Menstrual Blood

[nugnug]

Her job was to help clean out the place.  No one else wanted to take care of the bloody panties so even though she said no way at first she was forced to do so. 

All she did was rinse them out to empty the water from the buckets and then threw them in the garbage bin.  The bin by the dishwaster was a garbage bin.  She didn't put them in the washing machine and wash them she simply rinsed them out because they were wet, dumped out the water and threw them away.

why was them at all they were not going to be worn agian.

[Jan]

I have just read her 1991 statement -it says the two buckets had clothes soaking then she washed them out and left them in a bin. And yet I thought she took them away?.

But the most strange  bit is she , in 1991, still had sheilas dress in her linen basket , unwashed.

Why? If she thought it was relevant then surely she should have handed it to the police?

If not , why keep it , unwashed in your linen basket for all those years?

[JackiePreece]

Alias Ditto x

[nugnug]

i could swear in one staement she said she did take them away.

[scipio_usmc]

why was them at all they were not going to be worn agian.

They were wet because they were in a bucket.  She squeezed the water out of them and then threw them in the trash.  Do you throw water in your trash? Most people don't put liquids int heir trash but rather try to dry out things instead.



   

[Alias]

I have just read her 1991 statement -it says the two buckets had clothes soaking then she washed them out and left them in a bin. And yet I thought she took them away?.

But the most strange  bit is she , in 1991, still had sheilas dress in her linen basket , unwashed.

Why? If she thought it was relevant then surely she should have handed it to the police?

If not , why keep it , unwashed in your linen basket for all those years?

The police didn´t want it - she tried to convince them to forensically test the dress, but they refused. I don´t know why she wanted them to test the dress, and I don´t know why she didn´t think the clothes in the buckets were of interest when she so obviously for some reason thought the dress was.
I don´t know what went on in Ann´s head!

[scipio_usmc]

I have just read her 1991 statement -it says the two buckets had clothes soaking then she washed them out and left them in a bin. And yet I thought she took them away?.

But the most strange  bit is she , in 1991, still had sheilas dress in her linen basket , unwashed.

Why? If she thought it was relevant then surely she should have handed it to the police?

If not , why keep it , unwashed in your linen basket for all those years?

She threw the clothing from the buckets away.

She kept the clothing that was in the bedrooms which she thought might harbor evidence of some kind and retained it in case police ever wanted it but police left it because such clothes were of no value to the case and no one asked for them- not the defense or the prosecution to test because there was nothing the clothing could offer. Both sides knew she kept such clothing but saw no use for them.

[scipio_usmc]

The police didn´t want it - she tried to convince them to forensically test the dress, but they refused. I don´t know why she wanted them to test the dress, and I don´t know why she didn´t think the clothes in the buckets were of interest when she so obviously for some reason thought the dress was.
I don´t know what went on in Ann´s head!

Maybe she wanted them to test it to prove there was no GSR on it. Aisde from proving a negative that was already known since it would have been stained in blood had she worn it, it offers no value.

She was right about the panties and leggings having no value but wrong about the clothing from the bedrooms having potential value.   

[Jan]

Do you know all this time I thought the track suit bottoms were adults - now I have re-read it it says childrens clothes were in the other bucket . And in court testimony it says she washed them out and then threw them away.

So to me that does explain it all a bit more.

[Jan]

The police didn´t want it - she tried to convince them to forensically test the dress, but they refused. I don´t know why she wanted them to test the dress, and I don´t know why she didn´t think the clothes in the buckets were of interest when she so obviously for some reason thought the dress was.
I don´t know what went on in Ann´s head!

thanks for that info .

I could not find any mention of the dress previous to 1991 - but her statements are very long.

[Alias]

Maybe she wanted them to test it to prove there was no GSR on it. Aisde from proving a negative that was already known since it would have been stained in blood had she worn it, it offers no value.

She was right about the panties and leggings having no value but wrong about the clothing from the bedrooms having potential value.

You forgot to throw in an insult.

[nugnug]

how many people could wash there dead relatives clothes its rather strange.

i dont think i could bear to do that.

imean if there going in the bin anyway whats the point in washing them.

[Jan]

They were wet because they were in a bucket.  She squeezed the water out of them and then threw them in the trash.  Do you throw water in your trash? Most people don't put liquids int heir trash but rather try to dry out things instead.



 

she said she "washed" them and then threw them out .

And yes it is relevant if posters were insinuating the "blood" could have "contaminated other evidence.

I was under the impression she had taken those clothes away with her as well .

And  if we want to discuss this matter that's our business .

No skin off your nose as we like to say.

So as my father used to say . If you cant say something nice , then DONT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL!

[Alias]

Do you know all this time I thought the track suit bottoms were adults - now I have re-read it it says childrens clothes were in the other bucket . And in court testimony it says she washed them out and then threw them away.

So to me that does explain it all a bit more.

Can you link to that?

[lookout]

Do you know all this time I thought the track suit bottoms were adults - now I have re-read it it says childrens clothes were in the other bucket . And in court testimony it says she washed them out and then threw them away.

So to me that does explain it all a bit more.

They could still have been used to mop up surplus blood regardless of whose clothes they were.