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

[Caroline]

I think that Carolines photo was actually quite convincing and it is strange that the fact that the bible was on her chest was mentioned a few times . But this is just a question and nothing to do with proof of guilt or innocence. What do you fellow dog owners think your dog would do if you were laying injured or dead with blood on you?

I don't see how the pages being bent back explains the stain at all. The picture of the bible shows that the pages were bend back over the spine of the book and so still out of reach of the stain. Also pages that were not bent back would also have soaked up part of the blood - these would be pages on the opposite side (when turned over) but there is nothing. Finally, when the bible was closed, the blood must have been almost dry because the stain has only very partially repeated on the opposite page. I don't believe the stain is from the floor at all, I think it's a palm print - you can even see the pressure points!!

[lookout]

The Bible may have originated from Sheila's right side after she'd been holding it because of the palm print on the book and the continuation of her bloodied hand which left fingerprints on her nightdress,as she'd gradually lost the grip of it.

[Caroline]

The Bible may have originated from Sheila's right side after she'd been holding it because of the palm print on the book and the continuation of her bloodied hand which left fingerprints on her nightdress,as she'd gradually lost the grip of it.

Had that been the case Lookout, it couldn't have ended up face down at almost shoulder level. Someone had to have placed the bible next to her in that position.

[Jan]

I don't see how the pages being bent back explains the stain at all. The picture of the bible shows that the pages were bend back over the spine of the book and so still out of reach of the stain. Also pages that were not bent back would also have soaked up part of the blood - these would be pages on the opposite side (when turned over) but there is nothing. Finally, when the bible was closed, the blood must have been almost dry because the stain has only very partially repeated on the opposite page. I don't believe the stain is from the floor at all, I think it's a palm print - you can even see the pressure points!!

like I said it does not prove guilt or innocence because it could have been the raid team who moved the bible before the photos

[Adam]

The raid team did a hell of a lot of moving around. Mike even has a picture of Sheila on the bed.

Thought the raid teams role was just to negate any threat. As everyone was dead, there was no need to move anything.

[lookout]

Had that been the case Lookout, it couldn't have ended up face down at almost shoulder level. Someone had to have placed the bible next to her in that position.

The Bible had been moved,that's for sure. Firstly it was about 2ft away from her,then it was on her chest,so what are we supposed to believe as to its last " resting place "?

[lookout]

Had that been the case Lookout, it couldn't have ended up face down at almost shoulder level. Someone had to have placed the bible next to her in that position.

From whence and how the Bible landed would have depended on where it was in the first place,as it hadn't been " placed " in the position we see with its pages sprawled open.
Firstly it had been reported that the book was about 18" to 2 ft away from Sheila,edging toward the centre of the room between the two women. Then secondly we're told it was found on Sheila's chest. Which is it to be ?

[Caroline]

From whence and how the Bibble landed would have depended on where it was in the first place,as it hadn't been " placed " in the position we see with its pages sprawled open.
Firstly it had been reported that the book was about 18" to 2 ft away from Sheila,edging toward the centre of the room between the two women. Then secondly we're told it was found on Sheila's chest. Which is it to be ?

Well unless you provide a reference for your information, I can't really comment Lookout.

[Adam]

The reviews on Amazon are good.

However one review says it doesn't really say anything new for people already familiar with the case. Which would mean everyone who posts on here.

The section where the police describe how Bamber committed the massacre would be interesting.

[scipio_usmc]

The reviews on Amazon are good.

However one review says it doesn't really say anything new for people already familiar with the case. Which would mean everyone who posts on here.

The section where the police describe how Bamber committed the massacre would be interesting.

Most Amazon reviews are worthless, people give 5 stars just for something being in print.  True reviews that discuss the contents in detail in a constructive way are few and far between.

[Adam]

Most Amazon reviews are worthless, people give 5 stars just for something being in print.  True reviews that discuss the contents in detail in a constructive way are few and far between.

Lomax's book got erratic reviews. Lots of 1 stars and 5 stars.  As it was clearly biased.

Wilkes's book got eight 5 star reviews and one 4 star review. Quite rightly so.

CAL's book is no doubt well written. However there have already been good books written about it. Together with a vast amount of information online, two forums and loads of Youtube videos.

But it's selling well so helping CAL pay the rent.

[scipio_usmc]

I don't see how the pages being bent back explains the stain at all. The picture of the bible shows that the pages were bend back over the spine of the book and so still out of reach of the stain. Also pages that were not bent back would also have soaked up part of the blood - these would be pages on the opposite side (when turned over) but there is nothing. Finally, when the bible was closed, the blood must have been almost dry because the stain has only very partially repeated on the opposite page. I don't believe the stain is from the floor at all, I think it's a palm print - you can even see the pressure points!!

The blood was not out of reach of the blood pool, the blood pool was hidden by the Bible and was under the top of the Bible.  You keep looking at the photos of the bottom of the Bible where there was no blood pool and thus not blood on the bottom of the Bible and then drawing erroneous conclusions. 

[scipio_usmc]

like I said it does not prove guilt or innocence because it could have been the raid team who moved the bible before the photos

The raid team moving it would not cause any blood to get on it because by that time the blood was dry.

[Caroline]

The blood was not out of reach of the blood pool, the blood pool was hidden by the Bible and was under the top of the Bible.  You keep looking at the photos of the bottom of the Bible where there was no blood pool and thus not blood on the bottom of the Bible and then drawing erroneous conclusions.

No I'm not, how do you know where I'm looking  ? I'm looking at the top and I don't agree with you! Of course some of the blood was hidden by the bible but however far it ultimately reached, it would have extended from Sheila, there would be no gaps. Your theory doesn't work because it doesn't explain why the stain doesn't start at the top corner of the page - there is a gap, then the stain starts (see below) or why one side of the stain isn't straight where the fold of the page would have been. The stain is also TOO well defined to be from the stain on the floor. Finally, for your theory to be correct, there would still be blood on the opposite page because some of that page couldn't fail to touch the blood. The second picture is a top view and the bible isn't raised as much from the bent back pages so more of it is touching the surface area.

Finally (Edit), if the pages are bent back, the corner of the page in question will be situated around where I have drawn the line on the last picture,

Ignore the first picture, was getting my fold in the wrong direction - the rest still stands!

[Jan]

The raid team moving it would not cause any blood to get on it because by that time the blood was dry.

not true if carolines theory is right - the blood was on the bible already