This is exactly what it says in CALs book,whether it came from witness statements,who knows.------At the house,June answered the telephone when it rang again just after the hour.it was Pamela,wanting to know if Sheila and the twins had arrived that weekend.June told her that Sheila was just going to bed.I then spoke to Sheila,Pamela recalled,and i enquired as to how she was keeping.She told me she was alright and she also said that she had been to visit an elderly lady with June and had taken the twins.Pamela did most of the talking.Sheila didnt chat as she generally did,and after two or three minutes the conversation dried up,June came back on the phone.I thought this was strange as [Sheila] didnt even say;goodnight auntie Pam;,which she normally would do.June told her Sheila had gone to bed,adding that she was very worried about her and wanted Pamela to see her 'and form an opinion about her health'.She had no interest in anything,including the twins'.June then explained she had been 'trying to persuade Sheila to take a holiday at a home in Bournemouth'.Pamela invited them all over for lunch on thursday and,after discussing their mother's care,the sisters said goodnight.In wix,Pamela told Robert that the conversation with Sheila had been 'hard-going'.She sounded like 'a zombie' and didnt want to feed the twins or look after herself,which was why June wanted their advice about 'putting Sheila into a nursing home.Describing the phone call to Colin some days later,Pamela recalled an extra detail;June had wanted Sheila to stay with a 'Christian community in Bournemouth'.-----------------------------Where CAL got all these specific details from who knows.Is it all in witness statements or through personal interviews.For one thing the -yes,no-- answers have been expanded to what you would call a short two way conversation.So what is fact in CALS book?
Do you know what page it's mentioned on, please Snow?
If what Adam says is anything to go by, Carol Ann Lee's source may be Roger Wilkes, in which case it can probably be dismissed as Mr Wilkes' book is unreferenced and largely unsourced and he exercises a considerable degree of licence, even inventing remarks or incidents that never occurred.
The Wilkes and Lee books have their merits and should be read by everybody interested in the case, but both authors have damaged understanding of the case due to their tendency towards licence. Even I occasionally lapse into error due to the influence of the books and I will say something that in my mind is fact but which actually came from a book and is a misrepresentation or flat out wrong. Both authors should be read, but read with due caution.
Unfortunately, I do not have Michael Horsnell's statement. I see from a search of the Forum that I have in the past asked a member on here for a copy of it as he kept quoting it, but a copy was not forthcoming and I suspect he based his views on Carol Ann Lee.
If there is a statement (there may not be), Mike will almost-certainly have it.
