suggests he knew Sheila was out of it.

[Jane]

So no source.

Sheila being 'non responsive' to something as emotive as having her children taken away supports the 2002 appeal saying she was under sedation. Quite possibly she had just taken Haloperidol.

To be 'non responsive' & then go 'crazy' a few hours later at 3.00am does not make sense. Once Haloperidol zonks you out, you stay zonked out.

Bamber ringing Julie for the first time in 3 days just before the massacre suggests he knew Sheila was out of it.

See Dr Angeloglou's statement regarding monthly injections of Haloperidol.

[Adam]

See Dr Angeloglou's statement regarding monthly injections of Haloperidol.

I wish you & Lookout would post sources. I've supplied 5 on this thread. You've both got enough time to do so.

As mentioned to be 'non responsive' to something as emotive as having children taken away,  and for Bamber to ring Julie for the first time in 3 days as soon as he got home, shows he knew Sheila was there for the taking.

You can take Haloperidol orally if the injections are losing effectiveness. Either way, Sheila couldn't function if suffering from just a handful of the 30+ side effects.   

The 2002 appeal said Sheila was 'under sedation' . This together with Haloperidol highlights why Sheila couldn't get off sofa's without help.

Sheila being non responsive at supper due to sedation & Haloperidol means she would just sleep at night & would be very difficult to wake. 

[Jane]

I wish you & Lookout would post sources. I've supplied 5 on this thread. You've both got enough time to do so.

As mentioned to be 'non responsive' to something as emotive as having children taken away,  and for Bamber to ring Julie for the first time in 3 days as soon as he got home, suggests he knew Sheila was there for the taking.

The 2002 appeal said Sheila was 'under sedation' . This together with Haloperidol highlights why Sheila couldn't get off sofa's without help.

Sheila being non responsive at supper due to sedation & Haloperidol means she would just sleep at night & would be very difficult to wake. Not go crazy.

I wasn't aware that I hadn't. It was very simple. I clicked on Archive and Library then clicked on WS's and Transcripts. Lo and behold, there was Dr Angeloglou. I read what she said and passed the information to you.

I have no doubts that Sheila was non responsive. Too many have reported her -during her last fortnight- as being such, for it to be denied. However, whilst you seen to think that, on a scale of 1 to 10, Sheila measured 12, I'm more inclined to put her around 7.

[Adam]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.drugs.com/cdi/haloperidol.html&ved=0ahUKEwjJlNj0vIXTAhWLAcAKHcW9CgwQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFVuvqDcY1k0smWPRfe8kvOJc7xig


Here are 50 + side effects of Haloperidol. Some of which had already been mentioned in this thread.

If Sheila experienced 10 of these on the massacre night, (which is a small percentage), then she couldn't have functioned.

[Jane]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.drugs.com/cdi/haloperidol.html&ved=0ahUKEwjJlNj0vIXTAhWLAcAKHcW9CgwQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFVuvqDcY1k0smWPRfe8kvOJc7xig


Here are 50 + side effects of Haloperidol. Some of which had already been mentioned in this thread.

If Sheila experienced 10 of these on the massacre night, (which is a small percentage), then she couldn't have functioned.

I fail to see the point you're trying to make. You need to clarify exactly what you mean by "functioning". If the contraindications -provided with the drug- list 50 POSSIBLE side effects, there will certainly be 50 POSSIBLE side effects, but it doesn't mean that every person taking that drug will suffer them all. They MAY not suffer any. WHAT makes you think Sheila suffered 10?

[Adam]

I fail to see the point you're trying to make. You need to clarify exactly what you mean by "functioning". If the contraindications -provided with the drug- list 50 POSSIBLE side effects, there will certainly be 50 POSSIBLE side effects, but it doesn't mean that every person taking that drug will suffer them all. They MAY not suffer any. WHAT makes you think Sheila suffered 10?

I didn't say Sheila would suffer all the side effects. My suggestion of 10 is a generous suggestion & small percentagae of what Sheila could be suffering from the multiple effects of Haloperidol. This would still mean Sheila would not be able to function.

Functioning means doing basic things such as getting off sofa's without assistance. Or putting sugar in coffee. Things Sheila couldn't do. Not being able to do these things means she couldn't have committed a much more demanding massacre.

The two points of the thread I created is Sheila physically and mentally was not able to commit the massacre. And was easy prey for Bamber. Due to Haloperidol. Two important points.

[Jane]

I didn't say Sheila would suffer all the side effects. My suggestion of 10 is a generous suggestion & small percentagae of what Sheila could be suffering from the multiple effects of Haloperidol. This would still mean Sheila would not be able to function.

Functioning means doing basic things such as getting off sofa's without assistance. Or putting sugar in coffee. Things Sheila couldn't do. Not being able to do these things means she couldn't have committed a much more demanding massacre.

The two points of the thread I created is Sheila physically and mentally was not able to commit the massacre. And was easy prey for Bamber. Due to Haloperidol. Two important points.

From what has -universally- been said of her behaviours during her last fortnight, I'd have said -and believed- committing a massacre was highly improbable