Which puts us both at odds with Ron Hendry, who has Guede removing the shoes. I don't think Guede attempted to untie the right shoe. He yanked at the knot, hooking his finger under it and jerking it upwards. This I have tried at home and produced precisely the same result as seen in the picture.
I am pretty sure Meredith did not remove her right shoe, because no one uses that method to take off a shoe.
Having used the shoes to support my personal view that things moved very quickly after she returned home (and unfolded exclusively in the bedroom) now I want to turn it round and use my conclusion as a premise to support my view about the shoes. What did she have time to do on reaching her bedroom? We can be sure she took her notebook and Robyn's history book from her bag and tossed them on the bed, indicating her intention to do some reading before going to sleep, and she may have hooked the bag over the back of her chair, as Hendry suggests. She didn't take off her jacket though,mnor do anything else so far as we can tell. Hendry has her going to sit down on the bed and being attacked while trying to phone her mother (this may be the 20.56 call, about which he is probably wrong).
It's reasonable to speculate that what she did next was start removing her shoes. She may only have got as far as untying the laces on the right shoe when attacked, which would explain why the shoes ended up close to each other.
It cannot be said this did not happen and some account is required to expain why the shoes have been treated differently by someone we know was so frantic that he broke the bra in removing it.
I agree with everything you write here, and that you make a very plausible case for what might really have happened. However, I still believe that this particular evidence (the differing lacing configuration of the trainers) suggests a number of different scenarios. As I wrote before (and as Grinder also alluded to), the different lacing configuration of the two shoes is also actually consistent with Meredith herself removing both shoes - first by kicking or prising off the right shoe (using either her hand or her left foot), then being unable to remove the left shoe in the same way, and being forced to bend down and untie the laces.
But I count the above as the least likely possible scenario. I therefore think that the shoe evidence strongly suggests that it was not Meredith alone (or Meredith at all) who removed her trainers that night. However, even with that suggestion, there are still (in my view) three different scenarios that all make sense:
1) Meredith is in the process of removing her shoes, and has just got to the point of untying the laces in the left trainer (or has just untied and removed her left trainer) when she is confronted and attacked in her own room; then the assailant (again, let's call him "Guede"....) removes either both trainers or just the remaining right laced-up trainer in order to be able to remove Meredith's jeans. He removes the right trainer by pulling it straight off Meredith's foot, leaving the laces tied.
2) Meredith has just untied her laces in her left trainer (and possibly removed the shoe from her foot) when she hears commotion near the front door. She leaves her room - either with her left trainer untied but still on her foot, or with only her right trainer still on - and the confrontation ensues in the hallway or kitchen; the assailant subsequently removes the trainer(s) as in point (1) during the assault.
3) Meredith has not yet attempted to remove either of her trainers when she is confronted and attacked (i.e. both trainers are still laced up). The assailant removes both trainers in order to be able to remove Meredith's jeans, and is able to pull the right trainer off while still laced up, but finds that the left trainer is laced too tightly to be able to remove in that way, and he is therefore forced to unlace it before pulling it from Meredith's foot.
In the first two scenarios above, there is a strong implication that the confrontation and attack must have occurred shortly after Meredith arrived back at the cottage (which I think is the truth in any case, for many other reasons related to other evidence). In the third scenario, there is perhaps less direct implication that the attack happened soon after Meredith's arrival home: if she was still wearing her trainers laced up normally, then it's possible that she had been walking/lounging around with her trainers on for any length of time after getting home. However, I think that other evidence that she was a) tired, and b) intending to read a study book before returning it the following morning, indirectly implies that it's unlikely that Meredith would have kept her trainers on for anything longer than a matter of 10-15 minutes after getting back home.
Therefore, I think the most one can say about this particular piece of evidence is that 1) it tends to suggest that Meredith's two trainers were not both removed by her in a "normal" way; 2) this in turn tends to suggest that someone else - the assailant - was involved in the removal of at least one of the trainers; 3) both of these things (coupled with other evidence) tend to indicate that Meredith became involved in a confrontation and attack shortly after she arrived home just after 9pm.
I think the different lacing configurations of the trainers is interesting and relevant evidence in trying to assess what might really have happened (although I'd suggest that it has next to no relevance in a strictly legal context). I think that this evidence tends to support and bolster the opinion that Meredith was confronted and attacked very soon after arriving home, but I don't think it can tell us much more than that regarding the more detailed dynamic or location of the confrontation.
