Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on March 20, 2022, 09:10:AM
-
After months of planning, Bamber had a 4 evening window of opportunity.
He was going ahead regardless of Sheila's condition. The rewards were too tempting.
The WS's of Bamber, PB & Julie, together with the crime scene evidence suggests Sheila was very docile & put up no/minimal resistance.
However Bamber would have no problems controlling a fully fit Sheila.
-
Reasons:
Bamber was physically a lot stronger.
Bamber was determined & confident.
Bamber was prepared & had a plan.
Sheila was unprepared.
Bamber had a rifle.
Sheila would trust Bamber.
Bamber was fully clothed.
Very unlikely Sheila woke so would not be aware what was happening.
If Sheila did wake, no guarantee she would get up.
If Sheila woke & got up, she would think it was a burglar & be compliant.
If Sheila got up, she may freeze.
Bamber had to get Sheila to move a few feet. Either through persuasion, cohersion. Or both. He could then take her to ground.
Bamber knew where he wanted to shoot Sheila. So knew what he had to do with her.
Bamber was hyped after his kitchen fight. Sheila was not going to stop him now.
-
As it happens, it is almost certain Sheila was very docile. A welcome bonus for Bamber.
-
After months of planning, Bamber had a 4 evening window of opportunity.
He was going ahead regardless of Sheila's condition. The rewards were too tempting.
The WS's of Bamber, PB & Julie, together with the crime scene evidence suggests Sheila was very docile & put up no/minimal resistance.
However Bamber would have no problems controlling a fully fit Sheila.
In this scenario, it's difficult to imagine Sheila reacting in a docile manner, to the murder of her children.
-
In this scenario, it's difficult to imagine Sheila reacting in a docile manner, to the murder of her children.
If aware they had been shot. Which would only be after a lot of unlikely occurrences.
If aware they had been shot, that just may make her freeze. Knowing she is likely to be next.
-
If aware they had been shot. Which would only be after a lot of unlikely occurrences.
If aware they had been shot, that just may make her freeze. Knowing she is likely to be next.
Let's just suppose he told her they were dead. He may have told her that no one would suspect him because he had the perfect alibi. He may have told her that she'd be the main suspect because their parents had threatened to have her children taken away -after all, he'd been there when they said it, hadn't he. He may have told her that she wouldn't be given a prison sentence, she be put in a hospital for the criminally insane. Or she could commit suicide and put an end to it. He may have offered to 'help' her? If that had been the 'choice' she'd been offered, I can't see her putting up any sort of fight.
-
The thing is, JB's never shown any of this type of behaviour in almost 37 years ? It's the kind of behaviour that the like of Putin is showing now.
-
The thing is, JB's never shown any of this type of behaviour in almost 37 years ? It's the kind of behaviour that the like of Putin is showing now.
But he doesn't need to have shown his resentment for it to have been there. My friend's son was 60 before he revealed his hatred of boarding school. When asked why he'd never said anything, his response really stung. He told my friend that neither she nor his father had ever listened to what he wanted. They'd been too wrapped up in keeping his sister happy. My friend now admits to this, probably, being true. Sure, there's been no murder, they're a very gentle family. However, there's a huge rift between the siblings which, because the problems between them have been handed down to their children, will be likely to last for generations, until such time as no one can remember what caused it.
-
But he doesn't need to have shown his resentment for it to have been there. My friend's son was 60 before he revealed his hatred of boarding school. When asked why he'd never said anything, his response really stung. He told my friend that neither she nor his father had ever listened to what he wanted. They'd been too wrapped up in keeping his sister happy. My friend now admits to this, probably, being true. Sure, there's been no murder, they're a very gentle family. However, there's a huge rift between the siblings which, because the problems between them have been handed down to their children, will be likely to last for generations, until such time as no one can remember what caused it.
I can fully understand the resentment felt in those whose parents expect more from their offspring as regards education especially when it comes to boarding schools. It has proved to be very damaging in many cases in those pupils who were never meant to join such establishments and who also " didn't have a voice " to object in their futures. Children/ teens should be guided and not moulded ( molded ) into something that the parents think fit.
Sheila had the right idea but went around it in the wrong way by waiting to be expelled for whatever reason, sadly because she couldn't speak out to her parents with her objections to such schooling. Saying that, she was still supported in doing what she'd decided to do, so why didn't Jeremy kick-off ? Because of the two siblings, he was the most sensitive and did as he was told-----under sufferance, the way his life's gone, sadly. I don't doubt for one minute that his stay at boarding school affected him but certainly not to the point that he'd murder anyone for his " sins ".
-
I can fully understand the resentment felt in those whose parents expect more from their offspring as regards education especially when it comes to boarding schools. It has proved to be very damaging in many cases in those pupils who were never meant to join such establishments and who also " didn't have a voice " to object in their futures. Children/ teens should be guided and not moulded ( molded ) into something that the parents think fit.
Sheila had the right idea but went around it in the wrong way by waiting to be expelled for whatever reason, sadly because she couldn't speak out to her parents with her objections to such schooling. Saying that, she was still supported in doing what she'd decided to do, so why didn't Jeremy kick-off ? Because of the two siblings, he was the most sensitive and did as he was told-----under sufferance, the way his life's gone, sadly. I don't doubt for one minute that his stay at boarding school affected him but certainly not to the point that he'd murder anyone for his " sins ".
In all likelihood, both children had the same needs. It's just that Sheila -maybe because she was female?- knew how to get her needs met. Why did not JB "kick off"? Probably for the same reasons my friend's son didn't, although he has opened up since. I suspect that it takes rather more than boarding school for someone to want to commit murder, but it could certainly contribute to a very long list of things which might.
-
Reasons:
Bamber was physically a lot stronger.
Bamber was determined & confident.
Bamber was prepared & had a plan.
Sheila was unprepared.
Bamber had a rifle.
Sheila would trust Bamber.
Bamber was fully clothed.
Very unlikely Sheila woke so would not be aware what was happening.
If Sheila did wake, no guarantee she would get up.
If Sheila woke & got up, she would think it was a burglar & be compliant.
If Sheila got up, she may freeze.
Bamber had to get Sheila to move a few feet. Either through persuasion, cohersion. Or both. He could then take her to ground.
Bamber knew where he wanted to shoot Sheila. So knew what he had to do with her.
Bamber was hyped after his kitchen fight. Sheila was not going to stop him now.
Hi Adam,hope your well today.Now,you say JB knew where he wanted to kill Sheila.Why did he want to kill Sheila in her parents bedroom? If she slept through the shooting,why not sneak in and shoot her where she lay.That way he didnt have to tell her anything or risk her going berserk when she saw her mothers body.And apparantly her feet,body and night dress were spotlessly clean with no one elses blood,only her own.It wasnt as if he shot her in the main bedroom and smeared her with the others blood or anything.So why move her to the main bedroom?
-
Hi Adam,hope your well today.Now,you say JB knew where he wanted to kill Sheila.Why did he want to kill Sheila in her parents bedroom? If she slept through the shooting,why not sneak in and shoot her where she lay.That way he didnt have to tell her anything or risk her going berserk when she saw her mothers body.And apparantly her feet,body and night dress were spotlessly clean with no one elses blood,only her own.It wasnt as if he shot her in the main bedroom and smeared her with the others blood or anything.So why move her to the main bedroom?
How was he going to make it look as if she'd shot her family and committed suicide if she was found, neatly tucked up in bed with a bullet hole? The possible reason she was found in her mother's bedroom would have been a miscalculation on his part. If he was capable of committing murder to include two small boys, he'd have been totally incapable of knowing how strong would be their mother's love for them, and subsequently, if they all had to die, she'd want them to be together.
-
In all likelihood, both children had the same needs. It's just that Sheila -maybe because she was female?- knew how to get her needs met. Why did not JB "kick off"? Probably for the same reasons my friend's son didn't, although he has opened up since. I suspect that it takes rather more than boarding school for someone to want to commit murder, but it could certainly contribute to a very long list of things which might.
To be perfectly honest I think Jeremy had been scared of his own shadow whilst growing up as such an upbringing can either kill or cure depending on the type of person one is. It didn't do Sheila any good as getting pregnant was her way of escaping then things went from bad to worse.
Any parent can tell if their offspring is a bright scholar or not or if they're of the mindset to be sent away to boarding school. Invariably it's the parents decision and not the child's, whether because both parents work or because it's convenient to do so, I personally don't believe in it because separation isn't good to start with and never having been separated from my own parents I can't begin to imagine what effect it had on a child, but it certainly would be everlasting.
My dear pa-in-law had my daughters lives mapped out as soon as they were out of nappies by offering to send them to the local Montessori school. I was horrified at the time to think that they'd be taken from 2 years old, so I declined. Even when it was suggested they go to a private school after primary age I politely refused. Initially because their half brother and sister were never offered the same when they'd been young as it didn't seem right to me even though they were years apart age-wise.
-
How was he going to make it look as if she'd shot her family and committed suicide if she was found, neatly tucked up in bed with a bullet hole? The possible reason she was found in her mother's bedroom would have been a miscalculation on his part. If he was capable of committing murder to include two small boys, he'd have been totally incapable of knowing how strong would be their mother's love for them, and subsequently, if they all had to die, she'd want them to be together.
But thats the point i was making Jane.We are told she was found neat and clean anyway.This was major evidence at trial.Apparently her feet were spotless,so why should it make any difference where she was found.And you say that Sheila should have been found with the twins.This is just another bit of speculation to point to JBs guilt.Remember Sheila thought everyone around her was evil,her boyfriend was the Devil himself.You know what she had told Ferguson about the twins.With that mind set ,do you really think shooting herself in the twins room would have been of the uttmost importance to her.You are talking of a normal mother Jane,not a mentally ill one Jane.
-
But thats the point i was making Jane.We are told she was found neat and clean anyway.This was major evidence at trial.Apparently her feet were spotless,so why should it make any difference where she was found.And you say that Sheila should have been found with the twins.This is just another bit of speculation to point to JBs guilt.Remember Sheila thought everyone around her was evil,her boyfriend was the Devil himself.You know what she had told Ferguson about the twins.With that mind set ,do you really think shooting herself in the twins room would have been of the uttmost importance to her.You are talking of a normal mother Jane,not a mentally ill one Jane.
You seem to have a collection of both facts and myths and lumped them together. Whilst much of what you say is factual, the time frame in which you've placed them, probably isn't, ergo, whilst it's true that Sheila, during her first stay in hospital, confided her fears regarding her sons, to Dr Ferguson, he says that, during her second stay, she was no longer focussed on her children or her mother, another cause of concern for her. There is nothing to suggest, now that she was appropriately medicated with a theraputic dose, that such thoughts ever entered her mind.
-
You seem to have a collection of both facts and myths and lumped them together. Whilst much of what you say is factual, the time frame in which you've placed them, probably isn't, ergo, whilst it's true that Sheila, during her first stay in hospital, confided her fears regarding her sons, to Dr Ferguson, he says that, during her second stay, she was no longer focussed on her children or her mother, another cause of concern for her. There is nothing to suggest, now that she was appropriately medicated with a theraputic dose, that such thoughts ever entered her mind.
Yes,thats all fair enough Jane.But if that is the case,Sheila should have been in reasonably good spirits and not that willing to die without a struggle.Or was she still very depressed and without hope?
-
Yes,thats all fair enough Jane.But if that is the case,Sheila should have been in reasonably good spirits and not that willing to die without a struggle.Or was she still very depressed and without hope?
So where are you getting the idea of these alleged "reasonably good spirits" from, and what, exactly do you mean by it? The person you're describing doesn't fit with most of the suggestions of those who knew her and spent time with her during her last fortnight. It's only guess-work, of course, but I suspect Sheila started to go down hill after her mother left. They'd hit it off, clearly enjoying each others' company, and Sheila must have found, in Christine, all the things she'd found lacking in June. She must have felt bereft and abandoned all over again after she left. Leaving out all that her friends said of her during her last fourteen days, fast forward to the few, dreaded days, she was to spend with June, for whom, it seems, she'd never been able to get it right. I'd say she had a perfect right to her depression, but that's not to rule out moments when her sons' antics might have caused her to smile.
-
Hi Adam,hope your well today.Now,you say JB knew where he wanted to kill Sheila.Why did he want to kill Sheila in her parents bedroom? If she slept through the shooting,why not sneak in and shoot her where she lay.That way he didnt have to tell her anything or risk her going berserk when she saw her mothers body.And apparantly her feet,body and night dress were spotlessly clean with no one elses blood,only her own.It wasnt as if he shot her in the main bedroom and smeared her with the others blood or anything.So why move her to the main bedroom?
'knew where he wanted to shoot Sheila'.
That is referring to location on her body.
-
It is possible Bamber intended to have Sheila dead in the twins bedroom.
However once Nevill left the main bedroom, he knew there was enough space in there. That room was nearer.
-
Hi Adam,hope your well today.Now,you say JB knew where he wanted to kill Sheila.Why did he want to kill Sheila in her parents bedroom? If she slept through the shooting,why not sneak in and shoot her where she lay.That way he didnt have to tell her anything or risk her going berserk when she saw her mothers body.And apparantly her feet,body and night dress were spotlessly clean with no one elses blood,only her own.It wasnt as if he shot her in the main bedroom and smeared her with the others blood or anything.So why move her to the main bedroom?
It was an option for Bamber to shoot Sheila in her bed. Then carry her a few feet to her resting place. Bamber would be strong enough to carry her.
-
It was an option for Bamber to shoot Sheila in her bed. Then carry her a few feet to her resting place. Bamber would be strong enough to carry her.
A full massacre in ten minutes, eh , as well as carrying people ? I don't think so.
-
So where are you getting the idea of these alleged "reasonably good spirits" from, and what, exactly do you mean by it? The person you're describing doesn't fit with most of the suggestions of those who knew her and spent time with her during her last fortnight. It's only guess-work, of course, but I suspect Sheila started to go down hill after her mother left. They'd hit it off, clearly enjoying each others' company, and Sheila must have found, in Christine, all the things she'd found lacking in June. She must have felt bereft and abandoned all over again after she left. Leaving out all that her friends said of her during her last fourteen days, fast forward to the few, dreaded days, she was to spend with June, for whom, it seems, she'd never been able to get it right. I'd say she had a perfect right to her depression, but that's not to rule out moments when her sons' antics might have caused her to smile.
So depression was her biggest enemy then Jane.
-
'knew where he wanted to shoot Sheila'.
That is referring to location on her body.
Oh i misunderstood you Adam.
-
So depression was her biggest enemy then Jane.
Depression is everyone's enemy, Snow. It can drain lives, rob sufferers of mental energy, and the will to lift themselves out of it.
-
It was an option for Bamber to shoot Sheila in her bed. Then carry her a few feet to her resting place. Bamber would be strong enough to carry her.
Dont think so Adam.If he shot her in bed,there would be blood stains.Especially if the bullet went straight through.
-
Dont think so Adam.If he shot her in bed,there would be blood stains.Especially if the bullet went straight through.
Depends on whether he lifted her before she bled onto the sheets.
-
So where are you getting the idea of these alleged "reasonably good spirits" from, and what, exactly do you mean by it? The person you're describing doesn't fit with most of the suggestions of those who knew her and spent time with her during her last fortnight. It's only guess-work, of course, but I suspect Sheila started to go down hill after her mother left. They'd hit it off, clearly enjoying each others' company, and Sheila must have found, in Christine, all the things she'd found lacking in June. She must have felt bereft and abandoned all over again after she left. Leaving out all that her friends said of her during her last fourteen days, fast forward to the few, dreaded days, she was to spend with June, for whom, it seems, she'd never been able to get it right. I'd say she had a perfect right to her depression, but that's not to rule out moments when her sons' antics might have caused her to smile.
One of Fergusons later statements claimed she was in good spirits Jane.Not that i place much importance on any statement made after it was five murders.
-
Depends on whether he lifted her before she bled onto the sheets.
Too weak Adam.May i ask you another question,why didnt JB shoot June in the HEAD while she was sleeping?
-
It was an option for Bamber to shoot Sheila in her bed. Then carry her a few feet to her resting place. Bamber would be strong enough to carry her.
You should start writing children's book Adam a modern version of Enid Blyton?
I am sure even Micky Mouse would not have been fooled if JB shot Sheila in her bed then carried her into her parent's room. If JB carried her anywhere it would have been the children's room.
-
One of Fergusons later statements claimed she was in good spirits Jane.Not that i place much importance on any statement made after it was five murders.
The last time Dr Ferguson saw Sheila was at least 12 weeks prior to her death. I guess, as she was getting out of hospital, she would have presented as being in reasonably good spirits. At that time, she had much to look forward to.
-
Too weak Adam.May i ask you another question,why didnt JB shoot June in the HEAD while she was sleeping?
Too weak. Your scenario had 50 maybe's. Six of them before Nevill even woke.
But appreciate you will focus on trying to create obstacles on the straight forward Bamber scenario.
-
Depends on whether he lifted her before she bled onto the sheets.
He would have to run fast Adam otherwise there would be blood stains from her bedroom all the way into her parents room. Perhaps JB assumed the police would assume it was Crispy walking around ::)
-
Too weak Adam.May i ask you another question,why didnt JB shoot June in the HEAD while she was sleeping?
Because JB was a marksman. Whilst telling police that Sheila was gun competent, he couldn't afford for his 'work' to look like anything other than having been carried out by someone who'd gone mad.
-
Because JB was a marksman. Whilst telling police that Sheila was gun competent, he couldn't afford for his 'work' to look like anything other than having been carried out by someone who'd gone mad.
Snow gave up on his 'Sheila scenario".
Then created a 'revised Sheila scenario'. Which he has given up on.
He spends his time trying to create obstacles for Bamber. Which didn't even happen. Such as Sheila fleaing.
-
Snow gave up on his 'Sheila scenario".
Then created a 'revised Sheila scenario'. Which he has given up on.
He spends his time trying to create obstacles for Bamber. Which didn't even happen. Such as Sheila fleaing.
It's curious. Almost as if they're afraid for him. Still, you never know. The next "Ah! But what if..........?" that gets thrown, MIGHT make us scratch our heads :))
-
Because JB was a marksman. Whilst telling police that Sheila was gun competent, he couldn't afford for his 'work' to look like anything other than having been carried out by someone who'd gone mad.
You don't have to be a marksman Jane to shoot someone from inches away whether it be in the head or in the chin.
-
It's curious. Almost as if they're afraid for him. Still, you never know. The next "Ah! But what if..........?" that gets thrown, MIGHT make us scratch our heads :))
That is the supporters tactic. Focus on the Bamber scenario.
Smow has Bamber bumping into things & knocking things over before he even fires his first shot. In a house that had been part of all of his life!
-
He would have to run fast Adam otherwise there would be blood stains from her bedroom all the way into her parents room. Perhaps JB assumed the police would assume it was Crispy walking around ::)
Bamber would be aware he had to be fast.
Blood would have been more of a stream running down her neck. So would have taken time to drip.
My view has always been Bamber woke & lead Sheila a few feet. Then took her by surprise.
If Sheila did wake & get out of bed, Bamber was ready.
-
That is the supporters tactic. Focus on the Bamber scenario.
Smow has Bamber bumping into things & knocking things over before he even fires his first shot. In a house that had been part of all of his life!
I am sure if you put forward Adam a well thought out sequence of events that explain our doubts about the case we would listen. At the moment you expect us to believe the impossible, not just once but over and over again.
You know what our doubts are about the case, so I am waiting for a well thought out reply.
-
I am sure if you put forward Adam a well thought out sequence of events that explain our doubts about the case we would listen. At the moment you expect us to believe the impossible, not just once but over and over again.
You know what our doubts are about the case, so I am waiting for a well thought out reply.
I have submitted a straight forward scenario which follows the crime scene evidence.
Not sure what else can be done.
-
You don't have to be a marksman Jane to shoot someone from inches away whether it be in the head or in the chin.
I'm fairly convinced that I couldn't successfully fire a gun at anyone, Rob................but then I don't have (m)any murderous inclinations.
-
It's curious. Almost as if they're afraid for him. Still, you never know. The next "Ah! But what if..........?" that gets thrown, MIGHT make us scratch our heads :))
Well i for one will do my best to make you scratch your head Jane,until you make me scratch mine and finally say,guilty as charged.
-
I was always a crack-shot with a rifle at the funfair ;D Won many a prize.
-
I was always a crack-shot with a rifle at the funfair ;D Won many a prize.
You don't half talk some tosh.
-
You don't half talk some tosh.
Not as much as you do.
-
I'm fairly convinced that I couldn't successfully fire a gun at anyone, Rob................but then I don't have (m)any murderous inclinations.
I agree Jane but you only need to be deranged carry out what happened at WHF, you don't have to be a marksman, in fact I don't believe even a marksman could have carried out this crime? a marksman is just good at shooting at targets not humans.
-
And those rifles are meant for vermin and not humans. If JB had been planning this he'd have bought a handgun, simple as that.
-
Yes,almost all the shots were fired at stationary targets from close contact to about a couple of feet.Hardly like shooting at approaching soldiers on horse back at a hundred yards.I think we can disperse with the term marksman in this instance.
-
Too weak. Your scenario had 50 maybe's. Six of them before Nevill even woke.
But appreciate you will focus on trying to create obstacles on the straight forward Bamber scenario.
You didnt answer why JB didnt shoot June in the head while she was sleeping Adam.
-
Too weak. Your scenario had 50 maybe's. Six of them before Nevill even woke.
But appreciate you will focus on trying to create obstacles on the straight forward Bamber scenario.
Did you ever write a detailed step by step JB scenario Adam,and if so would you mind telling me where to find it.
-
Did you ever write a detailed step by step JB scenario Adam,and if so would you mind telling me where to find it.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10792.msg497580.html#msg497580
-
"Cycle to WHF:
Evidence - June's bike brought over to Bamber's cottage just before massacre. Easy journey. Unseen.
.......
Cycle home:
Evidence - Bike found at Bambers cottage"
Where is the evidence the bike was actually used that night? it was ridden across muddy tracks and fields, it would be obvious if it had been used?
I feel more BS coming!
-
When and from where was the telephone call to the police made?
Please don't say because JB had a phone this was evidence ::)
-
"Exit out of kitchen window:
Evidence - Twenty sources say it can be banged shut from outside. Housekeeper said items moved by kitchen window.on night of massacre."
Can you explain how JB managed to close the secondary latch on the inside of the window? This can only be closed from the inside
-
I have just read and re-read and re-read your scenario Adam I cannot see a single piece of evidence! have you posted your latest one I don't remember your scenario being this bad! Cc thought it was spot on!
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10792.msg497580.html#msg497580
This is the only part of interest to me Adam--Either wake and shoot or shoot an already awake Sheila.Evidence,Sheila found shot in the corner of main bedroom.Sheila on Haloperidol so easy to control--Well meaning no disrespect Adam,this is even far less detailed than the police report sent to the DPP,and as for evidence,this statement holds none that i can see.Being found in the corner of the main bedroom is merely a fact,not evidence.Sheila on Haloperidol so easy to control,you are more or less saying Sheila has been hypnotised and under JBs command.Being drowsy and sedated does not by any stretch of the imagination mean tou have lost the will to live,and are willing to sit still and be shot.Sorry Adam,but your scenario dosent prove anything.
-
I agree Jane but you only need to be deranged carry out what happened at WHF, you don't have to be a marksman, in fact I don't believe even a marksman could have carried out this crime? a marksman is just good at shooting at targets not humans.
Okay, well then we have to come to a decision on whether Sheila was calculated and sane, or unaware and deranged.
-
And those rifles are meant for vermin and not humans. If JB had been planning this he'd have bought a handgun, simple as that.
But it wasn't his plan to have it look like he'd thought the whole thing through before doing it. He wanted it to look as if it was Sheila acting spontaneously, and Sheila definitely wouldn't have gone out and bought a handgun.
-
Okay, well then we have to come to a decision on whether Sheila was calculated and sane, or unaware and deranged.
I've actually struggled with that difference at times. My own indication that Sheila was unwell are the various changes in her pics. We all alter, facially, over the years but Sheila was only young and not subject to such change. I think it was her last pic, or at least one, with her mother and the twins---standing, where I personally thought that she didn't look too well. This would have to be compared to a modelling pic of her sitting on a chair.
I know make-up enhances, but I could see beyond that.
-
I've actually struggled with that difference at times. My own indication that Sheila was unwell are the various changes in her pics. We all alter, facially, over the years but Sheila was only young and not subject to such change. I think it was her last pic, or at least one, with her mother and the twins---standing, where I personally thought that she didn't look too well. This would have to be compared to a modelling pic of her sitting on a chair.
I know make-up enhances, but I could see beyond that.
In the one I'm thinking of, Lookout, my description of her would be "strained and tense". There was something about the way she appeared to be gripping her wrist with her other hand. I have no idea whereabouts she was in her illness, but she seemed devoid of make-up -mask hiding who she was?- and I do recall that schizophrenics don't like having their pictures taken.
-
In the one I'm thinking of, Lookout, my description of her would be "strained and tense". There was something about the way she appeared to be gripping her wrist with her other hand. I have no idea whereabouts she was in her illness, but she seemed devoid of make-up -mask hiding who she was?- and I do recall that schizophrenics don't like having their pictures taken.
So there must have been an awareness of the condition Jane to recognise the fact that they won't look their best, one thing in Sheila's earliest years particularly her modelling when she sought reassurance on her appearance.
What I'm trying to explain is that Sheila could possibly have known that all wasn't as it should have been regarding how she'd felt. Had she realised herself that something wasn't right in her mind ? I can recollect when she cut short her modelling assignment in Japan when she wrote to Colin wanting to return home and requesting to see a psychiatrist.
I wonder how her feelings were at that time as to begin with, a long-haul journey is no mean feat when you're well so how she managed to fly both ways in such a short time made me wonder what the real reason was ?
-
I think Sheila did what Sheila wanted to do and she didn't do things by halves. A girl without a filter.
Her behaviour was a way of getting her own back on those who were controlling her----her ex-husband and her mother.
-
So there must have been an awareness of the condition Jane to recognise the fact that they won't look their best, one thing in Sheila's earliest years particularly her modelling when she sought reassurance on her appearance.
What I'm trying to explain is that Sheila could possibly have known that all wasn't as it should have been regarding how she'd felt. Had she realised herself that something wasn't right in her mind ? I can recollect when she cut short her modelling assignment in Japan when she wrote to Colin wanting to return home and requesting to see a psychiatrist.
I wonder how her feelings were at that time as to begin with, a long-haul journey is no mean feat when you're well so how she managed to fly both ways in such a short time made me wonder what the real reason was ?
I wonder how much of the wanting to see a psychiatrist was about June's bouts of mental illness, thus her fears that she may be going the same way? I'm presuming that June may have been in constant contact with Dr Ferguson out of fear of another breakdown. Hardly a healthy atmosphere in which to bring up an impressionable child. The point I'm making is that it's not possible to find a psychiatrist and make an appointment without going through a GP first, even if one then chooses to go privately.
I think Sheila did what Sheila wanted to do and she didn't do things by halves. A girl without a filter.
Her behaviour was a way of getting her own back on those who were controlling her----her ex-husband and her mother.
I really don't see Colin as controlling. I see Sheila as totally compliant because she'd been trained to be. It's not something she could have changed without a lot of therapy.
-
This is the only part of interest to me Adam--Either wake and shoot or shoot an already awake Sheila.Evidence,Sheila found shot in the corner of main bedroom.Sheila on Haloperidol so easy to control--Well meaning no disrespect Adam,this is even far less detailed than the police report sent to the DPP,and as for evidence,this statement holds none that i can see.Being found in the corner of the main bedroom is merely a fact,not evidence.Sheila on Haloperidol so easy to control,you are more or less saying Sheila has been hypnotised and under JBs command.Being drowsy and sedated does not by any stretch of the imagination mean tou have lost the will to live,and are willing to sit still and be shot.Sorry Adam,but your scenario dosent prove anything.
I've actually created a thread a few days ago - 'Bamber controlling a fully fit Sheila'.
Actually, it's this thread!
However the evidence is Sheila was very docile on the night. Due to the Haloperiodal.
-
"Cycle to WHF:
Evidence - June's bike brought over to Bamber's cottage just before massacre. Easy journey. Unseen.
.......
Cycle home:
Evidence - Bike found at Bambers cottage"
Where is the evidence the bike was actually used that night? it was ridden across muddy tracks and fields, it would be obvious if it had been used?
I feel more BS coming!
It is surprising supporters oppose that Bamber cycled to WHF. It is a slam dunk for guilters.
He stole June's bike a few days before the massacre!
-
I've actually created a thread a few days ago - 'Bamber controlling a fully fit Sheila'.
Actually, it's this thread!
However the evidence is Sheila was very docile on the night. Due to the Haloperiodal.
Choosing to ignore that Haloperidol dosage was theraputic means it's easy to carry on claiming Sheila to be the culprit.
-
Choosing to ignore that Haloperidol dosage was theraputic means it's easy to carry on claiming Sheila to be the culprit.
Jane, it's debateable whether medication dosages are therapeutic in lots of circumstances. The body and mind goes through all sorts of changes in 24hrs and whatever affects the body affects the mind also and vice-versa.
As in my own circumstances taking ( presently ) a therapeutic dose of warfarin, but that could all change and adjustments made after a blood-test which could register either above or below the International Normalized Ratio ( INR ) or bleeding time. This adjustment can be caused by all kinds of things, food, emotions, nobody knows for sure why it fluctuates. It's not failsafe and can cause internal bleeding. Warfarin doesn't agree with everyone.
In Sheila's case, her therapeutic dose should have been checked regularly particularly as she was a cannabis smoker which would have had its own problems within the brain, so although written up as a therapeutic dose it doesn't always play out because of lifestyles.
Sheila's initial high dose was administered for a reason ! But there again, was it the correct medication ? Or did it exacerbate her problems ? We'll never know. One man's meat and all that.
-
Jane, it's debateable whether medication dosages are therapeutic in lots of circumstances. The body and mind goes through all sorts of changes in 24hrs and whatever affects the body affects the mind also and vice-versa.
As in my own circumstances taking ( presently ) a therapeutic dose of warfarin, but that could all change and adjustments made after a blood-test which could register either above or below the International Normalized Ratio ( INR ) or bleeding time. This adjustment can be caused by all kinds of things, food, emotions, nobody knows for sure why it fluctuates. It's not failsafe and can cause internal bleeding. Warfarin doesn't agree with everyone.
In Sheila's case, her therapeutic dose should have been checked regularly particularly as she was a cannabis smoker which would have had its own problems within the brain, so although written up as a therapeutic dose it doesn't always play out because of lifestyles.
Sheila's initial high dose was administered for a reason ! But there again, was it the correct medication ? Or did it exacerbate her problems ? We'll never know. One man's meat and all that.
I absolutely agree that the initial high dose was given for a reason. She was taken in agitated and probably terrified. Normalizing her, as quickly as possible, would have been imperative. More, I'll agree that the dose should, in a perfect world in which things are always done correctly/laid down guide-lines followed, have been lowered prior to her leaving. We'll never know if it may have been had she not left earlier than would have been preferred because of Christine's imminent visit. Do we know if she was given blood tests when she received the three doses she was given? She clearly didn't feel 'normal' on the higher dose. Seems, unsurprisingly, she felt unable to function. However, she'd received two lowered doses. There have emerged no further complaints regarding them.
The tox report only give a "slight positive" reading for cannabis. I claims that it wouldn't have had detrimental effect on the Haloperidol.
Sheila and her meds can only be judged on what we know. The potential for speculation about those things which may possibly be the case, and the variables within them, are limitless, but not necessarily helpful.
-
I absolutely agree that the initial high dose was given for a reason. She was taken in agitated and probably terrified. Normalizing her, as quickly as possible, would have been imperative. More, I'll agree that the dose should, in a perfect world in which things are always done correctly/laid down guide-lines followed, have been lowered prior to her leaving. We'll never know if it may have been had she not left earlier than would have been preferred because of Christine's imminent visit. Do we know if she was given blood tests when she received the three doses she was given? She clearly didn't feel 'normal' on the higher dose. Seems, unsurprisingly, she felt unable to function. However, she'd received two lowered doses. There have emerged no further complaints regarding them.
The tox report only give a "slight positive" reading for cannabis. I claims that it wouldn't have had detrimental effect on the Haloperidol.
Sheila and her meds can only be judged on what we know. The potential for speculation about those things which may possibly be the case, and the variables within them, are limitless, but not necessarily helpful.
I'd forgotten about Christine's visit. It would have been interesting to have heard from her herself how it went and her general opinion of Sheila.
-
I'd forgotten about Christine's visit. It would have been interesting to have heard from her herself how it went and her general opinion of Sheila.
It most definitely would!!!
-
Yes,almost all the shots were fired at stationary targets from close contact to about a couple of feet.Hardly like shooting at approaching soldiers on horse back at a hundred yards.I think we can disperse with the term marksman in this instance.
..and can we dispense with the fact that it was Jeremy Bamber who is proficient in firearms, not Sheila?
-
Too weak Adam.May i ask you another question,why didnt JB shoot June in the HEAD while she was sleeping?
There were six shots in total, two shots to the head, one of which was possibly discharged as she lay in bed.
-
..and can we dispense with the fact that it was Jeremy Bamber who is proficient in firearms, not Sheila?
Hi Steve,point is no one could miss at this distance.Whether Sheila could operate or re-load a rifle,i do not know.I have not seen much descussion on this topic,either here or on the podcasts.What is the general consensus on this Steve?
-
Hi Adam,hope your well today.Now,you say JB knew where he wanted to kill Sheila.Why did he want to kill Sheila in her parents bedroom? If she slept through the shooting,why not sneak in and shoot her where she lay.That way he didnt have to tell her anything or risk her going berserk when she saw her mothers body.And apparantly her feet,body and night dress were spotlessly clean with no one elses blood,only her own.It wasnt as if he shot her in the main bedroom and smeared her with the others blood or anything.So why move her to the main bedroom?
He didn't want any contact with blood. He staged the scene in the master bedroom, knowing full well it would be nigh on impossible for anyone to distinguish between Sheila shooting herself with an Anschütz rifle and someone's hand guiding it to achieve the same diabolical outcome.
-
There were six shots in total, two shots to the head, one of which was possibly discharged as she lay in bed.
Thats not what the police report sent to the DPP says Steve.They say both head shots were inflicted once JB returned from the kitchen.
-
He didn't want any contact with blood. He staged the scene in the master bedroom, knowing full well it would be nigh on impossible for anyone to distinguish between Sheila shooting herself with an Anschütz rifle and someone's hand guiding it to achieve the same diabolical outcome.
I am not sure what you mean Steve.If Sheila slept through the massacre,at some point JB had to get hold of her.Did he give her a shout to wake her up,or did he manage to go into the bedroom without leaving any trace of blood and wake her.Did he then instruct Sheila to go through to her parents bedroom without touching her.Did he lead her by the hand,after removing his gloves.And remember she had to be led in past her dead mother.But the police scenario has Sheila wake up and go through to the bedroom while JB is in the kitchen,so getting her there is no problem,and no contamination takes place.So now we are back to Sheila sitting down to be shot without a struggle,luckily for JB she didnt resist or try and escape.So according to the guilters Sheila either slept through the massacre and JB managed to get her out of bed and through to the master bedroom without leaving a trace of blood or other evidence in Sheilas room.Or Sheila woke up and went through to her parents bedroom of her own accord,ignored her injured mother and headed for the box room to get through to the twins.But before she got to the box room JB returned and shot his mother three times infront of her.Instead of bolting through the box room door at this horrific sight,Sheila simply froze.JB goes over to sheila and forces her down.Now at this stage you have got to ask yourself about the state of JB.He as shot both parents at close range,he has struggled with Nevill in the kitchen who had a wound to his arm would have been spitting ou blood from his mouth,his head was smashed and opened wide.Blood from Nevills battering and his gun shot wounds must have sprayed on to his assailant.JB hadalready shot the twins and June.When he went back up stairs he again shot June.But we are told Sheila was more or less spotless,so a severely bloodied JB must have managed to force or persuade,shall we say,Sheila to sit down and be shot.Then he arranged the scene,without leaving any blood stains or spots of blood off of his clothes on Sheila.No bloodied footprints or stains of any kind round about Sheila,or on her person.So one of these scenarios or something similar must be true if JB was the killer.Either way,we have to believe a bloodied JB managed to kill Sheila without any struggle,else she would have had blood stains all over her person from contact with JBs bloodied clothes,fighting for her life.So,are you happy with something like this for a scenario Steve,or what is your version like?
-
Anyway,dont you think its a big ask for anyone to believe that JB was so confident,that he could simply shoot everyone else and count on Sheila to more or less sit down and agree to be shot,Give up her life without question.Was he that good at reading Sheilas mind,so confident she wouldnt try and fight or run away.Was he better at diagnosing his sister than a psychologist.Did he know simply by looking at her that evening,that she was in no state to put up any resistance.Did he have knowledge of the drugs she was taking and their effect.Did he really think anyone would sleep through a gruesome massacre.After all,it wasnt a burglary,where he would sneak in and out again as quietly as possibe.It was a SHOOTING with GUNS.Not the quietest situation to sleep through,although we are told the rifle was more or less silent by the guilters.He had to contain five humans and a yapping dog in a large house,no one could be allowed to flee the house or phone for help.And on top of all that,one of the intended victims had to PLAY THE GAME as it were,and wait her turn.But luckily for JB she woke up on on cue and entered her parents bedroom moments before JB came back up from the kitchen,ready to be shot.And you wonder why some people have reasonable doubt.
-
Anyway,dont you think its a big ask for anyone to believe that JB was so confident,that he could simply shoot everyone else and count on Sheila to more or less sit down and agree to be shot,Give up her life without question.Was he that good at reading Sheilas mind,so confident she wouldnt try and fight or run away.Was he better at diagnosing his sister than a psychologist.Did he know simply by looking at her that evening,that she was in no state to put up any resistance.Did he have knowledge of the drugs she was taking and their effect.Did he really think anyone would sleep through a gruesome massacre.After all,it wasnt a burglary,where he would sneak in and out again as quietly as possibe.It was a SHOOTING with GUNS.Not the quietest situation to sleep through,although we are told the rifle was more or less silent by the guilters.He had to contain five humans and a yapping dog in a large house,no one could be allowed to flee the house or phone for help.And on top of all that,one of the intended victims had to PLAY THE GAME as it were,and wait her turn.But luckily for JB she woke up on on cue and entered her parents bedroom moments before JB came back up from the kitchen,ready to be shot.And you wonder why some people have reasonable doubt.
None of it was the problem it might have been had it happened in an urban area. No one to witness him getting in and out, extension phones disabled, no one left alive to testify. You say JB wasn't capable because......and go on to list reasons why, but you're putting your own hesitancies and disinclinations onto him. Without the same drive to achieve now, what he'd otherwise have to wait several more decades to get a share of, and a sense of entitlement, the majority of us would have chosen to stay in bed rather than risk life imprisonment.
I absolutely believe he was that confident. Listening, last night, to how a character called Haigh, well educated, well dressed, well spoken, after finding a failsafe way of making bodies disappear, successfully murdered 9 people for the sole reason of getting his hands on their money, before being caught, I wondered about JB's pre-plan, because his arrogance perfectly matched Haigh's.
I'm not suggesting his task was easy -the enormous gains would have compensated- but I think you're attaching your own 'stuff' to it, rather than trying to see it through the eyes of a person who must have been 100% certain they could get away with it without suspicion falling on them. Ask ANY convicted felon! I'll bet none of them believed they'd get caught. Were that the case, no crimes would ever be committed.
-
None of it was the problem it might have been had it happened in an urban area. No one to witness him getting in and out, extension phones disabled, no one left alive to testify. You say JB wasn't capable because......and go on to list reasons why, but you're putting your own hesitancies and disinclinations onto him. Without the same drive to achieve now, what he'd otherwise have to wait several more decades to get a share of, and a sense of entitlement, the majority of us would have chosen to stay in bed rather than risk life imprisonment.
I absolutely believe he was that confident. Listening, last night, to how a character called Haigh, well educated, well dressed, well spoken, after finding a failsafe way of making bodies disappear, successfully murdered 9 people for the sole reason of getting his hands on their money, before being caught, I wondered about JB's pre-plan, because his arrogance perfectly matched Haigh's.
I'm not suggesting his task was easy -the enormous gains would have compensated- but I think you're attaching your own 'stuff' to it, rather than trying to see it through the eyes of a person who must have been 100% certain they could get away with it without suspicion falling on them. Ask ANY convicted felon! I'll bet none of them believed they'd get caught. Were that the case, no crimes would ever be committed.
Hi Jane,nice day again here,hope its the same where you are.Thinking about it,i would say yes,IF JB is guilty,John George Haigh of whom i presume you are reffering to,would have been a very similar villain.Liked the high life and acted the perfect gentleman,yet could bash people over the head and drop them into a barrel of acid.I remember the TV show very well with Martin Clunes.So yes,a very good comparison IF jb is guilty.But Haigh never attempted a mass murder,only one unsuspecting victim at a time.All that i am trying to say,in my own clumsy way is that no matter how confident JB was,he wasnt stupid enough to think it would be a walk in the park,especialy having to kill the victims in a certain order,and possibly count on Sheila to comply with her own demise.I think you said a few days ago,JB may have threatened to blame Sheila if she did not agree to be shot,but do you really believe that after knowing what JB had done,she would simply say--Oh well Jeremy ,enjoy the money and have a long and happy life.I will sit down and let you take aim now,good luck and cheerio!-------Is this something like you have in mind Jane.Anyway,very good comparison with Haighs mindset.
-
Hi Jane,nice day again here,hope its the same where you are.Thinking about it,i would say yes,IF JB is guilty,John George Haigh of whom i presume you are reffering to,would have been a very similar villain.Liked the high life and acted the perfect gentleman,yet could bash people over the head and drop them into a barrel of acid.I remember the TV show very well with Martin Clunes.So yes,a very good comparison IF jb is guilty.But Haigh never attempted a mass murder,only one unsuspecting victim at a time.All that i am trying to say,in my own clumsy way is that no matter how confident JB was,he wasnt stupid enough to think it would be a walk in the park,especialy having to kill the victims in a certain order,and possibly count on Sheila to comply with her own demise.I think you said a few days ago,JB may have threatened to blame Sheila if she did not agree to be shot,but do you really believe that after knowing what JB had done,she would simply say--Oh well Jeremy ,enjoy the money and have a long and happy life.I will sit down and let you take aim now,good luck and cheerio!-------Is this something like you have in mind Jane.Anyway,very good comparison with Haighs mindset.
No! I absolutely DON'T believe Sheila would have made light of it -and I think it's disrespectful of you to suggest she might- I believe she'd have been terrified and I don't try to undermine it. NOR am I going to suggest that JB went in like a wimp and asked their permission to kill them. Whatever happened in there, once he'd started, it had to be finished. I can't say, definitively, that once he started he became so hyped up with adrenalin and his own success that it became easier, OR that the adrenalin started to wear off and it became harder............but although we can't actually ask Haigh, we can look at what he did.
-
Reasons:
Bamber was physically a lot stronger.
Bamber was determined & confident.
Bamber was prepared & had a plan.
Sheila was unprepared.
Bamber had a rifle.
Sheila would trust Bamber.
Bamber was fully clothed.
Very unlikely Sheila woke so would not be aware what was happening.
If Sheila did wake, no guarantee she would get up.
If Sheila woke & got up, she would think it was a burglar & be compliant.
If Sheila got up, she may freeze.
Bamber had to get Sheila to move a few feet. Either through persuasion, cohersion. Or both. He could then take her to ground.
Bamber knew where he wanted to shoot Sheila. So knew what he had to do with her.
Bamber was hyped after his kitchen fight. Sheila was not going to stop him now.
Hi Adam.You make it sound oh so easy.You must have a very confident mindset similar to your nemesis.
-
No! I absolutely DON'T believe Sheila would have made light of it -and I think it's disrespectful of you to suggest she might- I believe she'd have been terrified and I don't try to undermine it. NOR am I going to suggest that JB went in like a wimp and asked their permission to kill them. Whatever happened in there, once he'd started, it had to be finished. I can't say, definitively, that once he started he became so hyped up with adrenalin and his own success that it became easier, OR that the adrenalin started to wear off and it became harder............but although we can't actually ask Haigh, we can look at what he did.
Hi Jane.Sorry if you take my tongue in cheek comments as offensive.I think you know i have no intention of being disrespectful to anyone living or dead,and if i do,i will appologise right away without question.So if i have caused you any distress with my comments about Sheila ,i am sorry.But the thing is Jane,i try and give a complete step by step scenario of situations,and take them to a conclusion,no matter how uncumfortable that may be.If i may say so,the likes of Adam and yourself only give a vague outline of the events and avoid any real detail.Infact many members play it safe and dont give scenarios at all,giving little detail of why they think JB is guilty or not.At least i try and explain fully the reasons why i have doubt,and if this causes offence at times i am truly sorry.But remember Jane,it is a murder case we are discussing and as such is likely to cause some friction between members.
-
Hi Adam.You make it sound oh so easy.You must have a very confident mindset similar to your nemesis.
Well they were all facts.
Bamber only had a short window of opportunity. The rewards were huge.
So Sheila being fully fit or docile/uncordinated was going to make no difference to him.
-
I am not sure what you mean Steve.If Sheila slept through the massacre,at some point JB had to get hold of her.Did he give her a shout to wake her up,or did he manage to go into the bedroom without leaving any trace of blood and wake her.Did he then instruct Sheila to go through to her parents bedroom without touching her.Did he lead her by the hand,after removing his gloves.And remember she had to be led in past her dead mother.But the police scenario has Sheila wake up and go through to the bedroom while JB is in the kitchen,so getting her there is no problem,and no contamination takes place.So now we are back to Sheila sitting down to be shot without a struggle,luckily for JB she didnt resist or try and escape.So according to the guilters Sheila either slept through the massacre and JB managed to get her out of bed and through to the master bedroom without leaving a trace of blood or other evidence in Sheilas room.Or Sheila woke up and went through to her parents bedroom of her own accord,ignored her injured mother and headed for the box room to get through to the twins.But before she got to the box room JB returned and shot his mother three times infront of her.Instead of bolting through the box room door at this horrific sight,Sheila simply froze.JB goes over to sheila and forces her down.Now at this stage you have got to ask yourself about the state of JB.He as shot both parents at close range,he has struggled with Nevill in the kitchen who had a wound to his arm would have been spitting ou blood from his mouth,his head was smashed and opened wide.Blood from Nevills battering and his gun shot wounds must have sprayed on to his assailant.JB hadalready shot the twins and June.When he went back up stairs he again shot June.But we are told Sheila was more or less spotless,so a severely bloodied JB must have managed to force or persuade,shall we say,Sheila to sit down and be shot.Then he arranged the scene,without leaving any blood stains or spots of blood off of his clothes on Sheila.No bloodied footprints or stains of any kind round about Sheila,or on her person.So one of these scenarios or something similar must be true if JB was the killer.Either way,we have to believe a bloodied JB managed to kill Sheila without any struggle,else she would have had blood stains all over her person from contact with JBs bloodied clothes,fighting for her life.So,are you happy with something like this for a scenario Steve,or what is your version like?
I wouldn't use the word "happy" snow, but I'm confident that Jeremy Bamber realized that Sheila was a sitting duck and that his scenario would work. He would have sussed the situation from the Sunday and Monday nights and known the bathtime of Nicholas and Daniel, following which they were put to bed, he would know that during harvest Nevill would work late and consequently be tired, and he would have paid attention to Sheila's routine, her physical and mental state. He was the one who broached the subject of her being an unfit mother round the supper table, desiring to orchestrate a row, as he usually did prefer the state of souring relations rather than the peacekeeping role. He could not have foreseen the late call from Auntie Pamela, which confirms Sheila's drowsy state. All he had to do was to lead an unsuspecting Sheila with the element of surprise to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, all to be over in a matter of seconds. He then telephoned his answerphone from the Farm and hurried back to Bourtree Cottage to clean up and create the alibi.
-
I wouldn't use the word "happy" snow, but I'm confident that Jeremy Bamber realized that Sheila was a sitting duck and that his scenario would work. He would have sussed the situation from the Sunday and Monday nights and known the bathtime of Nicholas and Daniel, following which they were put to bed, he would know that during harvest Nevill would work late and consequently be tired, and he would have paid attention to Sheila's routine, her physical and mental state. He was the one who broached the subject of her being an unfit mother round the supper table, desiring to orchestrate a row, as he usually did prefer the state of souring relations rather than the peacekeeping role. He could not have foreseen the late call from Auntie Pamela, which confirms Sheila's drowsy state. All he had to do was to lead an unsuspecting Sheila with the element of surprise to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, all to be over in a matter of seconds. He then telephoned his answerphone from the Farm and hurried back to Bourtree Cottage to clean up and create the alibi.
Sitting duck is a good explanation.
Creating a few line gaps would make this more reader friendly.
-
I wouldn't use the word "happy" snow, but I'm confident that Jeremy Bamber realized that Sheila was a sitting duck and that his scenario would work. He would have sussed the situation from the Sunday and Monday nights and known the bathtime of Nicholas and Daniel, following which they were put to bed, he would know that during harvest Nevill would work late and consequently be tired, and he would have paid attention to Sheila's routine, her physical and mental state. He was the one who broached the subject of her being an unfit mother round the supper table, desiring to orchestrate a row, as he usually did prefer the state of souring relations rather than the peacekeeping role. He could not have foreseen the late call from Auntie Pamela, which confirms Sheila's drowsy state. All he had to do was to lead an unsuspecting Sheila with the element of surprise to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, all to be over in a matter of seconds. He then telephoned his answerphone from the Farm and hurried back to Bourtree Cottage to clean up and create the alibi.
I am sorry Steve,but i require far more detail.You say lead an unsuspecting Sheila,but start at the beginning.He has to open the bedroom door first and presumably wake her up.Explain what he said to make her go with him to her parents room.You say lead an unsuspecting Sheila with the element of surprise.Unsuspecting only till she saw her mother surely.Element of surprise,what does that mean Steve? Does that mean JB left the rifle at the far side of the bed,then went to get Sheila from her room,lead her over,tell her to sit down,then sneak the rifle up and shoot her before she was aware of what was happening? And to still have the element of surprise at this stage,we have to conclude JB shielded her eyes from her blood soaked mother on entering the room,or was she so drowsy her eyes were shut? And what reason did he give to Sheila for taking her through to her parents room and sitting down on the floor.No matter what you say Steve,there had to be some sort of conversation between JB and Sheila,she didnt get up out of bed from a deep sleep in the middle of the night without asking the purpose.And wouldnt she be surprised JB was in the house,when she knew he had gone home earlier.What did he tell her? I need all these sort of details before i can start to take what you and Adam say about the death of Sheila seriously Steve.
-
Bamber just had to maneuver Sheila across the corridor to the opposite bedroom. With everyone else dead, he could take his time.
He would attempt this by friendly persuasion. But had the option of coercion if that was not succeeding.
-
I am sorry Steve,but i require far more detail.You say lead an unsuspecting Sheila,but start at the beginning.He has to open the bedroom door first and presumably wake her up.Explain what he said to make her go with him to her parents room.You say lead an unsuspecting Sheila with the element of surprise.Unsuspecting only till she saw her mother surely.Element of surprise,what does that mean Steve? Does that mean JB left the rifle at the far side of the bed,then went to get Sheila from her room,lead her over,tell her to sit down,then sneak the rifle up and shoot her before she was aware of what was happening? And to still have the element of surprise at this stage,we have to conclude JB shielded her eyes from her blood soaked mother on entering the room,or was she so drowsy her eyes were shut? And what reason did he give to Sheila for taking her through to her parents room and sitting down on the floor.No matter what you say Steve,there had to be some sort of conversation between JB and Sheila,she didnt get up out of bed from a deep sleep in the middle of the night without asking the purpose.And wouldnt she be surprised JB was in the house,when she knew he had gone home earlier.What did he tell her? I need all these sort of details before i can start to take what you and Adam say about the death of Sheila seriously Steve.
Sheila was oblivious at the best of times as to people's reactions to her, symptoms of the schizophrenia which may have manifested itself during the modelling assignment in Japan. Jeremy knew of her unawareness of surroundings as he entered her room that August morning, woke her as she had done to him at Christmastide all those years before, leading her by the arm on the pretext that June had some Bible pretext to require her presence. The dead body was a plus, not a minus, as no resistance would be forthcoming from that quarter, though speed was of the essence, hence the accuracy mistake with the first shot.
-
Sheila was oblivious at the best of times as to people's reactions to her, symptoms of the schizophrenia which may have manifested itself during the modelling assignment in Japan. Jeremy knew of her unawareness of surroundings as he entered her room that August morning, woke her as she had done to him at Christmastide all those years before, leading her by the arm on the pretext that June had some Bible pretext to require her presence. The dead body was a plus, not a minus, as no resistance would be forthcoming from that quarter, though speed was of the essence, hence the accuracy mistake with the first shot.
Do you think Bamber would have left the main bedroom light off when leading Sheila there?
Would have meant Sheila did not see June. However make his shot into Sheila more difficult.
-
I wouldn't use the word "happy" snow, but I'm confident that Jeremy Bamber realized that Sheila was a sitting duck and that his scenario would work. He would have sussed the situation from the Sunday and Monday nights and known the bathtime of Nicholas and Daniel, following which they were put to bed, he would know that during harvest Nevill would work late and consequently be tired, and he would have paid attention to Sheila's routine, her physical and mental state. He was the one who broached the subject of her being an unfit mother round the supper table, desiring to orchestrate a row, as he usually did prefer the state of souring relations rather than the peacekeeping role. He could not have foreseen the late call from Auntie Pamela, which confirms Sheila's drowsy state. All he had to do was to lead an unsuspecting Sheila with the element of surprise to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, all to be over in a matter of seconds. He then telephoned his answerphone from the Farm and hurried back to Bourtree Cottage to clean up and create the alibi.
Again, I would like to ask: Where does Pamela Boutflour confirm that Sheila was in a drowsy state, or as you have also said, like a 'zombie'? I have read seven statements from Pamela Boutflour and none of them mention this. Have I missed it?
I think Snow is more on the right lines about Sheila. The statement from Dr. Iliffe about seeing Sheila at the apartment in March 1985 suggests a consistent pattern of demeanour and behaviour, as her manner on that occasion was not dissimilar to that reported around the time of the tragedy. In March, she was not yet medicated but was drinking and taking illicit drugs. We know from the toxicology report that this continued. I think the antipsychotics made Sheila worse, not better.
-
Hi Jane.Sorry if you take my tongue in cheek comments as offensive.I think you know i have no intention of being disrespectful to anyone living or dead,and if i do,i will appologise right away without question.So if i have caused you any distress with my comments about Sheila ,i am sorry.But the thing is Jane,i try and give a complete step by step scenario of situations,and take them to a conclusion,no matter how uncumfortable that may be.If i may say so,the likes of Adam and yourself only give a vague outline of the events and avoid any real detail.Infact many members play it safe and dont give scenarios at all,giving little detail of why they think JB is guilty or not.At least i try and explain fully the reasons why i have doubt,and if this causes offence at times i am truly sorry.But remember Jane,it is a murder case we are discussing and as such is likely to cause some friction between members.
None of us is capable of providing a step by step, blow by blow scenario, Snow, because we weren't there. However, if we're going to try, it's helpful if we try to understand the mindset of those who are in the positions they find themselves, either by choice, or force. Doing otherwise can create farce rather than fact.
-
None of us is capable of providing a step by step, blow by blow scenario, Snow, because we weren't there. However, if we're going to try, it's helpful if we try to understand the mindset of those who are in the positions they find themselves, either by choice, or force. Doing otherwise can create farce rather than fact.
Snow66! posted yesterday -
'Adam.Please give a detailed account from the time JB entered Sheilas room until her death.What was said and every action'.
----------
He can always use his iniative & decide for himself. His Sheila scenario has percific times June/Sheila scream & Crispy barks.
-
Again, I would like to ask: Where does Pamela Boutflour confirm that Sheila was in a drowsy state, or as you have also said, like a 'zombie'? I have read seven statements from Pamela Boutflour and none of them mention this. Have I missed it?
I think Snow is more on the right lines about Sheila. The statement from Dr. Iliffe about seeing Sheila at the apartment in March 1985 suggests a consistent pattern of demeanour and behaviour, as her manner on that occasion was not dissimilar to that reported around the time of the tragedy. In March, she was not yet medicated but was drinking and taking illicit drugs. We know from the toxicology report that this continued. I think the antipsychotics made Sheila worse, not better.
You know full well PB said Sheila spent 3 minutes just saying 'yes/no'. Before June took back control of the phone.
This matches Bamber's WS that Sheila was non responsive about conversations on fostering.
-
You know full well PB said Sheila spent 3 minutes just saying 'yes/no'. Before June took back control of the phone.
This matches Bamber's WS that Sheila was non responsive about conversations on fostering.
Of course you can always say Bamber lied about such a conversation.
It is correct Bamber was so excited after his reconnaissance, he rang Julie as soon as he got home. Which supports PB's WS.
Why do you believe Bamber has always refused to speak about his phone call to Julie? He rang her breaking a 3 day silence & the call was 17 minutes.
-
You know full well PB said Sheila spent 3 minutes just saying 'yes/no'. Before June took back control of the phone.
This matches Bamber's WS that Sheila was non responsive about conversations on fostering.
Hi Adam,nice morning again.With all due respect,that phone call to Pam proves absolutely nothing.On the journey down with Colin and the twins,Sheila never uttered ONE word.And this behaviour continued on arrival pretty much.So the lack of joining in about the fostering was simply a continuation of her behaviour on the journey down.The fact she spoke AT ALL to Pam,albeit-yes,no--was actually an IMPROVEMENT.So i think we can view whatever Pam said in her statements as meaningless in regard of Sheilas condition,MEANINGLESS!
-
This withdrawn behaviour started days before her arrival at the farm,and continued until she finally flipped!
-
Hi Adam,nice morning again.With all due respect,that phone call to Pam proves absolutely nothing.On the journey down with Colin and the twins,Sheila never uttered ONE word.And this behaviour continued on arrival pretty much.So the lack of joining in about the fostering was simply a continuation of her behaviour on the journey down.The fact she spoke AT ALL to Pam,albeit-yes,no--was actually an IMPROVEMENT.So i think we can view whatever Pam said in her statements as meaningless in regard of Sheilas condition,MEANINGLESS!
Agree it doesn't prove anything. But sure doesn't do Bamber any favours.
Haloperiodal is a very powerful drug. Sedation being one of several side effects. It was restricting Sheila so much, she asked for her injections to be reduced.
-
Agree it doesn't prove anything. But sure doesn't do Bamber any favours.
Haloperiodal is a very powerful drug. Sedation being one of several side effects. It was restricting Sheila so much, she asked for her injections to be reduced.
Yes Adam.and they WERE reduced.Hence ,less drowsy but more withdrawn by the effects of her mental illness.Cant you see this as a plausable possibility Adam.Free your mind and look.
-
Sheila was oblivious at the best of times as to people's reactions to her, symptoms of the schizophrenia which may have manifested itself during the modelling assignment in Japan. Jeremy knew of her unawareness of surroundings as he entered her room that August morning, woke her as she had done to him at Christmastide all those years before, leading her by the arm on the pretext that June had some Bible pretext to require her presence. The dead body was a plus, not a minus, as no resistance would be forthcoming from that quarter, though speed was of the essence, hence the accuracy mistake with the first shot.
So basically Sheeila didnt know where she was or what was happening Steve.So we can add on CONFUSION to the list.Drowsy,sedated and totally confused.My lord she paid a heavy price for her treatment with Haloperidol.
-
So basically Sheeila didnt know where she was or what was happening Steve.So we can add on CONFUSION to the list.Drowsy,sedated and totally confused.My lord she paid a heavy price for her treatment with Haloperidol.
But preferable to psychosis perhaps?
-
You know full well PB said Sheila spent 3 minutes just saying 'yes/no'. Before June took back control of the phone.
This matches Bamber's WS that Sheila was non responsive about conversations on fostering.
Have you read Dr. Iliffe's statement?
-
Snow66! posted yesterday -
'Adam.Please give a detailed account from the time JB entered Sheilas room until her death.What was said and every action'.
----------
He can always use his iniative & decide for himself. His Sheila scenario has percific times June/Sheila scream & Crispy barks.
Good evening Adam.If you look at my JB scenario,you can see what i decided on.
-
Have you read Dr. Iliffe's statement?
Hi Gascoigne.Is Dr Iliffes statement in the Archives somewhere? I cant find it.
-
Hello casual browsers,how are you tonight.You will notice there isnt much activity this evening.That is because it was such a fine day,the members had a few beers to cool them down.But the trouble was they didnt stop at that.Once they had a few beers they hit the spirits,and now they will be sozzled and sleeping it off.Oh yes all the members of the forum,except myself,like a drink.In fact they are all alcoholics.That is why there is so much arguing.Most of the time they are either drunk or so hung over and ill.they take it out on each other.Oh yes,many of the members have been dried out numerous times.AND as if that isnt bad enough,they all smoke cannibis as well.They know i dont drink much and dont take drugs,so they often PM me or phone me up,crying over the phone about the prediciment they are in.Poor souls,i do genuiney feel for them.Most have been told by their GP to cut out the booze,but they just carry on regardless.Yes,sadly all the members of this forum except myself are drug addled alcoholics.That is why they talk so much rubbish,you will notice how sensible everything that i say is in comparison.Oh well they will probably sober up a bit by tommoro,and start posting again,depending how hung over they are.So now you know.Oh well bye for now my friends.
-
From CAL (Kindle version)
"In Wix, Pamela told Robert that the conversation with Sheila had been ‘hard-going’. She sounded like ‘a zombie’ and didn’t want to feed the twins or look after herself, which was why June wanted their advice about ‘putting Sheila into a nursing home’. Describing the phone call to Colin some days later, Pamela recalled an extra detail: June had wanted Sheila to stay with a ‘Christian community in Bournemouth’.
-
The following is from Wilkes (Kindle version).
"Late that evening Pamela Boutflour telephoned her sister June to invite her to Carbonells Farm the following Thursday along with Sheila and the twins. At one point in the conversation June handed the receiver to Sheila. Pamela Boutflour remembered that the conversation with her niece was hard going. She expressed her concern to June when Sheila returned the receiver to her mother. Later Mrs Boutflour described Sheila as sounding like a zombie."
-
Three minutes of Sheila just saying 'yes/no' in a two way phone conversation is a long time.
If she was a shy 6 year old maybe. But she was 27.
It seems the multiple strong side effects of Haloperiodal were really effecting her at this time. As suggested by Wilkes, CAL, Bamber, PB, Julie, the COA, Michael Horsnell & the crime scene.
Even Sheila herself had requested her dosage was reduced.
Bamber's biggest problem he would envisage would be waking her up.
-
From CAL (Kindle version)
"In Wix, Pamela told Robert that the conversation with Sheila had been ‘hard-going’. She sounded like ‘a zombie’ and didn’t want to feed the twins or look after herself, which was why June wanted their advice about ‘putting Sheila into a nursing home’. Describing the phone call to Colin some days later, Pamela recalled an extra detail: June had wanted Sheila to stay with a ‘Christian community in Bournemouth’.
There is nothing like that in the seven statements she gave to the police. Who or what is Carol Ann Lee's source?
-
Hi Gascoigne.Is Dr Iliffes statement in the Archives somewhere? I cant find it.
It may not be. I have it. Dr. Iliffe was a doctor who attended on Sheila at her apartment in March 1985. This was prior to Sheila commencing medication. Among other things, he reported her as giving one syllable answers to questions.
-
https://youtu.be/8dddt5CCgaA
https://youtu.be/2HzNJPxMDs8
https://youtu.be/ve1N3xOlc-g
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/haloperidol#:~:text=Haloperidol%20is%20another%20butyrophenone%20which,antiemetic%20effects%20through%20D2%20antagonism
-
'Lamb to the slaughter', 'sitting duck', 'there for the taking'. Take your pick.
But as said, Bamber was going ahead regardless. The rewards were too tempting.
-
There is nothing like that in the seven statements she gave to the police. Who or what is Carol Ann Lee's source?
Don't forget Wilkes.
-
CAL also said Sheila needed help getting off sofa's. A week before the massacre. According to a friend of Sheila's.
Hopefully everyone agrees Sheila was easy to control for the few seconds Bamber required. While simultaneously unable to breach, chamber & load a rifle. Let alone wrestle Nevill for it.
-
In one of Sheila's psychotic episodes 2 or 3 GP's couldn't control her outside her flat at Maida Vale. You can't control the uncontrollable without restraint of some sort and restraint wouldn't have/ wasn't used on a young woman. Someone at that time rang for her father. Nevill picked her up eventually and took her to St. Andrews.
-
In one of Sheila's psychotic episodes 2 or 3 GP's couldn't control her outside her flat at Maida Vale. You can't control the uncontrollable without restraint of some sort and restraint wouldn't have/ wasn't used on a young woman. Someone at that time rang for her father. Nevill picked her up eventually and took her to St. Andrews.
I think that that may have been the occasion on which Freddie had "feared for my life" although she'd never touched him and you don't need me to remind you how frightened Sheila, already in a state of confusion, would have been to find herself being manhandled, by strange people -probably men- into a vehicle. Added to which, she was unmedicated.
It's possible that two separate occasions have been rolled into one, here. If 'men in white coats' had already transported Sheila to hospital, and I can't imagine her to have been so violent that they couldn't handle her, and simply left her there, Nevill, despite being called, couldn't have have been her transport.
-
I think that was the occasion on which Freddie had "feared for my life" although she'd never touched him, and you don't need me to remind you how frightened Sheila, already in a state of confusion, would have been to find herself being manhandled, by strange people -probably men- into a vehicle. Added to which, she was unmedicated.
Yes, Sheila would certainly have been frightened and confused as having no personal understanding of her own condition naturally thought and also saw those who she didn't recognise, as a threat. Although Sheila had recognised Freddie, her oncoming episode saw him as the devil and that he too " was out to get her ".
I imagine that on the night of the tragedies she saw everyone inside the farmhouse as her enemies and not being of sound mind, saw fit to rid them from her life.
Apart from the fact that we know within the minds of schizophrenics, that they hear voices giving " commands " we don't know why or to whom those commands are given towards.
-
Yes, Sheila would certainly have been frightened and confused as having no personal understanding of her own condition naturally thought and also saw those who she didn't recognise, as a threat. Although Sheila had recognised Freddie, her oncoming episode saw him as the devil and that he too " was out to get her ".
I imagine that on the night of the tragedies she saw everyone inside the farmhouse as her enemies and not being of sound mind, saw fit to rid them from her life.
Apart from the fact that we know within the minds of schizophrenics, that they hear voices giving " commands " we don't know why or to whom those commands are given towards.
But she never touched him, despite believing him to be the devil. It seems she was berating herself. Isn't it also strange, given that we know a classic symptom of schizophrenia is hearing voices, although she's alleged to have believed herself to be various personalities, she doesn't appear to have claimed that voices -named or unnamed- have told her this, or that they tell her anything at all. I remain surprised that Dr Ferguson makes no mention of this, especially when he spoke with her is the early stages of her admission.
-
But she never touched him, despite believing him to be the devil. It seems she was berating herself. Isn't it also strange, given that we know a classic symptom of schizophrenia is hearing voices, although she's alleged to have believed herself to be various personalities, she doesn't appear to have claimed that voices -named or unnamed- have told her this, or that they tell her anything at all. I remain surprised that Dr Ferguson makes no mention of this, especially when he spoke with her is the early stages of her admission.
I'm afraid Dr. Ferguson made no mention of lots of things during his treatment of Sheila and I'd have asked for a refund if I'd have been Nevill. Sheila would have been treated far better in an NHS facility.
Ironically, I've just been reading about a 16 year old girl, no MH problems, who instigated the killing of an innocent psychiatrist. Accompanied by two other male thugs it was she who praised her own work by saying " Yeah, I needed that ". It was a murder driven by homophobia.
The verdict is---that you don't have to be mad/ psychotic to kill, something we all knew I think.
-
I'm afraid Dr. Ferguson made no mention of lots of things during his treatment of Sheila and I'd have asked for a refund if I'd have been Nevill. Sheila would have been treated far better in an NHS facility.
Ironically, I've just been reading about a 16 year old girl, no MH problems, who instigated the killing of an innocent psychiatrist. Accompanied by two other male thugs it was she who praised her own work by saying " Yeah, I needed that ". It was a murder driven by homophobia.
The verdict is---that you don't have to be mad/ psychotic to kill, something we all knew I think.
I wouldn't disagree with that, however, I suspect we may not have full details of many things we'd benefit from knowing!
I've just read the same article. It initially leads one to believe that the poor man's status as a psychiatrist was a significant part of it, but it seems as if it was a random attack and he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
It may not be. I have it. Dr. Iliffe was a doctor who attended on Sheila at her apartment in March 1985. This was prior to Sheila commencing medication. Among other things, he reported her as giving one syllable answers to questions.
Thanks for that info Gascoigne.
-
I wouldn't disagree with that, however, I suspect we may not have full details of many things we'd benefit from knowing!
I've just read the same article. It initially leads one to believe that the poor man's status as a psychiatrist was a significant part of it, but it seems as if it was a random attack and he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
(http://'Jeremy Bamber' did not play any direct involvement, in the death and circumstances of her death!)
'Oh', OK!
-
CAL also said Sheila needed help getting off sofa's. A week before the massacre. According to a friend of Sheila's.
Hopefully everyone agrees Sheila was easy to control for the few seconds Bamber required. While simultaneously unable to breach, chamber & load a rifle. Let alone wrestle Nevill for it.
Hi Adam.Well if we are adding arthritis to the poor girls list of symptoms,surely it must have taken more than a few seconds to get her out of bed and hobble through to the bedroom.Although,i think you have mentioned JB carrying Sheila through at one time.
-
Don't forget Wilkes.
You're saying Wilkes was Carol Ann Lee's source? Sorry, not quite sure what you mean. If Wilkes was the source, then the same question arises. We need to know the source or it could just be Carol Ann Lee's invention. At least we now know the origin for the word 'zombie' in this case.
-
You're saying Wilkes was Carol Ann Lee's source? Sorry, not quite sure what you mean. If Wilkes was the source, then the same question arises. We need to know the source or it could just be Carol Ann Lee's invention. At least we now know the origin for the word 'zombie' in this case.
This is exactly what it says in CALs book,whether it came from witness statements,who knows.------At the house,June answered the telephone when it rang again just after the hour.it was Pamela,wanting to know if Sheila and the twins had arrived that weekend.June told her that Sheila was just going to bed.I then spoke to Sheila,Pamela recalled,and i enquired as to how she was keeping.She told me she was alright and she also said that she had been to visit an elderly lady with June and had taken the twins.Pamela did most of the talking.Sheila didnt chat as she generally did,and after two or three minutes the conversation dried up,June came back on the phone.I thought this was strange as [Sheila] didnt even say;goodnight auntie Pam;,which she normally would do.June told her Sheila had gone to bed,adding that she was very worried about her and wanted Pamela to see her 'and form an opinion about her health'.She had no interest in anything,including the twins'.June then explained she had been 'trying to persuade Sheila to take a holiday at a home in Bournemouth'.Pamela invited them all over for lunch on thursday and,after discussing their mother's care,the sisters said goodnight.In wix,Pamela told Robert that the conversation with Sheila had been 'hard-going'.She sounded like 'a zombie' and didnt want to feed the twins or look after herself,which was why June wanted their advice about 'putting Sheila into a nursing home.Describing the phone call to Colin some days later,Pamela recalled an extra detail;June had wanted Sheila to stay with a 'Christian community in Bournemouth'.-----------------------------Where CAL got all these specific details from who knows.Is it all in witness statements or through personal interviews.For one thing the -yes,no-- answers have been expanded to what you would call a short two way conversation.So what is fact in CALS book?
-
You're saying Wilkes was Carol Ann Lee's source? Sorry, not quite sure what you mean. If Wilkes was the source, then the same question arises. We need to know the source or it could just be Carol Ann Lee's invention. At least we now know the origin for the word 'zombie' in this case.
Reply 105.
Wilkes & CAL saying similar things.
-
You're saying Wilkes was Carol Ann Lee's source? Sorry, not quite sure what you mean. If Wilkes was the source, then the same question arises. We need to know the source or it could just be Carol Ann Lee's invention. At least we now know the origin for the word 'zombie' in this case.
Good evening Gascoigne.Another person in CALs book uses the word zombie twice to describe Sheila on 6th Aug 1985.------------Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon,Michael Horsnell noticed that all was not well.At quarter past three he recognised Junes silver Renault as it turned in at the drive.He watched June,Sheila and the twins head into the garden;Mrs Bamber was playing with the two boys,jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden.Sheila was with them,but she was like a zombie.she walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down.She didnt speak at all.They went into the house.June sought him out a short time later to discuss repairs;'i got the definite impression that she was upset about something.She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children.It was not anything she said,but just the way she looked and was speaking;When they left the house,;Sheila definately did not look normal' and was again; 'walking stiffly,like a zombie from a horror movie;.-----------I cant see a mention of this guy in the Archives.Do you have access to any statements he may have made Gascoigne? It would be interesting to see if this is his own words,or if CAL has a particular fondness for using the term ;zombie' herself!
-
Oh ,the word appears on page 152 and page 153 too.
-
Good evening Gascoigne.Another person in CALs book uses the word zombie twice to describe Sheila on 6th Aug 1985.------------Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon,Michael Horsnell noticed that all was not well.At quarter past three he recognised Junes silver Renault as it turned in at the drive.He watched June,Sheila and the twins head into the garden;Mrs Bamber was playing with the two boys,jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden.Sheila was with them,but she was like a zombie.she walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down.She didnt speak at all.They went into the house.June sought him out a short time later to discuss repairs;'i got the definite impression that she was upset about something.She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children.It was not anything she said,but just the way she looked and was speaking;When they left the house,;Sheila definately did not look normal' and was again; 'walking stiffly,like a zombie from a horror movie;.-----------I cant see a mention of this guy in the Archives.Do you have access to any statements he may have made Gascoigne? It would be interesting to see if this is his own words,or if CAL has a particular fondness for using the term ;zombie' herself!
Many thanks for that, Snow. That particular incident has become translated, by supporters, and often claimed as being Sheila who was seen to be running and playing with the boys, which is interesting because had it been Sheila, it would have been the only time during her last fortnight that she was reported as being animated. Such a claim at at total variance with the general consensus. It's also quite contrary to what June said of her when she was in conversation with Pam.
-
Many thanks for that, Snow. That particular incident has become translated, by supporters, and often claimed as being Sheila who was seen to be running and playing with the boys, which is interesting because had it been Sheila, it would have been the only time during her last fortnight that she was reported as being animated. Such a claim at at total variance with the general consensus. It's also quite contrary to what June said of her when she was in conversation with Pam.
Good evening Jane,hope you are well.Well i was only pointing out the use of the word zombie again.I had no idea there was any particular significance to this event,although,as i was saying to Gascoigne,is there a statement somewhere that Michael Horsnell made about the incident.Or did a lot of CALs information come from personally interviewing witness's herself?
-
This is exactly what it says in CALs book,whether it came from witness statements,who knows.------At the house,June answered the telephone when it rang again just after the hour.it was Pamela,wanting to know if Sheila and the twins had arrived that weekend.June told her that Sheila was just going to bed.I then spoke to Sheila,Pamela recalled,and i enquired as to how she was keeping.She told me she was alright and she also said that she had been to visit an elderly lady with June and had taken the twins.Pamela did most of the talking.Sheila didnt chat as she generally did,and after two or three minutes the conversation dried up,June came back on the phone.I thought this was strange as [Sheila] didnt even say;goodnight auntie Pam;,which she normally would do.June told her Sheila had gone to bed,adding that she was very worried about her and wanted Pamela to see her 'and form an opinion about her health'.She had no interest in anything,including the twins'.June then explained she had been 'trying to persuade Sheila to take a holiday at a home in Bournemouth'.Pamela invited them all over for lunch on thursday and,after discussing their mother's care,the sisters said goodnight.In wix,Pamela told Robert that the conversation with Sheila had been 'hard-going'.She sounded like 'a zombie' and didnt want to feed the twins or look after herself,which was why June wanted their advice about 'putting Sheila into a nursing home.Describing the phone call to Colin some days later,Pamela recalled an extra detail;June had wanted Sheila to stay with a 'Christian community in Bournemouth'.-----------------------------Where CAL got all these specific details from who knows.Is it all in witness statements or through personal interviews.For one thing the -yes,no-- answers have been expanded to what you would call a short two way conversation.So what is fact in CALS book?
Do you know what page it's mentioned on, please Snow?
If what Adam says is anything to go by, Carol Ann Lee's source may be Roger Wilkes, in which case it can probably be dismissed as Mr Wilkes' book is unreferenced and largely unsourced and he exercises a considerable degree of licence, even inventing remarks or incidents that never occurred.
The Wilkes and Lee books have their merits and should be read by everybody interested in the case, but both authors have damaged understanding of the case due to their tendency towards licence. Even I occasionally lapse into error due to the influence of the books and I will say something that in my mind is fact but which actually came from a book and is a misrepresentation or flat out wrong. Both authors should be read, but read with due caution.
Unfortunately, I do not have Michael Horsnell's statement. I see from a search of the Forum that I have in the past asked a member on here for a copy of it as he kept quoting it, but a copy was not forthcoming and I suspect he based his views on Carol Ann Lee.
If there is a statement (there may not be), Mike will almost-certainly have it.
-
Do you know what page it's mentioned on, please Snow?
If what Adam says is anything to go by, Carol Ann Lee's source may be Roger Wilkes, in which case it can probably be dismissed as Mr Wilkes' book is unreferenced and largely unsourced and he exercises a considerable degree of licence, even inventing remarks or incidents that never occurred.
The Wilkes and Lee books have their merits and should be read by everybody interested in the case, but both authors have damaged understanding of the case due to their tendency towards licence. Even I occasionally lapse into error due to the influence of the books and I will say something that in my mind is fact but which actually came from a book and is a misrepresentation or flat out wrong. Both authors should be read, but read with due caution.
Unfortunately, I do not have Michael Horsnell's statement. I see from a search of the Forum that I have in the past asked a member on here for a copy of it as he kept quoting it, but a copy was not forthcoming and I suspect he based his views on Carol Ann Lee.
If there is a statement (there may not be), Mike will almost-certainly have it.
No. I said Wilkes & CAL have said the same thing in their respected books - a zombie.The source would be PB or DB.
Horsnell is in CAL's book.
Sheila needing help getting up from sofa's a week before the massacre is from CAL.
Bamber's WS says Sheila was non responsive at supper.
The crime scene & Bamber's appearance around 1 hour after the massacre showed no sign of a struggle from Sheila.
The powerful side effects of Haloperiodal had made Sheila very docile & uncordinated on the night. A bonus for Bamber. He was going ahead regardless but was now so excited after his reconnaissance he broke a 3 day silence & rang Julie as soon as he got home.
-
Uncoordinated======random, frenzied shooting !
-
What 'if'..
'NEVILLE BAMBER', or 'JUNE BAMBER' instigated the shooting of other close family members, and that 'the aftermath of what had taken place' was in effect, a result of 'a police training exercise' [ 'INFORMATIVES'] in which the officers who took part in this unprecedented exercise, fired live rounds from their weapons into the bodies of dead, dying, or wounded victims?
-
What 'if'..
'NEVILLE BAMBER', or 'JUNE BAMBER' instigated the shooting of other close family members, and that 'the aftermath of what had taken place' was in effect, a result of 'a police training exercise' [ 'INFORMATIVES'] in which the officers who took part in this unprecedented exercise, fired live rounds from their weapons into the bodies of dead, dying, or wounded victims?
'Your truth', 'my truth', 'this'/ 'that', and 'everybody's truth', does 'NOT' prove or establish what the 'ACTUAL TRUTH', is or could be!
-
Do you know what page it's mentioned on, please Snow?
If what Adam says is anything to go by, Carol Ann Lee's source may be Roger Wilkes, in which case it can probably be dismissed as Mr Wilkes' book is unreferenced and largely unsourced and he exercises a considerable degree of licence, even inventing remarks or incidents that never occurred.
The Wilkes and Lee books have their merits and should be read by everybody interested in the case, but both authors have damaged understanding of the case due to their tendency towards licence. Even I occasionally lapse into error due to the influence of the books and I will say something that in my mind is fact but which actually came from a book and is a misrepresentation or flat out wrong. Both authors should be read, but read with due caution.
Unfortunately, I do not have Michael Horsnell's statement. I see from a search of the Forum that I have in the past asked a member on here for a copy of it as he kept quoting it, but a copy was not forthcoming and I suspect he based his views on Carol Ann Lee.
If there is a statement (there may not be), Mike will almost-certainly have it.
I will sift through, the 50,000 documents in my possession, to try and resolve this 'matter/issue'....
-
The cops, took video footage, of the atrocities they committed involving the bodies of victims. The truth was recorded on tape, for posteritory! The state pretends no such evidence exists!!!
Murdering 'BASTARDOS'...
-
I will sift through, the 50,000 documents in my possession, to try and resolve this 'matter/issue'....
That would hopefully help to clarify things Mike.But obviously it is no easy task sifting thruogh all the documents in your possession for one specific paper.
-
Do you know what page it's mentioned on, please Snow?
If what Adam says is anything to go by, Carol Ann Lee's source may be Roger Wilkes, in which case it can probably be dismissed as Mr Wilkes' book is unreferenced and largely unsourced and he exercises a considerable degree of licence, even inventing remarks or incidents that never occurred.
The Wilkes and Lee books have their merits and should be read by everybody interested in the case, but both authors have damaged understanding of the case due to their tendency towards licence. Even I occasionally lapse into error due to the influence of the books and I will say something that in my mind is fact but which actually came from a book and is a misrepresentation or flat out wrong. Both authors should be read, but read with due caution.
Unfortunately, I do not have Michael Horsnell's statement. I see from a search of the Forum that I have in the past asked a member on here for a copy of it as he kept quoting it, but a copy was not forthcoming and I suspect he based his views on Carol Ann Lee.
If there is a statement (there may not be), Mike will almost-certainly have it.
Hi Gascoigne,the phone conversation is on pages 157-158 of CALs book-The murders at Whitehouse farm--CAL says she interviewed leading figures from the 1985 enquiry,including Ferguson,Vanezis and Malcolm Fletcher.She says 'i have also drawn on several thousand pages of UNPUBLISHED documentation such as witness statements,police records,court documents,personal letters,notebooks and memoirs in an effort to write a balanced,comprehensive study of the case' She also says some of the crime scene photos on the web and elsewhere have been substantially re-touched. She also says some statements on the web about Sheila have been made up,but she is quoting from original records.So does this mean CAL had access to photos and statements that no one else has seen,including JB?
-
Hi Gascoigne,the phone conversation is on pages 157-158 of CALs book-The murders at Whitehouse farm--CAL says she interviewed leading figures from the 1985 enquiry,including Ferguson,Vanezis and Malcolm Fletcher.She says 'i have also drawn on several thousand pages of UNPUBLISHED documentation such as witness statements,police records,court documents,personal letters,notebooks and memoirs in an effort to write a balanced,comprehensive study of the case' She also says some of the crime scene photos on the web and elsewhere have been substantially re-touched. She also says some statements on the web about Sheila have been made up,but she is quoting from original records.So does this mean CAL had access to photos and statements that no one else has seen,including JB?
This author has to be regarded as 'dishonest', 'she does not comment or report the true facts as is now known! Anybody who has purchased her book, is entitled to a refund from her...
-
Hi Gascoigne,the phone conversation is on pages 157-158 of CALs book-The murders at Whitehouse farm--CAL says she interviewed leading figures from the 1985 enquiry,including Ferguson,Vanezis and Malcolm Fletcher.She says 'i have also drawn on several thousand pages of UNPUBLISHED documentation such as witness statements,police records,court documents,personal letters,notebooks and memoirs in an effort to write a balanced,comprehensive study of the case' She also says some of the crime scene photos on the web and elsewhere have been substantially re-touched. She also says some statements on the web about Sheila have been made up,but she is quoting from original records.So does this mean CAL had access to photos and statements that no one else has seen,including JB?
To her credit, Carol Ann Lee does add references, and so I have now been able to check her source for the "zombie" claim. It appears this was an article in the Guardian, "The Bambi I Married". Unfortunately, Carol Ann Lee does not provide the date of the article, but I expect it was contemporaneous and was written by or about Colin Caffell. If so, that means the source for the "zombie" phrasing is Colin Caffell himself, which in my view makes it inconsequential for our purposes as he is far from an objective source and his book, while excellent, is not factual (nor does it purport to be, in fairness). I shall have to check both editions of Mr Caffell's book to see if he uses the word there too and perhaps also contact The Guardian as the article does not appear to have been indexed online
Adam does not give a page number for Wilkes' use of the word, but again, Wilkes' source was probably Colin Caffell.
There is an outside chance that Robert W. Boutflour uses the word in his statement of 10th. September 1985, but unfortunately the 2013 thread to which Mike uploaded that statement does not include all pages of it, so I have added a request for that document to the requisitions thread I have just started.
I hope this assists. In summary, I can't be absolutely sure at the moment, but it looks like the word has been drawn from the previous writings of Colin Caffell or an article about him.
Turning to your question about Carol Ann Lee's access to documents. She was afforded privileged access to crime scene photographs, including photographs of the bodies of the twins. The Campaign Team claim that she has had sight of documents denied to Jeremy Bamber. I do not know if that is true. I do however wonder how an ordinary author can be given access to sensitive documents and photographs and I suspect it was not Essex Police who co-operated with her, but one or more retired officers: most likely, Mike Ainsley, possibly also Ron Cook, maybe Bob Miller too (he died prior to publication). Now I have the book in front of me, I am looking at her Acknowledgements section at the end, and Essex Police is conspicuous by its absence, but she does credit individuals, including the officers I have just mentioned.
-
To her credit, Carol Ann Lee does add references, and so I have now been able to check her source for the "zombie" claim. It appears this was an article in the Guardian, "The Bambi I Married". Unfortunately, Carol Ann Lee does not provide the date of the article, but I expect it was contemporaneous and was written by or about Colin Caffell. If so, that means the source for the "zombie" phrasing is Colin Caffell himself, which in my view makes it inconsequential for our purposes as he is far from an objective source and his book, while excellent, is not factual (nor does it purport to be, in fairness). I shall have to check both editions of Mr Caffell's book to see if he uses the word there too and perhaps also contact The Guardian as the article does not appear to have been indexed online
Adam does not give the page number for Wilkes' use of the word, but again, Wilkes' source was probably Colin Caffell.
There is an outside chance that Robert W. Boutflour uses the word in his statement of 10th. September 1985, but unfortunately the 2013 thread to which Mike uploaded that statement does not include all pages of it, so I have added a request for that document to the requisitions thread I have just started.
I hope this assists. In summary, I can't be absolutely sure at the moment, but it look like the word has been drawn from Colin Caffell.
As for your question about Carol Ann Lee's access to documents. She was afforded privileged access to crime scene photographs, including photographs of the bodies of the twins. The Campaign Team claim that she has had sight of documents denied to Jeremy Bamber. I do not know if that is true. I do however wonder how an ordinary author can be given access to sensitive documents and photographs and I suspect it was not Essex Police who co-operated with her, but one or more retired officers: most likely, Mike Ainsley, possibly also Ron Cook, maybe Bob Miller too (he died prior to publication). Now I have the book in front of me, I am looking at her Acknowledgements section at the end, and Essex Police is conspicuous by its absence, but she does credit individuals, including the officers I have just mentioned.
CAL & Wilkes would have got the zombie sources from PB or DB.
What has CC got to do with a phone call between Sheila & PB a few hours before Bamber committed the massacre?
-
I have had 'unrestricted access' to all of the 581 case photographs, which took place at 'Ewen Smiths' Birmingham office! If you do not believe me, please contact 'Ewen Smith' (a true and reliable, gentleman'). Also, thank you [most sincerely], to 'Andrew Hunter' who on several occasions invited me into his home, so that we could exchange information, to try and get to the bottom of this miscarriage of justice!
-
I have been told that DB gave Wilkes & CAL the zombie quote. As Gasgoigne said, there are pages missing from his WS.
-
CAL & Wilkes would have got the zombie sources from PB or DB.
What has CC got to do with a phone call between Sheila & PB a few hours before Bamber committed the massacre?
Bamber is not responsible for the so called massacre!
-
CAL & Wilkes would have got the zombie sources from PB or DB.
What has CC got to do with a phone call between Sheila & PB a few hours before Bamber committed the massacre?
I suggest you re-read what I have said, this time more carefully. Then read page 158 of Carol Ann Lee's book, then look at reference 25 of Chapter 19 in the sources section at the back.
You will then understand that, in all probability, Carol Ann Lee's source was Colin Caffell.
I appreciate that Colin Caffell must be basing his account on a conversation he will have had with Robert W. Boutflour, but he may be basing it loosely on such a conversation, just as Robert Boutflour may have relayed only a loose gist of what Pamela Boutflour told him. We must remember that Pamela Boutflour mentioned nothing of this in her own statements - of which there are no less than seven.
-
It is not surprising Sheila would be a zombie some of the time.
The Haloperiodal was so powerful, she had requested her dosage be reduced.
-
I think a more pressing question is, would Adam control a fully fit Gascoigne or vice versa? Food for thought. I seem to recall Adam is big on the gym.
-
It is not surprising Sheila would be a zombie some of the time.
The Haloperiodal was so powerful, she had requested her dosage be reduced.
Bamber told Julie he was ready to strike.
-
I think a more pressing question is, would Adam control a fully fit Gascoigne or vice versa? Food for thought. I seem to recall Adam is big on the gym.
Yes I do go every 3 days. Just to keep the body hard & the heart healthy.
-
Bamber is not responsible for the so called massacre!
'Your truth', 'my truth', 'this'/ 'that', and 'everybody's truth', does 'NOT' prove or establish what the 'ACTUAL TRUTH', is or could be!
-
I think a more pressing question is, would Adam control a fully fit Gascoigne or vice versa? Food for thought. I seem to recall Adam is big on the gym.
I still think Adam should take on Cambridgecutie in a mud-wrestling Royal Rumble to decide, once and for all, who is the Top Guilter.
I don't like the way Cambridgecutie muscled in on Adam's territory and started critiquing his scenarios. Adam is famous for his crime scene scenarios and has been doing it for years. That was just wrong.
Mike has already agreed to lay on chips and beer. NGB1066 can officiate.
It's time to rumble...
-
Bamber told Julie he was ready to strike.
Bamber told me ['and I believe him, that' he did not shoot dead his sister']!
If true, what resolution can all of us arrive at?
'If Bamber' had any involvement in these shootings, it would have been notable that he would have 'Needed' her to remain 'ALIVE' so that she could take the responsibility of his/her plan!
-
CC has not criticised my scenario. The main criticism has been from Rob & Snow66!.
Rob saying Bamber would not cycle on the cycle paths at night & would not put the silencer away after taking it off.
Snow66! saying Bamber would find it uncomfortable sitting on a bike for 15 minutes & would wake people by crashing into things in the twins bedroom.
-
'YES', I have been in prison, and been taken into the confidence of alleged/accused terrorists, murderers, robbers, and such...
Respect to the treatment, and acceptance of me [in all your indulgences] Thank you, for opening your memories and truths, that each and everyone of you trusted me with! I have learned 'such a great deal' from all of you!
-
Bamber told me ['and I believe him, that' he did not shoot dead his sister']!
If true, what resolution can all of us arrive at?
'If Bamber' had any involvement in these shootings, it would have been notable that he would have 'Needed' her to remain 'ALIVE' so that she could take the responsibility of his/her plan!
Mike what did Jeremy tell you about his 10pm call to Julie?
He has only ever (eventually) said Julie was correct & he had been in a tractor that day.
The call lasted 17 minutes.
-
CC has not criticised my scenario. The main criticism has been from Rob & Snow66!.
Rob saying Bamber would not cycle on the cycle paths at night & would not put the silencer away after taking it off.
Snow66! saying Bamber would find it uncomfortable sitting on a bike for 15 minutes & would wake people by crashing into things in the twins bedroom.
As Cc's scenario is so different to yours Adam she obviously does not think your scenario is plausible and quite frankly I agree with her. I would spend more time in the gym and get ready for the mud wrestling match ;)
-
Yes CC does have Sheila being tied up. However it seems Sheila was so docile & uncordinated it would be easier to just assist her in moving a few yards.
-
This author has to be regarded as 'dishonest', 'she does not comment or report the true facts as is now known! Anybody who has purchased her book, is entitled to a refund from her...
Thanks Mike,but you know i am a relative newbie to the case,thirty something years behind you.As such i will be quite a while before i can hopefully work out most of the fact from the fiction.
-
Something that Dr Ferguson had said after Sheila's last stay at the hospital, was that she'd have more and more of the psychotic episodes--------yet she was taking anti-psychotic medication ? He knew it wouldn't work ! Obviously.
-
Yes CC does have Sheila being tied up. However it seems Sheila was so docile & uncordinated it would be easier to just assist her in moving a few yards.
Yes it looks like Cc is struggling with how the shot to Sheila was carried out Adam, also why did JB place Sheila in her parents bedroom? there must have been a reason after all he spent months planning the crime in minute detail?
-
Yes CC does have Sheila being tied up. However it seems Sheila was so docile & uncordinated it would be easier to just assist her in moving a few yards.
Hi Adam,nice day.Where can i find Cambridge Cuties scenario,i would be very interested to read it.
-
Yes it looks like Cc is struggling with how the shot to Sheila was carried out Adam, also why did JB place Sheila in her parents bedroom? there must have been a reason after all he spent months planning the crime in minute detail?
Why not?
It was the nearest room. There was also space as Nevill was downstairs.
-
Something that Dr Ferguson had said after Sheila's last stay at the hospital, was that she'd have more and more of the psychotic episodes--------yet she was taking anti-psychotic medication ? He knew it wouldn't work ! Obviously.
Yes,and that they would get more intense too Lookout.
-
You know too much to be comfortable with Adam !
-
Why not?
It was the nearest room. There was also space as Nevill was downstairs.
Why move her from her own bedroom? it was a big risk moving her? Her bedroom was nearer than her parents ;)
-
I still think Adam should take on Cambridgecutie in a mud-wrestling Royal Rumble to decide, once and for all, who is the Top Guilter.
I don't like the way Cambridgecutie muscled in on Adam's territory and started critiquing his scenarios. Adam is famous for his crime scene scenarios and has been doing it for years. That was just wrong.
Mike has already agreed to lay on chips and beer. NGB1066 can officiate.
It's time to rumble...
Cambridge seems to have taken a sabbatical. I hope she returns.
-
Something that Dr Ferguson had said after Sheila's last stay at the hospital, was that she'd have more and more of the psychotic episodes--------yet she was taking anti-psychotic medication ? He knew it wouldn't work ! Obviously.
He did say that. It was because she'd failed/forgotten to take her oral medication and hadn't attended follow up appointments. The the decision was then taken to dose her intravenously.
-
Has Cambridge returned to the red as mrswha or is that someone else?
-
Why move her from her own bedroom? it was a big risk moving her? Her bedroom was nearer than her parents ;)
Because it would have looked less believable that she'd committed suicide alone in her bedroom after shooting the others.
-
He did say that. It was because she'd failed/forgotten to take her oral medication and hadn't attended follow up appointments. The the decision was then taken to dose her intravenously.
Hi Jane.From CALs book--Colin spoke to Dr Ferguson about Sheilas diagnosis soon after her admission to St Andrews,The psychiatrist told him that she would always have the illness and that relapses would become more frequent and intense.-
-
Why move her from her own bedroom? it was a big risk moving her? Her bedroom was nearer than her parents ;)
He had to give the impression Sheila had been out of her bedroom and all around the house.
-
Hi Jane.From CALs book--Colin spoke to Dr Ferguson about Sheilas diagnosis soon after her admission to St Andrews,The psychiatrist told him that she would always have the illness and that relapses would become more frequent and intense.-
Certainly she would if she didn't take her medication, as with other progressive diseases. IF he'd meant she become worse regardless, there'd have been no point in medicating her.
-
Certainly she would if she didn't take her medication, as with other progressive diseases. IF he'd meant she become worse regardless, there'd have been no point in medicating her.
Sorry Jane,but that isnt the way i read it at all.
-
He had to give the impression Sheila had been out of her bedroom and all around the house.
Yes I think I agree, but simply choosing the nearest bedroom is not a good reason for saying why JB put Sheila in her parents bedroom? The twins room was only a few seconds further away.
-
Sorry Jane,but that isnt the way i read it at all.
Then why do you think they bothered to inject her every month, if she was going to get worse, with or without medication?
-
CC has not criticised my scenario. The main criticism has been from Rob & Snow66!.
Rob saying Bamber would not cycle on the cycle paths at night & would not put the silencer away after taking it off.
Snow66! saying Bamber would find it uncomfortable sitting on a bike for 15 minutes & would wake people by crashing into things in the twins bedroom.
It's good that Cambridgecutie is trying to damp down the tension and rivalry between the two of you in the interests of uniting the pro-guilt camp. This makes it harder for Roch to exploit divisions. However, she still has her eye on becoming top dog and is one to watch.
Rob and Snow may change stance if you can persuade them that Jeremy must have used June's sit-up-and-beg ladies bike to go over the fields.
-
It's good that Cambridgecutie is trying to damp down the tension and rivalry between the two of you in the interests of uniting the pro-guilt camp. This makes it harder for Roch to exploit divisions. However, she still has her eye on becoming top dog and is one to watch.
Rob and Snow may change stance if you can persuade them that Jeremy must have used June's sit-up-and-beg ladies bike to go over the fields.
It was cycle/footpaths. Which were so accessible Trudie even sat on a footpath bench when on site in one of her vlogs.
The successful prosecution case is Bamber stole June's bike just before the massacre so he could cycle to/from WHF.
-
That bike would have been a bit hard on the" bot" cycling over the solid furrows in the field. That can't be done in 10 minutes ::) Even EP fell back on that one.
-
It's good that Cambridgecutie is trying to damp down the tension and rivalry between the two of you in the interests of uniting the pro-guilt camp. This makes it harder for Roch to exploit divisions. However, she still has her eye on becoming top dog and is one to watch.
Rob and Snow may change stance if you can persuade them that Jeremy must have used June's sit-up-and-beg ladies bike to go over the fields.
Cc submitting her scenario totally at odds with Adams version of events shows she is aiming for top dog and displacing him, having Sheila tied up overcomes some problems :-\
Adam has convinced me it was dark that night so he is making progress towards me changing stance ;D
-
Cambridge seems to have taken a sabbatical. I hope she returns.
Alcohol rehab clinic? :))
-
Alcohol rehab clinic? :))
David, please drop this line of posting.
-
He did say that. It was because she'd failed/forgotten to take her oral medication and hadn't attended follow up appointments. The the decision was then taken to dose her intravenously.
If I remember rightly it was after Sheila's final visit to the hospital. Really and truthfully no time at all before the intravenous medication would actually " take a hold ". It would also have been a slow release medication. Sheila wouldn't have gained the full advantage of it.
-
With any therapeutic medication you have to wait at least 6 weeks for it to take effect until you feel the benefit, so whenever Sheila had her first injection, then come the end of July when she'd been all but ready for her next, only a small amount had been found in her system so the full benefit was failing.
-
David, please drop this line of posting.
Why?
-
If I remember rightly it was after Sheila's final visit to the hospital. Really and truthfully no time at all before the intravenous medication would actually " take a hold ". It would also have been a slow release medication. Sheila wouldn't have gained the full advantage of it.
I'd thought it was when she was admitted for her final visit when it was ascertained that she hadn't taken her meds. Naturally, under those circumstances there'd have been no chance of keeping the illness under control. I'm not clear about which of her meds you're describing as being slow release, but if you mean the injections, which she'd been having since prior to leaving hospital and had subsequently received 3 or 4 doses, if it hadn't started working by then, one presumes it to have been slow enough to have been going in reverse!!! Perhaps you were referring to the oral meds? :)
-
With any therapeutic medication you have to wait at least 6 weeks for it to take effect until you feel the benefit, so whenever Sheila had her first injection, then come the end of July when she'd been all but ready for her next, only a small amount had been found in her system so the full benefit was failing.
It wasn't considered to have been so.
-
Why?
It's personally abusive towards the member in question and I can advise you that it's not appreciated by other members. If I am wrong then maybe other members will correct me.
-
I'd thought it was when she was admitted for her final visit when it was ascertained that she hadn't taken her meds. Naturally, under those circumstances there'd have been no chance of keeping the illness under control. I'm not clear about which of her meds you're describing as being slow release, but if you mean the injections, which she'd been having since prior to leaving hospital and had subsequently received 3 or 4 doses, if it hadn't started working by then, one presumes it to have been slow enough to have been going in reverse!!! Perhaps you were referring to the oral meds? :)
The slow release would have been the intravenous one when her first dose was 200mls ? ( monthly ) ----this was not a lot considering that 450 max is given for those who have psychosis.
What Sheila was having should have been followed up a week or two later as unless it's kept to the higher dose they DO relapse---without a doubt.
-
That final halved dose was as good as useless.
-
Sheila had obviously been more ill than Ferguson had realised. Mistakes have and do happen. He didn't see her in the actual lead-up to the tragedies, nor did anyone else so far as I can gather.
-
That final halved dose was as good as useless.
I believe it to have been the second reduced dose she'd had, but I won't accept that towards the end of each month its efficacy was waning, because that would mean she'd have been feeling 'off' for one week every month -poor girl, and everyone else being medicated in the same way, become a potential murderer for a week or ten days before their next injection. This would have been catered for by injecting every three weeks to counteract it.
-
Not sure what else can be supplied to show that Sheila was sadly a sitting duck -
CAL - Zombie.
Wilkes - Zombie.
CAL - Sheila unable to get off sofa's without help.
PB's WS.
Bamber's WS.
Julie's WS.
Michael Horsnell.
Sheila on Haloperidol.
The numerous strong side effects of Haloperiodal.
Sheila asking her dosage to be reduced as she could not function.
Bamber's appearance around an hour after the massacre.
The crime scene evidence.
-
I believe it to have been the second reduced dose she'd had, but I won't accept that towards the end of each month its efficacy was waning, because that would mean she'd have been feeling 'off' for one week every month -poor girl, and everyone else being medicated in the same way, become a potential murderer for a week or ten days before their next injection. This would have been catered for by injecting every three weeks to counteract it.
A drop in the medication such as Sheila was taking would have been a disaster as a sudden reduction can render her condition to return with a vengeance.
-
It goes for many medications really which are classed as therapeutic as opposed to " as and when ".
-
A drop in the medication such as Sheila was taking would have been a disaster as a sudden reduction can render her condition to return with a vengeance.
She'd received 2 lower dose injections and her blood/urine was still showing moderate levels.
-
She'd received 2 lower dose injections and her blood/urine was still showing moderate levels.
Was that two months apart Jane ?
-
Was that two months apart Jane ?
Lookout, from memory -and I got it from Dr Angegulu(?)'s WS- she had doses delivered in April, May, June and July. Again, from memory, 2 were of the lower dose. She seems not to have reported any more problems once the dose had been lowered.
-
Lookout, from memory -and I got it from Dr Angegulu(?)'s WS- she had doses delivered in April, May, June and July. Again, from memory, 2 were of the lower dose. She seems not to have reported any more problems once the dose had been lowered.
Thanks for that Jane as I wasn't sure when the injection itself had begun/began.
-
Chances were that Sheila hadn't been keen on the relaxing effect the stronger dose had as being an anxious person to start with it's difficult to tone down from the mode of anxiety----it would have been alien to her. An anxious person likes to think they're still in control of themselves but if that's taken away, they feel at a loss of their senses etc. Sheila was no fool but went about things in the wrong way------as did the medics. Alas, she'd have been better off with the good old NHS.
-
Chances were that Sheila hadn't been keen on the relaxing effect the stronger dose had as being an anxious person to start with it's difficult to tone down from the mode of anxiety----it would have been alien to her. An anxious person likes to think they're still in control of themselves but if that's taken away, they feel at a loss of their senses etc. Sheila was no fool but went about things in the wrong way------as did the medics. Alas, she'd have been better off with the good old NHS.
It was motor functions she was having problems with and complained about. Such seems to be a problem with high doses of antipsychotics. There was a programme about it. The filmed at the Maudsley and the patients -who I believe may have been part of an experiment?- were all walking with a strange gait, like Zombies. When the dose was lowered, their motor functions improved relatively.
-
As the thread post says, Bamber was going ahead regardless. He only had a short window of opportunity.
If he felt he could kill Nevill & June, then it would be ditto with Sheila.
Fooling everyone while simultanrously becoming very rich was too much of a temptation.
As it happened, lots of sources suggest Sheila was very compliant. A bonus for Bamber.
This was due to her docile & uncordinated nature. Common side effects of Haloperiodal.
-
It was motor functions she was having problems with and complained about. Such seems to be a problem with high doses of antipsychotics. There was a programme about it. The filmed at the Maudsley and the patients -who I believe may have been part of an experiment?- were all walking with a strange gait, like Zombies. When the dose was lowered, their motor functions improved relatively.
A big problem with many prescription drugs in that they invariably create other problems while treating an initial problem to which they were meant for, which if the right drug, perseverance is key in allowing it to be of benefit. Sheila I'm afraid didn't give it chance to overcome the initial problems with it as it can take a good 6 weeks for the body to be accustomed to any drug before you notice its efficacy.
-
Saying that, there were also drugs to help with side-effects which Sheila hadn't/ didn't take.
-
A big problem with many prescription drugs in that they invariably create other problems while treating an initial problem to which they were meant for, which if the right drug, perseverance is key in allowing it to be of benefit. Sheila I'm afraid didn't give it chance to overcome the initial problems with it as it can take a good 6 weeks for the body to be accustomed to any drug before you notice its efficacy.
Oh, I totally agree!! Indeed, I'd go as far as saying they can cause worse problems than the one they're curing. Perseverance can only be taken so far, though. If the drug makes normal living impossible, an alternative has to be found. An example of which is medication for hypertension. Patients often feel much worse on one that reduces bp, than when their bp is higher.
Sheila had been taking Haloperidol for approximately 22 weeks, more than long enough for efficacy to kick in. Certainly the initial dosage was too high, but I imagine it was given to bring her out of psychosis asap. Would it have been more thoroughly checked, then reduced before she left, had she stayed, rather than discharging herself because she didn't want Christine to see her in hospital? We'll never know. I suspect it might be said that her dosage was being 'tweaked' until it was at a level she could tolerate.
-
Oh, I totally agree!! Indeed, I'd go as far as saying they can cause worse problems than the one they're curing. Perseverance can only be taken so far, though. If the drug makes normal living impossible, an alternative has to be found. An example of which is medication for hypertension. Patients often feel much worse on one that reduces bp, than when their bp is higher.
Sheila had been taking Haloperidol for approximately 22 weeks, more than long enough for efficacy to kick in. Certainly the initial dosage was too high, but I imagine it was given to bring her out of psychosis asap. Would it have been more thoroughly checked, then reduced before she left, had she stayed, rather than discharging herself because she didn't want Christine to see her in hospital? We'll never know. I suspect it might be said that her dosage was being 'tweaked' until it was at a level she could tolerate.
Do we know if there were follow-up appointments after her discharge from hospital, or indeed home visits ?
-
Do we know if there were follow-up appointments after her discharge from hospital, or indeed home visits ?
It's my understanding that she attended her surgery for her injections, but that's just the physical aspect of her care. It seems that the psych/mental health nurses who should have visited her, failed to. I'm not entirely certain why that was. I'd first believed that the message hadn't been passed from private health care to NHS, but I think it's possible that they went once and she wasn't there. Whether or not they'd notified her that they were going wasn't clear.
-
The 14 sources in reply 191 confirm Sheila was very compliant to Bamber's persuasion & cohersion.
It simultaneously shows Sheila did not committ the massacre. She could barely walk or talk, let alone sustain a prolonged attack on two adults & two children.
-
She'd received 2 lower dose injections and her blood/urine was still showing moderate levels.
Hi Jane.I do not think that is correct,it was only her last dose on 11th July that was halved.
-
From Dr Angeloglous' statement. 2 may 1985 Haldol 200mg,11 june 1985 Haldol 200mg,11 july Haldol 100mg.
-
I think it is worth pointing out that when Sheila requested that her Haloperidol be reduced because she was tired,that Dr Angeloglou thought the reason for her tiredness may be due to the fact she was not taking her procyclidene tablets.Why was this not followed up?According to Dr Angeloglou Sheila was prescribed a months supply of procyclidene tablets on 29th April,so she would have been due a repeat prescription on29th May.There is no mention of a repeat prescription on this date.Did Dr Wilkinson ask Sheila about the procyclidene tablets ? Did she know she was due a repeat prescription? Did she get one on 29th May? If not,why not,and why was this not checked when Dr Angeloglou discussed Sheilas reduced dose of Haloperiol with Dr Wilkinson.Surely Dr Angeloglou had a record of the dates Sheila had been prescribed the procyclidene tablets,and knowing the Haloperidol was a strong tranquillizer ,it should have been important to check if she was taking them.And surely imperitive to keep her supplied with repeat prescriptions.Wasnt it too late for the Doctors to discuss whether or not Sheila was taking the tablets BEFORE they agreed to lower the dose of Haloperidol?If they made checks as to whether Sheila was taking the tablets,a reduction of the Haloperidol may have been avoided.Sheilas was a very serious case,and No mistakes in her medication could be afforded.Dr Ferguson says in CALS book that 100mg would be regarded as a small dose.After seeing the result of JBs trial on tv,Ferguson said he was 'glad that it wasnt Sheila after all'.I wonder why?
-
As my thread post confirms, Sheila's condition would not be a factor in stopping Bamber going ahead.
He had planned it for months & had a short window of opportunity. The rewards were too tempting to resist.
Sheila being physically & mentally unable to resist was a bonus for him which he became aware of during his supper reconnaissance. Deciding 'it's now or never'.
The main significance of Sheila's condition, is that together with the crime scene evidence, it rules her out as a suspect.
-
This is exactly what it says in CALs book,whether it came from witness statements,who knows.------At the house,June answered the telephone when it rang again just after the hour.it was Pamela,wanting to know if Sheila and the twins had arrived that weekend.June told her that Sheila was just going to bed.I then spoke to Sheila,Pamela recalled,and i enquired as to how she was keeping.She told me she was alright and she also said that she had been to visit an elderly lady with June and had taken the twins.Pamela did most of the talking.Sheila didnt chat as she generally did,and after two or three minutes the conversation dried up,June came back on the phone.I thought this was strange as [Sheila] didnt even say;goodnight auntie Pam;,which she normally would do.June told her Sheila had gone to bed,adding that she was very worried about her and wanted Pamela to see her 'and form an opinion about her health'.She had no interest in anything,including the twins'.June then explained she had been 'trying to persuade Sheila to take a holiday at a home in Bournemouth'.Pamela invited them all over for lunch on thursday and,after discussing their mother's care,the sisters said goodnight.In wix,Pamela told Robert that the conversation with Sheila had been 'hard-going'.She sounded like 'a zombie' and didnt want to feed the twins or look after herself,which was why June wanted their advice about 'putting Sheila into a nursing home.Describing the phone call to Colin some days later,Pamela recalled an extra detail;June had wanted Sheila to stay with a 'Christian community in Bournemouth'.-----------------------------Where CAL got all these specific details from who knows.Is it all in witness statements or through personal interviews.For one thing the -yes,no-- answers have been expanded to what you would call a short two way conversation.So what is fact in CALS book?
If Sheila was on the brink of going into a nursing home, then Bamber may have been aware he was in the last chance saloon.
Sheila & the twins simultaneously staying at WHF again may never have happened.
-
I think it is worth pointing out that when Sheila requested that her Haloperidol be reduced because she was tired,that Dr Angeloglou thought the reason for her tiredness may be due to the fact she was not taking her procyclidene tablets.Why was this not followed up?According to Dr Angeloglou Sheila was prescribed a months supply of procyclidene tablets on 29th April,so she would have been due a repeat prescription on29th May.There is no mention of a repeat prescription on this date.Did Dr Wilkinson ask Sheila about the procyclidene tablets ? Did she know she was due a repeat prescription? Did she get one on 29th May? If not,why not,and why was this not checked when Dr Angeloglou discussed Sheilas reduced dose of Haloperiol with Dr Wilkinson.Surely Dr Angeloglou had a record of the dates Sheila had been prescribed the procyclidene tablets,and knowing the Haloperidol was a strong tranquillizer ,it should have been important to check if she was taking them.And surely imperitive to keep her supplied with repeat prescriptions.Wasnt it too late for the Doctors to discuss whether or not Sheila was taking the tablets BEFORE they agreed to lower the dose of Haloperidol?If they made checks as to whether Sheila was taking the tablets,a reduction of the Haloperidol may have been avoided.Sheilas was a very serious case,and No mistakes in her medication could be afforded.Dr Ferguson says in CALS book that 100mg would be regarded as a small dose.After seeing the result of JBs trial on tv,Ferguson said he was 'glad that it wasnt Sheila after all'.I wonder why?
Firstly, I wouldn't say "Sheila's was a very serious case". At least, no more serious than anyone else, who'd been admitted to hospital suffering psychosis and prescribed Haloperidol. "Should have" is a frequently used expression when things go wrong. Are they any more right now? In my area, it's recently been announced that there have been 1500 deaths over the last 20 years, all in the mental health area, some in hospitals where they were being 'cared for', and some within three months of them leaving.
It has been alleged that Sheila wasn't taking the prescribed procyclidene. Had Dr Angeloglou suspect that to be the reason for her tiredness, she wouldn't have agreed to requesting a reduction in the Haloperidol dose. Incidentally, the doctor who administered her last dose was, in fact, a locum. I can't remember if this was Dr Angeloglou or Dr Wilkinson, but given that she received consecutive doses, it seems she may have been given her following appointment before leaving the surgery.
You seem very concerned that the requisite 'i's' weren't dotted and 't's' crossed -another "should have"- but how were they going to check on whether or not Sheila was taking her oral meds, regularly. It was precisely for that reason, ie that they couldn't check, that Haloperidol -the imperative medication- was administered intravenously. For the rest, it was Sheila's responsibility. If, as a result of not taking it, she felt overly tired, it was down to her.
I can fully understand that Dr Ferguson was "glad it wasn't Sheila". Not only had he known her quite well, and I imagine she had a attractive and likeable personality, he'd also known her mother. I don't think, from how he couched his words, he ever believed Sheila to have been responsible -I suspect he'd have found difficulty in believing it had it been found to have been her- and he'd have been pleased she'd been exonerated.
-
This is exactly what it says in CALs book,......................Where CAL got all these specific details from who knows.Is it all in witness statements or through personal interviews.For one thing the -yes,no-- answers have been expanded to what you would call a short two way conversation.So what is fact in CALS book?
It's perfectly possible that she got it from Pamela, who only died a couple of years ago, just shy of, or slightly more than, 100.
-
Don't think he can exercise the same control in Wakefield!!! Grim place indeed. I wouldn't even want to walk past it. I certainly hadn't previously known the calibre of its inmates. What an eye opener.
-
Don't think he can exercise the same control in Wakefield!!! Grim place indeed. I wouldn't even want to walk past it. I certainly hadn't previously known the calibre of its inmates. What an eye opener.
I've only just realised that the doc. is over a year old. I thought it was up to date as I hadn't seen it before. It was indeed an eye-opener, with Mawdsley admitting he'd never killed killed women or children ? However, it looks as though Bronson will be released this year---June/ July, although he hadn't killed anyone. He'd been involved in armed robbery from an early age then continued attacks on prison officers.
-
There's no way that I'd be able to exist there if I was guilty, as a better option would be suicide.
-
I've only just realised that the doc. is over a year old. I thought it was up to date as I hadn't seen it before. It was indeed an eye-opener, with Mawdsley admitting he'd never killed killed women or children ? However, it looks as though Bronson will be released this year---June/ July, although he hadn't killed anyone. He'd been involved in armed robbery from an early age then continued attacks on prison officers.
It's unfortunate that he gets associated with Charles Manson!
-
Mawdsley will never be released since his admissions that he'd continue to kill so the place is home to him, and as a speaker said, it would either be there or the death penalty, which is something that I'd gathered that a few ex-officers were in support of . And why not ?? Death is a better option than being in such a grim place.
-
It's unfortunate that he gets associated with Charles Manson!
Indeed it is.
-
Although I'm all for ridding the place of paedo's, it was Mawdsley's methods that he'd allegedly used which were unsavoury.
-
Although I'm all for ridding the place of paedo's, it was Mawdsley's methods that he'd allegedly used which were unsavoury.
I was amused -wrong word, perhaps?- by the pecking order/rating system of what made Prisoner A less monstrous!! than Prisoner B.
-
If Sheila was on the brink of going into a nursing home, then Bamber may have been aware he was in the last chance saloon.
Sheila & the twins simultaneously staying at WHF again may never have happened.
Good morning Adam.Another way of looking at it would be,if Sheila heard this too,she would have realised just how ill she was and ending up in a home would seperate her from the twins.Cue breakdown as suggested by Dr Fergusson.
-
Firstly, I wouldn't say "Sheila's was a very serious case". At least, no more serious than anyone else, who'd been admitted to hospital suffering psychosis and prescribed Haloperidol. "Should have" is a frequently used expression when things go wrong. Are they any more right now? In my area, it's recently been announced that there have been 1500 deaths over the last 20 years, all in the mental health area, some in hospitals where they were being 'cared for', and some within three months of them leaving.
It has been alleged that Sheila wasn't taking the prescribed procyclidene. Had Dr Angeloglou suspect that to be the reason for her tiredness, she wouldn't have agreed to requesting a reduction in the Haloperidol dose. Incidentally, the doctor who administered her last dose was, in fact, a locum. I can't remember if this was Dr Angeloglou or Dr Wilkinson, but given that she received consecutive doses, it seems she may have been given her following appointment before leaving the surgery.
You seem very concerned that the requisite 'i's' weren't dotted and 't's' crossed -another "should have"- but how were they going to check on whether or not Sheila was taking her oral meds, regularly. It was precisely for that reason, ie that they couldn't check, that Haloperidol -the imperative medication- was administered intravenously. For the rest, it was Sheila's responsibility. If, as a result of not taking it, she felt overly tired, it was down to her.
I can fully understand that Dr Ferguson was "glad it wasn't Sheila". Not only had he known her quite well, and I imagine she had a attractive and likeable personality, he'd also known her mother. I don't think, from how he couched his words, he ever believed Sheila to have been responsible -I suspect he'd have found difficulty in believing it had it been found to have been her- and he'd have been pleased she'd been exonerated.
Good morning Jane.It was Dr Wilkinson who addministered the last dose of Haloperidol in the evening,because Sheila had missed her appointment earlier that day.And let us not forget it should have been 150mg not 100,quite a serious mistake for a start,but we are told its still a theraputic dose.Now i would say Sheila was quite an ill patient,you dont get threatened with a nursing home at 28years old unless something is seriously out of the ordinary.Now,you say it was up to Sheila to take all her meds as a grown up.But she was a very ill grown up,and Dr Fergusson stated many times that she was a difficult patient who could not be trusted to take her meds regularly.It should have been imperative to pass on all this info to Sheilas GP,and as soon as Sheila asked for the Haloperidol to be reduced because of tiredness,a symptom that SHOULD have been controlled by the procyclidene,alarm bells should have immediately rung.The first thing Dr Wilkinson should have done was quiz Sheila about the proc tablets before even considering reducing the dose of Haloperidol.Dont you agree Jane? And i will say again,how many prescriptions of the procyclidene tablets did Sheila recieve,she couldnt possibly take them if she didnt have any to take.So her GP should have checked if she had a current supply of the tablets and whether she was taking them or not BEFORE any decision about the Haloperidol was taken.And surely in Dr Wilkinsons discussion with Dr Angeloglou which took place after the injection was given,the procyclidene tablets would have been discussed.So i will say again,how many times was Sheila prescribed the procyclidene tablets,and how many were found after her death.They couldnt just disappear,unless Sheila was flushing them down the toilet,You seem to think it is ok to simply accept Sheila was a grown up with rights and therefore be trusted to take her meds or otherwise without interference.But she was a very ill grown up,and if the Doctors knew she was prone to skipping her meds,surely intermediate checks should have been made on her,especially when she requested to have the Haloperidol reduced.Surely this was a red light for a discussion with her.As far as i can see the procyclidene tablets issue and whether Sheila was taking them or not,and how many times she was prescribed them has simply been swept under the carpet as irrellivent.And the thing is CAL had the chance to quiz Dr Fergusson about the tablets as well as the Haloperidol when interviewing him,but little is said about them,only that theySUSPECTED she may not have been taking them.Is this good enough,shouldnt they have made damned sure if Sheila was taking the tablets or not BEFORE reducing the Haloperidol,which some feel could have caused the catastrophe that followed.
-
Not sure what else can be supplied to show that Sheila was sadly a sitting duck -
CAL - Zombie.
Wilkes - Zombie.
CAL - Sheila unable to get off sofa's without help.
Form Colin Caffell. Not reliable source.
PB's WS.
Bamber's WS.
Julie's WS.
Michael Horsnell.
Sheila on Haloperidol.
The numerous strong side effects of Haloperiodal.
Sheila asking her dosage to be reduced as she could not function.
Bamber's appearance around an hour after the massacre.
The crime scene evidence.
It's good that you're clueing us in like this Adam. I've certainly benefited from your insights. I was starting to get drawn in by Rob and Snow. Rob's a smooth talker. You've pulled me back from the brink.
-
It's good that you're clueing us in like this Adam. I've certainly benefited from your insights. I was starting to get drawn in by Rob and Snow. Rob's a smooth talker. You've pulled me back from the brink.
As said, the main significance of Sheila's condition, is that together with the crime scene evidence, it rules her out as a suspect.
Sheila couldn't get off sofa's without help. Let alone have the physical & mental attributes to hold her family hostage & then kill them.
Bamber was going ahead regardless but was aware Sheila will have her good & bad moments. He decided it was 'now or never' after his latest reconnaissance.
-
It's good that you're clueing us in like this Adam. I've certainly benefited from your insights. I was starting to get drawn in by Rob and Snow. Rob's a smooth talker. You've pulled me back from the brink.
I presume you wrote this with your tongue in your cheek Gascoigne.
-
Bamber would have done reconnaissance every evening at WHF while Sheila & the twins were there.
Mainly to ensure they were all still staying the night there. Sheila having a relapse or one of the twins having an accident on the farm, may have resulted in an overnight stay at hospital.
He would also monitor Sheila. If she was still awake.
-
Obviously his last reconnaissance, Sheila was still awake. As well as being very docile. As confirmed by Bamber & PB.
Everyone else required was inside WHF & already asleep or about to go to bed.
-
Good morning Jane.It was Dr Wilkinson who addministered the last dose of Haloperidol in the evening,because Sheila had missed her appointment earlier that day.And let us not forget it should have been 150mg not 100,quite a serious mistake for a start,but we are told its still a theraputic dose.Now i would say Sheila was quite an ill patient,you dont get threatened with a nursing home at 28years old unless something is seriously out of the ordinary.Now,you say it was up to Sheila to take all her meds as a grown up.But she was a very ill grown up,and Dr Fergusson stated many times that she was a difficult patient who could not be trusted to take her meds regularly.It should have been imperative to pass on all this info to Sheilas GP,and as soon as Sheila asked for the Haloperidol to be reduced because of tiredness,a symptom that SHOULD have been controlled by the procyclidene,alarm bells should have immediately rung.The first thing Dr Wilkinson should have done was quiz Sheila about the proc tablets before even considering reducing the dose of Haloperidol.Dont you agree Jane? And i will say again,how many prescriptions of the procyclidene tablets did Sheila recieve,she couldnt possibly take them if she didnt have any to take.So her GP should have checked if she had a current supply of the tablets and whether she was taking them or not BEFORE any decision about the Haloperidol was taken.And surely in Dr Wilkinsons discussion with Dr Angeloglou which took place after the injection was given,the procyclidene tablets would have been discussed.So i will say again,how many times was Sheila prescribed the procyclidene tablets,and how many were found after her death.They couldnt just disappear,unless Sheila was flushing them down the toilet,You seem to think it is ok to simply accept Sheila was a grown up with rights and therefore be trusted to take her meds or otherwise without interference.But she was a very ill grown up,and if the Doctors knew she was prone to skipping her meds,surely intermediate checks should have been made on her,especially when she requested to have the Haloperidol reduced.Surely this was a red light for a discussion with her.As far as i can see the procyclidene tablets issue and whether Sheila was taking them or not,and how many times she was prescribed them has simply been swept under the carpet as irrellivent.And the thing is CAL had the chance to quiz Dr Fergusson about the tablets as well as the Haloperidol when interviewing him,but little is said about them,only that theySUSPECTED she may not have been taking them.Is this good enough,shouldnt they have made damned sure if Sheila was taking the tablets or not BEFORE reducing the Haloperidol,which some feel could have caused the catastrophe that followed.
"Threatened"!! Who was "threatening" Sheila? June may have thought she'd benefit from, what used to be called convalescence. I don't recall her being forced.
Had Dr Ferguson said "MANY" times that Sheila was "difficult"? I would suggest that, had she been as ill as you're claiming her to be, she'd had been forcibly kept in hospital under a section which is the usual way for those considered to be a danger to themselves or others. We don't know that procyclidene wasn't discussed in such a way as to ask her if she was remembering to take them. Exactly what do you think they'd have done if she hadn't? She couldn't be forced. Nor do we know that they weren't part of regular monthly issue. Whether or not she took them, or flushed them down the loo, was her responsibility and wouldn't have, in any way, contributed to her being shot.
The mental health nurses -those intermediaries you mention- didn't see her. I don't know if information didn't filter through to the NHS, or whether they visited and Sheila wasn't there/didn't answer the door. I suspect that nothing much was said about procyclidene because whilst taking them might have made life better for her, NOT taking them wasn't a life or death thing.
I think you're trying to make much more of this than is absolutely necessary. I don't believe her to have been as mentally ill as you claim her to have been, but I do believe her to have been depressed.
-
Bamber stole June's bike just before Sheila and the twins arrived at WHF. After finding out they were visiting.
This gave him time to do the trial run Julie mentioned.
It was then a case of choosing the night a few hours after his reconnaissance.
-
His trial run may have been at night.
Supporters have said Bamber couldn't have cycled in the dark. Although he had lived & worked in the area for a lot of his 24 years.
-
Believe there were 3 possible cycle routes. Or he may have used a combination of all three.
He would certainly have been cycling along cycle and footpaths. Maybe also roads. He did not need to cycle across fields.
-
As said, the main significance of Sheila's condition, is that together with the crime scene evidence, it rules her out as a suspect.
Sheila couldn't get off sofa's without help. Let alone have the physical & mental attributes to hold her family hostage & then kill them.
Bamber was going ahead regardless but was aware Sheila will have her good & bad moments. He decided it was 'now or never' after his latest reconnaissance.
If Sheila could not even get off the sofa Adam, I think JB doing his reconnaissance would have become alarmed and cancelled his mission? JB would not know who else would have been aware of this, if they came forward the game was up.
-
If Sheila could not even get off the sofa Adam, I think JB doing his reconnaissance would have become alarmed and cancelled his mission? JB would not know who else would have been aware of this, if they came forward the game was up.
Who else would be aware?
Bamber was not aware of PB's phone call. CC had not seen her for days.
-
Who else would be aware?
Bamber was not aware of PB's phone call. CC had not seen her for days.
Everyone who knew her!
So you are saying she never spoke on the trip down to WHF, could not get off the sofa so by implication could not get in and out of the car unaided, yet she was trusted in looking after two small boys.
-
If Sheila could not even get off the sofa Adam, I think JB doing his reconnaissance would have become alarmed and cancelled his mission? JB would not know who else would have been aware of this, if they came forward the game was up.
Hi Rob,how are you tonight.Yes that has all gone through my head as well.How on earth could you blame someone who could BARELY walk or talk for the murders.Adam has Sheila worse than an 80 year old with dementia.
-
Everyone who knew her!
So you are saying she never spoke on the trip down to WHF, could not get off the sofa so by implication could not get in and out of the car unaided, yet she was trusted in looking after two small boys.
Of course, there is such a thing as speaking figuratively, isn't there. Unless she'd stood for the duration of the party, she must have been seated at some time, in fact we know she did because one of the boys climbed onto her lap. She wasn't trusted to have the boys on her own -for the most part, they were with Colin- and from the conversation June had with Pam, one can see why. Apart from how she was at the time, girls from her background, like their mother, didn't have full responsibility for their children. It was left to au pairs, or, preferably 'village girls' whose families had worked for them for generations.
-
Everyone who knew her!
So you are saying she never spoke on the trip down to WHF, could not get off the sofa so by implication could not get in and out of the car unaided, yet she was trusted in looking after two small boys.
Sheila's Haloperiodal put her in different phases. Sometimes she could be alert.
On the night, she was awake but very docile and uncordinated. As previously said with 14 sources.
Bamber was not aware PB & Michael Horsnell's had seen/spoken to Sheila a few hours before he cycled over on June's stolen bike.
-
Hi Rob,how are you tonight.Yes that has all gone through my head as well.How on earth could you blame someone who could BARELY walk or talk for the murders.Adam has Sheila worse than an 80 year old with dementia.
It's a good job Adam is here to keep me on the right track. You and Rob almost had me thinking Jeremy could be innocent. Adam does sometimes have to give me the 'hard word' on the open forum, but without his moral support, I don't know where I'd be.
-
Hi Rob,how are you tonight.Yes that has all gone through my head as well.How on earth could you blame someone who could BARELY walk or talk for the murders.Adam has Sheila worse than an 80 year old with dementia.
Good. You agree on the night Sheila could barely walk or talk.
Slow progress is being made.
Bamber's stance was her medication made her aggressive. This approach was successful for a short period.
-
Sheila's Haloperiodal put her in different phases. Sometimes she could be alert.
On the night, she was awake but very docile and uncordinated. As previously said with 14 sources.
Bamber was not aware PB & Michael Horsnell's had seen/spoken to Sheila a few hours before he cycled over on June's stolen bike.
Back to your usual trick of wanting it all ways I see, what did the boys farther say when he was told of the tragedy? He never said it cannot be Sheila she can't walk etc.
-
Hi Rob,how are you tonight.Yes that has all gone through my head as well.How on earth could you blame someone who could BARELY walk or talk for the murders.Adam has Sheila worse than an 80 year old with dementia.
Hi Snow, I am ok thanks hope you are to. Who would carry out a crime framing someone who could not walk!
Perhaps Adam can post some statements confirming this?
-
Back to your usual trick of wanting it all ways I see, what did the boys farther say when he was told of the tragedy? He never said it cannot be Sheila she can't walk etc.
Agree about CC.
That is because Sheila went through different phases with her Haloperiodal. She won't be docile & uncordinated 100% of the time.
On the massacre night she was very docile and uncordinated. As previously said with 14 sources.
Are you able to digest that?
-
I suspect when Sheila was on 200% Haloperiodal she was docile and uncordinated most of the time. Together with suffering the numerous other side effects.
That is why she asked for her dosage to be reduced.
The reduced dosage still had to be strong enough to work. Haloperiodal is a very strong drug & would have still made her docile & uncordinated some of the time.
-
It seems Rob & Snow66! agree Sheila was not in a physical & mental condition to commit the massacre.
The stance has moved to why would Bamber then try to frame her?
The simple answer is Sheila was not docile & uncordinated 100% of the time.
-
Please post some statements confirming what you are claiming, if this was true the prosecution would have been all over it.
-
If Rob & Snow66! decide to change direction again & refute the evidence that Sheila was docile & uncordinated, they have a lot of work to do. There are 14 strong sources.
Anyway, my thread post states Bamber was going ahead regardless.
-
If Rob & Snow66! decide to change direction again & refute the evidence that Sheila was docile & uncordinated, they have a lot of work to do. There are 14 strong sources.
Anyway, my thread post states Bamber was going ahead regardless.
If you have evidence she could not walk please post it.
-
Not sure what else can be supplied to show that Sheila was sadly a sitting duck -
CAL - Zombie.
Wilkes - Zombie.
CAL - Sheila unable to get off sofa's without help.
PB's WS.
Bamber's WS.
Julie's WS.
Michael Horsnell.
Sheila on Haloperidol.
The numerous strong side effects of Haloperiodal.
Sheila asking her dosage to be reduced as she could not function.
Bamber's appearance around an hour after the massacre.
The crime scene evidence.
Sorry it's 12 sources.
Happy researching.
-
If you have evidence she could not walk please post it.
Said barely walk & talk.
Sadly a sitting duck. Or rather a sleeping duck.
-
Sorry it's 12 sources.
Happy researching.
I don't see any statements I will go and get my glasses.
-
From Pamela Boutflour's statement "June then told me Sheila had gone to bed"
Where does it say she needed help getting up the stairs?
-
From Pamela Boutflour's statement "June then told me Sheila had gone to bed"
Where does it say she needed help getting up the stairs?
PB was on a 1985 phone. Not a Whatsapp video call.
-
From Pamela Boutflour's statement "June then told me Sheila had gone to bed"
Where does it say she needed help getting up the stairs?
You are reaching.
-
As said in my thread post, Bamber had to go ahead regardless. The strong evidence Sheila was docile & uncordinated on the night was a bonus for him.
It is an even bigger bonus for guilters as is a double whammy -
Rules out Sheila.
Removed a massacre obstacle for Bamber.
-
You are reaching.
No June would have said something like " I am worried Sheila needs Nevil to help her up the stairs" not "Sheila had gone to bed"
-
As said in my thread post, Bamber had to go ahead regardless. The strong evidence Sheila was docile & uncordinated on the night was a bonus for him.
It is an even bigger bonus for guilters as it a double whammy -
Rules out Sheila.
Removed a massacre obstacle for Bamber.
Stop talking tosh Adam, if Sheila was this bad it would be a no go from Bamber.
-
Stop talking tosh Adam, if Sheila was this bad it would be a no go from Bamber.
The opposite is correct. It makes it easier for him.
He can then insinuate Sheila to anyone who will listen.
Of the last 5 people to see Sheila alive, 4 are now dead.
-
The opposite is correct. It makes it easier for him.
He can then insinuate Sheila to anyone who will listen.
Of the last 5 people to see Sheila alive, 4 are now dead.
How can it make it easier? only two suspects and one cannot walk? even Tom Cruise would abort the mission.
-
How can it make it easier? only two suspects and one cannot walk? even Tom Cruise would abort the mission.
Cannot walk?
Sheila was uncordinated. You need to read up on Michael Horsnell.
-
Cannot walk?
Sheila was uncordinated. You need to read up on Michael Horsnell.
She needed help getting off the sofa you said?
-
If she cannot get off the sofa unaided, she would not be able to get in and out of a car, get up down the stairs etc. etc.
-
Michael Horsnell is another double whammey for guilters -
It confirms Sheila was uncordinated from the Haloperiodal. So is ruled out as a suspect.
Bamber would not know Horsnell had seen Sheila. Undermining Rob's new optimistic claim that Bamber would not commit the massacre if other people had seen her that day.
-
She needed help getting off the sofa you said?
CAL said. Source was Sheila's best friend. A week before the massacre.
-
CAL said. Source was Sheila's best friend. A week before the massacre.
Is there a statement anywhere?
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11181.0.html
Rob needs to concentrate on his Sheila scenario.
He's like a man possessed with the straight forward Bamber scenario.
Now saying Bamber would not go ahead if Sheila was docile & uncordinated a few hours earlier during his reconnaissance.
-
Wish supporters would make up their minds.
First it's said Sheila may scracth or hit a fully clothed Bamber. Deterring him.
Now it's being said Bamber would be deterred if Sheila was docile & uncordinated.
My view is Bamber was going ahead regardless.
The evidence Sheila was docile & uncordinated was a bonus for him.
-
Wish supporters would make up their minds.
First it's said Sheila may scracth or hit a fully clothed Bamber. Deterring him.
Now it's being said Bamber would be deterred if Sheila was docile & uncordinated.
My view is Bamber was going ahead regardless.
The evidence Sheila was docile & uncordinated was a bonus for him.
Sadly, a few weeks later after he became a suspect, it ruled out Sheila.
-
Sadly, a few weeks later after he became a suspect, it ruled out Sheila.
Make your mind up "docile and uncordinated" or cannot get off the sofa? what is it?
-
Is there a statement anywhere?
No. CAL was interviewed in 2015 for ITV news when her book came out. She said it then. I have looked for the video.
It may be in her book. I have not got it.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjwtpagpez2AhXIa8AKHTFWBiEQFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.itv.com%2Fnews%2Fcalendar%2Fupdate%2F2015-07-29%2Fyorkshire-author-writes-book-about-jeremy-bamber-case%2F&usg=AOvVaw2hlBtA_oWPi4HEzPj-asPY
This could be it. Although the video did not play for me.
-
CAL said. Source was Sheila's best friend. A week before the massacre.
Hi Adam.It was Tora Tompkinson. ---when it was time to go she could not get up--- page 146 ,so you better add her name to your list.Why dont you just buy CALs book Adam,you can get it for a few quid on ebay.But be warned there are many contradictory statements and damaging statements about Sheila too.I will give you just one for the time being,Dr Fergusson said he was very surprised to hear that Sheila had committed suicide,she NEVER mentioned suicide to him,yet in CALs book when Margaret Grimster,and her teenage children,David and Helen arrived for a visit[to WHF the day after Sheilas release on 29th merch] After lunch,everyone else except Sheila and thirteen year old Helen set off for a walk.Helen joined Sheila for a chat in the sitting room;'Sheila asked me if i liked school.She said she had been bullied at school and that she hadnt enjoyed her school days.'As she spoke Sheila rolled a joint and offered it to Helen,who declined[quite nimble fingers at this stage after newly receiving her Haloperidol injection]She asked Helen if she had ever thought of killing herself and said that she had contemplated suicide several times.[but never told this to Fergusson apparently]To the younger girls alarm,she then described herself as a 'white witch' who had to 'get rid of all the evil in the world'. Many more quotes to come Adam.
-
Hi Adam.It was Tora Tompkinson. ---when it was time to go she could not get up--- page 146 ,so you better add her name to your list.Why dont you just buy CALs book Adam,you can get it for a few quid on ebay.But be warned there are many contradictory statements and damaging statements about Sheila too.I will give you just one for the time being,Dr Fergusson said he was very surprised to hear that Sheila had committed suicide,she NEVER mentioned suicide to him,yet in CALs book when Margaret Grimster,and her teenage children,David and Helen arrived for a visit[to WHF the day after Sheilas release on 29th merch] After lunch,everyone else except Sheila and thirteen year old Helen set off for a walk.Helen joined Sheila for a chat in the sitting room;'Sheila asked me if i liked school.She said she had been bullied at school and that she hadnt enjoyed her school days.'As she spoke Sheila rolled a joint and offered it to Helen,who declined[quite nimble fingers at this stage after newly receiving her Haloperidol injection]She asked Helen if she had ever thought of killing herself and said that she had contemplated suicide several times.[but never told this to Fergusson apparently]To the younger girls alarm,she then described herself as a 'white witch' who had to 'get rid of all the evil in the world'. Many more quotes to come Adam.
Thank you. I read Wilkes's book as that had the best reviews prior to CAL.
CAL's book sounded a bit long winded. Although Michael Horsnell & Tara Tompkinson are new bits of information.
-
Hi Adam.It was Tora Tompkinson. ---when it was time to go she could not get up--- page 146 ,so you better add her name to your list.Why dont you just buy CALs book Adam,you can get it for a few quid on ebay.But be warned there are many contradictory statements and damaging statements about Sheila too.I will give you just one for the time being,Dr Fergusson said he was very surprised to hear that Sheila had committed suicide,she NEVER mentioned suicide to him,yet in CALs book when Margaret Grimster,and her teenage children,David and Helen arrived for a visit[to WHF the day after Sheilas release on 29th merch] After lunch,everyone else except Sheila and thirteen year old Helen set off for a walk.Helen joined Sheila for a chat in the sitting room;'Sheila asked me if i liked school.She said she had been bullied at school and that she hadnt enjoyed her school days.'As she spoke Sheila rolled a joint and offered it to Helen,who declined[quite nimble fingers at this stage after newly receiving her Haloperidol injection]She asked Helen if she had ever thought of killing herself and said that she had contemplated suicide several times.[but never told this to Fergusson apparently]To the younger girls alarm,she then described herself as a 'white witch' who had to 'get rid of all the evil in the world'. Many more quotes to come Adam.
The key words in that so frequently trawled out quote -by supporters- are "HAD contemplated....." She didn't claim to be contemplating. I'd class her words as reflective, mostly being about the past. Supporters may wish to believe that she was claiming that she intended to slaughter all those she 'believed' to be evil, but there are other ways, as demonstrated by those who simply seek lead by example.
-
She needed help getting off the sofa you said?
It's a huge leap from needing help to get off a sofa and being unable to walk. It's entirely possible that we're reading about a one-time situation captured in time. That she MAY have needed help on that occasion is not an indication that it was permanent.
-
The key words in that so frequently trawled out quote -by supporters- are "HAD contemplated....." She didn't claim to be contemplating. I'd class her words as reflective, mostly being about the past. Supporters may wish to believe that she was claiming that she intended to slaughter all those she 'believed' to be evil, but there are other ways, as demonstrated by those who simply seek lead by example.
Good morning Jane.You can read it any way you like,She did say at another time,that all people are evil and should be killed,you must admit quotes like that are not helpful for her case.
-
Good morning Jane.You can read it any way you like,She did say at another time,that all people are evil and should be killed,you must admit quotes like that are not helpful for her case.
So can you. It seems you taken every one of her words in isolation without looking at the bigger picture or the back story.
-
So can you. It seems you taken every one of her words in isolation without looking at the bigger picture or the back story.
If we look at the Emani incident and then the two examples of spoken word incidents that Snow refers to, then look at the bigger picture as you put it (ie she died and the actual concept that it was by her own hand was no suprise to Colin) , how else are we supposed to view it. Is the bigger picture, not also giving consideration to whether or not all components mentioned above were available to the jury at trial? How can the jury consider the bigger picture, if they weren't provided with it?
-
Bamber had decided to commit the massacre prior to Sheila arriving at WHF. June's bike had been stolen in preparation.
Sheila's condition was not an issue & something he had no control over. He would of course prefer that she was docile and uncordinated.
His supper reconnaissance confirmed everyone was inside WHF & Sheila would provide no resistance.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
Not sure what else can be supplied to show that Sheila was sadly a sitting duck -
CAL - Zombie.
Wilkes - Zombie.
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
CAL - Sheila unable to get off sofa's without help.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
PB's WS.
Bamber's WS.
Julie's WS.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
Michael Horsnell.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
Sheila on Haloperidol.
The numerous strong side effects of Haloperiodal.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
Sheila asking her dosage to be reduced as she could not function.
And her dosage was reduced.
Bamber's appearance around an hour after the massacre.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
The crime scene evidence.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
And her dosage was reduced.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
The source is CAL & Wilkes. They got it from DB.
CC is nothing to do with it.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
And her dosage was reduced.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
CAL got the information from Sheila's best friend. Snow66! has posted her name.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
And her dosage was reduced.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
Specific quotes -
Sheila non responsive to conversations about fostering.
Tonights the night.
It's now or never.
You may hear from me later.
I have been on my tractor thinking about it all day.
Sheila just said 'yes' or 'no' for 3 minutes on the phone.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
And her dosage was reduced.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
Maybe CAL spoke to Michael Horsnell. She is an investigstive author.
Or maybe she has got his statement.
His WS not being online is neither here or there.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
And her dosage was reduced.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
Sheila was on Haloperiodal. Which has strong sedative & cordination effects.
This together with my 11 other sources shows Sheila put up no resistance.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
And her dosage was reduced.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
The dosage still had to be very strong to do the job it is supposed to do.
Sedative and cordination being just two of the multiple side effects.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
And her dosage was reduced.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
You said Sheila may scratch or hit a fully clothed Bamber.
The evidence is Sheila's condition during his reconnaissance made Bamber not consider this a deterrent.
His appearance an hour after the massacre shows Sheila did not hit or scratch him.
-
Let's take a look at Adam's 12 sources:
The source for this is Colin Caffell, who is claiming that Pamela Boutflour said this to Robert Boutflour. It's in none of the statements and Colin Caffell is not an objective source of information on the case. His book on the case is very good in its own way, but not factual. It's not a reliable claim.
Says Carol Ann Lee.
None of these statements support what you say. If you disagree, then give us specific quotes and page numbers.
We don't have Michael Horsnell's statement. Mike has not posted it to the Forum. Therefore, all we have is Carol Ann Lee's interpretation of that statement - like Colin Caffell, she is not a reliable source of information, as she is not objective. Any interpretation she offers of a document will be highly-selective.
This has been gone over and over. You have nothing to establish whether she was drowsy or sleepy that evening. Pamela Boutflour says she was talking monosyllabically, but the March 1985 statement from Dr. Illiffe says the same and his visit to Sheila's flat was before she was premedicated. It could easily be that the monosyllabic speech pattern was the result of her mood or her underlying condition and nothing to do with being somnolent. It could just be that she was angry or in a sulk and did not want to speak to Pamela.
And her dosage was reduced.
I don't see how this helps your point. As you know, Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill.
Can be interpreted as Sheila having committed the massacre.
The crime scene shows Sheila put up no resistance.
-
Wow, I give multiple sources from the following people -
Wilkes
CAL
Michael Horsnell.
Bamber
PB
Julie
Tora Tompkinson
The Crime scene.
Multiple effects of -Haloperiodal
Bamber's appearance 1 hour after the massacre.
---------
Still QC won't accept Sheila was a sitting duck on the night.
-
Wow, I give multiple sources from the following people -
Wilkes
CAL
Michael Horsnell.
Bamber
PB
Julie
Tora Tompkinson
The Crime scene.
Multiple effects of -Haloperiodal
Bamber's appearance 1 hour after the massacre.
---------
Still QC won't accept Sheila was a sitting duck on the night.
Not to worry. My thread post says Bamber was going ahead regardless.
He had stolen June's bike before Sheila arrived for goodness sake.
-
Bamber would be more concerned about Nevill than Sheila.
I don't blame him.
-
If we look at the Emani incident and then the two examples of spoken word incidents that Snow refers to, then look at the bigger picture as you put it (ie she died and the actual concept that it was by her own hand was no suprise to Colin) , how else are we supposed to view it. Is the bigger picture, not also giving consideration to whether or not all components mentioned above were available to the jury at trial? How can the jury consider the bigger picture, if they weren't provided with it?
There was nothing more the jury needed to know of Sheila. It wasn't she who was on trial. I'm certain they'd have learned all that was considered necessary from the defence, but despite that, the jury made the decision to convict JB.
It's perfectly possible that, during disagreements, she'd threatened to take her own life -after all, hadn't she told Helen Grimster that she'd (at some, unspecified, time) contemplated suicide?- so reasonable for Colin to have drawn such a conclusion. I believe he changed his mind when he was told about the boys.
-
Sheila being docile & uncoordinated is not essential for guilters.
Sheila was one of three adults inside. Even if fully alert, the weakest of the three.
But as it happens, everything suggests Sheila was very docile & uncordinated on the night.
This is a bonus for guilters as it rules Sheila out as a suspect.
-
There was nothing more the jury needed to know of Sheila. It wasn't she who was on trial. I'm certain they'd have learned all that was considered necessary from the defence, but despite that, the jury made the decision to convict JB.
It's perfectly possible that, during disagreements, she'd threatened to take her own life -after all, hadn't she told Helen Grimster that she'd (at some, unspecified, time) contemplated suicide?- so reasonable for Colin to have drawn such a conclusion. I believe he changed his mind when he was told about the boys.
I don't buy all this Sheila not on trial nonsense. By default, she was on trial - because it was asserted during trial that it was either Jeremy or Sheila.
If any statements or other testimony that indicated Sheila expressed morbid sentiments regarding her self or others was actively suppressed, then the jury were not given the full picture. I think that's 'criminal'.
If any such evidence didn't come to light as a result of Rivlin's team choosing to disregard it, then on the one hand the prosecution couldn't be blamed for that - but on the other hand, an accurate picture was not presented at court.
-
I don't buy all this Sheila not on trial nonsense. By default, she was on trial - because it was asserted during trial that it was either Jeremy or Sheila.
If any statements or other testimony that indicated Sheila expressed morbid sentiments regarding her self or others was actively suppressed, then the jury were not given the full picture. I think that's 'criminal'.
If any such evidence didn't come to light as a result of Rivlin's team choosing to disregard it, then on the one hand the prosecution couldn't be blamed for that - but on the other hand, an accurate picture was not presented at court.
Would you have had them do, as does Snow, offer those sound-bites which sound particularly incriminating? She talked of committing suicide OR at one moment she'd contemplated it. How about she said she might harm her sons OR she said she was afraid she might. Besides which, if all of those "incriminating" sound-bites were taken from times when she was unmedicated, they could be ruled out, because she was adequately and theraputically medicated at the time of her death.
I get that you "don't buy this Sheila not on trial nonsense" because you believe JB is innocent. I don't recall Sheila ever being named as a possible culprit so despite what the judge said, it's doubtful that the jury -other than perhaps the two not guilty's- gave it any consideration.
-
Sheila maybe saying something weeks, months or years before the massacre does not assist Bamber.
My 12 sources are from hours before or after the massacre. Apart from Toro Tompkinson, which was a week earlier.
Haloperiodal was administered to negate Sheila's serious condition.
The crime scene evidence shows the multiple powerful side effects made Sheila unable to resist.
-
Would you have had them do, as does Snow, offer those sound-bites which sound particularly incriminating? She talked of committing suicide OR at one moment she'd contemplated it. How about she said she might harm her sons OR she said she was afraid she might. Besides which, if all of those "incriminating" sound-bites were taken from times when she was unmedicated, they could be ruled out, because she was adequately and theraputically medicated at the time of her death.
I get that you "don't buy this Sheila not on trial nonsense" because you believe JB is innocent. I don't recall Sheila ever being named as a possible culprit so despite what the judge said, it's doubtful that the jury -other than perhaps the two not guilty's- gave it any consideration.
Jane, it's never a good thing when/ if anyone mentions suicide, whether adequately medicated or not----it's a red flag whether or not it's carried through and when it was mentioned to Helen Grimster, whoever she may have told should have immediately contacted Sheila's GP, them already knowing that she'd been in the care of St. Andrews. Everyone knew that Sheila was under mental health care ? Didn't they ?
It's often said that those who intend to take their lives give no indication but Sheila who was already ill would/ should have made the matter more seriously taken than it was done. Because it was ignored by those who'd known that Sheila had spoken about suicide, were they expecting it ?
-
Haloperidol is an antipsychotic medicine that is used to treat schizophrenia.
It had to be very strong to control Sheila's schizophrinia. Strong side effects being inevitable.
The side effects for Sheila were so strong she asked for her dosage to be reduced.
This meant her schizophrinia was still under control, however the side effects would still appear sometimes.
The evidence is the strong side effects were last taking control of Sheila on the massacre night.
-
Here is what the defence psychiatrist said about the levels of Haloperidol in Sheila.
-
Jane, it's never a good thing when/ if anyone mentions suicide, whether adequately medicated or not----it's a red flag whether or not it's carried through and when it was mentioned to Helen Grimster, whoever she may have told should have immediately contacted Sheila's GP, them already knowing that she'd been in the care of St. Andrews. Everyone knew that Sheila was under mental health care ? Didn't they ?
It's often said that those who intend to take their lives give no indication but Sheila who was already ill would/ should have made the matter more seriously taken than it was done. Because it was ignored by those who'd known that Sheila had spoken about suicide, were they expecting it ?
But what on earth would HG, or anyone else have said, Lookout. I'd fully support what you say if her words had indicated that she was thinking about suicide, but they weren't. She said, following asking if Helen had ever thought about it, she'd contemplated it, as in "had once".
I really don't know that everyone knew her to have been under mental health care. I think this may have been something which wasn't mentioned. It may have been the reason they went privately? Even now, mental health is often something to be ashamed of. How much more so when June, from a respected and respectable family, was struck by it.
-
Here is what the defence psychiatrist said about the levels of Haloperidol in Sheila.
Thank you David.
Going by the WS's, authors, Bamber's appearance an hour after the massacre & the crime scene, Sheila put up no resistance.
-
Thank you David.
Going by the WS's, authors, Bamber's appearance an hour after the massacre & the crime scene, Sheila put up no resistance.
Dr. Bradley's evidence does not lend any support to the idea that Sheila was sedated. He says Haloperidol does have sedative side-effects, but only may do so, and then only moderately. His trial evidence is just a recitation of conventional medical opinion. I do agree that we can't rule out the possibility she was sedated, especially given that she was still on illicit drugs and drinking around about the same time. Yet you have nothing conclusive that Sheila was sedated, and as I keep saying, even if she was in some sort of sedative state, that does not preclude her as the killer. Sedation is not the same as asleep. She could have committed the massacre while she was sedated, indeed while she was still well under the influence of the medicated tranquilisers she was prescribed.
I asked you a while ago whether the prosecution theory depends on Sheila being sedated, and you did say that it doesn't and that she needn't have been sedated at all. This accords, I think, with the position taken by the prosecution at trial. The prosecution made a big thing of the sedation theory, but their case didn't rest on it in so many words. They left the question open as it wasn't essential for them to prove, and to that extent, I would agree with the prosecution at trial that, if Jeremy did this, how he subdued Sheila is another grey area in the case that can only be explained by Jeremy himself, in so far as it matters at all.
That having been noted, since this is something we are discussing, perhaps you could also explain how this all works if Sheila is not sedated? Is it just that you think Sheila was half-asleep and taken by surprise and this made her pliant enough for Jeremy to position her and fire the first shot? In other words, Jeremy relied on the surprise factor and Sheila not being disturbed by all the noise.
Or are you saying Sheila slept through the whole thing and was asleep even when Jeremy shot her?
Or don't you know?
Personally, my view is that Sheila was already in the main bedroom (possibly she slept there that night instead of Nevill) and Jeremy simply pinned her to the floor before she could react, but got off the first shot before she was prone.
Sheila just said 'yes' or 'no' for 3 minutes on the phone.
Exactly the behaviour she exhibited to Dr. Illiffe in March 1985, before she was medicated. This suggests her monosyllabic answers may have been due to mood or her underlying condition, or just general anger or sulkiness. Often a child when angry or sulky will answer monosyllabically. I don't wish to malign or belittle Sheila, but her condition made her in effect a ward of her parents and may have made her feel powerless as people around her discussed her and assumed to know what was best for her.
'Yes' and 'No' answers in the sense Pamela Boutflour described are not a typical sign of tiredness, I must add. I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this point - or trying to make the evidence fit your conclusions.
CAL got the information from Sheila's best friend. Snow66! has posted her name.
Among Carol Ann Lee's sources was Claire Powell's book from the early 1990s. She specifically attributes it. In any case, Sheila's dosage was dropped and nobody is suggesting Sheila could not get up on the morning of 6th. August 1985.
Maybe CAL spoke to Michael Horsnell. She is an investigstive author.
Or maybe she has got his statement.
His WS not being online is neither here or there.
Are you serious? If we don't have the statement, we don't know that what we're being told is a reliable account of what the witness stated. It becomes just an author's interpretation of what somebody else has said. Authors have agendas and debts of honour. This is just basic stuff.
You said Sheila may scratch or hit a fully clothed Bamber.
The evidence is Sheila's condition during his reconnaissance made Bamber not consider this a deterrent.
His appearance an hour after the massacre shows Sheila did not hit or scratch him.
Now I understand what you mean. Of course, this is a back-to-front way of thinking you adopt. You start from a conclusion and make the evidence fit.
I believe Jeremy did have minor injuries, to his hands if I remember rightly. Obviously those injuries weren't considered of any evidential significance as he was a hands-on farmer anyway. He had no injuries to his face. What does this evidence tell us? Not much really, but if anything, it favours Jeremy and points to Sheila because she had moderately-long fingernails. They weren't as long as people say, but they were long enough to cause injury in a struggle. If Jeremy were the killer, common-sense tells me that she would scratch him, especially on the face. Even if he were wearing a mask, he could still be injured in this way, but maybe he did wear a mask and that was enough to avoid injury? Or maybe she was asleep or too tired to fight? Or, as I suspect, she was in the main bedroom and he caught her quite by surprise? Overall, I don't know if we can conclude anything.
-
Yes my view is Sheila slept through it all.
But similar to her being sedated/uncordinated or not, it is not vitally important.
If Sheila did wake from the downstairs kitchen fight & go into the main bedroom, Bamber would have to deal with it. Which he would do.
He had just shot & given a 6.4 male a brutal beating for goodness sake.
-
I created this thread to confirm Bamber was going ahead regardless. He had already stolen Junes bike.
However the numerous sources on Sheila's recent condition also rules her out as a suspect.
Always nice to have a cherry on top.
-
Yes my view is Sheila slept through it all.
But similar to her being sedated/uncordinated or not, it is not vitally important.
If Sheila did wake from the downstairs kitchen fight & go into the main bedroom, Bamber would have to deal with it. Which he would do.
He had just shot & given a 6.4 male a brutal beating for goodness sake.
At least we've got that clear.
There isn't a comparison with Nevill because, remember, Jeremy could kill Nevill any which way he liked, as long as it could be attributed to Sheila. Killing Sheila was a trickier affair.
-
Would you have had them do, as does Snow, offer those sound-bites which sound particularly incriminating? She talked of committing suicide OR at one moment she'd contemplated it. How about she said she might harm her sons OR she said she was afraid she might. Besides which, if all of those "incriminating" sound-bites were taken from times when she was unmedicated, they could be ruled out, because she was adequately and theraputically medicated at the time of her death.
I get that you "don't buy this Sheila not on trial nonsense" because you believe JB is innocent. I don't recall Sheila ever being named as a possible culprit so despite what the judge said, it's doubtful that the jury -other than perhaps the two not guilty's- gave it any consideration.
Hiya Jane.If you read my post again you will find that all i said was that it is strange that Sheila never told Dr Fergusson about any suicidal thoughts.I did not say that she mentioned suicide and therefore went on kill herself.I am not cherry picking,and besides how many times have we heard the phrase 'I could kill anyone uncle Bobby' and such like,
-
But what on earth would HG, or anyone else have said, Lookout. I'd fully support what you say if her words had indicated that she was thinking about suicide, but they weren't. She said, following asking if Helen had ever thought about it, she'd contemplated it, as in "had once".
I really don't know that everyone knew her to have been under mental health care. I think this may have been something which wasn't mentioned. It may have been the reason they went privately? Even now, mental health is often something to be ashamed of. How much more so when June, from a respected and respectable family, was struck by it.
In HG's statement, she went on to say that Sheila said she'd contemplated suicide on " more than one occasion " and HG had thought it odd at the time. Sheila was rolling one " reefer " after another while she was talking ( chain-smoking ) then the subject of the white witch came up. Then kept up the conversation about ridding the evil in the world and how June had told her that she'd lost her soul.
Sheila had asked HG if she had any recent knowledge of another relative, namely a Susan Burgess, though at this stage HG was beginning to get a bit scared as Sheila had been talking " strange " for an hour.
Both HG and her mother had attended the funerals but neither spoke to anyone.
-
Would you have had them do, as does Snow, offer those sound-bites which sound particularly incriminating? She talked of committing suicide OR at one moment she'd contemplated it. How about she said she might harm her sons OR she said she was afraid she might. Besides which, if all of those "incriminating" sound-bites were taken from times when she was unmedicated, they could be ruled out, because she was adequately and theraputically medicated at the time of her death.
I get that you "don't buy this Sheila not on trial nonsense" because you believe JB is innocent. I don't recall Sheila ever being named as a possible culprit so despite what the judge said, it's doubtful that the jury -other than perhaps the two not guilty's- gave it any consideration.
I believe Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., in his closing speech, may have specifically referred to the alternate possibilities in the case, though I don't have a a transcript. The examination and cross-examination of Dr. Hugh Ferguson at trial specifically and explicitly addresses the possibility of Sheila as the killer, as I believe does John Bradley's evidence. The cross-examination of David Boutflour considers the question of whether Sheila ever fired a gun, at all, anywhere. The evidence of Colin Caffell also addressed it. The evidence of Malcolm Fletcher was preoccupied at length with the question of the supposed difficulty of loading the magazine. One of the points on which Judge Drake ridiculed the defence was the theory that Sheila returned the silencer to the gun cupboard. I don't have the full transcript, but if memory serves, I think Drake does refer the jury to the possibility of Sheila as the culprit.
My point is that the theory of Sheila as the killer was a central theme of the trial. She was on trial - and rightly so, just not officially so. I think this was a unique criminal trial in that respect. That said, it wasn't for the jury to pronounce Sheila guilty (or innocent), their job was purely to decide whether the evidence against Jeremy Bamber was sufficient to convict him. If they had acquitted him (which I think they should have done), it does not necessarily follow from this that the jury would have been saying that Sheila did it, even if that would be considered the necessary unspoken implication in some quarters.
-
Hiya Jane.If you read my post again you will find that all i said was that it is strange that Sheila never told Dr Fergusson about any suicidal thoughts.I did not say that she mentioned suicide and therefore went on kill herself.I am not cherry picking,and besides how many times have we heard the phrase 'I could kill anyone uncle Bobby' and such like,
Just remind me: is there any evidence at all that Sheila had suicidal thoughts at any point? If so, when? To whom did she confide? She did say certain things that were out of place, such as "All people are bad and should be killed" (according to Barbara Wilson, I think) and her delusions about her sons, and so forth.
It's a fascinating situation in which each of the suspects, Jeremy and Sheila, said strange things that could be twisted to look incriminating. You have the added layer of realisation that Jeremy himself must have been aware of some of what Sheila was saying and doing and possibly formed a murder plan on that basis, believing all of Sheila's odd behaviour would be recalled and she could thereby be framed, whether alive or dead from suicide.
Sheila could have survived one shot from Jeremy and then told the police: "But it was a masked man that did it! He came in the middle of the night and shot us all!"
Who would have believed her? An interesting counter-factual scenario to consider. Would we now have fora and innocence campaigns for Sheila, locked up in Broadmoor or Rampton? Free Sheila! Or would libel laws put paid to such a campaign? What evidence could avail such a campaign? Interestingly, the evidential position might be reversed in those alternate circumstances: the silencer evidence would become the more important factor; Julie Mugford's evidence could be more open to question, assuming Jeremy confided in her, because her account would be testable against Sheila's.
-
I believe Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., in his closing speech, may have specifically referred to the alternate possibilities in the case, though I don't have a a transcript. The examination and cross-examination of Dr. Hugh Ferguson at trial specifically and explicitly addresses the possibility of Sheila as the killer, as I believe does John Bradley's evidence. The cross-examination of David Boutflour considers the question of whether Sheila ever fired a gun, at all, anywhere. The evidence of Colin Caffell also addressed it. The evidence of Malcolm Fletcher was preoccupied at length with the question of the supposed difficulty of loading the magazine. One of the points on which Judge Drake ridiculed the defence was the theory that Sheila returned the silencer to the gun cupboard. I don't have the full transcript, but if memory serves, I think Drake does refer the jury to the possibility of Sheila as the culprit.
My point is that the theory of Sheila as the killer was a central theme of the trial. She was on trial - and rightly so, just not officially so. I think this was a unique criminal trial in that respect. That said, it wasn't for the jury to pronounce Sheila guilty (or innocent), their job was purely to decide whether the evidence against Jeremy Bamber was sufficient to convict him. If they had acquitted him (which I think they should have done), it does not necessarily follow from this that the jury would have been saying that Sheila did it, even if that would be considered the necessary unspoken implication in some quarters.
Good evening Gascoigne.As you may know,at the end of CALs book,after the trial she writes----One former member of the investigation team who does not wish to be named asked the jury foreman afterwards if there had been a deciding factor.He was told; 'it was all down to the judges summing up.He directed us to find Jeremy guilty and thats why we did,in the end.If it hadnt been for the judge telling us what we should do,he would have walked free.'
-
Just remind me: is there any evidence at all that Sheila had suicidal thoughts at any point? If so, when? To whom did she confide? She did say certain things that were out of place, such as "All people are bad and should be killed" (according to Barbara Wilson, I think) and her delusions about her sons, and so forth.
It's a fascinating situation in which each of the suspects, Jeremy and Sheila, said strange things that could be twisted to look incriminating. You have the added layer of realisation that Jeremy himself must have been aware of some of what Sheila was saying and doing and possibly formed a murder plan on that basis, believing all of Sheila's odd behaviour would be recalled and she could thereby be framed, whether alive or dead from suicide.
Sheila could have survived one shot from Jeremy and then told the police: "But it was a masked man that did it! He came in the middle of the night and shot us all!"
Who would have believed her? An interesting counter-factual scenario to consider. Would we now have fora and innocence campaigns for Sheila, locked up in Broadmoor or Rampton? Free Sheila! Or would libel laws put paid to such a campaign? What evidence could avail such a campaign? Interestingly, the evidential position might be reversed in those alternate circumstances: the silencer evidence would become the more important factor; Julie Mugford's evidence could be more open to question, assuming Jeremy confided in her, because her account would be testable against Sheila's.
Lookout explained this in #307. Your final paragraph is quite absurd.
-
Just remind me: is there any evidence at all that Sheila had suicidal thoughts at any point? If so, when? To whom did she confide? She did say certain things that were out of place, such as "All people are bad and should be killed" (according to Barbara Wilson, I think) and her delusions about her sons, and so forth.
It's a fascinating situation in which each of the suspects, Jeremy and Sheila, said strange things that could be twisted to look incriminating. You have the added layer of realisation that Jeremy himself must have been aware of some of what Sheila was saying and doing and possibly formed a murder plan on that basis, believing all of Sheila's odd behaviour would be recalled and she could thereby be framed, whether alive or dead from suicide.
Sheila could have survived one shot from Jeremy and then told the police: "But it was a masked man that did it! He came in the middle of the night and shot us all!"
Who would have believed her? An interesting counter-factual scenario to consider. Would we now have fora and innocence campaigns for Sheila, locked up in Broadmoor or Rampton? Free Sheila! Or would libel laws put paid to such a campaign? What evidence could avail such a campaign? Interestingly, the evidential position might be reversed in those alternate circumstances: the silencer evidence would become the more important factor; Julie Mugford's evidence could be more open to question, assuming Jeremy confided in her, because her account would be testable against Sheila's.
The mention of suicide is in Helen Grimsters witness statement in the Archives Gascoigne.
-
Lookout explained this in #307. Your final paragraph is quite absurd.
Dont you think thats interesting Steve?
-
In HG's statement, she went on to say that Sheila said she'd contemplated suicide on " more than one occasion " and HG had thought it odd at the time. Sheila was rolling one " reefer " after another while she was talking ( chain-smoking ) then the subject of the white witch came up. Then kept up the conversation about ridding the evil in the world and how June had told her that she'd lost her soul.
Sheila had asked HG if she had any recent knowledge of another relative, namely a Susan Burgess, though at this stage HG was beginning to get a bit scared as Sheila had been talking " strange " for an hour.
Both HG and her mother had attended the funerals but neither spoke to anyone.
I'm certain it wasn't the sort of conversation HG had ever previously experienced and I'll bet she wasn't comfortable with it!!! I'm not certain that the visit took place just prior to Sheila's death. If it did, it wasn't marijuana in those roll ups she was chain smoking because she tested negative for such.
I get the feeling that Sheila was bored. In need of adult conversation, and here she was with an innocent girl who hadn't a clue about how Sheila lived her life and couldn't contribute. Whilst I'm convinced she'd have been shocked at talk of suicide, I wonder, if we're all digging deep and being honest, how many of us haven't thought about it? I don't mean actually going through with it, rather wondering what effect doing it would have on others? Would they mourn us? Would they feel guilty? In Sheila's case, would the mother for whom she could do nothing right feel guilty? I can't help but wonder if she engineered the whole conversation to shock. HG would have told her mother who would undoubtedly have told June who'd have been totally convinced Sheila had "sold her soul to the devil.
-
Lookout explained this in #307. Your final paragraph is quite absurd.
I certainly trust you as a measurement of what is absurd and what isn't, since you have so much experience. I must take this on board and learn not to be so absurd.
-
Hiya Jane.If you read my post again you will find that all i said was that it is strange that Sheila never told Dr Fergusson about any suicidal thoughts.I did not say that she mentioned suicide and therefore went on kill herself.I am not cherry picking,and besides how many times have we heard the phrase 'I could kill anyone uncle Bobby' and such like,
We don't know, one way or the other, what she may have said, although it's reasonable to assume that when she first saw her GP about having "dark thoughts" his first question would have been "Are you thinking about committing suicide" because such is standard practice. However, we know that her death, at her own hands seemed to come as a surprise to Dr Ferguson.
When I said you were just giving sound-bites, I didn't feel you were looking at an entire conversation. You site "I could easily kill my parents, Uncle Bobby" as an example of what detractors say, but most of us can relay, verbatim, the occasion on which it was said (to have been said) and the conversation leading up to it.
-
We don't know, one way or the other, what she may have said, but we know that death, at her own hands seemed to come as a surprise to Dr Ferguson.
When I said you were just giving sound-bites, I didn't feel you were looking at an entire conversation. You site "I could easily kill my parents, Uncle Bobby" as an example of what detractors say, but most of us can relay, verbatim, the occasion on which it was said (to have been said) and the conversation leading up to it.
Hi Jane.I am sure many members including yourself may have forgot more than i may ever know about the Bamber case,but i am doing my best as a newbie to read most of the available evidence and memorize it as best i can.
-
It's a huge leap from needing help to get off a sofa and being unable to walk. It's entirely possible that we're reading about a one-time situation captured in time. That she MAY have needed help on that occasion is not an indication that it was permanent.
No its not Jane don't get like Adam please and twist things, someone who cannot get off the sofa unaided would be in serious trouble getting up even a few steps.
-
No its not Jane don't get like Adam please and twist things, someone who cannot get off the sofa unaided would be in serious trouble getting up even a few steps.
It's in CAL's book.
Getting up from a seated position is different from walking up stairs.
-
No its not Jane don't get like Adam please and twist things, someone who cannot get off the sofa unaided would be in serious trouble getting up even a few steps.
I entirely agree, Rob. However, if she'd only needed help on one occasion, it doesn't constitute permanent difficulty with walking, does it? You've been having lots of fun having pops at Adam because he's claimed her to have needed help getting off a sofa, but no one has said how many times this occurred. Her difficulty in walking, highlighted by an ungainly gait, has been highlighted by many, all except for one occasion when it's claimed she'd been playing and skipping with the boys. It turned out that it was June who had been playing and skipping with then.
I'm not trying to twist anything but there's very little that's either all one way or all the other.
-
I entirely agree, Rob. However, if she'd only needed help on one occasion, it doesn't constitute permanent difficulty with walking, does it? You've been having lots of fun having pops at Adam because he's claimed her to have needed help getting off a sofa, but no one has said how many times this occurred. Her difficulty in walking, highlighted by an ungainly gait, has been highlighted by many, all except for one occasion when it's claimed she'd been playing and skipping with the boys. It turned out that it was June who had been playing and skipping with then.
I'm not trying to twist anything but there's very little that's either all one way or all the other.
I agree Jane, it's just Adam makes a big deal of Sheila needing help getting off the sofa and others have mentioned this as well. In my view if she really was this bad and it was not a one off situation JB would have had to rethink how he was going to carry out the crime.
-
It's in CAL's book.
Getting up from a seated position is different from walking up stairs.
Hi Adam.It should be noted that in CALS book,she states that a 2013 note writtrn by JB,that he refuted talk of Sheila being so listless,saying it was just a myth and he never witnessed Sheila in such a state.Besides we havent actually seen Michael Horsnell or Tora Tompkinsons statements yet.
-
I entirely agree, Rob. However, if she'd only needed help on one occasion, it doesn't constitute permanent difficulty with walking, does it? You've been having lots of fun having pops at Adam because he's claimed her to have needed help getting off a sofa, but no one has said how many times this occurred. Her difficulty in walking, highlighted by an ungainly gait, has been highlighted by many, all except for one occasion when it's claimed she'd been playing and skipping with the boys. It turned out that it was June who had been playing and skipping with then.
I'm not trying to twist anything but there's very little that's either all one way or all the other.
So convenient that we can't make a firm judgment about Sheila, but can about Jeremy's behaviour. Not that I'm directing this at you in particular necessarily, but Sheila seems to be treated with proverbial kid gloves, while virtually every aspect of Jeremy's life is afforded the very blackest imputation possible. Even if Jeremy did commit this terrible crime, it does not seem fair since, as you yourself imply, there are always layers of complexity to people's actions and motives.
-
I'm certain it wasn't the sort of conversation HG had ever previously experienced and I'll bet she wasn't comfortable with it!!! I'm not certain that the visit took place just prior to Sheila's death. If it did, it wasn't marijuana in those roll ups she was chain smoking because she tested negative for such.
I get the feeling that Sheila was bored. In need of adult conversation, and here she was with an innocent girl who hadn't a clue about how Sheila lived her life and couldn't contribute. Whilst I'm convinced she'd have been shocked at talk of suicide, I wonder, if we're all digging deep and being honest, how many of us haven't thought about it? I don't mean actually going through with it, rather wondering what effect doing it would have on others? Would they mourn us? Would they feel guilty? In Sheila's case, would the mother for whom she could do nothing right feel guilty? I can't help but wonder if she engineered the whole conversation to shock. HG would have told her mother who would undoubtedly have told June who'd have been totally convinced Sheila had "sold her soul to the devil.
Yes Jane, it must have been marijuana that Sheila was smoking as HG said it " smelled funny " to which Sheila offered to give her a cigarette but HG declined, then Sheila had said that" everyone should smoke drugs ".
Sheila would have had withdrawal symptoms on the night of the tragedies as it would have appeared that she was dependent on the weed, and that alone would have driven her mad. To still have it in her system she must have smoked heavily on the weekend before as if she'd just had one, it would have left no trace beyond about 36 hrs with eating and drinking.
.
-
A more pertinent question might be, could Jane control a fully fit Lookout? It might depend on whether there was any trace of cannabis in Jane's system.
-
A more pertinent question might be, could Jane control a fully fit Lookout? It might depend on whether there was any trace of cannabis in Jane's system.
There's no doubt in my mind that Adam would prevail over Cambridgecutie in a mud-wrestling bout for Top Guilter. Mind you, Cambridgecutie is snapping at his heels and there has been tension between them, with Adam openly resenting how she critiqued his scenarios. I do agree with Adam on this. It's not the 'done thing' to muscle in and take apart Adam's scenarios when he has been doing this for years and built up a reputation for expertise in this area. I just think some people are jealous of Adam.
-
So convenient that we can't make a firm judgment about Sheila, but can about Jeremy's behaviour. Not that I'm directing this at you in particular necessarily, but Sheila seems to be treated with proverbial kid gloves, while virtually every aspect of Jeremy's life is afforded the very blackest imputation possible. Even if Jeremy did commit this terrible crime, it does not seem fair since, as you yourself imply, there are always layers of complexity to people's actions and motives.
Well Gascoigne,i think Freddie Emani says something very important about Sheilas behaviour in his statement.He says---Had it just been her stepmother who had been killed i could accept it as she disliked her intensly but to think she killed her father and children is difficult to comprehend.------Ok,fair enough.But then he says something to make yuo think--------I spoke to Sheila about the night of her second breakdown and she could not remember anything about it.I feel she believed i had made it up.I would add on that occasion she could not RECOGNISE anyone who came to her flat,and that she believed EVERYONE was trying to hurt or kill her.-------So what does this tell us.Well the fact is if she was in the midst of a psychotic episode she may not have been able to distinguish who was in the house that night,and that anyone she found had to die.She may not have known who her mum and dad were,or recognised her own children even.As Freddie said,all she may have been thinking was that EVERYONE was trying to hurt or kill her.So yes,normally she would never hurt her dad or kids.But in the midst of a psychotis episode would she even recognise them?
-
Well Gascoigne,i think Freddie Emani says something very important about Sheilas behaviour in his statement.He says---Had it just been her stepmother who had been killed i could accept it as she disliked her intensly but to think she killed her father and children is difficult to comprehend.------Ok,fair enough.But then he says something to make yuo think--------I spoke to Sheila about the night of her second breakdown and she could not remember anything about it.I feel she believed i had made it up.I would add on that occasion she could not RECOGNISE anyone who came to her flat,and that she believed EVERYONE was trying to hurt or kill her.-------So what does this tell us.Well the fact is if she was in the midst of a psychotic episode she may not have been able to distinguish who was in the house that night,and that anyone she found had to die.She may not have known who her mum and dad were,or recognised her own children even.As Freddie said,all she may have been thinking was that EVERYONE was trying to hurt or kill her.So yes,normally she would never hurt her dad or kids.But in the midst of a psychotis episode would she even recognise them?
Does Freddie Emami's evidence suggest that Sheila had any psychotic episodes while medicated?
-
Does Freddie Emami's evidence suggest that Sheila had any psychotic episodes while medicated?
Not that i am aware of Gascoigne.So are you also suggesting that even with a lower dose of Haloperidol Sheila could not have a psychotic breakdown? Didnt Ferguson say in reflection that it did seem possible?
-
In his first statement Dr Ferguson said------In hindsight i believe that Sheila would have relapsed into a state of psychosis,probably having a firmly held belief or delusion involving concepts of good and evil and certainly paranoid,possibly involving her mother.
-
And yes,surely Sheila was on some sort of anti-psychotic medication when she had her second breakdown that Freddie witnessed,So that is a good point you have made Gascoigne,she must have suffered a psychotic episode while medicated.
-
There's no doubt in my mind that Adam would prevail over Cambridgecutie in a mud-wrestling bout for Top Guilter. Mind you, Cambridgecutie is snapping at his heels and there has been tension between them, with Adam openly resenting how she critiqued his scenarios. I do agree with Adam on this. It's not the 'done thing' to muscle in and take apart Adam's scenarios when he has been doing this for years and built up a reputation for expertise in this area. I just think some people are jealous of Adam.
She never has as far as I am aware.
Rob & Snow66! have. Saying Bamber could not cycle on foot/bike paths at night.
-
Not that i am aware of Gascoigne.So are you also suggesting that even with a lower dose of Haloperidol Sheila could not have a psychotic breakdown? Didnt Ferguson say in reflection that it did seem possible?
I'm not firmly suggesting anything to be fair, but I think what you say would be one of the points of a pro-guilt position. I think another pro-guilt point that can be made is that the monthly dosage does not necessarily 'run out' somehow but is meant to be delivered in such a way that Sheila would have been subjected to a consistent therapeutic dose over the full month.
However, there are a number of problems with the observations made by the pro-guilt camp. I won't exhaust them here. They've been covered in the thread, but one point to emphasise is that it's not a simple matter of saying that Sheila was under medication therefore psychosis is precluded. When medical professionals refer to a 'therapeutic dose', they are not speaking of efficacy, they are merely saying what I have just noted, which is that the monthly intramuscular dosage is delivered in a way that tries to ensure a consistent medication over the full month. The actual effect of the medication is not measurable in any linear fashion because it will vary greatly from one patient to another and across different environments, situations and circumstances.
Indeed, both Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Bradley at trial (both of them were defence witnesses) were keen to emphasise that:
(i). a patient can relapse, even under medication; and,
(ii). Sheila was early in her treatment and so the situation was still considered somewhat 'trial and error'.
From personal experience, I am aware that a paranoid schizophrenic under a monthly medication dosage can relapse, even after many years. The person I am referring to, who was very close to me, had received monthly injections of Haloperidol, like Sheila, since perhaps his teens or early 20s (men are diagnosed with schizophrenia much earlier than women), but he would have relapses well into his 30s in which an ambulance and doctors would turn up to section him and take him away. On its face, this seems odd because his dosages were not intra-oral and you would think he must have stabilised over such a lengthy period, coupled with the greater maturity of age. This individual otherwise maintained stable employment throughout his life and was married with children. Yet I can only tell you what occurred.
On the other hand, the medication was generally successful and he only went into a long-term 'permanent' relapse when he was taken off the Haldol (Haloperidol) at an elderly age, due to other medical risks of the side-effects.
Of course, this is just one example and one must be wary of generalisations, but it does suggest that in regard to Sheila, there is something in the argument that she was medicated therefore it is less likely she could have been psychotic, but nobody can say that she could not have been psychotic and we have the evidence from both Dr. Illiffe (March 1985) and Pam Boutflour (6th. August 1985) of a consistent mood pattern in Sheila. We also have evidence from the other witnesses that there was something wrong with Sheila, in spite of being medicated.
Ironically, the evidence cited by Adam and other guilters on here could be used to make a pretty compelling argument that Sheila was still afflicted with psychosis and the medication wasn't working, taking into account the cautious words of both Doctors Ferguson and Bradley that Sheila was still early on in her treatment.
-
She never has as far as I am aware.
Rob & Snow66! have. Saying Bamber could not cycle on foot/bike paths at night.
Don't mention Rob's name. I'm still in a sulk because he won't let me use his sunbed. How am I supposed to get a tan? I need your moral support right now Adam.
-
Yes Jane, it must have been marijuana that Sheila was smoking as HG said it " smelled funny " to which Sheila offered to give her a cigarette but HG declined, then Sheila had said that" everyone should smoke drugs ".
Sheila would have had withdrawal symptoms on the night of the tragedies as it would have appeared that she was dependent on the weed, and that alone would have driven her mad. To still have it in her system she must have smoked heavily on the weekend before as if she'd just had one, it would have left no trace beyond about 36 hrs with eating and drinking.
.
But she tested negative for all except one noxious substance and showed only a "slight positive" for one other. I really don't believe her to have taken marijuana to WHF and I'm not sure I believe her to be as addicted as is claimed. The blood tests bear this out. It also occurs to me that some of the tobaccos used in roll ups, which she was known to smoke, smelled very peculiar, especially to an innocent who had little/no knowledge of such things.
I'm still at a loss as to when this conversation happened. It simply doesn't fit with the Sheila who visited farm that August.
-
And yes,surely Sheila was on some sort of anti-psychotic medication when she had her second breakdown that Freddie witnessed,So that is a good point you have made Gascoigne,she must have suffered a psychotic episode while medicated.
Why "must have"? I'd suggest it's just as possible that it was because she refused/omitted to take her medication, any levels present were neither theraputic nor efficacious.
-
Trial and error with many medications which are invariably " tweaked " until they prove to be suitable in treating a condition as well as being suitably tolerant to the patient.
BP medications are a nightmare ! As something that is tailored to reduce hypertension can actually make matters worse. This is just one for instance ! Only the recipient of these things can judge as to whether the medication they're taking has adverse effects or not----not a GP or psychiatrist.
-
But she tested negative for all except one noxious substance and showed only a "slight positive" for one other. I really don't believe her to have taken marijuana to WHF and I'm not sure I believe her to be as addicted as is claimed. The blood tests bear this out. It also occurs to me that some of the tobaccos used in roll ups, which she was known to smoke, smelled very peculiar, especially to an innocent who had little/no knowledge of such things.
I'm still at a loss as to when this conversation happened. It simply doesn't fit with the Sheila who visited farm that August.
Hiya Jane,cold day.The conversation with Helen Grimster at WHF took place the day after she was discharged from hospital,so it must have been on the 30th of March.
-
Why "must have"? I'd suggest it's just as possible that it was because she refused/omitted to take her medication, any levels present were neither theraputic nor efficacious.
HI Jane.Ok,lets just say Sheila would have been prescribed anti psychotic meds at the time,whether or not she took them,and how often is a different matter.Is that better?
-
She never has as far as I am aware.
Rob & Snow66! have. Saying Bamber could not cycle on foot/bike paths at night.
Hi Adam,how are you this morning.If you check my scenario again you will find i only said it would have been tough going if he had to cycle through fields,and that his backside would have been numb.
-
I'm not firmly suggesting anything to be fair, but I think what you say would be one of the points of a pro-guilt position. I think another pro-guilt point that can be made is that the monthly dosage does not necessarily 'run out' somehow but is meant to be delivered in such a way that Sheila would have been subjected to a consistent therapeutic dose over the full month.
However, there are a number of problems with the observations made by the pro-guilt camp. I won't exhaust them here. They've been covered in the thread, but one point to emphasise is that it's not a simple matter of saying that Sheila was under medication therefore psychosis is precluded. When medical professionals refer to a 'therapeutic dose', they are not speaking of efficacy, they are merely saying what I have just noted, which is that the monthly intramuscular dosage is delivered in a way that tries to ensure a consistent medication over the full month. The actual effect of the medication is not measurable in any linear fashion because it will vary greatly from one patient to another and across different environments, situations and circumstances.
Indeed, both Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Bradley at trial (both of them were defence witnesses) were keen to emphasise that:
(i). a patient can relapse, even under medication; and,
(ii). Sheila was early in her treatment and so the situation was still considered somewhat 'trial and error'.
From personal experience, I am aware that a paranoid schizophrenic under a monthly medication dosage can relapse, even after many years. The person I am referring to, who was very close to me, had received monthly injections of Haloperidol, like Sheila, since perhaps his teens or early 20s (men are diagnosed with schizophrenia much earlier than women), but he would have relapses well into his 30s in which an ambulance and doctors would turn up to section him and take him away. On its face, this seems odd because his dosages were not intra-oral and you would think he must have stabilised over such a lengthy period, coupled with the greater maturity of age. This individual otherwise maintained stable employment throughout his life and was married with children. Yet I can only tell you what occurred.
On the other hand, the medication was generally successful and he only went into a long-term 'permanent' relapse when he was taken off the Haldol (Haloperidol) at an elderly age, due to other medical risks of the side-effects.
Of course, this is just one example and one must be wary of generalisations, but it does suggest that in regard to Sheila, there is something in the argument that she was medicated therefore it is less likely she could have been psychotic, but nobody can say that she could not have been psychotic and we have the evidence from both Dr. Illiffe (March 1985) and Pam Boutflour (6th. August 1985) of a consistent mood pattern in Sheila. We also have evidence from the other witnesses that there was something wrong with Sheila, in spite of being medicated.
Ironically, the evidence cited by Adam and other guilters on here could be used to make a pretty compelling argument that Sheila was still afflicted with psychosis and the medication wasn't working, taking into account the cautious words of both Doctors Ferguson and Bradley that Sheila was still early on in her treatment.
Morning Gascoigne.So taking everything into account from your own personal experience and the evidence of the Doctors at trial,a relapse could possibly happen even under medication.
-
HI Jane.Ok,lets just say Sheila would have been prescribed anti psychotic meds at the time,whether or not she took them,and how often is a different matter.Is that better?
We're going round in circles rather! The very reason her doses were delivered intravenously was because she wasn't taking them orally.
-
Hi Adam,how are you this morning.If you check my scenario again you will find i only said it would have been tough going if he had to cycle through fields,and that his backside would have been numb.
There were no fields to cycle through.
Bamber stole June's bike just before the massacre so he could cycle to/from WHF.
-
We're going round in circles rather! The very reason her doses were delivered intravenously was because she wasn't taking them orally.
Yes i fully understand that Jane.The fact that she wasnt taking them orally means she was not a good guide of herself,along with taking illegal drugs like cocaine,she wasnt helping to keep her psychosis at bay.
-
Yes i fully understand that Jane.The fact that she wasnt taking them orally means she was not a good guide of herself,along with taking illegal drugs like cocaine,she wasnt helping to keep her psychosis at bay.
Totally agree, but she tested negative for noxious substances at the time of her death. There was one "slight positive" but not within the noxious group.
-
There were no fields to cycle through.
Bamber stole June's bike just before the massacre so he could cycle to/from WHF.
He got the bike for Julies use Adam
-
Totally agree, but she tested negative for noxious substances at the time of her death. There was one "slight positive" but not within the noxious group.
Fair enough Jane,but on the whole Sheila was her own worst enemy regarding her health.She knew the procyclidene tablets were to be taken for the tiredness the Haloperidol was causing,but asked to have the Haloperidol reduced instead.We are told she was a caring mother,but a caring mother would have done her best to conform with the Doctors to get her mind as stable as possible.It was no use getting into a mess then crying her eyes out because she could not have the children much of the time.As you know,she was smoking drugs the day after being discharged after her second breakdown,and speaking of white witches and evil again.Dr Ferguson said she was a difficult patient to treat,that can only mean it was going to be an uphill job to keep her illness at bay.
-
He got the bike for Julies use Adam
So she could cycle to the station when going home.
You know that is not the case. Or what Julie said.
-
So she could cycle to the station when going home.
You know that is not the case. Or what Julie said.
Well it all depends who was lying their head off Adam.
-
Well it all depends who was lying their head off Adam.
I think if you check the bike was to be used to go to a bus stop, (Osborne's) which went to the station.
-
I think if you check the bike was to be used to go to a bus stop, (Osborne's) which went to the station.
Not according to Adam,Bubo.
-
Not according to Adam,Bubo.
Oh I forgot Adam is the fount of knowledge on all things WHF. I do not know why you bother to engage with this waste of time and energy that is Adam. I have long since had him on ignore. He is a Troll who has nothing better to do with his life.
-
Oh I forgot Adam is the fount of knowledge on all things WHF. I do not know why you bother to engage with this waste of time and energy that is Adam. I have long since had him on ignore. He is a Troll who has nothing better to do with his life.
Well i may be stupid and childish Bubo,but i treat everyone on this forum as a friend.Besides arguing and falling out with anyone here wont help or hinder JB in anyway whatsoever,but thats just my view.
-
Well i may be stupid and childish Bubo,but i treat everyone on this forum as a friend.Besides arguing and falling out with anyone here wont help or hinder JB in anyway whatsoever,but thats just my view.
Your choice. I consider his whole approach is making a mockery of a very sad situation. A man may have had his life taken from him by a possibly corrupt process. It should be taken more seriously and not used a playground for him to parade his warped attitude. Anyone who has studied this forum for any length of time will know he is taking the Pxxx.
Posters who play along and want to be his friend are doing JB no favours. I realise the forum is hardly read by millions but those that show any curiosity are potentially misled by this waste of space.
-
Your choice. I consider his whole approach is making a mockery of a very sad situation. A man may have had his life taken from him by a possibly corrupt process. It should be taken more seriously and not used a playground for him to parade his warped attitude. Anyone who has studied this forum for any length of time will know he is taking the Pxxx.
Posters who play along and want to be his friend are doing JB no favours. I realise the forum is hardly read by millions but those that show any curiosity are potentially misled by this waste of space.
Hi Bubo.Well its quite hard to give an answer that will please you.There are many ways of looking at things,and remember we do not know yet if JB is innocent or not.I suppose the general public just take it for granted he is guilty and call him all the names under the sun.Adam,like many others has firmly decided that JB is guilty,but simply argues that the evidence as he calls it proves this,in his mind anyway.He dosent just insult JB and call him names.As for using this forum as a playground and not treating the subject seriously,i am afraid i myself am one of the worst members in that respect.I sit and think up ridiculous stories with a smile on my face,hoping i may amuse someone.I dont know if JB would see any sarcasm or frivolity as offensive or if he would take it as a bit of light relief,hopefully the latter.As i have said before i mean no harm or disrespect to anyone on this forum or JB.So thats about all i can say Bubo,and hopefully in the near future we may see some developements that prove one way or another what the truth is regarding JB,then we wont have to argue or fallout anymore.Hope you will think about what i have said Bubo,and hopefully see where i am coming from.
-
Your choice. I consider his whole approach is making a mockery of a very sad situation. A man may have had his life taken from him by a possibly corrupt process. It should be taken more seriously and not used a playground for him to parade his warped attitude. Anyone who has studied this forum for any length of time will know he is taking the Pxxx.
Posters who play along and want to be his friend are doing JB no favours. I realise the forum is hardly read by millions but those that show any curiosity are potentially misled by this waste of space.
Everyone has different posting styles. He's not rude to members, which is why I don't object.
-
Hi Bubo.Well its quite hard to give an answer that will please you.There are many ways of looking at things,and remember we do not know yet if JB is innocent or not.I suppose the general public just take it for granted he is guilty and call him all the names under the sun.Adam,like many others has firmly decided that JB is guilty,but simply argues that the evidence as he calls it proves this,in his mind anyway.He dosent just insult JB and call him names.As for using this forum as a playground and not treating the subject seriously,i am afraid i myself am one of the worst members in that respect.I sit and think up ridiculous stories with a smile on my face,hoping i may amuse someone.I dont know if JB would see any sarcasm or frivolity as offensive or if he would take it as a bit of light relief,hopefully the latter.As i have said before i mean no harm or disrespect to anyone on this forum or JB.So thats about all i can say Bubo,and hopefully in the near future we may see some developements that prove one way or another what the truth is regarding JB,then we wont have to argue or fallout anymore.Hope you will think about what i have said Bubo,and hopefully see where i am coming from.
I have no problems with a bit of frivolity to amuse and lighten the mood, I do so myself. I have not fallen out with Adam I just ignore his repetitive regurgitation of virtually the same posts over and over again. He has 'crafted' a posting style which obeys forum rules without giving offence and spouts the same arguments over and over. I believe some people get drawn into his web and foster further opportunities for him to play what I see as 'games'. Far be it from me to suggest how you use your time. I do understand the point you make and I hope you understand mine.
-
I have no problems with a bit of frivolity to amuse and lighten the mood, I do so myself. I have not fallen out with Adam I just ignore his repetitive regurgitation of virtually the same posts over and over again. He has 'crafted' a posting style which obeys forum rules without giving offence and spouts the same arguments over and over. I believe some people get drawn into his web and foster further opportunities for him to play what I see as 'games'. Far be it from me to suggest how you use your time. I do understand the point you make and I hope you understand mine.
Hi Bubo,of course i understand what you are saying about Adam simply repeating the same things over and over again.Others have noticed this also.But,like yourself i tend to answer only if there is something new to discuss.But as i say,Adams posts dont bother me personaly,and at times he can actually draw out the best in you during an argument.And as Steve says he is seldom rude,So thats about it Bubo,i hope you dont get too distressed with Adams posting style.
-
Everyone has different posting styles. He's not rude to members, which is why I don't object.
You do not speak the truth. He is rude. Very often.
Hi Bubo,of course i understand what you are saying about Adam simply repeating the same things over and over again.Others have noticed this also.But,like yourself i tend to answer only if there is something new to discuss.But as i say,Adams posts dont bother me personaly,and at times he can actually draw out the best in you during an argument.And as Steve says he is seldom rude,So thats about it Bubo,i hope you dont get too distressed with Adams posting style.
That part [in bold] is not true. I agree with much of the rest of what you say and I don't wish to prolong this topic, but it's important that the truth is spoken, as Bubu bubu has done.
We should draw a line under this now.
-
You do not speak the truth. He is rude. Very often.
That part [in bold] is not true. I agree with much of the rest of what you say and I don't wish to prolong this topic, but it's important that the truth is spoken, as Bubu bubu has done.
We should draw a line under this now.
No problem Gascoigne.