"She Must Have Known" The Trial Of Rosemary West

by Brian Masters

Frederick West cheated everybody when he hung himself on New Year's Day 1995. Was this a sign of overwhelming guilt? Was West criminally insane or merely a sexual sadist of the worst kind? Brian Masters sets out to answer these questions.

Attending the Rosemary West trial on a daily basis, Masters has come up with a penetrating study of the sexual obsession that led to the measured killing of twelve women and girls. In the wake of the horrific detail of murder, sadism and torture that has come to light in the last few months, Masters, from his privileged courtroom vantage point, looks closely at how and why ordinary human beings were driven to serial killing of the most devious kind, and how an evil psychopath was able to ensnare so many in a web of unseeing complicity. He unravels with particular precision the legal means used to bring the whole matter to trial and weighs the evidence coolly and objectively.

Brian Masters has established his reputation as an authority on the criminal and psychopathic mind. This is his highly reasoned and psychologically acute look at what has become Britain's serial-killer trial of the century.

Genres: True Crime, Nonfiction, Crime, Biography, Biography Memoir

429 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Brian Masters is a British writer best known for his biographies of mass murderers, including Killing for Company, on Dennis Nilsen; The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer; She Must Have Known, on Rosemary West; and The Evil That Men Do. He has also written about the British aristocracy and worked as a translator.

Reviews

[Gary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Frederick Walter Stephen West was a serial killer who killed at least 12 women and possibly 20 more between 1967 and 1987 in Gloucestershire, the majority with his second wife, Rosemary West. He avoided trial when he hung himself on New Year's Day 1995. At least eight of the murders involved the Wests' sexual gratification and included rape, bondage, torture and mutilation. The victims' dismembered bodies were buried in the cellar or garden of the Wests' Cromwell Street home in Gloucester, which became known as the "House of Horrors". Fred West also committed at least two murders on his own, and Rose murdered Fred's stepdaughter, Charmaine. The couple were apprehended and charged in 1994.

Fred West asphyxiated himself while on remand at HM Prison Birmingham on 1 January 1995, when he was charged with 3 murders and along with his wife Rose were jointly charged with nine murders In November 1995, Rose was convicted of ten murders and sentenced to ten life terms with a whole life order.
This is a very interesting thought provocative read that reasons against Rose West's guilt. Rose West was convicted on the strength that she "must have known" what was going on with her husband's crimes and without any real evidence against her personally. At her trial many of the witnesses were already signed up by national newspapers waiting for payment on the condition that she was found guilty. Whether she was guilty or not this is not a satisfactory way, when a jury is deciding on such an important case.
I found this a very interesting book, I am not sure I can go along with a lot of the authors reasoning but it certainly opens your eyes to what some people see as perfectly normal behaviour. A little bit too much court details for me but a very good insight into the events surrounding these murders.

[Chris Steeden · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

Do not bother starting to read this book before you have read another like Howard Sounes’ ‘Fred And Rose: The Full Story of Fred and Rose West and the Gloucester House of Horrors’ as Masters takes it that you know all about it. He does warn of this at the very beginning, There have been plenty of documentaries over the years as well and I bet there will be ones on YouTube. That could also be a start if you have this book and do not want to read another on this gruesome subject.

This is a very different book from the Sounes’ one. This book comprises two major subjects. The first is the perversions of Fred West and the psychology behind it. Interesting and disturbing but flatly delivered. It certainly shows how repulsive he was and Masters goes into some of the details. Harrowing. Be warned. What Fred West did is on another level.

For me, the book comes alive at the trial of Rosemary West. By this time Fred has hanged himself. This is important. The premise here is that she is guilty as she must have known what was going on at 25 Cromwell Street. Masters lays it out very well that she did not. There is no real evidence that she knew or that she was an accomplice. I did read Sounes’ book before this. He seemed pretty well set that Rosemary knew but again Sounes did not provide any real evidence. It is entirely up to the reader to decide. You don’t have to agree with Masters. I am still undecided. Would Rose have even stood a trial like this if Fred had not killed himself?

Masters goes over some of the witnesses in court and the behaviour of the British press at the time. A lot of these witnesses for the prosecution were already being paid money by the press or were aiming for a book deal. One witness in particular is outrageous in her behaviour. I will not give anymore details around that.

If you are at all interested in the case then this book will make you think for sure. Masters really does detail quite a persuasive argument.

[Roo · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read, but I found that Masters was surprisingly contemptuous and cynical about many of the victims in particular Caroline, which I thought was very bad taste. I don't believe he did enough research regarding her case, for example he stated she had consensual sex with both hippie boys at Cromwell Street when in reality one was a rape. Furthermore, Masters suggests Caroline lied or exaggerated the account of what happened to her, mostly due to holding back the fifth page of her account (speculating she was trying to titillate the press for money; Caroline herself says, as supported by the content of the page, this was merely because it contained the most painful parts of the event). Another problem with Masters' writing is that he holds back details he does not deem 'tasteful'. In my opinion, one cannot hold back when writing a true crime novel or it is little more than a summary of events.

Although occasionally pompous or too personally driven, this book is a fascinating read despite leaning rather in Rosemary's favour.

[Amy W · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having this year been fascinated to read One of Your Own, detailing Myra Hindley's part in the Moors Murders, I thought this book would tread a similar path i.e. showing the female's role in a murderous couple. I assumed She Must Have Known was going to show me all the ways in which Rose West was fully aware of husband Fred's torture and murder of numerous young women at their Gloucester home.

Not so.

This book actually tries to reason against this viewpoint and questions how, following Fred's suicide before his trial, Rose was then convicted in her own right purely on the strength that she "must have known" what was going on – without any real evidence of her role in the killings being presented to the jury. It was a fascinating concept and one I have never previously considered.

At times I felt myself being swayed towards there having been a miscarriage of justice. Whatever Rosemary's perversions or harsh personality, does this automatically make her a murderer? The author suggests that Fred acted alone in the killing and concealment of the women and there are numerous arguments to support this throughout the book. Had Fred survived to stand trial, would Rose have been convicted at all?

Living in Gloucester at the time the bodies were discovered, I'm not sure anyone could change my ingrained opinions on the Wests, but I must admit this book makes for extremely thought provoking reading.

That said, sometimes I felt a little swamped by the legal terms and wouldn't advise reading this without some prior knowledge of the case as, by the book's own admission, we jump straight into proceedings which can make the timeline hard to grasp. However, this was certainly a very interesting read that presented a totally different view to the one I was expecting.

[Mr David S Carr · Rating 2 out of 5]

From the outset Masters is an apologist for Rosemary West, he goes to great lengths to pick holes in the legal process and the prosecution evidence. At times it appears that he makes the evidence fit His own bias. This is not a book that presents the reader with facts and allows you to draw your own conclusion based on the evidence. Still a somewhat enjoyable read, if a bit clunky in its flow.

[Beth · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a DNF for me.. I don’t usually give up, I usually push through but I just couldn’t!

The author repeats himself and a lot of the book is not chronological which is just off putting. I also found the author was almost defending Rosemary West which was just annoying me more than anything else!

[Roy A. Hughes · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the book progressed it became obvious that Mr Masters was an apologist for Rose West. Fred West was psychotic, there is no doubt, but did Mr Masters over stress his role and influence to put Rosemary into a less culpable light? He quotes from works of eminent psychiatrists but none of them took part in the trial and, I would suggest that Mr Masters is not qualified to extrapolate those selected quotations to this case. Given the small dimensions and overcrowded conditions of the house, and the purposes for which it was used, it was right, in my view, for weight to be given to witness statements from such as Anne Marie. I think that Mr Masters has been disingenuous in telling this tale of awful happenings, particularly in his (unqualified) assessment of "Similar Fact" evidence. Well written, though

[laura clarke · Rating 1 out of 5]

I couldn't finish this as it felt so one sided in defending Rose. It was also dated in its non PC language.

[Lynda Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Now I read Killing For Company when it was released back in the 80s and loved it and so I was expecting this to easily be as good. However, it could be a different author as far as I'm concerned. I think he's trying to cater to a more highbrow audience as he uses words that could be written way more simply....for example referring to autrefois when he means double jeopardy....and let's face it, WHY use a French term in the first place ? Just to look clever......I don't like it, especially as he has also published using American spelling, which highly irritates me, with immobilized or recognized, for example. THEN he referred to something called Korsakov's Syndrome and clearly is not as clever as he thinks because it is actually called Korsakoff's Syndrome.
He had used some nasty little asides about people by the time I packed it in at only 10% and I wasn't liking these, as he seemed to have a snide remark ready for anyone who had anything negative to say about Rosemary West !! And we all know what a bloody saint she turned out to be ! I'm not really sure what makes him believe in her innocence but in the 53 pages I read, he's clearly on her side.
I just got bored with it and his blatant leaning to believing anything she may have ever uttered. He may possibly have uncovered good reason to stake his allegiance but I hadn't reached that juncture and to be honest, everything else I have ever read or seen about this woman has not shown her to be innocent in the least, so he's clearly in the minority.

[Jody · Rating 5 out of 5]

The trial of Rosemary West has been one of the most highly publicized criminal trials in recent memory. In the wake of these horrific details, journalist Brian Masters has come up with a penetrating study of sexual obsession that led to the measured killing of twelve women and girls. But what if there was more to it than meets the eye? In this blog post, we’ll take a look at the Rosemary West trial and see if there’s any room for doubt about her guilt.

I think everyone has heard of Fred and Rose West and their ‘House of Horrors’ at 25 Cromwell Street. An ordinary-looking house in the centre of Gloucester that held the bodies of nine women between the ages of fifteen and twenty-one among its many residents. While Fred West hung himself in his prison cell on 1st January 1995 after charges were first bought against him, Rose continued to stand trial for 10 murders of the twelve he was charged with and was later found guilty at Winchester Crown Court and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Rosemary West trial is infamous for its gruesomeness and detail, with Masters focusing on how and why ordinary human beings were driven to serial killing of the most devious kind, as well as how an evil psychopath was able to ensnare so many in a web of unseeing complicity. But what if there was another side to this story? What if Rosemary West was actually innocent?

The jury found her guilty, but let’s examine some potential evidence that could have exonerated her. For example, there was no physical evidence linking her to any of the murders—all circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, she has always denied any knowledge or involvement in the murders, steadfastly maintaining her innocence throughout the entire process and in the almost twenty years she has been imprisoned. This could be seen either as admirable strength or extreme naivety depending on which way you look at it.

Another potential piece of evidence that could have proven her innocence is that several witnesses had testified against her during the trial, saying how she participated in sexual activities with them and her husband Fred and this is evidence that she knew what he was like and what he had been doing. Furthermore, that she must have participated in the sexual abuse, torture and murder of innocent women who came after them. Indeed, many times in the trial we see it referred that ‘she must have known’ but did she really know? Was it more that, after Fred killed himself and couldn’t stand trial that someone had to stand trial and be prosecuted?

I did find it interesting that the case for the murder of Fred’s stepdaughter, Charmaine, was pinned wholly upon Fred before his death. The police said they had evidence he killed her and buried her after he was released from prison. After his hanging, they charged Rose with the same crime, saying it couldn’t have been Fred because he was in prison. You can’t call heads and tails at the same time, so which is it? Perhaps we will never know…

Aside from this, I also find it odd that Charmaine’s remains were found hidden in the exact same way as the other victims, hence in Fred’s signature burial. This case was essential to the case against Rose but if that is true then how did she hide her body, without being noticed or smelt, while Fred was still in prison? How would she know how to bury her in the exact same manner? How did a young teenager have the strength to mutilate her body whilst caring for another child as well? It does feel a little far-fetched to pin this on her when it would appear that Fred was the obvious killer, whether with Rose’s assistance or alone.

While I am sure that Rose is now in the best place for her, and is there correctly, found guilty by a unanimous jury of 11 people who had to listen to all of the gruesome details of their infamous crimes, I found myself imagining how awful it would have felt to be informed of the death of your sixteen-year-old daughter by the police while being accused of her murder. In fact, I couldn’t get it out of my head. It's completely unimaginable and incomprehensible.

While most people will be appalled at the idea that Rose West could be innocent of these murders, reading this book definitely gives pause for thought. Fred West was a cunning liar who managed to cover up his crimes for over twenty years, he fooled many people who had never guessed at any of his crimes so why not his wife as well? Fi she must have known because she was in the house then what about the other tenants who also lived there, surely they should have known or heard something too?

With all that having been said, Rose West is clearly a vile excuse for a human and is evil beyond doubt for the pain and abuse she inflicted upon her children and the assaults she jointly committed with Fred in the name of pleasure, their pleasure of course, not their victims. She deserved a long sentence for her crimes but whether she truly is a murderer, I'm not sure. This book definitely leaves some room for doubt.

Regardless of whether you think she is guilty or innocent, one thing is certain: ‘She Must Have Known’: The Trial of Rosemary West provided us with an interesting perspective into how such heinous crimes are committed and why people are driven to them in some cases. It also showed us just how incredibly difficult it can be for prosecutors and lawyers alike to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court – especially when so much is riding on their decision! Hopefully, this look at this infamous criminal trial has given you something new to think about when considering whether or not Rosemary West is truly guilty!

[Megan Toomey McBride · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book presumes that the reader already knows all about the case. Couples with the non-chronological layout, it’s extremely confusing to read.

[Budge Burgess · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was working in social work/criminal justice work when the horrors of Fred West's charnel house came to light in the 1990s. It exposed the world of the poor, the abused, the detritus of society with which I worked but which was generally swept under the carpet. An ignored underworld, ignored until they provided a story which could be sensationalised, and there was no more sensational a story than the one offered by Fred West and his family.
We were treated to a grotesque demonstration of the corruption of the UK's print media - chequebook journalism with reporters trying to sign up witnesses to 'exclusives', scant interest in legal niceties, obsession with sensation.
And then Fred West, a man who undoubtedly murdered at least a dozen women and children, a man who habitually sexually abused his own children, a man who sold the sexual services of his wife and daughters to others. a man who embodied an encyclopedia of sexual perversions, Fred West committed suicide in prison before he could be brought to trial. His wife, Rosemary, was left to stand trial in his stead.
And there's always been a question about the safety of her conviction. Was she simply a surrogate, was she simply served up as an offering - the climate of horror orchestrated by the media demanded ... well, a 20th century witch-hunt?
I stumbled across a secondhand copy of the book a quarter of a century after its publication. And there's some interesting stuff. Masters explains the legal niceties of an English trial - first and foremost, the defendant is innocent until proved guilty ... it's not for the defendant to prove their innocence, it's the task of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond doubt.
And Masters serves up the background - Rosemary is 17 when she becomes West's concubine then wife. She'll have eight children. He'll sell her as a prostitute. She leads a sexualised life, promiscuously used by men, aware of Fred's insationable pursuit of sex (and of his inept sexual performance), living in an overcrowded house with numerous lodgers coming and going, sex and violence the daily currency.
Masters explains the legal niceties - what evidence is admissible, the burden of proof, etc. He provides a useful commentary.
But he tries to psychoanalyse the Wests and their grotesque ménage. It's the most dysfunctional family you could imagine. Masters' analysis is mechanistic. He tries to fit the Wests into rigid (and questionable) models of abuse. He even introduces a Freudian perspective (Freud was a total fraud - but Masters references his theories about the unconscious and his obscene claim that girls desire to be abused by their fathers, etc.).
He deals a full deck of psychological theories and claims (many of which are incompatible, many of which would be rejected by most people in the field). Without actually having spent time interviewing the Wests he's making claims about their psychology, their worldview, their behaviour, their understanding. It's all speculative, much of it is incomprehensible. And much of it seems like padding - the publishers might have wanted a 400 page book, if he'd ditched the psychological confusion and simply delivered the facts and legal interpretation in 200 pages, it could well have been a more valuable piece of work.
The subject of the book, really, is the legal argument. Could Rosemary West legitimately have been required to stand trial for murders undoubtedly committed by her husband? Evidence / proof of her involvement in any of the murders is speculative at best. But, in the climate of the time, a climate orchestrated by the press, someone had to take the blame. Could Masters sell a book which came out and aggressively argued that Rosemary West shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence available? In the end, it was a case of her lawyers having to strive to prove her innocence, and the book doesn't really tip the balance.

[Helen Leecy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brian Masters' "She Must Have Known" is an informative and thought-provoking book that challenges readers' perceptions of Rose West's involvement in the murders her husband, Fred West, committed. Masters provides a different perspective to Howard Sounes' book and shows that the situation is not as black and white as it may seem.
Masters' book sheds light on Rose's sexual depravity and promiscuity but does not immediately imply her guilt in the murders. The author presents a compelling argument for the possibility of Rose's innocence, which makes the reader rethink their assumptions.
In addition, one aspect of "She Must Have Known" that was particularly eye-opening was Masters' discussion of how the media's influence skewed the trial. The author points out that witnesses were often bought by newspapers, which in turn influenced the jury's perception of the case.
Despite this, the jury ultimately found Rose guilty, which suggests that the media's influence did not fully undermine the trial's integrity. Nevertheless, Masters' discussion of the media's role in the case raises important questions about the intersection of journalism and the legal system and underscores the complexity of the Wests' story.
However, at times, Masters can go off on tangents that detract from the book's overall flow, making it more like a textbook than a factual recounting of events. This approach can be a bit boring and may not appeal to some readers looking for a more engaging and fast-paced narrative.
Overall, "She Must Have Known" is a book that I would recommend to readers interested in the Fred and Rose West case. Despite its flaws, the book provides a different perspective on the case and challenges readers to question their assumptions about the Wests.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this and started to read it. At the same time, i read a few of the reviews. At first I agreed that the author seemed to come across as being almost an apologist for Mrs. West. He points out the weakness of the evidence used in court. I wasn't sure, but I continued to read as the book is well written in itself.

As I progressed I started to understand it was just a case of how the author was setting out the facts and the narrative. I can genuinely say it made me reconsider things, I thought I knew about this case and the legal system. I am not saying that I believe Mrs West is innocent but it gives cause to pause.

The book is tastefully written and does not seek to sensationalist any of the events. Which is how this kind of book should be. If you are interested in a different and enlightening view of events, this is a good book to read.

[Hayleigh Marie Whitelock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting book. The chapters are a bit long and drawn out in my opinion so this took me a while to read. You have to know quite a bit about this case to get through this book which the author does say in the beginning.

The book is in two parts; the first being about Fred West and what he inflicted on his victims and it speculates about why he came to do these things and why he was the way he was which has brilliant detail. The second is about the trial of Rose herself after Fred's death by his own hands in prison. This part is also brilliant with the details and descriptions used. It does make you question did she really know?

I wasn't a big fan of the last words in the book as it didn't feel to me that it was the finish of the book.

[Cleopatra Pullen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've recently re-read this book after a resurge in interest in Rose West having read the books recently published by her daughter Mae and her solicitor Leo Goatley.

Brian Masters works hard, and at times I felt 'too' hard to try and make a case that Rose was innocent of the charges she faced in the dock some 25 years ago. Whilst he makes some excellent points his reasoning falls down in making the case around her daughter Heather West's murder.

Nevertheless this is a thought-provoking book which stands the test of time given that we have far more information regarding the background of the key players since it was first published.

[Michael Mills · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have never read such a biased book in my life. Was Masters related to Rose West or just her best friend ever!! He takes testimony from her children and dismisses it with contempt doubting credibility in everything they say unless it supports the view of West. The laughable thing throughout is that he questions everyone’s version except his own and tries to make it all fit his view. To question witness testimony such as when Stephen was chained to a toilet facing away from West so how would he know she enjoyed it well we all have necks we can turn and normally do surprisingly when being beaten to plead for it to stop is beyond contempt. Do not read this book it is awful!!

[Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating and disturbing read. Masters was present at the trial so I feel like he knows what he's talking about here. I was thoroughly persuaded by his arguments as there's just too much stacked against Rose West for it to have been a fair trial. No arguing that Fred West was one of our country's ultimate sadists but as for his wife, I'm not convinced. An engrossing book which is less a study of a serial killer and more of a thorough, no-stone-unturned look at a specific court case.

[Julie · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author of this book obviously feels that Rose West was unfairly treated. I'm my opinion this makes the book less than impartial.

[Ashling W · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF

[Chrissie Stewart · Rating 1 out of 5]

I expected more in-depth. More or less the same.as other books written on the subject.

[Nichola Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

thought provoking

A thought provoking read that’s well written and well constructed. A must for any true crime fan. In thoroughly enjoyed it

[Niki Turton]

It's truly an interesting read. I haven't read such a non biased account of the West's, and it has given me lots to think about.

[Dylan Hepworth]

A great read. Dozy Rosy is a depraved cow.

[Mariam]

DNF- Is it the book? Is it the age-old reading slump? I guess we'll never know.

[Ethan · Rating 1 out of 5]

When it’s focus is on the trial and the debate of innocence it is an interesting analysis but too much of it is the authors own ramblings, constantly doubting witnesses and making broad psychological leaps and bounds that make the chapters feel like they’re running in circles.

[Fishface · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to say, Masters manages to throw quite a lot of doubt on the prosecution of Rosemary West and the testimony of many of the witnesses at her trial. He seriously calls her conviction into question. But the book's peevish, self-important tone puts me off, and some of the author's assertions are far from the indisputable truth, as he wants us to think they are. The book is peppered with statements about how this or that belief about the Wests is "preposterous," "risible" or -- conversely -- clearly true, when in fact the point he is discussing is very ambiguous and wide open to interpretation. He also, in between reminders to the reader that he is not a psychologist, makes assertions about the thoughts and supposed mental illness of someone he's never met -- especially Fred West -- that border on the bizarre. His assertions about Rose are similarly lacking in foundation; he doesn't seem to have interviewed her himself, and we all know she's said very, very little since her arrest. His snide comments about the American justice system seem almost, but not quite, irrelevant. I mean, on the surface, what could the absurdist theater of American voir dire have to do with Rose West? But as a journalist in a country whose yellow journalism he charges with having convicted an innocent woman of multiple murders, he may be trying to point out that every country has some sort of problem affecting its ability to serve justice. Overall, the author seems to need a good vacation from the whole subject of serial sexual predators to straighten out his thinking.

[Leyanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

...

[Lisa Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

really makes you think, makes you wonder, poses many questions. excellent book.