Questions for Mike Tesko

[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?

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.

We also have the problem of the handprint on her night dress. Was it Sheila's or not? If it was Sheila's then her hands could not posibly have been spotlessly clean.

[Hartley]

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.

Is it Abs blown up image alone that indicates to you that Sheila's hands were not clean? Or is there another source?

[bob]

"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.

As I said on a previous thread - as far as I know this "spotlessly clean" quote is based on one policeman isn't it? Could easily just be exagerated or hearsay on his part.

What about the Forensics people and the Pathologist? What did they have to say at trial? I haven't seen anything about general dirt or bruises, but I know they testified that no firearms residue was present on her hands - that is pretty damning.

If people want to attribute that to her hands having been washed after the event then you have to explain why they would have done that given that the scene was being treated as a murder-suicide at the time.

[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.

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.

This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.

At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.

Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide

[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?

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.

This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.

At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.

Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide

So what IS the problem then?

[curiousessex]

Quote from Grahame "We also have the problem of the handprint on her night dress. Was it Sheila's or not? If it was Sheila's then her hands could not posibly have been spotlessly clean."

If the swabs taken from Sheila's hands did not show blood, if tested for blood, then as you point out the hand print on Sheila's night dress would indicate that it belonged to a third party. To make such a hand print there must have been some fresh blood contact with the third party hand and then Sheila's nightdress.

[Hartley]

In Peter Venezis Autopsy notes he states "Both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains."
So that is a little different to this "spotlessly clean" comment.

The Autopsy Notes can be found in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html

The above quote in purple, is on the fourth attached image in that thread.

[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.

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.

This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.

At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.

Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide

So what IS the problem then?

There is not a problem.

In my opinion the defence need to decide if Sheila was wearing socks or not wearing socks. It seems totally ridiculous to have Sheila wearing socks to commit murder then not wearing socks in order to shower and soak her clothes in water and to then wear some different socks to go back upstairs in order to take the socks off to commit suicide.

[bob]

In Peter Venezis Autopsy notes he states "Both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains."
So that is a little different to this "spotlessly clean" comment.

The Autopsy Notes can be found in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html

The above quote in purple, is on the fourth attached image in that thread.

Thanks for digging that up Hartley. Welcome back (again!).

[curiousessex]

In Peter Venezis Autopsy notes he states "Both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains."
So that is a little different to this "spotlessly clean" comment.

The Autopsy Notes can be found in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html

The above quote in purple, is on the fourth attached image in that thread.

Thanks for digging that up Hartley. Welcome back (again!).

Thanks also from me........ and welcome back also.

[Jackiepreece]

A couple of points to bring up they might have been covered already

1   Ngb1066Is it usual for different qualities of photos to be given to defence and prosecution.
      If so how can this be fair or is this just a red herring?  Or could this also point to
      an unfair trial


2    It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
       these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
       These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
       removing items from the farmhouse.  If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
       in their notebook that day of the murders.  Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
        full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime.   Which one of the police
        officers were suspicious?  Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away.  In my
         opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
         wonderful experienced policeman.  I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly
          clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly
          come to the conclusion it was not a suicide.  Her feet could have been clean and she could
          have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of
           their noses.  If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw
            would have fallen into place.  For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were
           cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal
             system to make an example.  You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help
            of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man
             in prison
             Lets have everyones notebooks out in the open who was in WHF that day and see
              if even one policeman was suspicious

[curiousessex]

A couple of points to bring up they might have been covered already

1   Ngb1066Is it usual for different qualities of photos to be given to defence and prosecution.
      If so how can this be fair or is this just a red herring?  Or could this also point to
      an unfair trial


2    It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
       these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
       These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
       removing items from the farmhouse.  If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
       in their notebook that day of the murders.  Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
        full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime.   Which one of the police
        officers were suspicious?  Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away.  In my
         opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
         wonderful experienced policeman.  I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly
          clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly
          come to the conclusion it was not a suicide.  Her feet could have been clean and she could
          have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of
           their noses.  If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw
            would have fallen into place.  For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were
           cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal
             system to make an example.  You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help
            of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man
             in prison
             Lets have everyones notebooks out in the open who was in WHF that day and see
              if even one policeman was suspicious

It is documented that one Policeman was suspicious and felt things were not as quite as they seemed to be..........that was Stan Jones.

Threads on this forum are not very complimentary towards Stan Jones.

[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?

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.

This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.

At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.

Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide

So what IS the problem then?

There is not a problem.

In my opinion the defence need to decide if Sheila was wearing socks or not wearing socks. It seems totally ridiculous to have Sheila wearing socks to commit murder then not wearing socks in order to shower and soak her clothes in water and to then wear some different socks to go back upstairs in order to take the socks off to commit suicide.

But I never suggested that?

[Jackiepreece]

Curiousessex
So has stan jones notebook pages been posted

What lengths did he go to stop a bucket of bloody clothes being removed

What reasons did he give for being suspicious

Was nobody interested in what he had to say or was he overuled and who by because if it was me and I was a good policewomen and I had any suspicions I would have put in my notebook I didnt want anything removed from WHF

Lets dig into Stan Jones a bit more.  Has anyone got any more information re his notebook

[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.

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.

This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.

At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.

Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide

So what IS the problem then?

There is not a problem.

In my opinion the defence need to decide if Sheila was wearing socks or not wearing socks. It seems totally ridiculous to have Sheila wearing socks to commit murder then not wearing socks in order to shower and soak her clothes in water and to then wear some different socks to go back upstairs in order to take the socks off to commit suicide.

But I never suggested that?

I did not say you did. However Chochokeira detailed the following earlier today -

"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."