Questions for Mike Tesko

[grahameb]

However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were  resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.

If that was the case that if they were resubmitted and were found to be positive then they would have been considered contaminated. But if they were resubmitted and found to be clean then they would be accepted? That is a bit unequal to say the least. If that was going to be the case then why resubmit them at all. Oh, we'll reject them if they are positive, but we'll accept them if they're clean. What is really boils down to is this. another cock up where evidence is concerned. This evidence should have been rejected just like that of the contaminated silencer(s).

[bob]

However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were  resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.

If that was the case that if they were resubmitted and were found to be positive then they would have been considered contaminated. But if they were resubmitted and found to be clean then they would be accepted? That is a bit unequal to say the least. If that was going to be the case then why resubmit them at all. Oh, we'll reject them if they are positive, but we'll accept them if they're clean. What is really boils down to is this. another cock up where evidence is concerned. This evidence should have been rejected just like that of the contaminated silencer(s).

It is reasonable in this situation, purely on logic grounds. A positive test had the posibility of being flawed, whereas a negative one didn't. So a negative test adds reliable evidence whereas a positive one wouldn't have.

[curiousessex]

"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"


I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.

In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.

Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.

I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.

So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?

I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.

I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.

As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.

Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.

Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.

If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.

Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.

If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.

[grahameb]

However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were  resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.

If that was the case that if they were resubmitted and were found to be positive then they would have been considered contaminated. But if they were resubmitted and found to be clean then they would be accepted? That is a bit unequal to say the least. If that was going to be the case then why resubmit them at all. Oh, we'll reject them if they are positive, but we'll accept them if they're clean. What is really boils down to is this. another cock up where evidence is concerned. This evidence should have been rejected just like that of the contaminated silencer(s).

It is reasonable in this situation, purely on logic grounds. A positive test had the posibility of being flawed, whereas a negative one didn't. So a negative test adds reliable evidence whereas a positive one wouldn't have.

But they would have come to the same conclusion if it was positive.

[grahameb]

"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"


I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.

In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.

Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.

I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.

So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?

I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.

I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.

As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.

Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.

Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.

If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.

Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.

If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.

But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?

[curiousessex]

"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"


I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.

In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.

Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.

I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.

So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?

I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.

I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.

As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.

Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.

Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.

If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.

Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.

If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.

But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?

From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.

It has to be one or the other.

[grahameb]

But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?

[curiousessex]

It makes no difference she was either wearing socks or not wearing socks.

[Newbury1]

But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?

An intriguing point here, and has been raised a few times before on the Forum, is that there appears to be no bloody footprints anywhere in the house. How did the murderer (whoever it was) move around without treading in blood and leaving prints 

Is this more significant of JB (or an other) doing it (by making sure he/they did not leave incriminating larger foot prints), as SC doing it she wouldn't be so bothered - with leaving foot prints!

[bob]

However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were  resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.

If that was the case that if they were resubmitted and were found to be positive then they would have been considered contaminated. But if they were resubmitted and found to be clean then they would be accepted? That is a bit unequal to say the least. If that was going to be the case then why resubmit them at all. Oh, we'll reject them if they are positive, but we'll accept them if they're clean. What is really boils down to is this. another cock up where evidence is concerned. This evidence should have been rejected just like that of the contaminated silencer(s).

It is reasonable in this situation, purely on logic grounds. A positive test had the posibility of being flawed, whereas a negative one didn't. So a negative test adds reliable evidence whereas a positive one wouldn't have.

But they would have come to the same conclusion if it was positive.

They could logically draw no conclusions from a positive test.

[grahameb]

But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?

An intriguing point here, and has been raised a few times before on the Forum, is that there appears to be no bloody footprints anywhere in the house. How did the murderer (whoever it was) move around without treading in blood and leaving prints 

Is this more significant of JB (or an other) doing it (by making sure he/they did not leave incriminating larger foot prints), as SC doing it she wouldn't be so bothered - with leaving foot prints!

Yes I brought that point up about no footprints at all. But we still have to explain why her feet were apparently so clean with so much blood around? I haven't heard of this fleck of varnish story myself?

[curiousessex]

But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?

An intriguing point here, and has been raised a few times before on the Forum, is that there appears to be no bloody footprints anywhere in the house. How did the murderer (whoever it was) move around without treading in blood and leaving prints 

Is this more significant of JB (or an other) doing it (by making sure he/they did not leave incriminating larger foot prints), as SC doing it she wouldn't be so bothered - with leaving foot prints!

Yes I brought that point up about no footprints at all. But we still have to explain why her feet were apparently so clean with so much blood around? I haven't heard of this fleck of varnish story myself?

I beleive it is referred to in one of the videos of Peter Sutherst. Additionally I think the fleck of red toe nail polish is mentioned in some of the threads on this forum.

[Newbury1]

But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?

An intriguing point here, and has been raised a few times before on the Forum, is that there appears to be no bloody footprints anywhere in the house. How did the murderer (whoever it was) move around without treading in blood and leaving prints 

Is this more significant of JB (or an other) doing it (by making sure he/they did not leave incriminating larger foot prints), as SC doing it she wouldn't be so bothered - with leaving foot prints!

Yes I brought that point up about no footprints at all. But we still have to explain why her feet were apparently so clean with so much blood around? I haven't heard of this fleck of varnish story myself?

So if SC did it its possible she either wore socks or washed her feet.

If JB did it why would he clean her feet. In fact he would have wanted to smear blood on them, as he may have done with her hands - that's if he was staging it properly - did JB overlook marking her feet? If JB did it we are still left with the problem of where SC was when all this was happening? Surely if she was killed last she would have attempted to run - anywhere - whilst the others were being shot!

I was saddened at the tragedy in the news today of the mother and child killed by the father with a shotgun, but pleased to hear the 10 year old daughter got away. Fight or flight, and if the opposition has a gun then flight seems most probable.

[chochokeira]

"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"


I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.

In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.

Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.

I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.

So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?

I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.

I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.

As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.

Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.

Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.

If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.

Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.

If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.

But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?

From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.

It has to be one or the other.

There was a shower room downstairs, wasn't there? Sheila could have removed her socks in the kitchen before she showered, then wore a clean pair from the kitchen - that she found airing there? Though the socks would presumably not stay clean for long given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor. The chip could have fallen out of her socks when she removed them.

[chochokeira]

"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"


I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.

In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.

Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.

I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.

So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?

I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.

I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.

As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.

Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.

Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.

If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.

Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.

If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.

But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?

No, we can't see the soles of her feet. What we can see is that the claim of the police that Sheila's hands were spotless is nonsense. I am not therefore inclined to trust the description of her feet as clean either.