Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on March 19, 2022, 04:58:PM
-
It's been confirmed that Bamber was going ahead with the massacre. Regardless of Sheila's condition beforehand.
He only had a 4 evening window of opportunity & would have been confident of controlling Sheila after killing the other four people.
With Sheila as the only alive person left, the evidence shows it is very unlikely she put up any worthy resistance.
Her Haloperiodal had made her very docile that evening.
Bamber & PB have said she was very non responsive. Not responding to fostering conversations & allowing June to take the phone off her after just saying 'yes/no' for 3 minutes.
Neither Sheila or Bamber had any injuries.
-
You have no evidence that Haloperidol made her docile that evening.
-
You have no evidence that Haloperidol made her docile that evening.
Bamber & PB have said she was very non responsive. Not responding to fostering conversations & allowing June to take the phone off her after just saying 'yes/no' for 3 minutes.
Neither Sheila or Bamber had any injuries.
-
As said, Bamber was going ahead regardless of Sheila's condition beforehand.
The fact that he rang Julie when getting home suggests Sheila's condition had made him more confident.
-
Again, I will repeat what I have just said. It bears repeating, because you are not keeping to the evidence.
There is no evidence that Sheila was sedated that evening.
There is no evidence that Sheila was docile that evening.
She may have been these things. I accept it is possible. But these things cannot be asserted as fact.
It may be that Important People With Lots Of Letters After Their Names mention the word 'sedation' here and there in official documents and that catches your eye. It still doesn't mean she was sedated.
-
Again, I will repeat what I have just said. It bears repeating, because you are not keeping to the evidence.
There is no evidence that Sheila was sedated that evening.
There is no evidence that Sheila was docile that evening.
She may have been these things. I accept it is possible. But these things cannot be asserted as fact.
It may be that Important People With Lots Of Letters After Their Names mention the word 'sedation' here and there in official documents and that catches your eye. It still doesn't mean she was sedated.
The evidence is -
Bamber had no injuries.
Sheila had no injuries.
Sheila did not respond to fostering conversations. A few hours earlier.
Sheila spent 3 minutes just saying 'yes/no' on the phone. A few hours earlier.
June took the phone off Sheila. A few hours earlier.
Bamber rang Julie to say 'it's now or never' after monitoring Sheila.
Sheila was on Haloperidal which has many side effects. Sedative effects being one of them.
----------
Not sure what else can be supplied.
-
The evidence is -
Bamber had no injuries.
Sheila had no injuries.
Sheila did not respond to fostering conversations. A few hours earlier.
Sheila spent 3 minutes just saying 'yes/no' on the phone.
June took the phone off Sheila.
Bamber rang Julie to say 'it's now or never' after monitoring Sheila.
Sheila was on Haloperidal which has many side effects. Sedative effects being one of them.
----------
Not sure what else can be supplied.
It doesn't seem to be sinking in, so let me repeat it:
There is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. You have no evidence whatever that this was the case.
This is important because the pro-guilt side assert it as fact when it isn't. The fact that lots of highly-qualified and eminent people may think she was sedated doesn't mean she was. Highly-qualified and eminent people get things wrong and put innocent people in prison.
-
Anyway Bamber would have been successful against a fully alert Sheila. For obvious reasons.
-
You have no evidence that Haloperidol made her docile that evening.
At Maida Vale she would be unable to get Daniel and Nicholas off to school in time, not because she was lazy but due to the side-effects of the medication. She requested a reduced dosage herself. When in those final months Colin had de facto care and control Sheila made an attempt at entertaining the twins at weekends, which they cherished. Looking after the children full-time was simply beyond her, which made her tired out those last couple of days. She would have recognized she needed help, which makes Jeremy's invented story on adoption al the more incredible.
-
It doesn't seem to be sinking in, so let me repeat it:
There is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. You have no evidence whatever that this was the case.
This is important because the pro-guilt side assert it as fact when it isn't. The fact that lots of highly-qualified and eminent people may think she was sedated doesn't mean she was. Highly-qualified and eminent people get things wrong and put innocent people in prison.
We have the evidence of Auntie Pam's telephone conversation, who claimed that her niece was like a zombie.
-
Anyway Bamber would have been successful against a fully alert Sheila. For obvious reasons.
I would like to hear those reasons Adam.
-
It doesn't seem to be sinking in, so let me repeat it:
There is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. You have no evidence whatever that this was the case.
This is important because the pro-guilt side assert it as fact when it isn't. The fact that lots of highly-qualified and eminent people may think she was sedated doesn't mean she was. Highly-qualified and eminent people get things wrong and put innocent people in prison.
I have just posted 7 points which support Sheila put up no or minimal resistance.
Who is mentioning sedation? There are dozens of side effects of Haloperiodal. Sedative effects being one of them.
-
Anyway Bamber would have been successful against a fully alert Sheila. For obvious reasons.
A " fully alert Sheila " as you quoted, would have torn JB to shreds had it been him who killed her children.
Where were his injuries from 3 adults ?
-
I would like to hear those reasons Adam.
I feel another thread coming on.
Do you agree from the evidence that Sheila put up no/minimal resistance?
-
We have the evidence of Auntie Pam's telephone conversation, who claimed that her niece was like a zombie.
The statement that i read,simply said Sheila was acting oddly and that June wanted to have a discussion about her.I think lack of interest was spoken about ,but i dont think the word Zombie was used Steve.And June would not have requested to see Pam simply to tell her that Sheila was drowsy and lethargic.She hints it was Sheilas odd behaviour she was worrying aboutand wanted to discuss.Dont you think so Steve?
-
The statement that i read,simply said Sheila was acting oddly and that June wanted to have a discussion about her.I think lack of interest was spoken about ,but i dont think the word Zombie was used Steve.And June would not have requested to see Pam simply to tell her that Sheila was drowsy and lethargic.She hints it was Sheilas odd behaviour she was worrying aboutand wanted to discuss.Dont you think so Steve?
It's in her 10th September 1985 statement, which is not located in the archives here.
-
It's been confirmed that Bamber was going ahead with the massacre. Regardless of Sheila's condition beforehand.
He only had a 4 evening window of opportunity & would have been confident of controlling Sheila after killing the other four people.
With Sheila as the only alive person left, the evidence shows it is very unlikely she put up any worthy resistance.
Her Haloperiodal had made her very docile that evening.
Bamber & PB have said she was very non responsive. Not responding to fostering conversations & allowing June to take the phone off her after just saying 'yes/no' for 3 minutes.
Neither Sheila or Bamber had any injuries.
Please stop posting pure rubbish Adam you have no evidence for any of this? Actually it's not rubbish it's worse!
-
It's long Covid. Shrunken brain syndrome.
-
It's in her 10th September 1985 statement, which is not located in the archives here.
Ha ha.Yes,well it would be in her LATER statement,once it was five murders Steve.Thats what i was saying the other day,it is almost comical how much the later statements are contrived to help convict JB.Dosent this disturb you just a little bit Steve?
-
Ha ha.Yes,well it would be in her LATER statement,once it was five murders Steve.Thats what i was saying the other day,it is almost comical how much the later statements are contrived to help convict JB.Dosent this disturb you just a little bit Steve?
No because the gist is the same, whether the word zombie was used or not.
-
No because the gist is the same, whether the word zombie was used or not.
But wouldnt you have to see someone to describe them as a zombie Steve?
-
It's long Covid. Shrunken brain syndrome.
BAN LOOKOUT, she has just insulted Adam.BAN,BAN,BAN!
-
But wouldnt you have to see someone to describe them as a zombie Steve?
June suggested that Sheila stay in a hotel in Bournemouth for awhile, run by one of her friends. She wasn't hiding anything from her sister, and valued a second opinion.
-
Please stop posting pure rubbish Adam you have no evidence for any of this? Actually it's not rubbish it's worse!
It is all backed by evidence Rob.
4 day window.
Sheila shot last.
On Haloperidol.
Bamber's WS.
PB's WS.
Bamber ringing Julie after checking on Sheila. Telling her tonights the night.
No injuries on Bamber.
No injuries on Sheila.
-
It is all backed by evidence Rob.
4 day window.
Sheila shot last.
On Haloperidol.
Bamber's WS.
PB's WS.
Bamber ringing Julie after checking on Sheila. Telling her tonights the night.
No injuries on Bamber.
No injuries on Sheila.
All points to no/minimal resistance from Sheila.
-
Supporters need to find something to get hold of.
Bamber was going ahead with his plan. Regardless of whether Sheila was A1 or didn't know what day it was.
I don't blame him. He had a plan he thought was bullet proof & the reward was huge.
There is strong witness evidence Sheila was docile hours beforehand. A bonus for Bamber.
When the massacre got underway, there is no evidence Sheila put up any resistance.
-
All points to no/minimal resistance from Sheila.
How do you know that Sheila was the last one to be shot ? Surely, anyone shooting the family would get rid of the youngest most agile one first ?
-
Haloperidol can trigger homicidal and suicidal behaviour.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8439.msg401967.html#msg401967 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8439.msg401967.html#msg401967)
-
June suggested that Sheila stay in a hotel in Bournemouth for awhile, run by one of her friends. She wasn't hiding anything from her sister, and valued a second opinion.
Do you mean she wanted Pams opinion about a holiday or about Sheilas health Steve? If it was about her health,wouldnt it be about her odd worrying behaviour and possible fear of what she may do,rather than Sheila acting like a zombie.If someone was too tired,drowsy,lethargic and sedated,surely that is a medical matter in need of immediate attention from her GP.Not from her sister,what could she do.If it was about Sheila taking a break,you wouldnt need a meeting about that,would you?
-
How do you know that Sheila was the last one to be shot ? Surely, anyone shooting the family would get rid of the youngest most agile one first ?
Julie said Bamber told her Sheila was shot last.
He's not going to lead her into the main bedroom with Nevill & June still alive.
-
Julie said Bamber told her Sheila was shot last.
He's not going to lead her into the main bedroom with Nevill & June still alive.
So who told Julie ?
-
So who told Julie ?
Bamber.
-
Bamber.
But you don't believe him ? So why should you believe this ?
-
But you don't believe him ? So why should you believe this ?
I believe Julie. Anyway it is common sense Sheila would be shot last.
-
I believe Julie. Anyway it is common sense Sheila would be shot last.
It's not common sense at all. Why is it and why, if she was last, didn't she manage to phone the police when the aggressor was either upstairs or downstairs ?
-
It's not common sense at all. Why is it and why, if she was last, didn't she manage to phone the police when the aggressor was either upstairs or downstairs ?
Having killed others first, it stands to reason that the killer, if it's their intention, will be the last to die. I think it also follows that if another shooter is planning to make the tableau look like murder/suicide, they'll leave the 'suicide' till last.
A cool, calm, and collected Sheila isn't how I see her under any circumstances, even less if she's psychotic. If she's not, why might she be concerned about doing anything when she knew, from experience, that Nevill could take care of any problem. Of course, if she knew he was already dead, I don't think she'd have known what to do. She'd never had to act as a responsible adult in her life -possibly that was part of her problem?- she'd never had to/ been allowed to grow up. She'd always had Nevill and June for support. Whether, or not, she'd have cared to admit it, I doubt she could have survived without them. Perhaps that why she may have died 'easily'?
-
It's not common sense at all. Why is it and why, if she was last, didn't she manage to phone the police when the aggressor was either upstairs or downstairs ?
Do you believe Bamber should have lead Sheila into the main bedroom first. Which would have woken Nevill and June?
-
Having killed others first, it stands to reason that the killer, if it's their intention, will be the last to die. I think it also follows that if another shooter is planning to make the tableau look like murder/suicide, they'll leave the 'suicide' till last.
A cool, calm, and collected Sheila isn't how I see her under any circumstances, even less if she's psychotic. If she's not, why might she be concerned about doing anything when she knew, from experience, that Nevill could take care of any problem. Of course, if she knew he was already dead, I don't think she'd have known what to do. She'd never had to act as a responsible adult in her life -possibly that was part of her problem?- she'd never had to/ been allowed to grow up. She'd always had Nevill and June for support. Whether, or not, she'd have cared to admit it, I doubt she could have survived without them. Perhaps that why she may have died 'easily'?
In a planned killing it's usual for everyone to die at the same time, but that wasn't so in this crime as killings were sporadic between the parents, then finally Sheila which tells me that nobody else was involved in the murders, so it was neither planned nor a contract murder but a sudden and spontaneous one with Sheila being granted her wish to remain with her boys.
-
In a planned killing it's usual for everyone to die at the same time, but that wasn't so in this crime as killings were sporadic between the parents, then finally Sheila which tells me that nobody else was involved in the murders, so it was neither planned nor a contract murder but a sudden and spontaneous one with Sheila being granted her wish to remain with her boys.
In a planned killing -more so when more than one victim is planned- the killer can never guarantee, other than in their fantasy of how it will play out, how it will work. The only way round that would be to herd everyone into the same room and execute them as the Russians did to their Imperial family.
-
In a planned killing it's usual for everyone to die at the same time, but that wasn't so in this crime as killings were sporadic between the parents, then finally Sheila which tells me that nobody else was involved in the murders, so it was neither planned nor a contract murder but a sudden and spontaneous one with Sheila being granted her wish to remain with her boys.
Everyone did. In around a ten minute time period.
-
Everyone did. In around a ten minute time period.
And that's what you believe ? Just compare the pic. of Nevill to the one of Sheila and tell me that they both died at the same time
-
And that's what you believe ? Just compare the pic. of Nevill to the one of Sheila and tell me that they both died at the same time
I don't believe anyone here thinks they died "at the same time" of even moments apart. The killer had to move from floor to floor. As for appearances, one was face down, the other was face up, and neither picture has high degrees of clarity.
-
It's not common sense at all. Why is it and why, if she was last, didn't she manage to phone the police when the aggressor was either upstairs or downstairs ?
Because the guilters want you to believe the massacre was silent,Lookout.Nothing to stir Sheila before it was her turn.No audible gun shots,no barking from crispie ,no screams or shouting,no sounds of feet thumping on the floor or anything knocked over,no creaking floor boards running up and down stairs.It was like a major shooting incident with the volume turned down,and when it was Sheilas turn,she was led to the bedroom,said -hi mum- as she passed her mothers blood strewn body,sat down and said-ok Jeremy,ready when you are-.Now does that clarify things for you Lookout.Simple and extremely logical.Ha ha!
-
Because the guilters want you to believe the massacre was silent,Lookout.Nothing to stir Sheila before it was her turn.No audible gun shots,no barking from crispie ,no screams or shouting,no sounds of feet thumping on the floor or anything knocked over,no creaking floor boards running up and down stairs.It was like a major shooting incident with the volume turned down,and when it was Sheilas turn,she was led to the bedroom,said -hi mum- as she passed her mothers blood strewn body,sat down and said-ok Jeremy,ready when you are-.Now does that clarify things for you Lookout.Simple and extremely logical.Ha ha!
I can't speak for others, but whilst I can't imagine the massacre to have been carried out in TOTAL silence, I don't think there's have been much more than "What's happening", "What are you doing?", "Put that gun down" from Nevill, and maybe "Jeremy, No. Please don't do this" from June. I think there's have been some talking from JB because I believe he'd have wanted them to know why he was doing it.
So what, if there was noise? Who was there to hear? The house stand alone. The walls are thick. Floors, other than kitchen and scullery, carpeted. Carpets, soft furnishings, absorb sound. There's no house close enough for anyone to have heard raised voices, in any case.
I have no idea why you seem to find it amusing.
-
I can't speak for others, but whilst I can't imagine the massacre to have been carried out in TOTAL silence, I don't think there's have been much more than "What's happening", "What are you doing?", "Put that gun down" from Nevill, and maybe "Jeremy, No. Please don't do this" from June. I think there's have been some talking from JB because I believe he'd have wanted them to know why he was doing it.
So what, if there was noise? Who was there to hear? The house stand alone. The walls are thick. Floors, other than kitchen and scullery, carpeted. Carpets, soft furnishings, absorb sound. There's no house close enough for anyone to have heard raised voices, in any case.
I have no idea why you seem to find it amusing.
Hi Jane,how are you today.Maybe i didnt make it clear.The amusing part isnt the fact that no one heard anything at the nearest farm,its the fact Sheila didnt hear anything a few feet away.
-
Hi Jane,how are you today.Maybe i didnt make it clear.The amusing part isnt the fact that no one heard anything at the nearest farm,its the fact Sheila didnt hear anything a few feet away.
Can you substantiate that claim?
-
Can you substantiate that claim?
What claim Jane? I dont understand.
-
No because the gist is the same, whether the word zombie was used or not.
Was the word 'zombie' used or not?
I am aware of Pamela Boutflour having given 7 statements to Essex Police during the period August to October 1985. Not one of those statements mentions any remotely resembling what you claim.
You say this is a statement dated 10th. September 1985. I have 7 statements, but there is no statement from Pamela Boutflour of that date.
Please post up this missing statement of 10th. September 1985 or tell us your source.
Thank you.
-
What claim Jane? I dont understand.
The claim that "it's the fact that Sheila didn't hear anything a few feet away".
-
The claim that "it's the fact that Sheila didn't hear anything a few feet away".
Ha,ha,ha, This is ADAMS famous claim Jane,not mine.
-
Ha,ha,ha, This is ADAMS famous claim Jane,not mine.
Of course, it maybe on another thread, but I can't find those exact words you claim Adam said, on this one, although he does highlight, several times, about her drowsy state due to medication. It's perfectly possible that, had she been in a very deep sleep because of her medication, she wouldn't have heard anything had there actually been anything to hear, but this is something we can't know.
-
Was the word 'zombie' used or not?
I am aware of Pamela Boutflour having given 7 statements to Essex Police during the period August to October 1985. Not one of those statements mentions any remotely resembling what you claim.
You say this is a statement dated 10th. September 1985. I have 7 statements, but there is no statement from Pamela Boutflour of that date.
Please post up this missing statement of 10th. September 1985 or tell us your source.
Thank you.
Maybe Pams statement says that June had told her that Sheila had been on holiday to Haiti and hed got mixed up in voodoo,and after she had returned home,had turned into a zombie.
-
Of course, it maybe on another thread, but I can't find those exact words you claim Adam said, on this one, although he does highlight, several times, about her drowsy state due to medication. It's perfectly possible that, had she been in a very deep sleep because of her medication, she wouldn't have heard anything had there actually been anything to hear, but this is something we can't know.
So you are of the same opinion Jane,it was quite a quiet massacre without many screams of pain.I just cant agree with this,sorry!
-
So you are of the same opinion Jane,it was quite a quiet massacre without many screams of pain.I just cant agree with this,sorry!
On a scale of one to ten, there's vast difference between total silence and loud screams. Like much else, I suspect the truth to lay somewhere in the middle, ie between four and six?
-
It's very unlikely Sheila heard anything. She was asleep behind thick doors & walls. Very docile from the Haloperiodal.
The rifle was slient.
Daniel, Nicholas & June were killed/negated while they slept. So made no noise.
Nevill ran straight downstairs.
-
Maybe Pams statement says that June had told her that Sheila had been on holiday to Haiti and hed got mixed up in voodoo,and after she had returned home,had turned into a zombie.
Now I think about it, that is what it says, yes. I'd clean forgotten. I'm surprised the defence didn't make more of this.
I have heard - keep this to yourself - that Rivlin was a zombie, possibly Munday too, definitely Drake and Arlidge, and whole thing was a Zombie-Freemason Conspiracy.
-
It's very unlikely Sheila heard anything. She was asleep behind thick doors & walls. Very docile from the Haloperiodal.
The rifle was slient.
Daniel, Nicholas & June were killed/negated while they slept. So made no noise.
Nevill ran straight downstairs.
If Sheila did wake, Bamber would have to deal with the situation.
He was ready.
-
If Sheila did wake, Bamber would have to deal with the situation.
He was ready.
Well maybe Adam.But there are things to consider.ie.what if Sheila woke while the kitchen fight took place? There was two sets of stairs,she just might have managed to sneak down stairs and flee the house.JB must have known this was a distinct possibility if he left her till last.You have to addmit Adam.a massacre involving this ammount of victims was never going to be straight forward.No matter how much you would like to convince yourself and others,a simple convincing scenario for neither JB or Sheila exists.
-
Now I think about it, that is what it says, yes. I'd clean forgotten. I'm surprised the defence didn't make more of this.
I have heard - keep this to yourself - that Rivlin was a zombie, possibly Munday too, definitely Drake and Arlidge, and whole thing was a Zombie-Freemason Conspiracy.
Well,theres always a simple explanation Gascoigne.
-
Well maybe Adam.But there are things to consider.ie.what if Sheila woke while the kitchen fight took place? There was two sets of stairs,she just might have managed to sneak down stairs and flee the house.JB must have known this was a distinct possibility if he left her till last.You have to addmit Adam.a massacre involving this ammount of victims was never going to be straight forward.No matter how much you would like to convince yourself and others,a simple convincing scenario for neither JB or Sheila exists.
Sheila flea & leave her children?
-
Well maybe Adam.But there are things to consider.ie.what if Sheila woke while the kitchen fight took place? There was two sets of stairs,she just might have managed to sneak down stairs and flee the house.JB must have known this was a distinct possibility if he left her till last.You have to addmit Adam.a massacre involving this ammount of victims was never going to be straight forward.No matter how much you would like to convince yourself and others,a simple convincing scenario for neither JB or Sheila exists.
I take it you've seen pictures of the back stairs? "Sneaking" down them would hardly have been an option. I don't see Sheila as being brave enough to go downstairs alone if she thought there was an intruder, indeed, why would she? Nevill would have been the one to handle such problems had they arisen. I'm not certain what are the stats for magistrate's houses being broken into, but I suspect it's not something which would have been done at WHF as farmers are known to keep guns.
It's of no consequence that there's no "convincing argument" that satisfies you, nor does it matter that it may not have been straightforward -and JB was a marksman. How much more difficult would it have been for Sheila?- the point is, he managed it and all BUT got away with it.
-
Sheila flea & leave her children?
Well,she couldnt take them with her if they were desd Adam.
-
I take it you've seen pictures of the back stairs? "Sneaking" down them would hardly have been an option. I don't see Sheila as being brave enough to go downstairs alone if she thought there was an intruder, indeed, why would she? Nevill would have been the one to handle such problems had they arisen. I'm not certain what are the stats for magistrate's houses being broken into, but I suspect it's not something which would have been done at WHF as farmers are known to keep guns.
It's of no consequence that there's no "convincing argument" that satisfies you, nor does it matter that it may not have been straightforward -and JB was a marksman. How much more difficult would it have been for Sheila?- the point is, he managed it and all BUT got away with it.
Sorry Jane,none of that statement convinces me of JBs guilt.
-
Well,she couldnt take them with her if they were desd Adam.
But she could join them on the other side, where her care of them would be forever and away from interference. That is what I suspect she intended.
-
Sorry Jane,none of that statement convinces me of JBs guilt.
I'm not entirely certain that you want to be convinced, Snow. I think you getting far too much fun out of disagreeing with detractors.
-
But she could join them on the other side, where her care of them would be forever and away from interference. That is what I suspect she intended.
She could have managed that at home in London. Why put them and herself through a visit that none of them were looking forward to?
-
Well,she couldnt take them with her if they were desd Adam.
You are creating obstacles that a confident Bamber would not have envisaged & therefore would not have deterred him -
Nevill getting downstairs. Sheila waking, checking the twins, then fleaing out of an alternative exit.
-
I'm not entirely certain that you want to be convinced, Snow. I think you getting far too much fun out of disagreeing with detractors.
No,you are quite wrong Jane.You know i am quite willing to accept JB is guilty,but you simply havent given me any concrete evidence to convince me yet.I would say i have got quite an interest in the case now,it is very intriguing and complicated.As for having fun,you know i have a childish mind and talk much nonsense.But i am sure you realize that i mean no disrespect to anyone involved in the case,the deseased or indeed JB himself.And as i have said,my childish remarks and stories about other members has no hurt or malice intended.Besides,they are generaly ignored anyway.Indeed,i consider every member as a friend,whether for guilt or innocence.Whether anyone sees ME as a friend is of course a different matter.Anyway while i am at it,let me take this oppertunity to appologise for any rudeness or hurt i have caused to any member.None was intended i assure you.
-
No,you are quite wrong Jane.You know i am quite willing to accept JB is guilty,but you simply havent given me any concrete evidence to convince me yet.I would say i have got quite an interest in the case now,it is very intriguing and complicated.As for having fun,you know i have a childish mind and talk much nonsense.But i am sure you realize that i mean no disrespect to anyone involved in the case,the deseased or indeed JB himself.And as i have said,my childish remarks and stories about other members has no hurt or malice intended.Besides,they are generaly ignored anyway.Indeed,i consider every member as a friend,whether for guilt or innocence.Whether anyone sees ME as a friend is of course a different matter.Anyway while i am at it,let me take this oppertunity to appologise for any rudeness or hurt i have caused to any member.None was intended i assure you.
There are over 100 pieces of circumstantial & forensic evidence.
Is that not enough?
-
She could have managed that at home in London. Why put them and herself through a visit that none of them were looking forward to?
Well reading Fergusons report again,the visit to the farm and a confrontation with June,just may have been the catalist Jane.
-
There are over 100 pieces of circumstantial & forensic evidence.
Is that not enough?
No ,not at the moment Adam.
-
Well reading Fergusons report again,the visit to the farm and a confrontation with June,just may have been the catalist Jane.
That's along the lines of what supporters think, I believe.
-
That's along the lines of what supporters think, I believe.
Well his first statement does seem to hint at this Jane.Its also worrying that he says Sheilas psychotic episodes got worse each time,that she was a difficult case and hated visiting the farm and seeing her mother.She was very ill Jane.
-
There are over 100 pieces of circumstantial & forensic evidence.
Is that not enough?
Your 100 pieces of bullshit will never convince anyone.
-
Your 100 pieces of bullshit will never convince anyone.
It's the COA.
How's your 2016 'forensic evidence breakthrough' going?
-
Your 100 pieces of bullshit will never convince anyone.
I dont think i could have put that better myself Dave!
-
Well his first statement does seem to hint at this Jane.Its also worrying that he says Sheilas psychotic episodes got worse each time,that she was a difficult case and hated visiting the farm and seeing her mother.She was very ill Jane.
You're implying she had numerous episodes. We can only go by what Dr Ferguson witnessed, just TWO. The first when she was taken in as a new and undiagnosed patient. She left the hospital diagnosed and medicated. The second admission came about because she hadn't taken the prescribed medication and had failed to keep back up appointments, resulting in a second breakdown. Dr Ferguson was aware it could escalate and took the decision to medicate intravenously, She was adequately and theraputically medicated.
Perhaps you should take time to read the tox report which Rob kindly posted. It was first mentioned as backing up supporters claims of her being under/over medicated, and her blood/urine flooded with illicit substances. It doesn't do that. She was negative for illicits, and had only a "slight positive" for cannabis, which rules out claims of her having smoked it heavily in recent days/during her stay at the farm. There were adequate and theraputic levels of Haloperidol found.
-
You're implying she had numerous episodes. We can only go by what Dr Ferguson witnessed, just TWO. The first when she was taken in as a new and undiagnosed patient. She left the hospital diagnosed and medicated. The second admission came about because she hadn't taken the prescribed medication and had failed to keep back up appointments, resulting in a second breakdown. Dr Ferguson was aware it could escalate and took the decision to medicate intravenously, She was adequately and theraputically medicated.
Perhaps you should take time to read the tox report which Rob kindly posted. It was first mentioned as backing up supporters claims of her being under/over medicated, and her blood/urine flooded with illicit substances. It doesn't do that. She was negative for illicits, and had only a "slight positive" for cannabis, which rules out claims of her having smoked it heavily in recent days/during her stay at the farm. There were adequate and theraputic levels of Haloperidol found.
Hi Jane,what a beautiful morning.I have indeed read the tox report that Rob posted.So,lets see,what you are basically saying is,with that amount of Haloperidol in her system,a psychotic episode could not occur.Well that is not what Ferguson said in his report,he said that is what must have happened.Although he did say she had never been violent,but i think he meant there was no way of predicting what could happen in Sheilas case.In other words,i think he meant himself and the NHS were in no way responsible for what had happened.
-
Hi Jane,what a beautiful morning.I have indeed read the tox report that Rob posted.So,lets see,what you are basically saying is,with that amount of Haloperidol in her system,a psychotic episode could not occur.Well that is not what Ferguson said in his report,he said that is what must have happened.Although he did say she had never been violent,but i think he meant there was no way of predicting what could happen in Sheilas case.In other words,i think he meant himself and the NHS were in no way responsible for what had happened.
Saying something "must have happened" is a very long way from saying one believes it happened. It's more DISbelief. You're putting words in his mouth by claiming to "think he meant". His 'evidence' was his experience of Sheila, who he'd treated during her sporadic crises, over three years. He'd have had conversations with her in therapy sessions. She'd never shown violent tendencies, in crisis and unmedicated. Why would it occur to him that she -or any other patient similar to her- would become so when well and theraputically medicated. I don't recall being told that Haloperidol had been taken off the market because it was causing otherwise non violent patients to become so, and it would most certainly have been investigated.
You're attempting to put words in my mouth, too. It's not possible to make such a claim as you're suggesting I am. It's way too sweeping and there are far too many variables to be taken into consideration.
-
To be quite honest Jane,i have no doubt Sheila MAY have been the culprit.Let me try and let you understand my thinking regarding Sheila.Ok,we all know you need a motive to commit a crime,and in Sheilas case this would have been because she was severely mentally ill.She had bizarre thoughts of good and evil and at times was what can only be described as insane.She WAS very ill,and this was ONGOING and hard to control.This is fact.With this in mind,i think it is fairly reasonable to believe she WAS capable of carrying out the massacre,IF another psychotic episode occurred.Anyway,that is my thinking anyway.So,motive is not a problem for me.The biggest problem for me,like many others i suppose,is IF Sheila was capable of using and re-loading the rifle.Although the fact there is controversy over whether APs rifle was present that night,as it SHOULD have been,may lessen this problem to a fair degree.As for Sheila being spotlessly clean,again this is debatable,especially with the illegal destruction of the night dress.As for the evidence that appearsd after the farm was vacated,and the witness statements after it became five murders,i generally ignore for obvious reasons.The evidence can only be described as dodgy,and the statements are contrived to suit.No the only problem for me is the handling of the rifle,and i cant find much info on the web regarding this.But what it boils down to is,Sheila had the motive,the means and of course the oppertunity.As did JB if you believe his motive was inheritance.So,to cut a long story short Jane,i still have doubt.
-
To be quite honest Jane,i have no doubt Sheila MAY have been the culprit.Let me try and let you understand my thinking regarding Sheila.Ok,we all know you need a motive to commit a crime,and in Sheilas case this would have been because she was severely mentally ill.She had bizarre thoughts of good and evil and at times was what can only be described as insane.She WAS very ill,and this was ONGOING and hard to control.This is fact.With this in mind,i think it is fairly reasonable to believe she WAS capable of carrying out the massacre,IF another psychotic episode occurred.Anyway,that is my thinking anyway.So,motive is not a problem for me.The biggest problem for me,like many others i suppose,is IF Sheila was capable of using and re-loading the rifle.Although the fact there is controversy over whether APs rifle was present that night,as it SHOULD have been,may lessen this problem to a fair degree.As for Sheila being spotlessly clean,again this is debatable,especially with the illegal destruction of the night dress.As for the evidence that appearsd after the farm was vacated,and the witness statements after it became five murders,i generally ignore for obvious reasons.The evidence can only be described as dodgy,and the statements are contrived to suit.No the only problem for me is the handling of the rifle,and i cant find much info on the web regarding this.But what it boils down to is,Sheila had the motive,the means and of course the oppertunity.As did JB if you believe his motive was inheritance.So,to cut a long story short Jane,i still have doubt.
You're choosing to ignore that she was theraputically medicated. You appear to be claiming to know more about it than the tox report by so doing. You're claiming it was necessary for her to have had a motive. Uncontrolled mental illness can't be claimed as being such. Sheila's was controlled.
How many sufferers of illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, heart disease and many others are leading full and active lives because they're medicated? That medication may need to be tweaked every now and again, but providing they take it, they're well. They cannot be said to be, like you insist on claiming Sheila was, with a theraputic dose of medication in her system, very ill.
-
To be quite honest Jane,i have no doubt Sheila MAY have been the culprit.
Jane once believed Sheila was the culprit and had a very factually coherent view on this case. But that all changed when Caroline had an "exchange of ideas" with the "honest and honourable" Paul Harrison. :-\
-
Jane once believed Sheila was the culprit and had a very factually coherent view on this case. But that all changed when Caroline had an "exchange of ideas" with the "honest and honourable" Paul Harrison. :-\
David, I think the reality is that Jane harboured disquiet and doubts about her original stance but chose not to voice them. It then looked as if she had committed an about-face in league with another member. But the truth probably wasn't that simple.
-
David, I think the reality is that Jane harboured disquiet and doubts about her original stance but chose not to voice them. It then looked as if she had committed an about-face in league with another member. But the truth probably wasn't that simple.
That is, indeed, so, Roch. It's also something I've stated numerous times -not that I consider it to be more than a passing interest to anyone else, unlike David, who seems to believe the reason for his change of mind is no one else's business, yet considers it to be his duty to keep other posters informed by bringing long past history into focus, in the same way he seems to derive pleasure from revealing/embroidering/exaggerating/lying about another poster's drinking habits. The question is, does David do this out of loyalty to the forum and what it stands for, or is it simply that he gets some sort of amusement and pleasure out of telling tales about other posters?
-
That is, indeed, so, Roch. It's also something I've stated numerous times -not that I consider it to be more than a passing interest to anyone else, unlike David, who seems to believe the reason for his change of mind is no one else's business, yet considers it to be his duty to keep other posters informed by bringing long past history into focus, in the same way he seems to derive pleasure from revealing/embroidering/exaggerating/lying about another poster's drinking habits. The question is, does David do this out of loyalty to the forum and what it stands for, or is it simply that he gets some sort of amusement and pleasure out of telling tales about other posters?
David did eventually give his two reasons for his stance change -
There was no blood in the rifle barrel.
There was no blood on Nevill's side of the bed.
---------
Both are easily explained but for David it negated his 'all the forensics point to Jeremy' statement.
-
David, I think the reality is that Jane harboured disquiet and doubts about her original stance but chose not to voice them. It then looked as if she had committed an about-face in league with another member. But the truth probably wasn't that simple.
And she held that view for 28 years? ???
-
You're choosing to ignore that she was theraputically medicated. You appear to be claiming to know more about it than the tox report by so doing. You're claiming it was necessary for her to have had a motive. Uncontrolled mental illness can't be claimed as being such. Sheila's was controlled.
How many sufferers of illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, heart disease and many others are leading full and active lives because they're medicated? That medication may need to be tweaked every now and again, but providing they take it, they're well. They cannot be said to be, like you insist on claiming Sheila was, with a theraputic dose of medication in her system, very ill.
A key fact that you don't mention is that, due to medical negligence, her dose was radically reduced. This in itself is high risk.
You also ignore that sedation is merely a possible side-effect of Haloperidol. Haloperidol is a tranquilising drug that is not intended for sedation. There is no evidence she was sedated, though again, I accept it is possible she was.
Nobody has denied that she had Haloperidol in her but it's unclear whether a low residual concentration of Haloperidol could be sedating given that Haloperidol is not an optimum sedative. It also does seem to be the case that low doses of Haloperidol can be just as effective as high doses (though of what effect they are is unclear to me, and I need to do more research).
-
Was the word 'zombie' used or not?
I am aware of Pamela Boutflour having given 7 statements to Essex Police during the period August to October 1985. Not one of those statements mentions any remotely resembling what you claim.
You say this is a statement dated 10th. September 1985. I have 7 statements, but there is no statement from Pamela Boutflour of that date.
Please post up this missing statement of 10th. September 1985 or tell us your source.
Thank you.
This has not been answered, so I am going to assume that there was no statement of 10th. September 1985 from Pamela Boutflour and the word 'zombie' (or derivations thereof) was not used.
-
You're choosing to ignore that she was theraputically medicated. You appear to be claiming to know more about it than the tox report by so doing. You're claiming it was necessary for her to have had a motive. Uncontrolled mental illness can't be claimed as being such. Sheila's was controlled.
How many sufferers of illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, heart disease and many others are leading full and active lives because they're medicated? That medication may need to be tweaked every now and again, but providing they take it, they're well. They cannot be said to be, like you insist on claiming Sheila was, with a theraputic dose of medication in her system, very ill.
100s of people die early each week because of diabetes. People with diabetes from 35 - 65 are 3 to 4 times more likely to die prematurely.
-
Jane once believed Sheila was the culprit and had a very factually coherent view on this case. But that all changed when Caroline had an "exchange of ideas" with the "honest and honourable" Paul Harrison. :-\
Hi dave,funnily enough i have been reading through the witness statements tonight,and this same argument about the Haloperidol back in 2012 appeared.And yes Jane was arguing in favour of JB.But of course everyone is free to change their mind as Roch says.AND,funnily enough Steve was using the word ,zombie,back then too.I havent come across any of Carolines posts,but i may look them up and see her argument for guilt.
-
Whether Sheila was fully fit or very docile, Bamber was confident enough to go ahead.
He had spent long enough planning everything & only had a short window of opportunity before Sheila left.
The WS's of Bamber, PB & Julie, together with the crime scene evidence suggests the Haloperiodal had made Sheila very docile on that night.
-
Whether Sheila was fully fit or very docile, Bamber was confident enough to go ahead.
He had spent long enough planning everything & only had a short window of opportunity before Sheila left.
The WS's of Bamber, PB & Julie, together with the crime scene evidence suggests the Haloperiodal had made Sheila very docile on that night.
I think her 'docility' belied a mind in overdrive behind her eyes. The realm where her mind wondered that evening, was so dark and bottomless, that it lead to her shooting her own children.
-
I think her 'docility' belied a mind in overdrive behind her eyes. The realm where her mind wondered that evening, was so dark and bottomless, that it lead to her shooting her own children.
Hi Roch,nice weather.Having looked through the witness statements,i think your opinion about Sheila is more likely to be true,as opposed to Adams.Anne Eaton said that she saw Sheila about 3 weeks before the murders,and that she looked well and appeared to be in good health.So no mention of odd behaviour or being withdrawn.Now,if Sheila received her last Haloperidol injection on 11th July,it was only a few days later that Anne saw her.Therefore it is reasonable to assume sedation and being withdrawn were NOT side effects of the drug.Let us go forward to the 3rd Aug at Colins party,by then Sheila was withdrawn staring out of a window.On 4th Aug while driving to Whitehouse farm,Sheila didnt speak one word to Colin or the boys.Now to Dr Fergusons hand written statement from 30 Sep 1985.In trying to ascertain what caused Sheila to become withdrawn and lack any feeling,he wrote the folowing.-------I have been asked to comment upon the report that Sheila was said on 6th Aug 1985 to have had no interest in anything,including the twins.Her attitude towards the twins had always appeared to me caring,and there was no evident lack of feeling.A possible side effect of Haloperidol is a general deadening of feeling and interest.I am told that her last injection of Haldol was on 11th July 1985 when she received half the original dosage.If such lack of interest and feeling had not shown itself EARLIER, it is LESS LIKELY TO BE A SIDE EFFECT OF THE DRUG bearing in mind the reduction of dosage and the fact that some FOUR WEEKS had elapsed since her last injection,if that feeling WAS NOT attributed to the drug,we would therefore have to interprit her lack of interest in the children as PART OF HER GENERAL AND DISTURBED MENTAL STATE-----------So taking all this into account,it would seem when Sheila newly received her Haloperidol,she was in good spirits and had no side effects,as witnessed by Anne Eaton for one.But a fortnight or so later at Colins party and until her death,she had no interest and was withdrawn.Surely this along with Fergusons statement strongly suggests that her withdrawn state was not a side effect of the Haloperidol,and the effectiveness in controlling her illness was waining,especially after being reduced.Clearly Ferguson is saying her withdrawn state was her psychosis creeping back.So it looks far more likely that your theory of Sheilas state on the 7th Aug is true Roch.And Adams claims of being docile and sedated do not hold up.
-
Anne Eaton also said Sheila was normal and chatty.
-
Whether Sheila was fully fit or very docile, Bamber was confident enough to go ahead.
He had spent long enough planning everything & only had a short window of opportunity before Sheila left.
The WS's of Bamber, PB & Julie, together with the crime scene evidence suggests the Haloperiodal had made Sheila very docile on that night.
To be clear, are you telling us that, in your view, the prosecution case does not depend on Sheila being sedated?
I have not seen a witness statement that tells me Sheila was docile. Pamela Boutflour tells us that Sheila wasn't very talkative, but that could be for any one of a number of reasons. Sheila could have been angry and sulky at that point.
Could you bring this all together and tell us what the precise argument for the prosecution is on this point?
It seems to me there are three main possibilities:
Is it that Sheila's illicit drug use and drinking increased the sedative effect of her Haloperidol, with the consequence that when Jeremy woke her and seized her, she was utterly relaxed and pliant ('docile' is your term)?
Or are you asserting that Haloperidol was the primary sedative agent, and since she still had a lowish dose of it in her, this was enough to make her sleepy, therefore it was utterly impossible for her to embark on a massacre, while quite easy for Jeremy to manipulate her into a staged suicide pose?
Or are you disregarding the sedation argument altogether and telling us that, irrespective of the drug's sedative effects, Sheila was asleep anyway. Jeremy grabs hold of her, etc., or maybe she wakes and goes into the main bedroom before Jeremy gets there, or any variation on that theme.
-
Hi Roch,nice weather.Having looked through the witness statements,i think your opinion about Sheila is more likely to be true,as opposed to Adams.Anne Eaton said that she saw Sheila about 3 weeks before the murders,and that she looked well and appeared to be in good health.So no mention of odd behaviour or being withdrawn.Now, if Sheila received her last Haloperidol injection on 11th July,it was only a few days later that Anne saw her.Therefore it is reasonable to assume sedation and being withdrawn were NOT side effects of the drug. Let us go forward to the 3rd Aug at Colins party,by then Sheila was withdrawn staring out of a window.On 4th Aug while driving to Whitehouse farm,Sheila didnt speak one word to Colin or the boys.Now to Dr Fergusons hand written statement from 30 Sep 1985.In trying to ascertain what caused Sheila to become withdrawn and lack any feeling,he wrote the folowing.-------I have been asked to comment upon the report that Sheila was said on 6th Aug 1985 to have had no interest in anything,including the twins.Her attitude towards the twins had always appeared to me caring,and there was no evident lack of feeling.A possible side effect of Haloperidol is a general deadening of feeling and interest.I am told that her last injection of Haldol was on 11th July 1985 when she received half the original dosage.If such lack of interest and feeling had not shown itself EARLIER, it is LESS LIKELY TO BE A SIDE EFFECT OF THE DRUG bearing in mind the reduction of dosage and the fact that some FOUR WEEKS had elapsed since her last injection,if that feeling WAS NOT attributed to the drug,we would therefore have to interprit her lack of interest in the children as PART OF HER GENERAL AND DISTURBED MENTAL STATE-----------So taking all this into account,it would seem when Sheila newly received her Haloperidol,she was in good spirits and had no side effects,as witnessed by Anne Eaton for one.But a fortnight or so later at Colins party and until her death,she had no interest and was withdrawn.Surely this along with Fergusons statement strongly suggests that her withdrawn state was not a side effect of the Haloperidol,and the effectiveness in controlling her illness was waining,especially after being reduced.Clearly Ferguson is saying her withdrawn state was her psychosis creeping back.So it looks far more likely that your theory of Sheilas state on the 7th Aug is true Roch.And Adams claims of being docile and sedated do not hold up.
Snow, this is a quite brilliant post. You express very eloquently an alternative possibility and move the debate forward.
However, the problem we have here is that the trial failed Jeremy in that the prosecution medical evidence was wrong and was left unchallenged. Dr. Ferguson has clearly conflated two different medical concepts: sedation and tranquilisation. The lawyers at trial then did the same, and nobody thought to question this evidence, not even the defence psychiatrist. Dr. Ferguson was just an ordinary everyday consultant psychiatrist, so it is to be expected he might make that mistake. He was not a specialist in psychopharmacology. He was not an expert in psychiatric drugs, he just prescribed and administered them. The trial needed evidence from an expert in pharmacological psychiatry - as do we.
Based on what I have gathered so far, my belief is that the clinical effects of antipsychotic medications are not linear and can vary over time. Maybe she was sedated one day but not the next. Diminishing concentrations of dosage does not mean diminishing therapeutic effects. We have just seen abstracts of academic papers that suggest higher doses do not have any significant effect on clinical response, though I'm not clear if this tells us anything about Sheila. Haloperidol could be low or moderately sedating in its possible side-effects, depending on who you speak to, therefore 'sedated' could mean relaxed or slightly sleepy. If she was on recreational drugs too, that would have increased the possibility of suffering sedative side-effects. The toxicology report indicates she had not taken illicit drugs or drank for at least a few days, but that doesn't account for the effect that such activity might have, and I'm not sure we can completely rely on a post-mortem toxicology report anyway.
Overall, we have to bear in mind that sedation was only a possible side-effect of Haloperidol. We simply have no evidence she was sedated, at the relevant time, or any time. Therefore, I agree with you that we have to consider other possibilities and move out of the rigid box of assumptions.
-
Snow, this is a quite brilliant post. You express very eloquently an alternative possibility and move the debate forward.
However, the problem we have here is that the trial failed Jeremy in that the prosecution medical evidence was wrong and was left unchallenged. Dr. Ferguson has clearly conflated two different medical concepts: sedation and tranquilisation. The lawyers at trial then did the same, and nobody thought to question this evidence, not even the defence psychiatrist. Dr. Ferguson was just an ordinary everyday consultant psychiatrist, so it is to be expected he might make that mistake. He was not a specialist in psychopharmacology. He was not an expert in psychiatric drugs, he just prescribed and administered them. The trial needed evidence from an expert in pharmacological psychiatry - as do we.
Based on what I have gathered so far, my belief is that the clinical effects of antipsychotic medications are not linear and can vary over time. Maybe she was sedated one day but not the next. Diminishing concentrations of dosage does not mean diminishing therapeutic effects. We have just seen abstracts of academic papers that suggest higher doses do not have any significant effect on clinical response, though I'm not clear if this tells us anything about Sheila. Haloperidol could be low or moderately sedating in its possible side-effects, depending on who you speak to, therefore 'sedated' could mean relaxed or slightly sleepy. If she was on recreational drugs too, that would have increased the possibility of suffering sedative side-effects. The toxicology report indicates she had not taken illicit drugs or drank for at least a few days, but that doesn't account for the effect that such activity might have, and I'm not sure we can completely rely on a post-mortem toxicology report anyway.
Overall, we have to bear in mind that sedation was only a possible side-effect of Haloperidol. We simply have no evidence she was sedated, at the relevant time, or any time. Therefore, I agree with you that we have to consider other possibilities and move out of the rigid box of assumptions.
Did the prosecution make a big thing about Sheila being sedated on the night of the murders Gascoigne?
-
Did the prosecution make a big thing about Sheila being sedated on the night of the murders Gascoigne?
No
-
No
Hi Dave.Well how did they explain the fact she did not struggle.Or was it just a case of proving Sheila was not the culprit,and to hang with how JB managed to shoot her.
-
Hi Dave.Well how did they explain the fact she did not struggle.Or was it just a case of proving Sheila was not the culprit,and to hang with how JB managed to shoot her.
Pretty much.
-
To be clear, are you telling us that, in your view, the prosecution case does not depend on Sheila being sedated?
I have not seen a witness statement that tells me Sheila was docile. Pamela Boutflour tells us that Sheila wasn't very talkative, but that could be for any one of a number of reasons. Sheila could have been angry and sulky at that point.
Could you bring this all together and tell us what the precise argument for the prosecution is on this point?
It seems to me there are three main possibilities:
Is it that Sheila's illicit drug use and drinking increased the sedative effect of her Haloperidol, with the consequence that when Jeremy woke her and seized her, she was utterly relaxed and pliant ('docile' is your term)?
Or are you asserting that Haloperidol was the primary sedative agent, and since she still had a lowish dose of it in her, this was enough to make her sleepy, therefore it was utterly impossible for her to embark on a massacre, while quite easy for Jeremy to manipulate her into a staged suicide pose?
Or are you disregarding the sedation argument altogether and telling us that, irrespective of the drug's sedative effects, Sheila was asleep anyway. Jeremy grabs hold of her, etc., or maybe she wakes and goes into the main bedroom before Jeremy gets there, or any variation on that theme.
Of course. Why should it?
Bamber was going ahead with his 'watertight' plan. Regardless of Sheila's condition on the night.
If Sheila was very docile, it was a bonus for him.
-
Supporters main argument against Bamber is that Sheila would have fought back.
This would not have stopped Bamber attempting the massacre. The rewards were huge.
I'll post my recent thread.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11174.0.html
-
As it happens, the WS's of Bamber & PB suggested Sheila was going to be a lamb to the slaughter that night. Due to the powerful effects of Haloperiodal.
Bamber was so excited he broke off a 3 day silence & rang Julie as soon as he got home from his reconnaissance. Telling her 'it's now or never' & 'tonights the night'.
There is no crime scene evidence suggesting Sheila struggled.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11172.0.html
Here is another recent thread - 'Was Sheila's condition at WHF irrelevant to Bamber?'
-
Did the prosecution make a big thing about Sheila being sedated on the night of the murders Gascoigne?
They did. It is mentioned in Dr. Ferguson's statements, which the jury would have been expected to read. Unfortunately, I do not have Dr. Ferguson's trial evidence. It seems that is not available, but we do have the transcript of evidence from the defence psychiatrist, Dr. Bradley, and he was asked about sedation in cross-examination by Mr Arlidge.
I am not saying that the prosecution case depended on it, and contrary to what Adam claims, they never asserted it as fact that she was sedated, but they did make something of it.
-
Of course. Why should it?
Bamber was going ahead with his 'watertight' plan. Regardless of Sheila's condition on the night.
If Sheila was very docile, it was a bonus for him.
Why should it? Well, you're the one who keeps banging on about it. That's partly why we're discussing it. You keep bringing it up. You also misquote from the 2002 appeal judgment and keeping claiming that it is a fact she was sedated, when literally nobody has ever said that.
-
Hi Roch,nice weather.Having looked through the witness statements,i think your opinion about Sheila is more likely to be true,as opposed to Adams.Anne Eaton said that she saw Sheila about 3 weeks before the murders,and that she looked well and appeared to be in good health.So no mention of odd behaviour or being withdrawn.Now,if Sheila received her last Haloperidol injection on 11th July,it was only a few days later that Anne saw her.Therefore it is reasonable to assume sedation and being withdrawn were NOT side effects of the drug.Let us go forward to the 3rd Aug at Colins party,by then Sheila was withdrawn staring out of a window.On 4th Aug while driving to Whitehouse farm,Sheila didnt speak one word to Colin or the boys.Now to Dr Fergusons hand written statement from 30 Sep 1985.In trying to ascertain what caused Sheila to become withdrawn and lack any feeling,he wrote the folowing.-------I have been asked to comment upon the report that Sheila was said on 6th Aug 1985 to have had no interest in anything,including the twins.Her attitude towards the twins had always appeared to me caring,and there was no evident lack of feeling.A possible side effect of Haloperidol is a general deadening of feeling and interest.I am told that her last injection of Haldol was on 11th July 1985 when she received half the original dosage.If such lack of interest and feeling had not shown itself EARLIER, it is LESS LIKELY TO BE A SIDE EFFECT OF THE DRUG bearing in mind the reduction of dosage and the fact that some FOUR WEEKS had elapsed since her last injection,if that feeling WAS NOT attributed to the drug,we would therefore have to interprit her lack of interest in the children as PART OF HER GENERAL AND DISTURBED MENTAL STATE-----------So taking all this into account,it would seem when Sheila newly received her Haloperidol,she was in good spirits and had no side effects,as witnessed by Anne Eaton for one.But a fortnight or so later at Colins party and until her death,she had no interest and was withdrawn.Surely this along with Fergusons statement strongly suggests that her withdrawn state was not a side effect of the Haloperidol,and the effectiveness in controlling her illness was waining,especially after being reduced.Clearly Ferguson is saying her withdrawn state was her psychosis creeping back.So it looks far more likely that your theory of Sheilas state on the 7th Aug is true Roch.And Adams claims of being docile and sedated do not hold up.
It seems to me you may have misinterpreted the good doctors words here. Can you please point to where he claimed, clearly or otherwise, that Sheila's psychosis was creeping back. Perhaps you're putting your thoughts in his mouth? If you read what he actually says, he indicates that she was overmedicated, hence the reduction.
-
Going around in circles with Sheila's condition a bit. Appreciate supporters will fight this.
Bamber was going ahead regardless of Sheila's condition on the night.
However the WS's, crime scene & Bamber's phone call to Julie suggest Haloperiodal had made Sheila very docile on the night.
-
They did. It is mentioned in Dr. Ferguson's statements, which the jury would have been expected to read. Unfortunately, I do not have Dr. Ferguson's trial evidence. It seems that is not available, but we do have the transcript of evidence from the defence psychiatrist, Dr. Bradley, and he was asked about sedation in cross-examination by Mr Arlidge.
I am not saying that the prosecution case depended on it, and contrary to what Adam claims, they never asserted it as fact that she was sedated, but they did make something of it.
Thanks Gascoigne,one of his statements did say that Sheila may have slept very deeply.But then,if JB was found to be innocent,this would not look good for neither Ferguson or the NHS,because the reduction of Haloperidol would have been blamed for Sheilas actions.
-
It seems to me you may have misinterpreted the good doctors words here. Can you please point to where he claimed, clearly or otherwise, that Sheila's psychosis was creeping back. Perhaps you're putting your thoughts in his mouth? If you read what he actually says, he indicates that she was overmedicated, hence the reduction.
Hi Jane,hope your good,Well if Sheila was withdrawn and acting oddly,what else could be to blame.Ferguson made it clear it wasnt side effects of the Haloperidol.If it was depression,that would have been part of the spectrum or umbrella if you like,of her mental problems.
-
Bamber spent months planning - checking windows, checking wills, stealing June's bike.
He's not going to bottle it just because Sheila isn't docile.
However the WS's & crime scene suggest Sheila was very docile due to the Haloperiodal.
-
Bamber spent months planning - checking windows, checking wills, stealing June's bike.
He's not going to bottle it just because Sheila isn't docile.
However the WS's & crime scene suggest Sheila was very docile.
Hi Adam.You have made it very,very,very clear what your views are about Sheilas docile condition and what caused it.Also that her condition was irrelivent to JB,he was going for it whatever.But there is still those of us who are less than convinced with your scenario.
-
Going around in circles with Sheila's condition a bit. Appreciate supporters will fight this.
Bamber was going ahead regardless of Sheila's condition on the night.
However the WS's, crime scene & Bamber's phone call to Julie suggest Haloperiodal had made Sheila very docile on the night.
You have for years on here asserted as fact that Sheila was sedated, when it appears even the prosecution at trial did not keep to this position.
-
Hi Adam.You have made it very,very,very clear what your views are about Sheilas docile condition and what caused it.Also that her condition was irrelivent to JB,he was going for it whatever.But there is still those of us who are less than convinced with your scenario.
I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'. Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it. But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything. Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill? What about the twins? They could wake and hide somewhere. Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.
Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length. The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems. When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged. It doesn't bode well, in my view. It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here. Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet. These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over. It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.
-
Hi Jane,hope your good,Well if Sheila was withdrawn and acting oddly,what else could be to blame.Ferguson made it clear it wasnt side effects of the Haloperidol.If it was depression,that would have been part of the spectrum or umbrella if you like,of her mental problems.
What has that to do with your claim that Ferguson claimed "her psychosis was creeping back"? For depression to "have been part of the spectrum.....................of her mental health" depends very much on whether it was clinical, or as a result of life circumstances.
-
I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'. Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it. But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything. Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill? What about the twins? They could wake and hide somewhere. Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.
Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length. The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems. When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged. It doesn't bode well, in my view. It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here. Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet. These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over. It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.
Exactly,Gascoigne.Sheila being the culprit solves a lot of problems.Problems the guilters simply cannot answer satisfactorally.
-
What has that to do with your claim that Ferguson claimed "her psychosis was creeping back"? For depression to "have been part of the spectrum.....................of her mental health" depends very much on whether it was clinical, or as a result of life circumstances.
Well isnt that what he meant by ----part of her general and disturbed mental state-----Wasnt this reffering to her psychosis Jane?
-
You have for years on here asserted as fact that Sheila was sedated, when it appears even the prosecution at trial did not keep to this position.
Well I posted the quotes on the COA. There are other sources.
Anyway the facts are -
Sheila was on Haloperiodal. A very powerful drug.
Haloperiodal has sedative side effects. Along with many other side effects.
Bamber checked on Sheila during his reconnaissance. He was so excited he rang Julie as soon as he got home. Breaking a 3 day silence.
Julie's WS says Bamber said 'tonights the night' & 'it's now or never'.
Bamber's WS states Sheila was 'non responsive' at supper.
PB's WS said Sheila spent 3 minutes just saying 'yes/no' on the phone. Before June took the phone off Sheila.
There is no crime scene evidence Sheila put up any resistance.
-
Sheila 'maybe' scratching Bamber?
How did he summon up the courage? The reward was only hundreds of thousands of pounds.
-
Well isnt that what he meant by ----part of her general and disturbed mental state-----Wasnt this reffering to her psychosis Jane?
It seems to be what you've been persuaded to believe.
-
It seems to be what you've been persuaded to believe.
Snow was not able to create a Sheila scenario.
Just created lots of unlikely events not supported by evidence.
However they were supported by Snow's dozens of 'maybe's'!
-
Sheila 'maybe' scratching Bamber?
How did he summon up the courage? The reward was only hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Not sure how Sheila could scratch Bamber.
He would have started the massacre fully clothed & wearing gloves. He may have also had face protection.
So not something that would deter Bamber or that he would have thought about.
-
It seems to be what you've been persuaded to believe.
Hi Jane.Just let me try and clarify what i was trying to say.Adam thinks she was withdrawn and had no interest because of the Haloperidol.I was simply trying to prove this was not so,and i think to a fair degree i have.Whether it was depression or Sheilas schizophrenia setting in that caused her to be withdrawn,who knows.But it seems it was not side effects of her medication anyway.Dont you agree?
-
Hi Jane.Just let me try and clarify what i was trying to say.Adam thinks she was withdrawn and had no interest because of the Haloperidol.I was simply trying to prove this was not so,and i think to a fair degree i have.Whether it was depression or Sheilas schizophrenia setting in that caused her to be withdrawn,who knows.But it seems it was not side effects of her medication anyway.Dont you agree?
Are you saying you don't believe that Haloperidol, despite being recognized as having a sedative effect, wasn't a contributory factor? I have long believed that counselling, more than drugs, would have been better for her, but depression and schizophrenia require different approaches. I've had no direct contact with schizophrenics, but I've had occasion to work with mothers of. In all cases, the controlled illness has returned after they've stopped taking their medication. I can only go by what the tox report says, ie Sheila was adequately and theraputically medicated. To try to claim other is just splitting hairs for the sake of it.
-
Are you saying you don't believe that Haloperidol, despite being recognized as having a sedative effect, wasn't a contributory factor? I have long believed that counselling, more than drugs, would have been better for her, but depression and schizophrenia require different approaches. I've had no direct contact with schizophrenics, but I've had occasion to work with mothers of. In all cases, the controlled illness has returned after they've stopped taking their medication. I can only go by what the tox report says, ie Sheila was adequately and theraputically medicated. To try to claim other is just splitting hairs for the sake of it.
Both supporters & guilters agree Haloperiodal has sedative effects. As well many other side effects such as being uncordinated. It is a very powerful drug.
To determine Sheila's condition on the night, everyone has to go by the WS's & crime scene evidence.
-
Both supporters & guilters agree Haloperiodal has sedative effects. As well many other side effects such as being uncordinated. It is a very powerful drug.
To determine Sheila's condition on the night, everyone has to go by the WS's & crime scene evidence.
These suggest Sheila put up minimal or no resistance. Either the sedative effects or other side effects were working on her.
Or Sheila simply didn't resist.
-
Are you saying you don't believe that Haloperidol, despite being recognized as having a sedative effect, wasn't a contributory factor? I have long believed that counselling, more than drugs, would have been better for her, but depression and schizophrenia require different approaches. I've had no direct contact with schizophrenics, but I've had occasion to work with mothers of. In all cases, the controlled illness has returned after they've stopped taking their medication. I can only go by what the tox report says, ie Sheila was adequately and theraputically medicated. To try to claim other is just splitting hairs for the sake of it.
Sorry Jane,i dont know what more to say.Maybe i dont make the points of my posts very clear,or what i am trying to get at.
-
These suggest Sheila put up minimal or no resistance. Either the sedative effects or other side effects were working on her.
Or Sheila simply didn't resist.
Or just maybe there was no one left for her to give resistance Adam.Simple.
-
Sorry Jane,i dont know what more to say.Maybe i dont make the points of my posts very clear,or what i am trying to get at.
I hear what you're saying, Snow. Now! Do I believe the scientific facts, or do I believe you?
-
Snow was not able to create a Sheila scenario.
Just created lots of unlikely events not supported by evidence.
However they were supported by Snow's dozens of 'maybe's'!
Despite what the tox report says, ie statement of facts, supporters and those who simply wish to argue points for the arguments' sake, simply offer "what if's" and "maybe's" and "supposing's", none of which is more than their interpretation of fact, not evidential.
-
Both supporters & guilters agree Haloperiodal has sedative effects. As well many other side effects such as being uncordinated. It is a very powerful drug.
To determine Sheila's condition on the night, everyone has to go by the WS's & crime scene evidence.
Wow!! You could have fooled me, Adam. I thought they were trying to deny that. I agree that all there is to go by is crime scene evidence and WS's. Everything else is supposition. We only have JB's version of what happened from the time he went into the farm-house kitchen for supper.
-
I hear what you're saying, Snow. Now! Do I believe the scientific facts, or do I believe you?
But i simply quoted what it said in witness statements Jane.Anne Eaton,Colin Caffell and Dr Ferguson.It was their words,not mine.
-
It seems to be what you've been persuaded to believe.
What do you mean persuaded Jane,by whom?
-
But i simply quoted what it said in witness statements Jane.Anne Eaton,Colin Caffell and Dr Ferguson.It was their words,not mine.
Without checking, I'm not certain when Ann made the comments you claim. Did you leave out anything she may have said regarding Sheila being in hospital? She certainly had no idea that Sheila was visiting the farm. They weren't close due to age gap and life-style. On one occasion when Sheila attempted to engage Ann in conversation, Ann made excuses and left.
I can't imagine Colin talking about Sheila as being upbeat and happy latterly, although she definitely had been when she met with her biological mother. I'd like to think that was about more than just Haloperidol keeping her on a even keel.
You've put words in Dr Ferguson's mouth, and applied a meaning to them which seem closer to your beliefs than his.
-
What do you mean persuaded Jane,by whom?
Those things you've read, possibly misinterpreted or placed in the wrong time-frame, or simply because, despite what you say, you lean more towards Sheila's guilt than JB's.
-
I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'. Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it. But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything. Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill? What about the twins? They could wake and hide somewhere. Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.
Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length. The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems. When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged. It doesn't bode well, in my view. It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here. Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet. These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over. It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.
When I joined the forum I thought it was a MOJ but that I would soon find lots of information / evidence that would convince me otherwise. But the opposite happened the more I dug around the less and less safe the conviction appeared.
Then when you read Adams scenario in which there is absolutely nothing of any substance, he convinces me its a MOJ ;)
-
I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'. Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it. But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything. Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill? What about the twins? They could wake and hide somewhere. Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.
Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length. The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems. When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged. It doesn't bode well, in my view. It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here. Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet. These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over. It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.
..and why would she wash herself when her normal state was body odour? The conviction is safe.
-
When I joined the forum I thought it was a MOJ but that I would soon find lots of information / evidence that would convince me otherwise. But the opposite happened the more I dug around the less and less safe the conviction appeared.
Then when you read Adams scenario in which there is absolutely nothing of any substance, he convinces me its a MOJ ;)
I posted the link to my scenario thread this week.
Each point matches the evidence.
I'll dig out your scenario.
-
I posted the link to my scenario thread this week.
Each point matches the evidence.
I'll dig out your scenario.
Read your scenario Adam everywhere you say "evidence" there is nothing.
-
..and why would she wash herself when her normal state was body odour? The conviction is safe.
She would wash herself because she was committing suicide and presumably wanted to look her best when found or something like that. Bear in mind a washing theory was propounded at trial by Professor Bernard Knight, a very eminent pathologist. It's not as if I've just thought it up.
As for 'body odour', what's that got to do with it? It's just an anecdote from one of her previous employers. If you're saying she was unkempt out of habit and wouldn't have cared, then why did she bother attending to her nails and hair? The pro-guilt account of Sheila seems to be a bit muddled and lacking in overall inconsistency, as if intended to suit the answer needed at the moment.
-
She would wash herself because she was committing suicide and presumably wanted to look her best when found or something like that. Bear in mind a washing theory was propounded at trial by Professor Bernard Knight, a very eminent pathologist. It's not as if I've just thought it up.
As for 'body odour', what's that got to do with it? It's just an anecdote from one of her previous employers. If you're saying she was unkempt out of habit and wouldn't have cared, then why did she bother attending to her nails and hair? The pro-guilt account of Sheila seems to be a bit muddled and lacking in overall inconsistency, as if intended to suit the answer needed at the moment.
She did when reminded to. To answer snow's point alongside we have shopkeeper Barry Parker's eyewitness evidence in Tiptree how her lipstick was smudged on her teeth. We also have Michael Horsnell's account of how ungainly Sheila walked at Vaulty Manor. This from a person who is supposed to have been mobile enough to ascend and descend the staircase with the purpose of reloading a rifle twice to annihilate her close family.
-
Those things you've read, possibly misinterpreted or placed in the wrong time-frame, or simply because, despite what you say, you lean more towards Sheila's guilt than JB's.
I just need some substantial evidence against him Jane.Tell me what convinced you,and made you change your mind.Is it something simple that i am overlooking.
-
She did when reminded to. To answer snow's point alongside we have shopkeeper Barry Parker's eyewitness evidence in Tiptree how her lipstick was smudged on her teeth. We also have Michael Horsnell's account of how ungainly Sheila walked at Vaulty Manor. This from a person who is supposed to have been mobile enough to ascend and descend the staircase with the purpose of reloading a rifle twice to annihilate her close family.
How do you know she was reminded to? And what difference would that make anyway?
Also, how does the fact she was able to do her nails and hair, etc., square with the rest of what you say about her? Her lack of co-ordination and so forth. Did someone else do her nails, perhaps at a nail bar in Tiptree do you think? Or do you acknowledge that if she did them herself, then she was not as lacking in motor co-ordination as is sometimes claimed?
Also, I assume you would say she was found clean (save for the spattered blood). How and why did she clean herself, if she carried on like a dishevelled person?
-
Your average nail polish will last for two days without chipping.
The long-wearing formulas can go up to two weeks before they start to crack and flake! It depends on your polish's ingredients, as well as your daily activities.
----------
Sheila could have painted her nails days or weeks beforehand. When the side effects of Haloperiodal let her.
-
Or Sheila could have painted her nails earlier in the day. Then become docile later on.
Bamber's reconnaissance & PB's phone call were only around 4 hours before the massacre.
-
Or Sheila could have painted her nails earlier in the day. Then become docile later on.
Bamber's reconnaissance & PB's phone call were only around 4 hours before the massacre.
But you've told me the prosecution case doesn't depend on Sheila being docile, so why engage in all this elaborate guesswork about circumstances you were not witness to? She did this, she could have done that, Jeremy did this, Jeremy believed that, Sheila never did this. How do you and Steve know all this? Were you there?
You don't know when she did her nails or that she was sedated or docile. Neither do I. I merely ask how it can be that she could do her nails at all, ever, if she lacked basic motor co-ordination. Did she just take her time? Steve says she was dishevelled by habit. Then why was she found clean? Did she get herself ready specially for Jeremy, knowing he was coming?
I think you dogmatic pro-guilt people need to get yourselves in a gridiron huddle and sort your story out. You seem to be in a bit of muddle at the moment, changing what you say depending on the objections raised.
-
I would have said that the false fingernail which AE found on the floor would have been that of her index finger-----which does the most work on the hand, like loading a rifle or just shoving the bullets in, individually.
-
I would have said that the false fingernail which AE found on the floor would have been that of her index finger-----which does the most work on the hand, like loading a rifle or just shoving the bullets in, individually.
Which false fingernail Lookout?
-
Or Sheila could have painted her nails earlier in the day. Then become docile later on.
Bamber's reconnaissance & PB's phone call were only around 4 hours before the massacre.
Or a friend could have done them to smarten her up for the party. She wasn't into domesticity in her well state, her behaviours over the last fortnight suggest she wouldn't have done anything which would have caused them to chip.
-
Which false fingernail Lookout?
AE found one, presumably on the bedroom floor and put it into a make-up bag.
-
Correction, after AE found the fingernail she handed it to the police according to Vidvic and Hartley ( 2014 )
-
JB never had a mark on him from those " long talons " of Sheila's ? Amazing.
-
But you've told me the prosecution case doesn't depend on Sheila being docile, so why engage in all this elaborate guesswork about circumstances you were not witness to? She did this, she could have done that, Jeremy did this, Jeremy believed that, Sheila never did this. How do you and Steve know all this? Were you there?
You don't know when she did her nails or that she was sedated or docile. Neither do I. I merely ask how it can be that she could do her nails at all, ever, if she lacked basic motor co-ordination. Did she just take her time? Steve says she was dishevelled by habit. Then why was she found clean? Did she get herself ready specially for Jeremy, knowing he was coming?
I think you dogmatic pro-guilt people need to get yourselves in a gridiron huddle and sort your story out. You seem to be in a bit of muddle at the moment, changing what you say depending on the objections raised.
You are the one bringing up Sheila's painted nails.
Just saying they could have been painted, hours, days or weeks earlier.
So does not negate the WS's or crime scene evidence that Sheila was very docile.
-
Or a friend could have done them to smarten her up for the party. She wasn't into domesticity in her well state, her behaviours over the last fortnight suggest she wouldn't have done anything which would have caused them to chip.
A friend. Or June.
Going by the crime scene & Bamber's/PB's WS's, Sheila was in no state to paint nails a few hours before the massacre.
-
I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'. Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it. But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything. Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill? What about the twins? They could wake and hide somewhere. Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.
Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length. The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems. When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged. It doesn't bode well, in my view. It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here. Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet. These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over. It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.
The twins were shot first. While they slept.
-
I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'. Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it. But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything. Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill? What about the twins? They could wake and hide somewhere. Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.
Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length. The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems. When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged. It doesn't bode well, in my view. It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here. Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet. These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over. It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.
Bamber was prepared to take that risk.
He was fully clothed so scratching/hitting would not hurt him.
Fled or hid? More like slept through it.
-
I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'. Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it. But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything. Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill? What about the twins? They could wake and hide somewhere. Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.
Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length. The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems. When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged. It doesn't bode well, in my view. It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here. Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet. These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over. It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.
The commotion was downstairs & over quickly.
Sheila was asleep upstairs behind thick walls & doors. Very docile from the Haloperiodal.
-
The commotion was downstairs & over quickly.
Sheila was asleep upstairs behind thick walls & doors. Very docile from the Haloperiodal.
Although possible Sheila woke.
Bamber would just have to deal with the situation.
If she did wake, there are no signs of a struggle.
-
Supporters have the twins running around & hiding. Sheila scratching, hitting, hiding or running away.
It was a silent massacre at around 2am. Bamber would not be expecting any of that.
Only Nevill put up resistance & that was only after he had been shot 4 times.
-
You are the one bringing up Sheila's painted nails.
Just saying they could have been painted, hours, days or weeks earlier.
So does not negate the WS's or crime scene evidence that Sheila was very docile.
There is no such evidence. It's just invented in your imagination.
-
Supporters have the twins running around & hiding. Sheila scratching, hitting, hiding or running away.
It was a silent massacre at around 2am. Bamber would not be expecting any of that.
Only Nevill put up resistance & that was only after he had been shot 4 times.
Adam you have forgotten Crispy! He would have made one hell of a racket as JB clambered through the window ::)
-
Adam you have forgotten Crispy! He would have made one hell of a racket as JB clambered through the window ::)
As well as biting his ankles. Didn't JB once backheel the dog for snapping at him ?
-
I firmly believe that Crispy would have been the first victim had it been Jeremy. Well you would shoot it if you were that way inclined. Who'd want a dog running amok yapping and snapping at you ?
Afterall, what's an old dog against 5 humans ?
I wouldn't have thought it mattered to one with psychopathic tendencies.
-
Crispy was not a guard dog. Dogs do also sleep.
People have said Crispy slept with Nevill & June. This is supported by him being found in the main bedroom.
In that case, Crispy was behind closed doors & thick walls as Bamber entered & went upstairs.
So unlikely to hear anything or bark if he did. Crispy would know Sheila & two children were staying.
-
If Crispy had his own little room inside WHF, again unlikely to hear anything. And even less likely to be heard if barking.
-
There is no such evidence. It's just invented in your imagination.
The WS's are in the 'Statements & transcripts' section of this website.
The crime scene evidence is well documented in several places online.
-
If Crispy had his own little room inside WHF, again unlikely to hear anything. And even less likely to be heard if barking.
From Bews statement Adam!
"From inside the house was coming the sound of a dog barking and whining"
This was when Bews was 30yards away outside, stop posting misinformation please!
Crispy to me would be a major problem to a killer clambering through a window, as Lookout says Crispy would probably have been the first victim if JB committed the crime.
-
The WS's are in the 'Statements & transcripts' section of this website.
The crime scene evidence is well documented in several places online.
I have read them all, thank you.
-
From Bews statement Adam!
"From inside the house was coming the sound of a dog barking and whining"
This was when Bews was 30yards away outside, stop posting misinformation please!
Crispy to me would be a major problem to a killer clambering through a window, as Lookout says Crispy would probably have been the first victim if JB committed the crime.
I'll check Bews statement.
Bamber would not shoot Crispy. He was not in the wills. He had more important targets.
Bamber would know how Crispy would react. If at all. It did not deter him.
-
There is no such evidence. It's just invented in your imagination.
Blood Relations Chapter 32
Sheila's GP, Dr Ann Wilkinson, gave evidence about medication. She said Sheila was receiving monthly doses of a powerful tranquillizer, Haloperidol, designed to control schizophrenia. A month before the massacre, Sheila had consulted Dr Wilkinson and asked for a cut in the prescribed dosage. Sheila had explained the drug was making her drowsy and slowing her down. Dr Wilkinson agreed that Haloperidol had the side effect of sedating some patients. Accordingly she decided to halve Sheila's monthly dose from 200mg to 100mg.
-
But you've told me the prosecution case doesn't depend on Sheila being docile, so why engage in all this elaborate guesswork about circumstances you were not witness to? She did this, she could have done that, Jeremy did this, Jeremy believed that, Sheila never did this. How do you and Steve know all this? Were you there?
You don't know when she did her nails or that she was sedated or docile. Neither do I. I merely ask how it can be that she could do her nails at all, ever, if she lacked basic motor co-ordination. Did she just take her time? Steve says she was dishevelled by habit. Then why was she found clean? Did she get herself ready specially for Jeremy, knowing he was coming?
I think you dogmatic pro-guilt people need to get yourselves in a gridiron huddle and sort your story out. You seem to be in a bit of muddle at the moment, changing what you say depending on the objections raised.
She could look presentable when encouraged to do so. Remember Jeremy told police that she liked to be told she looked pretty. Maybe he had inside knowledge of how she looked whilst leading her to her death. We know Sheila didn't have much of a concept of time: late or missed doctor's appointments, not getting Nicholas and Daniel ready for school. There is no malicious intent: just she stayed in bed due to the side-effects of Haloperidol. She may well have taken her time painting her nails at Moreshead Mansions. It's quite evident on her last day she was unable to apply lipstick with any degree of accuracy, yet she is supposed to have wielded a gun with consummate skill.
-
She could look presentable when encouraged to do so. Remember Jeremy told police that she liked to be told she looked pretty. Maybe he had inside knowledge of how she looked whilst leading her to her death. We know Sheila didn't have much of a concept of time: late or missed doctor's appointments, not getting Nicholas and Daniel ready for school. There is no malicious intent: just she stayed in bed due to the side-effects of Haloperidol. She may well have taken her time painting her nails at Moreshead Mansions. It's quite evident on her last day she was unable to apply lipstick with any degree of accuracy, yet she is supposed to have wielded a gun with consummate skill.
Good evening Steve.So you agree with Adam,that Sheila was led through from her bedroom,and in past her mother to the far side of the bed in her parents room.Then what ?
-
Good evening Steve.So you agree with Adam,that Sheila was led through from her bedroom,and in past her mother to the far side of the bed in her parents room.Then what ?
It was all over in moments snow. Sheila is told to lie down, unaware at the best of times what is occurring around her. It's why Jeremy told Julie this was "the perfect crime", being impossible to determine whether the rifle which killed her was fired from her own hand or somebody else stood over her and pulled the trigger.
-
Blood Relations Chapter 32
Sheila's GP, Dr Ann Wilkinson, gave evidence about medication. She said Sheila was receiving monthly doses of a powerful tranquillizer, Haloperidol, designed to control schizophrenia. A month before the massacre, Sheila had consulted Dr Wilkinson and asked for a cut in the prescribed dosage. Sheila had explained the drug was making her drowsy and slowing her down. Dr Wilkinson agreed that Haloperidol had the side effect of sedating some patients. Accordingly she decided to halve Sheila's monthly dose from 200mg to 100mg.
Haloperiodal is a very strong drug with lots of side effects.
Suspect a full dosage meant she could not function a lot of the time. A concern for her & her children.
Halving the dosage meant she could function more. The massacre night was not one of those nights.
-
Good evening Steve.So you agree with Adam,that Sheila was led through from her bedroom,and in past her mother to the far side of the bed in her parents room.Then what ?
You know what then happened.
-
You know what then happened.
As i have just told Steve,that is not good enough Adam.Please give a detailed account from the time JB entered Sheilas room until her death.What was said and every action.Every step of the way,from Sheilas room to where she was shot.
-
As i have just told Steve,that is not good enough Adam.Please give a detailed account from the time JB entered Sheilas room until her death.What was said and every action.Every step of the way,from Sheilas room to where she was shot.
You need to really concentrate on your Sheila scerario. It has dozens of 'maybe's'.
The Bamber scenario is straight forward & follows the crime scene evidence.
-
As i have just told Steve,that is not good enough Adam.Please give a detailed account from the time JB entered Sheilas room until her death.What was said and every action.Every step of the way,from Sheilas room to where she was shot.
'Detailed account'. 'What was said'.
To be fair, you do give precise moments when Crispy 'maybe' barks & Sheila/June 'maybe' scream.
-
'Detailed account'. 'What was said'.
To be fair, you do give precise moments when Crispy 'maybe' barks & Sheila/June 'maybe' scream.
But a 'Sheila/Bamber' scenario should have no 'maybe's'. Espescially ones at percific times.