Was nightdress replaced back to front on Sheila, after being moved on floor?

[lookout]

Apologies for what I'm about to say.
 It's not unusual for a person nearing death,to clear their throat,regardless of the circumstances,and in Sheilas' case,this is what the officers will have heard---------thinking that Sheila was choking,so their natural/normal reaction would have been to have put her on a flat,solid surface to perform CPR.
Sadly,it would have been too late anyway,but the woman will still have been warm at that point,as death was instantaneous.

The pattern of the blood from bed to floor would have been because Sheila had been moved.

[scipio_usmc]

Sheila was absolutely soaked in blood Alias.

1) The only blood on her was her shoulder area and the blood that transferred from her wrist.   No blood got from her mouth to other parts of her body it just went down the sides of her mouth to the floor.

2) The blood got in her mouth from her fatal wound.  The fatal wound tore through the roof of her mouth to enter her brain. She was instantly dead at that point.

 

[Jane]

Sheila was absolutely soaked in blood Alias.

I know June was but, but given her wounds, Sheila's clothes looked remarkably blood free.

[scipio_usmc]

Not HE, Scipio. OTHERS say things which he, in turn, passes on to us :D

No this is Mike. What he does is he mixes past nonsense that has already been rejected with his own spin including placing himself in the middle of things such as supposedly seeing a photo of Sheila in bed and at one point even claimed the kitchen.  He sometimes claims she was in the kitchen then moved to the bed then moved to the floor.

It really depends on what strikes his fancy.  He is now making up the tale of a big blood stain on her back.  That is his own invention, not coming from others.

The most obvious reason he is full of it it that there is no way police would decide to move her body in order to conceal how/where she was found and yet document it by taking photos.  If you are trying to conceal something you don't take photos to docuemnt what you are hiding. 

That alone puts these claims to bed.  The fact he claimed Jeremy's former lawyer saw it but refused to use it to help is even more ridiculous. Then we have the actual diagrams posted of where the blood stains were found on her gown and the defense reports discussing them and yet mike still has some biased people convicned his claims could be true.

That is a true baromoter of the degree of bias some have. Those who give any amount of credence to Mike are so biased they will believe any ridiculous thing no matter how lacking in evidence to support it. That in turn encourages him to continue and he likes the attention and feeds off it.

[lookout]

 What I don't get is Craigs' examination of Sheila to confirm death as having " a solitary shot to her neck ?" The time being 08.44. Miller had accompanied Dr Craig. Then also as Miller attended the inquest,referred to Sheila having taken her life,using one bullet. Then later,photographic evidence showed two shots ? Why two if she'd already been certified as being dead, by Dr Craig ?
That would have meant that the first shot killed her ? 

[scipio_usmc]

What I don't get is Craigs' examination of Sheila to confirm death as having " a solitary shot to her neck ?" The time being 08.44. Miller had accompanied Dr Craig. Then also as Miller attended the inquest,referred to Sheila having taken her life,using one bullet. Then later,photographic evidence showed two shots ? Why two if she'd already been certified as being dead, by Dr Craig ?
That would have meant that the first shot killed her ?

In his statement, Craig noted a single gunshot wound to each victim. He declared them dead and noted a gun shot wound that would have been able to result in death so that he could justify saying each was, "apparently killed by being shot with a gun".


 

[lookout]

No,I'm not buying that because with the others it WASN'T one single gunshot at all. That's very misleading and far from being professional as more than one gunshot could have been the cause of instantaneous death. ONE gunshot doesn't necessarily mean that it killed them outright.
I'm not falling for your trumped-up version of anything.

[scipio_usmc]

No,I'm not buying that because with the others it WASN'T one single gunshot at all. That's very misleading and far from being professional as more than one gunshot could have been the cause of instantaneous death. ONE gunshot doesn't necessarily mean that it killed them outright.
I'm not falling for your trumped-up version of anything.

My version happens to be the truth.  Despite the fact each victim was shot multiple times he didn't bother to carefully try to assess how many shots each suffered in full.  That would require disturbing the bodies. He noted a single gunshot wound to each capable of resulting in death and used that to justify his claim they apparently all died from being shot.   

[lookout]

My version happens to be the truth.  Despite the fact each victim was shot multiple times he didn't bother to carefully try to assess how many shots each suffered in full.  That would require disturbing the bodies. He noted a single gunshot wound to each capable of resulting in death and used that to justify his claim they apparently all died from being shot.   

Your versions couldn't be further from the truth.You're bullsh1tting !

[scipio_usmc]

Your versions couldn't be further from the truth.You're bullsh1tting !

Craig's statement does indeed declare each victim to be dead, identifies a single shot to each victim and use that to justify saying the victim was apparently killed by a gun.

Your refusal to face this is true doesn't render it false or BS it just means you choose to live in denial.

[Jan]

I do agree with Scipio on this one - I don't particularly agree with why he did that way because it could have been a combination of the shots that caused the deaths - but the fact that he did the same for each victim must be taken into account. If he had just said each victims death was caused by multiple gun shots , and then Sheilas just said one gun shot it would be different.

[scipio_usmc]

I do agree with Scipio on this one - I don't particularly agree with why he did that way because it could have been a combination of the shots that caused the deaths - but the fact that he did the same for each victim must be taken into account. If he had just said each victims death was caused by multiple gun shots , and then Sheilas just said one gun shot it would be different.

Even if he mentioned multiple on others and only 1 on Sheila that still doesn't support the conspiracy claims.

For the conspiracy claims to be true he had to erroneously declare Sheila dead.  On top of that the medical assessment that both shots were fired seconds apart would have to be wrong.

Much more likely would be that he didn't look her over very throughly and missed a wound than not realizing she was still alive and the shots being fired very distant from one another.  In fact, if the shots were fired very distant she would have died from the first wound because a loss of blood.

Craig also noted her body was on the floor.

That would mean she had to have been moved before he saw. Who would have had a camera and why would they take her picture in bed if they planned to pretend she had been on the floor and not in bed?  Who would document something they wanted to conceal with a photo?

I don't understand why peopel continue with this at all, it has no legs which is why it was never alleged at trial. These kinds of fairytales are inveted later when there is nothing to lose. They are largely invented for public consumption so for propaganda merely.





 



 

[Mr. Gee]

I know June was but, but given her wounds, Sheila's clothes looked remarkably blood free.

You surely could not have missed the enormous blood stain in her arm pit surely. If she was instantly dead from the shot to her brain, then she would not have bled that much.

[Jane]

You surely could not have missed the enormous blood stain in her arm pit surely. If she was instantly dead from the shot to her brain, then she would not have bled that much.

Grahame, compared to June's condition, I think Sheila was remarkably clean. Perhaps it's because the pictures are old.

[Mr. Gee]

Grahame, compared to June's condition, I think Sheila was remarkably clean. Perhaps it's because the pictures are old.

I'm not comparing her with anyone. We are talking about Sheila, not June and the fact remains that he armpit was drenched in blood.