The broken glass lampshade.

[smiffy]

I wonder why more has not been made of this.

Unless it was broken by the police as a result of their actions on entering the property and the resulting goings on....then its fairly safe to assume it was broken during the attack on Ralph.

Lets run with the latter.

The lampshade was of a translucent glass type. It was smashed in the incident...probably struck accidentally by an object wielded by the attacker. Something long that could be thrusted or swung. A rifle could have been this object.

All the blood in the kitchen seems to be from Ralph or can be assumed to have been.  Ralph only seems to have bled in the area near the phone and towards the sink and door area but not extending into teh table area or the aga area.

When the light was  smashed it produced fragments of glass of various sizes. We should expect to see some of them on the table if the table was upright all the time during the incident and after.
However we will not see any fragments of glass on the table top if it was upended prior to the lampshade being smashed or if it got upended after the lampshade was smashed and the fragments got tipped off as a result of this.

The lack of glass fragments seen in the photographs and no apparent mention of them lends to the view that its likely the table has been upended at some time.

More to come on this subject ...

[smiffy]

Forensically aware folk will know when Glass is broken fragments and glass dust flies about.
Now two persons struggling in close proximity to a glass lampshade up above....an object strikes the lampshade smashing it and fragments and glass dust descend.

Now some of those fragments and glass dust will end up deposited on those two persons. On their skin, in their hair and on their clothing.

Think of the forensics.......

[mertol22]

Smiffy i freely admit i know very little about this shade, all i know is what ive read on the web being when Diane Keen visited WHF she was in the kitchen having a tea she noticed the bulb had no shade , Ann Eaton said to her is was broken in the struggle with Ralph , the reason it was not replaced because it was valuable antique or something, im no Lovejoy but i can only assume it might have been a Tiffany or something.

[smiffy]

So if its correct the lampshade was broken in the struggle then Ralph should have had glass dust and fragments on his pyjamas. 
That may be another reason why both his  pyjama top and pyjama bottoms were not submitted to the forensics lab.

What would happen when glass fragments , even in dust form were found on them?
Focus would then fall on the presence or absence of glass fragments on others...namely Sheila and JB.

[mertol22]

Sheila yes JB  no he had nowhere to dispose his clothes that night if he did it, there is no 100% proof the shade was broken that night .

[smiffy]

Correct ...there is a big issue in that JB would need to dispose of clothes worn by him if he was the killer.
Glass fragments being highly likely to be on them.  Glass in his hair would be another issue.
At night especially, ...light would catch on any glass fragments in his hair and be seen by others. He was in the company of many...so if he was the killer some headgear would have been needed.
There appears to be too little time for him to have washed his hair.

Hair.
In the pictures of Sheila people have commented that Sheila's hair looks as though it was recently washed.

[smiffy]

Sheila yes JB  no he had nowhere to dispose his clothes that night if he did it, there is no 100% proof the shade was broken that night .

Though not 100% it can be safely concluded that the lampshade was broken either as a result of the incident or through police action.

Looking for glass fragments on the clothes or in the hair of Ralph should establish the case that it was broken in the incident or as a result of police action if found.
Which brings us to the bags used that covered the victims heads , hands and feet.  Apart from protecting evidence from contamination in transport they also serve to retain potential evidence.
Things such as hairs or fibres or fragments or blood. It is for this reason they are often sent for forensic tests.
Hair can act as a trap for fine evidence so head bags in particular can have great evidential value. Some glass particles retained by a persons hair would be likely to be lost and deposited inside the bag.


 

[smiffy]

so lets see.
Due to the broekn lampshade and suspecting Sheila killed the others it would be expected that the head bags for Ralph and Sheila would be checked to see what forensics they may show to establish what happened.
So why were they not submitted. Did the police not want to know what happened. Where they , indeed, covering something up by not submitting them.

Sheila's head bag....
Now if Sheila had not washed her hair and she was involved in killing Ralph then we should expect to find glass fragments in her hair and its highly likely some would have been deposited into the head bag.
Obviously glass fragments found in the head bag for Sheila would more or less prove that she killed the others.
Is that why the head bag for Sheila was not submitted...the police feared it could expose the truth?



But what if Sheila had showered including washing her hair after killing the others as suggested by the defence. Well its possible such an act could wash away all glass fragments from Sheila's hair and thus none remain in the head bag from when she was transported.  However this could not be guaranteed and some glass dust or fragments...even one...would again prove the case that essentially Sheila was responsible.... a high risk for the police to take ...hence the head bag from Sheila not being submitted.
As well as that such ideas as Sheila washing her hair and its appearance could again be taken as a indicator that she had cleaned herself up after killing the others.

[grahameb]

so lets see.
Due to the broken lampshade and suspecting Sheila killed the others it would be expected that the head bags for Ralph and Sheila would be checked to see what forensics they may show to establish what happened.
So why were they not submitted. Did the police not want to know what happened. Where they , indeed, covering something up by not submitting them.

Sheila's head bag....
Now if Sheila had not washed her hair and she was involved in killing Ralph then we should expect to find glass fragments in her hair and its highly likely some would have been deposited into the head bag.
Obviously glass fragments found in the head bag for Sheila would more or less prove that she killed the others.
Is that why the head bag for Sheila was not submitted...the police feared it could expose the truth?



But what if Sheila had showered including washing her hair after killing the others as suggested by the defence. Well its possible such an act could wash away all glass fragments from Sheila's hair and thus none remain in the head bag from when she was transported.  However this could not be guaranteed and some glass dust or fragments...even one...would again prove the case that essentially Sheila was responsible.... a high risk for the police to take ...hence the head bag from Sheila not being submitted.
As well as that such ideas as Sheila washing her hair and its appearance could again be taken as a indicator that she had cleaned herself up after killing the others.

Well it's something that seriously needs to be considered? At least the fact that if there was a head bag to question why it was not submitted?

[smiffy]

There is another issue in regards to the broken lampshade and that is where the  broken parts of this translucent glass lampshade ended up.
Photograph 5 was used in court and Hammersley , as per the photograph says the debris was to the right of the stools and near the newspaper rack.

This is interesting.  It is odd that this debris ended up in this particular section of the kitchen floor and not on the table or worktops or elsewhere. Why was it not more spread out in an arc.
The table being shoved aside as per the photos seen on here make it look rather dodgy and staged.

Could the debris from the broken lampshade be part of the staging too?

We are told by Collins and Delgado that they moved the 2 tipped over stools to the side..ie near the table. But as  photograph 5 and Hammersley tell us....some of this debris was to the right of the stools...in other words ..going by the police version...some of this debris was where the stools must have been previously placed. This does seem very odd indeed.
Depending on the angles of flying debris from the lampshade...the stools if already knocked over at the time could have prevented debris going as far as the newspaper rack.

There may be clues here as to what order things happened in the kitchen or we may have further evidence of police staging.  Thinking along the lines of ...if Sheila has been lying on the floor at the far end of the kitchen from the window and the police wanted to conceal this fact...then the moving of items to where she had been lying would mislead as there was nowhere for Sheila to lie down with the stuff in the way...ie stools, table, glass debris all being moved to aid the deception.