Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on May 30, 2014, 05:14:PM
-
sheila allegedly attended a shooting party in Scotland.
but aperently this is not clear the family permanently don't weather she was there or not.
-
Sheila was there--------------unless it was Scotch Mist !. Even though it was a spluttered afterthought.
-
well i dont belive you can bring someone on a trip and not remember bringing them.
-
Of course you can't,nugs. I wonder why the hesitation ?
-
of course just becouse she was there doesnt mean she shot.
-
And it doesn't say that she didn't either,,but I'm sure she didn't just go to carry everyones' bags,or make the tea.
-
she might of just wanted to go to scotland.
-
sheila allegedly attended a shooting party in Scotland.
but aperently this is not clear the family permanently don't weather she was there or not.
Some of the extended family were members of a shooting club. At various times they would go to Scotland to shoot. They stayed over they didn't just drive to shoot then go home. Sometimes they were accompanied by family who didn't go to the shooting competitions they just went to take a vacation.
Sheila never went with them to the shooting competitions. They could not remmeber if she ever went to Scotland with them jus to hang out and vacation. They coudl nto recall her going ever but maybe she did. What sticks out in their mind is just when they were shooting and they say she wasn't there with them shooting.
That summarizes everything about their shooting parties. They said she showed no interest in guns so did not attempt to go shoot with them at the farm or during their shooting events.
My wife doesn't accompany me when I shoot. She went 2 times to the range with me because I wanted to teach her how to shoot so she could defend herself if I am not around. Some women actually want to learn and become good at it. They ask to be taught. I had to bug the crap out of her to get her to try it. Both times were a disaster and she refused to go anymore, not even to watch me shoot. If someone breaks in, she would go for a pan before any of my weapons.
When someone has an interest in weapons they show it. If she had a real interest they would have been able to recognize it and she would have shot around the farm.
That is why I say that if Jeremy had an interest in guns others would have been aware of it. He didn't go shooting with the boys he had other interests quite clearly.
Some suggest he shot while in boarding school. They claim his school records show he was a marksman, school records typically don't include such notations which makes me wonder if the claim is true. I would want to see these records before I cite what could be BS made up to claim he would have been hardpressed to miss a target.
Even if true being forced to shoot a gun in school means nothing. Being good with 1 weapon doesn't make one good with all weapons and not shooting for years means you lose skill. You have to shoot regularly to keep up your skill. Otherwise it takes you a while to get it back.
Jeremy didn't want to shoot animals and didn't have a love for target shooting either. The parents and extended family were more "redneck" or more "cultired" than Jeremy and Sheila were depending upon whether you think shooting is a cultured activity or redneck.
-
Sheila did attend a shoot, she was a beater with Colin. Not sure if this was Scotland or not. I think this is in Colin's book. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
theres they could of not remembered weather she was there or not i dont belive she was that forgettable.
this was a qustion that required a yes no answer.
not an i dont rember.
-
It's a complete myth that Sheila had no experience of guns. Photographs which not only showed Sheila holding the guns,,but she was also shown how to fire them,,including a shotgun,while on her holiday in Scotland.
Sheila had also taken part in target practice too,,and it appeared that she had used firearms on a number of occasions over the years because of her life on the farm.
Don't forget,,the shots which were fired on the night of the murders were little more than a foot away, some contact at point blank range.
If Jeremy had carried out the shootings,,he would have aimed straight at the heads while they were all in bed and they would have been found that way,,and not where they were found,,as they wouldn't have been able to move anywhere.
-
oh theres photograhphs are there have we got any to hand.
-
They could be in the Archives,nugs.
-
They could be in the Archives,nugs.
Not in the picture thread - I am positive. If such pictures exist, I would like to see them. I collect all photos I can about the case.
-
if they exist the offical blogs will probely have them.
-
It's a complete myth that Sheila had no experience of guns. Photographs which not only showed Sheila holding the guns,,but she was also shown how to fire them,,including a shotgun,while on her holiday in Scotland.
Sheila had also taken part in target practice too,,and it appeared that she had used firearms on a number of occasions over the years because of her life on the farm.
Don't forget,,the shots which were fired on the night of the murders were little more than a foot away, some contact at point blank range.
If Jeremy had carried out the shootings,,he would have aimed straight at the heads while they were all in bed and they would have been found that way,,and not where they were found,,as they wouldn't have been able to move anywhere.
Post evidence. The family's testimony was not as anyone on this site tries to pretend. After repeated questioning th ebest police would get them to say is maybe she visited Scotland though didn't shoot.
No workers on the farm or any of the extended family saw her shoot on the farm nor did Jeremy according to his own statement.
You are making it up that for sure she shot on the farm.
You always make claims without care ot their turht or even thinking before you post.
-
thats not what you said on the other thread i think your making it up as you go along.
and ive yet to see you post any evedence for your cliams.
-
It's a complete myth that Sheila had no experience of guns. Photographs which not only showed Sheila holding the guns,,but she was also shown how to fire them,,including a shotgun,while on her holiday in Scotland.
Sheila had also taken part in target practice too,,and it appeared that she had used firearms on a number of occasions over the years because of her life on the farm.
Don't forget,,the shots which were fired on the night of the murders were little more than a foot away, some contact at point blank range.
If Jeremy had carried out the shootings,,he would have aimed straight at the heads while they were all in bed and they would have been found that way,,and not where they were found,,as they wouldn't have been able to move anywhere.
Not that you care, but yet again none of this is true.
-
thats not what you said on the other thread i think your making it up as you go along.
and ive yet to see you post any evedence for your cliams.
post my words that supposedly diverge.
you say she went to Scotland the burned rests with you to estbalish it I have no need to prove a negative.
Read Jeremy's statement, it is a fact that Jeremy wrte in a statement the has not seen his sister fire a weapon. Read the statements from the family it is well known they said she had no interest in guns.
It is well known they said they didn't see her go shooting with them.
The best anyone here could come up with wa s asentence tha twas stricken because the person giving the statement did not approve of the statement and said it was inaccurately written down. They had no desire o retype it so left it and just struck it. This stricken sentence is th ebest anyone can point to to suggest she went shooting. If anyone actually claimed it then a striscken sentence would not be relied upon but rather a sentence actually sworn to.
-
you demand sources but never post any yourself.
were is this statement from jeremy.
-
you demand sources but never post any yourself.
were is this statement from jeremy.
My sources are the statements.
-
wich statements where you mean the statements on here.
has anyone else read this in the statements.
-
may i remind you said you said on the previos thread.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=post;topic=5387.60;last_msg=235002
-
The very fact that the three adults were found in various or a different place,means that they were able to move after two or three shots,,as they didn't hit any targeted area of their bodies.
Sorry about this. Jeremy would have made short work of it if it had been him.Quick,swift and out,,but this massacre had been a long drawn-out session ,(,for want of a better word.)
-
i very much doubt if jeremy had shot the lot of them and tried to make it look like suicide he would make a statment saying hed never seen shiela use a gun.
so guilty or innocent i don't believe such a statement was made.
-
A photograph of Sheila holding a gun DOES exist and I have seen it. However,it turned out that they were modelling photographs. Sheila did attend one of the shooting parties in Scotland,DB testified to this in court (after beating around the bush) but said that he didn't see her shoot. PE admitted in a statement that he had seen Sheila use a gun but this did not make the final statement. And it is worth remembering AE's comment "I can picture Sheila running amok with a shotgun,but not with a rifle"
-
Not that you care, but yet again none of this is true.
Try reading what DB has to say on Jeremy Bamber Campaign for Freedom link ! Documented.
What do you mean," not that I care ?",you nasty individual !
-
A photograph of Sheila holding a gun DOES exist and I have seen it. However,it turned out that they were modelling photographs. Sheila did attend one of the shooting parties in Scotland,DB testified to this in court (after beating around the bush) but said that he didn't see her shoot. PE admitted in a statement that he had seen Sheila use a gun but this did not make the final statement. And it is worth remembering AE's comment "I can picture Sheila running amok with a shotgun,but not with a rifle"
so that pretty much confirms she was at a shooting party and she did shoot.
-
Try reading what DB has to say on Jeremy Bamber Campaign for Freedom link ! Documented.
What do you mean," not that I care ?",you nasty individual !
thanks lookout ill go find it and post it.
-
Post evidence. The family's testimony was not as anyone on this site tries to pretend. After repeated questioning th ebest police would get them to say is maybe she visited Scotland though didn't shoot.
No workers on the farm or any of the extended family saw her shoot on the farm nor did Jeremy according to his own statement.
You are making it up that for sure she shot on the farm.
You always make claims without care ot their turht or even thinking before you post.
I don't make ANYTHING up. Unlike yourself who's full of hot air and loves the sound of your own voice because it's echoed on the forum where you came from how good you are. Why do you follow yourself around ??
Don't forget to give yourself a pat on the back while you're at it !
-
A photograph of Sheila holding a gun DOES exist and I have seen it. However,it turned out that they were modelling photographs. Sheila did attend one of the shooting parties in Scotland,DB testified to this in court (after beating around the bush) but said that he didn't see her shoot. PE admitted in a statement that he had seen Sheila use a gun but this did not make the final statement. And it is worth remembering AE's comment "I can picture Sheila running amok with a shotgun,but not with a rifle"
Thanks for the oost tyler, that pretty well makes everything clear. :)
-
A photograph of Sheila holding a gun DOES exist and I have seen it. However,it turned out that they were modelling photographs. Sheila did attend one of the shooting parties in Scotland,DB testified to this in court (after beating around the bush) but said that he didn't see her shoot. PE admitted in a statement that he had seen Sheila use a gun but this did not make the final statement. And it is worth remembering AE's comment "I can picture Sheila running amok with a shotgun,but not with a rifle"
Thanks for that tyler.
DB said he actually saw a " woman " shooting,,but couldn't be sure if it was Sheila or another lady.
Another memory lapse,perhaps ? Gee whizz,,this was supposed to have been a court of law ! Mickey Mouse could have done better.
-
i dont rember weather she fired or not.
now if you look at that statement doesn't that prove she could use a gun.
if she couldn't he would no she defentaly dident shoot.
-
Hi Nugs :)
Its not really relevant whether anyone saw Sheila with a gun. Sheila had lived around guns most of her life and it would not be beyond reason that she could have used any gun/rifle that was on the farm. Its a bit like a farmer living on a milking farm and not knowing how to milk his cows. Well.not quite the same Ha!
Loading and shooting a gun/rifle does not require an A'level nor is it restricted to only a male can use them. We all heard what the rifle expert said in relation to rifle 18....the recoil is so small a child could use this rifle.
For anyone to think that its not within the realms of possibility for a woman to load and fire a rifle is a little bit out of touch. It is possible and not impossible that is what I am trying to say. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
but the fact the relatives vouldent weather she did or she dident shoot on those trips proves i believe that there later statements are complete lies.
they knew very well she was capable of loading and shooting a gun or they would of said no she defeanatly dident shoot on the trip.
-
but the fact the relatives vouldent weather she did or she dident shoot on those trips proves i believe that there later statements are complete lies.
they knew very well she was capable of loading and shooting a gun or they would of said no she defeanatly dident shoot on the trip.
If the whole family went to Scotland every year on a shoot then surely the place where they stayed would have the proof is Sheila was one of the party. I wonder why this was never investigated? I'm sure Colin says he and Sheila were beaters on the trip to Scotland in his book. :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
and he would of no reason to make it up.
-
and he would of no reason to make it up.
I wouldn't have thought so Nugs. Alias is reading the book at the moment so maybe she can confirm whether or not Colin does say this.
I'n done in. Night Nugs X
-
I don't make ANYTHING up. Unlike yourself who's full of hot air and loves the sound of your own voice because it's echoed on the forum where you came from how good you are. Why do you follow yourself around ??
Don't forget to give yourself a pat on the back while you're at it !
Who do you think you are kidding? You haven't posted anything accurate or sensible since I have been here. You have posted one bogus claim after the enxt.
I posted the accurate account of the testimony with respect to the supposed shooting party.
The family said they did not see her ever take any intereste din guns or fire any guns. Jeremy stated in his first written statement that he never saw her handle or fire a gun.
At trial Rivlin tried to get Boutflour to say he took her shooting on a trip to Scotland and he repeatedly said no and after being badgered the most he would say was that maybe she did go once but he didn't remember her going, she didn't carry a gun and her certainly didn't remember her firing any gun ever if she did go to Scotland with them.
That was his testimony, This is the 3rd time in this thread I posted such go read his testimony.
-
Hi Nugs :)
Its not really relevant whether anyone saw Sheila with a gun. Sheila had lived around guns most of her life and it would not be beyond reason that she could have used any gun/rifle that was on the farm. Its a bit like a farmer living on a milking farm and not knowing how to milk his cows. Well.not quite the same Ha!
Loading and shooting a gun/rifle does not require an A'level nor is it restricted to only a male can use them. We all heard what the rifle expert said in relation to rifle 18....the recoil is so small a child could use this rifle.
For anyone to think that its not within the realms of possibility for a woman to load and fire a rifle is a little bit out of touch. It is possible and not impossible that is what I am trying to say. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Once again the same oh she lived on a farm she had to be around guns. Being in a house with guns doesn't mean you know how to use any let alone all of them.
Lynette Fromme grew up around guns and she didn't even know she needed to chamber a round:
"As Ford drew near, Fromme pulled a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, aimed it at the president and pulled the trigger.
Witnesses nearby heard the "click" of the hammer dropping. Secret Service agents later found that the pistol had four rounds in its magazine, but the chamber was empty.
Agents swarmed Fromme and wrestled the weapon from her hand as she shouted, "Don't get excited! It didn't go off! It didn't go off!"
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Would-be-assassin-Squeaky-Fromme-is-paroled-3221893.php
There is no evidence she used any guns at all but certianly not the murder weapon or a gun like it. Not knowing she needed to chamber a roudn let alone how would result in the same fate as Fromme, having it taken away without doing any harm.
You grossly underestimate how much knowledge is required to operate a weapon. Many wepaons have safeties as well.
The fact she payed no interest to weapons menas she would be unlikely to go for one if she wanted to arm herself instead being likely to go for something she used in the past like a pot or pan which is the weapon of choice for women- moreso than knives. Women in a kitchen tend to grab pots and pans more than they do knives.
She certainly would not be likely to load 11 rounds which is what was fired in the initial hail in themaster bedroom. That is a clue it was Jeremy. Another clue is the staging of the bullets in the kitchen. She would not have used 20 bullets from the bullets in the kitchen then ran to the closet to get 5 more when there were still 30 in the pile she was using.
-
I repeat: It is not rocket science to load and fire a friggin gun! If you want to do it, it is EASY! For anybody!
-
I don't know how to load a rifle.
It is doubtful Sheila went on shooting parties with her relatives 10 or 15 years earlier. If she did she may have fired one or two bullets from an already loaded rifle. Which had 11 bullets. But there was no reason to show her how to load.
Sheila was too un cordinated to load. As testified by Ann Eaton. She was also apparently having a major psychotic episode. So even more uncordinated.
-
It is unlikely Sheila would recognize all actions taken.
Jeremy claims she watched him load a magazine not load the gun. He claimed he took the magazine to another room to load it into the gun. That means even if his bogus story of going to shoot a rabbit with this rifle for the first time ever were true she would not have seen him stick it in the weapon let alone to charge the weapon (chamber a round).
-
Is there any evidence that Sheila -
Went on shooting parties ?
Repeatedly fired the same weapon type used in the massacre ?
Repeatedly loaded the rifle type used in the massacre ?
Proof that the relatives are lying when they said they do not recall Sheila ever being present. The board has shown the relatives did not try to frame Jeremy.
-
I repeat: It is not rocket science to load and fire a friggin gun! If you want to do it, it is EASY! For anybody!
Did you not read Scipio's post, above yours ?
-
Once again the same oh she lived on a farm she had to be around guns. Being in a house with guns doesn't mean you know how to use any let alone all of them.
Lynette Fromme grew up around guns and she didn't even know she needed to chamber a round:
"As Ford drew near, Fromme pulled a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, aimed it at the president and pulled the trigger.
Witnesses nearby heard the "click" of the hammer dropping. Secret Service agents later found that the pistol had four rounds in its magazine, but the chamber was empty.
Agents swarmed Fromme and wrestled the weapon from her hand as she shouted, "Don't get excited! It didn't go off! It didn't go off!"
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Would-be-assassin-Squeaky-Fromme-is-paroled-3221893.php
There is no evidence she used any guns at all but certianly not the murder weapon or a gun like it. Not knowing she needed to chamber a roudn let alone how would result in the same fate as Fromme, having it taken away without doing any harm.
You grossly underestimate how much knowledge is required to operate a weapon. Many wepaons have safeties as well.
The fact she payed no interest to weapons menas she would be unlikely to go for one if she wanted to arm herself instead being likely to go for something she used in the past like a pot or pan which is the weapon of choice for women- moreso than knives. Women in a kitchen tend to grab pots and pans more than they do knives.
She certainly would not be likely to load 11 rounds which is what was fired in the initial hail in themaster bedroom. That is a clue it was Jeremy. Another clue is the staging of the bullets in the kitchen. She would not have used 20 bullets from the bullets in the kitchen then ran to the closet to get 5 more when there were still 30 in the pile she was using.
Jeremy said she had been out with him while he was shooting and so would have learned by observation. The relatives were the ones keen to propagate the idea she had no interest in guns. The truth is they didn't know Sheila that well.
We don't know for sure how many bullets were fired in the master bedroom in the initial hail. About the bullets:You are again applying logic to the behavior of someone having a psychotic episode. Having experience of this has taught me one can never predict what a person would do. She probably didn't have to run at all.
-
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that, if she went on shoots, she reloaded for the guns if they carried spares.
-
Who do you think you are kidding? You haven't posted anything accurate or sensible since I have been here. You have posted one bogus claim after the enxt.
I posted the accurate account of the testimony with respect to the supposed shooting party.
The family said they did not see her ever take any intereste din guns or fire any guns. Jeremy stated in his first written statement that he never saw her handle or fire a gun.
At trial Rivlin tried to get Boutflour to say he took her shooting on a trip to Scotland and he repeatedly said no and after being badgered the most he would say was that maybe she did go once but he didn't remember her going, she didn't carry a gun and her certainly didn't remember her firing any gun ever if she did go to Scotland with them.
That was his testimony, This is the 3rd time in this thread I posted such go read his testimony.
Carry on doing your ostrich impressions !!
-
would anybody go on a shooting trip if they had no intrest in guns.
-
I doubt it nugs.I know I wouldn't.
Sheila would have watched how the guns/rifles were loaded,,as part of her trip there,or she wouldn't have gone. DB would have been by her side too.
-
i mean at a shooting event theres nothing much else to do exept shoot if you have no interest in guns your going to be pretty bored.
-
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that, if she went on shoots, she reloaded for the guns if they carried spares.
if she had gone on those shoots and never the relative should of been able to give a definite answer.
i mean you would rember the only person who never shot becouse they would be the odd one out.
-
Of course you'd notice,nugs. They're being very cagey about what she did obviously do as regards shooting. Afterall,,there'd have been enough practice and sightings as to how it's accomplished, on the farm. It went with the territory and that's all there is to it.
-
Let's see who is right the posters who have spent years debating this subject or the guy who has been here 2 weeks and has only studied the case for 2 months.
1) The Jeremy-apologists assert that DB stated Sheila went to shooting parties and shot at them.
2) The newcomer asserts that DB stated she didn't go to shooting parties and after being pressed repeatedly by the defense said maybe she did go but he didn't recall her going, and certainly didn't recall her firing a gun.
Who correctly characterized said testimony?
Rivlin : Did you ever take her on a shooting holiday?
DB: Jeremy Bamber with his father came on a shooting holiday, but I cannot honestly recollect Sheila coming on one.
Rivlin : Do you remember an occasion when you went to Scotland on a shooting holiday with Sheila?”
DB : I do not recollect a shooting holiday with Sheila, but I do recollect a shooting holiday with Nevill Bamber and his son Jeremy, and also my now wife Karen Boutflour.
Rivlin: Are you saying you have never been to Scotland with Sheila and/or others on a shooting holiday?
DB : I cannot recollect Sheila being on the shooting holiday you are referring to.
Rivlin: Did you not go on a shooting holiday with Sheila and Jeremy Bamber being present?
DB: My mind is somewhat blurred at this time. There may have been and occasion when Nevill Bamber and Jeremy . . . . but this must have been many years before that.
Rivlin: It may have been some years before. I cannot give you a date, do you understand but doing the best I can, may I suggest to you 1978/79 period, when you went on a shooting holiday with Sheila?
Mr Justice Drake: Where abouts are you putting?
Mr Rivlin: In Scoland
Mr Justice Drake: Just the two of them, it is suggested?
DB: I think I can possibly explain this a little further. It is such a long time ago I am having a lot of trouble recollecting this but, having suddenly put me on the spot, I think I can remember occasions when I have taken members of the family up to Scotland, and I belonged to a shooting party of about eight members, which we invited a guest on one or the second occasion, and we would shoot on August 12th – The Glorious Twelfth – and sometimes in September shooting on three days on each occasion.
Rivlin: You understand I am not concerned to ask you about just any old holiday that you may have been on, however pleasant, but to ask you about a time when you took Sheila up with you, and there was such an occasion, was there not Mr Boutlfour?
DB: I have a feeling, now you have brought back the grey matter a little, Sheila may have come up with me on one occasion.
Rivlin: Can you tell the court, did she do any shooting?”
DB: It’s such a long time ago, I cannot recollect, but she certainly did not carry a gun. She may have fired a gun off in the party perhaps.
Rivlin: She may have, but you cannot recollect?
DB: I can recollect somebody firing a 12 bore off and putting it up to their shoulder, but I do not recollect whether it was Sheila or another lady.
-------------------
So he said he doesn't recall taking Sheila at all, doesn't recall her firing a gun and simply recalls a woman who fired a .410 but is not sure who that woman was.
Thi sis a far cry from the claim of the author of this thread and the various resident jeremy apologists who insist that DB stated she definitely went to a shoot.
My characterization was correct all along. That begs the question was this misrepresented by Jeremy-apologists intentionally or was it simply ignorance and the matter of being wrong as opposed to lying?
In the meantime a 410 is not a semi auto and firing a .410 once doesn't even mean someone would necessarily be able to load a 410 let alone to load a semi-auto which doesn't function in the same manner.
Nor doe sit establish SHeila would be likely to go for a gun and load it as opposed to going for her own staple which is also the staple of women across the globe- pots and pans.
If she did go for a gun and try to load it before Nevill could stop her from inserting the magazine chances are she still would not have known how to chamber a round let alone be aware that she needed to do so. Thus the same thing that happened to Lynette Fromme likely would have happened to her- pulling the tirgger and nothing happening because she had not chambered a round.
Jeremy aplogists also ignore time and again she would not have the knowledge or desire to load 11 rounds instead of just loading 10. 11 were fired inthe bedroom at the parents before Nevill escaped.
Worse yet, why would Sheila load 20 rounds from the bullets in the kitchen and in the middle of loading the magazine suddenly stop half way though there were 30 bullets left, go to the closet and load 5 more bullets from the closet? Supporters don't ever even attempt to answer this question because there is no rational explanation. It is ignored completely because it is so damaging.
Jeremy apologists ignore evidence and intentionally twist evidence to support what they decided they want to believe instead of objectively following evidence where it leads.
Jeremy himself admitted he is the one who left these bullets on the counter near the phone. He admits he dumped them out. He asserts that the box had been full or only missing a couple of rounds when he dumped it out.
There are only 2 possibilities- either he lied and staged these 30 bullets making up that there had actually been 48-50 originally to falsely suggest the killer used these bullets or the killer used 18-20 bullets then went to the closet to get another 5-7 instead of continuing to use these. Why would the killer do that? It doesn't matter who the killer is such would not make any sense. The claim is not credible and an objective person using the reasonable person standard would view this as evidence that Jeremy staged th escene before phoning police.
-
he cant recollect shiela well that's a blatant lie.
we know becouse of the word of sheilas husband and hes got no reason to lie.
-
It's just ONE lie like this which should have rung alarm bells as to what other lies have been told,,and being hesitant in your answer as to whether Sheila was there or not,,got off to a bad start on that question alone.
They weren't that old that they wouldn't have remembered. In fact,,the older you get,,you can remember more of the past than you can of the present in some cases.
-
he cant recollect shiela well that's a blatant lie.
we know becouse of the word of sheilas husband and hes got no reason to lie.
No a blatant lie would be claiming one can't remember if they shot someone or not without having been severely under the influence of drugs or receiving a head injury afterwards that would harm he memory. Something that significant would stand out in someone's mind. Whether Sheila went with him many years earlier would have little reason to stand out in his mind and can't be estbalished as a lie.
In fact we still don't know if she actually went let alone fired a gun so you cna't evne prove he was wrong let alone tha the lied.
Your bias is only exceeded by your lack of reason.
The quesiton stands did yo uand your cohorts intentionally lie about DB's testimony or did you just make a mistake because you were too biased to try to learn the truth and be accurate?
-
It's just ONE lie like this which should have rung alarm bells as to what other lies have been told,,and being hesitant in your answer as to whether Sheila was there or not,,got off to a bad start on that question alone.
They weren't that old that they wouldn't have remembered. In fact,,the older you get,,you can remember more of the past than you can of the present in some cases.
The only potential lie is from you and your cohorts.
Did you intentionally misrepresent DB's testimony or were you just ignorant?
Either way it is not flattering for you.
-
if colin says she went then she went hes got no reason to lie.
-
I would imagine that in a court of law,,you should have ALL your answers at the ready without having to fumble for your words. That's IF you're telling the truth of course !
-
well theirs no way they could of all not remembered weather she was there not colin cadfeal clearly remembers.
-
if colin says she went then she went hes got no reason to lie.
1) Colin saying she went away and left him with the kids doens't establish where she went. he could have been wrong about wehre she went
2) Even if she did go to Scotmand that doesn't establish she actually went to the shooting competetion let alone actually fired a gun there. Colin wa snot there so can't possibly know what happened.
That deson't prove she definitely went, let alone that DB lied by saying he doesn't recall her going and that if she did go she didn't carry a gun and he doesn't recall her firing a weapon if she did go.
The most Colin could testify to is that he recalls her going awayaround 1978 or 79 and he thinks she went with DB to Scotland.
In constrast i have proved you and others were wrong abou what DB testified to. The next question is did you lie or were you just ignorant? I can't prove which is the case though I have my suspicions... Eithe rwya it doesn't reflect well on you.
-
well theirs no way they could of all not remembered weather she was there not colin cadfeal clearly remembers.
Caffell could be wrong. If I use your logic then you all lied about DB's testimony. I accurately described his testimony 3 times and you still insisted he said Sheila went on a shooting holiday. I posted the actually testimony proving my characterization was correct. using your logic you could not have been wrong you had to have intentionally lied.
-
they couldent all of not remembered its not credible.
-
they couldent all of not remembered its not credible.
Colin could be the one who is misremembering and could be wrong.
In contrast I actually proved your characterization of DB's testimony wrong.
Once again by your logic it is impossible for all of you to have gotten it wrong so you all lied.
-
colin could give a definite answer all those years later nobody else could.
so your saying he imagened all thse trips he went on with his wife.
-
Colin could be the one who is misremembering and could be wrong.
In contrast I actually proved your characterization of DB's testimony wrong.
Once again by your logic it is impossible for all of you to have gotten it wrong so you all lied.
How can we lie about something we know nothing about ? This is a debate not a coroners inquest. !
-
db saying shiela couldent shoot a gun.
then saying he cant rember wether she had fired a gun or not cant be called anything other than a lie .
both of those statements cant be true.
-
colin could give a definite answer all those years later nobody else could.
so your saying he imagened all thse trips he went on with his wife.
All what trips? He said he believes she went on a shooting trip not trips plural. He recalls her going away. He coudl be wrong about where she went.
You misrepresented DB's testimony.
Was it because you never read it and had a wreckless disregard for the truth? Because you read it but forgot what it actually said and made a genuined mistake? Never read it and simply chose to believe what someone else wrote about it and thus didn't bother to try to make sure what the truth was? You remembered but just decided to lie?
If we use your logic it is definitely the last one and there is no question of that . But a search for the truth it is not so simple as to just declare everything a lie for sure. The other possiiblities have to be proven impossible first.
-
db saying shiela couldent shoot a gun.
then saying he cant rember wether she had fired a gun or not cant be called anything other than a lie .
both of those statements cant be true.
DB said he had no recollection of her firing a gun ever and he maintained that to the end. He did not waver and say he suddenly recalled her shooting a gun.
Jeremy-apologists insisted he admited she went to a shooting holiday and fired a gun but he didn't. The question again is were you ignorant and wrong or were you intentionally misrepresenting?
-
All what trips? He said he believes she went on a shooting trip not trips plural. He recalls her going away. He coudl be wrong about where she went.
You misrepresented DB's testimony.
Was it because you never read it and had a wreckless disregard for the truth? Because you read it but forgot what it actually said and made a genuined mistake? Never read it and simply chose to believe what someone else wrote about it and thus didn't bother to try to make sure what the truth was? You remembered but just decided to lie?
If we use your logic it is definitely the last one and there is no question of that . But a search for the truth it is not so simple as to just declare everything a lie for sure. The other possiiblities have to be proven impossible first.
so your saying collins deluisional
the he imagend being a beater on a trip and he imagends hes wife being there with him
-
DB said he had no recollection of her firing a gun ever and he maintained that to the end. He did not waver and say he suddenly recalled her shooting a gun.
Jeremy-apologists insisted he admited she went to a shooting holiday and fired a gun but he didn't. The question again is were you ignorant and wrong or were you intentionally misrepresenting?
To use the word "ever" implies that he was with her on every occasion in which guns were involved. All he can TRUTHFULLY say is that on the occasions he was in her company he does not recall seeing her use a gun, which is very different from "ever".
As you so correctly pointed out in a previous post, if Colin wasn't there he couldn't possibly know what she did. May I suggest that the same applies to us. You frequently relay things to us which COULD cause us to believe that you were.
-
if he wasnt there but its big if considering hes stated defiantly that he was.
-
To use the word "ever" implies that he was with her on every occasion in which guns were involved. All he can TRUTHFULLY say is that on the occasions he was in her company he does not recall seeing her use a gun, which is very different from "ever".
As you so correctly pointed out in a previous post, if Colin wasn't there he couldn't possibly know what she did. May I suggest that the same applies to us. You frequently relay things to us which COULD cause us to believe that you were.
Nope I wasn't there but I evaluate what hapepned based on available evidence. Contrary to the claims of Jeremy-apologists no one has come forward saying they aw her fire a weapon let alone a claim tha tis credible.
Post the statement of someone who says they personally saw Sheila fire a gun ever.
The only such claims were verbally made by Jeremy himself the night of the murders when he told police Sheila had fired all weapons in the house.
He recanted that though in his written statement and even went so far as to deny ever saying such suggesting police who claimed he said such were liers.
Post verbatim a witness statement of someone who saw her shoot a gun ever aside from this recanted claim:
"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby"
-
funny her husband dident say she was uncoordinated and and couldn't use a gun.
and that when she was first accused of the murders he went along with it.
in fact nobody who dident have a vested interested in jeremys conviction mentions her not being able to use a gun.
the relatives said more than they had never seen they said she was uncoordinated and couldn't shoot.
-
weather a person who had no intrest in guns and couldn't youse guns was at a shooting event is a very easy ustion to give a definite answer to.
-
funny her husband dident say she was uncoordinated and and couldn't use a gun.
and that when she was first accused of the murders he went along with it.
in fact nobody who dident have a vested interested in jeremys conviction mentions her not being able to use a gun.
the relatives said more than they had never seen they said she was uncoordinated and couldn't shoot.
Post exact quotes from someone who said they saw her shoot. aht is ean easy enough challenge.
By your logic you intentioanlly lied about DP stating eh saw her shoot so nothign you say is trustwrothy and you must provide absolute evidenc eot bakc up your claims not continue to pretend peopel said anythign you feel like.
It is put up or shit up time post evidence not unsupported claims about what people stated.
-
its called an opinion you idiot.
and you dont other people what they can and cant say on a forum.
-
its called an opinion you idiot.
and you dont other people what they can and cant say on a forum.
Unsupported opinion doesn't mean much, what matters is supported claims.
-
yes but ive got the right to have them on expressing them regardless of what you think.
-
yes but ive got the right to have them on expressing them regardless of what you think.
You do indeed
-
so the qustion is did colin just imagene going to scotland as a beater with his wife to scotland or were they both actully there.
i know wich version of events i belive.
-
so the qustion is did colin just imagene going to scotland as a beater with his wife to scotland or were they both actully there.
i know wich version of events i belive.
Post the claims he made verbatim. Then we will discuss any such claims.
-
It is up to the defence to prove Sheila went on these shooting holidays and she was able to load this rifle. I have not seen such proof.
-
Post the claims he made verbatim. Then we will discuss any such claims.
I've a feeling this won't happen.
-
we already did lists the sources for our cliams we cant help it if your to pig ignorant to bother to readt our post propeerly.
-
Colin Caffell went on shooting parties with the relatives and Sheila ?
-
Colin Caffell went on shooting parties with the relatives and Sheila ?
It certainly wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility.
-
Of course Sheila knew how to use a gun. A girl brought up on a farm, come on!
-
Of course Sheila knew how to use a gun. A girl brought up on a farm, come on!
The desperate fallback position when Jeremy supporters can't produce any evidence she actually ever did use a gun.
One which ignores that just living on a farm doesn't mean one has used a guns and morover guns are different and knowing how to use one doesn't make one able to use all by any stretch.
The lack of knowledge that a round needs to be chambered let alone how to do so results in this:
"As Ford drew near, Fromme pulled a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, aimed it at the president and pulled the trigger. Witnesses nearby heard the "click" of the hammer dropping. Secret Service agents later found that the pistol had four rounds in its magazine, but the chamber was empty.
Agents swarmed Fromme and wrestled the weapon from her hand as she shouted, "Don't get excited! It didn't go off! It didn't go off!"
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Would-be-assassin-Squeaky-Fromme-is-paroled-3221893.php
As significant or even moreso is whether she had any interest in guns and would be likely to go for one as opposed to her weapon of choice in the past and the preferred weapon of women- pots/pans.
-
The desperate fallback position when Jeremy supporters can't produce any evidence she actually ever did use a gun. Equally, there is no such evidence that she never used a gun. However, there is fingerprint evidence that she had touched two of the guns at WHF. This can't be ignored in my opinion.
One which ignores that just living on a farm doesn't mean one has used a guns and morover guns are different and knowing how to use one doesn't make one able to use all by any stretch. this depends how NB raised his children. I would have thought that the farm being a family business and the fact he had two children it was highly likely that he taught his children all aspects of farming life and that included the use of guns which is a way of life in the farming community. To state categorically that Sheila never picked up a gun or watched her father shoot is absolutely bonkers!
The lack of knowledge that a round needs to be chambered let alone how to do so results in this:
"As Ford drew near, Fromme pulled a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, aimed it at the president and pulled the trigger. Witnesses nearby heard the "click" of the hammer dropping. Secret Service agents later found that the pistol had four rounds in its magazine, but the chamber was empty.
Agents swarmed Fromme and wrestled the weapon from her hand as she shouted, "Don't get excited! It didn't go off! It didn't go off!"
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Would-be-assassin-Squeaky-Fromme-is-paroled-3221893.php
As significant or even moreso is whether she had any interest in guns and would be likely to go for one as opposed to her weapon of choice in the past and the preferred weapon of women- pots/pans.
-
Equally, there is no such evidence that she never used a gun. However, there is fingerprint evidence that she had touched two of the guns at WHF. This can't be ignored in my opinion
The burden is on those asserting she did to prove it. I don't need to prove anegativ ebut no one seeing her use one not even Jeremy is strong evidence it never happened.
Moreover, it is necessary to establish she used a gun with the same mechanics as the murder weapon because that is the only way she would know how to use the murder weapon. Using a shotgun would not make her know how to use the murder weapon.
I have yet to see any evidence of fingerprints on any wepaon but the murder weapon and that print likely got there by the killer placing her hand against it.
More important is the lack of any evidence she fired the gun and lack of victim blood on her. A fingerprint can be planted by placing a hand against something, back spatter can't be easily planted.
She bashed the crap out of Nevill without getting any of his blood on her clothing and hands (and without brekaing any nails though the rifle stock broke), shot victims without getting any back spatter on herself though it was on the weapon and no GSR or even elevated lead levels on her hands.
These are all proven negatives which are devasating to the claim she did a thing and that is before looking at the evidence that proves she can't have killed herself.
this depends how NB raised his children. I would have thought that the farm being a family business and the fact he had two children it was highly likely that he taught his children all aspects of farming life and that included the use of guns which is a way of life in the farming community. To state categorically that Sheila never picked up a gun or watched her father shoot is absolutely bonkers!
There is no evidence at all he taught her to shoot. Moreover, watching someone shoot a gun at some point doesn't mean one will know how to load and operate that gun let alone ones that function differently.
-
The burden is on those asserting she did to prove it. I don't need to prove anegativ ebut no one seeing her use one not even Jeremy is strong evidence it never happened.
Moreover, it is necessary to establish she used a gun with the same mechanics as the murder weapon because that is the only way she would know how to use the murder weapon. Using a shotgun would not make her know how to use the murder weapon. I have said this before after consulting a qualified nurse who looks after people that suffer from schizophrenia. One has to thoroughly understand this illness in its entirety. Under a delusion one has no idea of the situation they are in. They are unaware of anything that is happening around them. They don't consider themselves that they are in any danger or for that matter that anyone else is in danger. To them they are going along within a fantasy world made of mixed emotions. They sometimes see themselves as god or another person who they have associated with in the past. To them they are not killers they are carrying out actions related to voices. If Sheila had the rifle in her hand and she was playing god then it was not her that was committing any crime it was the rifle. In the minds of those that suffer this illness they are simply carrying out what the voices are telling them. In their minds they are doing those they kill a favour they are releasing them to a better world. If you don't understand this then I can't keep explaining. I do wish that people would do some research on this. It is not impossible for Sheila to have used a rifle. To say she could not use a gun is somewhat ridiculous, she was an adult of 27 years old. Not all killers practice shoot prior to using a gun, they buy one and shoot it. One doens;t go on a course in the country to learn...its not rocket science. :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D
I have yet to see any evidence of fingerprints on any wepaon but the murder weapon and that print likely got there by the killer placing her hand against it. It is documented in the COLP report.
More important is the lack of any evidence she fired the gun and lack of victim blood on her. A fingerprint can be planted by placing a hand against something, back spatter can't be easily planted. Yes a print can be planted.
She bashed the crap out of Nevill without getting any of his blood on her clothing and hands (and without brekaing any nails though the rifle stock broke), shot victims without getting any back spatter on herself though it was on the weapon and no GSR or even elevated lead levels on her hands.
These are all proven negatives which are devasating to the claim she did a thing and that is before looking at the evidence that proves she can't have killed herself.
There is no evidence at all he taught her to shoot. Moreover, watching someone shoot a gun at some point doesn't mean one will know how to load and operate that gun let alone ones that function differently.
I've never seen so many questions in one post lol I think you ought to have more sex....its not doing you any good. lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I've never seen so many questions in one post lol I think you ought to have more sex....its not doing you any good. lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well I have spoken to medical personnel as well. There are any different kinds of delusions.
None that I spoke of think that someone on 100MG of Haloperidol would be likely to relapse in the middle of the night suddenly. They speak about a progression and that this relapses almost always happen when people stop treatment or are high on drugs.
The most important doctor is her own he knew her so could speak best about her state of mind. Her own doctor insists she was not at risk to harm herself or others. She didn't harm anyone even in her worst state. The only person she mentioned as being a devil was Freddie, who was corrupting her with drugs and sex. She didn't speak of her family the 5 weeks of her treatment.
In the meantime once again that is where Jeremy's apolgists hang heir hat trying to say she would do it in lieu of proving she did. I layed out the prosecutions case against her if she had survived and no way would she be able to be convicted as a result of it.
The simple truth is as follows and it is absolutely devastating to your postion:
1) Sheila can't have killed herself and the rest without getting some GSR and spatter from the victims on her clothing and body and also elevated lead levels on her hands. There was both medium and high velocity spatter on the gun she woudl have had both on her clothign and body.
2) She would have had some damage to her body fromt he scuffle with Nevill especially broken nails. The notion she could have wielded the rifle without brekaing her nails is ludicrous in light of the fact the stock even broke
3) Sheila can't have killed herself. It is impossible for her to have shot herself with the suppressor and put it away and it is impossible for her to have moved her body flat after she died. She was seated when shot then moved shortly thereafter.
Jeremy's apologists deny there was a struggle and made up countless other tales to try to explain away the lack of evidence but none of it holds any water and no evidence at all has been put forth to dent any of the points above.
Saying one believes the evidence was planted is not proof and frankly is ridiculous in light of the fact there has never been a documented case of back spatter being planted in a suppressor or rifle and the manner in which someone would do it if they bothered would be to pour it in wiht a vial or use a dropper not spray it. The defense's own expert found microscopic blood drops the simplistic claims a chip of blood was placed inside or got in by accident doesn't work because the defense's own findigns destroyed any chance of claiming accidental contamination.
There is no hope of ever establishing Jeremy is innocent because he isn't, the evidence used against him was solid.
The best anyone can do is make the unsupported allegation that evidence was planted. I hear the same thing over and over how others have the right to their opinion. Yes people have the right to believe any unsuported opinion they desire but opinions that are unsupported are not rational and ost certianly can't be used to establish the opinion is true. It amounts to people taking a leap of faith because of bias and nothing more.
As for Sheila's prints this is the only thing I have seen put up as evidence to suggest Sheila's print was found on other guns but this falls far short of saying anything about Sheila:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3320.msg130420.html#msg130420
Unless actual documents can be posted to establish it then the claim is another unsupported claim.
This thread is about the shooting party though. I am still waiting to see evidence regarding Colin in relation to such. First DB was relied on but I posted his actual testimony and it was a bust for the defense. He didn't claim he saw her shoot or took her shooting. He said no at first then under pressure said maybe it happened but he didn't think so and couldn't recall it ever happening. People keep claiming Colin can establish the claim true but I have yet to see it.
His statements to police didn't mention a thing about such. I wonder why his supplemental statement is not in the library here. That is the one where he mentions things like Sheila had been going to bed early lately and didn't have a relationship with her brother and didn't even like it that he was the one Colin arranged to drive her home. It's also where he talked about June and Sheila bonding over religion. I didn't really say much of use. I read it almost 2 months ago somewhere so it had to be available online but for some reason doesn't seem to be on this site. Is there more than one section for transcripts here?
-
There is no proof Sheila knew how to load a rifle. Scipio said it is not easy to do this.
Besides no one can even explain what Sheila was doing when Neville made his mysterious phone call to Jeremy.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5175.0.html
-
The simple truth is as follows and it is absolutely devastating to your postion:
1) Sheila can't have killed herself and the rest without getting some GSR and spatter from the victims on her clothing and body and also elevated lead levels on her hands. There was both medium and high velocity spatter on the gun she woudl have had both on her clothign and body.
The clothing soaking in buckets were not tested. She could have changed her clothes, had a shower and put on a clean nightdress before shooting herself.
2) She would have had some damage to her body fromt he scuffle with Nevill especially broken nails. The notion she could have wielded the rifle without brekaing her nails is ludicrous in light of the fact the stock even broke
She managed to gouge Neville's arm without breaking her nails. As for the 'scuffle' it never happened.
3) Sheila can't have killed herself. It is impossible for her to have shot herself with the suppressor and put it away and it is impossible for her to have moved her body flat after she died. She was seated when shot then moved shortly thereafter.
The silencer was not attached when she shot herself. She was seated for the first shot after which the pathologist says she could have walked about for some time. IMO she sat reading the bible before the second shot.
-
There is no evidence she showered and changed her clothing while in a mad rage. Then strangly put them in a bucket.
How is taking her clothes off and putting on a flimsy nightie part of a ritulistic killing ? Which some of Jeremys supporters claim happened.
She was found in her nightie. Women usually sleep in their nighties.
Susan said there would still be GSR on Sheila after a shower.
-
41. Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
Upturned and smashed furniture. A dead man. No kitchen fight ?
Whoever followed who downstairs. Their intention was not to have a nice chat.
-
The pathologist said the shock and pain of the first shot would have basically immobilised her.
She certainly would not have gone downstairs to hide the silencer in a box at the back of the gun cupboard. Why not just take the silencer off and leave it lying next to her ?
An expert has suggested Sheilas legs were pulled after the second shot. Jeremys supporters either claim the expert is wrong. Or the police pulled Sheilas legs for some reason. Both weak.
-
Patti/Scipio, good morning :) Bet you never thought you'd end up together in the same bed!!! I read what you both said with some amusement. You are both talking about the same illness and yet you have both found professionals with polarized views of it. It would appear to be a microcosm of what the entire case is about, wouldn't it.
I probably won't come as much surprise, but from my own knowledge of schizophrenia -gained during training and meeting with mothers of schizophrenics AND assisting with an academic paper on the links between schizophrenia and adopted children- I'm inclined to agree with what Patti says.
Scipio, I'm sure you couldn't possibly have, but you don't seem to have taken on board that whilst medication is stable, the human condition ISN'T, which is why it can be incredibly difficult to keep tabs on some who have this condition and SO important that contact with the patient is maintained. The patient's emotional/psychological state is KEY. In the same way that the cover given by the contraceptive pill can be diminished by certain other medication/illness, the effects of anti psychotics can be altered by the patient's life circumstances. Monitoring isn't done for fun, it's an integral part of ensuring that the patient stays balanced and safe. In the 18 weeks from leaving hospital to her death, Sheila WAS failed. The psych. nurses who failed to visit her would undoubtedly have picked up that something was wrong -no one off, this. It's STILL happening- so this poor woman who already had severe mental problems -INFORMATION ALERT, Scipio. Schizophrenia comes like pregnancy, you are or you aren't. There are no varying degrees- was left floundering with HUGE emotional problems that would have had the sanest of us in a tailspin. Whilst I appreciate that this MAY not make her guilty, I find very sad the way you appear to be dismissive of her situation in order to show her as being innocent.
-
Well I have spoken to medical personnel as well. There are any different kinds of delusions. But,in this case Sheila's delusions were documented. Surely I don't need to tell you what those delusions were, for it upsets me to repeat them.
None that I spoke of think that someone on 100MG of Haloperidol would be likely to relapse in the middle of the night suddenly. They speak about a progression and that this relapses almost always happen when people stop treatment or are high on drugs. Scorpio :) Not sure of what you are saying or if you are agreeing that a relapsed is possible. Sheila had relapsed on 200mg of Haloperidol in March 1985 so one cannot say that she was unable to relapse on 100mg. There is documented evidence that Sheila relapsed mainly during the early hours of morning. This was the case in March.
The most important doctor is her own he knew her so could speak best about her state of mind. Her own doctor insists she was not at risk to harm herself or others. She didn't harm anyone even in her worst state. The only person she mentioned as being a devil was Freddie, who was corrupting her with drugs and sex. She didn't speak of her family the 5 weeks of her treatment. Sorry Scorpio, but her two boys had been harmed, albeit not physically but mentally. The school were concerned about their welfare and communicated this concern to their father. So to say people were not hurt they were hurt, maybe they felt that helpless because she could not be helped. Her doctors, admitted that she missed appointments, and failed to take drugs to help her improve her health.
In the meantime once again that is where Jeremy's apolgists hang heir hat trying to say she would do it in lieu of proving she did. I layed out the prosecutions case against her if she had survived and no way would she be able to be convicted as a result of it.
The simple truth is as follows and it is absolutely devastating to your postion:
1) Sheila can't have killed herself and the rest without getting some GSR and spatter from the victims on her clothing and body and also elevated lead levels on her hands. There was both medium and high velocity spatter on the gun she woudl have had both on her clothign and body. This is bothers me if truth be known
2) She would have had some damage to her body fromt he scuffle with Nevill especially broken nails. The notion she could have wielded the rifle without brekaing her nails is ludicrous in light of the fact the stock even broke. So would Jeremy????
3) Sheila can't have killed herself. It is impossible for her to have shot herself with the suppressor and put it away and it is impossible for her to have moved her body flat after she died. She was seated when shot then moved shortly thereafter. There is no proof the moderator was on the rifle when Sheila was shot. Experiments by a gun expert concludes that the moderator in his opinion was not of the rifle.
Jeremy's apologists deny there was a struggle and made up countless other tales to try to explain away the lack of evidence but none of it holds any water and no evidence at all has been put forth to dent any of the points above.
Saying one believes the evidence was planted is not proof and frankly is ridiculous in light of the fact there has never been a documented case of back spatter being planted in a suppressor or rifle and the manner in which someone would do it if they bothered would be to pour it in wiht a vial or use a dropper not spray it. The defense's own expert found microscopic blood drops the simplistic claims a chip of blood was placed inside or got in by accident doesn't work because the defense's own findigns destroyed any chance of claiming accidental contamination.
There is no hope of ever establishing Jeremy is innocent because he isn't, the evidence used against him was solid.
The best anyone can do is make the unsupported allegation that evidence was planted. I hear the same thing over and over how others have the right to their opinion. Yes people have the right to believe any unsuported opinion they desire but opinions that are unsupported are not rational and ost certianly can't be used to establish the opinion is true. It amounts to people taking a leap of faith because of bias and nothing more.
As for Sheila's prints this is the only thing I have seen put up as evidence to suggest Sheila's print was found on other guns but this falls far short of saying anything about Sheila:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3320.msg130420.html#msg130420
Unless actual documents can be posted to establish it then the claim is another unsupported claim.
This thread is about the shooting party though. I am still waiting to see evidence regarding Colin in relation to such. First DB was relied on but I posted his actual testimony and it was a bust for the defense. He didn't claim he saw her shoot or took her shooting. He said no at first then under pressure said maybe it happened but he didn't think so and couldn't recall it ever happening. People keep claiming Colin can establish the claim true but I have yet to see it.
His statements to police didn't mention a thing about such. I wonder why his supplemental statement is not in the library here. That is the one where he mentions things like Sheila had been going to bed early lately and didn't have a relationship with her brother and didn't even like it that he was the one Colin arranged to drive her home. It's also where he talked about June and Sheila bonding over religion. I didn't really say much of use. I read it almost 2 months ago somewhere so it had to be available online but for some reason doesn't seem to be on this site. Is there more than one section for transcripts here?
-
There is no proof Sheila knew how to load a rifle. Scipio said it is not easy to do this.
Besides no one can even explain what Sheila was doing when Neville made his mysterious phone call to Jeremy.
Hi Adam :)
The jury loaded ammunition into a magazine successfully. Had they used a magazine before? The staff at the lab loaded the magazine. Its not rocket science. Evidence suggests that a child could use that rifle. To suggest Sheila an adult at 27 couldn't is just not cricket. One does not need a masters degree.
Plus we don't know how many bullets were put into the magazine at any one point. It could fire with 1 bullet.... :-\ :-\
-
Patti/Scipio, good morning :) Bet you never thought you'd end up together in the same bed!!! I read what you both said with some amusement. You are both talking about the same illness and yet you have both found professionals with polarized views of it. It would appear to be a microcosm of what the entire case is about, wouldn't it.
I probably won't come as much surprise, but from my own knowledge of schizophrenia -gained during training and meeting with mothers of schizophrenics AND assisting with an academic paper on the links between schizophrenia and adopted children- I'm inclined to agree with what Patti says.
Scipio, I'm sure you couldn't possibly have, but you don't seem to have taken on board that whilst medication is stable, the human condition ISN'T, which is why it can be incredibly difficult to keep tabs on some who have this condition and SO important that contact with the patient is maintained. The patient's emotional/psychological state is KEY. In the same way that the cover given by the contraceptive pill can be diminished by certain other medication/illness, the effects of anti psychotics can be altered by the patient's life circumstances. Monitoring isn't done for fun, it's an integral part of ensuring that the patient stays balanced and safe. In the 18 weeks from leaving hospital to her death, Sheila WAS failed. The psych. nurses who failed to visit her would undoubtedly have picked up that something was wrong -no one off, this. It's STILL happening- so this poor woman who already had severe mental problems -INFORMATION ALERT, Scipio. Schizophrenia comes like pregnancy, you are or you aren't. There are no varying degrees- was left floundering with HUGE emotional problems that would have had the sanest of us in a tailspin. Whilst I appreciate that this MAY not make her guilty, I find very sad the way you appear to be dismissive of her situation in order to show her as being innocent.
Good post April ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Adam :)
The jury loaded ammunition into a magazine successfully. Had they used a magazine before? The staff at the lab loaded the magazine. Its not rocket science. Evidence suggests that a child could use that rifle. To suggest Sheila an adult at 27 couldn't is just not cricket. One does not need a masters degree.
Plus we don't know how many bullets were put into the magazine at any one point. It could fire with 1 bullet.... :-\ :-\
That is a good point. It gets progressivly harder to load with each bullet.
-
41. Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
Upturned and smashed furniture. A dead man. No kitchen fight ?
Whoever followed who downstairs. Their intention was not to have a nice chat.
It says:
"There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation."
The combined effect of these FOUR wounds! If TWO of them were in the bedroom + 2 to the jaw + 1 going down the stairs, Neville would be in no condition to defend himself. He was probably unconscious
while he was being bludgeoned.
-
Good post April ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ta for that, Patti :)
-
That is a good point. It gets progressivly harder to load with each bullet.
According to the manufacturers the testing on this rifle and magazine was done with no hiccups. The manufacturers go on to say that they were not aware that it was harder to load the magazine after the 7th/8th bullet. They had not found this upon their own testing and had no complaints from the thousands of people who had bough this rifle and magazine.
In evidence however it was the prosecutions case that it became harder to load the magazine after the 7th'/8th bullet. What the defence should have done was to have this magazine tested for faults or damage, because according to the manufacturer they were not aware of this and not once had there been an issue with the loading of the magazine. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just for the sake of accuracy, there was not 100mg of Haloperidol in her system at the time of the murders. Halving time for Haldol is ca 21 days. She had received her last shot more than 21 days ago, so there would have been less than 50mg left.
Colin states that Sheila´s condition always deteriorated when she was at WHF, no matter earlier progress through medication.
This keeps being ignored, but I´ll keep repeating it, until it sinks in.
In Colin´s own words:
"No matter how much all the medication brought about improvement, her condition always deteriorated rapidly on visiting Whitehouse Farm or after contact with her direct family - especially her mother."
-
Just for the sake of accuracy, there was not 100mg of Haloperidol in her system at the time of the murders. Halving time for Haldol is ca 21 days. She had received her last shot more than 21 days ago, so there would have been less than 50mg left.
Colin states that Sheila´s condition always deteriorated when she was at WHF, no matter earlier progress through medication.
This keeps being ignored, but I´ll keep repeating it, until it sinks in.
In Colin´s own words:
"No matter how much all the medication brought about improvement, her condition always deteriorated rapidly on visiting Whitehouse Farm or after contact with her direct family - especially her mother."
I hear you Alias..... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just for the sake of accuracy, there was not 100mg of Haloperidol in her system at the time of the murders. Halving time for Haldol is ca 21 days. She had received her last shot more than 21 days ago, so there would have been less than 50mg left.
Colin states that Sheila´s condition always deteriorated when she was at WHF, no matter earlier progress through medication.
This keeps being ignored, but I´ll keep repeating it, until it sinks in.
In Colin´s own words:
"No matter how much all the medication brought about improvement, her condition always deteriorated rapidly on visiting Whitehouse Farm or after contact with her direct family - especially her mother."
I HEAR YOU, ALIAS AND I'M WITH YOU ALL THE WAY. This HUGELY important fact that you've highlighted is chosen to be ignored.
-
It says:
"There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation."
The combined effect of these FOUR wounds! If TWO of them were in the bedroom + 2 to the jaw + 1 going down the stairs, Neville would be in no condition to defend himself. He was probably unconscious
while he was being bludgeoned.
His 1986 report and testomony at trial was that collectively they woudl definitely kill Nevill while, "
individually a wound in this area would be extremely likely to prove fatal"
So he said any of them would be extremely likely to prove fatal and together they definitely were.
The shots were tightly grouped menaing both in the top of the head delivered in succession and the 2 to the upper right side of the head fired in succession.
If any one was extremely likely to result in death then 2 would be even more likely.
It was also his opinion that based on trajectory these 4 were dleivered downstairs while he was slumped over the chair. The left side 9the other 4 wounds were to the left) wound not be able to be targeted while he was over the chair and he didn't think that Nevill would have made it out of the bedroom had any of these wounds been delivered upstairs.
His full testimony and written statement is not as you make it out to be.
Look at the pages stamped 404 and 405 from his 5/7/86 report. They speak to these 4 bullets and how someone would likely be unconscious if not dead quite quickly after receiving any of them.
-
Vanezis cannot categorically rule out the possibility that 2 of the brain shots were in the bedroom. He says "extremely unlikely". Had he been asked to answer 'yes' or 'no' as to whether it was impossible for Neville to make it down the stairs he would have to say "No". It would only take seconds for Neville to get down stairs before collapsing. This scenario is backed up by the physical evidence of the bullet casings, i.e. 3 in the kitchen.
Much of the workings of the brain was and remains a mystery.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16663332
-
Just for the sake of accuracy, there was not 100mg of Haloperidol in her system at the time of the murders. Halving time for Haldol is ca 21 days. She had received her last shot more than 21 days ago, so there would have been less than 50mg left.
Colin states that Sheila´s condition always deteriorated when she was at WHF, no matter earlier progress through medication.
This keeps being ignored, but I´ll keep repeating it, until it sinks in.
In Colin´s own words:
"No matter how much all the medication brought about improvement, her condition always deteriorated rapidly on visiting Whitehouse Farm or after contact with her direct family - especially her mother."
You keep intentionally ignoring that he said different of their most recent contact.
That was true BEFORE her second breakdown. After her second breakdown he said that June and Sheila had become closer and bonded over religion.
Also ignored is that prior to her second breakdown after she was back from WHF she would be taking drugs again and stop her medication. Colins wasn't aware she stopped taking it is documented that she did and this is why after her second breakdown she was put on injections- so she woudl not longe rbe able to skip her medication.
I put it to you again identify a documented case where a schizophrenic who was neither skipping medication (but rather fully taking all their medication) nor high on drugs or alcohol at the time committed murder let alone murder suicide.
You keep suggesting the odds are in favor of Sheila being guilty but the odds say otherwise. The majority of killings by Schozophrenics is men anyway but we can ignore gender and you can pick a case of any geneder you want. You will be hardpressed to find any because a small minority of schizophrenics kill anyone and most of these are either off their meds, had not undergone treatment at all, were high on drugs or alcohol at the time or a combination of these.
-
Vanezis cannot categorically rule out the possibility that 2 of the brain shots were in the bedroom. He says "extremely unlikely". Had he been asked to answer 'yes' or 'no' as to whether it was impossible for Neville to make it down the stairs he would have to say "No". It would only take seconds for Neville to get down stairs before collapsing. This scenario is backed up by the physical evidence of the bullet casings, i.e. 3 in the kitchen.
Much of the workings of the brain was and remains a mystery.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16663332
The assessment that any individual shot would have be extremely likely to result in unconsciousness if not death is more than sufficient certaintly to say that these shots were fired after he went downstairs.
There is one casing that was in the hall in a corner. It was not in a natural location where a shell casing could be. Shots fired in the hall would send shells down the stairs or the the right side of the hall not a croner which was on the left. That shell casing was moved. The most likely location for it to have been moved was the kitchen, it stuck to a shoe and was transported there.
Further evidence of this is that 7 shots into June leaves a maxiumum of 4 shots remaining for Nevill. Then reloading would be necessary.
The loacation of the wounds also matter. The 4 shots to the left side mean that Nevill has his left side facing the killer. He was not standign with his front or back to the killer but rather his left side. How would the killer shoot his right side suddenly?
Moreover, the shots in the head were tightly grouped. The 2 to the top fired in quick succession with Nevill and the killer both in the same location for both shots. The same for the 2 shots to the upper right side of the head both men were in the same location when these 2 shots were fired.
If an of these shots were delivered upstairs then the sister shot had to be as well in which case only 2 shots could have been in the kitchen. The left side was protected and could not have been shot with Nevill slumped over like that. There would not have been enough bullets left though to fire 5 let alone 6 rounds into Nevill upstairs.
The trajectory of these bullets makes clear these 4 shots were delivered while Nevill was slumped over the chair in the kitchen.
There is a whole host of evidence that these 4 shots were dleivered int he kitchen whil ehe was slumped over the chair.
-
was this the medication she was taking.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=869.0
wich can actully couse people to kill.
-
http://www.stopshrinks.org/reading_room/drugs/dark_side_1.htm
Read it all. In case you are too lazy:
Killers on psychiatric drugs
Another article published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry described five cases of extreme acts of physical violence caused by Haldol. In the first, a 23-year-old male with a history of developing severe symptoms of akathisia after being given Haldol was injected with the drug in the admissions room of a psychiatric unit.
After the injection, the man escaped, ran to a park, disrobed, and tried to rape a woman. "When pulled off by the husband, he proceeded down the street, broke down the front door of a house where an 81-yearold lady was sleeping. He severely beat her with his fists, 'to a pulp,' by his own description, following which he found knives and stabbed her repeatedly, resulting in her death." He then ran into another woman who was with her child and "repeatedly stabbed the woman in front of the child, where upon he moved on to he next person he encountered, a woman whom he severely assaulted and stabbed to the extent that an eye was lost and an opening into the anus was created resulting in major surgery."
The report describes four other cases of violence attributed to akathisia caused by Haldol. One was a suicide. Another was a suicide attempt in which a man stabbed himself repeatedly and later remarked that "he could never even feel the knife when stabbing himself." The third was a man who beat his mother to death with a hammer.
In the fourth case, a man "had been receiving Haldol as an outpatient for approximately four months and described how progressively his head was rushing, that he felt speeded up, that he was in great pain in his head and had an impulse to stab someone to try to get rid of the pain. He went to the nearby grocery store he frequented on a regular basis and impulsively and repeatedly stabbed the grocer whom he had known for some time."
Many similar acts of violence have been linked with these psychiatric drugs. One example is the 1989 case of David Peterson, who walked out of a mental institution in Middletown, Conn., bought a hunting knife, and then stabbed a nine-year-old girl 34 times, killing her. Peterson said he killed the girl to get back at his psychiatrist for not changing the drug he was being given, a major tranquilizer, that was causing him "pain."
-
According to the manufacturers the testing on this rifle and magazine was done with no hiccups. The manufacturers go on to say that they were not aware that it was harder to load the magazine after the 7th/8th bullet. They had not found this upon their own testing and had no complaints from the thousands of people who had bough this rifle and magazine.
In evidence however it was the prosecutions case that it became harder to load the magazine after the 7th'/8th bullet. What the defence should have done was to have this magazine tested for faults or damage, because according to the manufacturer they were not aware of this and not once had there been an issue with the loading of the magazine. ;D ;D ;D ;D
A magazine has a spring. Push a spring 1/4"' and see how much pressure is needed then push it until it won't move anymore and see how the pressure needed increases. The claim it doesn't get progessively harder the tighter the spring gets is pure nonsense. Saying it wasn't defective is vastly different from saying the poressure required remains exactly the same regardless of how many bullets are in it.
There was no way for the defense to try to challenge that one has to push down HARDER towards the end. This is a fact of all magazines.
Her nails were long enough that she would have had a problem loading any without damaging her nails but especially the last few. Loading would have to be done very slowly and carefully which woudl be a sign of being in full control not her supposed state.
-
http://www.stopshrinks.org/reading_room/drugs/dark_side_1.htm
Read it all. In case you are too lazy:
Killers on psychiatric drugs
Another article published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry described five cases of extreme acts of physical violence caused by Haldol. In the first, a 23-year-old male with a history of developing severe symptoms of akathisia after being given Haldol was injected with the drug in the admissions room of a psychiatric unit.
After the injection, the man escaped, ran to a park, disrobed, and tried to rape a woman. "When pulled off by the husband, he proceeded down the street, broke down the front door of a house where an 81-yearold lady was sleeping. He severely beat her with his fists, 'to a pulp,' by his own description, following which he found knives and stabbed her repeatedly, resulting in her death." He then ran into another woman who was with her child and "repeatedly stabbed the woman in front of the child, where upon he moved on to he next person he encountered, a woman whom he severely assaulted and stabbed to the extent that an eye was lost and an opening into the anus was created resulting in major surgery."
The report describes four other cases of violence attributed to akathisia caused by Haldol. One was a suicide. Another was a suicide attempt in which a man stabbed himself repeatedly and later remarked that "he could never even feel the knife when stabbing himself." The third was a man who beat his mother to death with a hammer.
In the fourth case, a man "had been receiving Haldol as an outpatient for approximately four months and described how progressively his head was rushing, that he felt speeded up, that he was in great pain in his head and had an impulse to stab someone to try to get rid of the pain. He went to the nearby grocery store he frequented on a regular basis and impulsively and repeatedly stabbed the grocer whom he had known for some time."
Many similar acts of violence have been linked with these psychiatric drugs. One example is the 1989 case of David Peterson, who walked out of a mental institution in Middletown, Conn., bought a hunting knife, and then stabbed a nine-year-old girl 34 times, killing her. Peterson said he killed the girl to get back at his psychiatrist for not changing the drug he was being given, a major tranquilizer, that was causing him "pain."
that fell on deaf ears dident it.
-
that fell on deaf ears dident it.
Nah, he´s trying to dig up something to counter ths. He shouldn´t be talking to me though, he has this very low opinion of me! Don´t know why he bothers, he must be really bored. :P
-
Nah, he´s trying to dig up something to counter ths. He shouldn´t be talking to me though, he has this very low opinion of me! Don´t know why he bothers, he must be really bored. :P
Alias HI :) I can't help feeling that whatever you think his opinion is of you it is matched equally by yours of him ;D
-
http://www.stopshrinks.org/reading_room/drugs/dark_side_1.htm
Read it all. In case you are too lazy:
Killers on psychiatric drugs
Another article published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry described five cases of extreme acts of physical violence caused by Haldol. In the first, a 23-year-old male with a history of developing severe symptoms of akathisia after being given Haldol was injected with the drug in the admissions room of a psychiatric unit.
After the injection, the man escaped, ran to a park, disrobed, and tried to rape a woman. "When pulled off by the husband, he proceeded down the street, broke down the front door of a house where an 81-yearold lady was sleeping. He severely beat her with his fists, 'to a pulp,' by his own description, following which he found knives and stabbed her repeatedly, resulting in her death." He then ran into another woman who was with her child and "repeatedly stabbed the woman in front of the child, where upon he moved on to he next person he encountered, a woman whom he severely assaulted and stabbed to the extent that an eye was lost and an opening into the anus was created resulting in major surgery."
The report describes four other cases of violence attributed to akathisia caused by Haldol. One was a suicide. Another was a suicide attempt in which a man stabbed himself repeatedly and later remarked that "he could never even feel the knife when stabbing himself." The third was a man who beat his mother to death with a hammer.
In the fourth case, a man "had been receiving Haldol as an outpatient for approximately four months and described how progressively his head was rushing, that he felt speeded up, that he was in great pain in his head and had an impulse to stab someone to try to get rid of the pain. He went to the nearby grocery store he frequented on a regular basis and impulsively and repeatedly stabbed the grocer whom he had known for some time."
Many similar acts of violence have been linked with these psychiatric drugs. One example is the 1989 case of David Peterson, who walked out of a mental institution in Middletown, Conn., bought a hunting knife, and then stabbed a nine-year-old girl 34 times, killing her. Peterson said he killed the girl to get back at his psychiatrist for not changing the drug he was being given, a major tranquilizer, that was causing him "pain."
I already read it when posted last time.
None of these people were on Haloperidol for any length of time (save one MAYBEE) let alone alone months, were on a combination of drugs not just Haloperidol and were not given the idela dosages of 50-100MG.
None of these people were sucessfully treated using Haloperidol and then released.
The first example featured someone with a history of mental problems who was having a psychotic episode being given an unspecified dosage of Haloperidol in combination with who knws what else and supposedly this made him even more agitated.
What is this supposed to prove? It certianly doesn't prove that someone on 100MG or more of Haloperidol for months is likely to suddenly become violent out of the blue and to kill.
The second example involved a man who was given a low dose along with other drugs.
He had been getting progressively worse for days and presuamly would have killed someone including possibly himself anyway. There is no evidence the drugs caused him to resort to violence as opposed to failing to stop him from doing what he would have done anyway.
Sheila was given a large dose and did not respond by killing herself. She responded well to treatment so that after 5 weeks she was released. That some people kill themselves before they can be successfully treated has little bearing on whether someone who responds well to treatment would be likely to kill anyone.
Case 3 is little better.
A person with a history of violence who was on several drugs not just low dose Haloperidol and like the drugs before the low does Haloperidol failed to help him so he ended up killing himself.
Case 4
A man who threatened to kill his mother in the past actually did it. He had a psychotic episode, was quickly released after receiving low dose Haloperidol and it failed to stop him from having delusions and he then killed his mother.
Case 5
Claims he was on Haloperidol for months but doesn't reveal the dosage or how and whether he was actually making his medicaiton. He had a whole series of problem and history of crime. He claied Haldol made him stab someone but where is the evidence? Just claiming it in court to try to get off doesn't mean squat.
Identify a case where someone on 50-100MG of Haldol after being successfully treated relapsed and killed anyone other than if they stopped taking their medication or were high on narcotics or alcohol at th etime.
Cases where someone was already agitated treated 1-2 times with a low does among other drugs and it failed to help doesn't cut it.
Nor does some unspecified case that claims there was treatement for several months but no mention of dose, other drugs and whether the person stopped taking their medication periodically.
Sheila had no history of violence, had relapses in the past while high and or off her medicaiton (still without resorting to violence even at these times) and had been successfully treated for months and she was only ONLY 100MG of Haldol not any other counter drug at the time of the murders. Try to find examples of someone in similar circumstances who did not stop taking their medication, and wa snot high on drugs or alcohol who resorted to murder or attempted murder and it was attributed to the Haldol or in spite of the Haldol by the medical personnel in the case.
-
Alias HI :) I can't help feeling that whatever you think his opinion is of you it is matched equally by yours of him ;D
You are a sharp lady! ;D
-
I already read it when posted last time.
None of these people were on Haloperidol for any length of time (save one MAYBEE) let alone alone months, were on a combination of drugs not just Haloperidol and were not given the idela dosages of 50-100MG.
None of these people were sucessfully treated using Haloperidol and then released.
The first example featured someone with a history of mental problems who was having a psychotic episode being given an unspecified dosage of Haloperidol in combination with who knws what else and supposedly this made him even more agitated.
What is this supposed to prove? It certianly doesn't prove that someone on 100MG or more of Haloperidol for months is likely to suddenly become violent out of the blue and to kill.
The second example involved a man who was given a low dose along with other drugs.
He had been getting progressively worse for days and presuamly would have killed someone including possibly himself anyway. There is no evidence the drugs caused him to resort to violence as opposed to failing to stop him from doing what he would have done anyway.
Sheila was given a large dose and did not respond by killing herself. She responded well to treatment so that after 5 weeks she was released. That some people kill themselves before they can be successfully treated has little bearing on whether someone who responds well to treatment would be likely to kill anyone.
Case 3 is little better.
A person with a history of violence who was on several drugs not just low dose Haloperidol and like the drugs before the low does Haloperidol failed to help him so he ended up killing himself.
Case 4
A man who threatened to kill his mother in the past actually did it. He had a psychotic episode, was quickly released after receiving low dose Haloperidol and it failed to stop him from having delusions and he then killed his mother.
Case 5
Claims he was on Haloperidol for months but doesn't reveal the dosage or how and whether he was actually making his medicaiton. He had a whole series of problem and history of crime. He claied Haldol made him stab someone but where is the evidence? Just claiming it in court to try to get off doesn't mean squat.
Identify a case where someone on 50-100MG of Haldol after being successfully treated relapsed and killed anyone other than if they stopped taking their medication or were high on narcotics or alcohol at th etime.
Cases where someone was already agitated treated 1-2 times with a low does among other drugs and it failed to help doesn't cut it.
Nor does some unspecified case that claims there was treatement for several months but no mention of dose, other drugs and whether the person stopped taking their medication periodically.
Sheila had no history of violence, had relapses in the past while high and or off her medicaiton (still without resorting to violence even at these times) and had been successfully treated for months and she was only ONLY 100MG of Haldol not any other counter drug at the time of the murders. Try to find examples of someone in similar circumstances who did not stop taking their medication, and wa snot high on drugs or alcohol who resorted to murder or attempted murder and it was attributed to the Haldol or in spite of the Haldol by the medical personnel in the case.
You seem to be under the impression that just because previous psychotic episodes haven't been violent, neither will future episodes be. This isn't NECESSARILY so. MOST violent episodes seem to take the medical profession by surprise. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that an incident resulting in someone's -family members OR total strangers- couldn't have been predicted.
-
You seem to be under the impression that just because previous psychotic episodes haven't been violent, neither will future episodes be. This isn't NECESSARILY so. MOST violent episodes seem to take the medical profession by surprise. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that an incident resulting in someone's -family members OR total strangers- couldn't have been predicted.
There is a progression and this among a host of other things is how doctors treating them assess whether they are likely to commit suicide or kill.
I didn't create a hard challenge. Identify specific cases where Schizophrenics being treated successfully who didn't stop taking their medication and wasn't high killed someone or tried to kill someone as a result of their illness. I coudl make it more complex by asking for examples of people who were judged by their doctors not to be a candiate for suicide or murder and on 100MG of Haloperidol. I didn't do so until people kept attacking Haldol in particualr claiming it causes such.
If things are as people here claim that there was a good risk of this happening there should be plenty of examples.
The truth is that it is exceedingly rare for people with no history of violence and deemed not at risk for suicide or murder by their doctors to attempt such, most who attempt to kill someone are people who were never treated at all, not taking their medicaiton regularly or high at the time that should tell you something.
It means it is unlikely that someone in Sheila's position would do so and just claiming she likely did it because she was being treated for Schizophrenia and on 100MG of haldol falls FAR short.
-
The only problem that I have is the fact that Sheila had told Doctor Ferguson that she could " kill her sons and also commit suicide ".
Those who say these things,,don't usually carry out their threats . Suicides come from those who you'd least expect as they never mention anything.
Much the same as Jeremy who'd allegedly said he could " kill his parents ".
-
The only problem that I have is the fact that Sheila had told Doctor Ferguson that she could " kill her sons and also commit suicide ".
Those who say these things,,don't usually carry out their threats . Suicides come from those who you'd least expect as they never mention anything.
Much the same as Jeremy who'd allegedly said he could " kill his parents ".
Actually you should watch out if people say they consider suicide - often they do carry it out. My dad was one of them.
-
I'm going to look into that,Alias. I've heard of it being a cry for help for the very fact they mentioned it,,but don't carry it out.
-
There is a progression and this among a host of other things is how doctors treating them assess whether they are likely to commit suicide or kill.
I didn't create a hard challenge. Identify specific cases where Schizophrenics being treated successfully who didn't stop taking their medication and wasn't high killed someone or tried to kill someone as a result of their illness. I coudl make it more complex by asking for examples of people who were judged by their doctors not to be a candiate for suicide or murder and on 100MG of Haloperidol. I didn't do so until people kept attacking Haldol in particualr claiming it causes such.
If things are as people here claim that there was a good risk of this happening there should be plenty of examples.
The truth is that it is exceedingly rare for people with no history of violence and deemed not at risk for suicide or murder by their doctors to attempt such, most who attempt to kill someone are people who were never treated at all, not taking their medicaiton regularly or high at the time that should tell you something.
It means it is unlikely that someone in Sheila's position would do so and just claiming she likely did it because she was being treated for Schizophrenia and on 100MG of haldol falls FAR short.
Then WHY do we keep hearing that these tragedies "could not have been predicted"? I'm not certain if it even matters to you if all the fact and figures are true that you throw at us but of one thing I remain convinced, and that is that you can't say with 100% accuracy that it would have been totally impossible for Sheila to have committed this act.
-
I'm going to look into that,Alias. I've heard of it being a cry for help for the very fact they mentioned it,,but don't carry it out.
Also had a friend who slit his own throat. His brother and a friend stayed with him for two days and two nights without sleeping. He kept rambling about wanting to kill himself. They took him to an emergency ward, they wouldn´t help, so home again with him. Eventually they got exhausted and fell asleep - and he did it. Horrid. He was such a nice guy. :'(
-
I'm going to look into that,Alias. I've heard of it being a cry for help for the very fact they mentioned it,,but don't carry it out.
Okay,,after reading a professors point of view who stated that it MUST be taken seriously.
What is your view on Doctor Ferguson who DIDN'T take it seriously ?
-
Okay,,after reading a professors point of view who stated that it MUST be taken seriously.
What is your view on Doctor Ferguson who DIDN'T take it seriously ?
Lookout, it may simply be a question of mental health being such a grey area that one rule doesn't apply to all, but no one knows it until it's too late.
-
Okay,,after reading a professors point of view who stated that it MUST be taken seriously.
What is your view on Doctor Ferguson who DIDN'T take it seriously ?
I think that Dr. Ferguson was very busy washing his own hands after the tragedy! He should have reacted to a lot of things Sheila said and did. For that reason I don´t put too much credence into what HE claimed about Sheila. All that was to divert any negligence from himself. In my opinion.
-
I think that Dr. Ferguson was very busy washing his own hands after the tragedy! He should have reacted to a lot of things Sheila said and did. For that reason I don´t have too much credence into what HE claimed about Sheila. All that was to divert any negligence from himself. In my opinion.
Alias, I've had it told me, that in health care NO ONE splits on a colleague because the next time it could be THEIR neck on the block
-
If Doctor Ferguson didn't act on that threat,,where else had he gone wrong ?
This is always supposing that Sheila took her own life after threatening to do so. ( though I believe she was killed ) It gets a tad complicated,,but depends what you believe,as one thing contradicts the other.
-
The only problem that I have is the fact that Sheila had told Doctor Ferguson that she could " kill her sons and also commit suicide ".
Those who say these things,,don't usually carry out their threats . Suicides come from those who you'd least expect as they never mention anything.
Much the same as Jeremy who'd allegedly said he could " kill his parents ".
She said they were things she tought about but she had these thoughts before she ever started her treatment. These thoughts went away after her treatment and she had different issues during her relapses and second breakdown. Her second breakdown the only person she talked about was Freddie who she had portrayed as the devil. There is actually some logic in that though. He was tempting her with sin through drugs and sex among other ways. If she were going to have delusions of the devil and kill someone then it would be expected he would be the target.
But with her not doing anything to try to harm him or anyone else not even herself at these lows in her life then it is definitely not likely while she was on her medication.
The main paradim for suicide in schizophrenics is lone suicide not murder suicide. Mostly it is men who commit murder suicide. Mothers who commit murder suicide mainly kill their kids because they can't kill themselves knowing their kids will be out there alone without them to take care of them. The obligation hangs over their head. With the kids dead they have no obligation to live for. Sometimes it is even to punish the father. Fathers in contrast tend to kill the spouse and kids.
A mother also killing her parents not just her kids doesn't fit the paradigm. Those occasions parents are killed is typically when they are being cared for by the suicide victim. Otherwise the parents are the target and the kids are left alone.
Cases of mothers being so depressed they decide to kill not only themselves but also their kids and parents where the parents are not invalids and responsibility of the mother to care for just like her kids is virtually unheard of, I can't find any cases of such.
People who decide to kill themselves and want to take as many people as they can with them first because they want to go out with a bang seem to be what some males do for whatever reason. Some blame video games, others TV others the fame they see in the press others receive for such. There is certainly no evidence that Sheila would have engaged in such.
It is easy to just make generalized claims about mental illness, suicide, murder and murder suicide but
there is a great deal of compexity in studying each and each is distinct.
SOmething important to remember is that it is not an accident that most who commit suicide or murder as a result of mental illness were not being treated, stopped their treatment or were high on drugs/alcohol at the time. That is why we don't just lock up eveyone with mental illness and never let them out.
-
Was there evidence that she was engaged in a sexual relationship with Freddie?
-
You're throwing around stats like you're reading them rote fashion. I rather get the impression that I've been involved in many more suicides than have you and the safest advice I was given was that one can't relay on facts and figures because they aren't human and aren't subject to the same pain and stresses.
-
Was there evidence that she was engaged in a sexual relationship with Freddie?
Somehow,,I personally would doubt very much if she was,,and possibly looked on him as being a " fatherly and protective " figure,,and someone she could lean on------------no strings attached.
-
Was there evidence that she was being supplied with drugs by Freddie?
-
You're throwing around stats like you're reading them rote fashion. I rather get the impression that I've been involved in many more suicides than have you and the safest advice I was given was that one can't relay on facts and figures because they aren't human and aren't subject to the same pain and stresses.
You have no evidence of any kind that Sheila fired a wepaon or killed anyone.
You are trying to use her mental health alone to suggest she di dit.
If you want to suggest her mental health makes it likely then you need stats and examples of people in similar situations and enough of them to make it likely she too would have resorted to same.
The fact of the matter is that most Schizophrenics who attempt to kill themselves or others do so prior to undergoing diagmosis and treatment, when they stop taking their medication daily or are high on narcotics/alcohol.
It is very rare for people who have been successfully treated, are religiously taking their medication and not high on drugs/alcohol to resort to violence at all let alone murder or suicide.
In those rare cases there is a progression that shows the treatment is no longer successful.
There is more though there are also paradigms of why people commit murder, commit suicide and murder-suicide.
Suicide is a sign of giving up on life because the emotional or physical pain one goes through is too much for them to tolerate. Murder is different from this and murder suicide different from both.
The murder suicide paradigm doesn't fit the bill here.
So nothing fits, there are problems on many levels not just 1.
She had delusions of everyone being the devil jut out of the blue though she wasn't having delusions about them even before she was treated successfully? That is how the deaths of the entire family are being attributed?
Why would she kill herself though? What delusion would account for that?
There is a reason why her doctor doesn't think she did it, why her husband doesn't think she did it and her remaining family (save Jeremy) don't think she did it. They are in a far better position than us to judge her specifically though if we look at the issue as a whole it supports them.
Who else agrees with them? Objective people who have no reason to look at the issue in a biased manner. One who face that people who are being successfully treated don't just snap out of the blue with no warning. Moreover who honestly face the evidence proving Sheila can't have shot herself.
Who disagrees? Jeremy because he wants her to take the fall so he can get out of jail and placed the blame on her from the start to escape liability. Who else? Those who are biased in favor of Jeremy who are willing to ignore the evidence and declare the most unlikely series of events ever.
It owuld be bad enough for someoen on their medication to just snap out of the blue but for it to happen in the middle of the night where no one could provike it, to take the form of a murder suicide that doesn't make any sense from the murder suicide paradigm and a giant conspiracy with blood for the first time being planted in a suppressor by spraying it inside with all the police, family and Julie in some giant vast conspiracy- the odds of this all are astronomical.
-
Was there evidence that she was being supplied with drugs by Freddie?
That's a possibility,,but there's no way of finding out,,except through Jeremy perhaps.
-
You can get very "provoked" by sleepless nights alone with your psychotic thoughts.
-
Was there evidence that she was engaged in a sexual relationship with Freddie?
There are rumours, not sure there is any evidence.
-
You have no evidence of any kind that Sheila fired a wepaon or killed anyone.
You are trying to use her mental health alone to suggest she di dit.
If you want to suggest her mental health makes it likely then you need stats and examples of people in similar situations and enough of them to make it likely she too would have resorted to same.
The fact of the matter is that most Schizophrenics who attempt to kill themselves or others do so prior to undergoing diagmosis and treatment, when they stop taking their medication daily or are high on narcotics/alcohol.
It is very rare for people who have been successfully treated, are religiously taking their medication and not high on drugs/alcohol to resort to violence at all let alone murder or suicide.
In those rare cases there is a progression that shows the treatment is no longer successful.
There is more though there are also paradigms of why people commit murder, commit suicide and murder-suicide.
Suicide is a sign of giving up on life because the emotional or physical pain one goes through is too much for them to tolerate. Murder is different from this and murder suicide different from both.
The murder suicide paradigm doesn't fit the bill here.
So nothing fits, there are problems on many levels not just 1.
She had delusions of everyone being the devil jut out of the blue though she wasn't having delusions about them even before she was treated successfully? That is how the deaths of the entire family are being attributed?
Why would she kill herself though? What delusion would account for that?
There is a reason why her doctor doesn't think she did it, why her husband doesn't think she did it and her remaining family (save Jeremy) don't think she did it. They are in a far better position than us to judge her specifically though if we look at the issue as a whole it supports them.
Who else agrees with them? Objective people who have no reason to look at the issue in a biased manner. One who face that people who are being successfully treated don't just snap out of the blue with no warning. Moreover who honestly face the evidence proving Sheila can't have shot herself.
Who disagrees? Jeremy because he wants her to take the fall so he can get out of jail and placed the blame on her from the start to escape liability. Who else? Those who are biased in favor of Jeremy who are willing to ignore the evidence and declare the most unlikely series of events ever.
It owuld be bad enough for someoen on their medication to just snap out of the blue but for it to happen in the middle of the night where no one could provike it, to take the form of a murder suicide that doesn't make any sense from the murder suicide paradigm and a giant conspiracy with blood for the first time being planted in a suppressor by spraying it inside with all the police, family and Julie in some giant vast conspiracy- the odds of this all are astronomical.
The murder suicide paradigm May not fir, but that doesn't mean there has to be ANY precedent for tbhis to have happened.
WHY would she kill herself? If we leave out the paranoia, there's hopelessness and despair that thus far I don't believe you've commented on but I think it's fair to say that she probably felt as if her whole world had fallen apart. She was SO desperate for Christine's visit that she discharged herself early from hospital. The relationship didn't work. She was desperate to reconcile with Colin. It didn't work. He had deposited her at the place that she appeared to hate being in. Do you imagine she was thinking happy thoughts?
-
Freddie also became a victim of Sheilas' illness,,as she'd said he was possessed by the Devil.
-
You have no evidence of any kind that Sheila fired a wepaon or killed anyone.
You are trying to use her mental health alone to suggest she di dit.
If you want to suggest her mental health makes it likely then you need stats and examples of people in similar situations and enough of them to make it likely she too would have resorted to same.
The fact of the matter is that most Schizophrenics who attempt to kill themselves or others do so prior to undergoing diagmosis and treatment, when they stop taking their medication daily or are high on narcotics/alcohol.
It is very rare for people who have been successfully treated, are religiously taking their medication and not high on drugs/alcohol to resort to violence at all let alone murder or suicide.
In those rare cases there is a progression that shows the treatment is no longer successful.
There is more though there are also paradigms of why people commit murder, commit suicide and murder-suicide.
Suicide is a sign of giving up on life because the emotional or physical pain one goes through is too much for them to tolerate. Murder is different from this and murder suicide different from both.
The murder suicide paradigm doesn't fit the bill here.
So nothing fits, there are problems on many levels not just 1.
She had delusions of everyone being the devil jut out of the blue though she wasn't having delusions about them even before she was treated successfully? That is how the deaths of the entire family are being attributed?
Why would she kill herself though? What delusion would account for that?
There is a reason why her doctor doesn't think she did it, why her husband doesn't think she did it and her remaining family (save Jeremy) don't think she did it. They are in a far better position than us to judge her specifically though if we look at the issue as a whole it supports them.
Who else agrees with them? Objective people who have no reason to look at the issue in a biased manner. One who face that people who are being successfully treated don't just snap out of the blue with no warning. Moreover who honestly face the evidence proving Sheila can't have shot herself.
Who disagrees? Jeremy because he wants her to take the fall so he can get out of jail and placed the blame on her from the start to escape liability. Who else? Those who are biased in favor of Jeremy who are willing to ignore the evidence and declare the most unlikely series of events ever.
It owuld be bad enough for someoen on their medication to just snap out of the blue but for it to happen in the middle of the night where no one could provike it, to take the form of a murder suicide that doesn't make any sense from the murder suicide paradigm and a giant conspiracy with blood for the first time being planted in a suppressor by spraying it inside with all the police, family and Julie in some giant vast conspiracy- the odds of this all are astronomical.
I believe that specialists are rather mixed up about this. Take it from some who knows first hand that what you are saying is complete bowlox. Schizophrenia is an extremely difficult illness to treat and quite often things do go wrong during the treatment and so the medication has to be changed. This is because of the extreme individuality of the disease. In short everyone is different and the different drugs and quantities of drugs produce varied side effects in the different individuals. It quite simply is not true that certain symptoms disappear when they get put on drugs. I'm afraid that your very words declare just how little you know about even the simpler things to do with mental illness.
-
I believe that specialists are rather mixed up about this. Take it from some who knows first hand that what you are saying is complete bowlox. Schizophrenia is an extremely difficult illness to treat and quite often things do go wrong during the treatment and so the medication has to be changed. This is because of the extreme individuality of the disease. In short everyone is different and the different drugs and quantities of drugs produce varied side effects in the different individuals. It quite simply is not true that certain symptoms disappear when they get put on drugs. I'm afraid that your very words declare just how little you know about even the simpler things to do with mental illness.
He won´t be listening - he´ll just repeat what he has said a gazillion times. Including the wrong dosage of Haldol he claims Sheila was on. He keeps shoving the same faulty claims down our throats till people tire of putting him right. Then he will return to the red forum to claim victory, and people there will applaud him sheepishly. ::)
-
He won´t be listening - he´ll just repeat what he has said a gazillion times. Including the wrong dosage of Haldol he claims Sheila was on. He keeps shoving the same faulty claims down our throats till people tire of putting him right. Then he will return to the red forum to claim victory, and people there will applaud him sheepishly. ::)
They have a very strange idea of victory.
And I totally agree with both of the last posts about spouting "facts" from experts and books. As we said before Scipio has no respect for those with personal experience on this forum , and choses to ignore their "real Life" knowledge. But ignore is what he choses to do. His loss - as far as I am concerned he can continue to lecture and not listen that's his prerogative , but at least we are under no illusions about his motives. There are more than a few of us that read his "other" posts.
-
I believe that specialists are rather mixed up about this. Take it from some who knows first hand that what you are saying is complete bowlox. Schizophrenia is an extremely difficult illness to treat and quite often things do go wrong during the treatment and so the medication has to be changed. This is because of the extreme individuality of the disease. In short everyone is different and the different drugs and quantities of drugs produce varied side effects in the different individuals. It quite simply is not true that certain symptoms disappear when they get put on drugs. I'm afraid that your very words declare just how little you know about even the simpler things to do with mental illness.
Funny since you and others here are under the impression that it would make sense to suddenly go mad and become violent fo rth efirst time ever without any provocation and notice.
Eveyrone trying to defend Jeremy grossly misrepresents every aspect of this issue in order to make the simplistic claim that Sheila definitely did it because of mental illness.
The reality is that under 10 percent of Schizophrenics ever kill/atempt to kill anyone including themselves. Virtually all of this small minority are either:
1) high/drunk at the time
2) were never diagnosed hence not under treatment
3) stopped taking their medication
I have issued a simple challenge tha tno one here is able to repsond to.
Post cases where a schizophrenic was being successfully treated, taking their medication without interruption, not high or drunk at the time and yet killed someone- either themselves or others.
If one is going to argue her illness makes it extremely likely she committed the crimes then there needs to be evidence it is extremely prevalent for such to occur with someone in her situation.
No one can provide a single case that is comparable let alone many.
That is before event looking at the things in this case like the time of day which cautions against it. She wa ssleeping and then just suddenly had delusions out of the blue where the whole family was the devil and wanted to kill them all while they were sleeping...
Sorry but no rational person who knows a thing about this subject buys what is being posted on this site about it.
You also may not realize it or care but a great many people at large think that those who post here are crackpots for the ridiculous things posted.
The claims that the medical community support the claims being made here are not in the least bit true.
Her own doctor certainly doesn't support anything being claimed and many of his words are intentionally misrepresented to pretend she would have delusions that would warrant killing her family.
Worse though there is evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself and that there is no way this was even 1 case in a billion.
That is addressed by other misrepresentations to try to pretend police shot her and there is some vast coverup of proportions larger than in UK history and the first time in history that blood would have been sprayed into a suppressor to plant blood to pretend it had been used.
It is easy to make up stories but when people make up stories they have no evidence to establish anything occurred and often make up stories that make no sense.
I see lots of stories being made up to try to get around evidence but never people following evidence where it leads because it leads to Jeremy and most people here don't want to accept the truth but rather to believe Jeremy is innocent no matter what it takes to pretend such.
-
Agreed,Jansus.
-
He won´t be listening - he´ll just repeat what he has said a gazillion times. Including the wrong dosage of Haldol he claims Sheila was on. He keeps shoving the same faulty claims down our throats till people tire of putting him right. Then he will return to the red forum to claim victory, and people there will applaud him sheepishly. ::)
I have looked at what the experts say including her own doctor. You refuse to believe what her doctor or the experts at large say instead opting to believe what you claim is some nurse you know personally and that is supposed to trump real evidence.
This thread is about the shooting party and misrepresented tha ther fmaily stated she went shooting. I posted the actual words though. Then the claim was made that Colin was a witness. I said let's see the evidenc epost his claims verbatim. The subject was changed because no one coudl do so.
You don't have the first clue about what evidence means let alone how to present evidence.
You simply ignore evidence and pretend anything you like.
Then you curse when you get your ass handed to you in a debate.
I flipped thw script and demonstrated how her mentla illness is unable to be used to establish she did it there is much more needed with my is Sheila guilty thread. You all tried to change the subject because you coudl not dent the points I made.
I shredded the supposed examples supposed to prove Haldol would make her violent in 5 minutes.
The reality is that a schizophrenic being successfully treated as she was virtually never attempts to kill anyone. That is why you and everyone else here have been unable to provide any examples of a shizophrenic being successfully treated for at least a month, who did not stop taking their medication and was not high at the time had delusions and tried/succeeeded in killing someone.
Cry all you want but you haven't found any examples to point out let alone many instances to suggest it would be probable for Sheila to have done so just based on probabilities. That is all you rely on saying she was ill so it is probable.
You are the one making simplistic claims not supported by any experts and ignoring all the relevant issues to come to an erroneous conclsuion that you want to come to simply to support Jeremy.
Yeah tell me again how you just want the truht I don't believe you, your posts demonstrate extreme bias in favor of Jeremy not objectivity.
-
He won´t be listening - he´ll just repeat what he has said a gazillion times. Including the wrong dosage of Haldol he claims Sheila was on. He keeps shoving the same faulty claims down our throats till people tire of putting him right. Then he will return to the red forum to claim victory, and people there will applaud him sheepishly. ::)
Which of course will militate against his pride in being a great reasoner? ::)
-
Funny since you and others here are under the impression that it would make sense to suddenly go mad and become violent fo rth efirst time ever without any provocation and notice.
Eveyrone trying to defend Jeremy grossly misrepresents every aspect of this issue in order to make the simplistic claim that Sheila definitely did it because of mental illness.
The reality is that under 10 percent of Schizophrenics ever kill/atempt to kill anyone including themselves. Virtually all of this small minority are either:
1) high/drunk at the time
2) were never diagnosed hence not under treatment
3) stopped taking their medication
I have issued a simple challenge tha tno one here is able to repsond to.
Post cases where a schizophrenic was being successfully treated, taking their medication without interruption, not high or drunk at the time and yet killed someone- either themselves or others.
If one is going to argue her illness makes it extremely likely she committed the crimes then there needs to be evidence it is extremely prevalent for such to occur with someone in her situation.
No one can provide a single case that is comparable let alone many.
That is before event looking at the things in this case like the time of day which cautions against it. She wa ssleeping and then just suddenly had delusions out of the blue where the whole family was the devil and wanted to kill them all while they were sleeping...
Sorry but no rational person who knows a thing about this subject buys what is being posted on this site about it.
You also may not realize it or care but a great many people at large think that those who post here are crackpots for the ridiculous things posted.
The claims that the medical community support the claims being made here are not in the least bit true.
Her own doctor certainly doesn't support anything being claimed and many of his words are intentionally misrepresented to pretend she would have delusions that would warrant killing her family.
Worse though there is evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself and that there is no way this was even 1 case in a billion.
That is addressed by other misrepresentations to try to pretend police shot her and there is some vast coverup of proportions larger than in UK history and the first time in history that blood would have been sprayed into a suppressor to plant blood to pretend it had been used.
It is easy to make up stories but when people make up stories they have no evidence to establish anything occurred and often make up stories that make no sense.
I see lots of stories being made up to try to get around evidence but never people following evidence where it leads because it leads to Jeremy and most people here don't want to accept the truth but rather to believe Jeremy is innocent no matter what it takes to pretend such.
The reality is scipio that you are talking out your arse mate. Shut your gob and listen to those of us who know from experience instead of regurgitating Wikishit all the time. You your common sense man and don't be a plonker all your life who only believes the light that filters through the cracks in your own roof.
-
The reality is that a schizophrenic being successfully treated as she was virtually never attempts to kill anyone
well that about says it all really.A bit like when Adam said no one ever kills their children then themselves - or commits suicide with two shots.
This could have been an exception to the rule.
Do you know what that means?
Bucking the trend- A bit like you posting without childish insults.
-
I have looked at what the experts say including her own doctor. You refuse to believe what her doctor or the experts at large say instead opting to believe what you claim is some nurse you know personally and that is supposed to trump real evidence.
Umm, not me, I don´t know any nurse. Must have been somebody else.
This thread is about the shooting party and misrepresented tha ther fmaily stated she went shooting. I posted the actual words though. Then the claim was made that Colin was a witness. I said let's see the evidenc epost his claims verbatim. The subject was changed because no one coudl do so.
You don't have the first clue about what evidence means let alone how to present evidence.
You simply ignore evidence and pretend anything you like.
Then you curse when you get your ass handed to you in a debate. I cursed at you because you called me a Jeremy Bamber advocate. I am not. It was not debate, you were lumping me in with ALL here as you always do to everyone. Will you stop that!
I flipped thw script and demonstrated how her mentla illness is unable to be used to establish she did it there is much more needed with my is Sheila guilty thread. You all tried to change the subject because you coudl not dent the points I made.
I shredded the supposed examples supposed to prove Haldol would make her violent in 5 minutes.
The reality is that a schizophrenic being successfully treated as she was virtually never attempts to kill anyone. That is why you and everyone else here have been unable to provide any examples of a shizophrenic being successfully treated for at least a month, who did not stop taking their medication and was not high at the time had delusions and tried/succeeeded in killing someone. You keep claiming that Sheila was never violent and did not harm herself. You ignore that she scared the life out of Freddie Emami, you ignore that she attacked a meter man at WHF who locked himself in his car to protect himself, two grown men terrified of her. You ignore that she was reported to wail and scream in the middle of the night by her neighbours in London. You ignore that her kids were neglected (at best) while in her care. You ignore that she said her children were capable of raping and killing her, that they were women haters and that they were the Devil´s children. You ignore what Colin said about her condition deteriorating every time she was at WHF no matter previous progress. There are very many things you bend and twist to make them fit with what YOU want to see and claim she was being successfully treated, when she was not.
Cry all you want but you haven't found any examples to point out let alone many instances to suggest it would be probable for Sheila to have done so just based on probabilities. That is all you rely on saying she was ill so it is probable. And what exactly are you saying? That it is probable she did not - that´s all you´re saying and claiming it is the God given truth.
You are the one making simplistic claims not supported by any experts and ignoring all the relevant issues to come to an erroneous conclsuion that you want to come to simply to support Jeremy.
Yeah tell me again how you just want the truht I don't believe you, your posts demonstrate extreme bias in favor of Jeremy not objectivity.
I am very objective. You don´t read my posts, you prove that time and time again - see above. I never wrote about any nurse, I have never been an advocate for JB, I don´t know whether he committed the murders or not, I have said so from day one and still say it.
-
A question why did Robert Boutflour testify that the police collected two rifles and two silencers from himself and another member of the family and take them to the trial in 1986 where they came back with exhibit numbers
Just curious as I have never been able to find the answer?
-
When Sheila told Doctor Ferguson that she could kill the children,,and commit suicide,,she was WELL medicated at the time because she was in hospital and being monitored !
Imagine what her mood was like WITHOUT medication ?
-
The reality is scipio that you are talking out your arse mate. Shut your gob and listen to those of us who know from experience instead of regurgitating Wikishit all the time. You your common sense man and don't be a plonker all your life who only believes the light that filters through the cracks in your own roof.
The only thing you have demonstrated to me that you know is how to ignore facts and evidence and make up nonsense.
So far I have seen false claims about police saying there was no gun on SHeila when her body was first found, false claims about relatives turning in multiple suppressors, false claims about relatives stating Sheila went shooting...
You are the one talking out of your arse because you refuse to accept Jeremy cna be guilty and thus assume all evidence was faked despite no evidence at all to establish it and Jeremy's various claims making no sense at all.
-
The reality is that a schizophrenic being successfully treated as she was virtually never attempts to kill anyone
well that about says it all really.A bit like when Adam said no one ever kills their children then themselves - or commits suicide with two shots.
This could have been an exception to the rule.
Do you know what that means?
Bucking the trend- A bit like you posting without childish insults.
If it is not the rule but a perceived exception to the truel then it is nonsense to say it was likely just because it could be the exception to the rule.
The burden is on those alleging it happened to prove it is the exception to the rule.
Instead people like alias are PRETENDING the rule is murder suicide of this nature and trying to use that falsehood as evidence it likely happened just because it is the rule.
-
The only thing you have demonstrated to me that you know is how to ignore facts and evidence and make up nonsense.
So far I have seen false claims about police saying there was no gun on SHeila when her body was first found, false claims about relatives turning in multiple suppressors, false claims about relatives stating Sheila went shooting...
You are the one talking out of your arse because you refuse to accept Jeremy cna be guilty and thus assume all evidence was faked despite no evidence at all to establish it and Jeremy's various claims making no sense at all.
What's all that irrelevent shit got to do with your lack of knowledge about schizophrenia. Listen and learn from the experts lad.
-
I have looked at what the experts say including her own doctor. You refuse to believe what her doctor or the experts at large say instead opting to believe what you claim is some nurse you know personally and that is supposed to trump real evidence.
This thread is about the shooting party and misrepresented tha ther fmaily stated she went shooting. I posted the actual words though. Then the claim was made that Colin was a witness. I said let's see the evidenc epost his claims verbatim. The subject was changed because no one coudl do so.
You don't have the first clue about what evidence means let alone how to present evidence.
You simply ignore evidence and pretend anything you like.
Then you curse when you get your ass handed to you in a debate.
I flipped thw script and demonstrated how her mentla illness is unable to be used to establish she did it there is much more needed with my is Sheila guilty thread. You all tried to change the subject because you coudl not dent the points I made.
I shredded the supposed examples supposed to prove Haldol would make her violent in 5 minutes.
The reality is that a schizophrenic being successfully treated as she was virtually never attempts to kill anyone. That is why you and everyone else here have been unable to provide any examples of a shizophrenic being successfully treated for at least a month, who did not stop taking their medication and was not high at the time had delusions and tried/succeeeded in killing someone.
Cry all you want but you haven't found any examples to point out let alone many instances to suggest it would be probable for Sheila to have done so just based on probabilities. That is all you rely on saying she was ill so it is probable.
You are the one making simplistic claims not supported by any experts and ignoring all the relevant issues to come to an erroneous conclsuion that you want to come to simply to support Jeremy.
Yeah tell me again how you just want the truht I don't believe you, your posts demonstrate extreme bias in favor of Jeremy not objectivity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8eS1GEwjjo
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If it is not the rule but a perceived exception to the truel then it is nonsense to say it was likely just because it could be the exception to the rule.
The burden is on those alleging it happened to prove it is the exception to the rule.
Instead people like alias are PRETENDING the rule is murder suicide of this nature and trying to use that falsehood as evidence it likely happened just because it is the rule.
I did not say that - twisting words as ususal
-
You keep claiming that Sheila was never violent and did not harm herself. You ignore that she scared the life out of Freddie Emami,
What did she do to him? Did she physically attack him? nope Moreover, when did this supposedly happen? While she was off her medication and taking drugs.
you ignore that she attacked a meter man at WHF who locked himself in his car to protect himself, two grown men terrified of her.
Did she physically attack him? When did it happen? Was this while she was on her Haldol and what evidence is there to estbalish this event and the full circumstances?
Peopl being terrified because they don't know what to do doesn't mean crap, the question is whether she physically attacked anyone and if so under what conditions and what precipitated it.
You are ignoring:
1) that while medicated successfully there are very few instances of violence and that with SHeila as others it is when they are off their meds or on drugs when problems result
2) even when off ther meds and on drugs things still set them off. They don't just go looking to hurt people in their beds
3) that murder suicides are caused by something different than just plain murder or plain suicide
4) that there is evidence that proves beyond question that Sheila didn't kill herself because someone else moved her body very shortly after she died and put th esuppressor away
You ignore that she was reported to wail and scream in the middle of the night by her neighbours in London. You ignore that her kids were neglected (at best) while in her care.
What does this have to do with whether she would kill anyone? If anythign the fact she neglected her kids makes it even less likely she would kill if someone suggested they be part time foster cared.
You ignore that she said her children were capable of raping and killing her, that they were women haters and that they were the Devil´s children.
You ignore that she said these things before she was treated successfully in 1983 and that after such treatment she said no such thing ever again. During her second stay she didn't even tlak about her family at all. You also ignore her doctor said even then he didn't feel she was capable of harming them or herself and felt even more strongly she was not at risk to hurt them or herself in 1985. WHo is in the best position to evaluate he rmental condition the doctor treating her or someone who didn't even meet her ever?
You ignore what Colin said about her condition deteriorating every time she was at WHF no matter previous progress. There are very many things you bend and twist to make them fit with what YOU want to see and claim she was being successfully treated, when she was not.
The one twisting is you. Colin said that after her second stay in the hospital her relationship improved with her mother because SHeila found religion and was able to bond with her mother over religion. The reason she PREVIOUSLY hated being at WHF was allegedly because of her mother preached to her about sin. In th emeantime why did she relaspse away form WHF? Because while away from WHF she stopped taking her medication and was using narcotics.
The one ignoring the facts is you not me I considered everything together while you twist to look at outdated information and ignore the reasons for her past relapses to suit the agenda you insist you don't have but quite obviously do.
And what exactly are you saying? That it is probable she did not - that´s all you´re saying and claiming it is the God given truth.
I am fully accurate that it is not probable based on her mental condition alone that she would kill anyone including herself. Since it is not probable tha tmeans it is wrong for peopel to try to use just her mental condition alone as evidence that she likely did it.
But I discussed far more including the evidence that proves she didn't kill herself and was framed.
I considered everything from top to bottom about her CURRENT situation.
You didn't, you dragged out things she said prior to treatment instead of the most recent treatment where she didn't talk about her kids or family at all. You tossed out her relapses caused by not taking her medication and taking narcotics (while failing to take into account that was the reason for the relapses) and even about how she hated being preached to when she went to WHF IN THE PAST but most recently didn't mind because she became religious and bonded with June over it.
I took into account everything while you cherry picked to try sto support the agenda you insist you don't have.
I am very objective. You don´t read my posts, you prove that time and time again - see above. I never wrote about any nurse, I have never been an advocate for JB, I don´t know whether he committed the murders or not, I have said so from day one and still say it.
I read your posts and can see right through your bogus claims of objectivity. I just demonstrated here and now how you ignore any evidence that cuts against what you want to pretend happened even if it means ignoring the most recent evidence and running with statements from Sheila before she was treated.
You also ignore evidence that proves she can't have killed herself. That evidence and anything else is explained away as a grand conspiracy against Jeremy without an ounce of proof to establish the claim.
Nor is it ever explain how Nevill would have the opportunity to make a call let alone how and the entire timing of this overnight is never taken into account.
-
God how I love it whent other people whom I´ve never met, who don´t read my posts properly and constantly mix me up with other people have the nerve to tell me what I think! Unbelievable! ::)
-
If he's the lawyer that he says he is,,then his PR is appalling and I'm surprised that his clients don't run for the hills and leave him to it.
-
What did she do to him? Did she physically attack him? nope Moreover, when did this supposedly happen? While she was off her medication and taking drugs.
Did she physically attack him? When did it happen? Was this while she was on her Haldol and what evidence is there to estbalish this event and the full circumstances?
Peopl being terrified because they don't know what to do doesn't mean crap, the question is whether she physically attacked anyone and if so under what conditions and what precipitated it.
You are ignoring:
1) that while medicated successfully there are very few instances of violence and that with SHeila as others it is when they are off their meds or on drugs when problems result
2) even when off ther meds and on drugs things still set them off. They don't just go looking to hurt people in their beds
3) that murder suicides are caused by something different than just plain murder or plain suicide
4) that there is evidence that proves beyond question that Sheila didn't kill herself because someone else moved her body very shortly after she died and put th esuppressor away
What does this have to do with whether she would kill anyone? If anythign the fact she neglected her kids makes it even less likely she would kill if someone suggested they be part time foster cared.
You ignore that she said these things before she was treated successfully in 1983 and that after such treatment she said no such thing ever again. During her second stay she didn't even tlak about her family at all. You also ignore her doctor said even then he didn't feel she was capable of harming them or herself and felt even more strongly she was not at risk to hurt them or herself in 1985. WHo is in the best position to evaluate he rmental condition the doctor treating her or someone who didn't even meet her ever?
The one twisting is you. Colin said that after her second stay in the hospital her relationship improved with her mother because SHeila found religion and was able to bond with her mother over religion. The reason she PREVIOUSLY hated being at WHF was allegedly because of her mother preached to her about sin. In th emeantime why did she relaspse away form WHF? Because while away from WHF she stopped taking her medication and was using narcotics.
The one ignoring the facts is you not me I considered everything together while you twist to look at outdated information and ignore the reasons for her past relapses to suit the agenda you insist you don't have but quite obviously do.
I am fully accurate that it is not probable based on her mental condition alone that she would kill anyone including herself. Since it is not probable tha tmeans it is wrong for peopel to try to use just her mental condition alone as evidence that she likely did it.
But I discussed far more including the evidence that proves she didn't kill herself and was framed.
I considered everything from top to bottom about her CURRENT situation.
You didn't, you dragged out things she said prior to treatment instead of the most recent treatment where she didn't talk about her kids or family at all. You tossed out her relapses caused by not taking her medication and taking narcotics (while failing to take into account that was the reason for the relapses) and even about how she hated being preached to when she went to WHF IN THE PAST but most recently didn't mind because she became religious and bonded with June over it.
I took into account everything while you cherry picked to try sto support the agenda you insist you don't have.
I read your posts and can see right through your bogus claims of objectivity. I just demonstrated here and now how you ignore any evidence that cuts against what you want to pretend happened even if it means ignoring the most recent evidence and running with statements from Sheila before she was treated.
You also ignore evidence that proves she can't have killed herself. That evidence and anything else is explained away as a grand conspiracy against Jeremy without an ounce of proof to establish the claim.
Nor is it ever explain how Nevill would have the opportunity to make a call let alone how and the entire timing of this overnight is never taken into account.
Whilst you're always in a hurry to point out what others, in your view, deliberately ignore, I've SEARCHED your lengthy post for some recognition of it, but it seems to me that YOU have chosen the path you accuse others of when it comes to acknowledging certain facts.
That you've not taken on board ALL the facts -or might that be those which don't work for you?- becomes clear when you ASK when was the incident where she attacked the tradesman in his car. I feel it wouldn't have taken much time to find out that it occurred on the Monday/Tuesday prior to the murders and June, who came to his rescue, explained that her daughter had FORGOTTEN TO TAKE HER MEDICATION. During this SAME visit, she's also run screaming from the monastery as if the hounds of hell were on her trail.
THIS, however, isn't the most important thing you've ignored, even though it's been spoken of frequently. Sheila's EMOTIONAL STATE. I'm not going to blame Dr F for overlooking it, because he wasn't aware of it but what I will say is, had she been one of MY clients, I would have been extremely concerned about the plans she had made on the grounds that she appears to be the only one who knew about them. Those who were to be players had no idea.
You can throw fact and figures at us until you're blue in the face. You can and DO jeer at our personal experiences as being of no value. That you disregard them because they don't fit with your facts makes me wonder if you would label a witness a liar because of it.
You run on about how stable was her medication. Are you psychic. By whose authority do you make such a sweeping claim. That you can't, or perhaps that SHOULD be DON'T, produce facts to say that people on meds CAN commit murder suicide, doesn't mean that it HASN'T happened/ WON'T ever happen. Such is the nature of mental illness.
The biggest and most glaringly obvious thing you've ignored is the change in Sheila's emotional and psychological state during the 18 from leaving the hospital until her death. I won't again go through the disappointing and heartbreaking events which caused the change because I imagine you're as aware of them as I. Where you also aware that despair and hopelessness are just as likely to be the cause of tragic events as schizophrenia?
-
According to Scipio, it seems we can close all the mental hospitals and send the patients home. As long as they don't take drugs and keep on with their medication everything will be fine. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Doses of medication must be constantly fine tuned. Patients build up tolerance.
Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder that has affected people throughout history.
People with the disorder may hear voices other people don't hear. They may believe other people are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them. This can terrify people with the illness and make them withdrawn or extremely agitated.
People with schizophrenia may not make sense when they talk. They may sit for hours without moving or talking. Sometimes people with schizophrenia seem perfectly fine until they talk about what they are really thinking.
Families and society are affected by schizophrenia too. Many people with schizophrenia have difficulty holding a job or caring for themselves, so they rely on others for help.
Treatment helps relieve many symptoms of schizophrenia, but most people who have the disorder cope with symptoms throughout their lives. It is an incurable condition.
-
Morning lebabeb
excellent post hope you know who reads it and takes note.
-
What did she do to him? Did she physically attack him? nope Moreover, when did this supposedly happen? While she was off her medication and taking drugs.
Did she physically attack him? When did it happen? Was this while she was on her Haldol and what evidence is there to estbalish this event and the full circumstances?
Peopl being terrified because they don't know what to do doesn't mean crap, the question is whether she physically attacked anyone and if so under what conditions and what precipitated it.
You are ignoring:
1) that while medicated successfully there are very few instances of violence and that with SHeila as others it is when they are off their meds or on drugs when problems result
2) even when off ther meds and on drugs things still set them off. They don't just go looking to hurt people in their beds
3) that murder suicides are caused by something different than just plain murder or plain suicide
4) that there is evidence that proves beyond question that Sheila didn't kill herself because someone else moved her body very shortly after she died and put th esuppressor away
What does this have to do with whether she would kill anyone? If anythign the fact she neglected her kids makes it even less likely she would kill if someone suggested they be part time foster cared.
You ignore that she said these things before she was treated successfully in 1983 and that after such treatment she said no such thing ever again. During her second stay she didn't even tlak about her family at all. You also ignore her doctor said even then he didn't feel she was capable of harming them or herself and felt even more strongly she was not at risk to hurt them or herself in 1985. WHo is in the best position to evaluate he rmental condition the doctor treating her or someone who didn't even meet her ever?
The one twisting is you. Colin said that after her second stay in the hospital her relationship improved with her mother because SHeila found religion and was able to bond with her mother over religion. The reason she PREVIOUSLY hated being at WHF was allegedly because of her mother preached to her about sin. In th emeantime why did she relaspse away form WHF? Because while away from WHF she stopped taking her medication and was using narcotics.
The one ignoring the facts is you not me I considered everything together while you twist to look at outdated information and ignore the reasons for her past relapses to suit the agenda you insist you don't have but quite obviously do.
I am fully accurate that it is not probable based on her mental condition alone that she would kill anyone including herself. Since it is not probable tha tmeans it is wrong for peopel to try to use just her mental condition alone as evidence that she likely did it.
But I discussed far more including the evidence that proves she didn't kill herself and was framed.
I considered everything from top to bottom about her CURRENT situation.
You didn't, you dragged out things she said prior to treatment instead of the most recent treatment where she didn't talk about her kids or family at all. You tossed out her relapses caused by not taking her medication and taking narcotics (while failing to take into account that was the reason for the relapses) and even about how she hated being preached to when she went to WHF IN THE PAST but most recently didn't mind because she became religious and bonded with June over it.
I took into account everything while you cherry picked to try sto support the agenda you insist you don't have.
I read your posts and can see right through your bogus claims of objectivity. I just demonstrated here and now how you ignore any evidence that cuts against what you want to pretend happened even if it means ignoring the most recent evidence and running with statements from Sheila before she was treated.
You also ignore evidence that proves she can't have killed herself. That evidence and anything else is explained away as a grand conspiracy against Jeremy without an ounce of proof to establish the claim.
Nor is it ever explain how Nevill would have the opportunity to make a call let alone how and the entire timing of this overnight is never taken into account.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wa8ErLKdGc
-
Two brilliant and informative posts to which nobody can argue with because both are correct in the explanation of this very very sad illness. God help those who are affected,,and also their carers who in some,,their lives have to be adjusted in so many ways in order to continue caring for them.
Lives are changed dramatically.
Thankyou to April and lebaleb.
-
Two brilliant and informative posts to which nobody can argue with because both are correct in the explanation of this very very sad illness. God help those who are affected,,and also their carers who in some,,their lives have to be adjusted in so many ways in order to continue caring for them.
Lives are changed dramatically.
Thankyou to April and lebaleb.
I'm afraid these posts will fall upon deaf ears. For as we are all aware scipio knows everything, as he once had a girlfriend who was a nurse. Oh! And he's read extensively from Wikipedia. ;)
-
Well that just about sums it up then. ??? He doesn't need our input. :) He can solve it on his own. ::)
If I were him I'd be less concerned with what I'd descended from, and more concerned with what I'd descended to. ;D Wikipedia ???
-
Well that just about sums it up then. ??? He doesn't need our input. :) He can solve it on his own. ::)
If I were him I'd be less concerned with what I'd descended from, and more concerned with what I'd descended to. ;D Wikipedia ???
Perhaps it was Scipio he had in mind when Disraeli said that there were three types of lies. There were lies, damn lies and statistics." The American psychologist Gordon Allport says "Each individual is an idiomatic breach of the syntax of the species" something, I imagine, with which Scipio, who lumps us all into the statistics bracket, would strongly disagree.
-
You run on about how stable was her medication. Are you psychic. By whose authority do you make such a sweeping claim. That you can't, or perhaps that SHOULD be DON'T, produce facts to say that people on meds CAN commit murder suicide, doesn't mean that it HASN'T happened/ WON'T ever happen. Such is the nature of mental illness.
The fact it is EXCEEDINGLY rare means that you and everyone else here have no ability at all to say that her mental issues make her likely to have killed anyone. You say she had mentla issues so she liekly did it in lieu of providing any evidence she did a thing.
Even worse though you try to use the claim it theoretically is possible this was an exception to the rule someone refutes evidence tha tproves she didn't do it.
The biggest and most glaringly obvious thing you've ignored is the change in Sheila's emotional and psychological state during the 18 from leaving the hospital until her death. I won't again go through the disappointing and heartbreaking events which caused the change because I imagine you're as aware of them as I. Where you also aware that despair and hopelessness are just as likely to be the cause of tragic events as schizophrenia?
On the contrary I actually taking into account all aspects of her emotional state including changes occurring after her treatment, you don't. I also respect the opinion of the doctor who treated her whereas you reject it in favor of opinions by people who neve rmet her and are in no position to challenge his assessments simply because you prefer to accecpt assessments that she could have killed.
Let's look again at the outright deception fo Jeremy supporters:
1) Cite things Sheila said and felt before she was treated for Schizohrenia. She stopped having these delusions and fellings after being treated. But Jeremy supporters say let's cite them anyway because they discuss her family and we want to believe she hurt her family. At her second hospital stay she didn't mention her faily, no delusions about them or problems. So the delusions she had that led to her second breakdown were not about her family. Since this hurts the claim she would harm her family Jeremy supporters ignore the present situation and harken back to 1983 delusions before she was treated.
2) Similarly Jeremy supporters choose to ignore that she found religion and bonded with her mother over it and that according to Colin was closer to her than at any time he knew them. This is very bad because this cuts against Sheila attacking her mother. She was much closer to Nevill than her mother in the meantime. So supporters harken back to claims about how Sheila would be upset after she returned home from WHF. Why would she be upset? Because her mother preached to her that sleepign around and doing drugs was sinful and she didn't want to hear it. But alas she now was on the same page as her mother religion wise so had no reason to be upset about her preaching the last visit.
3) Supporters choose to ignore that she had relapses because she stopped taking her medication and/or was high on drugs. She was on her medicaiton and not on narcotics or alcohol. Therefore the circumstances that would make her relapse were not present.
4) That mothers who are depressed and decide to kill themselves do not take their entire family with them, if they do decide to commit suicide and take someone with them they choose their dependants.
5) the treating doctor is the one in th ebes tposition to assess the likelihood of violence
All of these things matter if one wants to actually be accurate and honest.
The ignoring of evidence cherrypicking is being done by Jeremy Supporters ESPECIALLY evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself which means all the speculation is exceedingly worhtless.
Scenario:
Jack threatened to kill his father in front of witnesses. Jack and his father have not been seen in days. Witnesses tell police about the threat and that they are worried. Jack's and his father are found shot to death. A rifle is found lying on Jack that later was ballisticly proven to have been the murder weapon. Police see a hole in Jack's chest and assume he killed his father then committed suicide. It is determined Jack was shot in the back and the bullet exited his chest. It is impossible that he shot himself in the back Jack was killed. Neither have gunshot residue or any blood from the other on their clothing or body. There is no evidence to establish Jack shot his father with the gun before someone took it from him and killed him with it. Nor is there any evidence Jack's father shot Jack then someone took it from him and killed him with it.
Even though Jack threatened his father it is meaningless because he could not have killed himself and there is no evidence he killed his father. Someone else walked away after killing him and this person also most likely killed his father.
The Bamber facts are similar except that Sheila didn't make any threats what is being used agaisnt Sheila is her mental state alone and that mental state is being misrepresented to falsely suggest it is likely that she did it but there is no such likelihood at all you need proof she did it and don't have such proof.
More importantly her mental state doesn't negate the fact she can't have killed herself. You can distort her mental state as much as you like it still doesn't help establish she killed anyone. She can't have killed herself, she was framed, Jeremy is the one who framed her and only the killer would frame her and be aware of the murders to have called police so that is why Jeremy will die in prison.
No amount of distortions about her mental state will have any ability to negate the evidence used to convict Jeremy. A skilled lawyer recognizes that negating such evidence is the only way to get Jerey freed. People who understand how evidence works and the concept of proof also understand this.
Biased people who don't want to face reality don't and spend their life twisting including twisting things that can't help prove their claims anyway.
-
You're biased,,aren't you ?
-
On the contrary I actually taking into account all aspects of her emotional state including changes occurring after her treatment, you don't. I also respect the opinion of the doctor who treated her whereas you reject it in favor of opinions by people who neve rmet her and are in no position to challenge his assessments simply because you prefer to accecpt assessments that she could have killed.
Let's look again at the outright deception fo Jeremy supporters:
1) Cite things Sheila said and felt before she was treated for Schizohrenia. She stopped having these delusions and fellings after being treated. But Jeremy supporters say let's cite them anyway because they discuss her family and we want to believe she hurt her family. At her second hospital stay she didn't mention her faily, no delusions about them or problems. So the delusions she had that led to her second breakdown were not about her family. Since this hurts the claim she would harm her family Jeremy supporters ignore the present situation and harken back to 1983 delusions before she was treated.
2) Similarly Jeremy supporters choose to ignore that she found religion and bonded with her mother over it and that according to Colin was closer to her than at any time he knew them. This is very bad because this cuts against Sheila attacking her mother. She was much closer to Nevill than her mother in the meantime. So supporters harken back to claims about how Sheila would be upset after she returned home from WHF. Why would she be upset? Because her mother preached to her that sleepign around and doing drugs was sinful and she didn't want to hear it. But alas she now was on the same page as her mother religion wise so had no reason to be upset about her preaching the last visit.
3) Supporters choose to ignore that she had relapses because she stopped taking her medication and/or was high on drugs. She was on her medicaiton and not on narcotics or alcohol. Therefore the circumstances that would make her relapse were not present.
4) That mothers who are depressed and decide to kill themselves do not take their entire family with them, if they do decide to commit suicide and take someone with them they choose their dependants.
5) the treating doctor is the one in th ebes tposition to assess the likelihood of violence
All of these things matter if one wants to actually be accurate and honest.
You most emphatically are not taking into account ALL aspects of her mental and psychological health. To my knowledge you have never once engaged in ANY discussion regarding those things which transpired between her leaving hospital and her death.
1. She did NOT stop having delusions after being treated. She was readmitted to hospital during which time she wrote Ann and one of the things she said was that "God had a purpose for her" and "all people are evil and should die" She didn't actually specify that this DIDN't include her family.
2. She FOUND religion!!!! She'd had religion rammed down her throat all her life -POSSIBLY in the hope it would cure her of her greatest sin, her illegitimacy- it had never left her.
3. You KNOW what I think of YOUR views about her meds. NO point in saying that MY expert disagrees with YOUR expert. FACT. Experts DO disagree.
4. There isn't a book of guidelines for those who contemplate suicide. If a person is that desperate it's possible that they'll prevent anyone stopping them by any means possible.
5. I agree the treating doctor WOULD have been the best person to assess her HAD he been treating her but he hadn't seen her for 18 weeks and he didn't even know what dosage of meds she was on.
You ARE correct when you say that these things matter if one wants to be accurate and honest. I'm not entirely convinced that you are 100% either, despite that you're capable of pulling facts from the either like they're going out of fashion and tarring all the mentally ill with the same brush. You accuse us of BS. I imagine that you're far better placed to deliver it than are we because we can't prove what you're doing.