A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[Reader]

I got the times from a site called explorebritain.info. It does explain what 'night fall' is if you are interested.

I couldn't find the site's explanation of 'nightfall', but it seems to be giving for nightfall what other sites call the time when nautical twilight ends. The time when twilight (without the nautical qualification) ends is called 'dusk', although 'dusk' is also in use as a synonym for twilight. Dusk tends to be about 35 to 40 minutes after sunset, depending on location and date. I don't think explorebritain's times are always precise, as it seems to ignore seconds instead of rounding to the nearest minute.

[scipio_usmc]

I couldn't find the site's explanation of 'nightfall', but it seems to be giving for nightfall what other sites call the time when nautical twilight ends. The time when twilight (without the nautical qualification) ends is called 'dusk', although 'dusk' is also in use as a synonym for twilight. Dusk tends to be about 35 to 40 minutes after sunset, depending on location and date. I don't think explorebritain's times are always precise, as it seems to ignore seconds instead of rounding to the nearest minute.

Their "nightfall" is when astronomical twilight ends.  It's already totally dark during astronomical twilight but the atmosphere will still have glare that makes it hard to see certaon objects using a telescope.

During civil twilight you can still see sufficiently for most ordinary tasks. Some task will be more difficult.  For instance it is harder to avoid seeing dog poop if you either want to avoid stepping in it or to clean it up.  Normally lights are on in the house and the combo of lights and lack of light ends up making it more difficult to see to much detial outside.

Nautical twilight is darker and more problemmatic all the way around. While it is considered fully dark at the end of nautical twilight some use astronomical twilight as the beginning of night or the beginning of light.  There is an astronomical, nautical, and civil twilight in the morning.   

During   

[Reader]

For instance it is harder to avoid seeing dog poop

That doesn't make sense. As it gets darker, it's more likely that you won't notice dog poop.

During

During what?

[scipio_usmc]

That doesn't make sense. As it gets darker, it's more likely that you won't notice dog poop.
During what?

I meant to typer harder to see so harder to avoid stepping in it. My niece took her dog for a walk then had to go cleanup the poop but becase it was getting dark she ended up finding it by stepping in it...

[Reader]

I'm still waiting, scipio_usmc, for your explanation of the movement of Sheila's body inbetween photographs being taken, as proved here.

[Caroline]

I'm still waiting, scipio_usmc, for your explanation of the movement of Sheila's body inbetween photographs being taken, as proved here.

It doesn't need any explanation because the picture is taken from a slightly different angle. Look at the bible in both pictures, you can see the pages on the right picture but not on the left. Other than her hand (to photograph the blood stain), it doesn't look as though the body has been moved at all.

[scipio_usmc]

I'm still waiting, scipio_usmc, for your explanation of the movement of Sheila's body inbetween photographs being taken, as proved here.

As Caroline explained there is simply different angles.

That was already pointed out by me each time you make th eclaim.  You then refuse to repsond to pretend you didn't get an answer and rereaise the same nonsense later.

It is especially nonsense since them moving her body after taking the first photo to demonstrate her exact position is FULLY appropriate and expected. It is unknown whether they lifted her body a bit to get the casing underneath it before or after the second photo.  The second photo was quite a bit after the first because they already removed the bedding and did other things before taking that 2nd photo.
Even if they moved not only her arm but her whole body to look underneath for the casings before taking the second photo it makes no difference.

Trying to pretend it is wrong of them to move her body after taking the initial photos fails.  Nor could moving her body at that late point in time in any way explain away the fact she was shot seated and yet found flat with the gun on her, the fact the moderator was put away in the closet after it being used to shoot her and her pool of blood that formed after her death that the bible was lying in.

This is one of your worthless red herrings.

[Mr. Gee]

As Caroline explained there is simply different angles.

That was already pointed out by me each time you make th eclaim.  You then refuse to repsond to pretend you didn't get an answer and rereaise the same nonsense later.

It is especially nonsense since them moving her body after taking the first photo to demonstrate her exact position is FULLY appropriate and expected. It is unknown whether they lifted her body a bit to get the casing underneath it before or after the second photo.  The second photo was quite a bit after the first because they already removed the bedding and did other things before taking that 2nd photo.
Even if they moved not only her arm but her whole body to look underneath for the casings before taking the second photo it makes no difference.

Trying to pretend it is wrong of them to move her body after taking the initial photos fails.  Nor could moving her body at that late point in time in any way explain away the fact she was shot seated and yet found flat with the gun on her, the fact the moderator was put away in the closet after it being used to shoot her and her pool of blood that formed after her death that the bible was lying in.

This is one of your worthless red herrings.

I do not think that it is different angles? Ih one picture Sheila's arm is bent, but in the other it is straight. In one the Bible is closer to her elbow than the other. There are several points where there are differences.
Also the police continually said they didn't move the body, but when it was demonstrated that they did they confessed a little by saying that they only moved her arm a bit to take pictures
You can also see that her hand is in a different position and yet the socks stay at the same position, proving that her arm was indeed moved. Whether her whole body was moved to another place or not is debatable as it would be extremely difficult without another photo as a reference to get the position correct?

ps: you will also notice that the bloodied bedclothes are missing in one photo and present in the other. Why I wonder would there be bloodied bedclothes? Would it be that Sheila was dragged from the bed onto the floor in order to giver her CPR?

[Jan]

Mr Gee

I am confused was it Cook or bird that admitted moving her for the photos ?and also said the rifle had not been checked at the time - not really into H&S then were they - or wearing gloves

[Mr. Gee]

Mr Gee

I am confused was it Cook or bird that admitted moving her for the photos ?and also said the rifle had not been checked at the time - not really into H&S then were they - or wearing gloves

I don't think they were wearing gloves? That is why I an sceptical about there being no fingerprints on the gun. I can't remember who admitted moving her arm?

[Alias]

Mr Gee

I am confused was it Cook or bird that admitted moving her for the photos ?and also said the rifle had not been checked at the time - not really into H&S then were they - or wearing gloves

I remember Bews saying that they moved her arm. It is in an interview in a video. Too tired to find it now...

[Jan]

in the video on here the other day it was cook SCO - but the video was full of inaccuracies.

[scipio_usmc]

I do not think that it is different angles? Ih one picture Sheila's arm is bent, but in the other it is straight. In one the Bible is closer to her elbow than the other. There are several points where there are differences.
Also the police continually said they didn't move the body, but when it was demonstrated that they did they confessed a little by saying that they only moved her arm a bit to take pictures
You can also see that her hand is in a different position and yet the socks stay at the same position, proving that her arm was indeed moved. Whether her whole body was moved to another place or not is debatable as it would be extremely difficult without another photo as a reference to get the position correct?

ps: you will also notice that the bloodied bedclothes are missing in one photo and present in the other. Why I wonder would there be bloodied bedclothes? Would it be that Sheila was dragged from the bed onto the floor in order to giver her CPR?

The angle of the photos is different.  One is not only a slightly different angle it was taken closer to Sheila than the other.  That is why one shows more of her legs than the other.  SLightly mor eof her fit in the frame because it was taken further way.

The only difference to her body is the gun and her arm were moved to show the blood on her gown where her hand had been.

The second photo was taken after they alreayd removed the sheets and quilting from the bed so was obviously some time later.

[Reader]

It doesn't need any explanation because the picture is taken from a slightly different angle. Look at the bible in both pictures, you can see the pages on the right picture but not on the left. Other than her hand (to photograph the blood stain), it doesn't look as though the body has been moved at all.

Taking a casual look at the position of the body doesn't suffice. You need to relate it to the position of the rug and the spots on the carpet, and I described precisely how to do that. The differences I referred to can't be accounted for by the slightly different camera position.

[lookout]

 There should by rights have been visible pools of blood,not little drops ? It was a " massacre " !