Bamber controlling a fully fit Sheila.

[guest29835]

Lookout explained this in #307. Your final paragraph is quite absurd.

I certainly trust you as a measurement of what is absurd and what isn't, since you have so much experience.  I must take this on board and learn not to be so absurd.

[Jane]

Hiya Jane.If you read my post again you will find that all i said was that it is strange that Sheila never told Dr Fergusson about any suicidal thoughts.I did not say that she mentioned suicide and therefore went on kill herself.I am not cherry picking,and besides how many times have we heard the phrase 'I could kill anyone uncle Bobby' and such like,

We don't know, one way or the other, what she may have said, although it's reasonable to assume that when she first saw her GP about having "dark thoughts" his first question would have been "Are you thinking about committing suicide" because such is standard practice. However, we know that her death, at her own hands seemed to come as a surprise to Dr Ferguson.

When I said you were just giving sound-bites, I didn't feel you were looking at an entire conversation. You site "I could easily kill my parents, Uncle Bobby" as an example of what detractors say, but most of us can relay, verbatim, the occasion on which it was said (to have been said) and the conversation leading up to it.

[snow66!]

We don't know, one way or the other, what she may have said, but we know that death, at her own hands seemed to come as a surprise to Dr Ferguson.

When I said you were just giving sound-bites, I didn't feel you were looking at an entire conversation. You site "I could easily kill my parents, Uncle Bobby" as an example of what detractors say, but most of us can relay, verbatim, the occasion on which it was said (to have been said) and the conversation leading up to it.

Hi Jane.I am sure many members including yourself may have forgot more than i may ever know about the Bamber case,but i am doing my best as a newbie to read most of the available evidence and memorize it as best i can.

[Rob_]

It's a huge leap from needing help to get off a sofa and being unable to walk. It's entirely possible that we're reading about a one-time situation captured in time. That she MAY have needed help on that occasion is not an indication that it was permanent.

No its not Jane don't get like Adam please and twist things, someone who cannot get off the sofa unaided would be in serious trouble getting up even a few steps.

[Adam]

No its not Jane don't get like Adam please and twist things, someone who cannot get off the sofa unaided would be in serious trouble getting up even a few steps.

It's in CAL's book.

Getting up from a seated position is different from walking up stairs.

[Jane]

No its not Jane don't get like Adam please and twist things, someone who cannot get off the sofa unaided would be in serious trouble getting up even a few steps.

I entirely agree, Rob. However, if she'd only needed help on one occasion, it doesn't constitute permanent difficulty with walking, does it? You've been having lots of fun having pops at Adam because he's claimed her to have needed help getting off a sofa, but no one has said how many times this occurred. Her difficulty in walking, highlighted by an ungainly gait, has been highlighted by many, all except for one occasion when it's claimed she'd been playing and skipping with the boys. It turned out that it was June who had been playing and skipping with then.

I'm not trying to twist anything but there's very little that's either all one way or all the other.

[Rob_]

I entirely agree, Rob. However, if she'd only needed help on one occasion, it doesn't constitute permanent difficulty with walking, does it? You've been having lots of fun having pops at Adam because he's claimed her to have needed help getting off a sofa, but no one has said how many times this occurred. Her difficulty in walking, highlighted by an ungainly gait, has been highlighted by many, all except for one occasion when it's claimed she'd been playing and skipping with the boys. It turned out that it was June who had been playing and skipping with then.

I'm not trying to twist anything but there's very little that's either all one way or all the other.

I agree Jane, it's just Adam makes a big deal of Sheila needing help getting off the sofa and others have mentioned this as well. In my view if she really was this bad and it was not a one off situation JB would have had to rethink how he was going to carry out the crime.

[snow66!]

It's in CAL's book.

Getting up from a seated position is different from walking up stairs.

Hi Adam.It should be noted that in CALS book,she states that a 2013 note writtrn by JB,that he refuted talk of Sheila being so listless,saying it was just a myth and he never witnessed Sheila in such a state.Besides we havent actually seen Michael Horsnell or Tora Tompkinsons statements yet.

[guest29835]

I entirely agree, Rob. However, if she'd only needed help on one occasion, it doesn't constitute permanent difficulty with walking, does it? You've been having lots of fun having pops at Adam because he's claimed her to have needed help getting off a sofa, but no one has said how many times this occurred. Her difficulty in walking, highlighted by an ungainly gait, has been highlighted by many, all except for one occasion when it's claimed she'd been playing and skipping with the boys. It turned out that it was June who had been playing and skipping with then.

I'm not trying to twist anything but there's very little that's either all one way or all the other.

So convenient that we can't make a firm judgment about Sheila, but can about Jeremy's behaviour.  Not that I'm directing this at you in particular necessarily, but Sheila seems to be treated with proverbial kid gloves, while virtually every aspect of Jeremy's life is afforded the very blackest imputation possible.  Even if Jeremy did commit this terrible crime, it does not seem fair since, as you yourself imply, there are always layers of complexity to people's actions and motives.

[lookout]

I'm certain it wasn't the sort of conversation HG had ever previously experienced and I'll bet she wasn't comfortable with it!!! I'm not certain that the visit took place just prior to Sheila's death. If it did, it wasn't marijuana in those roll ups she was chain smoking because she tested negative for such.

 I get the feeling that Sheila was bored. In need of adult conversation, and here she was with an innocent girl who hadn't a clue about how Sheila lived her life and couldn't contribute. Whilst I'm convinced she'd have been shocked at talk of suicide, I wonder, if we're all digging deep and being honest, how many of us haven't thought about it? I don't mean actually going through with it, rather wondering what effect doing it would have on others? Would they mourn us? Would they feel guilty? In Sheila's case, would the mother for whom she could do nothing right feel guilty? I can't help but wonder if she engineered the whole conversation to shock. HG would have told her mother who would undoubtedly have told June who'd have been totally convinced Sheila had "sold her soul to the devil.

Yes Jane, it must have been marijuana that Sheila was smoking as HG said it " smelled funny " to which Sheila offered to give her a cigarette but HG declined, then Sheila had said that" everyone should smoke drugs ".
Sheila would have had withdrawal symptoms on the night of the tragedies as it would have appeared that she was dependent on the weed, and that alone would have driven her mad. To still have it in her system she must have smoked heavily on the weekend before as if she'd just had one, it would have left no trace beyond about 36 hrs with eating and drinking.

 

.

[Roch]

A more pertinent question might be, could Jane control a fully fit Lookout?  It might depend on whether there was any trace of cannabis in Jane's system.

[guest29835]

A more pertinent question might be, could Jane control a fully fit Lookout?  It might depend on whether there was any trace of cannabis in Jane's system.

There's no doubt in my mind that Adam would prevail over Cambridgecutie in a mud-wrestling bout for Top Guilter.  Mind you, Cambridgecutie is snapping at his heels and there has been tension between them, with Adam openly resenting how she critiqued his scenarios.  I do agree with Adam on this.  It's not the 'done thing' to muscle in and take apart Adam's scenarios when he has been doing this for years and built up a reputation for expertise in this area.  I just think some people are jealous of Adam.

[snow66!]

So convenient that we can't make a firm judgment about Sheila, but can about Jeremy's behaviour.  Not that I'm directing this at you in particular necessarily, but Sheila seems to be treated with proverbial kid gloves, while virtually every aspect of Jeremy's life is afforded the very blackest imputation possible.  Even if Jeremy did commit this terrible crime, it does not seem fair since, as you yourself imply, there are always layers of complexity to people's actions and motives.

Well Gascoigne,i think Freddie Emani says something very important about Sheilas behaviour in his statement.He says---Had it just been her stepmother who had been killed i could accept it as she disliked her intensly but to think she killed her father and children is difficult to comprehend.------Ok,fair enough.But then he says something to make yuo think--------I spoke to Sheila about the night of her second breakdown and she could not remember anything about it.I feel she believed i had made it up.I would add on that occasion she could not RECOGNISE anyone who came to her flat,and that she believed EVERYONE was trying to hurt or kill her.-------So what does this tell us.Well the fact is if she was in the midst of a psychotic episode she may not have been able to distinguish who was in the house that night,and that anyone she found had to die.She may not have known who her mum and dad were,or recognised her own children even.As Freddie said,all she may have been thinking was that EVERYONE was trying to hurt or kill her.So yes,normally she would never hurt her dad or kids.But in the midst of a psychotis episode would she even recognise them?

[guest29835]

Well Gascoigne,i think Freddie Emani says something very important about Sheilas behaviour in his statement.He says---Had it just been her stepmother who had been killed i could accept it as she disliked her intensly but to think she killed her father and children is difficult to comprehend.------Ok,fair enough.But then he says something to make yuo think--------I spoke to Sheila about the night of her second breakdown and she could not remember anything about it.I feel she believed i had made it up.I would add on that occasion she could not RECOGNISE anyone who came to her flat,and that she believed EVERYONE was trying to hurt or kill her.-------So what does this tell us.Well the fact is if she was in the midst of a psychotic episode she may not have been able to distinguish who was in the house that night,and that anyone she found had to die.She may not have known who her mum and dad were,or recognised her own children even.As Freddie said,all she may have been thinking was that EVERYONE was trying to hurt or kill her.So yes,normally she would never hurt her dad or kids.But in the midst of a psychotis episode would she even recognise them?

Does Freddie Emami's evidence suggest that Sheila had any psychotic episodes while medicated?

[snow66!]

Does Freddie Emami's evidence suggest that Sheila had any psychotic episodes while medicated?

Not that i am aware of Gascoigne.So are you also suggesting that even with a lower dose of Haloperidol Sheila could not have a psychotic breakdown? Didnt Ferguson say in reflection that it did seem possible?