Here is the Evidence, that police stage managed, Sheila's body, at the scene...

[Roch]

But can you see what I mean about the blue triangle?

[mike tesko]

In order to adjust Sheila's nightdress, as shown in the two posted images, one or two things had to occur, (1) Sheila's right hand had to be removed from rifle, (2) rifle had to be removed, (3), nightdress had to be readjusted...

Then the whole process, had to be done in reverse, in order that second photograph could be taken...

DI Cook has gone on record as saying he moved Sheila's hand, and that he removed the rifle from Sheila's body and rested it against the bedroom window - yet DC Hammersley claims he recovered the rifle DRH/15 from a top Sheila's body...

[Alias]

But can you see what I mean about the blue triangle?

I can´t see it.

[mike tesko]

But can you see what I mean about the blue triangle?

You mean, here:-

[Alias]

The picture has been cut, you have to see the whole nightgown.
Good nite.

[Roch]

Mike / Alias,

No I mean follow the edge line up from arm, in left image, until you reach a blue material triangle.  The same triangle is not replicated in the other image on the right.

[Bridget]

The bible should give you a clue.  Then again, not sure.  But there is a blue triangle contained within the stain on one image that is not replicated in the other image.

Different camera angles, that's all.

[mike tesko]

Different camera angles, that's all.

What a load of codswallop...

[mike tesko]

We'll let the negatives of these photographs do the talking - I wonder how the different angle of photograph argument effects the sudden appearance of splashes of expiated blood which appear in the second image, absent from the first?

According to mystic Bridget, it has got something to do with camera angles, ha, ha, ha...

[mike tesko]

Here, look at this:-

Mystic Bridget, argues that the reason for the change in shape of the bloodstain on the nightdress is due to the change of angle that both photographs which captured these two images were taken in - now lets look into the logic of what the mystic has said, and is saying...

She advocates that the photographer moves from his original position where he took this photo:-

[mike tesko]

Here, look at this:-

Mystic Bridget, argues that the reason for the change in shape of the bloodstain on the nightdress is due to the change of angle that both photographs which captured these two images were taken in - now lets look into the logic of what the mystic has said, and is saying...

She advocates that the photographer moves from his original position where he took this photo, to a different position at which point he took a second image. Now, in order to achieve what mystic Bridget is advocating, the photographer has to move to the right, to have any chance of capturing a different view of the bloodstain in question, which effectively moves the end of the guns barrel, shown in image (1), to the left:-

[mike tesko]

If the photographer moves from his original position, to a dirrent position by going right, the position of the end of the guns barrel has to move left against the backdrop of the body - it cannot move right because the position of the camera angle has moved right, the end of the guns barrel has to move left against the backdrop of Sheila's body, yet we find that in the photographs which show the additional blood, including additional expiated blood, the barrel of the gun has moved right and is resting against Sheila's neck on her left, but the photographers right...

You cannot make something like the end of a guns barrel move to the right (from vantage point of photographer) if the photographer changes his position by moving to the right, it has to move the position of the end of the guns barrel to the left against the backdrop of the body (in this examople), you cannot move to the right and make the end of the guns barrel go right in the same process - mystic Bridget, is talking codswallop, ha, ha, ha, (what a joker)...

[Lugg]

Both images were taken at the scene by PC Bird (SOC) after 10 O'clock, on 7th August 1985:-

It is very difficult to see Mike. But there is some kind of spotting in that area in the photo on the left. But it is very faint. The photo on the right seems to be brighter and therefore the spotting appears more definite. Also it appears that the photo on the left was taken at a slightly different angle to the one on the right. This can be seen in the definite shadow of the crease in the one on the left caused by the flash probably? But then again I notice the blue triangles as well.

[Roch]

Different camera angles, that's all.

I very much doubt it Bridget.  The position of triangular sliver I am referring to is easily placed in respect of where it should be on the other photo.  It is missing.  The only way that can happen is if the folds are in a different position. 

[Lugg]

I very much doubt it Bridget.  The position of triangular sliver I am referring to is easily placed in respect of where it should be on the other photo.  It is missing.  The only way that can happen is if the folds are in a different position.

Possibly caused when they moved the gun? Looking generally at the two pictures though and looking at Sheila's hair, it does not look as if they moved her body, as every hair on her head is in exactly the same place?