Sheila's hands

[Kaldin]

sorry as people mentioned footprints....
We mainly have spots of blood all over the bedroom carpet. The pictures are not of the best quality for checking bloodspots on the carpet but in some pictures there appears the odd spot or two of what I think is blood on the carpet between Sheila's legs and between her left leg and the bed.
We obviously cannot tell what bloodspots may be concealed by her body, the socks on the floor or the bible.

I very much expect someone did tread on bloodspots. The main pictures are poor but there appear strong patterns of blood spots that do seem to tie in with some of the fainter harder to see blood spots.
We do not have prints as such but some wet spots trod on will go onto the bottom of footwear in patterns that can be spread as the person steps around. The resultant fainter stains having less blood in them not showing up as well in the pictures.   I do beleive I have seen some of this happening but it is very hard to tell and be definitve on the issue.
Who transferred the spots...someone able to step on them when they were still wet enough to cause some transfer.

The police soon got rid of bits of the  carpet it seems...why?..it does seem suspicious? Or was there footwear or socks about were responsible for clean feet while bloodspot transfer too place and these items have been erm neglected or not disclosed or lied about by those who should know better?

The theory is that June walked around the bedroom when she was bleeding, so presumably she stepped in the blood. It's not clear if all the blood came from June though - the police didn't bother to check properly.

[chochokeira]

If Sheila's right hand palm made the bloody hand print on her nightdress and they found no blood on her hands then she must have washed.

Good point lebaleb +1

[Kaldin]

If Sheila's right hand palm made the bloody hand print on her nightdress and they found no blood on her hands then she must have washed.

Yes. It's important to know if the blood was from Sheila's hand, but nobody at the time seems to have checked. The defence suggested that Sheila had washed her hands and that's why there was no gun residue on them, so why on earth did they not follow up this hand print business? If they could have shown that she did indeed have blood on her hands at one point but none later, then obviously she either wiped her hands or she washed them at some point.

[smiffy]

Sheila's hands.
First I would like to draw attention to Ralph's arm injuries...the deep gouges that are fully conversant with being inflicted by Sheila. Going by the rest of the evidence it can be nobody else..nor even another woman assailant is in the slightest credible.
There were no signs of treatment for the deep gouges inflicted...ie antiseptic cream , plasters etc so they are conversant with being inflicted within the critical events that night. No signs either of these Injuries depositing blood in the double bed.
The gouges by Sheila's  finger nails are deep and would have contamininated Sheila's fingers beyond any reasonable doubt. That traces of Ralph were not found ( IF NOT either poor testing/sampling method) is credibly explained by Sheila washing her hands sometime after inflicting those injuries.

Now the question is raised is that did Sheila inflict these injuries of her own accord or was she compelled to do this at gunpoint  by JB?
JB, being the master criminal genius that some contend, would consider that to direct blame on Sheila it would be a good idea to get her to inflict an injury on Ralph that would mislead everyone into thinking she did it.  JB also being such a master genius would also know that there would be a high chance of the police expecting lead and gunshot residue on Sheila's fingers to be present if she was the killer so to cover for its absence but the presence of Ralph on her (fingernail scrapes and blood from  inflicting Ralphs gouges) would show a mismatch of evidence that needed to be catered for. Hence master criminal JB being one step ahead of everyone compells Sheila to was her hands by threatening with the rifle.

One story seems far more credible than the other.


The blood smears on Sheila's nightdress from the pictures shown appear to be related to smears on her lower outer arm .

[Kaldin]

Jeremy might have forced Sheila to attack her father? I think we're entering the realms of fantasy now.

I agree that the blood stain on the nightdress appears to have come from Sheila's arm, but Vanezis did describe it as a palm print.

[smiffy]

I agree kaldin...JM being the killer requires some rather fanciful thinking to fit with  the evidence and I for one do not buy it.


Vanezis....hmmm  there are disceprancies in the reports it seems.
If there was a palm print then it should have been recorded by photograph. The claims of no blood on her hands if there was a palm print do imply her hands being washed or some falsification of evidence.

People need to be careful ..that handprint does not become palm print etc

The fragmented bullet becoming a whole bullet undermines Vanezis somewhat. It could be explainable that he got all the fragments so claims it as a whole bullet though its low recorded weight suggests this is not a credible answer and his claims about other bullets show the claims about this particular bullet  are not consistent with his overall approach.

[Hartley]

The injuries to Ralph ARM are described in the pathologist report as being caused by repeated blows of the edge of a rounded object.

They are not described as fingernail gouges, that is Mike telling porky pies, nor are there any wounds to Sheilas arms.

I think its likely that the wounds were caused by repeated. blows of the. Anshulz rifle.

[andrea]

which part of the rifle would make such marks?

[Hartley]

which part of the rifle would make such marks?

Not sure, the pathologist report said the edge of a rounded object, whatever that means. There are several lump and bumps and edges on the rifle, plus it clearly could have been used as a bludgeoning weapon from its brken stock, paint scratches. to aga and blood staining on the rifle itself.

[grahameb]

which part of the rifle would make such marks?

Not sure, the pathologist report said the edge of a rounded object, whatever that means. There are several lump and bumps and edges on the rifle, plus it clearly could have been used as a bludgeoning weapon from its brken stock, paint scratches. to aga and blood staining on the rifle itself.

Has a rounded object got edges?

[Hartley]

which part of the rifle would make such marks?

Not sure, the pathologist report said the edge of a rounded object, whatever that means. There are several lump and bumps and edges on the rifle, plus it clearly could have been used as a bludgeoning weapon from its brken stock, paint scratches. to aga and blood staining on the rifle itself.

Has a rounded object got edges?

A better description would have helped, but there the words that the pathologist used.

[smiffy]

hartley posted;

The injuries to Ralph ARM are described in the pathologist report as being caused by repeated blows of the edge of a rounded object.

They are not described as fingernail gouges, that is Mike telling porky pies, nor are there any wounds to Sheilas arms.

I think its likely that the wounds were caused by repeated. blows of the. Anshulz rifle.

no apologies....The pictured injuries are finger nail gouges...as any reaonable person would concede.
It is a sign of desperation to come up with the claims you do Hartley.

There is nothing on the said rifle that would cause the marks claimed by you Hartley that are shown in the picture of Ralphs arm. The fingernail marks are totally conversant with his arm being gripped and finger nails used to gouge..ie orientation. Sheila's thumb being the other end of the grip.

This repeated blows...what end on??? a thrusting action eh...  ...well to get any penetration from a thrusted tube (which is what the barrel would be) then Ralphs arm would need to be restrained against a solid firm surface to allow penetration of a rather blunt object.   Sounds wierd  but science tells us that this would have to be the case. It can be seen in the gouge marks how the skin has peeled back from gouging with finger nails which would not happen even within a sharpened tube.

oooh  how did the butt of the rifle break in the kitchen  ...leaving a fragment of wood to be found on the kitchen floor...let me think...

ah Sheila uses the rifle to inflict her first wound (hoping to succeed).  pointed at neck 20 to 30 degree angle ..bang  ..Sheila drops the rifle as she looses conciousness and the rifle drops  onto the floor butt first as we expect it would causing the damage and wood splinter.

Wonder why there was no blood and skin from Ralph along the outside of the rifle...sounds like he was never struck with it? Thats a good reason .
ah but Sheila unconcious on kitchen floor...hmm  she deposits some blood on the kitchen floor...being lino or tiles easily cleaned up...not the same for carpet.
What was used ..police say a scrubbing brush...hmm but maybe Sheila's knickers were removed and used eh and dropped in a bucket...easy to pass off as stained knickers from a period...not so easy of another item was used . Not essential for her knickers to have been used to clean up blood ..but certainly a credible possibility.
The evidence does clearly show Sheila either moved herself or was moved by someone several minutes after the first wound.

Dont bother with the discredited aga surround nonsense and the silencer nonsense as in my view they are consistent with fabricated false evidence.

[Hartley]

As I said, not according to the pathologist who examined his body they are not. The pathologist report is on these forums in all its glorious detail.

[smiffy]

hartley posted;
Not sure, the pathologist report said the edge of a rounded object, whatever that means. There are several lump and bumps and edges on the rifle, plus it clearly could have been used as a bludgeoning weapon from its brken stock, paint scratches. to aga and blood staining on the rifle itself
shall attach said part of the pathologists report that it seems "hartley" may be wrongly referring to.

Note  the pathologist in that report makes no mention of the gouge marks that are clearly seen in the picture of Ralphs arm. He only mentions the bruise marks which cannot be related to the gouges.

One wonders why the gouge marks were not mentioned....Come up with your own ideas. The absence of an explantion could well be because the report was designed with the intention of prosecution in mind and such information about the gouges would aid the defence.

Missing out pertinent information can be just as deceptive as out right lying.

[Hartley]

It's just a remarkable coincidence that the injuries which are incorrectly referred to as finger nail gouges are in exactly the same location then?