... were they really women's shoes? (Gallagher seemed pretty convinced but the other telegrams are less definitive). How did Gallagher know--were shoes of that era marked by gender like they are today? Heck, it's not uncommon for men with narrow feet to wear women's shoes anyway.
We have a wonderful resource called the
Ameliapedia. It is one of
many ways of finding out what TIGHAR's investigation has uncovered. In this case, it has a
very short article, with links to other resources, which says:
Gallagher's thorough search of the area where the
skull was found and buried turned up the remnants of some shoes. They were examined by
Dr. Steenson in Suva on July 1, 1941: "Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say" (
Bones file).
It is a bare minimum courtesy of reasoned discourse to discuss the evidence that does exist for various and sundry claims.
Gallgher thought they were parts of a woman's shoe. So did Dr. Steenson. That's what is in the record. We are not in a position to evaluate the grounds of their assertion that there was a noticeable difference between the shoe parts such that they thought one group came from a man's shoe and the other group from a woman's shoe. We don't know what features of the shoes suggested that interpretation to them because they only told us about their impression of the parts and did not say how or why they arrived at that inference.
It's unfortunate no photos of the skeleton and its accompanying items were taken when found since they would tell us much more.
It would be more accurate to say that:
1) We have no evidence of whether the material was photographed.
2) If it was photographed, those photographs have not turned up yet.
3) If, by good fortune, photographs were taken and have survived, it would be nice to find them.