The drop / pendant earring...

[lookout]

Blood isn't like water that finds its own level, it is not as free-flowing as it's a thicker consistency .

[Roch]

In the photo attached, the alleged earring appears as the same colour as the nightdress. Will Roch and Bill now claim the other half dozen or so blood voids by Sheila breast are earrings also?

No. For simple reason that there isn't. You're being silly.

[lookout]

Only an idiot would make anything of that pic !

[David1819]

From the crime scene photos, you can see blood running down Sheila's cheeks and then onto her ears. That explains the "wound" Bill is seeing on her earlobe.

[Roch]

From the crime scene photos, you can see blood running down Sheila's cheeks and then onto her ears. That explains the "wound" Bill is seeing on her earlobe.

No. Wrong again. This is not what is being claimed.

[David1819]

In this photo attached, notice how all the metallic materials are gleaming. The rifle barrel, Sheila's neckless and ring. Yet the area of the alleged earring.... Nothing!

[Roch]

In this photo attached, notice how all the metallic materials are gleaming. The rifle barrel, Sheila's neckless and ring. Yet the area of the alleged earring.... Nothing!

See Snow 66 posts.

[Kestrel19]

In this photo attached, notice how all the metallic materials are gleaming. The rifle barrel, Sheila's neckless and ring. Yet the area of the alleged earring.... Nothing!

You’re correct David, but as Snow pointed out the rifle itself has moved considerably here, the end of the barrel is well beyond the necklace where as in other photos it was only at the necklace level, so the two photos can’t be directly compared as if they are both genuine then the body has been tampered with.
I agree that in the photo you have shown the pendent doesn’t appear to exist - however neither does the “mark” that can be seen in the other pictures if it’s not a pendant, which does suggest something has either been moved/dropped/lost or blood has now covered that area if it was only an unmarked patch, which would raise its own complications at that stage!

[David1819]

You’re correct David, but as Snow pointed out the rifle itself has moved considerably here, the end of the barrel is well beyond the necklace where as in other photos it was only at the necklace level, so the two photos can’t be directly compared as if they are both genuine then the body has been tampered with.
I agree that in the photo you have shown the pendent doesn’t appear to exist - however neither does the “mark” that can be seen in the other pictures if it’s not a pendant, which does suggest something has either been moved/dropped/lost or blood has now covered that area if it was only an unmarked patch, which would raise its own complications at that stage!

The "mark" is simply a void in the bloodstain and thus has been overshadowed by the fabric and is not large or bright enough to become rendered in the photo.

The rifle has not been moved. Its just a parallax caused by different angles of the photos being taken.

[Kestrel19]

The "mark" is simply a void in the bloodstain and thus has been overshadowed by the fabric and is not large or bright enough to become rendered in the photo.

I can see the logic David, but I’m afraid I don’t agree, the “mark” can be seen in every other photo before the gun moves. Some from the same angle, some from other angles and some from further away. If it is a void it’s fairly distinct once you look for it and from a photo this close you’d see some evidence of it, in this photo there’s nothing there at all and no evidence of shadow where it would be, whatever caused that mark is no longer there.

[David1819]

I can see the logic David, but I’m afraid I don’t agree, the “mark” can be seen in every other photo before the gun moves. Some from the same angle, some from other angles and some from further away. If it is a void it’s fairly distinct once you look for it and from a photo this close you’d see some evidence of it, in this photo there’s nothing there at all and no evidence of shadow where it would be, whatever caused that mark is no longer there.

The gun has not been moved.

[Roch]

The "mark" is simply a void in the bloodstain and thus has been overshadowed by the fabric and is not large or bright enough to become rendered in the photo.

The rifle has not been moved. Its just a parallax caused by different angles of the photos being taken.

I think you're on a hiding to nothing here David. Lone voices are sometimes commendable - but in this case, the differences in the angles of photography are insufficient enough to cause such a difference in the finishing position of the barrel end.

Three guilters have already accepted the presence of the earring. I think the defence may also be on a hiding to nothing - because the CCRC have already previously advised that they regard sworn statements that the rifle wasn't moved as being stronger evidence than photography showing that it was indeed moved. 

[Kestrel19]

The gun has not been moved.

It clearly has - look at where the end of the barrel is in relation to the necklace then look at it in other photos, or are you suggesting that some of the photos are not genuine? The gun is several inches further up Sheila’s body. I unfortunately can’t copy the photos from here to do a comparison in a single post but I’m sure someone else could

[David1819]

It clearly has - look at where the end of the barrel is in relation to the necklace then look at it in other photos, or are you suggesting that some of the photos are not genuine? The gun is several inches further up Sheila’s body. I unfortunately can’t copy the photos from here to do a comparison in a single post but I’m sure someone else could

The gun is resting on Sheilas breasts/torso. Sheila's neckless is several inches below the barrel, thus the photo taken from above make it seem in a different location from the photo taken from the side. This is known as a parellax effect

https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-parallax

[snow66!]

In this photo attached, notice how all the metallic materials are gleaming. The rifle barrel, Sheila's neckless and ring. Yet the area of the alleged earring.... Nothing!

FOR GODS SAKE Dave,THAT is what i have been trying to tell you.THAT photo was taken once the rifle had been re-positioned,when the barrel of the rifle ie 3 or 4 inches up past the neck chain.All the photos taken with the barrel IN LINE with the key chain show the earring.Hence the earring must have been removed ,fallen off,moved position or be hidden in the folds of the nightdress.THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF PHOTOS IN THE ARCHIVES.