I'm not having this 'microscopic particles' crap. For example Sheila could have brushed up against something in the environs of the cottage and had many millions of special particles (which seem to be oddly non-specific) transferred to her hair. Where's the rigour in this odd analysis? What's the baseline number of particles per square centimetre that is regarded as 'normal'? Where's the comparison with a control sample of 'washed hair'?
It's poor scientific analysis at best.
If it was stated that her hair 'appeared to have gone unwashed, due to it's appearance', I'd be inclined to go with that as an opinion.
I’m sure the forensic teams can deduce between normal levels of pollution in the atmosphere to whether someone has been in a field of, say, rapeseed or wheat. It’s quite possible that when Sheila walked slowly along between the fields with the twins and Crispy, she may have walked through part of the field if Crispy chased a bird or something...she may have even tripped or fallen off balance into the field.
These particles forensics found weren’t so few or so tiny to have been tiny pollens floating in the air and into the house.
Besides that, Sheila hadn’t bathed before going to bed; someone said that she was very tired and went straight to bed after supper at about 10pm. So she wouldn’t have washed her hair then, and women rarely wash their hair late at night before getting into bed. There’s no point.
Neither was her hair wet when she was discovered.
Neither were there any signs of a hairdryer and brush left around...
Ths all started by the desperation of the campaign team who tried to account for Sheila having no gun residue or blood on her. But what they forget is, the pathologist takes samples from inside people’s noses in a PM, so even if Sheila HAD bathed after supposedly going crazy with a gun she’d have had remnants of her family’s back spatter and gun residue up her nostrils.
