Questions on the apparent red toe nail polish in the kitchen.

[Jane]

No, that's not what I meant - I'm not saying it should be a law, but down to choice.

It's difficult, Caroline. I guess you can see that it's not possible for me to be objective. I suppose if there's NO chance of the 'child' ever discovering the deception, it might be said to have worked successfully. It's one of those situations in which it's impossible to know -until it's too late to rectify any mistake- if one's choice, on someone else's behalf, had been the right one.

[maggie]

Caroline, I think it would be almost impossible to achieve. Adopted children, today, have a legal right to access everything pertaining to their adoption, indeed, are encouraged to find birth parents which CAN -has the potential- open another can of worms. There is also the problem which will arise if the child feels -as did your mum- 'outside' (and she was genetically 'inside') but has no idea why. The adult 'child' who finds out, at a much later date, about it's origins would feel justified in feeling lied to. The best way MAY be to introduce adoption into conversation whilst the child is too young to remember when such a conversation started..................however, I also feel that great care must be taken NOT to overstress the child's 'specialness' as believing themselves to be so can have the effect of setting them apart.

I agree the least bad way imo is to talk to the child well before they are able to understand about their adoption, where they came from about their natural parents etc. maybe a little photo album of theor own.  09Adoptive parents need to be honest and never put emotional demands on a child about where their loyalties should lie.  In the end it has to be about unconditional love of the child and not about the needs of the adoptive parents, much like any parent child relationship should be.  Telling a child they're 'chosen'  or 'special' puts too much pressure on a child, all children are 'special' .

[David1819]

Neither does yours but it doesn't stop you.

-2cm by 3cm of red paint missing from under the mantle. Its nowhere to be seen on the floor below.

-The paint also has layers of white and black paint underneath chipped off yet that cannot be seen either.

-Police admit making the mess

-Neville already had two fatal wounds through his law and an incapacitated arm before entering the kitchen.

How does my argument not add up?


Lets compare that to your argument

The flake on the floor photographed on the 7th of August could be from the AGA mantle shelf.  Brain Elliot confirms the scratch damage was caused by the knurled pattern end of the silencer. Brain Elliot confirms the paint found embedded in the knurled end is the AGA paint.

But you argue Jeremy never used a silencer?

 

You claim it came from her toe and that both you and Suthurst can tell by just looking at it that the hue is different and that you have been given exclusive access to a picture which shows damage to Sheila's toe - a picture you can't share but can talk about?

You already know I have clear photos of Sheila's left foot. So why would I lie about having photos of the right foot?

The picture isn't in the public domain but you have put the information out there? We've been here before 

Unlike letters from Jeremy. Its privileged content.

Besides you never questioned my sincerity when I expressed the view that restricted photos in my possession did not support Roch's claims.   No reason to doubt me when it helps your arguments 

[lookout]

This overuse of referring children as being " special " whether in adoption or a particular illness can be damaging in some respects.
Where there are other siblings especially as there'll come a time when siblings of this " special " child will rebel at the thought that they're not special as well and it can create all kinds of hostilities.

 ALL children are special and are also gifts to cherish for life and to say,or call a certain child special  isn't nice. Who wants that stigma for the rest of their lives ? It usually backfires in some way anyway.

To put a child on a pedestal causes all kinds of problems. Some child prodigies have suffered later in their lives by having been " special " children in their younger years----caused by pushy parents who've controlled them.
What right have we as parents got in mapping out the child's future ? A child when guided through childhood will find his/her own way,with the parent/s there to act as a buffer in the background should things go wrong.

[Caroline]

It's difficult, Caroline. I guess you can see that it's not possible for me to be objective. I suppose if there's NO chance of the 'child' ever discovering the deception, it might be said to have worked successfully. It's one of those situations in which it's impossible to know -until it's too late to rectify any mistake- if one's choice, on someone else's behalf, had been the right one.

From personal experience, it would have been better for my mother to have never discovered the truth. I believe it damaged her confidence and self-esteem.

[Caroline]

-2cm by 3cm of red paint missing from under the mantle. Its nowhere to be seen on the floor below.

-The paint also has layers of white and black paint underneath chipped off yet that cannot be seen either.

-Police admit making the mess

-Neville already had two fatal wounds through his law and an incapacitated arm before entering the kitchen.

How does my argument not add up?


Lets compare that to your argument

The flake on the floor photographed on the 7th of August could be from the AGA mantle shelf.  Brain Elliot confirms the scratch damage was caused by the knurled pattern end of the silencer. Brain Elliot confirms the paint found embedded in the knurled end is the AGA paint.

But you argue Jeremy never used a silencer?

 



You already know I have clear photos of Sheila's left foot. So why would I lie about having photos of the right foot?


Unlike letters from Jeremy. Its privileged content.

Besides you never questioned my sincerity when I expressed the view that restricted photos in my possession did not support Roch's claims.   No reason to doubt me when it helps your arguments 

I'm really not interested in what you claim to have in your possession. You need to grow up because you come over as an immature idiot who doesn't have a filter or know what is or isn't appropriate. Your disgusting post in which you insinuated that Jane and I are having a sexual relationship, should have had you banned. Anyone trusting you with any confidential or privileged information needs to have a word with themselves because the first thing you do, if come here to brag and try to play king shit on turd mountain. You claim what you like about the flake and it would fall on its arse at the first hurdle as it did when suggested by Suthurst. Now for the sake of forum harmony, I would be grateful if you didn't debate anything with me further! I'm not interested in anything you have to say now or in the future - so lets just leave it at that. I hope people will take note that I have requested that David no longer replies or mentions me in his posts, any attempt to do so will be goading.

[maggie]

This overuse of referring children as being " special " whether in adoption or a particular illness can be damaging in some respects.
Where there are other siblings especially as there'll come a time when siblings of this " special " child will rebel at the thought that they're not special as well and it can create all kinds of hostilities.

 ALL children are special and are also gifts to cherish for life and to say,or call a certain child special  isn't nice. Who wants that stigma for the rest of their lives ? It usually backfires in some way anyway.

To put a child on a pedestal causes all kinds of problems. Some child prodigies have suffered later in their lives by having been " special " children in their younger years----caused by pushy parents who've controlled them.
What right have we as parents got in mapping out the child's future ? A child when guided through childhood will find his/her own way,with the parent/s there to act as a buffer in the background should things go wrong.

I agree

[Jane]

From personal experience, it would have been better for my mother to have never discovered the truth. I believe it damaged her confidence and self-esteem.

I can see, if she'd have been comfortable with where she was prior to that, it would have been devastating. Her sense of who she was would have been crushed.

[maggie]

From personal experience, it would have been better for my mother to have never discovered the truth. I believe it damaged her confidence and self-esteem.

I can understand that Caroline, to discover such a deception later in life must be horrific as it would feel you had been living a lie. I cannot imagine how awful it would be to sit down my 7 year old child and tell her she was adopted which may be why some adoptive parents didn't tell. 

[maggie]

I don't pretend to know about adoption, although I do know the effects of it (my mum was kind of adopted - brought up by her gran and believed her real mother was her sister). I think regardless of what kind of home you grow up in, for most, there will always be an internal conflict in coming to terms with feelings of abandonment. My mum found out from her aunt (who at the time she thought was her sister also), when she was about nine years of age. I know it has been a struggle for her and although she is part of this family genetically, she has always felt outside. I think for the Bambers, sending Sheila and Jeremy to boarding school at such a young age couldn't have been easy for them, especially as Jeremy was only told about the adoption a short while before. Do you think that there is an argument in favour of not telling the child they were adopted (whenever that is possible)?

Must have been horrendous for the poor little boy. My heart goes out to him. Like a double abandonment.

[lookout]

I agree

I even cringe in this day and age when " special schools " are mentioned,or " special needs ". It paints a dreadful picture and those children are stigmatised. It's open to bullying.

[Caroline]

Must have been horrendous for the poor little boy. My heart goes out to him. Like a double abandonment.

Yes,  agree and I can only say 'what were they thinking!'

[maggie]

Yes,  agree and I can only say 'what were they thinking!'

I imagine they lacked the ability to understand.  It's difficult to believe anyone could be so emotionally lacking that they could do that to a little child but I suppose Nevill was sent away at about the same age to 'make a man of him' and thought it was OK as it didn't do him any harm  haha except it probably made him incapable of expressing himself. June was also definitely very damaged and struggled with life in general taking her suppoRT from the bible. They seemed to be totally lost however much theyou tried to support and not equipped in any way to be adoptive parents.  Of course back then there was no consideration of the child and their emotions but the main role of a parent is to love and protect their child, they just didn't seem to be able to do the unconditional love and accept we are all different.  Somehow both Sheila and Jeremy seemed to have too much but also too little.