Obviously the pathologist could see them. What I meant before was, could he have been preoccupied with bullet wounds? He helped wrongly send another man down, so he's not infallible. The judge sent down the Bridgewater Four and he prosecuted them Shrewsbury pickets.
It is possible a pathologist could miss minor but significant wounds such as cuts and abrasions. When all is said and done, a cut is just a break in the skin. An experienced person could miss it quite easily.
Probably somebody should research what the process is for dealing with dried blood, but I would imagine that the pathologist's assistant would have cleaned all the blood away prior to post mortem on the basis that the photographs and crime scene notes captured what needed to be known about post-mortem blood distribution.
Now think about what happens when you receive a cut. After the blood is cleaned away, the presence of the cut, if minor, won't always be obvious.
