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

[Jane]

How does that enable June to toss the Bible so as it would land in the pool of blood that did not form until after Sheila's body was moved flat?

I have previously asked from where did the "pool" of blood emerge. I can see that blood has pooled in her armpit but the area of blood emerging from under the Bible appears quite apart from any blood having flowed from that area.

[Jane]

He was mocking me for having a religion instead of being an atheist.  It was indeed an attack.  He could not win a debate on the merits and lashed out in such manner.  That says a great deal about who was being emotional and having ego problems with losing the debate- he claimed it was me but his post demonstrated the inverse.

I can hear that you felt attacked. I'd ask you to HOLD that feeling and remember that, whatever the reasons for it, David probably feels that he, too, has been attacked.

[scipio_usmc]

I don't see how we can acquaint ourselves fully with any cases without going beyond the dry-as-dust documents which after wading through for an afternoon would drive a saint to drink. You need a balanced approach which involves putting the evidence in context and this requires looking at the bigger picture and listening to what the people on the ground had to say.

The people who actually inspected the Bible for prints are the people "on the ground" in the best position to assess whether it was a palm print or not. To look at a photo of poor resolution and to decide they were wrong based upon such makes little sense to me. Some of the people supporting such reject efforts by others to do the same thing with the paint chips/mantle.  It seems some people change what they consider valid methods or not depending upon whether they like the results instead of being consistent in the validity of the methodology.

[Jane]

Jane J again another excellent post from you.  Scipio has taken his share of  abuse on this forum and has never complained.  I agree the use of some of his words leaves much to be desired and I honestly think they are empty words with no  personal insults intended it is just the way he is and he has posted more positive information on this forum than negative.

Susan, thank-you. I agree that, mostly, Scipio handles abuse -especially that which, on occasion, he receives from Mike- in very dignified way. However, when he chooses to retaliate OR go on the defensive, the words he chooses, even if he sees them as empty and therefore meaningless, come over as both powerful and attacking and will elicit similar response.....................and believing himself to be right and everyone else, wrong, makes about as much sense as believing Jeremy right and everyone else involved, liars.   

[lookout]

I don't see how we can acquaint ourselves fully with any cases without going beyond the dry-as-dust documents which after wading through for an afternoon would drive a saint to drink. You need a balanced approach which involves putting the evidence in context and this requires looking at the bigger picture and listening to what the people on the ground had to say.

Steve,when a daughter,along with the children aren't looking forward to a short stay with mum/grannie,it's got to tell you something. You have to ask yourself why,and the reason which led to the tragedy,as that's where it all started.
What child isn't excited at going to see grannie ?
I bet Sheila had felt as though she was entering the lions den.!

[Adam]

Susan, thank-you. I agree that, mostly, Scipio handles abuse -especially that which, on occasion, he receives from Mike- in very dignified way. However, when he chooses to retaliate OR go on the defensive, the words he chooses, even if he sees them as empty and therefore meaningless, come over as both powerful and attacking and will elicit similar response.....................and believing himself to be right and everyone else, wrong, makes about as much sense as believing Jeremy right and everyone else involved, liars.

I don't read the debates between Mike and Scopio much.However when I do, Scopio is always calling Mike a liar. Mike gives it back.

[scipio_usmc]

I can hear that you felt attacked. I'd ask you to HOLD that feeling and remember that, whatever the reasons for it, David probably feels that he, too, has been attacked.

I don't care that he attacked me.  My point was to illustrate his immature reaction to losing the debate as to engage in attacking me on a totally unrelated issue.  I would make the same point if he lashed out at someone else with that attack or a similar attack. 

It would be like me getting mad at someone who beat me in a debate who is gay and attacking them for being gay or some other irrelevant personal followings.

When people make attacks like such I don't get bothered by them I use them against the poster to show their emotional reactions. It embarrasses the person who engaged in such it doesn't hurt me. 

I was mocked for attending Catholic grammar school but didn't care except when it resulted in physical abuse. We had to wear shoes, dress slacks, button down shirts and ties.  (today they can wear sneakers and normal pants they wear polo shirts not dress shirts anymore) While walking home we would be harassed by public school students.  One started to choke me by pulling on my tie- not viciously choke but I was not going to let him progress further.  That is when it changes for me, I decked him. From that point forward they mocked from a distance. Names don't mean a thing to me. I do not turn the other cheek though so someone can strike that cheek too. When someone tries to put their hands on me that is where I draw the line.

[scipio_usmc]

I don't read the debates between Mike and Scopio much.However when I do, Scopio is always calling Mike a liar. Mike gives it back.

I don't just call him a liar, I identify what he lied about and provide evidence.  It is not simply you are a liar and that's that.  Mike does frequently call me a liar but he fails to demonstrate what I lied about.  That makes it valueless. Just calling someone a liar and not establishing how or why accomplishes nothing.

The other day in response to evidence I posted that refuted his claims he said I was a liar.  it could simply have devolved into me saying no you are the liar and him relying back no you are the liar.  I didn't bother in such nonsense I tried bringing him back to his own arguments by challenging him to post evidence the moderator was fingerprinted by Davidson August 9 and in September.

 

[Jane]

Steve,when a daughter,along with the children aren't looking forward to a short stay with mum/grannie,it's got to tell you something. You have to ask yourself why,and the reason which led to the tragedy,as that's where it all started.
What child isn't excited at going to see grannie ?
I bet Sheila had felt as though she was entering the lions den.!

Lookout, I HATED being dragged to 95% of my relatives, ALL of whom were bought up in the Victorian age and were further removed in age from me than were June and Neville from the twins. As for Great Granny, she was in her 90's when I first remember her, and the only words I recall her saying were that she wished she could crawl in a ditch and die. I would have some sympathy now but between the ages of 7 and 9, Great Granny's was a place in which I'd sooner not have been.

[lookout]

Lookout, I HATED being dragged to 95% of my relatives, ALL of whom were bought up in the Victorian age and were further removed in age from me than were June and Neville from the twins. As for Great Granny, she was in her 90's when I first remember her, and the only words I recall her saying were that she wished she could crawl in a ditch and die. I would have some sympathy now but between the ages of 7 and 9, Great Granny's was a place in which I'd sooner not have been.

I was one of many who didn't have any grannies or granddads,only great aunts who fussed and kissed and smelled of face-powder and moth-balls,who admittedly scared me to death as a 7/8 year old. 
 
My own mother delighted when my girls stayed with them,and they were excited at going to see her and my dad as both interacted with the children and made them laugh,played games,read to them and took them out. The girls were allowed to be themselves without restraint.

I remember reading about how AE had 10 fits when one of the twins accidentally put jam or marmalade on the sofa,and Sheila telling AE not to make a big thing out of it,so wherever those boys went there didn't seem to be much comfort for them. No wonder she lost her temper now and again.You'd want to live miles away from that.

[Caroline]

It doesn't say anything about blood on the inside of her hand and clearly doesn't speak to such because he said the blood he is referring to was transferred to her gown.  His notes were for his benefit and he knew what he meant by such.  He elaborated in detial for the benefit of others in his autosly report which was for the benefit of others.  He explained in detail no blood was on the inside of her hands or fingers.  The only blood was her wrist area and it was the blood on the outer area that transferred to her gown because that is the part of her hand that was touching her gown.

I actually set out to fully comprehend what people mean.  Doing so enables me to accurately describe what they stated they observed.  Taking his notes which note blood transferred from her right hand to her gown and then saying this proves she had blood everywhere on her right hand is disingenuous.  His notes don't elaborate where the blood was beyond saying it was in a location that transferred to the gown.  We know from other evidence (his autopsy report and also expert evidence form others) that such blood transferred from her outer palm/ outer wrist area.  From testimony of police who saw her hands including those at autopsy we know the inside of her hands and fingers had no blood.  Vanezis wrote the same thing in his autopsy report clarifying no blood was inside her hand only the outside palm wrist area.  That blood got there by her putting her wrist/outer palm to her wound.  The blood then dripped down her arm to her elbow.   This doesn't implicate the inside of her hand at all as having any blood.

This is why sticking her hand on the gun failed to result in any bloody prints to the weapon she had no blood inside her hand or on her fingers.

I do like to be right an din an effort to be right I actually fully consider the evidence before deciding what happened.  I looked at all this evidence as well as the evidence put forth by experts who said blood was underneath the Bible and this is how the stains on the top of both pages got there.  I looked at how the Bible pages were folded over so part of both top pages were on the same exact side above such blood.  I looked at how Jeremy woudl be unlikely to have gloves totally covered in blood but instead spotted with blood and thus a single uninterrupted print would be unlikely and that is how I came to accept the opinion of the experts as accurate that it was made by the Bible being placed in the pool of blood.

I further looked at the location of the door in relation to her body and where the Bible would have to be in order for the close door to be able to push it. The door doesn't extend down far enough to push it nice and even to her body. If anything it would be slanted into her, the door would strike her head before it could push the Bible to where it was and it would likely be angled . In fact it would likely be most close.  Since the Bible is soft covered and the pages so narrow hitting it forces it to close when it is on carpet. The only way I could get a soft covered Bible to slide was by pushing it with a door in a location where there was no carpet. It will slide on tile, it will slide on hardwood floors.  It will not slide on carpet it closes first instead. It closes by going from this:



to this:



Even when it was on a floor and slid as soon as it bumped against something to keep it from sliding ore it would close like in the second photo. The further you push the more it stands up.

I didn't decide in a vacuum what happened I did so looking at the relevant facts and evidence.



 

I didn't decide in a vacuum either so that makes two of us and I still say you're wrong - I don't have time to answer this now (going out) but I will.

[Caroline]

I would say a definite no given that

1) Police and Vanezis say Sheila had no blood on the inside of her hands let alone enough to leave such a complete impression
2) Jeremy used gloves so would not have blood on his palms to transfer let alone have enough to leave such a complete impression
3) The experts who analyzed the Bible for prints said there were no finger, foot or palm prints in blood
[this is a pretty big issue we can't see detail in the photos they saw the fine details and are experts in the field and assessed it was not a bloody palm print]
(these first 3 eliminate the possibility of it being palm prints made by bare hands)
4) Gloves leave glove prints not bare palm prints.  Jeremy's gloves would not be likely to be totally soaked in blood so as to be able to leave a full impression of the palm area of the glove at best it would likely leave a spotted one
5) There was pooled blood underneath the very area where the page was resting and that provides a plausible way for the blood to have gotten there.

That is my reasoning.

I'm getting criticized for refusing to decide on the basis of a ill defined photo that the experts who analyzed it for prints were wrong when they said there were no prints in blood.  I am simply accepting the existing facts.  The people with an uphill battle are those who wish to prove the experts were wrong.

You have decided that on your own - Venezis made no mention of 'outer' palm, you added that word. His written notes clearly differ from the typed statement  whether you want to admit it or not. I'm not interested in YOUR interpretation of what was written - you pick people up for doing this on a regular basis, if it's not right when they do it, then it's not right for you either. 

I have no uphill battle because I have no NEED to convince other people I am right, they can decide for themselves - I think you're wrong and will answer your other post later.

[scipio_usmc]

I didn't decide in a vacuum either so that makes two of us and I still say you're wrong - I don't have time to answer this now (going out) but I will.

You are saying those who inspected the Bible for prints and said the only prints were not in blood were wrong.  You are saying they failed to recognize it was a palm print.  You are doing so on the basis of saying from a photo of low quality you can tell it is a palm print.  his is just rank speculation on your part nothing more and you ignore a great deal of other evidence in order to assert it.

[Caroline]

You are saying those who inspected the Bible for prints and said the only prints were not in blood were wrong.  You are saying they failed to recognize it was a palm print.  You are doing so on the basis of saying from a photo of low quality you can tell it is a palm print.  his is just rank speculation on your part nothing more and you ignore a great deal of other evidence in order to assert it.

Who said there was no prints in blood - where is this written? Also how do you know what my basis is? You're 'trying' to suggest that Venezis's written notes and the typed statement are the same and it's as clear as the nose on your face that they're not.

When you say I'm ignoring evidence you actually mean that I refute your pages bent back to a convenient position - that's not evidence, it's YOUR assertion. To be continued! ........... 

[Jan]

I would say a definite no given that

1) Police and Vanezis say Sheila had no blood on the inside of her hands let alone enough to leave such a complete impression
2) Jeremy used gloves so would not have blood on his palms to transfer let alone have enough to leave such a complete impression
3) The experts who analyzed the Bible for prints said there were no finger, foot or palm prints in blood
[this is a pretty big issue we can't see detail in the photos they saw the fine details and are experts in the field and assessed it was not a bloody palm print]
(these first 3 eliminate the possibility of it being palm prints made by bare hands)
4) Gloves leave glove prints not bare palm prints.  Jeremy's gloves would not be likely to be totally soaked in blood so as to be able to leave a full impression of the palm area of the glove at best it would likely leave a spotted one
5) There was pooled blood underneath the very area where the page was resting and that provides a plausible way for the blood to have gotten there.

That is my reasoning.

I'm getting criticized for refusing to decide on the basis of a ill defined photo that the experts who analyzed it for prints were wrong when they said there were no prints in blood.  I am simply accepting the existing facts.  The people with an uphill battle are those who wish to prove the experts were wrong.

There are examples where experts are wrong and ruin peoples lives in the process .