Photograph of Shiela on the bed

[Kaldin]

I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.

... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...

There wouldn't be livor mortis on the top part of her legs because the blood sinks to the lowest point. She was on her back so therefore there was no livor mortis on the top of her legs.

... I think the opposite - I think she could have been laid face down on top of the ruffled quilt, and that the reason for the white patches on the upper part of her legs, as shown in the image, is because those parts of her legs were in contact with the quilt and because of compression asserting its influence. Although you cannot see the back of her legs in this picture, it is possible that some form of livor mortis existed there, to one extent or another...

No ..... I don't agree with that at all. That's pure speculation and not even very scientific.

... I am not speculating, you can see the white patches on the top part of her legs, which is consistant with my explanation - but you cannot see the back part of her legs, so if anyone is speculating, it is you. I think there is a good chance that June was on the bed, in keeping with what DC Clark told Ann Eaton...

The white patches are consistent with her lying on her back and the blood draining to the lower part of her legs. That's not speculation - that's going on what I see in the photograph. On the other hand, you are speculating about what's not in the photo - ie, the parts of her legs which are not visible.

[Kaldin]

Going back to the comment Mike made about June could have walked around the room and she was maybe the figure that the 2 police officers and JB thought that they saw in the window.Im a bit confused about this.Did the main bedroom at the front of the house also have a rear window within the same room? Because it has been stated that the room as to which they were referring to as having maybe seen someone moving around in was actually the top right hand window at the rear of the house!

No. The main bedroom had one window I think. There is a window at the side, but I think that must be in the bedroom next to the main one - the room between the main bedroom and the boys' room - that room can be accessed by a door next to the bed.

I agree that PS Bews said the movement was at a completely different window, so I have no idea where this story about figures walking across windows has come from or why it was not mentioned at the trial.

[chelmsey]

I believe it was mentioned at trial.Im pretty sure that pc Bews gave evidence to say that that they were mistaken about  seeing a figure at the window and they had all agreed that it was just the trick of a light.

[Kaldin]

I believe it was mentioned at trial.Im pretty sure that pc Bews gave evidence to say that that they were mistaken about  seeing a figure at the window and they had all agreed that it was just the trick of a light.

Maybe that was mentioned, so then where did this story about Bews, Myall, and Jeremy seeing a figure at a window and them racing back to the car come from?

[chelmsey]

According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!

[Kaldin]

According to JB,the conversation and sighting DID occur.JB possibly relied on it as part of his defence.However,at trial,pc Bews told of a slightly different version of events that did not back up JBs claims.I am not surprised by this at all!

So Bews said what he said later? That Myall saw a movement which turned out to be a trick of the light? Bews and Jeremy never saw anyone at all?

So much for all this racing back to the car story then.

[Paul]

If Jeremy saw anything, he should be able to describe what he saw in detail too.

[chelmsey]

If Jeremy saw anything, he should be able to describe what he saw in detail too.

He very probably did.But who were the courts more likely to believe? JB or the police officer ?

[Kaldin]

Was Myall asked about it at the trial?

[Paul]

Jeremy could clarify therefore what he saw, male or female, tall or short? He could do that now, it would help to understand who it might have been wouldn't it?

[Kaldin]

Jeremy could clarify therefore what he saw, male or female, tall or short? He could do that now, it would help to understand who it might have been wouldn't it?

It would help if he clarified which window it was as well.

[Paul]

Yes, good post.

[chelmsey]

Was Myall asked about it at the trial?

Im pretty certain that Myall did not give evidence at the trial.

[Kaldin]

Was Myall asked about it at the trial?

Im pretty certain that Myall did not give evidence at the trial.

How strange. You'd think the defence would have called him ...

[mike tesko]

I think Mike is referring to the fact that livor mortis doesn't happen in tissue which is contact with the ground or bed or whatever because of compression. That photo does not indicate she was lying on her front though. You can't see the area of her legs which are in contact with the ground.

... There is a marked absence of livor mortis at the top part of both legs, which gives a good indication that June was iaid differently to that shown...

There wouldn't be livor mortis on the top part of her legs because the blood sinks to the lowest point. She was on her back so therefore there was no livor mortis on the top of her legs.

... I think the opposite - I think she could have been laid face down on top of the ruffled quilt, and that the reason for the white patches on the upper part of her legs, as shown in the image, is because those parts of her legs were in contact with the quilt and because of compression asserting its influence. Although you cannot see the back of her legs in this picture, it is possible that some form of livor mortis existed there, to one extent or another...

No ..... I don't agree with that at all. That's pure speculation and not even very scientific.

... I am not speculating, you can see the white patches on the top part of her legs, which is consistant with my explanation - but you cannot see the back part of her legs, so if anyone is speculating, it is you. I think there is a good chance that June was on the bed, in keeping with what DC Clark told Ann Eaton...

The white patches are consistent with her lying on her back and the blood draining to the lower part of her legs. That's not speculation - that's going on what I see in the photograph. On the other hand, you are speculating about what's not in the photo - ie, the parts of her legs which are not visible.

... No, stop trying to interpret what I'm saying to try and turn it, into what you want it to mean. The white patches on the top part  of the legs, is consistent with the front part of her legs being face down against the ruffled quilt of the bed. To pv it another way, if she had been laid face down, as described, and by a reliance upon the dynamics of compression, the front part of her legs which have whìte patches, would have white patches. The white patches on the front of her legs, are therefore, suggestive that she could have been/was, laid face downwards at some point after she died. In my opinion.,