Sheila's feet

[shonapugs]

On the back of a chair?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

if you look pretty carefully at the photos of sheila with the socks lying beside her, there were TWO photos taken (with her hand moved between photos.)
Now, the hand was moved for the purposed of being able to photograph the inside of her arm (which otherwise wouldn't be captured by the camera, so let's not question this aspect of the photos).....

Anyway, I draw your attention to the actual socks:

1) The socks appear to have slightly different levels of staining on them between photos - either a trick of light, absorpsion of still wet blood? or some other issue.

2) They do appear to be heavily stained.
This aspect holds some grounds for intrigue, not least because other blood stains around the socks are consistent with spatter (numerous tiny droplets), and yet the socks themselves have an entirely different form of staining. This MIGHT be due to different material between carpet and socks, but still, the socks (to my mind) look very bloodied (assuming the stains are blood, and not just creases/other stains).
If we assume they are bloody stains, how did they come to be so stained?

[shonapugs]

TBM, I have looked very carefully at all images on this forum, but I don't recall seeing any marks on those socks. I'll look again. I might be gone for some time (!).

[TheBrilliantMistake]

TBM, I have looked very carefully at all images on this forum, but I don't recall seeing any marks on those socks. I'll look again. I might be gone for some time (!).

See above, I've attached

[shonapugs]

Oh, sorry. You've posted images of the socks. But I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Just socks.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Oh, sorry. You've posted images of the socks. But I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Just socks.

Look at the socks, they look to have stains (unless it's a very strange pattern).

Let's for a moment, assume they are blood stains. I'm wondering why the stains are more 'liquid' and spread out than those on the carpet (droplets).
Also. I'm asking why the stains differ between the photos, but the blood stains on the carpet are precisely the same. The socks don't appear to have been disturbed to any significant degree between the photos.

[shonapugs]

But I am seeing a "positioned" body, with straight legs and (although not in these images) outstretched feet, as though Sheila had been lifted and then placed on the floor. And, of course, re-positioned arm, hand, gun and hem of nightdress.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

But I am seeing a "positioned" body, with straight legs and (although not in these images) outstretched feet, as though Sheila had been lifted and then placed on the floor. And, of course, re-positioned arm, hand, gun and hem of nightdress.

The socks are in shot (not on her feet) by her side/hip... they are clearly in view lying on the carpet

[shonapugs]

Yes, yes, I see an old farmer's pair of socks discarded when he got into bed. I'm married to an old farmer. Sadly, I also see that Sheila's legs have at some point been opened and pulled slightly apart (check out the position of her knees). Why?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Yes, yes, I see an old farmer's pair of socks discarded when he got into bed. I'm married to an old farmer. Sadly, I also see that Sheila's legs have at some point been opened and pulled slightly apart (check out the position of her knees). Why?

Can you not see the difference in staining between the two shots? or even the staining at all?
It's quite clear. I (personally) do not believe that to be a pattern in the socks, it's highly irregular in form.

As to the position of legs - the first and second shots are taken from slightly different vantage points (see butt of gun for best illustation of the angle issue, but also her feet might well have been moved in order to bag them (she had bags place over and tied around each foot). Although I do find the notion of doing this between both shots a little unlikely.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Having looked again at the legs, it's clear that the change in angle of the camera is actually fairly significant. At first glance it looks like it's not moved very much at all, but when you look as the butt of the gun, and the shadows at the side of her knees, there's quite a big angle difference.

If you look at the legs below the knee, it absolutely DOES look like they've widened, but I think if they have, this is grossly exaggerated by the change in angle and the difference in how much can be seen below the knee...

Still, it's fairly convincing they they moved apart a little, which needs explaining

[shonapugs]

No, TBM, there is a big difference in those two images. The gun has certainly been moved, Sheila's hand has obviously been moved, her legs are more apart and the weight of the gun now rests on the hem of the nightdress. And the bible, to me, is a massive clue. Possibly the police checked for vital signs and disturbed the scene, but then tried to recreate it in a clumsy way. But, putting it simply, you wouldn't get away with it now.

[shonapugs]

Wherever Sheila died, in my opinion, was not on the far side of Ralph and June's bed. Her body had been lifted and placed, then the gun and bible positioned.

[mike tesko]

Wherever Sheila died, in my opinion, was not on the far side of Ralph and June's bed. Her body had been lifted and placed, then the gun and bible positioned.

--------------------

I agree with tis - I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed, which EP are deliberately withholding under pii...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

You're all missing the point -

Forget the body for the moment - it's about the socks...

why the differences in staining?





Now we can turn to the body:

The bible is hardly touched, the gun has moved a little, but it's the nozzle end that's been disturbed, and the legs have parted a little. The hand movement was credibly explained in court (in order to reveal the underside of the arm and staining on the dress).

What's making the scene look a LOT different is the angle of the camera, and the gun butt best reveals this problem.... the bible's hardly touched (if at all) neither is the butt end of the gun or her skirt, legs below the knee do appear to have parted.

Anyway, back to the Sheila's feet.....

1) Why do the socks have a different staining pattern to that of the carpet?
Different materials? one is splatter, one is treading? it's not a stain but the pattern in the sock?
2) Why do the socks have a different staining pattern between photos?
Blood was still wet and therefore still being absorbed? Trick of light from the camera?
3) And why there? right by her side? pure coincidence that she didn't fall on top of them, but fell almost perfectly parallel with the bed?