Whoa there, Spy! WHOA!!! I fear your enthusiasm is running away with you!!! I'm really interested to learn that it's been confirmed that Sheila's hair has been proved to have been dry and not recently washed. It's something, as a one time hairdresser, I've pushed since becoming interested in the case, whilst others have claimed it to be wet. HOWEVER!!! From a personal standpoint, I's say that some of you observations re tampons is, well, to be honest, just gobbledy gook! Whilst I know that autopsy discovered the inserted tampon and that she was said to have been in the early stages of menstruation. However, the flow changes from female to female making it difficult to assess how long a tampon had been in place. I've never been aware that "women never bath with a Tampex. They remove it inserted. They remove it and put in a new one after drying themselves"!!!! At best, that's a wildly sweeping statement. At worst, it's entirely erroneous.
April, no doubt the few oddballs who claim Sheila’s hair was wet are part of his campaign team who desperately try to explain away why Sheila wasn’t covered in blood, human tissue and gun residue. It’s a ridiculous assertion and was ignored long ago by experts as being a “bizarre” suggestion that Sheila carried out ritual cleansing. How could she have when she was supposedly in a psychotic frenzy? And where were her bloodied clothes? It’s utter nonsense.
I’ve read reams of documents on the case and did indeed read that Sheila’s hair was examined (as it would have been), and besides being dry — as it was when Sheila was found by police — forensics showed that her hair contained minute particles of the surrounding field which she’d walked along with the twins the day before. Thus how they established she hadn’t washed it that evening.
When the pathologist examined Sheila’s uterus, he saw that she was in the early stage of menstruation and by seeing the lining of her w..b could decipher how heavy her menstrual blood flow was. By that, and by the blood absorbed by the Tampax he was able to tell how long the Tampax had been inserted. He approximated it to be a good few hours. Which makes sense. She’d gone to bed around 10pm and must have inserted a Tampax before going to sleep...
As for bathing with a Tampax inserted, unless you’ve just inserted it, all the women I know, including myself, remove a Tampax before bathing or showering simply because it feels cleaner to do so. Obviously, if you’re having a heavy blood flow you’d keep one in whilst bathing, but the pathologist determined Sheila’s blood flow wasn’t heavy. He could tell by her w..b lining. It’s in the notes.
Sheila obviously knew her period was due that day, or had already started, hence why she’d bought Tampax whilst out shopping. I’d go so far to say that her period started some time the afternoon before, hence why she had bloodstained underwear in a bowl. She’d put them to soak as that was what June always did, and clearly intended putting them in the wash the following day.
I don’t see that removing a Tampax prior to bathing is strange at all. In fact, I’d feel less fresh bathing with a used one inserted. But we’re all different...
