13 bullet cases in m/bedroom, yet no follower plate mark found on them...

[guest2181]

I would describe it as being an outside light above the main door.

As a description,  I don't think I would describe where the actual bulb was located, but rather what was being lit up by the light. I'd describe simply as an outside or porch light.

[guest2181]

Collins also says that there was only one other light on 'IN' the house.

I don't think the porch light can be considered as being 'IN' the house. Can it?

[Patti]

As a description,  I don't think I would describe where the actual bulb was located, but rather what was being lit up by the light. I'd describe simply as an outside or porch light.

The only other light which was on was directly over the main door of the house?

Would you think this description meant the needlework room or the porch light?

Of course the needlework room light was not on, but from the internal window inside, light from the landing shone through that room which is directly over the front door.

Anyway, the point of this was to advice Scip that it was not the kitchen, but it may have been the porch light or the needlework room. I think they both describe the needlework room because if it was the porch light Bews Mayall and Mildinhall would have commented on it....And I believe Mildinhall was very precise in his description having looked at the house for several hours...The only light Mildinhall states were on was the main bedroom light...for the needlework room light was not on, it merely allowed light from the landing to shine through...

I think you have had enough of me now....

[Patti]

Collins also says that there was only one other light on 'IN' the house.

I don't think the porch light can be considered as being 'IN' the house. Can it?

I agree....

[Reader]

When an object is exposed to cynoacrylate fume treatment, all of the object's surface gets coated with the superglue residue, . . .

The fuming should be stopped once any fingerprints or comparable smudges would stand out from the background, i.e. before the background is visibly coated as well, so the question is whether this is easy to achieve when using an object that was far from clean in the first place.

[maggie]

I agree....

I think he's light no...... right Patti 

[scipio_usmc]

It's funny how Collins and Delgado's statements about the lights are almost word for word identical.

Would you describe the porch light as being directly above the front door?

They clearly spoke with one another as they drafted their statements.  Several statements where officers had been paired up were quite close.

We call the lights on the front of our house (which has a stoop covered by a porch) our front lights.  I have another switch that controls 2 pole lights in front as well. That we call the pole lights not front lights. Then there is the light above the garage door which we call the garage light a light at the back door called the back door light and the outside backyard lights that we call the backyard lights. 

Since police were calling the kitchen side of the house that would create confusion about where the light they were talking about was so that would be a reason for them to say the light above the main door.

If they were talking about the limited amount of light they could seen shining from the hallway into the sewing room that is pretty damn strange that they noticed such but not the actual light being on in the master bedroom.  I have a small extra bedroom and if you are outside in the driveway at night and the light is off in that room yet the hallway light is on you can see that the hallway light is on.  You can tell that the light is not coming from the room itself but the hall. If this is what they were trying to convey they saw they did a horrible job of it and they also forgot or failed to notice the light in the master bedroom being on.

[scipio_usmc]

Mildenhall describes the needlework room window as being 'DIRECTLY' above the front door.

But mentions no light being on. He isolated the master bedroom saying the light was in in that room then mentions the other 2 describing curtains etc but no light seen in either window.

[scipio_usmc]

Collins also says that there was only one other light on 'IN' the house.

I don't think the porch light can be considered as being 'IN' the house. Can it?

That seems like sloppy wording to mean "at the house" and is not the wording Delgado used.  Delgado said, "only one other light switched on". 

The window lights they explicitly stated windows and even described the curtains in the windows in question. They didn't do that with the "light above the main door".  No description of the window about the main door and a description of the curtain situation.  They obviously forgot or failed to notice the light in the master bedroom being on or even could have misconstrued it as a light above the main door  because of faulty memory that just caused them to remember at the front of the house 1 light was on and they just took a wrong guess as to which one.

[Jane]

That seems like sloppy wording to mean "at the house" and is not the wording Delgado used.  Delgado said, "only one other light switched on". 

The window lights they explicitly stated windows and even described the curtains in the windows in question. They didn't do that with the "light above the main door".  No description of the window about the main door and a description of the curtain situation.  They obviously forgot or failed to notice the light in the master bedroom being on or even could have misconstrued it as a light above the main door  because of faulty memory that just caused them to remember at the front of the house 1 light was on and they just took a wrong guess as to which one.

Rather like the sloppy/ambiguous wording which said Sheila was discovered on the far side of the bed.

[scipio_usmc]

Rather like the sloppy/ambiguous wording which said Sheila was discovered on the far side of the bed.

Yes.  But it also includes a mistake.  They either forgot entirely about the bedroom light being on, or recalled 1 light was on in the front of the house but could not remember exactly which light was on and were just guessing. The only way they made no error was if the light above the door was supposed to convey the master bedroom light. If that is what it was supposed to convey it was a horrible description.  I don't think that is what they were conveying though they knew the master bedroom window was open 3 inches so should have been able to say this was the same window where they saw a light on.   

The wording of where Sheila was found simply was sloppy, they made no actual errors.

[maggie]

Yes.  But it also includes a mistake.  They either forgot entirely about the bedroom light being on, or recalled 1 light was on in the front of the house but could not remember exactly which light was on and were just guessing.

The wording of where Sheila was found simply was sloppy, they made no actual errors.

It sort of tells us we shouldn't repeat verbatim from the police's statements many of which were written in hindsight and not accurate.

[scipio_usmc]

It sort of tells us we shouldn't repeat verbatim from the police's statements many of which were written in hindsight and not accurate.

An effort should be made to figure out what they actually meant. Also to make sure that there is not evidence that establishes they were wrong.

Bews thought he might have seen movement in the master bedroom window so obviously the light was on. If It was off he would not have been able to think he saw anything.  Mildinhall had a better look than Collins and Delgado because he was stationed at the front of the house so had reason to remember what he saw and was able to describe the windows he saw.  He says the light was on in the bedroom but not any other rooms.

Collins and Delgado said a light above the main door was on.  Maybe they misrecalled the bedroom as being above the main door, maybe they saw light from the hall entering the sewing room, maybe they meant the porch light.  Unless they meant the bedroom but did a poor job of conveying it they made a mistake and failed to note the bedroom light had been on.

The statements of others especially someone who described the 3 upper windows with so much detail as to noting the curtain situation is more credible than them in that respect.

In contrast, their observations about the kitchen side would be more reliable than people not stationed on that side.  They were able to describe the certain situation in detail showing they looked carefully, indeed they stared at the those windows for hours so such would be expected.

Their frame of reference has to be considered in addition to trying to figure out what they mean.  If there is something they can't have witnessed then you look for who supposedly told them the detail and then go try to see where that person got it from and try to trace back to a source.  This is what we always should do with evaluating claims.

[Patti]

I think the lights and windows were never fully discussed and examined because they had already excepted that Jeremy admitted he could get in and out of the windows.   What the defense should have done is question the statements of Collins and Delgardo to determine which light they referred to, becuase if it was the porch light then this might suggest their was someone in the house that had tuned that light on and off at some point.  One has to consider the possibility maybe?

[lookout]

Either to let someone in,or else got mixed up with the switches inside if they were two-way.