Could Livor Mortis Help Prove Jeremy Bamber is innocent

[snow66!]

Are police surgeons required to carry notebooks?

[snow66!]

Vanezis stated that rigor mortis and hypostasis was well established in both Nevill and Sheila at autopsy.This was slightly misleading,because even if Sheila died at 7.45 rigor mortis and livot motris would still have been well established at autopsy by about 4.30 in the afternoon.So his statement about rigor mortis and lividity being well established means nothing by that time EVIDENCE wise.It is Dr Craig who should have given sworn testimony at trial about each victims state of livor mortis.Was he cross examined by the defence about this?Or was the defence unaware Sheila may have died later because of lack of disclosure?

[Rob_]

Vanezis stated that rigor mortis and hypostasis was well established in both Nevill and Sheila at autopsy.This was slightly misleading,because even if Sheila died at 7.45 rigor mortis and livot motris would still have been well established at autopsy by about 4.30 in the afternoon.So his statement about rigor mortis and lividity being well established means nothing by that time EVIDENCE wise.It is Dr Craig who should have given sworn testimony at trial about each victims state of livor mortis.Was he cross examined by the defence about this?Or was the defence unaware Sheila may have died later because of lack of disclosure?

To be fair to Dr Craig he was only certifying death, though I find his statement a bit strange he only mentions one wound, kitchen in disarray, bullet case on landing etc.

[Jane]

Vanezis stated that rigor mortis and hypostasis was well established in both Nevill and Sheila at autopsy.This was slightly misleading,because even if Sheila died at 7.45 rigor mortis and livot motris would still have been well established at autopsy by about 4.30 in the afternoon.So his statement about rigor mortis and lividity being well established means nothing by that time EVIDENCE wise.It is Dr Craig who should have given sworn testimony at trial about each victims state of livor mortis.Was he cross examined by the defence about this?Or was the defence unaware Sheila may have died later because of lack of disclosure?

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.

[Adam]

The rifle was low powered little kick back so easy to use, I have seen videos claiming a child could use the
anshutz rifle used in the killings.

Agree with that.

No threat to a fully fit Nevill.

[Adam]

Quote from Roger Wilkes book'Blood Relations' page 27-------What struck Stan Jones in particular was the marble whiteness of Sheila's arms and legs.-------Sounds more like pallor mortis than livor mortis.Definately no mention of bright red or purple legs/arms from Stan anyway.

What do you think of CAL's & Wilkes books?

What did you think of the CAL & CC audio interviews?

[David1819]

This is an extract from Bernard Knights 5/9/86 witness statement on the time of death issue.

“In general, I have little criticism of the way in which Dr. Vanezis
conducted his post mortems, especially bearing in mind that he
had five cases to deal with in a short space of time. Perhaps the
major criticism would be his lack of any attempt to estimate the
time of death. I fully realise that this is a very inaccurate exercise,
but temperatures of bodies at the scene should have been taken
for completeness sake in case some very unusual result was
obtained. I realise that he was not called to the scene (or did not
arrive) until much later than is the usual practice of most Home
Office pathologists, but this is due to the different conditions which
pertain in and around London. Also his description of the actual
external appearance of the bullet wounds are perhaps not as full as
one would like, in terms of description of exact size, extent and
appearance of powder marks, burns, abrasion colour etc., but
again he was undoubtedly working under pressure. In general the
examinations were quite adequate.”

[Roch]

Re Bernard Knight, I've just watched him in a documentary about the hunt for a lost serial killer. The 'Jack the Stripper' murders in early 60's West London.

[snow66!]

What do you think of CAL's & Wilkes books?

What did you think of the CAL & CC audio interviews?

Hi Adam,i dont see much wrong with either book,they both explain that Bamber maintains his innocence and quote some of his correspondence from jail.They just explain the background of the Bambers and what took place,then its left to you to decide what happened that night.What more is there to say.As for the audio interviews,i am afraid i have not listened to them yet,did you post links for them both? If not i am sure i will find them on the web.

[Adam]

Hi Adam,i dont see much wrong with either book,they both explain that Bamber maintains his innocence and quote some of his correspondence from jail.They just explain the background of the Bambers and what took place,then its left to you to decide what happened that night.What more is there to say.As for the audio interviews,i am afraid i have not listened to them yet,did you post links for them both? If not i am sure i will find them on the web.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11238.msg520470.html#msg520470

Two here & one with CC.

[snow66!]

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11238.msg520470.html#msg520470

Two here & one with CC.

Thanks Adam,i will let you know when i have watched them.

[snow66!]

This is an extract from Bernard Knights 5/9/86 witness statement on the time of death issue.

“In general, I have little criticism of the way in which Dr. Vanezis
conducted his post mortems, especially bearing in mind that he
had five cases to deal with in a short space of time. Perhaps the
major criticism would be his lack of any attempt to estimate the
time of death. I fully realise that this is a very inaccurate exercise,
but temperatures of bodies at the scene should have been taken
for completeness sake in case some very unusual result was
obtained. I realise that he was not called to the scene (or did not
arrive) until much later than is the usual practice of most Home
Office pathologists, but this is due to the different conditions which
pertain in and around London. Also his description of the actual
external appearance of the bullet wounds are perhaps not as full as
one would like, in terms of description of exact size, extent and
appearance of powder marks, burns, abrasion colour etc., but
again he was undoubtedly working under pressure. In general the
examinations were quite adequate.”

But the thing is Dave,Dr Craig saw the bodies at the crime scene and stated the victims all died around the same time.Now just how did he know this? You cant make that statement without producing some medical evidence to back it up.Was he reffering to rigor mortis stiffness or lividity staining? And if he checked these things he must have had a rough idea of time of death.So regardless of Vanezis's competence,it is Dr Craig who should have been interrogated regarding times of death,after all he must have examined the bodies to a fair degree,or how else could he confirm the victims died at about the same time.It is Craigs notes that should be tracked down to gain the truth,he is the ONLY one who knew if Sheila died at a later time.Maybe that is why Knight criticised Vanezis,so that the attention was taken away from Craig,the only man with any idea of when the victims died.And dosen't it seem odd how little Craig said at trial? He gets very little mention in any of the books either.

[David1819]

But the thing is Dave,Dr Craig saw the bodies at the crime scene and stated the victims all died around the same time.Now just how did he know this? You cant make that statement without producing some medical evidence to back it up.Was he reffering to rigor mortis stiffness or lividity staining? And if he checked these things he must have had a rough idea of time of death.So regardless of Vanezis's competence,it is Dr Craig who should have been interrogated regarding times of death,after all he must have examined the bodies to a fair degree,or how else could he confirm the victims died at about the same time.It is Craigs notes that should be tracked down to gain the truth,he is the ONLY one who knew if Sheila died at a later time.Maybe that is why Knight criticised Vanezis,so that the attention was taken away from Craig,the only man with any idea of when the victims died.And dosen't it seem odd how little Craig said at trial? He gets very little mention in any of the books either.

Dr Craig was not a pathologist. Just some local GP with an alcohol problem. He only spent 15 minutes inside the crime scene and his observations where so poor he failed to notice Sheila had two gunshot wounds. Nothing from Dr Craig has much value at all.

It was not his job to determine the time of death. However, he should have taken the body temperatures  for the record and passed them onto Vanezis. Had he done, none of this saga would have happened.

[snow66!]

Dr Craig was not a pathologist. Just some local GP with an alcohol problem. He only spent 15 minutes inside the crime scene and his observations where so poor he failed to notice Sheila had two gunshot wounds. Nothing from Dr Craig has much value at all.

It was not his job to determine the time of death. However, he should have taken the body temperatures  for the record and passed them onto Vanezis. Had he done, none of this saga would have happened.

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.

[snow66!]

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