Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Stephanie on September 30, 2017, 05:04:PM
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200880.html#msg200880
-
Who made these particular allegations for example?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6690.msg304722.html#msg304722
Where did they originate?
-
And who are James Stevenson and Dr Peter Wright?
Are they still involved in alleged miscarriages of justice?
Do they still support Jeremy Bambers claims of innocence?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200880.html#msg200880
Was the Manchester Mckensie Organisation similar to the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation? This of course being one example.
-
I'm hoping this thread will get to the bottom of these allegations in order to determine the source.
And please no circular conversations or disruptive and derailing posts ;)
-
Claims made by Manchester Mckenzie are claims not facts or evidence. Only if their claims are supported by proof does it amount to evidence or facts.
Agreed!
I'm interested to learn where the majority of "allegations" made regarding this case and claims of innocence originated from in order to establish how they then grew over the years.
With regards the SH case I was in a position to figure this out quite quickly. In the main, SH had been responsible. A handful of others, in their nativity (me included), failed to recognise where they started and how they were allowed to grow and how SH was able to maintain his lies for so long.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3172.0.html
It's a shame previous threads like the one above have been derailed
This seems to be common practice when crucial facts start to unravel
I doubt that anyone would recall perfectly every detail especially after what was a long and extremely traumatic day . Do you never use hindsight and prompts from elsewhere to ever so slightly change a recollection of some event or other . As more details leak from the police I think it perfectly reasonable that Jeremy's recollections change slightly .
Good to see you back btw Gringo
Bamber slipped up with regards timings - it had nothing to to with his recollection
As more details leak Jeremy's story changes, as is evidenced these past 3 decades
He's manufactured a wealth of rubbish over the years and manipulated many in the process
-
What do you mean by "slipped up" in relation to timings? Does this make sense if he wasn't guilty, and so had no reason to establish accurate times for the unfolding events of 7th August 1985 as they occurred?
-
What do you mean by "slipped up" in relation to timings? Does this make sense if he wasn't guilty, and so had no reason to establish accurate times for the unfolding events of 7th August 1985 as they occurred?
He slipped up: was caught in the lie..
Like he slipped up in 1991 by accusing AP of being the murderer ::)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4209.0 (last page of his letter to Mike)
-
He slipped up: was caught in the lie..
Like he slipped up in 1991 by accusing AP of being the murderer ::)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4209.0 (last page of his letter to Mike)
Try reading the letter in the correct context. He states "if it wasn't Sheila" while entertaining the thought of it being AP. Furthermore if Jeremy is being told that Sheila could not have done it while knowing he didn't do it either you cannot blame him for considering a 3rd party.
-
Quite right about your post,David. I think anyone,no matter who ,in such a situation knowing it wasn't them would start immediately thinking of a third party-------I know I would. So would everyone else if they were honest.
-
you would not want to belive that your sister would of done such a thing so speculating that your cosen did isnt that unreasonable.
i mean to begin with everybody thought it was a 3rd party the relatives did not think jeremy actully did the dead himself.
and while ap is an unlikely suspect i dont think he can be completly ruled out.
-
It has to be Bamber or a third party.
There is no evidence on Sheila or her nightdress that she fired 26 bullets in three rooms & fought with a man twice as big as her.
Nevill's call to Bamber only lasted 2-4 seconds before the phone was put down. Only 8 or 11 words were said.
So a half asleep Bamber wouldn't realise it was RB or AP on the phone & just assume it was Nevill.
Very extreme to think a relative killed men, women & children. Used Sheila as a scapehoat and then told the police it was Bamber, not Sheila. Never heard anything like it.
-
It has to be Bamber or a third party.
There is no evidence on Sheila or her nightdress that she fired 26 bullets in three rooms & fought with a man twice as big as her.
You don't know there is no evidence on the nightdress because EP destroyed it before any advanced testing could be done.
There is at least one of Sheila's fingerprints on the gun plus there is four times as much led on her right hand than her left, the same hand she would use to load the bullets.
-
It has to be Bamber or a third party.
There is no evidence on Sheila or her nightdress that she fired 26 bullets in three rooms & fought with a man twice as big as her.
Nevill's call to Bamber only lasted 2-4 seconds before the phone was put down. Only 8 or 11 words were said.
So a half asleep Bamber wouldn't realise it was RB or AP on the phone & just assume it was Nevill.
Very extreme to think a relative killed men, women & children. Used Sheila as a scapehoat and then told the police it was Bamber, not Sheila. Never heard anything like it.
i think your forgeting something adam there should be gsr on the nightdress who ever did it and lack of it would actully point to sheila more than jeremy becouse if she was alive she could of washed her night dress or changed it if she was dead she couldent.
-
There are 23 pieces of evidence from the COA and another 8 pieces of sourced evidence which show Sheila did not committ the massacre. None except two pieces (foot) disputed by Bamber -
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
--------------------
It has to be Bamber or a third party.
-
I did not include the silencer in the list as Bamber has disputed this evidence over a long period.
-
you would not want to belive that your sister would of done such a thing so speculating that your cosen did isnt that unreasonable.
i mean to begin with everybody thought it was a 3rd party the relatives did not think jeremy actully did the dead himself.
and while ap is an unlikely suspect i dont think he can be completly ruled out.
It raised suspicion with me when he'd turned up at WHF out of the blue the weekend before the murders ( back-end of July ) It still remains to be a strange coincidence .
-
There are 23 pieces of evidence from the COA and another 8 pieces of sourced evidence which show Sheila did not committ the massacre. None except two pieces disputed by Bamber -
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
--------------------
It has to be Bamber or a third party.
How to make a list of 31 pieces like Adam.
Step 1: Take 5 pieces of outdated and refuted evidence.
Step 2: Turn those 5 pieces into bullshit by claiming they are undisputed.
Step 3: Turn those 5 pieces of Bullshit into 25 by rewording those 5 pieces of bullshit fives times over.
Step 4: Insert 6 pieces of factual evidence that don't prove anything in order to make the other 25 pieces of bullshit look honest.
Step 5: Make up a source for each piece of bullshit by misquoting or misattributing the infomation to a any particular person.
Step 6: Claim Bamber agrees to everything and anything because Roger Wilkes interviewed him.
Step 7: Never talk about one single piece of evidence at a time because none of them stand up to scrutiny.
Step 8: Once people realise the list of pieces is just a load of garbage simply ignore them and post it all again.
Done.
-
How David shows Bamber is innocent -
Step 1:
Create a forensic evidence breakthrough but not say what it is.
Step 2:
Create his own diagrams of bouncing bullets.
Step 3:
Say RB & Julie imagined MM between them.
Step 4:
Say Bamber has wriiten 6 letters to him but refuse to post them.
Step 5:
Create 5 Sheila scenarios because the other 4 were rubbish (so was the 5th).
Step 6:
Say he had a meeting with Bamber's legal advisors which he cycled to.
Step 7:
Deny ever being a guilter.
Step 8:
Say the COA is not a valid source because it was in 2002 ?
Step 9:
Claim Julie should have been wired up after splitting up with Bamber.
Step 10:
Say he is are going to submit 3D diagrams of the kitchen fight & devolpments on the aga scratches. Then don't.
-
Almost forgot David's other bullshit claims -
Change stance because of one post from Scipio.
Change stance because of non evidence.
Say it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles.
Say it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark.
Make up something & believe putting up a picture of Ricky Gervaise will mean the other poster won't bother checking.
Say there are sources that the police moved the bible onto Sheila's arm before photos were taken. But not provide them.
Say the relatives could get Sheila's blood from wet clothes in a bucket.
Say the police didn't tell Bamber about Nevill's call to the police so they could frame him.
Dispute 6 out of 62 pieces of sourced forensic evidence & forget about the other 56 pieces.
Argue that a 999 call was made from WHF at 6.09am.
Say the conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury'. Then say it wasn't.
-
It's no good swamping the forum with your posts--------it doesn't make JB the guilty one.Empty vessels !
-
It raised suspicion with me when he'd turned up at WHF out of the blue the weekend before the murders ( back-end of July ) It still remains to be a strange coincidence .
[/quote
who are we talking about lookout
-
If you did but realise it, it promotes his innocence. ;D
-
I politely answered David's reply 13 post.
My reply had 23 sources from the COA. Together with another 8 pieced sources.
Not sure what else I can do.
David has previously & briefly claimed the COA is not a valid source. But has never said why.
He now just focuses on me whenever sourced evidence is posted.
-
David said in 2015 -
'The forensics point to him in all directions despite the police errors and inconsistencies'.
Now all this evidence is not valid.
Why ? Because David realised the relatives & police had the opportunity to work together to create a sick, complex & risky fabrication on one piece of evidence.
There is no evidence the police & relatives did what David believes was possible.
-
It raised suspicion with me when he'd turned up at WHF out of the blue the weekend before the murders ( back-end of July ) It still remains to be a strange coincidence .
[/quote
who are we talking about lookout
Sorry,wrong thread---------it was AP.
-
i wonder weather the ap alegation does come from jeremy or he heard it somewhere else.
-
As more details leak Jeremy's story changes, as is evidenced these past 3 decades
He's manufactured a wealth of rubbish over the years and manipulated many in the process
In this letter (2009) he talks of Ann & David's arrest? ::)
"Key to my speedy release is getting Ann & David arrested"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2425.msg74648.html#msg74648
-
This letter is from 2008 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1831.msg56837.html#msg56837
-
In this letter (2011) he attributes Mike and others with his own character traits
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,908.0.html
There's reference to Jeremy's state of mind in these 3 letters
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,107.msg48680.html#msg48680
Wonder if they were written in the same vein as the one above (2011) ::)
Yes, that Flickr account was no longer necessary because the current site was in the pipeline where I can post it all, and it is under my control - hope this explains the current position. As for the letters mentioned, I shall be reposting them along with the hundreds of others at some point or other. At the time most of these letters were written between Jeremy and me, he was aware that I would be divulging the contents to third parties because of the nature of work I was carrying out on his behalf when there was only a handful of people helping him at a time when he could not get legal aid...
I also kept copies of all the letters I wrote back to Jeremy, which details the third parties I discussed and showed the contents of his letters to, so it is an historical account of events and worthy of publication, in my view - at some point. Of course, some of the things which Jeremy wrote to me about were personal matters which he asked me never to divulge to anyone, and I would respect that, things that should never be made public knowledge...
Then this one from 2013 where he states he "gets a it muddled sometimes" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8339.msg397376.html#msg397376
-
Then this letter to Trudi in 2016
-
Try reading the letter in the correct context. He states "if it wasn't Sheila" while entertaining the thought of it being AP. Furthermore if Jeremy is being told that Sheila could not have done it while knowing he didn't do it either you cannot blame him for considering a 3rd party.
How to make a list of 31 pieces like Adam.
Step 1: Take 5 pieces of outdated and refuted evidence.
Step 2: Turn those 5 pieces into bullshit by claiming they are undisputed.
Step 3: Turn those 5 pieces of Bullshit into 25 by rewording those 5 pieces of bullshit fives times over.
Step 4: Insert 6 pieces of factual evidence that don't prove anything in order to make the other 25 pieces of bullshit look honest.
Step 5: Make up a source for each piece of bullshit by misquoting or misattributing the infomation to a any particular person.
Step 6: Claim Bamber agrees to everything and anything because Roger Wilkes interviewed him.
Step 7: Never talk about one single piece of evidence at a time because none of them stand up to scrutiny.
Step 8: Once people realise the list of pieces is just a load of garbage simply ignore them and post it all again.
Done.
David, it's not Adam projecting - it's Jeremy Bamber and in turn people like yourself.
But you can't see it because your bias won't allow it.
Are we now really expected to believe that AP was still in the house at 07.34 as Bamber claims?
-
Aren't guilters biased too ::) Don't guilters project too ::)
-
David, it's not Adam projecting - it's Jeremy Bamber and in turn people like yourself.
But you can't see it because your bias won't allow it.
Are we now really expected to believe that AP was still in the house at 07.34 as Bamber claims?
David's tactic is to focus on me when evidence is posted. Which is against forum rules.
He did previously briefly say the COA was not a valid source. If that's the case then thousands of former & future appeals could be wrong.
Anyway, page 2 on this thread has 23 pieces of evidence from the COA & 8 other sourced pieces of evidence. Showing Sheila did not commit the massacre.
Not sure what else supporters can be given apart from a signed confession from Bamber. Even then supporters will claim RB forged Bamber's signature.
-
David's tactic is to focus on me when evidence is posted. Which is against forum rules.
He did previously briefly say the COA was not a valid source. If that's the case then millions of former & future appeals could be wrong.
Anyway, page 2 on this thread has 23 pieces of evidence from the COA & 8 other sourced pieces of evidence. Showing Sheila did not commit the massacre.
Not sure what else supporters can be given apart from a signed confession from Bamber. Even then supporters will claim RB forged Bamber's signature.
Supporters don't need your manipulating either. We are our own persons with our own train of thoughts.
-
He slipped up: was caught in the lie..
Like he slipped up in 1991 by accusing AP of being the murderer ::)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4209.0 (last page of his letter to Mike)
He slips up frequently.
-
Everyone else was telling the truth ? Statements,etc 100% perfection,inc EP et al ?
-
Everyone else was telling the truth ? Statements,etc 100% perfection,inc EP et al ?
Who knows but Jeremy certainly wasn't
-
Supporters don't need your manipulating either. We are our own persons with our own train of thoughts.
Adam is NOT manipulating you; Jeremy Bamber is!
As Adam has rightly pointed out, youre too busy focused on him, me or whoever Jeremy points you towards at that given moment in time. And indeed what ever evidence is the trend of the week.
-
It seems to me that Adam is very much focused on what people here say - judging by his comments elsewhere.
-
It seems to me that Adam is very much focused on what people here say - judging by his comments elsewhere.
No idea what you're talking about but seems you too are focused on Adam the person as opposed the contents of his posts.
-
No idea what you're talking about but seems you too are focused on Adam the person as opposed the contents of his posts.
Not really, I'm saying that he's too focused on members. He knows what I mean.
-
Not really, I'm saying that he's too focused on members. He knows what I mean.
Not really what?
You have repeated yourself!
Are you suggesting Adam thinks the same way you do?
-
Not really what?
You have repeated yourself!
Are you suggesting Adam thinks the same way you do?
I have no idea if he does.
-
Don't worry about it Stephanie, it's not your concern.
-
David's tactic is to focus on me when evidence is posted. Which is against forum rules.
He did previously briefly say the COA was not a valid source. If that's the case then thousands of former & future appeals could be wrong.
Anyway, page 2 on this thread has 23 pieces of evidence from the COA & 8 other sourced pieces of evidence. Showing Sheila did not commit the massacre.
Not sure what else supporters can be given apart from a signed confession from Bamber. Even then supporters will claim RB forged Bamber's signature.
Adam, as usual you are pushing your luck. You are at least as guilty as anyone else of focusing on other posters and making sarcastic comments. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle....
-
How to make a list of 31 pieces like Adam.
Step 1: Take 5 pieces of outdated and refuted evidence.
Step 2: Turn those 5 pieces into bullshit by claiming they are undisputed.
Step 3: Turn those 5 pieces of Bullshit into 25 by rewording those 5 pieces of bullshit fives times over.
Step 4: Insert 6 pieces of factual evidence that don't prove anything in order to make the other 25 pieces of bullshit look honest.
Step 5: Make up a source for each piece of bullshit by misquoting or misattributing the infomation to a any particular person.
Step 6: Claim Bamber agrees to everything and anything because Roger Wilkes interviewed him.
Step 7: Never talk about one single piece of evidence at a time because none of them stand up to scrutiny.
Step 8: Once people realise the list of pieces is just a load of garbage simply ignore them and post it all again.
Done.
Davids unprovoked post. Reply 18.
Maggie must have missed it.
-
Who knows but Jeremy certainly wasn't
Were they or weren't they ?
-
Adam is NOT manipulating you; Jeremy Bamber is!
As Adam has rightly pointed out, youre too busy focused on him, me or whoever Jeremy points you towards at that given moment in time. And indeed what ever evidence is the trend of the week.
JB doesn't do manipulating-------but there are 4 here that do !! Or try. ::)
Aren't you also busy focussed on his guilt ??
-
JB doesn't do manipulating-------but there are 4 here that do !! Or try. ::)
Aren't you also busy focussed on his guilt ??
Oh yes he does Lookout.
-
Davids unprovoked post. Reply 18.
Maggie must have missed it.
I saw it and I am reminding you that you are at least as bad as him. If I choose to let David's comments on you and your comments on him go for now it may be a good idea if you don't provoke the situation by drawing attention to David's posts when you have behaved in a similar manner to him and to other posters.
-
Oh yes he does Lookout.
No.
-
No.
Yes
-
I saw it and I am reminding you that you are at least as bad as him. If I choose to let David's comments on you and your comments on him go for now it may be a good idea if you don't provoke the situation by drawing attention to David's posts when you have behaved in a similar manner to him and to other posters.
I just posted published evidence - reply 15.
Then David focused on me - reply 18.
This always happens.
Please confirm how to resolve this.
-
Yes
How and when and to whom ?
-
I just posted published evidence - reply 15.
Then David focused on me - reply 18.
This always happens.
Please confirm how to resolve this.
I have sent you a pm.
-
How and when and to whom ?
He has been described as manipulative by many people - it wouldn't matter if they incidents were listed, yiu would choose not to take it on board and that's your prerogative. Nevertheless, it's how others that have known him - see him.
-
He has been described as manipulative by many people - it wouldn't matter if they incidents were listed, yiu would choose not to take it on board and that's your prerogative. Nevertheless, it's how others that have known him - see him.
Who would these " others " be. ? The ones who say he's guilty ?
-
Who would these " others " be. ? The ones who say he's guilty ?
Not necessarily
-
Not necessarily
You mean yes.
-
im wondering weather the ap allegation orginally comes from somwhere else.
i mean i dont think exactly palls some of the other cousens.
ap would of been posbly suggested becouse he had a conection to whf.
and he used to somtimes keep his guns there.
-
It goes to show just how easy it is to blame someone because of their movements prior to a " happening "!
Which goes for JB himself. Supposition ?
-
He slipped up: was caught in the lie..
Like he slipped up in 1991 by accusing AP of being the murderer ::)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4209.0 (last page of his letter to Mike)
Meant to point out here that Bamber blatantly lies to Mike in his letter about the amount of money stolen from the Caravan burglary.
It was £980 (Source:police interviews) so 'Woody' wasn't far off at all when he said £1000
Also during police interview Bamber even remembers details regarding amounts of money taken for caravan rentals, so it's clear he has a good recollection when it suits him - this is also when he says to the police:
"I KNEW I WOULD BE NUMBER ONE SUSPECT BUT THEY COULDN'T PROVE IT"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1144.0.html
-
Meant to point out here that Bamber blatantly lies to Mike in his letter about the amount of money stolen from the Caravan burglary.
It was £980 (Source:police interviews) so 'Woody' wasn't far off at all when he said £1000
Also during police interview Bamber even remembers details regarding amounts of money taken for caravan rentals, so it's clear he has a good recollection when it suits him - this is also when he says to the police:
"I KNEW I WOULD BE NUMBER ONE SUSPECT BUT THEY COULDN'T PROVE IT"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1144.0.html
119. In about March 1985, in the context of a discussion about the security at the Osea Road caravan site, the appellant told his uncle Robert Boutflour, "… I could kill anybody … I could easily kill my parents".
-
ALL PEOPLE ARE BAD AND SHOULD BE KILLED-------------said Sheila,so NOBODY was safe !!
-
ALL PEOPLE ARE BAD AND SHOULD BE KILLED-------------said Sheila,so NOBODY was safe !!
The above is only a theory. Jeremy's statement was a specific.
-
The above is only a theory. Jeremy's statement was a specific.
Theory ? Hadn't it been said to BW who then told AE ? However,the theory worked,didn't it ?
-
Theory ? Hadn't it been said to BW who then told AE ? However,the theory worked,didn't it ?
Why would saying it to anyone make it more than a theory? Supposing the theory of evolution had never been spoken about? The more I think about those words, the more convinced I am that they weren't the words of someone who had killing in mind. They sound more like someone who was thoroughly fed up. Maybe, just MAYBE, she was fed up with having June's thoughts of how she should live her life rammed down her throat. MAYBE June had bought BW into the conversation and the pair of them had been having a go at her. We don't know the full story, ie what led up to the statement OR what were June and BW's reaction to it.
-
Why would saying it to anyone make it more than a theory? Supposing the theory of evolution had never been spoken about? The more I think about those words, the more convinced I am that they weren't the words of someone who had killing in mind. They sound more like someone who was thoroughly fed up. Maybe, just MAYBE, she was fed up with having June's thoughts of how she should live her life rammed down her throat. MAYBE June had bought BW into the conversation and the pair of them had been having a go at her. We don't know the full story, ie what led up to the statement OR what were June and BW's reaction to it.
Because it would make it a fact as opposed to a theory.
-
Because it would make it a fact as opposed to a theory.
Of course it wouldn't! Any more than does my telling you that I have a theory that BW was responsible for the murders because Nevill wouldn't divorce June and marry her.
-
Of course it wouldn't! Any more than does my telling you that I have a theory that BW was responsible for the murders because Nevill wouldn't divorce June and marry her.
Hadn't Sheila told Dr Ferguson of her " theories " about killing ? We've yet to see that paperwork.
-
Hadn't Sheila told Dr Ferguson of her " theories " about killing ? We've yet to see that paperwork.
In 1983 she spoke of her fears. Saying she was afraid that she might kill them or they, her? -what she didn't say was that unless someone stopped her she would- Dr Ferguson says she didn't mention her children or family when she was admitted in 1985.
-
In 1983 she spoke of her fears. Saying she was afraid that she might kill them or they, her? -what she didn't say was that unless someone stopped her she would- Dr Ferguson says she didn't mention her children or family when she was admitted in 1985.
Because Sheila had been spaced out with confusion,etc she probably didn't realise that she had a family.
-
Because Sheila had been spaced out with confusion,etc she probably didn't realise that she had a family.
Another sweeping statement. Dr Ferguson didn't say she never mentioned them. Such WOULD have been curious. She told Ann that she missed then. Difficult to do if she didn't realize she had children, don't you think? Besides which, you've recently said that you don't believe her to have been mentally ill.
-
Another sweeping statement. Dr Ferguson didn't say she never mentioned them. Such WOULD have been curious. She told Ann that she missed then. Difficult to do if she didn't realize she had children, don't you think? Besides which, you've recently said that you don't believe her to have been mentally ill.
It's documented that on entering the hospital Sheila had been in a " psychotic state ". Your memory is failing fast.
You've just said that her children/family weren't mentioned ?
-
Sheila's state of health was nothing that couldn't have been resolved. She'd have been in a state of utter confusion about " what was wrong with her , why did Colin choose to leave her,why has Colin got her children,why is her mother so mean to her ". Her mind would have been in turmoil and she was reaching out for the help that didn't come. What a dreadful state to have been in for anyone.
Then she was given medication to knock her out,which she didn't want or need until she'd asked for it to be reduced,so she was fully aware that she hadn't liked or tolerated the drowsy effect that it was giving her. Had it been oral,she wouldn't have taken it at all. Other medications weren't taken because of their effects.
-
It's documented that on entering the hospital Sheila had been in a " psychotic state ". Your memory is failing fast.
You've just said that her children/family weren't mentioned ?
I'm fully aware of what their diagnosis was, however, despite that, YOU say it was a wrong diagnosis and that she wasn't mentally ill. Not mentioning may simply mean that they weren't her uppermost concerns.
-
Sheila's state of health was nothing that couldn't have been resolved. She'd have been in a state of utter confusion about " what was wrong with her , why did Colin choose to leave her,why has Colin got her children,why is her mother so mean to her ". Her mind would have been in turmoil and she was reaching out for the help that didn't come. What a dreadful state to have been in for anyone.
Then she was given medication to knock her out,which she didn't want or need until she'd asked for it to be reduced,so she was fully aware that she hadn't liked or tolerated the drowsy effect that it was giving her. Had it been oral,she wouldn't have taken it at all. Other medications weren't taken because of their effects.
Well, you're doing a very curious balancing act between having her just sick enough to meet your own criteria -as a nurse, not a specialist- and having her totally psychotic and believing herself to be someone else. You can't have it both ways.
-
Well, you're doing a very curious balancing act between having her just sick enough to meet your own criteria -as a nurse, not a specialist- and having her totally psychotic and believing herself to be someone else. You can't have it both ways.
Whatever Sheila's problem she still knew who she was and remained to have her faculties unlike many.
-
Whatever Sheila's problem she still knew who she was and remained to have her faculties unlike many.
Surely we know that she -at one time- believed herself to be the Virgin Mary or Joan of Arc? Interesting that a woman who must have felt herself entirely powerless should imagine herself to be two of the most powerful females figures in history, don't you think?
-
Surely we know that she -at one time- believed herself to be the Virgin Mary or Joan of Arc? Interesting that a woman who must have felt herself entirely powerless should imagine herself to be two of the most powerful females figures in history, don't you think?
My friend's daughter who was hospitalised last year was a " princess who ruled over somewhere or other and always made headline news " and who also had violent tendencies towards her mother, was released from hospital after nearly 4 months has been living as near normal a life in a converted house with people like herself. The difference being that these people are supervised on a daily basis,are medicated properly and generally being prepared for normal living. Something that Sheila was never afforded.
Initial diagnosis ? Post natal depression which had gone on for 17 years.
-
My friend's daughter who was hospitalised last year was a " princess who ruled over somewhere or other and always made headline news " and who also had violent tendencies towards her mother, was released from hospital after nearly 4 months has been living as near normal a life in a converted house with people like herself. The difference being that these people are supervised on a daily basis,are medicated properly and generally being prepared for normal living. Something that Sheila was never afforded.
Initial diagnosis ? Post natal depression which had gone on for 17 years.
Every case of mental illness is totally unique. No two life experiences are going to be the same. My personal belief is that most mental illnesses can't be cured by medication alone and require some degree of counselling along side it. There but for the grace of God, "these people" are you and me, Lookout. NONE of us is immune. I'm also not prepared to accept that PND lasts 17 years without transmuting to something else, if only because it can no longer be PN.
-
Every case of mental illness is totally unique. No two life experiences are going to be the same. My personal belief is that most mental illnesses can't be cured by medication alone and require some degree of counselling along side it. There but for the grace of God, "these people" are you and me, Lookout. NONE of us is immune. I'm also not prepared to accept that PND lasts 17 years without transmuting to something else, if only because it can no longer be PN.
There's new evidence from Scandinavia to suggest that schizophrenia is largely genetic:
https://www.sciencealert.com/schizophrenia-is-80-genetic-according-to-this-massive-study-on-twins
-
There's new evidence from Scandinavia to suggest that schizophrenia is largely genetic:
https://www.sciencealert.com/schizophrenia-is-80-genetic-according-to-this-massive-study-on-twins
That's interesting, Steve. Back in the 90's I did some work on a paper which discussed the link between adopted children and schizophrenia.
-
There's new evidence from Scandinavia to suggest that schizophrenia is largely genetic:
https://www.sciencealert.com/schizophrenia-is-80-genetic-according-to-this-massive-study-on-twins
I'd said myself it was genetic. Any type of unidentified illness in a child is usually from either one parent or even a generation or two previous.