The campaign against Jeremy Bamber

[scipio_usmc]

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.

I know I am not in court.  However like a court requires rational evidence to support claims so do I.  Hispotirans and lawyers operate in the same manner in evaluating evidence which is why the progression to law was so easy.  Historians care about first hand accounts and so do courts.

The simple reality is that Jeremy supporters have not evlauated all the evidence and decided to follow it.  Instead Jeremy suppoerters have decided what they want to believe regardless of what the evidence proves.  That makes your opinions not supported by a rational basis and unable to defend your views with any evidence.

Instead it is always the same, "I have the right to believe anything I want" and dismay that others don't share such beliefes and instead follow evidence.

Anytime debating gets tough people flock to the well I can have any opinion I want and the debate is cut off before it begins in earnest.

Debating unsupported opinions is a waste fo time and wrothless.  A debate should be over the evidence that can be brought to bear- the evidentiary basis that underlies the opinions.  If there is no evidentiary basis then debate wise the opinions are worthless because all that matters debate wise is what there is a raitonal basis for.

   

[grahameb]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

Actually Eaton saw Sheila on Easter and throughout the season when she visited the caravan site with June.  She also might have seen her during a Christening in June but forgot unless for some reason Ann didn't attend the Christening.

[grahameb]

Actually Eaton saw Sheila on Easter and throughout the season when she visited the caravan site with June.  She also might have seen her during a Christening in June but forgot unless for some reason Ann didn't attend the Christening.

Source please. It was still a long way off from August anyway.

[Jane]

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.

As you've done more "talking" in your short time with us than have I since I've been a member, the law of averages would have it that you're likely to have made more assumptions than I. Be that as it may, I haven't read Colin's book since the 1990's.

I had no idea that Sheila stayed at the farm following her second hospital stay although I was aware that she had after her first. She didn't visit the previous Christmas (1984) because of deteriorating health....................unless your going to tell me otherwise.

Now, unless I'm making MORE assumptions, in his statement of Aug.8 1985, Ferguson says "In hindsight I believe Sheila would have relapsed into a state of acute psychosis...................possibly involving her mother. At the time of the tragedy she would have been in a disturbed psychotic state.................." In his next statement of Sept.30 1986 he says "As I have previously stated I was concerned about her leaving hospital as soon as she did and was particularly anxious that there should be psychiatric patient follow up within the NHS. I understand that at the time of her death she was about to be referred to St Mary's London..........." Of Freddie's description of her violence prior to her second admission he says, of her potential for violence that whilst he hadn't witnessed it, if she found herself facing fears, real or imagined, he believed "She could respond with physical aggression to property, herself and others" and had "no reason to doubt what Freddie had said of her."

[scipio_usmc]

Source please. It was still a long way off from August anyway.

The sources are her various statements presumably her first statement from September is the one that gave the background on such because she started out in chronological order and the subsequent statements she gave carried on with a cohronological listing of events after the murders.

[scipio_usmc]

As you've done more "talking" in your short time with us than have I since I've been a member, the law of averages would have it that you're likely to have made more assumptions than I. Be that as it may, I haven't read Colin's book since the 1990's.


I had no idea that Sheila stayed at the farm following her second hospital stay although I was aware that she had after her first. She didn't visit the previous Christmas (1984) because of deteriorating health....................unless your going to tell me otherwise.

Do you have evidence she didn't visit her parents for Christmas or is that an assummption based on Ann Eaton's claim that she didn't see her Easter of 1984?

Now, unless I'm making MORE assumptions, in his statement of Aug.8 1985, Ferguson says "In hindsight I believe Sheila would have relapsed into a state of acute psychosis...................possibly involving her mother. At the time of the tragedy she would have been in a disturbed psychotic state.................." In his next statement of Sept.30 1986 he says "As I have previously stated I was concerned about her leaving hospital as soon as she did and was particularly anxious that there should be psychiatric patient follow up within the NHS. I understand that at the time of her death she was about to be referred to St Mary's London..........." Of Freddie's description of her violence prior to her second admission he says, of her potential for violence that whilst he hadn't witnessed it, if she found herself facing fears, real or imagined, he believed "She could respond with physical aggression to property, herself and others" and had "no reason to doubt what Freddie had said of her."

Ferguson was told she killed her family.  When all his statements and testimony are combined it greatly harms your efforts so of course you don't want to discuss in total what he assessed.

He assessed:

1) she would not be likely to hurt her family or to commit suicide

2) she responded well to treatment and once on medication she was a totally different person

3) that taking illicit drugs aggravated her conditions as did stopping her medication

4) that Freddie was a bad influence on her

5) if Sheila were over medicated she would appear vacant, difficult to communicate with, sleep very soundly and deeply. Over sedation would result in slow deliberate movements, lack of coordination slowness in speech and involuntary movements.  Her physical performance would be reduced.

6) That based on the descripion he received of her last weeks alive (based on all those who interacted with her) she was being over medicated and too sedated.  Indeed all the things descibed by Freddie, Colin, Pam and others about her being vacant, slow speaking, tired and going to bed early all comport with such.

7) Her Haldol injection would wear off after 6 weeks

He felt she would need help since she was leaving sooner than he wanted BUT he did not view her as a treat to herself of anyone else.

So let's see:

A) she responded well to medication and was on her medication so had no reason to relapse a tthe time

B) Both before treatment and even when she stopped her medication and relasped she was not seen as a threat to harm her family or self and she had no done so during those periods

C) the doctor saw no reaosn to believe she would hurt her family or commit suicide

D) at the time of the murders she was being over sedated so in less of a position to become agitated or successfully carry out the murders

Only someone as delusional as Sheila when she was off her meds would think that this bodes well for claiming she was likely to have committed the murders just from looking at the mental issues.

When this is added to all the other evidence then it just becomes more clear that she did nothing and that Jeremy killed everyone. 

[Jane]

Do you have evidence she didn't visit her parents for Christmas or is that an assummption based on Ann Eaton's claim that she didn't see her Easter of 1984?



Ferguson was told she killed her family.  When all his statements and testimony are combined it greatly harms your efforts so of course you don't want to discuss in total what he assessed.

He assessed:

1) she would not be likely to hurt her family or to commit suicide

2) she responded well to treatment and once on medication she was a totally different person

3) that taking illicit drugs aggravated her conditions as did stopping her medication

4) that Freddie was a bad influence on her

5) if Sheila were over medicated she would appear vacant, difficult to communicate with, sleep very soundly and deeply. Over sedation would result in slow deliberate movements, lack of coordination slowness in speech and involuntary movements.  Her physical performance would be reduced.

6) That based on the descripion he received of her last weeks alive (based on all those who interacted with her) she was being over medicated and too sedated.  Indeed all the things descibed by Freddie, Colin, Pam and others about her being vacant, slow speaking, tired and going to bed early all comport with such.

7) Her Haldol injection would wear off after 6 weeks

He felt she would need help since she was leaving sooner than he wanted BUT he did not view her as a treat to herself of anyone else.

So let's see:

A) she responded well to medication and was on her medication so had no reason to relapse a tthe time

B) Both before treatment and even when she stopped her medication and relasped she was not seen as a threat to harm her family or self and she had no done so during those periods

C) the doctor saw no reaosn to believe she would hurt her family or commit suicide

D) at the time of the murders she was being over sedated so in less of a position to become agitated or successfully carry out the murders

Only someone as delusional as Sheila when she was off her meds would think that this bodes well for claiming she was likely to have committed the murders just from looking at the mental issues.

When this is added to all the other evidence then it just becomes more clear that she did nothing and that Jeremy killed everyone.

If I'd been previously aware that Ann Eaton had claimed not to have seen Sheila at Easter 1984, I've forgotten.

I see you've revised your belief that her Haloperidol injection WOULD wear off.

I think what Ferguson says is ambiguous. He's covering all bases.

Would you as a prosecutor hand anything to the defence you didn't have to?

[scipio_usmc]

If I'd been previously aware that Ann Eaton had claimed not to have seen Sheila at Easter 1984, I've forgotten.

Easter 1985 according to her statements.

I see you've revised your belief that her Haloperidol injection WOULD wear off.

I have not revised anything.  I noted prviously that her monthly injections were given BEFORE the last injection would have worn off thus she was never in a position of being unmedicated.  How does pointing out the exact provision that formed the basis of my position change anything? 

This refutes the claims of those who say she was not medicated at the time of the murders and that her medication had already worn off because she got her last injection almost a month earlier.

I think what Ferguson says is ambiguous. He's covering all bases.

Would you as a prosecutor hand anything to the defence you didn't have to?

There is nothing ambiguous in saying he never viewed her as a threat to herself or anyone else.  There is nothing ambiguous in saying he never felt she could harm her family.  There is nothing ambiguous about saying when she wa son her medicaiton she was a different person and was fine.  There is nothing ambiguous in saying that she had the signs of being over medicated and that such would have made her even less capable of physically carrying out the murders.

All the things I pointed out seriously undermine the claim that she would have been capable of the murders and definitely carried out the murders. I didn't even mention how he undermined the alleged motive because he said Sheila would have welcomed part time foster care as she did in the past.

As I said before mental issues can't overcome the lack of physical evidence that she killed anyone and evidence that she could not have killed herself.  But on the mental issues alone the defense even loses.

When do schizophrenics attack others or commit suicide as a result of their ailment?  1) When they stop their medication 2) BEFORE they undergo successful treatment or 3) when under the influence of narcotics/alcohol.  Do all schizophrenics physically attack others or commit suicide when they are having delusions?  NO!  A small percentage do and thatere are signs when someone is at risk of doing so.  Sheila was assessed as not being at risk for such and there is ZERO evidence of her trying to attack anyone or trying to commit suicide while having delusions.  Did she physically assault Freddie?  No he was scared she would do so but she didn't.  In the meantime she had delusions of him being the devil and that was because she stopped her medication and was doing narcotics.

Since Ferguson saw her as no threat to her faily and this is very damaging to the claims of Jeremy supporters they go through his statements looking for things to twist and say well in 1983 she admitted that prior to her treatment had delusions about her kids and admitted to having suicidal thoughts at time.  Ignored is that he assessed she was not viewed as being at risk of acting upon such thoughts.  No doubt part of the reaosn why is because even though she had such thoughts she had not acted upon them though she had not been undergoing any treatment to deal with her problem.  But also the fact she stopped having such thought after treatment played in as well.  After being treated she stopped having delusions about her family.  Even when she stopped taking her medication and relapsed
she didn't have any delusions about her family.  She was out of control according to Freddie but as soon as Nevill appeared and talked to her she became coherent.   

Her dcotor said she responded well to her treatment, that treatment was via injection so no chance of her missing her medication anymore and after being placed on such medication the best any supporter could come up with as an example of her having issues was to say she flipped out at encountering a stranger in the house.  Most women scream if they suddenly encounter a stranger in their house trying to blame that on her illness demonstrates how little Jeremy supporters really have that such has to be stressed.

The only thing that people who knew her noticed after she came out of treatment was that she had found God and bonded with June over religion and that she was hard to communicate with because she talked very slowly, was often vacant and unusually tired so had been going to bed early.  These are all signs or being over sedated and make it less likely not more liekly for her to have been capable of the murders. 

Last after supposedly being told about the boys being placed in part time foster care she had little reaction and that is according to Jeremy.  Her aunt spoke to her afterwards and she was calm and quiet again rather vacant and went to bed because she was tired. If she didn't react strongly when it was raised then why would she wake up people to kill them?  Why would she be threatened by part time foster help anyway?  Her doctor said she would not be threated by this because she would not view it as her children being taken away. Being overmedicated she would be unlikely to wake up on her own anyway let alone wake up and want to hurt anyone.

At the end of the day there is zilch for the defense to use to establish Sheila would have been likely to harm her family and commit suicide.  Worse there is no evidence she did the unlikely.  Not  ashred of physical evidence to suggest she shot everyone else and beat Nevill.  In particular beating Nevill would have resulted in physical evidence being on her including being injured during the struggle. Last the evidence proves she can't have killed herself.

This is not a close case.  That is why in our debates you can't come up with anything except frustration.

 

[Jan]

anyone remember the name of the case where the" experts "released a man from care saying he posed no danger ,then a couple of days later he murdered by stabbing ? I think he had a foreign name ? perhaps polish?

[lookout]

 There was a Martin Davies who'd stabbed a pensioner to death.
There's actually been a few killings by those who've been released too early,,simply because not enough is known about mental illness,,which is totally unacceptable this century where they profess to be more advanced in mental illnesses.

[scipio_usmc]

There was a Martin Davies who'd stabbed a pensioner to death.
There's actually been a few killings by those who've been released too early,,simply because not enough is known about mental illness,,which is totally unacceptable this century where they profess to be more advanced in mental illnesses.

That's a very poor example.

Davies attempted suicide in the past and, "was known to hear voices commanding he harm himself and  others".  He abused drugs and alcohol. He was dumped at  ahomeless shelter without any regard to making sure he stayed sober, took medicaiton to control his delusions and continued with any kind of outpatient treatment.  That he ended up attacking someone was not in the least bit surprising.

[tyler]

And Sheila was said to have made suicide attempts,she also heard voices for example "all people are evil and should be killed",she abused drugs and was allowed to live alone,unsupervised, without psychiatric nurses visiting daily (as was recommended by her doctor)!

[scipio_usmc]

And Sheila was said to have made suicide attempts,she also heard voices for example "all people are evil and should be killed",she abused drugs and was allowed to live alone,unsupervised, without psychiatric nurses visiting daily (as was recommended by her doctor)!

False, when did Sheila make a suicide attempt and what source can you point to for such claim?

The only thing at all the defense could point to regarding suicide was Ferguson saying that Sheila told her she thought about suicide prior to commencing her treatment in 1983 but that she never claimed ot have thought about suicide after commencing treatment.

Your claim she heard voices saying all peopel should be killed is just as bogus as the claim she attempted suicide.  But go ahead and try to post a source.

She was not high or on alcohol at the time of the murders (unlike Davies) and was on her medication- in fact she was oversedated according to her doctor.

Also she clearly did not murder anyone or kill herself.
   

[Martin]

I think that after killing the family he went looking for ready cash, something he'd be able to get his hands on with immediate affect and the wallet was his first and obvious port of call. He was furious when he found it was missing a few days later and he let slip (Fraudulently) how much was in it. When I asked him about it he wasn't just evasive, he 'avoided answering'. People who lie do that, they either answer a question with another question or answer it in a way that never actually gives an answer  - politicians and it seems Jeremy, use the second method. Remember the phrase "You must tell the truth where possible'? When I asked him about the wallet his response was "I know you asked me a 'specific' question but I can't remember what it was but I think the answer was no or I didn't.  So, he remembered it was a 'specific' question and he remembered the answer but not the question? Also, why didn't he simply refer to the letter? I think he lied Martin. But that's NOT the only reason, I don't believe the phone call happened, it's convenient that the phone was off the hook, it looks staged, the messing with the gun, it looks staged and too many independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family. Once doubt enters your mind, you start to look at things differently.

"I think that after killing the family he went looking for ready cash, something he'd be able to get his hands on with immediate affect and the wallet was his first and obvious port of call.

He was furious when he found it was missing a few days later and he let slip (Fraudulently) how much was in it."

Note the underlined phrases in the above passages. The feeling conveyed by them helps create an “atmosphere” of an evil man and of his wilfulness and deceit. What Caroline is doing there is called demonization. It’s a technique to communicate the feeling of guilt. Steve_uk uses it a lot. It looks like they both went to the same propaganda school.

"Remember the phrase "You must tell the truth where possible'?"

"too many independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family"

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!

Alright, I won't say anymore.