Does anyone have any ideas about the buckets/contents as per post above?
I read her statement and do not see a reference to 2 pairs of bloody underwear but rather only one pair. 2 pairs of bloody underwear is even greater evidence that it was not clothing she removed after the murders but rather clothing that was soaking in general because of menstrual stains.
As for the discrepancy in the number of buckets many years passed between the interviews. People often misrecollect after time passes which is why it is important to document things as close to an event as possible. If she did change the number as you claim then it doesn't really matter though the more conservative thing is to assume the contemporaneous interview is more likely correct. She could have meant to say 2 and said 3 by accident at that contemporaneous interview and thus the later one could be correct. But it is more likely that over the passage of time she simply forgot there were 3 and only recalled 2.
As for leggings, many leggings have the cotton consistency of sweat pants they simply are tight fitting instead of loose like men's sweats. Some even call women's sweat pants leggings. Some women go jogging in leggings which can thus result in them being called jogging pants. When I was young sweatpants were called jogging pants. But modern jogging pants tend to be lightweight and streamlined so different from sweat pants. The bottom line is there might not be a discrepancy at all. She simply might have chosen to call them something that in her eyes is a synonym. Much like many people call a polo shirt a golf shirt.
This is what most think of when we hear leggings:
http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server4500/21357/products/269/images/1039/9116_StirrupLeggings_bl_back__17986.1350071111.1280.1280.jpg?c=1My nieces even have leggings that look like jeans, though I have no clue what they are actually made of it is not denim.
Some people seem to think these leggings were in fact nylons. If they were nylons then she most likely did not remember what they were other something than bottoms. I don't recall anyone calling them nylons though and those who talked about this seem to think they are pants like in the photo above.
The clothing soaking in the buckets was described and recorded as things that are worn on a lady's bottom half. Blood spatter from beating Nevill and GSR from gunshots would be primarily if not entirely concentrated on the upper half of the killer. So you need to find evidence of a shirt or gown that such evidence would have been on to suggest there is evidence she changed her clothing, put it somewhere to wash and that is why she had no such evidence on her gown.
Underwear for sure will not have any evidence of import unless a killer were to murder someone while wearing the underwear and nothing over them.
If a shirt were not covering pants then perhaps a drop or 2 of blood would get on the pants.
Why would Sheila wear leggings to bed though when she normally wore her night gown? Killing at 3AM would mean she went to bed but didn't sleep and got up and killed them. If she were going to go through the effort to wear pants she would put on some shoes to be more stable as she fired. I wouldn't want to fire a weapon barefoot.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence she put on special clothing to carry out the murders instead of wearing what she normally wore to bed and no evidence that she changed clothing after the murders.
