Summary of points 47-51 of 2002 appeal. Is this the end ?

[David1819]

Is there a label/proof on the body to say that it is Sheila's foot because I still have my doubts that it's the same.
 I'm fully aware that the body changes after death and that extremities ( fingers/toes ) are the last areas of the body to display RM but----------------
Where did the pic originate from ?

Andrew Hunter got them from the CCRC.

[maggie]

Andrew Hunter got them from the CCRC.

Really?  I agree with Lookout and others that it's difficult to believe that's Sheila's foot.  Compared to her other photos and knowing Sheila's build it looks all wrong.

[David1819]

Really?  I agree with Lookout and others that it's difficult to believe that's Sheila's foot.  Compared to her other photos and knowing Sheila's build it looks all wrong.

I matched the spots and stains on both the crime scene photos and the mortuary photo.

I posted them up on the forum last year did you not see?

Why I have to make such an effort to refute a ludicrous suggestion that the CCRC would give out photos of someone's else's feet and say they are Sheila's I do not know.

[maggie]

I matched the spots and stains on both the crime scene photos and the mortuary photo.

I posted them up on the forum last year did you not see?

Why I have to make such an effort to refute a ludicrous suggestion that the CCRC would give out photos of someone's else's feet and say they are Sheila's I do not know.

No actually David I didn't see it.  Maybe I was on holiday or doing something else.

I remember seeing this a few years ago when it was first published in the press and have always found it hard to believe as I am sure you can see Sheila had long slender feet and this photo shows a rather stubby foot.  However, I can comprehend that might be because the angle at which the photo was taken has foreshortened the foot.

As far as I was aware Andrew Hunter had acquired the photo and put it into the public domain, I did not know he had got it from the CCRC. 

I accept your explanation thank you.
There rally is no need for you to be so bolshy.

[Caroline]

No actually David I didn't see it.  Maybe I was on holiday or doing something else.

I remember seeing this a few years ago when it was first published in the press and have always found it hard to believe as I am sure you can see Sheila had long slender feet and this photo shows a rather stubby foot.  However, I can comprehend that might be because the angle at which the photo was taken has foreshortened the foot.

As far as I was aware Andrew Hunter had acquired the photo and put it into the public domain, I did not know he had got it from the CCRC. 

I accept your explanation thank you.
There rally is no need for you to be so bolshy.

I conceded that it was Sheila's foot a while back but not because of the 'match up' that David posted. When someone posts a clearer picture, then you can see more detail. However, I think it proves her feet were pretty clean. There are a few spots of blood which would be consistent with walking over the bedroom carpet.

[maggie]

I conceded that it was Sheila's foot a while back but not because of the 'match up' that David posted. When someone posts a clearer picture, then you can see more detail. However, I think it proves her feet were pretty clean. There are a few spots of blood which would be consistent with walking over the bedroom carpet.

Thanks Caroline. I am willing to accept it's her foot if it came fromm CCRC, think originally it was in the Daily Mail or somewhere like that.  Think the angle is weird and as usual the quality of the photo was dreadful.

[lookout]

Andrew Hunter got them from the CCRC.

That figures. Unless of course they have a name of the bearer of the foot-----which we don't know.

[Adam]

Feet:

Perfectly clean.

Free from blood staining.

No debris such as sugar.

No mention of foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.


                                                           
It was good of the CCRC to apparently send Andrew Hunter a blown up and much lighter picture of one of Sheila's two feet. Or did they send him pictures of both feet ?

But not sure how it contradicts the 2002 COA appeal report & shows Sheila had been shooting, fighting & walking through blood & dirt in a big house for hours.

The minute red marks might be a touch of air brushing similar to the sterling job done on her neck. 

If it is blood on her foot, it is less likely she had the 'mysterious' shower & changed after killing 4 people. This makes it even harder to explain why her body & nightie had no evidence she had fired a rifle 26 times & reloaded twice. 

[lookout]

One foot is older than the other and there's now't wrong with my eyesight.