Statement by Ian Donaldson Craig dated 07/08/85

[smiffy]

A little bit of the statement that also bothers me...from a statement analysis point of view.

"with the muzzle pointing upwards towards her head"

when it comes to detecting deception , shorter is better. Words that are not required are often used to sell the deception(its a psychological factor).

in his statement Craig uses the word "upwards" when it is not needed and out of place and is relative to the victim and not her supposed orientation which was supposed to be lying down.
this to me indicated in trying to sell the point...that he is probably being deceptive.

the word "upwards" can be removed entrirely from his statement without loss of detail to the description.
he oversells this issue and yet so many other relevant details are not mentioned at all.

[smiffy]

Considering Dr Craig went in the house about 9.00am and the photographs of the kitchen were taken at least an hour later if not longer there seems to be an issue in which the photographs of the kitchen are at odds with Dr Craigs statement.
Dr Craig mentions clothing lying  scattered about on the floor and on the stairs.

Looking at the kitchen floor items in the photographs there is only one item that is clothing and that is a pair of grey trousers.  Therefore this seems at odds with what Dr Craig describes. So were there more clothes lying on the kitchen floor that have since been removed...maybe blood stained and put in a bucket or disposed of etc....or was it only one pair of trousers all along on the kitchen floor that makes Dr Craig say what he said.

Looking at the photograph the cushions are lying partly over the pair of trousers as though they were placed there later on. Possibly after Dr Craig had viewed the scene. A towel has also been added.
It seems strange that Dr craig only mentioned clothing when the cushions would be far more prominent if they were in place when he viewed the scene. The cushions overlying the trousers  stongly suggests that they were placed to contain blood after Dr Craig had viewed the scene but before the photographs were taken.

This again suggests that what was portrayed in the photographs was quite different to what the firearms team first encountered in the kitchen.

[smiffy]

lets look more closely.
Dr craig has Nevill's body leaning over a stool and his head positioned just above a coal scuttle.

That is not what is portrayed in the photographs. In the photographs he is positioned sprawled over an upended chair. As there were chairs and stools in the kitchen it helps to distinguish. Nevills head just above the coal scuttle means above and not on or in contact with the coal scuttle. Again , different to how he is shown in the photographs.
Now if Dr craig is right he(Nevill) could indeed have been initially placed over a stool and not a chair and in this different arrangement his head could well have been higher and actually above the coal scuttle and not in contact with it.

I feel sure that Dr Craig could tell the difference between a stool and a chair.

[smiffy]

Looking at the statements of 2 of the firearms team that entered the house early on,
Manners and Woodcock both describe Nevill as slumped over/crouching but neither make mention of this being over any object. They do not say chair or stool.

[smiffy]

The radio and message logs seem to show Dr Craig's statement is somewhat fabricated.
He claims to be contacted at 8.10 am  and to arrive at scene at 8.25 am.
These both appear to be wrong.
In reality he had to have been contacted as per the logs before 8.06 am and his arrival would have been between 8.10 and 8.15 am.

By giving incorrect times the disproportionate amount of time he was at the scene before supposedly viewing the bodies is about half an hour. By giving later times this excessive waiting time for which no good, reason is given, is kept hidden and does not look suspicious.
In reality we can see it is suspicious and that someone has recognised this and hence we have a misleading claims in the statement.

[mike tesko]

The radio and message logs seem to show Dr Craig's statement is somewhat fabricated.
He claims to be contacted at 8.10 am  and to arrive at scene at 8.25 am.
These both appear to be wrong.
In reality he had to have been contacted as per the logs before 8.06 am and his arrival would have been between 8.10 and 8.15 am.

By giving incorrect times the disproportionate amount of time he was at the scene before supposedly viewing the bodies is about half an hour. By giving later times this excessive waiting time for which no good, reason is given, is kept hidden and does not look suspicious.
In reality we can see it is suspicious and that someone has recognised this and hence we have a misleading claims in the statement.

As I have said already, when Ewen Smith went to see Dr Craig, Craig admitted that the contents of his statement were wrong, inaccurate and misleading, and more importantly that when Craig viewed Sheila's body it was on the bed...

This discrepancy involving this half hour time difference, could be linked to the cover up that was instigated by the police, with the help and assistance of Dr Craig...

[smiffy]

According to Woodcock , he accompanied Dr Craig around the house to view the bodies...and in his statement he claims that Dr Craig only touched one body and that was one of the twin boys. So basically his examination of the bodies was brief and of a visual nature only.


Dr Craigs statement is worded to the effect that he was only accompanied by one police officer and in the statement it claims it was DCS Harris...with no mention of Woodcock.

[smiffy]

Gibbons also makes a claim to be present when Dr Craig toured the house to view the bodies...

Once again though....Dr Craig's statement indicates by its wording that he was only accompanied by one police officer....though he gives no name.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

Also, before getting too carried away with a mention of 'an entry wound' on Sheila's throat, it's worth noting that only a single entry wound is mentioned on each of the other victims, nobody is suggesting the other victims were only shot once when examined by Dr. Craig, are they? 

Another of my hazardous guesses, but I suspect that he has simply referred to a single wound which would have been fatal in each case, in order to base his diagnosis of death upon each of the victims.

[guest154]

Also, before getting too carried away with a mention of 'an entry wound' on Sheila's throat, it's worth noting that only a single entry wound is mentioned on each of the other victims, nobody is suggesting the other victims were only shot once when examined by Dr. Craig, are they? 

Another of my hazardous guesses, but I suspect that he has simply referred to a single wound which would have been fatal in each case, in order to base his diagnosis of death upon each of the victims.

I remember a while back. Almost  EVERYONE here was talking about that documnet where it says there was a single wound on Sheila. Some people were saying RIGHT YOU HAVE TO LET JEREMY OUT NOW!!!......then it turned out that each victim was said to have a single entry wound....