Bead What??

Cool site Cheryl. Why do you think she did it?

I could tell horror stories about the trials I've been to in my life and the people we represented.

I saw some in a catalogue my son brought home from school. They made me laugh, with all the odd spikes.

That's what I want to do with Mike's 'starter' beads, except mount the netting in a wire circle and put it in a porthole like stained glass.

-Su

Why do you think she did it?

because her story was shot full of holes... like the claim she'd spent 15 minutes up in the barn loft... which was hotter than hell - even the police who went up said it was too hot

- and there was not much evidence anyone had been up there in ages (undisturbed dust)... she was looking for "lead" to make "sinkers for fishing -- but testified she had not been out to the farm to fish for years... (read the coroner's inquest testimony -- she is evasive and gives contradictory testimony so often it is enough to confuse you when you read it.... the court never admitted the coroner's inquest questioning!)

-- she burned a dress like the next day... and told people it was because she got "paint" on it (yeah right)

- she really didn't like her stepmother

-- her testimony to the coroner's board gives lots of contradictory testimony about where she was in the house - when her father came home, where she was (upstairs, on the stairs, in the kitchen - she can't tell the same story twice)

-- there was blood on some of her other clothing -- of course, they didn't have DNA evidence in those days - so she claimed it was hers -from flea bites...

and other stuff....

Cheryl DRAGON BEADS Flameworked beads and glass

I read a great deal of the court transcripts last night, and the inquest as well. Yes, there were inconsistencys, but the one thing that no one has been able to explain to my satisfaction is how she was able to commit both murders, which were admittedly bloody, without getting blood all over herself. There was a 10 minute window of time for her to be able to clean up herself and ditch the murder weapon. If any had splattered her hair that would have needed washing out as well. Some of the first people on the scene would have noticed her hair being wet, surely? How would she have moved through the house in bloody clothing without any getting on the walls? And the clothing of that time was not exactly easy to slip in and out of. Elastic waistbands in the unders, and zippers in the backs of the dresses were still a think of the future. Well... this is not proof she didnt do it. It isnt proof it is either. If I were charged with murder it would be hard for me to remember exactly the order of events of the day in question, whether I were guilty or not. Id be rattled. Even being innocent, it would be easy for a good questioner to make me look guilty. One interesting fact I came up with was that though the media played up how hot it was that week the temperatures were in the low 80s. That is still hot enough to be unpleasent up in a mow, but not beastly hot. I have spent more time than that in a hay mow in those temps. It is hard for me to believe that anyone else could get into the house and murder the parents without the housekeeper girl or Lizzy seeing anything, but there still needs to be more proof than the idea she lied about where she was. Im thinking she was off in the barn getting shagged. That would make me make up a fishing lure story too. ;-) Diana

After reading all the testimony I have to agree. She was on the stairs when her dad came home yet she claims she was in the kitchen. She wasn't and that was from eye witness accounts.

make me make up a fishing lure story too.<

Especially back then - one can understand that she might rather have people think she murdered her family than did THAT! Course, I've also heard the theory that she murdered them while naked so clean up was quick.

Carol in SLC Some of my stuff:

Ive heard that too. Can you picture her running upstairs, naked, getting into a corset and other sundry items, washing her hands, face and hair, all within that alloted time period? Of course it may be that she did the deed in just her underwear... then slipping into a dress and buttoning up wouldnt be that hard. Its the blood in the hair that I keep coming back to. I have to refer to the real crime shows which talk about splatter patterns, etc. Would the first people on the scene notice blood in her hair? Would they recall if it was wet? We may never know if she did it with a certainty. Diana

I've also heard the theory that she murdered them while naked so clean up was quick.

ah yes -- I'd heard that one too - but forgot about it.....

She could have slipped out of her clothing while her father was gone - when she claimed to be "ironing" -- Maybe she'd gone to lie down in her room - she kept telling people she didn't "feel well" that week -

As for her hair -- women often wore "covers" -- if you read the inquest testimony - one of the men asks her if her stepmother wore a "cover" when she dusted... heck - she could have had a personality break - and not even known she did it...

I think her motive was getting rid of step mom - and mad at Daddy for a variety of reasons...

I still think she did it... Cheryl DRAGON BEADS Flameworked beads and glass

She could have worn a hat or a kerchief or even a kerchief and a hat for maximum coverage.

Me too, Cheryl.

Carol in SLC Some of my stuff: