In the Auer 2 Judges accept from evidence that the phone call wasn't doctored and vote for acquittal on actual evidence. The Bain crime scene was said to set up, now there is the Lundy crime scene said by police to have been set up, but looking at your Auer case (a thought provoking example), we see what police can't explain sometimes becomes blamed on a defendant. We had an example here where a man suicided after being accused by a long term criminal associate of confessing to the murder of a young woman in her home, the accuser explained his shoeprints being in the scene as result of the defendant having borrowed them, the accused man killed himself on remand leaving a note to say he'd been set up. Later in a similar crime, another young mother found dead in the bath with a toddler in the house was found to have her killer's DNA under her nails remaining intact despite that her hands were underwater when the body was discovered. The fingernail DNA belonged to the prime witness in the earlier case, but police never charged him for that apparently still believing the story about the borrowed shoes.
The Auer case reveals good reasoning by the Court who could not rule out that there had been an unknown person in the house - in Lundy the probability was there were 2 both somehow leaving their fingernail DNA under the victims nails from "shaking hands according to our Supreme Court," yet nails do not contact the skin when shaking another person's hands, and also do not scrap over them to gather DNA. There were unknown fingerprints and footprints in the crime seen that were never excluded, despite police taking the fingerprints of over 40 people known to have been in the house in the previous 3 months. Auer shows how discounted claims arising from false evidence should/can reject the whole prosecution.
In the present case you could try banging a nail in a stick as I suggested to check out the suicide possibility of Sheila. Then swing the stick in an overhead arc and see if it is possible to leave a scratch from the edge of recess (even try a door), or do a diagram of a recess and use a protractor arc to discover that a scratch can never start from the edge. If the scratch doesn't work, and you reach the nail in the probable suicide position which has been described for Sheila, "strangers in dark clothing," will also make sense as it did for those 2 Judges when the call tape showed no signs of being doctored.
For a highly disciplined Court proof of any malfeasance or flawed evidence should result in the same rejection as in the Auer case. BTW even try just one of those 2 tests if you like, just using a protractor will show the fake evidence but both tests would be recommended for certainty - along with considering the lack of stippling.
Early morning so please excuse grammar errors.
