The Murders at White House Farm - By Carol Ann Lee (A Taster!)

[Caroline]

its not what is posted - its how its posted - smiley icons don't sugar coat the post - and two wrongs don't make a right IMO

I'm sorry you don't like my posting style - I won't be changing it. Perhaps I don't like yours! Clearly you take what I say personally and that's your problem! If I back my posts up, why shouldn't other people??

[guest154]

its not what is posted - its how its posted - smiley icons don't sugar coat the post - and two wrongs don't make a right IMO

 

If you mean my posts too - then I am sorry Jan but I just am not giving her the benefit of doubt any longer. I don't truly believe ANYONE can be accidentally that wrong all the time. Constantly claiming things to be true that turn out to be not true, or even little things like "This person supports Bamber on twitter" and none of it seems to be right....it just comes across strange.

I still take this case serious, Colins recent comments reminded me even further that these are real people.

Made up is made up, no matter who is doing it.

[Caroline]

If you mean my posts too - then I am sorry Jan but I just am not giving her the benefit of doubt any longer. I don't truly believe ANYONE can be accidentally that wrong all the time. Constantly claiming things to be true that turn out to be not true, or even little things like "This person supports Bamber on twitter" and none of it seems to be right....it just comes across strange.

I still take this case serious, Colins recent comments reminded me even further that these are real people.

Made up is made up, no matter who is doing it.

I agree Mat and if links were posted questions wouldn't need to be asked.

[scipio_usmc]

"The Nightgown was tested for foreign blood spatter, GSR and soot and was negative for all of these all it had on it was Sheila's blood."

1) What tests where done exactly
2) I posted a document that showed various blood groups on her nightie that you saud you did not understand - how can you dismiss that evidence?

Her gown was visually tested for soot stains to see if there were any to examine but none were found. A SEM was used to look for GSR.

The document you posted didn't show various blood groups on her nightgown.  There were two references on the document to her nightgown both of which showed her blood type.  The other references on the document were to different dates including dates prior to the murders and didn't specify those reference pertain to her nightgown. 

It makes no difference that I can't figure out what the references to other dates and objects other than the 2 references to the nightgown mean since they clearly do not refer to the nightgown and that is what we are discussing.

The Appeal Court decision and Lincoln's report both discuss the blood on her nightgown and specify only her blood was found.  This is from the COA decision:

"Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times."

Lincoln:

[lebaleb]

They presume she was wearing the nightdress for all. 25 shots which was evidently not true. People having psychotic episodes may or may not be aware of what they are or aren't wearing at any moment. Scipio please stick to the discussion and refrain from insulting people, it just reflects your wear stance.

[Caroline]

They presume she was wearing the nightdress for all. 25 shots which was evidently not true. People having psychotic episodes may or may not be aware of what they are or aren't wearing at any moment. Scipio please stick to the discussion and refrain from insulting people, it just reflects your wear stance.

Evidently not true?

[scipio_usmc]

They presume she was wearing the nightdress for all. 25 shots which was evidently not true. People having psychotic episodes may or may not be aware of what they are or aren't wearing at any moment. Scipio please stick to the discussion and refrain from insulting people, it just reflects your wear stance.

There is nothing to suggest she was not wearing the same nightdress the entire night, nothing to suggest she was not wearing it as Jeremy fired all 25 shots into the victims and nothing to suggest she killed anyone in something else then changed into the gown to shoot herself.  You have zilch by way to evidence to support your contention that she was wearing something else.

As for my "insults" I am within my rights to say it is foolish to think she was walking around in only panties to kill everyone and point out that the panties had no spatter just blood on the crotch area thus indicative of her menstruating in them. I also am within my rights to point out that someone who decided to commit murder suicide would not kill everyone else then before killing herself decide to soak her dead children's dirty pants in a bucket and stick the panties she menstruated in in another bucket.  They would not need the pants and she would not need the panties since she was going to shoot herself in this scenario.  It doesn't matter if someone is crazy or not they would not bother it is a ridiculous assertion.  It is fair game to call someone who makes ridiculous assertions and you make more than most.  In order to establish reasonable doubt by way ot things that make no sense you can't just say maybe she did things that made zero sense.  You need to produce evidence that establishes it likely these illogical things happened but you cannot do so.

Moreover, your ridiculous assertions still fail to grapple with the evidence that proves Sheila can't have shot herself.  She died in her gown and was definitely shot while wearing it. If she had shot herself then her would have been soot and GSR on her gown.  Furthermore her blood would have been int he rifle muzzle instead of the moderator.

 

   

[lebaleb]

It IS evident that Sheila wasn't wearing the nightdress while shooting 25 shots. Either she didn't do the shooting or she put on the nightdress before killing herself. Either way, no matter who pulled the trigger, there must have been some GSR on the nightdress. It is easily transferred by handshake or handling the weapon or just being in the vicinity of a fired weapon. Do you have documentation of the test?

Backspatter is still just a theory. To prove a theory exhaustive tests must be done replicating the situation. Since that can never happen [unless you can find a few guinea pigs willing to be shot in the neck] it will always remain a theory. I have postulated other theories that would result in the same outcome.
 If A+B=C,and D+E=C and F+G=C,
Just because we know the result is C then we cannot say it is a fact that A+B was the cause.

Scipio, Your comparison between learning to load a rifle and learning Chinese shows that to you loading a rifle is rocket science or that you think learning a foreign language is something that can be done in 5 minutes.

How you know there was no blood, other than menstrual, on the panties means either you were there or you are psychic. Anyway, she could have been stark naked for all we know.
 
There was blood on the screw thread.

You should stop trying to make sense of Sheila's actions. She was delusional, therefor, things that made sense to her would be obviously irrational to us.

[Jan]

It IS evident that Sheila wasn't wearing the nightdress while shooting 25 shots. Either she didn't do the shooting or she put on the nightdress before killing herself. Either way, no matter who pulled the trigger, there must have been some GSR on the nightdress. It is easily transferred by handshake or handling the weapon or just being in the vicinity of a fired weapon. Do you have documentation of the test?

Backspatter is still just a theory. To prove a theory exhaustive tests must be done replicating the situation. Since that can never happen [unless you can find a few guinea pigs willing to be shot in the neck] it will always remain a theory. I have postulated other theories that would result in the same outcome.
 If A+B=C,and D+E=C and F+G=C,
Just because we know the result is C then we cannot say it is a fact that A+B was the cause.

Scipio, Your comparison between learning to load a rifle and learning Chinese shows that to you loading a rifle is rocket science or that you think learning a foreign language is something that can be done in 5 minutes.

How you know there was no blood, other than menstrual, on the panties means either you were there or you are psychic. Anyway, she could have been stark naked for all we know.
 
There was blood on the screw thread.

You should stop trying to make sense of Sheila's actions. She was delusional, therefor, things that made sense to her would be obviously irrational to us.

A question I have always had is that Anne Eaton said that years later she still had the dress that Sheila wore the day of the murders in her laundry basket. she never saw Sheila that day - so how did she know she had worn it that day ?
And what happened to the black canvas shoes?

[Jan]

I see Michael O brien has asked CAL to take part in a debate about her book . so far he has not had a reply.

[lookout]

If there is a positive reply it'll be interesting----------if not,it'll be more interesting.

[guest154]

A question I have always had is that Anne Eaton said that years later she still had the dress that Sheila wore the day of the murders in her laundry basket. she never saw Sheila that day - so how did she know she had worn it that day ?
And what happened to the black canvas shoes?

Maybe it was in the laundry? If anything was to happen to me in the middle of the night whilst I was in my Y-fronts....it wouldn't take much to work out what I had been wearing that day, just check my washing basket.

[Caroline]

Maybe it was in the laundry? If anything was to happen to me in the middle of the night whilst I was in my Y-fronts....it wouldn't take much to work out what I had been wearing that day, just check my washing basket.

I imagine the police asked what she was wearing that day, if there was anything sinister, she wouldn't have admitted to having kept it.

[guest154]

I imagine the police asked what she was wearing that day, if there was anything sinister, she wouldn't have admitted to having kept it.

Jeremy would know.

[Caroline]

Jeremy would know.

Yes, he certainly would.