The campaign against Jeremy Bamber

[scipio_usmc]

18 weeks is a long time so you have to concede that her condition could have deteriorated within that 18 weeks. Just because the medical persons involved did not see her in that period of time does not prove it did not happen. So I see your argument as proof by omission. Weak

The bruden is on you to prove that it did deteriorate and in a way which woudl have caused her to be liekly to kill and commit suicide.  The fact of the matter is that you can't which is why you and other supporters constantly bring up 1983 before she was treated.

You have zilch to suggest she woudl be having any delusions let alone kill as a result of them.  No evidence she was having delusions the day of the murder let alone days around it.  Nothing to suggest anyhting wrong around the itme of the murders other than she was even mor equiet than usual lon the phone and decided to go to bed without saying good night.

Even more damning than having nothing to indicate she would kill anyone is a complete lack of any evidence that she did and worse evidence she can't have killed herself.

What evidence could have convicted her?  Nada there is evidence to convict Jeremy but not her.

I know it is frustrating arguing a position with the facts completely against you but that is your fault.  you decided to take a position that is the complete opposite of what the facts demonstrate.

[grahameb]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,159.msg375.html

[grahameb]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,153.msg316.html#msg316

[scipio_usmc]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,159.msg375.html

And?  This doesn't help on the contrary it hurts.

1) It says since the second hospital stay she spoke very slowly and deliberate thus hard to talk to because he lacked the patience to deal with her being so slow.  He siad he only saw her socially one time after her second breakdown. He said she was pleasant and noted no problems or issues observed during such encounter.  That is the timeframe that actually matters in trying to show she changed in between leaving the hospital and before the murders.  Yet he provides no examples of her relapsing or the like. 

2) He doesn'tnote anything that would change from the second hospital stay to the murders.  Instead he noted a change from before and after the stay. She was very subdued and slow.  That is what Haldol does to people it has sedative effects even though Jeremy supporters would like to pretend otherwise.  She went from being high strung upon entering to being extremely slow talking and acting after it.  That certianly doesn't exhibit anything suggestive of increasing the likelihood of her being violent let alone killing anyone.

3) Part of the problem related to her second breakdown was that she had stopped taking her medication.  He noted that no one could get her to take her medication or clam down but she instantly calmed down as soon as she saw Nevill- he immediately had an effect to balance her and she conversed rationally with him.  He was amazed.  This certainly doesn't help.  It makes it harder to claim Nevill would need Jeremy when Nevill had such a calming effect and greatly hurts any suggestion she would be likely to harm Nevill.  He was able to get her back on track even though she was not taking her medication and at the time fo the murders she was on her medication.

4) He was shocked by the murders and found it difficult to believe she was responsible. 

This offers nothing at all to help establish that Sheila changed between her hospital stay and the murders as would be indicative of suddenly becoming prone to commit violence or murder.

[scipio_usmc]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,153.msg316.html#msg316

and?

It says that the after the second hospital stay her doctor told him he did not see her as a threat to herself and others.  He presents no evidence to the contrary or anything about her changing between that release and the murders. 

He observes what everyone else did she was vacant and not very talkative after going on Haldol. 

Moreover he gave a much longer subsequent statement where he elaborates about how she became closer to her mother after the second hospital stay as they bonded over religion.  He stated that she didn't show much interest in the kids and the kids would complain about her ignoring them as she was in her own world.  He also said he didn't believe she was capable of the murders. 

This doesn't help at all to establish she changed between being released and the time of the murders and was likely to become violent and kill. 

[grahameb]

1) -  About four months ago I called on Sheila at her flat, at her suggestion. She appeared to me to be jumpy, uptight and panicky although I do not know what about...

(2) - Whilst I was there she telephoned Tara, a close friend. She was apologizing to Tara for a religious book that her step mother had dropped off at Tara's house a couple of days previously. During the call the phone went dead. Sheila suddenly became hysterical mumbling about the phone bugged. She became like someone possessed ranting and raving. She was striking herself and beating the wall with her fists.I tried to calm her but she did not seem to hear me...

(3) - I became extremely frightened not only for her but for myself...

(4) - She kept talking about the devil and god, and stating that God was sitting opposite her and unlike what her stepmother said he in fact loved her...

(5) - I contacted her ex- mother in law and asked her to come around. This aggravated the situation and Sheila became even more violent and abusive...

This was not in 1983. It was 4 months before the murders. Ann Eaton hads not seen Sheila since Christmas, this was August. So she was not a reliable witness in regard to the state of Sheila's mind.

[Jan]

The bruden is on you to prove that it did deteriorate and in a way which woudl have caused her to be liekly to kill and commit suicide.  The fact of the matter is that you can't which is why you and other supporters constantly bring up 1983 before she was treated.

You have zilch to suggest she woudl be having any delusions let alone kill as a result of them.  No evidence she was having delusions the day of the murder let alone days around it.  Nothing to suggest anyhting wrong around the itme of the murders other than she was even mor equiet than usual lon the phone and decided to go to bed without saying good night.

Even more damning than having nothing to indicate she would kill anyone is a complete lack of any evidence that she did and worse evidence she can't have killed herself.

What evidence could have convicted her?  Nada there is evidence to convict Jeremy but not her.

I know it is frustrating arguing a position with the facts completely against you but that is your fault.  you decided to take a position that is the complete opposite of what the facts demonstrate.

get off your high horse - we are not in court now.

And Sorry I dont agree .

I bet a lot of doctors plead that when they let people out into the community and they then commit crimes.

[maggie]

get off your high horse - we are not in court now.

And Sorry I dont agree .

I bet a lot of doctors plead that when they let people out into the community and they then commit crimes.

This is the problem, scipio seems to believe he's in court or is the CCRC while we are debating and questioning. It is almost impossible to prove you are innocent to an Appeal Court even if you are and scipio is using that as his defence.

[grahameb]

This is the problem, scipio seems to believe he's in court or is the CCRC while we are debating and questioning. It is almost impossible to prove you are innocent to an Appeal Court even if you are and scipio is using that as his defence.

In order to debate this thing properly a person cannot keep retreating back to the decision of the court or the verdict. We are not in court. In fact we are questioning or debating the verdict and the decisions of the court. So anything the court or the judge had to say is irrelevant if we are to do this correctly and in an unbiased way.

[lookout]

 Out of ALL the people who were questioned after the tragedy,Jeremy was/is the ONLY one who hasn't lied,embroidered,embellished,fabricated or altered his account in any way,all the years he's been in prison. His story to this day remains the same !

[grahameb]

Out of ALL the people who were questioned after the tragedy,Jeremy was/is the ONLY one who hasn't lied,embroidered,embellished,fabricated or altered his account in any way,all the years he's been in prison. His story to this day remains the same !

As far as I can see he hasn't changed his story once. But I see many unproven snippets being posted here on the forum by the guilty party?

[lookout]

We know about JM,but did we know that she'd also added that she was engaged to Jeremy ? That,I'm afraid,was yet another lie. Oh dear !

[Jane]

We know about JM,but did we know that she'd also added that she was engaged to Jeremy ? That,I'm afraid,was yet another lie. Oh dear !

If Jeremy had asked her to marry him and she'd accepted, they would have been engaged -albeit for the short time it took him to tell his parents and for them to have their say and for him to change his mind- and in Victorian times she could have sued him for breach of promise of marriage.

[Jane]

and?

It says that the after the second hospital stay her doctor told him he did not see her as a threat to herself and others.  He presents no evidence to the contrary or anything about her changing between that release and the murders. 

He observes what everyone else did she was vacant and not very talkative after going on Haldol. 

Moreover he gave a much longer subsequent statement where he elaborates about how she became closer to her mother after the second hospital stay as they bonded over religion.  He stated that she didn't show much interest in the kids and the kids would complain about her ignoring them as she was in her own world.  He also said he didn't believe she was capable of the murders. 

This doesn't help at all to establish she changed between being released and the time of the murders and was likely to become violent and kill.

I'm interested in that Ferguson states that after her second stay in hospital Sheila bonded with her mother over religion.

 I'm curious as to how he knew this as the last time he had contact with Sheila was IN hospital, 18 weeks prior to her death. There obviously wasn't any feedback from the psychiatric nurses who failed to visit her.

  I'm also curious as to WHEN, after leaving hospital, this bonding occurred. We know that Sheila hadn't visited the farm since prior to the previous Christmas and whilst I concede that June may have visited Sheila in London, there is no proof of this OR of phonecalls between them. As you have, on numerous occasions, told us that any information we think we have doesn't count because there is no proof, I would be interested to know, given that you've presented it as proof, from where and how has this proof  been extricated from the above.

[scipio_usmc]

I am interested to see that Ferguson states that after her last stay in hospital, Sheila had bonded with June over religion, given that the last time he had contact with her was IN hospital, 18 weeks prior to her death. He couldn't have got this information from the psychiatric nurses who visited her because they failed to.

It also occurs to me to wonder precisely WHEN this bonding happened. We know that Sheila hadn't visited the farm since prior to the previous Christmas and whilst I concede that it's possible June may have visited Sheila after her release from hospital, there is no proof of either that or phonecalls between then. MAYBE Ferguson was in contact with the Bambers, but there's no proof.

As you are so smug about lack of proof on OUR part, and insist that information without it is unacceptable, you probably won't find it TOO curious that I find it strange that you should accept as proof what Ferguson says of Sheila's relationship with June without questioning from where his proof of it comes.

Colin is the one who claimed they bonded over religion.

Apart from in his book he mentioned it in his statement, he didn't like religion so this bothered him greatly:



At trial Ann Eaton discussed a letter Sheila had written during her hospital stay in which she said she was gettig better and let God into her life so that she could understand her mother better.  it seemed to suggest that she did such with the intention of having a better relationship with her mother not merely coincidental as Colin seemed to think.

As for the notion she didn't see them much after getting out of the hospital she stayed at WHF part of the time during her recovery. I also recall she spent Easter with them and had visited in June.  The notion they had not had time together after her stay seems to be another of your assumptions.  While you say I make assumptions you make far more and they are all ill considered.