Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[mertol22]

This was one of the best threads on the site and I commend egap1 for starting it,even though we had our differences. I don't know what happened to her. Since the books have been alluded to I reviewed all four main books on this thread which can be found at:

1) #1374 Colin Caffell "In Search of the Rainbow's End"
2)#1390 Roger Wilkes "Blood Relations"
3)#1392 Jackanory
4)#1420 Claire Powell's "Murder at White House Farm"
5)#1449 Scott Lomax "Evil Beyond Belief"

If I had to choose the one which most touched my heart it has to be Colin's. The book which most convinced me of Jeremy's guilt was Blood Relations,even though some members here have said the author remained impartial throughout.

By the way 3) Jackanory is not a book on the case,but it took my mind off murder at least for awhile.

your third book steve may well be EP  version of the events that night.

[tyler]

Personally,I feel that Macdonnell ripped JB off good and proper. Isn't he a blood patterns expert or something? His reasoning on the blood patterns could have been worked out by anyone with half a brain,and in fact have been by various members of this forum. He only concluded that Sheila had been murdered because he accepted it as fact that a silencer had been involved.It doesn't take rocket science to realise that Sheila couldn't have shot herself dead using a silencer on the rifle and then returned the silencer to a downstairs cupboard! Yes,he has since changed his stance.Perhaps he too has looked into the silencer evidence and found it farcial!

[maggie]

your third book steve may well be EP  version of the events that night.

Like it mertol   

[tyler]

HaHa Mertol....brilliant!

[lookout]

Personally,I feel that Macdonnell ripped JB off good and proper. Isn't he a blood patterns expert or something? His reasoning on the blood patterns could have been worked out by anyone with half a brain,and in fact have been by various members of this forum. He only concluded that Sheila had been murdered because he accepted it as fact that a silencer had been involved.It doesn't take rocket science to realise that Sheila couldn't have shot herself dead using a silencer on the rifle and then returned the silencer to a downstairs cupboard! Yes,he has since changed his stance.Perhaps he too has looked into the silencer evidence and found it farcial!

Bring back the ten members of that jury,,older and wiser and they too would say it was farcical. They'd have an entirely different view on things that's for sure.

[Patti]

Hi Patti it would be interesting in McDonnell had access to all the photos which I believe were held back. Didn't he also change his mind on his conclusions(which at the time were that Sheila was murdered) stating that he hadn't had enough photographs at the time to make a correct judgement.

Hi Steve

It is correct MaCdonnell did not have all the photographs to consider his findings.  Jeremy had given some photographs to Wikes and Robinson publishers along with questions asked about the blood spatter and the way the bodies were found,. Jeremy did not pay Mcdonnell...Robinson publishers paid for the work to be done, so they owned the document and had copy rights to it. Some of the work that was done was later published in Wilkes book.  I don't know if the document was used in the last court of appeal.  Wilkes was originally on Jeremy's side, but I think their relationship somewhat diminished towards the end. 

[Patti]

Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes has arrived and immediately I looked at the middle where all the photo's are....Guess what the light in the kitchen is above the sink, not the table....Yet there is no glass on the floor near the sink...mmmmmmmmmmmmm 

[Jane]

Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes has arrived and immediately I looked at the middle where all the photo's are....Guess what the light in the kitchen is above the sink, not the table....Yet there is no glass on the floor near the sink...mmmmmmmmmmmmm 

Happy sleuthing, Patti :D

[Patti]

Happy sleuthing, Patti :D

I knew the lamp shade was not above the table April....I need to make notes this time...I might even spoil the book, but it is a 1st edition which seems a shame! I shall see...It might take me months to read it...I am such a slow reader. See you in June lol  :D :D :D :D

[killingeve]

Just thought of a title for Mason Doyle's book:  'Perfect Match'.  This represents the start ie the Bambers being 'perfectly matched' with their adopted children by the authorities.  And the end ie the jury being misled at trial that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" for Sheila's.

Any other ideas for a book title? 

I hope I've been missed  :D. Lots to catch up on both on and off forum so won't be posting much for a while. 

*****being the operative word, ********** to be more precise   

[Patti]

Just thought of a title for Mason Doyle's book:  'Perfect Match'.  This represents the start ie the Bambers being 'perfectly matched' with their adopted children by the authorities.  And the end ie the jury being misled at trial that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" for Sheila's.

Any other ideas for a book title? 

I hope I've been missed  :D. Lots to catch up on both on and off forum so won't be posting much for a while.  Look forward to winding up my *old adversaries: Lookout, Lugg and Maggie.

*Old being the operative word, well ancient to be more precise   

"Wrongly Accused"

Your back then trouble...

[killingeve]

Just thought of a title for Mason Doyle's book:  'Perfect Match'.  This represents the start ie the Bambers being 'perfectly matched' with their adopted children by the authorities.  And the end ie the jury being misled at trial that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" for Sheila's.

Any other ideas for a book title? 

I hope I've been missed  :D. Lots to catch up on both on and off forum so won't be posting much for a while. 

*****being the operative word, ********** to be more precise   

This is pathetic.  So your friends are able to insult me by accusing me of being unbalanced, a total bitch, sex starved, needing a shrink etc, etc all of which mods turn a blind eye to and yet I retaliate by jesting and you see fit to edit my post.  Lofl.   

The s**t that gets thrown round this place unedited and  you deem the above worthy of editing as directed by your furry forum friends.  Nothing like impartiality I guess. 

[Lugg]

This is pathetic.  So your friends are able to insult me by accusing me of being unbalanced, a total bitch, sex starved, needing a shrink etc, etc all of which mods turn a blind eye to and yet I retaliate by jesting and you see fit to edit my post.  Lofl.   

The s**t that gets thrown round this place unedited and  you deem the above worthy of editing as directed by your furry forum friends.  Nothing like impartiality I guess.

If only you yourself were impartial. It appears that when you insult people its ok. Byt when those people stand up to you suddenly it becomes an insult. Abit of advice. If you want to be respected, then respect other people.

[vidvic]

If only you yourself were impartial. It appears that when you insult people its ok. Byt when those people stand up to you suddenly it becomes an insult. Abit of advice. If you want to be respected, then respect other people.

But in this instance Lugg, Patti should be an unbiased mod, not 'one of those people'. Are we really going to be modded for using 'old' and 'ancient' when the forum owner regularly throws personal insults like confetti???!!!!

[Lugg]

But in this instance Lugg, Patti should be an unbiased mod, not 'one of those people'. Are we really going to be modded for using 'old' and 'ancient' when the forum owner regularly throws personal insults like confetti???!!!!

Vic she is unbiased and she has edited Mikes posts and you yourself have congratulated her on that. So I am a bit bewildered by your reaction here? My post was in direct response to NN's post.