Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
AE's claims regarding removing the blood stained clothing makes no sense at all, Harters.
A police officer was present with AE when she found Sheila's blood stained clothing, correct?
Yet in her own admission, AE persuaded him to allow her to take this blood stained scene of crime evidence home, correct?
If this was all about maintaining the security of this evidence as you suggest the family claim it was, why did AE not give the evidence to that officer?
If AE washed and destroyed this evidence as has been claimed, that makes a mockery of any suggestion that she took this scene of crime evidence home in order to make it secure and to protect it, doesn't it?
AE taking this evidence home had nothing to do with keeping this evidence secure, had it - or she'd have made it secure by handing it to the officer who was with her at WHF?
What possible reason could AE have had for wishing to hand - what she herself suggested was - clothing stained with mere mentrual blood to a specific officer - and which officer?
Even you don't accept this claim, do you, Harters, hence your statement: "that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it"?
She was cleaining up the house after an apparent murder-suicide. In her mind that was a positive thing to do. As has been said before on here, people cope with shock and grief in different ways - keeping busy by cleaning things is quite a common reaction in fact.
I don't think anyone has said that the removal of dirty washing was done to "protect the evidence" have they? (sorry if I'm wrong)
Are you suggesting that by the time she came to remove the dirty washing the plan to frame Jeremy was already in full swing and this was part of it?
Bob, what was removed was not just 'dirty washing', it was blood stained clothing belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer and it was removed from the site of a very bloody masacre. That clothing should have been subjected to forensic examination.
I mistakenly thought Hartley had suggested that the clothing was removed to protect it from being removed by someone else - sorry about that. Apologies to Hartley etc too.
I have never said that I believe that there was a conspiracy, Bob, indeed I've always said that I'm unconvinced by that view - the only one mentioning a conspiracy here is you. I'm not responsible for what's running through your mind.
