Could Livor Mortis Help Prove Jeremy Bamber is innocent

[David1819]

But you are not listening Dave,he must have had time to check the bodies and conclude that they all died at the same time.He testified the victims all died arround the same time.So,when the 'two bodies downstairs' argument came to light,all Dr Craig had to do was produce the documentation proving that the victims did indeed die around the same time.Or,AT LEAST give a statement about his findings at the scene of the crime sxplaining to doubters how he came to his conclusions.The fact that has done neither is very suspicious.And even if he was dead by the time the two bodies came about,the police could have surely produced some documentation on his behalf.Anyway that is why i think it is important to view the morgue photos,which could hopefully shed some light on times of death.

Dr Craigs comments on the time of death have no value. He was making comments he was not qualified to make.

[David1819]

And remember he was a police surgeon for 27yrs Dave,so he wasn't just a GP.

A police surgeon is just a GP who has agreed to be on call to help the local police department should they need it. He was only called out to WHF to help any potential survivors. In retrospect he was not needed there at all.

He was once the local GP for a member on this forum BTW.

[snow66!]

A police surgeon is just a GP who has agreed to be on call to help the local police department should they need it. He was only called out to WHF to help any potential survivors. In retrospect he was not needed there at all.

He was once the local GP for a member on this forum BTW.

So,what you are saying is he told a lie when he stated the victims died around the same time Dave.So,again i will say,we need to see the morgue photos to compare them with the crime scene photos for livor mortis staining comparison.

[lookout]

He who only saw one gun shot with his 22 years service under his belt  Specsavers or what ? Grants maybe.

[David1819]

So,what you are saying is he told a lie when he stated the victims died around the same time Dave.So,again i will say,we need to see the morgue photos to compare them with the crime scene photos for livor mortis staining comparison.

Not lying, just guessing. Moreover there is some ambiguity in what he actually said.

"In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night."

could have occurred at any time? - In other words he does not know what time and could be any time.

[snow66!]

He who only saw one gun shot with his 22 years service under his belt  Specsavers or what ? Grants maybe.

Hi Lookout,i think it was 32yrs service with 27yrs as a police surgeon.There is one thing for sure,if Sheila had only been dead about an hour when he seen her,he must have noticed this no matter how inept or drunk he was.

[snow66!]

Not lying, just guessing. Moreover there is some ambiguity in what he actually said.

"In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night."

could have occurred at any time? - In other words he does not know what time and could be any time.

Yes i understand that Dave,but the main thing is,he stated the victims died at the SAME time.Why highlight that fact at all? At trial no one had reason to question this,neither the prosecution nor the defence.Only after the 'Two Bodies' came to light,was this of any relevance.It seems the police had to state this fact in some sort of preparation for it being queried.

[snow66!]

There has been much discussion here regarding Dr Craig, his sobriety, or lack, thereof, and those tasks posters believe him to have been negligent in performing. The only requirement of Dr Craig was that of confirming life to be extinct, which he satisfactorily did. Whilst it has been claimed on numerous occasions that he allegedly failed to notice that Sheila had sustained two wounds, it has to be remembered that he didn't count the number of bullet wounds on any of the other victims, either, claiming only, and correctly, that they appeared to have died from gunshot wounds. His task was fulfilled. It was then over to the pathologist, who, quite properly, should have been called to attend. It seems we may have TJ's insistence that it was 'just' a case of murder/suicide to thank for the grievous oversight.

Hiya Jane,hope youv'e been keeping well.Now,the thing is the topic is not about Dr Craig missing the two wounds,or the fact he liked a nip or two.It is about trying to work out when Sheila died,for obvious reasons.Now as you know Craig stated the victims all died around the same time,but what evidence did he have to prove this? Is there any notes or documents he made relating to the fact? Was it his observations of rigor mortis or livor mortis in the victims? How else do you check for time of death apart from temperature? Anyway there dosent seem to be any purple staining on Sheilas arms/legs,which there should have been on the crime scene photos taken about 8hrs after death.And when Stan Jones saw Sheilas body he was taken aback at how white her arms and legs were,no mention of red or purple patches.So,just how long had she been dead Jane? Maybe there simply wasn't going to be much obvious staining on Sheilas arms or legs,but as i have said,if this is the case then the morgue photos should match livot mortis staining.If there is no staining on Sheilas legs or arms in the morgue photos,then fair enough,but we need to see them to know.Make any sense to you Jane?

[Jane]

Hiya Jane,hope youv'e been keeping well.Now,the thing is the topic is not about Dr Craig missing the two wounds,or the fact he liked a nip or two.It is about trying to work out when Sheila died,for obvious reasons.Now as you know Craig stated the victims all died around the same time,but what evidence did he have to prove this? Is there any notes or documents he made relating to the fact? Was it his observations of rigor mortis or livor mortis in the victims? How else do you check for time of death apart from temperature? Anyway there dosent seem to be any purple staining on Sheilas arms/legs,which there should have been on the crime scene photos taken about 8hrs after death.And when Stan Jones saw Sheilas body he was taken aback at how white her arms and legs were,no mention of red or purple patches.So,just how long had she been dead Jane? Maybe there simply wasn't going to be much obvious staining on Sheilas arms or legs,but as i have said,if this is the case then the morgue photos should match livot mortis staining.If there is no staining on Sheilas legs or arms in the morgue photos,then fair enough,but we need to see them to know.Make any sense to you Jane?

Snow, perhaps we should be clear about Dr Craig's alleged drinking. It was originally claimed by a member here who had a rather less than agreeable relationship with him and can be said to have had an agenda. This view was perpetuated because it suited supporters' agenda of believing JB innocent, no matter whose reputation was destroyed in the cause. At the time, I was probably among them.

I think it needs pointing out that, at that time, it was customary for doctors to carry a flask of 'something' around with them. Things were rather different then. It was probably believed that a nip of alcohol was good for someone who was in shock, not to mention a 'reviver' for tired doctors. I believe it has been claimed that he had alcohol on his breath. Such would occur after one nip or ten, and does it not seem strange that, given the doctor's NHS catchment area, plus his police duties, that only one patient complained about him?

Regarding your criticism of his failure to take the victims' temperatures, taking rectal temperatures would have necessitated the movement of bodies. Such was outside of his remit. With all his years of professional experience, he was fully entitled, and able, to pass an opinion. God knows, enough of us do it here and few of us are qualified to do so. Indeed, you've made the sweeping claim that "there doesn't seem to be any purple staining..........." -an amazing conclusion to draw from poor photos- yet Julie, who saw them, seems to thing the bodies were bruised. Might that 'bruising' have been livor mortis?

As I've previously said, Dr Craig's only job was to pronounce life extinct. Nothing more. The professional who should have been present at such a huge murder scene -indeed, he said he'd been available- but wasn't called, was the pathologist. That oversight can, it seems, be lain directly at Taff Jones' door. because, convinced as he was that it was a straightforward case of murder/suicide believed it unnecessary.

[snow66!]

Snow, perhaps we should be clear about Dr Craig's alleged drinking. It was originally claimed by a member here who had a rather less than agreeable relationship with him and can be said to have had an agenda. This view was perpetuated because it suited supporters' agenda of believing JB innocent, no matter whose reputation was destroyed in the cause. At the time, I was probably among them.

I think it needs pointing out that, at that time, it was customary for doctors to carry a flask of 'something' around with them. Things were rather different then. It was probably believed that a nip of alcohol was good for someone who was in shock, not to mention a 'reviver' for tired doctors. I believe it has been claimed that he had alcohol on his breath. Such would occur after one nip or ten, and does it not seem strange that, given the doctor's NHS catchment area, plus his police duties, that only one patient complained about him?

Regarding your criticism of his failure to take the victims' temperatures, taking rectal temperatures would have necessitated the movement of bodies. Such was outside of his remit. With all his years of professional experience, he was fully entitled, and able, to pass an opinion. God knows, enough of us do it here and few of us are qualified to do so. Indeed, you've made the sweeping claim that "there doesn't seem to be any purple staining..........." -an amazing conclusion to draw from poor photos- yet Julie, who saw them, seems to thing the bodies were bruised. Might that 'bruising' have been livor mortis?

As I've previously said, Dr Craig's only job was to pronounce life extinct. Nothing more. The professional who should have been present at such a huge murder scene -indeed, he said he'd been available- but wasn't called, was the pathologist. That oversight can, it seems, be lain directly at Taff Jones' door. because, convinced as he was that it was a straightforward case of murder/suicide believed it unnecessary.

Hi Jane.Well,i am afraid there isnt much you have said that answers any of my questions.I wasn't questioning Craig's drinking habits,only his statement that the victims died at the same time.As for the staining Julie saw at the morgue,as Rob pointed out,it is unlikely she saw the entire body of the victims,probably just the head.But as the heads were shaved,Julie would have seen the bruising at the back of them,and Nevills head and face was heavily bruised anyway without any lividity stains.BUT this has nothing to do with what i am trying to prove.Let me try and explain one more time.The crime scene photos of Sheila were taken between 10 and 12,15 on the morning after the murders.If JB was the killer Sheila was probably dead by 2.30,possibly earlier,so she had been dead roughly 8hrs.Now,in normal room temperature livor mortis is fully visible and fixed after 8hrs,so when the crime scene photos were taken,NO further stains should have appeared on Sheila at a later date,that was it,no further staining should have appeared later on at the morgue.SO,any staining on Sheilas arms or legs should be the same in both the crime scene photos and the morgue photos.Now you say it is a sweeping statement to say there is no staining on Sheila because the crime scene photos are so poor.but we do get a pretty good yiew of Sheilas legs and right arm.Just say a morgue photo shows a purple patch creeping up her forearm that is clearly not there in the crime scene photos,or one creeping up her thigh or calf,that has to be conclusive proof that livor mortis was not at an advanced stage when the crime scene photos were taken.appearing much later at the morgue.Hence Sheila must have died much later than the others,and livor mortis staining was not well established when the crime scene photos were taken.PHEW! surely i have made it clear now,what i am trying to prove Jane.Or are you being tactful like a politician,avoiding giving me a straight answer?

[Jane]

Hi Jane.Well,i am afraid there isnt much you have said that answers any of my questions.I wasn't questioning Craig's drinking habits,only his statement that the victims died at the same time.As for the staining Julie saw at the morgue,as Rob pointed out,it is unlikely she saw the entire body of the victims,probably just the head.But as the heads were shaved,Julie would have seen the bruising at the back of them,and Nevills head and face was heavily bruised anyway without any lividity stains.BUT this has nothing to do with what i am trying to prove.Let me try and explain one more time.The crime scene photos of Sheila were taken between 10 and 12,15 on the morning after the murders.If JB was the killer Sheila was probably dead by 2.30,possibly earlier,so she had been dead roughly 8hrs.Now,in normal room temperature livor mortis is fully visible and fixed after 8hrs,so when the crime scene photos were taken,NO further stains should have appeared on Sheila at a later date,that was it,no further staining should have appeared later on at the morgue.SO,any staining on Sheilas arms or legs should be the same in both the crime scene photos and the morgue photos.Now you say it is a sweeping statement to say there is no staining on Sheila because the crime scene photos are so poor.but we do get a pretty good yiew of Sheilas legs and right arm.Just say a morgue photo shows a purple patch creeping up her forearm that is clearly not there in the crime scene photos,or one creeping up her thigh or calf,that has to be conclusive proof that livor mortis was not at an advanced stage when the crime scene photos were taken.appearing much later at the morgue.Hence Sheila must have died much later than the others,and livor mortis staining was not well established when the crime scene photos were taken.PHEW! surely i have made it clear now,what i am trying to prove Jane.Or are you being tactful like a politician,avoiding giving me a straight answer?

Snow, I wonder how literally you're taking Dr Craig's assertion that "the victims died at the same time", and exactly how close a time-frame it was. It may well have been better, for the sake of clarification, had he inserted "roughly" into it, but then, what he said, wasn't for our benefit. Blood evidence suggests that it may not have been entirely as he said, given that Nevill seems to have escaped the bedroom and June appears to have crossed it before dying by the door. We do know the boys died in their beds. Other that that, it's speculation which gives rise to your many "just say's", and, indeed, ours.

To return to the discrepancy you claim of Sheila. The photos available to us are copies of copies. It might be said that they don't tell the entire truth, leaving us to see and believe what we're wanting to. It can probably be certain that the only victims without anomalies, were the boys. They had no time for their bodies to react to stress and fear -or we can only pray they didn't- unlike their mother and grandparents, all for whom there exists a raft of both, all having an effect physiologically. There MAY have been almost an hour between the first deaths and the last. There exists unquestionable difference in ages, height, weight, health, etc, between the adults. All any of us can do, is "Just say....." -after all, we don't even know anything as basic as the sequence of deaths, do we?-  but I doubt it will achieve anything concrete.

I'm not so much avoiding answering your questions, as feeling unable to address them without, as I see it, and bearing in mind our views are totally polarized, flying into realms of fantastic speculation. Who knows, Snow? It COULD turn out that you're right. Now wouldn't that be something?!!!!! I can't say you're totally wrong, because I don't know. I can only say, I don't think you're right.

[snow66!]

Snow, I wonder how literally you're taking Dr Craig's assertion that "the victims died at the same time", and exactly how close a time-frame it was. It may well have been better, for the sake of clarification, had he inserted "roughly" into it, but then, what he said, wasn't for our benefit. Blood evidence suggests that it may not have been entirely as he said, given that Nevill seems to have escaped the bedroom and June appears to have crossed it before dying by the door. We do know the boys died in their beds. Other that that, it's speculation which gives rise to your many "just say's", and, indeed, ours.

To return to the discrepancy you claim of Sheila. The photos available to us are copies of copies. It might be said that they don't tell the entire truth, leaving us to see and believe what we're wanting to. It can probably be certain that the only victims without anomalies, were the boys. They had no time for their bodies to react to stress and fear -or we can only pray they didn't- unlike their mother and grandparents, all for whom there exists a raft of both, all having an effect physiologically. There MAY have been almost an hour between the first deaths and the last. There exists unquestionable difference in ages, height, weight, health, etc, between the adults. All any of us can do, is "Just say....." -after all, we don't even know anything as basic as the sequence of deaths, do we?-  but I doubt it will achieve anything concrete.

I'm not so much avoiding answering your questions, as feeling unable to address them without, as I see it, and bearing in mind our views are totally polarized, flying into realms of fantastic speculation. Who knows, Snow? It COULD turn out that you're right. Now wouldn't that be something?!!!!! I can't say you're totally wrong, because I don't know. I can only say, I don't think you're right.

Hi Jane,hope your enjoying the Jubilee holiday.Now,the thing is,it dosen't matter what Dr Craig said regarding time of death.For a JB scenario,Sheila HAD to be dead by roughly 2.30,so it is a medical certainty that livor mortis was well established by the time the crime scene photos were taken.So all you need is the morgue photos for comparison.Simple as that.And we know that morgue photos still exist,because CAL had access to them.

[Adam]

The 5 people died within 10 minutes of each other. As stated in mine & CAL's Bamber scenario.

Dr Craig attended to certify death.

[Jane]

Hi Jane,hope your enjoying the Jubilee holiday.Now,the thing is,it dosen't matter what Dr Craig said regarding time of death.For a JB scenario,Sheila HAD to be dead by roughly 2.30,so it is a medical certainty that livor mortis was well established by the time the crime scene photos were taken.So all you need is the morgue photos for comparison.Simple as that.And we know that morgue photos still exist,because CAL had access to them.

C'mon, Snow! In previous posts you criticized Dr Craig for NOT stating TOD, now you're say it doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. It that why you're inferring some jiggery-pokery goings on at the morgue, starting with the pathologist -in revenge for not being called to SOC, perhaps?- and ending with poor CAL, YEARS later, being persuaded to collude with his alleged findings in order to write her book. This sort of thing is just one of the reasons why I changed stance. All sorts of totally innocent and unwitting people were being accused of collaborations in a crime that some -many- had played no part in, and therefore had no agenda. It was beginning to look more and more like anything, however devious and underhand, could be used to get freedom for JB. That he'd been proven guilty became inconsequential.

[Adam]

C'mon, Snow! In previous posts you criticized Dr Craig for NOT stating TOD, now you're say it doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. It that why you're inferring some jiggery-pokery goings on at the morgue, starting with the pathologist -in revenge for not being called to SOC, perhaps?- and ending with poor CAL, YEARS later, being persuaded to collude with his alleged findings in order to write her book. This sort of thing is just one of the reasons why I changed stance. All sorts of totally innocent and unwitting people were being accused of collaborations in a crime that some -many- had played no part in, and therefore had no agenda. It was beginning to look more and more like anything, however devious and underhand, could be used to get freedom for JB. That he'd been proven guilty became inconsequential.

Come to think of it, I've always been suspicious of the court usher at trial.