Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Steve_uk]

I'm more interested in why you think the tractor canopy was significant JUST because he answered 'no comment' when Jones asked him if it had a canopy?

Because it was part of a conversation he had had previously with Julie and anything Julie had to contribute to the Police Jeremy recognized as dynamite as it could lead onto other topics which could entrap him.

[Steve_uk]

Looking at it from another aspect would be that Sheila was " doing the rounds ",knowing what would befall everyone,,so she was giving the boys a lasting glance of their uncle,his tractor,and the fields before they settled for their Last Supper.

I don't accept that Sheila was playing a part that last week and it goes against the Defence notion that the killings were committed by a woman in psychosis.

[Caroline R]

Thinking about it Caroline, maybe if there hadn't been a canopy Jeremy would not have needed false tan to camouflage him in the dark?

Ha, ha!!

The reason why Steve thinks its relevant is that Julie told Jones the tractor had a canopy - how he thinks that makes her story credible is beyond me. It was a NEW tractor so he must have mentioned it in passing and he could hardly lie about it to Jones because the tractor was at the farm!! He began to say no comment after hours of being questioned and being asked the same questions over and over again.

[Jane]

I don't accept that Sheila was playing a part that last week and it goes against the Defence notion that the killings were committed by a woman in psychosis.

Whatever makes you think that lookout does?

[Steve_uk]

Ha, ha!!

The reason why Steve thinks its relevant is that Julie told Jones the tractor had a canopy - how he thinks that makes her story credible is beyond me. It was a NEW tractor so he must have mentioned it in passing and he could hardly lie about it to Jones because the tractor was at the farm!! He began to say no comment after hours of being questioned and being asked the same questions over and over again.

There's no reason whatsoever to answer "no comment" in a murder investigation unless you've something to hide.

[Caroline R]

Because it was part of a conversation he had had previously with Julie and anything Julie had to contribute to the Police Jeremy recognized as dynamite as it could lead onto other topics which could entrap him.

That wasn't the word I was thinking but it does rhyme with it.

They should have pushed him on that canopy question - he'd have folded in the end and confessed all  . No, Steve, he was simply sick of being asked the same questions and after nine hours, I'd have felt the same.

[Caroline R]

There's no reason whatsoever to answer "no comment" in a murder investigation unless you've something to hide.

There most certainly IS when someone is trying to FIT YOU UP!!!!!

[Patti]

Is this not the book review thread?? Please, come on. 

[Jane]

There most certainly IS when someone is trying to FIT YOU UP!!!!!

AND when you've been asked the same inane question in 15 different ways.

[Steve_uk]

Is this not the book review thread?? Please, come on. 

Patti to my mind the very title of the book is tongue-in-cheek because they were not blood relations at all:intimate strangers at best tolerated by Jeremy as long as June signed her name at the bottom of a cheque. I must say reading the books saves time on ploughing though the documents,not that I'm averse to doing so.

[Jane]

Patti to my mind the very title of the book is tongue-in-cheek because they were not blood relations at all:intimate strangers at best tolerated by Jeremy as long as June signed her name at the bottom of a cheque. I must say reading the books saves time on ploughing though the documents,not that I'm averse to doing so.

Do you STILL not comprehend that adults hold the power? You use the expression "intimate strangers AT BEST tolerated by Jeremy"!!!!!!! Jeremy entered THER lives as a tiny boy. I feel more inclined that they AT BEST tolerated him for the sake of june and Nevill but would have preferred that he hadn't been bought into THEIR family.

[lookout]

Dr.Rossmanith has just written a book entitled, "Are Women Better Murderers "?

She says that because women aren't as physically strong as men,they are 10 times less likely to kill someone.
So they then must compensate for their lack of physical strength by rendering their victims defenceless in order to carry out the act of murder. This they do by frequently using a tool such as a knife,a distincly European trait compared with the States where firearms are used.
Dr.Rossmanith said that the victims women select to kill they often have a relationship with.

Women rarely kill strangers.Most conflicts take place in ones' own 4 walls,and they can escalate.
It often happens that victims,in a reversal of roles,become perpetrators.

Dr Rossmanith says that " no-one is immune to committing acts of insanity " and that feminism is often the reason that society doesn't talk about the capacity for women to become killers.

One already assumes that men have the potential to be violent,brutal and egocentric.
"They don't have to cover up that side of themselves.But we women are supposed to act as though it doesn't exist in us. In my life,she says,I have often witnessed how incredibly hard women can be. How scheming they can be with each other. I am personally more afraid of the vengeance of women than that of men." 

[Steve_uk]

Dr.Rossmanith has just written a book entitled, "Are Women Better Murderers "?

She says that because women aren't as physically strong as men,they are 10 times less likely to kill someone.
So they then must compensate for their lack of physical strength by rendering their victims defenceless in order to carry out the act of murder. This they do by frequently using a tool such as a knife,a distincly European trait compared with the States where firearms are used.
Dr.Rossmanith said that the victims women select to kill they often have a relationship with.

Women rarely kill strangers.Most conflicts take place in ones' own 4 walls,and they can escalate.
It often happens that victims,in a reversal of roles,become perpetrators.

Dr Rossmanith says that " no-one is immune to committing acts of insanity " and that feminism is often the reason that society doesn't talk about the capacity for women to become killers.

One already assumes that men have the potential to be violent,brutal and egocentric.
"They don't have to cover up that side of themselves.But we women are supposed to act as though it doesn't exist in us. In my life,she says,I have often witnessed how incredibly hard women can be. How scheming they can be with each other. I am personally more afraid of the vengeance of women than that of men."

There's something in this lookout and maybe woman have had to adapt to having a career outside the home in the last fifty years or so whether they want one or not just as men have had to cope with sharing childcare and household chores when they would much prefer to be the main breadwinner. Looking back to those times when it seemed there was the Queen,Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana in different roles of prominence in the country it may have been hard for the average female who felt pressurized at having to achieve.

The problem is I just don't see this manifesting itself in Sheila,who for all her problems seemed to cope in whatever situation she was put in,even if her mental illness held her back from pursuing her dream career which I assume was modelling. Her father was her rock who always managed to comfort her and I don't see her as a vindictive person harbouring grudges or badmouthing friends and acquaintances behind their backs. Watching the Jane Andrews case during the week made me think of the Tracie Andrews case:neither suffered from schizophrenia yet undoubtedly they both had issues trying to mimic strong women in the media,and I just thought how different Sheila was to both of them.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307801/Tracie-Andrews-stabbed-fiance-death-Now-shes-shopping.html

[Jane]

There's something in this lookout and maybe woman have had to adapt to having a career outside the home in the last fifty years or so whether they want one or not just as men have had to cope with sharing childcare and household chores when they would much prefer to be the main breadwinner. Looking back to those times when it seemed there was the Queen,Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana in different roles of prominence in the country it may have been hard for the average female who felt pressurized at having to achieve.

The problem is I just don't see this manifesting itself in Sheila,who for all her problems seemed to cope in whatever situation she was put in,even if her mental illness held her back from pursuing her dream career which I assume was modelling. Her father was her rock who always managed to comfort her and I don't see her as a vindictive person harbouring grudges or badmouthing friends and acquaintances behind their backs. Watching the Jane Andrews case during the week made me think of the Tracie Andrews case:neither suffered from schizophrenia yet undoubtedly they both had issues trying to mimic strong women in the media,and I just thought how different Sheila was to both of them.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307801/Tracie-Andrews-stabbed-fiance-death-Now-shes-shopping.html

Steve, I wonder if you noticed that in the last 10 minutes of the programme on Jane Andrews, a commebnt was made that when she was in the witness box she exhibited not ONE shred of concern for what she'd done. It was all about how it had impacted on her. This is a hallmark of personality disorder. It isn't something which she could think about/plan how to say. It was as natural to her as breathing and I feel perfectly convinced that those with personaliity disorders at at peace with their personalities. It's the rest of the world that is wrong.

[lookout]

There's something in this lookout and maybe woman have had to adapt to having a career outside the home in the last fifty years or so whether they want one or not just as men have had to cope with sharing childcare and household chores when they would much prefer to be the main breadwinner. Looking back to those times when it seemed there was the Queen,Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana in different roles of prominence in the country it may have been hard for the average female who felt pressurized at having to achieve.

The problem is I just don't see this manifesting itself in Sheila,who for all her problems seemed to cope in whatever situation she was put in,even if her mental illness held her back from pursuing her dream career which I assume was modelling. Her father was her rock who always managed to comfort her and I don't see her as a vindictive person harbouring grudges or badmouthing friends and acquaintances behind their backs. Watching the Jane Andrews case during the week made me think of the Tracie Andrews case:neither suffered from schizophrenia yet undoubtedly they both had issues trying to mimic strong women in the media,and I just thought how different Sheila was to both of them.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307801/Tracie-Andrews-stabbed-fiance-death-Now-shes-shopping.html

Steve,,who knows that Sheilas' vast amount of problems didn't just manifest itself into one big time-bomb.? It wasn't impossible under the circumstances. She'd have been like a simmering pot and just needed one more issue to tip her over the edge. I can see it. She couldn't settle to do a proper job,her mind wasn't settled for a start,thinking about earning to keep her and the twins,,Collins' new girlfriend,the thought in Sheilas' mind that they could all get back as a family,,her illness of course.
Steve,,there were a thousand and one things in that girls mind which were more than enough to tip her over the edge. Above all,,there wasn't a soul who understood her or her illness and inner suffering.She was on her own while everyone else selfishly got on with their business.