NCOH, yes,but I was also suggesting that Sheila had eaten after the murders took place,as having already eaten an evening meal,she would have had something that would have been easily digestible in a shorter space of time than a full meal. Maybe just a couple of hours digesting process as opposed to 3+ hours after a heavier meal. Nevertheless,it still would have been an important factor.
Then again,each person is different at assimilation of food.
I'm not sure what level of forensic tests were available, let alone carried out, there are a number of different observations which could have indicated a time death, from stomach contents, film over eyes, body/liver temperature, hardening, skin colour, blood pooling and probably dozens more that I'm not aware of.
I also think it's a little difficult for a lay person to really interpret these signs correctly and in context.
There are several arguments that could be made either way and there are a few too many sweeping statements put forward. For example, we know that rigor mortis occurs at a very much quicker rate in muscles which have been active prior to death, the apparent lack of rigor mortis in Sheila must surely indicate that she was not active prior to death and therefore not responsible for the murders? On the otherhand, you might say that Sheila didn't show signs of rigor mortis because she only recently committed suicide and therefore was responsible.
I've got no idea what indications could or could not be obtained from her stomach contents, I'd like to think that they obtained all the information they could, but that may be too idealistic.
