Murders at White House Farm by Carol Ann Lee.

[maggie]

With the part of the chapter you have deliberately missed out.

Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985

Len Foakes saw Sheila and one of the boys walking along Pages Lane with Crispy at half-past twelve: ‘I slowed down the van that I was driving. The window was down and Sheila said to me, “Hello Len” and smiled. She seemed very happy then.’3 Throughout the day, there would be conflicting accounts of Sheila’s mood and general appearance. At some points she seemed fine, yet others recall odd behaviour.

Thanks for that David.  I think Len Foakes knew Sheila well as they were close neighbours and he worked for Nevill. However to be fair we should take both or all comments about Sheila with a pinch of salt as people do quite often and embroider their memories not realising they are influenced by events.    Makes you think tho'.

[Steve_uk]

With the part of the chapter you have deliberately missed out.

Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985

Len Foakes saw Sheila and one of the boys walking along Pages Lane with Crispy at half-past twelve: ‘I slowed down the van that I was driving. The window was down and Sheila said to me, “Hello Len” and smiled. She seemed very happy then.’3 Throughout the day, there would be conflicting accounts of Sheila’s mood and general appearance. At some points she seemed fine, yet others recall odd behaviour.

It's not particularly relevant. You have a young woman with severe motor difficulties only hours before the massacre and none of you will accept this but try to focus on a smile she gave to Len Foakes.

[guest1199]

Don't mind us Tom: one of my bugbears is the implication that someone's time is more valuable than another's. A possible Sheila scenario is crucial to the case so how about reading the book fully, dipping into the library and archives here and constructing a manuscript worthy of critical appraisal.

One of my bugbears is posters answering comments that are clearly intended for others; however since that is the done thing here I might as well do the same.  I have read CAL's book fully, I am now reading it a second time, taking notes and will post a review of the book on Amazon, in my own time that is.

If I do construct a manuscript of the crime what makes you think I'd be doing myself any justice in submitting it for your consideration?

[Jane]

One of my bugbears is posters answering comments that are clearly intended for others; however since that is the done thing here I might as well do the same.  I have read CAL's book fully, I am now reading it a second time, taking notes and will post a review of the book on Amazon, in my own time that is.

If I do construct a manuscript of the crime what makes you think I'd be doing myself any justice in submitting it for your consideration?

This is a public forum, Tom. Feel free to contribute as and when. Whether or not you "construct a manuscript" and submit it, is entirely your choice. It probably won't matter to us, one way or the other but it might be a waste of your, obviously precious and valuable time, if you put all that work into something you're likely to feel proud of, and don't present it for comment. Just a thought.

[Roch]

I really don't see what's so alarming about that? There was another gun upstairs where it wouldn't of been left, maybe Sheila was running amok with that one to and couldn't load it? Once shot whoever had the gun had the advantage be it a schizophrenic weighing 8 stone or a 20 stone man.

Yes, exactly.

Regarding the gun roch, I just don't see why jb would have even mentioned the gun if he had done it. I mean he could have just said his dad had called and said she got hold of one of the guns as per, he didn't need to mention that he'd left one out. Doesn't make sense to me. It was a farm with plenty of guns around. If he planned it surely he would have asked himself ' what will the think if I say I was outside shooting rabbits and left the loaded gun in the kitchen'

Well he is supposed to have done this to 'set the scene' - as if to say he inadvertently provided Sheila with the opportunity to go on the killing spree.  He then apparently didn't express remorse about his 'unforeseen error' (although I recently read a transcript on here where he does - perhaps he then didn't go on to repeat any similar sentiments afterwards). 

I suppose you could look at it both ways.  The way you have expressed above and the way some people think it was scene-setting. 

I tried to find a middle way - which was that he had foresight of her intentions... and aided her by finding an excuse to leave out a loaded weapon for her. 

[Jane]

Yes, exactly.

Well he is supposed to have done this to 'set the scene' - as if to say he inadvertently provided Sheila with the opportunity to go on the killing spree.  He then apparently didn't express remorse about his 'unforeseen error' (although I recently read a transcript on here where he does - perhaps he then didn't go on to repeat any similar sentiments afterwards). 

I suppose you could look at it both ways.  The way you have expressed above and the way some people think it was scene-setting. 

I tried to find a middle way - which was that he had foresight of her intentions... and aided her by finding an excuse to leave out a loaded weapon for her.

And Julie gets slaughtered for not revealing Jeremy's intentions!!!! I wonder which is worse? A girlfriend failing to reveal her boyfriends is harbouring thoughts of killing his parents, sister and nephews, OR a brother not revealing that his sister is planning to kill her parents, her twin sons, commit suicide, AND he's left her the means to do it!!!!!

[Roch]

One of my bugbears is posters answering comments that are clearly intended for others; however since that is the done thing here I might as well do the same.  I have read CAL's book fully, I am now reading it a second time, taking notes and will post a review of the book on Amazon, in my own time that is.

If I do construct a manuscript of the crime what makes you think I'd be doing myself any justice in submitting it for your consideration?

Sorry for answering your post - but I felt Bill Robertson's review of the book was worth a read.  It was pretty scathing though. 

[susan]

Yes, exactly.

Well he is supposed to have done this to 'set the scene' - as if to say he inadvertently provided Sheila with the opportunity to go on the killing spree.  He then apparently didn't express remorse about his 'unforeseen error' (although I recently read a transcript on here where he does - perhaps he then didn't go on to repeat any similar sentiments afterwards). 

I suppose you could look at it both ways.  The way you have expressed above and the way some people think it was scene-setting.


 

I tried to find a middle way - which was that he had foresight of her intentions... and aided her by finding an excuse to leave out a loaded weapon for her.
[/quote

Hi Roch

why would Jeremy suspect Sheila was going to murder her entire family leaving the rifle out was IMO nothing to do with the murders as I am sure Jeremy would know his Dad would remove it to a safe place especially with the two wee boys in the house.

[Steve_uk]

Sorry for answering your post - but I felt Bill Robertson's review of the book was worth a read.  It was pretty scathing though.

Do you have it to hand Roch?

[Adam]

Sorry but this is well-documented, and I'm afraid the customary excuse that everybody is lying except Jeremy just won't wash:

Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985

Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon, Michael Horsnell noticed that all wasn't well. At quarter past three he recognized June's silver Renault as it turned in at the drive. He watched June, Sheila and the twins head into the garden: "Mrs. Bamber was playing with the two boys, jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden. Sheila was with them, but she was like a zombie. She walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down. She didn't even turn her head from left to right. I did not hear Sheila speak at all. They went into the house." June sought him out a short while later to discuss repairs: "I got the definite impression that she was upset about something. She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children. It was not anything she said, but just the way she looked and was speaking." When they left the house, "Sheila definitely did not look normal" and was again "walking stiffly, like a zombie from a horror movie."

How can you possibly square this with the frenzied activity running up and downstairs and reloading a gun twice only a few hours later?

This is very influential.

David fought back saying Sheila looked happy when she saw Len Foakes. But all the evidence shows Sheila couldn't mentally or physically function in the hours and days leading up to the massacre.

This is not surprising as she was on Haloperidol.

[Steve_uk]

This is very influential.

David fought back saying Sheila looked happy when she saw Len Foakes. But all the evidence shows Sheila couldn't mentally or physically function in the hours and days leading up to the massacre.

This is not surprising as she was on Haloperidol.

Of course Adam. It's no wonder some members have since taken the huff..

[JackieD]

Hi Maggie

I agree Sheila was not as Adam has described her she did walk to the fields in the afternoon I think to show the twins Uncle Jeremy's tractor.

Susan that is such a sad post

[JackieD]

Its a long time since I thought or said 'everybody is lying except Jeremy'?     It's clear enough that was Michael Horsnell's opinion, who is he by the way? I was not as convinced or enthused by CALs book as some in fact it was just the same old stuff rolled out again. I gave up halfway through.
She went shopping with June in the afternoon, there is a statement from the shopkeeper but no mention ShEila having a strange gait.
I just believe in keeping an open mind and I'm not convinced Sheila was as disabled by Haloperidol at that time as some claim.

Thank you for those posts Maggie

[JackieD]

Michael Horsnell was a builder and painter who did odd jobs for the Bambers. He was the first to discover the break-in at the Osea Road office.

So???

[JackieD]

Is this from CAL's book as well ?

Surely people can't still believe Sheila was capable of committing the massacre.

There is a mountain of evidence that she couldn't. This extract relates to the massacre day together with Bamber's & PB's WS's. Sheila's best friends ststement relates to only a week earlier.

Sheila did not committ the massacre but the Haloperidol made her easy to control.

Absolutely 100%