Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Patti on January 06, 2014, 02:21:PM
-
The police will tell you this. There is no such thing as a perfect crime, never has been and there never will be.
Even 20 or 30 years further on a killer can still be caught with new modern science.
It is paramount to any investigation that the crime scene is examined. WHF had been forensically examined 3 times over a period 2 months. What did they find forensically? Nothing, to link Jeremy to the murders.
Inevitably, an untrained killer will leave some evidence.
Fingerprints
Shoe Prints
Hair
Fibres
Witnesses
At least something that places the person that is under suspicion at the crime scene. Luminol is a chemical substance that shows blood in the dark. No matter how blood had been cleaned up Luminol will show it up, not even bleach can shift blood.
If you look at the kitchen floor alone, there appears to be no footprints on it. Yet from the amount of blood in the house, you would think a print would have been there and on the carpets. Luminol can show where a killer walked, it can show where a person entered a room more than once. Luminol will show up blood that can't be seen by the naked eye. It can show the size of foot/shoe print. 30 years on this method could still be used on floors, windows and even the silencer.
The lack of fingerprints on the rifle or none identified prints nearly 30 years can still be processed by the use of reversing the fingerprint. This is mainly done when a finger has touched a different surface then touched the rifle again. What happens is that the blood is taken from the prominent part of the ridges and if a print is reversed it can match up....
These are just two of the ways modern science can make a difference to a case, apart from DNA.
But, the destruction of evidence before the breakthrough of modern science has made some techniques impossible....
Anybody with me on this? Adam????????? lol
-
Rubbish. ;)
-
How far back do you want to go?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom
-
Rubbish. ;)
Nope!!!!!! Its not. ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
its very true every contact leaves a trace.
-
Hi Patti,,I read somewhere that a flourescine test was done regarding the drains,to discount anyone washing blood from themselves. * It was carried out at WHF,,not sure about Goldhanger.
There was obviously nothing unusual from the report,or we'd have heard about it,,particularly where Jeremy's concerned.
* Because no result was published from the water test we can take it that Sheila didn't wash her hands before eating,,so it would appear that she ate before she carried out the killings ?
-
Rubbish. ;)
Take this typical crime scene....Two images.
-
its very true every contact leaves a trace.
Hi Nugs :)
Taps, sinks, windows, car almost everywhere.....Why was this not done? It was about. Me thinks. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti,,I read somewhere that a flourescine test was done regarding the drains,to discount anyone washing blood from themselves. * It was carried out at WHF,,not sure about Goldhanger.
There was obviously nothing unusual from the report,or we'd have heard about it,,particularly where Jeremy's concerned.
* Because no result was published from the water test we can take it that Sheila didn't wash her hands before eating,,so it would appear that she ate before she carried out the killings ?
I don't believe this is true.
-
Hi Patti,,I read somewhere that a flourescine test was done regarding the drains,to discount anyone washing blood from themselves. * It was carried out at WHF,,not sure about Goldhanger.
There was obviously nothing unusual from the report,or we'd have heard about it,,particularly where Jeremy's concerned.
* Because no result was published from the water test we can take it that Sheila didn't wash her hands before eating,,so it would appear that she ate before she carried out the killings ?
Hi Lookout :)
Its a chemical that is sprayed in the dark and only lasts for about 30 seconds, but the results can be captured on camera. I've never read that this was done at WHF...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Happy New Year to you btw xxxx
-
maybe it was done but dident get them the result they wanted.
-
How far back do you want to go?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom
The problem at WHF was the initial poor investigation prior to Jeremy becoming a suspect, the list above shows a whole multitude of murders where the crime scene did not produce evidence in the manner you suggest Patti.
A daft claim dear. ;)
-
The problem at WHF was the initial poor investigation prior to Jeremy becoming a suspect, the list above shows a whole multitude of murders where the crime scene did not produce evidence in the manner you suggest Patti.
A daft claim dear. ;)
Claim dear? Me not saying that. I am merely saying that the use of a substance like Luminol could have been used and that there is a possibility that it can still be used. Blood soaks through onto the floor boards and luminol would be able to track down places were blood stained in WHF. Its not fantasy my dear Hartley its possible...that the floor boards are still in place.....I doubt there are carpets. But anything that was there can still be analysed. Even the tyre tracks lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy left a lot behind.
-
it may of been used we dont know.
-
The problem at WHF was the initial poor investigation prior to Jeremy becoming a suspect, the list above shows a whole multitude of murders where the crime scene did not produce evidence in the manner you suggest Patti.
A daft claim dear. ;)
You make a fair point here Snow-Bits, regarding the botched investigation.
-
Jeremy left a lot behind.
Quite-----------------He used to live there ! And also worked there.
-
Claim dear? Me not saying that. I am merely saying that the use of a substance like Luminol could have been used and that there is a possibility that it can still be used. Blood soaks through onto the floor boards and luminol would be able to track down places were blood stained in WHF. Its not fantasy my dear Hartley its possible...that the floor boards are still in place.....I doubt there are carpets. But anything that was there can still be analysed. Even the tyre tracks lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am not sure any blood residue would show up so many years after (but possibly, would have to research a bit)? Also Luminol is not "fool proof", it reacts to other materials than blood (eg, copper, fecal matter, urine, bleach and some more), so it can give a false positive.
-
I am not sure any blood residue would show up so many years after (but possibly, would have to research a bit)? Also Luminol is not "fool proof", it reacts to other materials than blood (eg, copper, fecal matter, urine, bleach and some more), so it can give a false positive.
I didn't quite understand this, there is no need to check WHF, we can can all see the blood bath in the photographs, so what use would this be? Or is it being suggested that it could have been used in the house at Goldhanger? :-\
-
I didn't quite understand this, there is no need to check WHF, we can can all see the blood bath in the photographs, so what use would this be? Or is it being suggested that it could have been used in the house at Goldhanger? :-\
Perhaps there would be some relevance in Luminol testing the plumbing at both WHF and Jeremy´s cottage - if it hasn´t been changed entirely, it´s been a lot of years. Otherwise I cannot see any reason to do it.
Patti?
-
Hi Nugs :)
Taps, sinks, windows, car almost everywhere.....Why was this not done? It was about. Me thinks. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Isn´t it mostly used in crimescenes that have been wiped/washed clean? The Luminol exposes blood no matter how much you scrub and clean; but why use it at a crime scene like the one at WHF - the blood was there to be seen?
Are you thinking about floorboards from under the removed and burnt carpets? Do you think there would have been enough blood to soak through the carpets? Perhaps where Nevill and Sheila were found. A bloody footprint or two would come in handy! ;D
Strange BTW how there are no reports of footprints from the farmhouse - there must have been some, but then the fourty-something officers trampled through the crimescene of course....
Just thinking aloud!
-
I think it might be a useful exercise to treat the original fingerprint form taken from Sheila's hands, during autopsy, to (a) a fresh hand swab test to check for presence of gun power residue, and lead deposit, (2) use of luminol to check for the presence of blood on the fingerprint impressions of both hands, with a view to resolving the question of whether or not she handled bullets in order to reload the guns ammunition magazine, and also to confirm that there was, or wasn't human blood present upon her fingers, which mixed with the ink used in the fingerprinting process. It may even be scientifically possible to find the DNA of the other victims in the ink impressions of Sheila's fingerprints...
-
I think it might be a useful exercise to treat the original fingerprint form taken from Sheila's hands, during autopsy, to (a) a fresh hand swab test to check for presence of gun power residue, and lead deposit, (2) use of luminol to check for the presence of blood on the fingerprint impressions of both hands, with a view to resolving the question of whether or not she handled bullets in order to reload the guns ammunition magazine, and also to confirm that there was, or wasn't human blood present upon her fingers, which mixed with the ink used in the fingerprinting process. It may even be scientifically possible to find the DNA of the other victims in the ink impressions of Sheila's fingerprints...
Advances in science, never cease to amaze me...
-
I think it might be a useful exercise to treat the original fingerprint form taken from Sheila's hands, during autopsy, to (a) a fresh hand swab test to check for presence of gun power residue, and lead deposit, (2) use of luminol to check for the presence of blood on the fingerprint impressions of both hands, with a view to resolving the question of whether or not she handled bullets in order to reload the guns ammunition magazine, and also to confirm that there was, or wasn't human blood present upon her fingers, which mixed with the ink used in the fingerprinting process. It may even be scientifically possible to find the DNA of the other victims in the ink impressions of Sheila's fingerprints...
There is a thought!
I am not sure that Luminol would be helpful though - would depend on what the ink is made of, a component that Luminol reacts to could be present.
-
There is a thought!
I am not sure that Luminol would be helpful though - would depend on what the ink is made of, a component that Luminol reacts to could be present.
I accept that, Alias, however, any reaction to the ink would obviously be a measurable commodity, that could be tested and compared to an uncontaminated fingerprint impression form, and the difference in detected levels of whatever, be compared with a view to establishing a presence of blood in one, or the other, or neither...
-
I accept that, Alias, however, any reaction to the ink would obviously be a measurable commodity, that could be tested and compared to an uncontaminated fingerprint impression form, and the difference in detected levels of whatever, be compared with a view to establishing a presence of blood in one, or the other, or neither...
It would be very easy, I should think, to carry out these tests, simply by using the original fingerprint forms taken during autopsy, of the three adult victims in this case, namely, Sheila, Ralph and June...
-
The problem at WHF was the initial poor investigation prior to Jeremy becoming a suspect
The victor will always be the judge, the vanquished the accused
DCI Thomas Jones may well have become the vanquished.
Personally, I don't care too much for the honesty and integrity of the accusers left 'victorious' in his wake.
-
The victor will always be the judge, the vanquished the accused
DCI Thomas Jones may well have become the vanquished.
Personally, I don't care too much for the honesty and integrity of the accusers left 'victorious' in his wake.
I have no idea what that means. :-\ Sounds great though. :D
-
I have no idea what that means. :-\ Sounds great though. :D
The quote in its' original context is not particularly helpful for JB's plight. It was written by Herman Goring during the Nuremburg Trials. Nevertheless, it's pretty much true. Whichever side wins the day, assumes the right to pass judgement over the losing side. That judgemet becomes the 'official' version. Which is what you portrayed when citing the alleged 'poor investigation' before Jeremy Bamber became a suspect.
It's quite striking that the latter, secondary investigation is also apparently full of genuine errors and mistakes.
-
The quote in its' original context is not particularly helpful for JB's plight. It was written by Herman Goring during the Nuremburg Trials. Nevertheless, it's pretty much true. Whichever side wins the day, assumes the right to pass judgement over the losing side. That judgemet becomes the 'official' version. Which is what you portrayed when citing the alleged 'poor investigation' before Jeremy Bamber becamse a suspect.
It's quite striking that the latter, secondary investigation is also apparently full of genuine errors and mistakes.
I think, and seem to have many people in agreement from either camp, that the police investigation was extremely poor. Just an opinion.
I don't really go in for all of these silly quotes, not my bag I'm afraid. :(
-
I think, and seem to have many people in agreement from either camp, that the police investigation was extremely poor. Just an opinion.
I don't really go in for all of these silly quotes, not my bag I'm afraid. :(
Yet you're quite happy with the concept that any anomaly that has come to light in the secondary investigation that gunned for JB, is merely a benign mistake. All of the mistakes in the scondary investigation (which appear to many as resembling tried and tested corruptive practice among 80's police forces), are perfectly acceptible...
Whereas any mistakes that went on prior to JB being suspect in the initial investigation are representitive of poor professionalism on the part of the officers concerned.
-
Yet you're quite happy with the concept that any anomaly that has come to light in the secondary investigation that gunned for JB, is merely a benign mistake. All of the mistakes in the scondary investigation (which appear to many as resembling tried and tested corruptive practice among 80's police forces), are perfectly acceptible...
Whereas any mistakes that went on prior to JB being suspect in the initial investigation are representitive of poor professionalism on the part of the officers concerned.
It would be a bit odd to go from a shoddy investigation to a perfect one.
It's an opinion that I hold, which is shared by many others, including those not in the guilty camp.
-
Quite-----------------He used to live there ! And also worked there.
Nooo. I meant things for the blood experts, pathologists & forensics to get their teeth into.
-
Nooo. I meant things for the blood experts, pathologists & forensics to get their teeth into.
There wasn't a hint of anything pertaining to Jeremys' guilt in the forensic department.
-
well to be fair in a shooting there wont be that fronsic evedence anyway.
-
well to be fair in a shooting there wont be that fronsic evedence anyway.
There was the alleged fight with Nevill and some supposed/possible handling of Sheila, so there would have been some. However, I don´t have much confidence in the handling of the crime scene by the EP. :-\
-
There was the alleged fight with Nevill and some supposed/possible handling of Sheila, so there would have been some. However, I don´t have much confidence in the handling of the crime scene by the EP. :-\
This has all the hallmarks of a 1980s crime,with money as the motive. Additionally those at the top such as DCI Taff Jones worked no harder for all the tax cuts they were receiving. We might not be in the position we are in today if the Farm was closed off as a crime scene and Jeremy Bamber's clothing and footwear taken away for examination there and then instead of six weeks after the event.
-
This has all the hallmarks of a 1980s crime,with money as the motive. Additionally those at the top such as DCI Taff Jones worked no harder for all the tax cuts they were receiving. We might not be in the position we are in today if the Farm was closed off as a crime scene and Jeremy Bamber's clothing and footwear taken away for examination there and then instead of six weeks after the event.
Which gives YOU a lot of room for speculation!
Well, all of us, what a mess!
-
Hello steve uk what difference would it have made if Jeremy's clothes had been taken away straight after the murders and examined. He was found Guilty without this evidence and sentenced to life in prison are you actually implying the evidence he was sentenced on was weak.
-
Hello steve uk what difference would it have made if Jeremy's clothes had been taken away straight after the murders and examined. He was found Guilty without this evidence and sentenced to life in prison are you actually implying the evidence he was sentenced on was weak.
No but specks of blood were found on Jeremy's clothing hanging in the wardrobe by Dr.Hayward,though proved inconclusive. Had they been tested there and then it may have been possible to establish that Jeremy had worn those clothes recently and therefore would have bolstered the Prosecution's case.
-
Hello steve uk what difference would it have made if Jeremy's clothes had been taken away straight after the murders and examined. He was found Guilty without this evidence and sentenced to life in prison are you actually implying the evidence he was sentenced on was weak.
You are sharp, Susan.
-
Alias sharp is right just cut my own finger ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No but specks of blood were found on Jeremy's clothing hanging in the wardrobe by Dr.Hayward,though proved inconclusive. Had they been tested there and then it may have been possible to establish that Jeremy had worn those clothes recently and therefore would have bolstered the Prosecution's case.
You be careful you don't cut your self shaving one day :o you might get accused of murder. There was also blood in NB car -so do you think that is connected as well?
-
You be careful you don't cut your self shaving one day :o you might get accused of murder. There was also blood in NB car -so do you think that is connected as well?
Anthony Pargeter with his perfect eyesight from shooting spotted tiny scratches on Jeremy's hands,which even Ann Eaton missed.
-
You be careful you don't cut your self shaving one day :o you might get accused of murder. There was also blood in NB car -so do you think that is connected as well?
Yes Jansus. Steve has, on many occasions, made reference to blood in Nevill's car, the inference of course being that it had to do with Jeremy. I wonder how he managed to get blood in his father's car whilst driving his own or riding a bike.
-
Anthony Pargeter with his perfect eyesight from shooting spotted tiny scratches on Jeremy's hands,which even Ann Eaton missed.
Jeremy was a farmer, he'd been harvesting, his hands would have had tiny scratches.
-
Yes Jansus. Steve has, on many occasions, made reference to blood in Nevill's car, the inference of course being that it had to do with Jeremy. I wonder how he managed to get blood in his father's car whilst driving his own or riding a bike.
It was animal blood wasn't it? ???
-
It was animal blood wasn't it? ???
I guess it wouldn't be improbable to find animal blood SOMEWHERE is a farmer's car. If my friends are anything to go by, USUALLY in the boot.
-
Happy new year all I took a break from posting, while patti raises some good points its worth remembering also the lowdowns, back then and today im sad to say police investigations in crimes like these are still poor little if anything has been learned, what we don't have is mindblowing csi type investigations, as to evidence still left behind that's quite possible, I can say on a recent break to slough , Windsor I visited a house that was used in a 1970s television series I will not disclose its location but I was surprised apart from a change to the garden the house looked the same , likewise inside/outside WHF that seems to be also, evidence in some shape or form I would guess still exists there to this day.
-
Happy New Year to you too, Mertol. I think you're right. We've all become so used to the sophisticated methods used in CSI that we forget that plod method was the rule of the day in the 1980's. I rather imagine that WHF will still look the same if it's standing 100 years from now. Those Georgian houses are very difficult to change in any way.
-
Happy new year to you too, mertol! :)
-
Yet you're quite happy with the concept that any anomaly that has come to light in the secondary investigation that gunned for JB, is merely a benign mistake. All of the mistakes in the scondary investigation (which appear to many as resembling tried and tested corruptive practice among 80's police forces), are perfectly acceptible...
Whereas any mistakes that went on prior to JB being suspect in the initial investigation are representitive of poor professionalism on the part of the officers concerned.
The widely accepted version of events regarding the initial poor investigation is in my opinion a smokescreen for corrupt practice. Holding their hands up to poor investigation effectively lets EP off the hook and places the blame on Taff Jones who is not able to defend the initial investigation.
As you observe the "mistakes" made in the secondary investigation could all be explained with reference to the "tried and tested" corruption of 80's police practice.
Given what is now known and undisputed regarding police corruption, and the many wrongful convictions of this era which occurred because of this widespread, some would say institutionalised, corruption, I am constantly amazed that anyone believes the fanciful and implausible reasons given by the police for these discrepancies.
The police of this time are proven liars and manipulators of evidence and as such where discrepancies occur that can be explained either by corruption or genuine error, it is reasonable to infer that it is more likely to be the former rather than the latter, especially so given the continued refusal of EP to hand over evidence requested by the defence.
Only one side in this are unwilling to have all evidence out in the open and the implications of this refusal are surely that EP have something to hide.
Many posters make reference to the many "myths" that there seem to be about this case and in my opinion the biggest myth is that the first investigation was botched. It is more likely that the entry to the farmhouse was botched. The covering up of the botched raid led to circumstances that made it expedient for EP to blame Bamber and therefore the initial investigation needed to be discredited as a damage limitation exercise.
Conveniently the blame for the supposed botched investigation could be placed on the deceased "Taff Jones".
I don't believe that their was much to investigate anyway really . The events throughout the night and the knowledge of being party to what was an obvious siege that night meant that the police knew exactly what had happened. They hadn't sat outside a silent house with no movement all night without approaching until 7.30 and it is absurd to think so. The belief that Bamber kept them away with his manipulative ways is not tenable and stretches credulity beyond breaking point.
There was nothing to investigate because the police were witness to the events that night .
-
I so agree with you Gringo. Exactly ! There was NOTHING to investigate that night.Never a truer word.
-
Anthony Pargeter with his perfect eyesight from shooting spotted tiny scratches on Jeremy's hands,which even Ann Eaton missed.
For goodness sake !!!!! He worked on a farm >:( what would you expect. Sometimes I despair of some of your comments. My dad was a farmer and his hands were always scratched/bruised and most of the time dirty . It comes with the occupation and proves nothing.
-
It was animal blood wasn't it? ???
I thought that I had read that it was NB blood but I may be wrong - and if it was it was such a small amount it was inconsequential . I think that most people would accept that on a farm because of the nature of the work you would get small amounts of human blood and animal blood anyway. It comes with the nature of the work.
-
I thought that I had read that it was NB blood but I may be wrong - and if it was it was such a small amount it was inconsequential . I think that most people would accept that on a farm because of the nature of the work you would get small amounts of human blood and animal blood anyway. It comes with the nature of the work.
You probably right, I wasn't sure. :-\
-
Jeremy was a farmer, he'd been harvesting, his hands would have had tiny scratches.
If they were of any significance The police I am sure would have picked up on then?
-
If they were of any significance The police I am sure would have picked up on then?
And all the relatives as well as they were convinced he was guilty -they must have been pretty insignificant.
-
If they were of any significance The police I am sure would have picked up on then?
As in gouges up his arms etc?
-
As in gouges up his arms etc?
Yes,HME,,he'd have had those alright if he'd gone near the boys,,threatening in any way.
-
The widely accepted version of events regarding the initial poor investigation is in my opinion a smokescreen for corrupt practice. Holding their hands up to poor investigation effectively lets EP off the hook and places the blame on Taff Jones who is not able to defend the initial investigation.
As you observe the "mistakes" made in the secondary investigation could all be explained with reference to the "tried and tested" corruption of 80's police practice.
Given what is now known and undisputed regarding police corruption, and the many wrongful convictions of this era which occurred because of this widespread, some would say institutionalised, corruption, I am constantly amazed that anyone believes the fanciful and implausible reasons given by the police for these discrepancies.
The police of this time are proven liars and manipulators of evidence and as such where discrepancies occur that can be explained either by corruption or genuine error, it is reasonable to infer that it is more likely to be the former rather than the latter, especially so given the continued refusal of EP to hand over evidence requested by the defence.
Only one side in this are unwilling to have all evidence out in the open and the implications of this refusal are surely that EP have something to hide.
Many posters make reference to the many "myths" that there seem to be about this case and in my opinion the biggest myth is that the first investigation was botched. It is more likely that the entry to the farmhouse was botched. The covering up of the botched raid led to circumstances that made it expedient for EP to blame Bamber and therefore the initial investigation needed to be discredited as a damage limitation exercise.
Conveniently the blame for the supposed botched investigation could be placed on the deceased "Taff Jones".
I don't believe that their was much to investigate anyway really . The events throughout the night and the knowledge of being party to what was an obvious siege that night meant that the police knew exactly what had happened. They hadn't sat outside a silent house with no movement all night without approaching until 7.30 and it is absurd to think so. The belief that Bamber kept them away with his manipulative ways is not tenable and stretches credulity beyond breaking point.
There was nothing to investigate because the police were witness to the events that night .
Interesting post. :)
That is a good possibility.
Yes, isn´t it just!
It was a lot, I mean a lot, of hours to wait outside.
-
Interesting post. :)
That is a good possibility.
Yes, isn´t it just!
It was a lot, I mean a lot, of hours to wait outside.
This waiting so long suggests to me that there was something going on inside the house?
-
Hi Grahame think EP thought somebody was still alive in the house and this is why they did not go in sooner till the raid team arrived. The condition of Sheila's body suggests she died much later than the others.
-
Hi Grahame think EP thought somebody was still alive in the house and this is why they did not go in sooner till the raid team arrived. The condition of Sheila's body suggests she died much later than the others.
Yes. I personally believe that Sheila was the last to die. If Jeremy was the murderer it would benefit him to get Sheila out of the way first of all, as she could have represented trouble when he killed the children. But if she died last, then this suggests that she was the murderer. But having said that, I am also intrigued that she was shot twice and there were just enough bullets left to shoot herself twice. That to me seems to be a bit of a coincidence?
-
I'm just reading about a tragedy which happened in Australia in 2009,in a place that I know very well as it wasn't far from where my family lived.
It's about a man,who in a psychotic frenzy,,butchered his father and his sister to death. People who he loved dearly.
The story is about Anthony Waterlow,who was born into a middle-class family,attended a private school,and him and his sister enjoyed the privileged background that his father had supported them with.
Then the death of his mother brought about a string of changes when Anthony was in his early 30's.
Over the years,,his friends had noticed marked changes in him,,such as being withdrawn,a far cry from the character of which he was known to be,as a friendly,confident,sociable and keen tennis player,,to someone who was deteriorating,mentally.
A female friend described the change in Anthony 8 years before the killings,,when he started seeing psychiatrists,and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.His paranoia had centred on hatred for his father and sister,,and it remained focussed on the two people who loved him.
His blame towards his father and sister stemmed from thoughts that they were controlling him,,or trying to control him.
Then in 2004 and 2007, Anthony agreed to be assessed by psychiatrist/s,,where he told them that he believed that his relatives wanted him to kill himself,and were conspiring for him to die.
Anthony had refused to take the medication for his paranoid schizophrenia.
Anthonys' father had tried to get his son committed permanently to a psychiatric institution,,but Anthonys' condition didn't meet the criteria as an in-patient under the Mental Health Act !!! Even though it had been said that he was a danger to others as well as himself.
Anthony was taking drugs and his moods varied between aggression and being withdrawn. He had voices in his head which had intensified leading up to the murders,and he was convinced that his family were devising a plan for him to commit suicide.
He was living alone at this point,and his living conditions were squalid.He'd become a loner,who only visited a local bar where he played on a gaming machine.Staff there spoke of his fragile state.
That day,he left for his sisters' house,where his father was also visiting,,and carried out the murders of both. His sisters' husband was on business in the UK at the time.
Yes,,the killer left behind,,a large bloodied footprint,but there were also CCTV images of a wild-looking Anthony fleeing the scene of carnage.
After a " judge-only " trial,18 months later,Anthony,calm and in control through taking anti-psychotic medications,was committed to a Forensic Prison Hospital in NSW,Australia,,where he'd expressed his remorse.
Because he'd been treated with the right medications,his schizophrenia had all but gone away and he was able to reflect on what had happened and been aware at what he'd done.
He'd also stated that " never in his wildest dreams would he have killed his father and sister,but he did,and he's got to live with that ". That he'll be sorry for the rest of his life.
After that synopsis,NSW are making changes to their Mental Health Act following these murders.
N.B.Anthonys' father more or less kept his sons' illness " under wraps " for a time. Similarly as in the Bamber case regarding Sheila.
-
Might I add to this by saying that Anthonys' family had warned doctors of the fear that they felt as his illness spiralled out of control. His madness and hatred lay festering until it was too late.
-
Hello lookout
thank you for that interesting post for somebody like me who knows nothing about mental health issues stories like that give me an insight to a persons behaviour who are not on the right type of medication and I guess the worse thing that happened with Sheila her medication was halved. :( The system failed her and her wee boys :(
-
I'm just reading about a tragedy which happened in Australia in 2009,in a place that I know very well as it wasn't far from where my family lived.
It's about a man,who in a psychotic frenzy,,butchered his father and his sister to death. People who he loved dearly.
The story is about Anthony Waterlow,who was born into a middle-class family,attended a private school,and him and his sister enjoyed the privileged background that his father had supported them with.
Then the death of his mother brought about a string of changes when Anthony was in his early 30's.
Over the years,,his friends had noticed marked changes in him,,such as being withdrawn,a far cry from the character of which he was known to be,as a friendly,confident,sociable and keen tennis player,,to someone who was deteriorating,mentally.
A female friend described the change in Anthony 8 years before the killings,,when he started seeing psychiatrists,and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.His paranoia had centred on hatred for his father and sister,,and it remained focussed on the two people who loved him.
His blame towards his father and sister stemmed from thoughts that they were controlling him,,or trying to control him.
Then in 2004 and 2007, Anthony agreed to be assessed by psychiatrist/s,,where he told them that he believed that his relatives wanted him to kill himself,and were conspiring for him to die.
Anthony had refused to take the medication for his paranoid schizophrenia.
Anthonys' father had tried to get his son committed permanently to a psychiatric institution,,but Anthonys' condition didn't meet the criteria as an in-patient under the Mental Health Act !!! Even though it had been said that he was a danger to others as well as himself.
Anthony was taking drugs and his moods varied between aggression and being withdrawn. He had voices in his head which had intensified leading up to the murders,and he was convinced that his family were devising a plan for him to commit suicide.
He was living alone at this point,and his living conditions were squalid.He'd become a loner,who only visited a local bar where he played on a gaming machine.Staff there spoke of his fragile state.
That day,he left for his sisters' house,where his father was also visiting,,and carried out the murders of both. His sisters' husband was on business in the UK at the time.
Yes,,the killer left behind,,a large bloodied footprint,but there were also CCTV images of a wild-looking Anthony fleeing the scene of carnage.
After a " judge-only " trial,18 months later,Anthony,calm and in control through taking anti-psychotic medications,was committed to a Forensic Prison Hospital in NSW,Australia,,where he'd expressed his remorse.
Because he'd been treated with the right medications,his schizophrenia had all but gone away and he was able to reflect on what had happened and been aware at what he'd done.
He'd also stated that " never in his wildest dreams would he have killed his father and sister,but he did,and he's got to live with that ". That he'll be sorry for the rest of his life.
After that synopsis,NSW are making changes to their Mental Health Act following these murders.
N.B.Anthonys' father more or less kept his sons' illness " under wraps " for a time. Similarly as in the Bamber case regarding Sheila.
So horrendous Lookout and so dreadful for Anthony, he committed those murders when he was ill and not in sane mind, why should he be punished, he couldn't help his illness and not taking medication is a symptom of the illness and not chosen, irresponsible behaviour.
Once again we see the state neglecting their responsibilities and then punishing one of the victims.
I have always wondered if Sheila's apparent extreme hate directed towards June was partly at least caused by her illness, paranoid schizophrenics very often direct hate and fear towards a close member of their family. I have always thought June was clumsy with words, that she repeated the way she had been treated with fire and brimstone religion and was no doubt insensitive at times but she loved her children as proved by the letter she wrote to them, in the event of her death.
Interesting comparison Lookout. :)
-
Hello lookout
thank you for that interesting post for somebody like me who knows nothing about mental health issues stories like that give me an insight to a persons behaviour who are not on the right type of medication and I guess the worse thing that happened with Sheila her medication was halved. :( The system failed her and her wee boys :(
Susan,,it's so true of Sheilas' illness,,and so terribly sad how a trauma of sorts can spark off such an illness. In Sheilas' case,childbirth would have put her body into shock,and along with everything else that happened to her in her short life,was enough to cause the reaction that I fully believe happened that night.
-
Yes,,I would agree that the percentage is much higher in men to commit such murders,but there are also women who aim to kill their children,out of love in their way,and " to a better place " as to how their mind is focussed at the time.
When you think about it,even Australia are lagging behind when it comes to health care for the mentally ill. It's become all too easy just handing out pills,but it goes to prove that unless it's the right medication for the type of mental illness,then you're fighting a losing battle. It's different for each individual case.
Anthony was/is also a good-looking guy,who wanted for nothing really. He loved his family,,but got to hate them through love daft as it sounds. There was also another brother who was younger,,but he wasn't killed ? Because he was no threat to Anthony in any way,,the difference between men who kill and women who kill,,because Sheila saw her children as a threat,both violently and sexually,this is why she killed them.
-
So horrendous Lookout and so dreadful for Anthony, he committed those murders when he was ill and not in sane mind, why should he be punished, he couldn't help his illness and not taking medication is a symptom of the illness and not chosen, irresponsible behaviour.
Once again we see the state neglecting their responsibilities and then punishing one of the victims.
I have always wondered if Sheila's apparent extreme hate directed towards June was partly at least caused by her illness, paranoid schizophrenics very often direct hate and fear towards a close member of their family. I have always thought June was clumsy with words, that she repeated the way she had been treated with fire and brimstone religion and was no doubt insensitive at times but she loved her children as proved by the letter she wrote to them, in the event of her death.
Interesting comparison Lookout. :)
Of course it was Sheilas' illness,Maggie. That poor girl must have literally gone through Hell with her feelings.She would have suffered voices in her head with the usual commands to kill,,and doubtless tried to mask them with her drug-taking which seemed to be the natural and normal thing to do to block them out.
I'm almost certain that had enough been known at the time,about the varying aspects of mental illness and the proper medication given,that a lot of Sheilas' anxieties,etc would have gone,and whatever June said to her would have gone right over her head. Sheila took everything to heart,and bottled it all up because she was ill,it's as simple as that. Sadly,nobody had the understanding of it.
-
It's when you read things like this that you get a clearer understanding of the exact pattern of schizophrenia and who it affects and how. They're not born with the illness,it's created by a trauma,a shock. With Anthony,it was losing his mother,,and with Sheila it wouldn't have helped her situation " losing " hers. Maybe her shock set in when she was told about her birth mother,who knows ? As a child,she wouldn't have had much to say about it,,but it would have been there festering until later years,,and to her it would have been a shock.
-
It's when you read things like this that you get a clearer understanding of the exact pattern of schizophrenia and who it affects and how. They're not born with the illness,it's created by a trauma,a shock. With Anthony,it was losing his mother,,and with Sheila it wouldn't have helped her situation " losing " hers. Maybe her shock set in when she was told about her birth mother,who knows ? As a child,she wouldn't have had much to say about it,,but it would have been there festering until later years,,and to her it would have been a shock.
I believe in many cases schizophrenia is a hereditary illness, it is often brought on by stress but it often starts to develop in early teens and is often exacerbated when a young person leaves home for the first time. Sheila imo was already showing signs of the illness long before she was diagnosed. If she hadn't been away from home at boarding school it may have been spotted much earlier. :-\
-
I believe in many cases schizophrenia is a hereditary illness, it is often brought on by stress but it often starts to develop in early teens and is often exacerbated when a young person leaves home for the first time. Sheila imo was already showing signs of the illness long before she was diagnosed. If she hadn't been away from home at boarding school it may have been spotted much earlier. :-\
Yes,,unfortunately both children were treated the same,,and it's never the case at all. They were both separate characters each with their own personalities and what suited one,didn't suit the other,such as you say,Maggie, by sending Sheila away to boarding school,,whereas Jeremy didn't appear to be affected by it the same. Sheila was more sensitive to change,as a lot of children are,and it takes an experienced parent to recognise such signs and symptoms.
-
Yes,,unfortunately both children were treated the same,,and it's never the case at all. They were both separate characters each with their own personalities and what suited one,didn't suit the other,such as you say,Maggie, by sending Sheila away to boarding school,,whereas Jeremy didn't appear to be affected by it the same. Sheila was more sensitive to change,as a lot of children are,and it takes an experienced parent to recognise such signs and symptoms.
I wouldn't imagine June was particularly sensitive to Sheila's adolescent moods and possibly thought her chaotic behaviour was because she was 'bad' rather than unwell. However, we will never know the truth and there is no one to tell us what really happened. It was and still is a dreadful tragedy imo.
-
I wouldn't imagine June was particularly sensitive to Sheila's adolescent moods and possibly thought her chaotic behaviour was because she was 'bad' rather than unwell. However, we will never know the truth and there is no one to tell us what really happened. It was and still is a dreadful tragedy imo.
Very true,,and a very sad end,Maggie. Somehow I wished I'd known the family.
-
So horrendous Lookout and so dreadful for Anthony, he committed those murders when he was ill and not in sane mind, why should he be punished, he couldn't help his illness and not taking medication is a symptom of the illness and not chosen, irresponsible behaviour.
Once again we see the state neglecting their responsibilities and then punishing one of the victims.
I have always wondered if Sheila's apparent extreme hate directed towards June was partly at least caused by her illness, paranoid schizophrenics very often direct hate and fear towards a close member of their family. I have always thought June was clumsy with words, that she repeated the way she had been treated with fire and brimstone religion and was no doubt insensitive at times but she loved her children as proved by the letter she wrote to them, in the event of her death.
Interesting comparison Lookout. :)
In Sheila's case, before we jump on the state for having failed in their duty to her, I wonder if there wasn't too much in the way of collusion going on with "interested parties." I'm not pointing fingers or making accusations because, even though I have far more knowledge of the illness that did June, Nevill AND possibly Colin and his mother, I've never had close personal experience of someone who has the illness. I feel it might be easy enough to go down the road of "keeping quiet about it," in part to protect the sufferer from being stigmatized, but also to protect themselves against it, but mainly because if it is ignored, it just MIGHT go away...........................in the meantime, there are occasions when she was on her own with the twins because it couldn't be avoided, and there were times when she was forgetting to take her medication. There were times when her neighbours could hear her screaming during the night. Presumably, if the children were there, so too, did they. What else might they have witnessed of their mother's strange behaviour? What were they doing whilst she was unable to get out of bed to wash them, dress them, feed them, get them to school? They MAY not have done themselves serious damage, but what about the near misses? Children, little more than babies allowed to wander through the minefield that a domestic kitchen without adult supervision, can become. How did they cope when Mummy was talking to people they couldn't see, when Mummy grew ANGRY with an invisible person, and if Mummy forgot to/wouldn't take the medication the doctor gave her, MAYBE she forgot that there was other stuff she SHOULDN'T take in front of them, but took it thinking it was what the doctor had given her. How much easier might life have been for everybody had Social Services been allowed so kind of input. Steve talks about Colin being a wonderful father and whilst he was there he probably was. I don't doubt that the Bambers adored their little grandsons, but they couldn't be with them all the time, nor would it have been appropriate . I don't doubt either that Sheila loved her boys but when I think of the times that it's been suggested that June should not have been allowed to adopt because of her mental fragility, it seems rather strange that no one has suggested that Sheila, because of her illness, shouldn't have been allowed to keep her children. I think, through no fault of her own, without constant supervision, Sheila could have posed a far greater threat to HER children than did June to hers.
-
In Sheila's case, before we jump on the state for having failed in their duty to her, I wonder if there wasn't too much in the way of collusion going on with "interested parties." I'm not pointing fingers or making accusations because, even though I have far more knowledge of the illness that did June, Nevill AND possibly Colin and his mother, I've never had close personal experience of someone who has the illness. I feel it might be easy enough to go down the road of "keeping quiet about it," in part to protect the sufferer from being stigmatized, but also to protect themselves against it, but mainly because if it is ignored, it just MIGHT go away...........................in the meantime, there are occasions when she was on her own with the twins because it couldn't be avoided, and there were times when she was forgetting to take her medication. There were times when her neighbours could hear her screaming during the night. Presumably, if the children were there, so too, did they. What else might they have witnessed of their mother's strange behaviour? What were they doing whilst she was unable to get out of bed to wash them, dress them, feed them, get them to school? They MAY not have done themselves serious damage, but what about the near misses? Children, little more than babies allowed to wander through the minefield that a domestic kitchen without adult supervision, can become. How did they cope when Mummy was talking to people they couldn't see, when Mummy grew ANGRY with an invisible person, and if Mummy forgot to/wouldn't take the medication the doctor gave her, MAYBE she forgot that there was other stuff she SHOULDN'T take in front of them, but took it thinking it was what the doctor had given her. How much easier might life have been for everybody had Social Services been allowed so kind of input. Steve talks about Colin being a wonderful father and whilst he was there he probably was. I don't doubt that the Bambers adored their little grandsons, but they couldn't be with them all the time, nor would it have been appropriate . I don't doubt either that Sheila loved her boys but when I think of the times that it's been suggested that June should not have been allowed to adopt because of her mental fragility, it seems rather strange that no one has suggested that Sheila, because of her illness, shouldn't have been allowed to keep her children. I think, through no fault of her own, without constant supervision, Sheila could have posed a far greater threat to HER children than did June to hers.
Totally agree with you April.
-
Aww,folks,,another murder/suicide reported 20 minutes ago. A 33 year old woman has killed her two children,both boys,one aged 5 and the other a 7 month old baby. It was in Brent,North West London.
No information is yet given on the injuries,but police aren't looking for anyone else in connection with the tragedy.
-
Hi lookout/Maggie
just a hypothetical question if a child is adopted and never told of this do you think the child will react differently in life to situations than say if the child was not adopted suppose what I am trying to say is it the bonding that the child misses or is it a psychological effect when the child is told of the adoption :'(
-
Hi lookout/Maggie
just a hypothetical question if a child is adopted and never told of this do you think the child will react differently in life to situations than say if the child was not adopted suppose what I am trying to say is it the bonding that the child misses or is it a psychological effect when the child is told of the adoption :'(
Hi Susan,,I think you have to study that child first as to whether you're going to envisage any negative reaction of sorts before explaining to him/her. It's like being a specialist who uses his common sense ( hopefully ) in whether to tell his patient that they haven't got long to live. It's a matter of being tuned-in to them as an individual.
It's possible in Sheilas' case that things could well have been different if she had been told later on that she'd been adopted,,or both of them,then one wouldn't have told the other.
Sadly though,,with an uncle like they had,it wouldn't have remained private and personal for long.He was a very hurtful man,besides having been damaging while the children were growing up,,as anyone with his obnoxious attitude towards the Bamber children was,to my mind,nothing short of disgraceful,,and when you have that kind of a person who resented you from the minute you were received into the Bamber household,it doesn't make for a good relationship and would always be a reminder that " you didn't belong ".
It's difficult to say whether Sheila would have turned out differently had she not known she'd been adopted,,without knowing any of the family personally.
-
Hi lookout/Maggie
just a hypothetical question if a child is adopted and never told of this do you think the child will react differently in life to situations than say if the child was not adopted suppose what I am trying to say is it the bonding that the child misses or is it a psychological effect when the child is told of the adoption :'(
Susan, I'm neither Lookout or Maggie but Hello anyway :) I don't remember being told(OR have I suppressed the memory of being told :D?) I think it's fairly safe to say my mother didn't bond with me and when the penny finally dropped I assumed it was because I wasn't really "hers." I think it would have been VERY much worse for me had I NOT known I was adopted. The bonding still wouldn't have happened and I'd have had no idea why. It's a really interesting question that you ask and I'd encourage you to ask it whenever you can because I imagine you'll receive all manner of different answers. I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong one but it certainly ISN'T one answer fits all.
-
Hello april
thank you for your interesting reply. Yes what I am interested in is although Sheila was adopted had she never been aware of this do you think she would have grown up any differently was her illness caused by circumstances or was it an inborn weakness that may have still happened if her birth Mother had kept her.
-
Hi lookout
I think the Bamber children were at a disadvantage from the start not being really accepted by some of the extended family they surely would have felt unloved and maybe grow up with a slightly inferior complex, It has been said that Jeremy was known to be arrogant and it appears a rebel with his misdemeanours I wonder if he felt rejected as a child and this in turn affected his behaviour as he got older and this applies I suspect to poor Sheila as well.
-
Hello april
thank you for your interesting reply. Yes what I am interested in is although Sheila was adopted had she never been aware of this do you think she would have grown up any differently was her illness caused by circumstances or was it an inborn weakness that may have still happened if her birth Mother had kept her.
Susan, several years ago I took part in a paper for a University. The subject was "What effect Double Bind had on adopted children" At the time it was being posited that it gave rise to schizophrenia. I know of a couple of cases where it possibly has, but two cases prove nothing.
Back to Sheila. I think if she hadn't been told, she would very quickly have picked up that something didn't feel right. I think June's expectations of her would have proved more than she was capable of delivering and it would have led to other problems. Is it possible that June could have kept the secret, especially during those times when Sheila tried her patience. How could June have ensured that her brother in law wouldn't have "accidentally" dropped hints. Like lookout, I'm inclined to think it was a set of adverse circumstances which caused her illness, but why should Sheila have succumbed to it and I didn't. Could it be that her biological background was more delicately placed than my own, and although they were academics they weren't blessed with the strong constitutions of, shall we say, more common stock?
-
Hello april
thank you for your interesting reply. Yes what I am interested in is although Sheila was adopted had she never been aware of this do you think she would have grown up any differently was her illness caused by circumstances or was it an inborn weakness that may have still happened if her birth Mother had kept her.
Sheila may possibly have felt insecure when she was first handed to June,,as June didn't have that " motherly " instinct being new to motherhood. I'm in no way knocking adoptive mums,as birth mothers can be exactly the same,,as when a child is presented to you,whatever the circumstances,there's a mixture of joy and fear combined,and unless that joy takes over from the fear,you're going to have an insecure child. We've all gone through it.The screaming,crying when it's been fed and changed and won't settle,,and poor June will have been mortified at times probably,like we all were,,but it's that being able to cope and I don't think June was fully aware of her new responsibility, having previously had treatment for a depressive illness. June may have also been on edge,which a baby senses,as it soon learns from a very early age and picks up from mums feelings.
To be honest,,I think that if Sheila had been brought up in a totally different environment where other children were heard as well as seen,,she'd have been a different girl. Maybe if her birth mother would have kept her, things also may have proved to be different.
Sheila wanted to be loved,and it wasn't coming forthwith. Probably having her twins gave her the love that she craved.How really sad when I think of that girl and how her life should have been.
-
Hi april/lookout
I am now wondering if indeed June was a suitable person to adopt children. Not wishing to sound unkind as I know she would have done her best but my feelings are that adopted children need to feel more secure than say a child who is not adopted and poor June herself was not well and she was totally consumed with religion which IMO is not a good influence on a child. Sending them both away to Boarding School IMO was not a wise thing to do although it would be done for the right reasons maybe for the Bambers but not the children. Very very sad state of affairs. I do believe certain traits in a child's behaviour is inherited from their birth parents and other aspects from their parents who raised them. I always thought it was strange when Jeremy's birth Father said Jeremy was a wicked wicked man he seems to forget he is carrying his genes :'(
-
Hi april/lookout
I am now wondering if indeed June was a suitable person to adopt children. Not wishing to sound unkind as I know she would have done her best but my feelings are that adopted children need to feel more secure than say a child who is not adopted and poor June herself was not well and she was totally consumed with religion which IMO is not a good influence on a child. Sending them both away to Boarding School IMO was not a wise thing to do although it would be done for the right reasons maybe for the Bambers but not the children. Very very sad state of affairs. I do believe certain traits in a child's behaviour is inherited from their birth parents and other aspects from their parents who raised them. I always thought it was strange when Jeremy's birth Father said Jeremy was a wicked wicked man he seems to forget he is carrying his genes :'(
Susan,,you'll usually find that religion has a similar effect on a person as drugs in that they are both used to block out reality. Poor June had this religious mania and Sheila as a child would have been brainwashed,,the same as June was trying to do with the twins by making them say prayers from a prayer book. Some bible stories are pretty frightening for children,and at their tender ages,wouldn't have been suitable. Imagine growing up in a family where the " devil " is quoted on many an occasion ?
As for June having been suitable to adopt,,perhaps all was indeed well at the time,,as she saw others with babies and her yearning must have been there,,but nobody can predict how someone is going to turn out. Anyone can suffer a breakdown at sometime in their lives,,but as the years went by,June found herself back at the clinic for more ECT therapy in 1982,was it ? Which could only have been brought on by Sheila and the way life was going for her.
Jeremy on the other hand didn't take too much notice of the goings-on as he would be more embroiled in his love life to worry too much of what was happening,plus,he'd gone to live at Goldhanger,out of the way. He also had the same attitude as others would have had at his age about his family,,which was normal and not an indication that he was about to do them harm.
Yes,,his birth father has forgotten that Jeremy is indeed his son whether he likes it or not. What a pity that Jeremys' other brother and sister didn't get to know Jeremy.It would have made a big difference,,even if only out of curiosity.
-
Hi april/lookout
I am now wondering if indeed June was a suitable person to adopt children. Not wishing to sound unkind as I know she would have done her best but my feelings are that adopted children need to feel more secure than say a child who is not adopted and poor June herself was not well and she was totally consumed with religion which IMO is not a good influence on a child. Sending them both away to Boarding School IMO was not a wise thing to do although it would be done for the right reasons maybe for the Bambers but not the children. Very very sad state of affairs. I do believe certain traits in a child's behaviour is inherited from their birth parents and other aspects from their parents who raised them. I always thought it was strange when Jeremy's birth Father said Jeremy was a wicked wicked man he seems to forget he is carrying his genes :'(
Susan, we can't rule out that June not only felt nervous at the prospect of adoption but she may also have felt a huge weight of responsibility on her. I had it drummed into me that many people had warned my mother against adoption because "You don't know how it will turn out" and "It might have bad blood" I have no way of knowing if this was true, but I suspect, that as she didn't tell a soul of her adoption plans, it wasn't and she was simply telling me of her own fears. I was bought up to know exactly how things were done. "We don't do things like that in OUR family" being her mantra. Trouble was, the things which WERE done didn't feel comfortable to me, but they formed her very high expectations of me and had little or nothing to do with the rest of the family. I understand now that she had an unquenchable desperation to prove to others that she was the one person in the family who could raise the perfect child. I know now that none of them had believed her to be suitable mother material.
-
Hello lookout did June's mental illness start before or after she adopted Sheila. Her obsession with religion seemed to affect Sheila more than Jeremy. Are you of the opinion that if Sheila had been brought up with her birth Mother she would not have ended up with a mental illness. I am trying to ascertain whether or not mental illness is in the make up of the person when born or does it develop due to some crisis in your life or influences from a Mother/Father. :( Was it the right thing to do adopting a second child when it would appear June had a somewhat fragile mind.
-
Hello april I have heard that before about the bad blood and I would suspect Jeremy's and Sheila's birth parents would have been vetted. I have often wondered if some parents adopt more to do with a need in themselves other than the needs the children require not saying this was the case of the Bambers by the way but sometimes a couple want to fit in by being the perfect family in a perfect village with Church/.Mothers Union son to carry on the farm. I suppose I am not qualified really to comment on needs for children I have friends who have been desperate for children it is a subject that everyone will have a different take on. Have I gone off topic again :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
Susan,,I was just about to say that besides having the children to fill a void in their lives,,it may also have been in Junes' mind that she " wouldn't be left out ".An unkind way of putting it,but she wasn't exactly mother material in the sense of the word,,and your own suggestion about the parents needs rather than those of the childs,rings true in some ways when at first nannies were hired to take the strain,,then as they got older,they were bundled off to boarding school.
No amount of money would have tempted me to send my children away.Even the odd weekends they stayed with my parents,I missed them,so I couldn't have subjected the children to be sent away for any length of time.
Junes first ECT therapy was before she adopted. This would have been held within the doctors notes,but whether it would have been required then as proof of background,etc,I don't know. Maybe today,,someone like June may not be a suitable candidate for adoption,,I don't know.
-
Hello april I have heard that before about the bad blood and I would suspect Jeremy's and Sheila's birth parents would have been vetted. I have often wondered if some parents adopt more to do with a need in themselves other than the needs the children require not saying this was the case of the Bambers by the way but sometimes a couple want to fit in by being the perfect family in a perfect village with Church/.Mothers Union son to carry on the farm. I suppose I am not qualified really to comment on needs for children I have friends who have been desperate for children it is a subject that everyone will have a different take on. Have I gone off topic again :'( :'( :'( :'(
Susan, I hear what you say about "perfection." We all have our own idea about what is ideal/perfect. I'm interest in a question from your previous post in which you ask if it was right for June to adopt a second child when her mental health was fragile. I'm not clear on how they went about adopting Sheila. These things are generally arranged through the family GP who will write, on the would be parents, to the adoption society of their choice, in this case, understandably, the C of E Childrens' Society. It may be that having managed one successful adoption, a second was just a formality and they weren't required to go through the same lengthy process as the first. It MAY be that they bypassed their GP and went straight to the CofECS. If the adoptions were private I don't think medical questions would have been asked.
-
I doubt it would happen today,April.
-
April I suspect that back in the seventies the main criteria for being suitable adoptive parents would be your standing in Society ability to provide a good home and education and I think the illness June had suffered would not have come into the equation I think her own Doctor would have been perfectly satisfied that June was cured from her illness and would make a good Mother. Things are so different now I spoke with a young couple when I was out walking and they had moved from England to Scotland as it is so much easier to adopt here and they have two lovely daughters and what a happy family they appear to be complete with Lucy the dog ;D
-
And how much you were worth went a long way,I suspect too.
-
In Sheila's case, before we jump on the state for having failed in their duty to her, I wonder if there wasn't too much in the way of collusion going on with "interested parties." I'm not pointing fingers or making accusations because, even though I have far more knowledge of the illness that did June, Nevill AND possibly Colin and his mother, I've never had close personal experience of someone who has the illness. I feel it might be easy enough to go down the road of "keeping quiet about it," in part to protect the sufferer from being stigmatized, but also to protect themselves against it, but mainly because if it is ignored, it just MIGHT go away...........................in the meantime, there are occasions when she was on her own with the twins because it couldn't be avoided, and there were times when she was forgetting to take her medication. There were times when her neighbours could hear her screaming during the night. Presumably, if the children were there, so too, did they. What else might they have witnessed of their mother's strange behaviour? What were they doing whilst she was unable to get out of bed to wash them, dress them, feed them, get them to school? They MAY not have done themselves serious damage, but what about the near misses? Children, little more than babies allowed to wander through the minefield that a domestic kitchen without adult supervision, can become. How did they cope when Mummy was talking to people they couldn't see, when Mummy grew ANGRY with an invisible person, and if Mummy forgot to/wouldn't take the medication the doctor gave her, MAYBE she forgot that there was other stuff she SHOULDN'T take in front of them, but took it thinking it was what the doctor had given her. How much easier might life have been for everybody had Social Services been allowed so kind of input. Steve talks about Colin being a wonderful father and whilst he was there he probably was. I don't doubt that the Bambers adored their little grandsons, but they couldn't be with them all the time, nor would it have been appropriate . I don't doubt either that Sheila loved her boys but when I think of the times that it's been suggested that June should not have been allowed to adopt because of her mental fragility, it seems rather strange that no one has suggested that Sheila, because of her illness, shouldn't have been allowed to keep her children. I think, through no fault of her own, without constant supervision, Sheila could have posed a far greater threat to HER children than did June to hers.
Colin had taken over the lion's share of the childcare by the time of Sheila's death,which is why the fostering or adoption story peddled by Jeremy just doesn't ring true.Of course there are similarities in all cases of schizophrenia,whether this is the hereditary element,the stressful event trigger,the hearing of voices(June did not hear voices and was not schizophrenic as such,but she did suffer from some of the symptoms such as believing the nurses were listening into her conversations,which is why she and Robert Boutflour talked in the St. Andrew's car park),yet Dr. Hugh Cameron Ferguson's assessment of Sheila was that she was not dangerous to her children. In the Anthony Waterlow case he had a history of violent actions including threatening rape and knife assaults,whereas Sheila had full access to kitchen knives and the most which was documented was self-harm,whether this was putting her hand through a window or carving the inscription "I hate this place" in a wardrobe at White House Farm. Waterlow is the nightmare scenario for any doctor's diagnosis as he is assumed to be not sick enough to be admitted,but even he does not take his niece's life at the murder scene,just as Catherine Murch spared her husband,yet we are supposed to believe Sheila killed them all,then turned the gun on herself.
-
Susan, we can't rule out that June not only felt nervous at the prospect of adoption but she may also have felt a huge weight of responsibility on her. I had it drummed into me that many people had warned my mother against adoption because "You don't know how it will turn out" and "It might have bad blood" I have no way of knowing if this was true, but I suspect, that as she didn't tell a soul of her adoption plans, it wasn't and she was simply telling me of her own fears. I was bought up to know exactly how things were done. "We don't do things like that in OUR family" being her mantra. Trouble was, the things which WERE done didn't feel comfortable to me, but they formed her very high expectations of me and had little or nothing to do with the rest of the family. I understand now that she had an unquenchable desperation to prove to others that she was the one person in the family who could raise the perfect child. I know now that none of them had believed her to be suitable mother material.
Your mother was lucky to get you, an intelligent, lovely person! If she could not/cannot see that, her loss.
-
Colin had taken over the lion's share of the childcare by the time of Sheila's death,which is why the fostering or adoption story peddled by Jeremy just doesn't ring true.Of course there are similarities in all cases of schizophrenia,whether this is the hereditary element,the stressful event trigger,the hearing of voices(June did not hear voices and was not schizophrenic as such,but she did suffer from some of the symptoms such as believing the nurses were listening in her conversations,which is why she and Robert Boutflour talked in the St. Andrew's car park),yet Dr. Hugh Cameron Ferguson's assessment of Sheila was that she was not dangerous to her children. In the Anthony Waterlow case he had a history of violent actions including threatening rape and knife assaults,whereas Sheila had full access kitchen knives and the most which was documented was self-harm,whether this was putting her hand through a window or carving the inscription "I hate this place" in a wardrobe at White House Farm. Waterlow is the nightmare scenario for any doctor's diagnosis as he is assumed to be not sick enough to be admitted,but even he does not take his niece's life at the murder scene,just as Catherine Murch spared her husband,yet we are supposed to believe Sheila killed them all,then turned the gun on herself.
So you obviously don't think that June and Nevill were concerned in anyway that Sheila was living on her own in London, clearly unable to care for herself, let alone the boys, and relying on them for her daily existence. You obviously feel there was no reason for them to be concerned over her erratic interest in the boys or her refusal to help June with them. You seem not to think that they might be concerned about what would happen to her if she forgot to take her meds when she was living alone. Do you imagine over those three days prior to the killings that June and Nevill went to bed and DIDN'T voice their worries concerning her. WAKE UP STEVE This is real life and Sheila, whatEVER Dr F said, was a potential danger to her boys at any given time. It had been just about a year since Sheila had last stayed at the farm and I'm prepared to put money on that Nevill and June witnessed a massive deterioration in her.
-
So right,April. The poor woman was like a ticking time-bomb. God help an anyone in her path ! As it were.
-
Your mother was lucky to get you, an intelligent, lovely person! If she could not/cannot see that, her loss.
Alias, that is SO kind, THANK-YOU :-* :-* :-*
-
Alias, that is SO kind, THANK-YOU :-* :-* :-*
But it is the truth!
-
So you obviously don't think that June and Nevill were concerned in anyway that Sheila was living on her own in London, clearly unable to care for herself, let alone the boys, and relying on them for her daily existence. You obviously feel there was no reason for them to be concerned over her erratic interest in the boys or her refusal to help June with them. You seem not to think that they might be concerned about what would happen to her if she forgot to take her meds when she was living alone. Do you imagine over those three days prior to the killings that June and Nevill went to bed and DIDN'T voice their worries concerning her. WAKE UP STEVE This is real life and Sheila, whatEVER Dr F said, was a potential danger to her boys at any given time. It had been just about a year since Sheila had last stayed at the farm and I'm prepared to put money on that Nevill and June witnessed a massive deterioration in her.
Sheila was not a danger to her sons-let's nail that big lie right now. Had they felt that way the twins would have told Colin. I also checked up on the "So she's finally done it" remark made by Colin on the doorstep,which was made upon learning of Sheila's death but before he had been informed his sons had also been slain. Had Nevill and June perceived their daughter as a threat they would have told Pamela on the telephone,and as for the gun lying on the settle in the scullery this had been done before according to Robert Boutflour's typewritten notes,evoking a fear from Nevill to him as well as to Barbara Wilson concerning the lethal cocktail of Jeremy alongside weapons.
-
Sheila was not a danger to her sons-let's nail that big lie right now. Had they felt that way the twins would have told Colin. I also checked up on the "So she's finally done it" remark made by Colin on the doorstep,which was made upon learning of Sheila's death but before he had been informed his sons had also been slain. Had Nevill and June perceived their daughter as a threat they would have told Pamela on the telephone,and as for the gun lying on the settle in the scullery this had been done before according to Robert Boutflour's typewritten notes,evoking a fear from Nevill to him as well as to Barbara Wilson concerning the lethal cocktail of Jeremy alongside weapons.
Whilst Sheila was in the state she was, she was a POTENTIAL danger to her children. I'm not talking deliberate attacks, but if she started to believe that they would seduce or harm her, it was a possibility, I'm talking about the dangers which come from taking ones eye off the ball where small children are concerned. The hot iron, the boiling kettle, the electric hob, the kitchen scissors/knives, doors left open. BREAKING NEWS STEVE. Children DON'T tell tales on their parents, they try to protect them. FAR too much responsibility for little people to carry, don't you think? You do all the checking you want on what Colin said. The fear MUST have been at the back of his mind for him to have blurted out those words. What earthly good would it have done to tell Pamela of their fears, at that stage of the game, with Sheila there and PLEASE don't try and side step to the gun. It was a FARM, for God's sake, that's what they did. It isn't a perfect world, Steve. Often bad stuff happens because of lots of small inconsequentials coming together at the wrong time.
-
" So she's finally done it ",,said Colin.Which were the first words out of his mouth on hearing the news of the tragedy. What EXACTLY did he know,,that we don't. ?
-
" So she's finally done it ",,said Colin.Which were the first words out of his mouth on hearing the news of the tragedy. What EXACTLY did he know,,that we don't. ?
I'm prepared to accept Sheila may have discussed suicide with Colin on a previous occasion,and also accept that those who have talked about suicide are statistically more likely to take their own lives. But Colin just wouldn't have countenanced giving control of the twins to Sheila had she uttered any threats towards them.
-
I'm prepared to accept Sheila may have discussed suicide with Colin on a previous occasion,and also accept that those who have talked about suicide are statistically more likely to take their own lives. But Colin just wouldn't have countenanced giving control of the twins to Sheila had she uttered any threats towards them.
He was otherwise distracted anyway to have realised what went on half the time. Why didn't he take one of the twins to the doctors when the child suffered earache,instead of Sheila taking the flak from social services because she hadn't taken the child.? Where was Colin when Sheila bashed one of the boys in the face ? What about the fall from a car/taxi,where was Colin then ?
Every time Colin wasn't around,it seemed that one of the boys was injured in some way.
-
Then you have to assume steve that colin did not think Sheila really meant it or rather a figure of speech otherwise a gritty legal battle would have started .
-
Sheila was not a danger to her sons-let's nail that big lie right now. Had they felt that way the twins would have told Colin. I also checked up on the "So she's finally done it" remark made by Colin on the doorstep,which was made upon learning of Sheila's death but before he had been informed his sons had also been slain. Had Nevill and June perceived their daughter as a threat they would have told Pamela on the telephone,and as for the gun lying on the settle in the scullery this had been done before according to Robert Boutflour's typewritten notes,evoking a fear from Nevill to him as well as to Barbara Wilson concerning the lethal cocktail of Jeremy alongside weapons.
Are you going to back this up with any evidence because it sounds an unlikely set of events.
You agree that Colin remarked "so she's finally done it" but then go on to claim that this remark was upon hearing of Sheila's death but before being informed of the twins deaths.
So you are claiming that Colin was told Sheila had killed herself and then a pause long enough to give a reply was left before the bearer of this tragic news added that the twins were also dead . Well whoever broke the news wasn't very tactful were they?
Where is your evidence for this outlandish claim ?
Whether or not the twins would have told Colin is pure conjecture on your part and is just a pointless unprovable claim.
You do however claim to have knowledge of Colin first being told of Sheilas death and only uttering his remark prior to being to being told of the twins deaths so where is the evidence to support this somewhat unfeasible claim?
-
Are you going to back this up with any evidence because it sounds an unlikely set of events.
You agree that Colin remarked "so she's finally done it" but then go on to claim that this remark was upon hearing of Sheila's death but before being informed of the twins deaths.
So you are claiming that Colin was told Sheila had killed herself and then a pause long enough to give a reply was left before the bearer of this tragic news added that the twins were also dead . Well whoever broke the news wasn't very tactful were they?
Where is your evidence for this outlandish claim ?
Whether or not the twins would have told Colin is pure conjecture on your part and is just a pointless unprovable claim.
You do however claim to have knowledge of Colin first being told of Sheilas death and only uttering his remark prior to being to being told of the twins deaths so where is the evidence to support this somewhat unfeasible claim?
Well I read it only recently which is why it stuck in my mind. I will try to locate the source.
-
I think it must have been the Red Forum. Here is another anomaly which needs to be addressed:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,74.0.html
-
I think it must have been the Red Forum. Here is another anomaly which needs to be addressed:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,74.0.html
If I am meant to click on that link it doesn't work so spell it out
-
If I am meant to click on that link it doesn't work so spell it out
Sheila allegedly wore a petticoat which was bloodstained but which was not found.
-
Sheila allegedly wore a petticoat which was bloodstained but which was not found.
What is this in reference to?
-
Well I read it only recently which is why it stuck in my mind. I will try to locate the source.
STEVE!!!!!!! What DO you mean, you've only recently read it????? You and I had this conversation AGES ago after you said that Colin didn't mean it when he said "So she's finally done it." However, because I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant.
-
Morning April
sadly you have not misunderstood what steve meant ;D
-
Morning April
sadly you have not misunderstood what steve meant ;D
Susan, Good Morning :) I await his response with interest and an open mind ;D
-
Sheila allegedly wore a petticoat which was bloodstained but which was not found.
Would that be over the jogging bottoms or UNDER the nightdress OR are you using diversion tactics here?
-
April don't hold your breath ;D petticoat such an old fashioned word can't see Sheila ever having wore a petticoat tell steve it is known as an underslip ;D ;D ;D and not to be worn with jogging bottoms ;D
-
From Colin's book,chapter one,
It was just after midday on Wednesday,7 August 1985,that I went to answer an unexpected ring on the doorbell - I was about to make lunch for myself.
'Mr.Colin Caffell?'
'Yes'
'Do you know Sheila Caffell?'
'Yes,she's my ex-wife.What's wrong?'
'I'm afraid we have to tell you that she's dead.'
Those words caught me completely off guard.
'Oh no,then she finally did it!' I said,almost thinking out loud.
With Bamb's recent history of mental illness,the possibility of suicide rang horribly true,but I didn't have a chance to think or ask questions.The policewoman went on:
'Are you the father of Nicholas and Daniel Caffell?'
'Yes,' I said,feeling a terrible panic rising inside me. I didn't want them to say anything else.
'I think we had better go into your flat,where it's more private.'
I then noticed that my neighbours had opened their door a chink.
Once inside,we went to my living - room,and the dark-haired policewoman vanished into the kitchen.
'Mr Caffell,I'm afraid I have to tell you that both your sons,Daniel and Nicholas, are also dead There has been a shooting at a farmhouse in Essex;there are also two other adults dead...'
(Note) I have only posted this excerpt from Colin's book for those who haven't read it,to dispel the myths of what Colin is alleged to have said or not to have said. The post may be an infringement of copyright laws and therefore I fully understand if it needs to be deleted.
-
Sheila was not a danger to her sons-let's nail that big lie right now. Had they felt that way the twins would have told Colin. I also checked up on the "So she's finally done it" remark made by Colin on the doorstep,which was made upon learning of Sheila's death but before he had been informed his sons had also been slain. Had Nevill and June perceived their daughter as a threat they would have told Pamela on the telephone,and as for the gun lying on the settle in the scullery this had been done before according to Robert Boutflour's typewritten notes,evoking a fear from Nevill to him as well as to Barbara Wilson concerning the lethal cocktail of Jeremy alongside weapons.
That is the problem with some mental conditions. They ARE unpredictable. Even if you believe Jeremy was the murderer, the same thing could be said of him. Especially as you have already stated that Nevill had told someone that he must "never turn his back on that boy"? The the sad fact is that in both cases Nevill did not perceive it.
-
Really and truthfully,,if it was Jeremy who Neville meant,,then why didn't Neville do something about it at the time ? I'd have taken something like that as a threat,myself,as would the police had they been told.
-
From Colin's book,chapter one,
It was just after midday on Wednesday,7 August 1985,that I went to answer an unexpected ring on the doorbell - I was about to make lunch for myself.
'Mr.Colin Caffell?'
'Yes'
'Do you know Sheila Caffell?'
'Yes,she's my ex-wife.What's wrong?'
'I'm afraid we have to tell you that she's dead.'
Those words caught me completely off guard.
'Oh no,then she finally did it!' I said,almost thinking out loud.
With Bamb's recent history of mental illness,the possibility of suicide rang horribly true,but I didn't have a chance to think or ask questions.The policewoman went on:
'Are you the father of Nicholas and Daniel Caffell?'
'Yes,' I said,feeling a terrible panic rising inside me. I didn't want them to say anything else.
'I think we had better go into your flat,where it's more private.'
I then noticed that my neighbours had opened their door a chink.
Once inside,we went to my living - room,and the dark-haired policewoman vanished into the kitchen.
'Mr Caffell,I'm afraid I have to tell you that both your sons,Daniel and Nicholas, are also dead There has been a shooting at a farmhouse in Essex;there are also two other adults dead...'
(Note) I have only posted this excerpt from Colin's book for those who haven't read it,to dispel the myths of what Colin is alleged to have said or not to have said. The post may be an infringement of copyright laws and therefore I fully understand if it needs to be deleted.
Thanks for that ,Tyler. The conversation according to Colin, whilst confirming that he was told first of Sheila's death first does nothing to dispel the notion that Colin was willing to accept that Sheila was responsible.
When first told that Sheila was dead , according to Colin, he has leapt to the conclusion that Sheila was responsible without being told that she was.
As there is no correction to this assumption on being told of the twins deaths then it is fair to assume that he still felt that "she finally did it".
Colin , according to this conversation was told of Sheila's death and assumed that she had committed suicide without being told and it can be further inferred that he had a reasonable expectation that this was in some way expected.
So even accepting that he was told of Sheila's death first it cannot be inferred that that he had any trouble accepting that Sheila was responsible and in fact the opposite is true.
-
Agreed,Gringo.
-
Agreed,Gringo.
hi lookout, it is illuminating that according to this version Colin never asked how Sheila had died and no explanation was offered before Colin assumed suicide on Sheila's part.
Doesn't this tell us that Colin was well aware of Sheila's state of mind and what he thought her capable of. Upon being told of Sheila's death there were many possibilities as to how she died but tellingly Colin assumed suicide.
-
hi lookout, it is illuminating that according to this version Colin never asked how Sheila had died and no explanation was offered before Colin assumed suicide on Sheila's part.
Doesn't this tell us that Colin was well aware of Sheila's state of mind and what he thought her capable of. Upon being told of Sheila's death there were many possibilities as to how she died but tellingly Colin assumed suicide.
Of course Gringo. None of us knew,,or will ever know what went on,or what was ever said/discussed behind the closed doors of their apartment at Maida Vale.
Let's face it,though I haven't read Collins book,,he wasn't likely to divulge that which could easily have got Jeremy off the hook.
-
Of course Gringo. None of us knew,,or will ever know what went on,or what was ever said/discussed behind the closed doors of their apartment at Maida Vale.
Let's face it,though I haven't read Collins book,,he wasn't likely to divulge that which could easily have got Jeremy off the hook.
This has been said before, but just imagine the difference for Collin from Sheila being the guilty one or Jeremy. In the first case, Colin would have had to bear the burden of a guilty conscience for driving Sheila and the twins down to WHF and then whisking away. He trusted the twins with Sheila, which he probably shouldn´t have done. With Jeremy guilty, Colin can live his life free of a guilty conscience. No wpnder it is so easy for him to deem Jeremy the guilty party.
Imagine the opposite: a mother drives her severely mentally ill ex-husband and their two sons to the ex´s parents, then hurries off to be with her new lover. How would people perceive that?
-
This has been said before, but just imagine the difference for Collin from Sheila being the guilty one or Jeremy. In the first case, Colin would have had to bear the burden of a guilty conscience for driving Sheila and the twins down to WHF and then whisking away. He trusted the twins with Sheila, which he probably shouldn´t have done. With Jeremy guilty, Colin can live his life free of a guilty conscience. No wpnder it is so easy for him to deem Jeremy the guilty party.
Imagine the opposite: a mother drives her severely mentally ill ex-husband and their two sons to the ex´s parents, then hurries off to be with her new lover. How would people perceive that?
It's true Alias, I have thought this myself for a long time. It isn't any slur on Colin, it is just human nature, guilt is a very heavy burden to carry along with his loss, it's totally understandable that Jeremy as the murderer would give Colin someone to blame and direct his anger towards.
-
I'm afraid that Colin was thinking of Colin !
-
This has been said before, but just imagine the difference for Collin from Sheila being the guilty one or Jeremy. In the first case, Colin would have had to bear the burden of a guilty conscience for driving Sheila and the twins down to WHF and then whisking away. He trusted the twins with Sheila, which he probably shouldn´t have done. With Jeremy guilty, Colin can live his life free of a guilty conscience. No wpnder it is so easy for him to deem Jeremy the guilty party.
Imagine the opposite: a mother drives her severely mentally ill ex-husband and their two sons to the ex´s parents, then hurries off to be with her new lover. How would people perceive that?
I agree. However, at the time, probably with no one else available to look after the twins, I think he must have felt the twins to be safer with the grandparents taking care of all three, obviously knowing he couldn't leave them alone with Sheila.
-
I agree. However, at the time, probably with no one else available to look after the twins, I think he must have felt the twins to be safer with the grandparents taking care of all three, obviously knowing he couldn't leave them alone with Sheila.
Yes, absolutely. That is what he would have thought; but I think he still would have kept turning it in his mind that he should not have trusted her being with the boys.
I wonder if Colin knew what Sheila had told her doctor: that the twins were the Devil´s children and that she was afraid they would rape and kill her.
-
Alias/HMEssex I wonder if Colin who seems a decent guy ever has any pangs of guilt at leaving his boys with Sheila and wonder if he has thought he could have done more.
-
lookout now Colin is older and more mature bet he thinks differently.
-
lookout now Colin is older and more mature bet he thinks differently.
Not necessarily, he's taken on the official line. He has a new life, new wife, teenage daughters he escorts to concerts. No doubt he thinks of the twins everyday, and it's an horrible and painful memory, but he's moved on.
-
lookout now Colin is older and more mature bet he thinks differently.
Maybe,Susan,,but he'll never ever get over losing his boys.
-
Maybe,Susan,,but he'll never ever get over losing his boys.
You have to feel for him. What a terrible loss! :'(
-
There have been some outstandingly insightful posts here today regarding Colin's belief that Sheila was capable of taking her own life and the fact that there's no repudiation of that fact from him when he hears about the twins, but I can clearly see how much guilt it will lift from his shoulders to believe that Jeremy was responsible rather than having to live with that he had driven them to the place where they died so that he cold spend time with his lover................................but I wonder where Steve is. I'd be really interested to hear his take on this. Steve maintains that Colin didn't mean what he said.
-
Thanks for that ,Tyler. The conversation according to Colin, whilst confirming that he was told first of Sheila's death first does nothing to dispel the notion that Colin was willing to accept that Sheila was responsible.
When first told that Sheila was dead , according to Colin, he has leapt to the conclusion that Sheila was responsible without being told that she was.
As there is no correction to this assumption on being told of the twins deaths then it is fair to assume that he still felt that "she finally did it".
Colin , according to this conversation was told of Sheila's death and assumed that she had committed suicide without being told and it can be further inferred that he had a reasonable expectation that this was in some way expected.
So even accepting that he was told of Sheila's death first it cannot be inferred that that he had any trouble accepting that Sheila was responsible and in fact the opposite is true.
I'm not sure what I'm being accused of here,but if you read the extract from #119 again there could be the interpretation which I put on the remark that Colin believed Sheila was responsible for her own death.
-
There have been some outstandingly insightful posts here today regarding Colin's belief that Sheila was capable of taking her own life and the fact that there's no repudiation of that fact from him when he hears about the twins, but I can clearly see how much guilt it will lift from his shoulders to believe that Jeremy was responsible rather than having to live with that he had driven them to the place where they died so that he cold spend time with his lover................................but I wonder where Steve is. I'd be really interested to hear his take on this. Steve maintains that Colin didn't mean what he said.
I don't know. I'm prepared to accept that Sheila had discussed suicide in his company,but not about taking the boys with her. We are yet again having the same allegations made by people who have not read Dr.Hugh Cameron Ferguson's statements,or who are quoting them wrongly.
-
Colin was interviewed by ITN just after the verdict. He did not seem too upset about the juries decision.
-
I don't know. I'm prepared to accept that Sheila had discussed suicide in his company,but not about taking the boys with her. We are yet again having the same allegations made by people who have not read Dr.Hugh Cameron Ferguson's statements,or who are quoting them wrongly.
Steve, I would have expected that YOU would have had the courage of your convictions. I am disappointed. We HAVE had this discussion previously, you and I and several others. WE pointed you towards what Colin said when he was first told what had happened and YOU said that he didn't mean those words, they were just the first thing that came into his head. What we DIDN'T say was that, on learning that the boys were dead he didn't tell the police "She would NEVER have done that" The absence of those few words speak volumes. He COULD have exonerated her there and then. I have no idea to whom you refer when you say allegations have been made by those who have not read Dr F's statements, or, and SUCH arrogance from one with little knowledge of psychology, who are quoting them wrongly.
-
Steve, I would have expected that YOU would have had the courage of your convictions. I am disappointed. We HAVE had this discussion previously, you and I and several others. WE pointed you towards what Colin said when he was first told what had happened and YOU said that he didn't mean those words, they were just the first thing that came into his head. What we DIDN'T say was that, on learning that the boys were dead he didn't tell the police "She would NEVER have done that" The absence of those few words speak volumes. He COULD have exonerated her there and then. I have no idea to whom you refer when you say allegations have been made by those who have not read Dr F's statements, or, and SUCH arrogance from one with little knowledge of psychology, who are quoting them wrongly.
I was referring to alias's comment #130 which is not untypical of several others I have read on this site and misrepresents the medical evidence available from Sheila's doctor. As for Colin's remarks I made an analogy with Jeremy's comments that the Raid Team had killed his family,when he was not in a position to know for sure if innocent how any of them died. The point about Colin's comment "she's finally done it" was it was made after being informed of her death only,so however the Jeremy supporters construe it it cannot possibly refer to her killing their children or her parents as well.
-
I was referring to alias's comment #130 which is not untypical of several others I have read on this site and misrepresents the medical evidence available from Sheila's doctor. As for Colin's remarks I made an analogy with Jeremy's comments that the Raid Team had killed his family,when he was not in a position to know for sure if innocent how any of them died. The point about Colin's comment "she's finally done it" was it was made after being informed of her death only,so however the Jeremy supporters construe it it cannot possibly refer to her killing their children or her parents as well.
That would be the one in which she asks the question, was Colin aware of what she's told Dr F about the the twins being the Devil's children and wanting to rape her, and how Dr F seemed to have dismissed those words, her fears, as being of no consequence. YOU, of all posters here, other than Adam, seem to have the LEAST knowledge of human psychology and how people MIGHT act/feel under certain circumstances, yet you have the EXTREME arrogance to believe you can tell us what they were thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Steve, even I wouldn't presume to do that. The best I could hope for is to look at the circumstances and possibilities, and say what they MAY be thinking..........................Back to Colin's comment, that for WHAT ever reason, you DID once say he didn't mean. I WILL allow that never in his wildest nightmares could he have imagined that it would include his children and in laws -in part because they were so rarely together- but I reiterate that not once did he say ANYTHING to repudiate that it could have happened, and at this point, I'll risk a giant leap into the unknown and suggest that somewhere deep within him he'd always suspected that something similar COULD happen. MAYBE, like June and Nevill, he'd ostriched, and MAYBE, for just a split second, before grief and guilt took over, he felt a sense of relief that he wouldn't have to worry about it anymore.
-
I would think you'd have to have the constitution of an ox not to suffer in some way after losing children.
I,m a pretty strong person,mentally,,but I can say in all honesty that losing not one,but two children in such a way,would indeed have sent me running to the nearest clinic for help. To say I'd have been beside myself would have been an understatement.
This is where people are different in how they react after a tragedy,,and those who were/are quick to point a finger at Jeremys' reactions should stop and think.
I wouldn't expect everyone to react like I would do,because that's just me. Everyone's an individual and reacts in their own way.
However,,what I'm asking here is how wasn't Colin driven insane by what had happened ? As much was remarked on Jeremys' " behaviour " . That unsavoury remark of Colins' about Jeremy " looking at him and copying his actions during the funerals " was so uncalled for. Imagine being so intent watching others, after losing your children in such a way.. Why ????
-
I would think you'd have to have the constitution of an ox not to suffer in some way after losing children.
I,m a pretty strong person,mentally,,but I can say in all honesty that losing not one,but two children in such a way,would indeed have sent me running to the nearest clinic for help. To say I'd have been beside myself would have been an understatement.
This is where people are different in how they react after a tragedy,,and those who were/are quick to point a finger at Jeremys' reactions should stop and think.
I wouldn't expect everyone to react like I would do,because that's just me. Everyone's an individual and reacts in their own way.
However,,what I'm asking here is how wasn't Colin driven insane by what had happened ? As much was remarked on Jeremys' " behaviour " . That unsavoury remark of Colins' about Jeremy " looking at him and copying his actions during the funerals " was so uncalled for. Imagine being so intent watching others, after losing your children in such a way.. Why ????
Don't know Lookout but it could have been shock. Shock can make you cold and calm and slightly out of reality in my experience.
-
I would think you'd have to have the constitution of an ox not to suffer in some way after losing children.
I,m a pretty strong person,mentally,,but I can say in all honesty that losing not one,but two children in such a way,would indeed have sent me running to the nearest clinic for help. To say I'd have been beside myself would have been an understatement.
This is where people are different in how they react after a tragedy,,and those who were/are quick to point a finger at Jeremys' reactions should stop and think.
I wouldn't expect everyone to react like I would do,because that's just me. Everyone's an individual and reacts in their own way.
However,,what I'm asking here is how wasn't Colin driven insane by what had happened ? As much was remarked on Jeremys' " behaviour " . That unsavoury remark of Colins' about Jeremy " looking at him and copying his actions during the funerals " was so uncalled for. Imagine being so intent watching others, after losing your children in such a way.. Why ????
Lookout, suffering comes to people in different ways. Numbness, the inability to feel, to cry, the sensation of moving through a world one isn't part of and can't relate to, can go on for a long time. It can become SUCH a part of life that one simply accepts it as the norm. Contrary to what Steve seems to believe, there IS no book of prescribed ways of being/feeling for every occasion and it certainly isn't the case of one feeling/action for each event. Part of what often troubles us is the sneaky feeling of relief which creeps in where it isn't welcome and causes us to feel guilt on top of all the other emotions which may be going on.
-
Lookout, suffering comes to people in different ways. Numbness, the inability to feel, to cry, the sensation of moving through a world one isn't part of and can't relate to, can go on for a long time. It can become SUCH a part of life that one simply accepts it as the norm. Contrary to what Steve seems to believe, there IS no book of prescribed ways of being/feeling for every occasion and it certainly isn't the case of one feeling/action for each event. Part of what often troubles us is the sneaky feeling of relief which creeps in where it isn't welcome and causes us to feel guilt on top of all the other emotions which may be going on.
How right you are,April. After having looked after my husband for nearly 6 years,working,cooking for the family,etc etc,the sense of relief after he died was overwhelming after appointments here,there and everywhere,sleeping with one eye open each night,just in case,I was physically and mentally exhausted.
It was actually weeks,or even months later that everything hit me,,as I'd been " everyones' rock " over those years and had kept a stiff upper lip all round. I was actually in Australia at the time,6 months later,,but had to cut my holiday short as I'd intended to stay for Christmas,,but I thought I was going mad and returned back to the UK on the morning of Christmas Eve,,greatly upsetting my family in Oz,,but they had no understanding of how I'd felt. Delayed shock is horrendous I can tell you.
I had guilt because I'd gone away,,and while away,kept having vivid dreams that I was at home. I would never want to go through that again.
-
How right you are,April. After having looked after my husband for nearly 6 years,working,cooking for the family,etc etc,the sense of relief after he died was overwhelming after appointments here,there and everywhere,sleeping with one eye open each night,just in case,I was physically and mentally exhausted.
It was actually weeks,or even months later that everything hit me,,as I'd been " everyones' rock " over those years and had kept a stiff upper lip all round. I was actually in Australia at the time,6 months later,,but had to cut my holiday short as I'd intended to stay for Christmas,,but I thought I was going mad and returned back to the UK on the morning of Christmas Eve,,greatly upsetting my family in Oz,,but they had no understanding of how I'd felt. Delayed shock is horrendous I can tell you.
I had guilt because I'd gone away,,and while away,kept having vivid dreams that I was at home. I would never want to go through that again.
You shouldn´t have any guilt, to me it sounds like you did all you could, which was A LOT!!! You were simply stretched thin and simply NEEDED to go away for a while.
I think that there is too little focus on close family members of very ill patients. It is not an easy ride! I know this from my dear, dear sister´s battle with and loss to cancer.
Thank you for sharing this, Lookout, you have my deepest sympathy.
-
You shouldn´t have any guilt, to me it sounds like you did all you could, which was A LOT!!! You were simply stretched thin and simply NEEDED to go away for a while.
I think that there is too little focus on close family members of very ill patients. It is not an easy ride! I know this from my dear, dear sister´s battle with and loss to cancer.
Thank you for sharing this, Lookout, you have my deepest sympathy.
Alias, that horrid word "shouldn't" If ONLY we could eradicate it from existence. It condemns, it forbids, it causes there to be guilt with no reason. I have the feeling that both you and Lookout have emerged as stronger and more understanding women because of the distressing times you've experienced.
-
How right you are,April. After having looked after my husband for nearly 6 years,working,cooking for the family,etc etc,the sense of relief after he died was overwhelming after appointments here,there and everywhere,sleeping with one eye open each night,just in case,I was physically and mentally exhausted.
It was actually weeks,or even months later that everything hit me,,as I'd been " everyones' rock " over those years and had kept a stiff upper lip all round. I was actually in Australia at the time,6 months later,,but had to cut my holiday short as I'd intended to stay for Christmas,,but I thought I was going mad and returned back to the UK on the morning of Christmas Eve,,greatly upsetting my family in Oz,,but they had no understanding of how I'd felt. Delayed shock is horrendous I can tell you.
I had guilt because I'd gone away,,and while away,kept having vivid dreams that I was at home. I would never want to go through that again.
I have decided it's genetic, some people just don't try to cope, some cope for a while and some just don't seem to know how to stop coping and they are the ones who often suffer the most. You just went on and on until you just couldn't cope with anything any more, bet you just wanted your own bed and everything familiar. Totally understand that Lookout, what a nightmare you must have had. x