Sheila was sedated

[Erik Narramore]

Does the prosecution case depend on Sheila being sedated?

I have not seen a witness statement that tells me Sheila was docile. Pamela Boutflour tells us that Sheila wasn't very talkative, but that could be for any one of a number of reasons.  Sheila could have been angry and sulky at that point.

What is the precise argument for the prosecution is on this point?

It seems to me there are three main possibilities:

Is it that Sheila's illicit drug use and drinking increased the sedative effect of her Haloperidol, with the consequence that when Jeremy woke her and seized her, she was utterly relaxed and pliant ('docile' is your term)?

Or are the prosecution asserting that Haloperidol was the primary sedative agent, and since she still had a lowish dose of it in her, this was enough to make her sleepy, therefore it was utterly impossible for her to embark on a massacre, while quite easy for Jeremy to manipulate her into a staged suicide pose?

Or are the prosecution disregarding the sedation argument altogether and telling us that, irrespective of the drug's sedative effects, Sheila was asleep anyway.  Jeremy grabs hold of her, etc., or maybe she wakes and goes into the main bedroom before Jeremy gets there, or any variation on that theme.

[Erik Narramore]

A POST BY SNOW ON THE BLUE FORUM:
Having looked through the witness statements,i think your opinion about Sheila is more likely to be true,as opposed to Adams.Anne Eaton said that she saw Sheila about 3 weeks before the murders,and that she looked well and appeared to be in good health.So no mention of odd behaviour or being withdrawn.Now, if Sheila received her last Haloperidol injection on 11th July,it was only a few days later that Anne saw her.Therefore it is reasonable to assume sedation and being withdrawn were NOT side effects of the drug. Let us go forward to the 3rd Aug at Colins party,by then Sheila was withdrawn staring out of a window.On 4th Aug while driving to Whitehouse farm,Sheila didnt speak one word to Colin or the boys.Now to Dr Fergusons hand written statement from 30 Sep 1985.In trying to ascertain what caused Sheila to become withdrawn and lack any feeling,he wrote the folowing.-------I have been asked to comment upon the report that Sheila was said on 6th Aug 1985 to have had no interest in anything,including the twins.Her attitude towards the twins had always appeared to me caring,and there was no evident lack of feeling.A possible side effect of Haloperidol is a general deadening of feeling and interest.I am told that her last injection of Haldol was on 11th July 1985 when she received half the original dosage.If such lack of interest and feeling had not shown itself EARLIER, it is LESS LIKELY TO BE A SIDE EFFECT OF THE DRUG bearing in mind the reduction of dosage and the fact that some FOUR WEEKS had elapsed since her last injection,if that feeling WAS NOT attributed to the drug,we would therefore have to interprit her lack of interest in the children as PART OF HER GENERAL AND DISTURBED MENTAL STATE-----------So taking all this into account,it would seem when Sheila newly received her Haloperidol,she was in good spirits and had no side effects,as witnessed by Anne Eaton for one.But a fortnight or so later at Colins party and until her death,she had no interest and was withdrawn.Surely this along with Fergusons statement strongly suggests that her withdrawn state was not a side effect of the Haloperidol,and the effectiveness in controlling her illness was waining,especially after being reduced.Clearly Ferguson is saying her withdrawn state was her psychosis creeping back.So it looks far more likely that your theory of Sheilas state on the 7th Aug is true Roch.And Adams claims of being docile and sedated do not hold up.

Snow, this is a quite brilliant post.  You express very eloquently an alternative possibility and move the debate forward.

However, the problem we have here is that the trial failed Jeremy in that the prosecution medical evidence was wrong and was left unchallenged.  Dr. Ferguson has clearly conflated two different medical concepts: sedation and tranquilisation.  The lawyers at trial then did the same, and nobody thought to question this evidence, not even the defence psychiatrist.  Dr. Ferguson was just an ordinary everyday consultant psychiatrist, so it is to be expected he might make that mistake.  He was not a specialist in psychopharmacology.  He was not an expert in psychiatric drugs, he just prescribed and administered them.  The trial needed evidence from an expert in pharmacological psychiatry - as do we.

Based on what I have gathered so far, my belief is that the clinical effects of antipsychotic medications are not linear and can vary over time.  Maybe she was sedated one day but not the next.  Diminishing concentrations of dosage does not mean diminishing therapeutic effects.  We have just seen abstracts of academic papers that suggest higher doses do not have any significant effect on clinical response, though I'm not clear if this tells us anything about Sheila.  Haloperidol could be low or moderately sedating in its possible side-effects, depending on who you speak to, therefore 'sedated' could mean relaxed or slightly sleepy.  If she was on recreational drugs too, that would have increased the possibility of suffering sedative side-effects.  The toxicology report indicates she had not taken illicit drugs or drank for at least a few days, but that doesn't account for the effect that such activity might have, and I'm not sure we can completely rely on a post-mortem toxicology report anyway.

Overall, we have to bear in mind that sedation was only a possible side-effect of Haloperidol.  We simply have no evidence she was sedated, at the relevant time, or any time.  Therefore, I agree with you that we have to consider other possibilities and move out of the rigid box of assumptions.

[Erik Narramore]

The prosecution did make something of sedation.  It was mentioned in Dr. Ferguson's statements, which the jury would have been expected to read.  Unfortunately, I do not have Dr. Ferguson's trial evidence.  It seems that is not available, but we do have the transcript of evidence from the defence psychiatrist, Dr. Bradley, and he was asked about sedation in cross-examination by Mr Arlidge.

I am not saying that the prosecution case depended on it, and contrary to what Adam claims, they never asserted it as fact that she was sedated, but they did make something of it.

[Erik Narramore]

I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'.  Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it.  But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything.  Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill?  What about the twins?  They could wake and hide somewhere.  Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.

Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length.  The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems.  When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged.  It doesn't bode well, in my view.  It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here.  Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet.  These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over.  It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.

[Rob Garland]

I'm not quite clear what the prosecution scenario could be if she is not 'docile'.  Adam seems to be saying that Jeremy was pumped-up to do it and willing to risk it.  But Sheila could have hit him or scratched him or fled or hid or anything.  Surely Sheila would have heard and been woken by the commotion with Nevill?  What about the twins?  They could wake and hide somewhere.  Much the same applies to Nevill, actually, given the way Adam posits that aspect of the scenario.

Of course, we're back to basic questions that have been discussed here at length.  The central problem with this case is that the deeper you look into it, the less safe it seems.  When a conviction is safe, it's supposed to be the other way round: i.e. when you look into it, any doubts are assuaged.  It doesn't bode well, in my view.  It's not as if we're raising bizarre or outlandish points here.  Nobody has mentioned aliens or Freemasons yet.  These are just normal points we are raising that the prosecution side can't answer and seem to get themselves into a terrible muddle over.  It does seem much more simple and straight-forward to say that Sheila murdered the other five, washed herself and killed herself.

I totally agree Erik, normally when you study a case the more you dig the more convinced you are (and pretty quickly) the conviction is safe. With the Bamber case it's the exact opposite the more I dig and research the more certain I am it's an unsafe conviction.

[Erik Narramore]

Just realised, I said "murdered the other five".  Mind you, it's not unreasonable to say she murdered Jeremy as well - if he's innocent - so maybe I wasn't so far off the mark after all.