mystery moving rug in bedroom.

[smiffy]

Is that a shoe on the left of the rug?

The chair to the left of the window...
underneath it is dark...due to shadow ...but in the darkspot it could well be the other shoe/footwear that matches the one on the carpet. ...about one and a half feet away.
If that is correct it could suggest the shoe got dragged over from near the chair to nearer the bed by about one and a half feet.

[clifford]

Is that a shoe on the left of the rug?

The chair to the left of the window...
underneath it is dark...due to shadow ...but in the darkspot it could well be the other shoe/footwear that matches the one on the carpet. ...about one and a half feet away.
If that is correct it could suggest the shoe got dragged over from near the chair to nearer the bed by about one and a half feet.

Yes I think you are right Smiffy.

[smiffy]

Is that a shoe on the left of the rug?

The chair to the left of the window...
underneath it is dark...due to shadow ...but in the darkspot it could well be the other shoe/footwear that matches the one on the carpet. ...about one and a half feet away.
If that is correct it could suggest the shoe got dragged over from near the chair to nearer the bed by about one and a half feet.

Yes I think you are right Smiffy.

the shadow of the chair does not account for the  bulge in the dark area....a black item of footwear to match the other one seen ...would appear to account for the bulge and makes sense.

[smiffy]

just a little snippet...
the photo with Sheila's legs on......think of from how high the camera was in for such a photo to be taken...
In my view this is from well above normal head height...
From where its taken from suggests the photographer was standing on the chair by the window..what do you other folks think?

[Hartley]

just a little snippet...
the photo with Sheila's legs on......think of from how high the camera was in for such a photo to be taken...
In my view this is from well above normal head height...
From where its taken from suggests the photographer was standing on the chair by the window..what do you other folks think?

I think it seems we are running out of things to discuss. 

[smiffy]

PICTURE OF JUNES LEGS...
it is the same carpet so do not be fooled by the lightness/quality of the photo.

The gap between the rug and bed edge can again be gauged and appears to be about 3 feet.
note the blood trail between the bed and the  rug...and it seems from the photo with Sheila's legs on that the trail went all the way....so not an area to take a control sample of carpet from as Bob suggested.

[clifford]

PICTURE OF JUNES LEGS...
it is the same carpet so do not be fooled by the lightness/quality of the photo.

The gap between the rug and bed edge can again be gauged and appears to be about 3 feet.
note the blood trail between the bed and the  rug...and it seems from the photo with Sheila's legs on that the trail went all the way....so not an area to take a control sample of carpet from as Bob suggested.

Seems the rug has been moved closer to Sheila's legs. Obviously another incident of moving things around at the crime scene.

[Hartley]

Here is the plan which shows where carpet samples were taken. Quite clearly you are mistaken by suggesting that the red mark is that sample.

Look at this plan, then look at the photographs.

[smiffy]

Here is the plan which shows where carpet samples were taken. Quite clearly you are mistaken by suggesting that the red mark is that sample.

Look at this plan, then look at the photographs.

The plan can only be treated as a guide to approximate location of items etc.

What is also of intertest from the plan though are the two bloodspots on the top landing bit.
On the bottom of the plan blood spot can be made out though most the type is missing.
These two blood spots at that location interest me......

try explaining what you think the "red mark" in question actually is ?

[Hartley]

The plan can only be treated as a guide to approximate location of items etc.

What is also of intertest from the plan though are the two bloodspots on the top landing bit.
On the bottom of the plan blood spot can be made out though most the type is missing.
These two blood spots at that location interest me......

The item which is missing most of its text is DRH/49. Blood scrapings from both DRH/49 and DRH/47 were sent to the lab on 20/09/85. Other than that, I've seen no other reference to them.

try explaining what you think the "red mark" in question actually is ?

I have no idea, but that fact that the photograph was taken a day before the carpet samples were taken, would suggest that you also have no idea.

[smiffy]

The plan can only be treated as a guide to approximate location of items etc.

What is also of intertest from the plan though are the two bloodspots on the top landing bit.
On the bottom of the plan blood spot can be made out though most the type is missing.
These two blood spots at that location interest me......

The item which is missing most of its text is DRH/49. Blood scrapings from both DRH/49 and DRH/47 were sent to the lab on 20/09/85. Other than that, I've seen no other reference to them.

try explaining what you think the "red mark" in question actually is ?

I have no idea, but that fact that the photograph was taken a day before the carpet samples were taken, would suggest that you also have no idea.

hmm "red mark" if it is a cut out piece of carpet then it may be floorboards or reddish brown underlay that is observed.

[smiffy]

Hmm according to one of Cooks claims....
the two carpet samples were submitted to the lab on the 13th of august along with "the silencer" hmmm
but these were in addition to the typed HOLAB 3 form dated 13/8/85.

How odd that 3 of the suspect things were all in addition to what was shown on the HOLAB 3!

[smiffy]

Hammersley records in a statement being with Cook at WHF at 11.20 am and taking several samples including the blood scrapings from the landing DRH 47 and DRH 49.
This was on the 9th of august.
other items that day from Hammersley were a piece of wallpaper from near the bottom of the stairs,,,another bullet case,,,,the bible!!
how odd they never took that bible before...!

[smiffy]

Here is the plan which shows where carpet samples were taken. Quite clearly you are mistaken by suggesting that the red mark is that sample.

Look at this plan, then look at the photographs.

hartley's implication were that my theories were wrongly founded and relied on the diagram as to the location of the carpet samples being wrong.
I countered with a claim that the plans only gave an approximate location for the items shown etc.

On this forum can be found a police document that refers to the plans that indeed explains that the positions of the items shown are in fact approximate so the plan is only a guide.

hartleys argument is thus rendered unsafe and my theory and points raised are correctly formed from the evidence.

[OnceSaid]

Is there anyone that can put these photos side by side, as it would make it easier for me to judge the distances etc.  Is it a lighting issue, but Im sure just past the white and green thing on the left  in one picture it is white wood and the other dark wood.