I'm not saying Knight was crooked. I'm querying the size and quality of what he looked at. We don't really know how much time Knight spent on it. Knight may have thought 'well he's guilty anyway, so why bother going in to it too deeply?' You never know.
Re your second paragraph, I don't understand the way you have phrased it.
He looked at everything relevant eg HO pathologist notes, PM report, crime scene images, post mortem images, trial testimony. What else exists that was relevant?
You can't see the wood for the trees and doubt everyone from Bews to telephone operators to the pathologists.
Well if Bamber's conviction is ever overturned, very unlikely imo, then do doubt the whole case would be the subject of a public inquiry as without one it might well cause the public to lose faith in the criminal justice system which wouldn't be good for democracy. If such an inquiry ever took place then the whole case would go under the mircoscope and be examined by a judge (possibly not from this country) so he/she might then find some minor failing on the part of the pathologists but as I said nothing that would alter the outcome of the trial and certainly nothing done with intent.
Out of all the appeals and submissions to the review commission Bamber has never challenged the pathological evidence because there's nothing to challenge.
