It is difficult to see how CAL's book could be improved on other than an author/publisher/other backers involved in such a project investing considerable resource, both in terms of finance and manpower, to make direct challenges to the prosecutions case. Eg all existing books discuss the fact that only two fingerprints were found on the rifle: one from JB and one from SC. It now appears that fingerprints are notoriously difficult to lift from firearms due to such factors as the texture of the firearm and gun oil. Much has been made about this aspect of the case incl DI Cook (a fingerprint expert with 19 years experience circa 1985) saying had SC handled the gun extensively he would have expected to find more of her prints when only one was in fact found.
As DNA testing was not around in 1985/86 the blood 'found' in the silencer was analysed based on serology: blood grouping A,B,O and proteins and enzymes. The outcome of serological analysis is dependent upon the quality of blood and any exposure to heat, even prolonged ambient temperature, is likely to render any sample useless. The prosecution claim the murders were carried out in quick succession and with the silencer fitted throughout. When a firearm is fired with a silencer attached it reduces the noise by trapping the hot gasses in the silencer's expansion chamber and internal baffles instead of the hot gasses dissipating in the atmosphere as they would with an unsilenced firearm. Therefore any blood drawn back into the silencer from SC's neck shots, referred to as 'draw-back', is extremely unlikely to have produced the results the prosecution claim as any blood in the silencer would have fried!
Other developments in science since 85/86 include neuro-science where if a baby/small child fails to form satisfactory bonds with primary caregivers this is likely to give rise to an attachment disorder with a propensity towards violence, aggression and suicide.
The case as it stands, incl all books to date, are rooted in the dark ages and imo up-to-date science and technology could throw new light on the case.
Who wrote this babble? Blood in the moderator would have fried so no conclusions could be drawn?
As for her book being so great I see nothing at all to be impressed with it adds nothing at all except some erroneous conclusions to the discourse so far as I can tell.
This seems to be quoting some of her claims:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.htmlAside from making a lot of assumptions simply, she gets the order of the shots completely wrong. Instead of being logical she asserts Jeremy left the room with Nevill not mortally wounded and allowed him to escape to the downstairs so he could go shoot the boys 1 time each. This makes no sense but even worse would not be possible since at least 6 of June's 7 wounds were fired at her in a row along with the 4 fired into Nevill so that doesn't leave any left to attack the boys with. She resolves this problem by making the ABSURD suggestion that
June was shot 3 times when Jeremy returned upstairs from the kitchen:
"June started towards her son, who fired three more shots into her neck, head, and finally between the eyes. Jeremy then forced Sheila down beside the bed and shot her once in the throat."
The shots to June's neck and head were delivered while she was in bed not after she got up. Her head was against the pillow transferring blood to it when she was hot in the head and the bullet to her neck exited into her pillow.
Not only did she do poor research if she didn't understand such a basic issue because there is a great deal of material discussing that these shots were delivered while she was in bed, she should have been able to figure it out herself by looking at the evidence on her own.
If she can't even get something so basic right and thus screwed up the order of shots so bad- all 8 shots into the boys were fired the same time not in separate events- what else did she screw up?
The only way this book would have added anything of value would have been if she obtained more testimony that could be publicly released and other official reports etc to quote from to expand the public release. Giving her erroneous ideas of what happened doesn't anything to our knowledge about the case.
