Dr. Ian Donaldson Craig 12-11-86

[-Harters-]

Its clear enough, if you want to find out the truth, but if you don't want the truth to come out, you will find any excuse yiu can think up, and argue it means something else.
.........................

I'm not making any excuses. 

Jeremy was found guilty on 28/10/1986, the document in this thread is dated after the trial on 13/11/1986 and it includes a comments area where Dr Craig has suggested 'Things for the future'. Clearly he has no concerns that he did not see a second wound to Sheila at the time he certified her death, even though he has brought attention to it in the very same report.

It seems much more likely to me that Dr Craig simply didn't see the second wound, maybe from the position he was standing in it was obscured by the rifle barrel.

[mike tesko]

I'm not making any excuses. 

Jeremy was found guilty on 28/10/1986, the document in this thread is dated after the trial on 13/11/1986 and it includes a comments area where Dr Craig has suggested 'Things for the future'. Clearly he has no concerns that he did not see a second wound to Sheila at the time he certified her death, even though he has brought attention to it in the very same report.

It seems much more likely to me that Dr Craig simply didn't see the second wound, maybe from the position he was standing in it was obscured by the rifle barrel.

Stop talking stupid, there is'nt Photograph which shows any of tge two wounds obscurwd by the barrel of tge rifle? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life...

[-Harters-]

Stop talking stupid, there is'nt Photograph which shows any of tge two wounds obscurwd by the barrel of tge rifle? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life...

I do hope you aren't about to go into one of your sweary rants. 

[Nickos]

Its clear enough, if you want to find out the truth, but if you don't want the truth to come out, you will find any excuse you can think up, and argue it means something else. Contact Ewen Smith and ask him what Craig had to say about it? I was not the only person to whom Ewen relayed what he found out after visits to see Dr Craig before he died...

By 8:44am, Sheila had only been shot once, if she had been shot twice by that stage, Dr Craig, and PC Miller, could not possubly have failed to notice two great big bullet entry wounds on Sheila's neck? Lets put things into perpsective, Craig and Miller View the body at 8:44am, and both report only seeing one bullet hole in Sheila's neck - yet, by 10am, along comes PC Bird, and he takes pictures of two whopping bullet holes on Sheila's neck, with fresh looking blood that is running, pouring and leaking from them, which does'nt add up; because PC Bird does"nt photograph the two wounds until 76 minutes after Craig and Miller only see one wound? Now,  how could blood still be wet looking, and running, leaking and pouring, if Sheila has already been dead a further 76 minutes?

Okay Mike, going on the basis that Dr Craig reported seeing one gunshot wound to SC' neck - at that stage - how do we know, how will we ever know, which one it was.

As he was certifying death, it most probably would have been the fatal under the chin shot - in which case SC was already dead. Any subsequent shot delivered accidentally by someone later would be irrelevant as you cannot legally or technically murder/kill a dead person.

However, if it was the neck shot that Dr Craig saw, then again, as Dr Craig confirmed death at the scene, then the initially non-fatal wound must have killed her – a second shot could not have killed her again!

[Nickos]

Stop talking stupid, there isn't a Photograph which shows any of the two wounds obscured by the barrel of the rifle? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life...

But we do know the police have admitted to moving the rifle, and at some stage it is conceivable that the barrel may have obscured Dr Craig’s vision of SC’s neck.

Perhaps the police may have moved SC's head - at some stage - as well.

All this suggests is more police incompetence - and we are aware of that!

(by the way Mike I have taken the liberty of tidying up your spelling - it's annoying without Spell Check isn’t it?  )

 

[maggie]

Well as he hasn't described how closely he examined the bodies, only stating that he didn't touch any of them (or words to that effect), then I'm not sure how obvious it would have been.

Surely a doctor would have to check heartbeat etc before confirming death. That is a bit strange in my opinion.

[-Harters-]

But we do know the police have admitted to moving the rifle, and at some stage it is conceivable that the barrel may have obscured Dr Craig’s vision of SC’s neck.

Perhaps the police may have moved SC's head - at some stage - as well.

All this suggests is more police incompetence - and we are aware of that!

(by the way Mike I have taken the liberty of tidying up your spelling - it's annoying without Spell Check isn’t it?  )

 

I don't think that needed to happen.

Thinking of the photograph linked to below (there's no need to keep re-posting them), I think it's quite possible that if you stood at the end of the bed near Sheilas feet that you might only see a single wound, the lower one being obscured by the rifle barrel.

I also expect that Dr Craig would have attempted to limit any disruption of the murder scene, especially given the fact that SOCO hadn't investigated the scene at that time.

Photograph of Sheilas body: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image

[-Harters-]

Surely a doctor would have to check heartbeat etc before confirming death. That is a bit strange in my opinion.

At the bottom of page one of the document at the beginning of this thread it says:

In each case I certified death. There was no requirement for any physical examination to do this. My look at the bodies was not intensive but it was apparent they had all suffered gunshot wounds.

I do agree with you though, I'd usually have assumed that a more thorough check would have been required, such as looking for a heartbeat as you say.

[curiousessex]

Does anyone know the order in which Dr Ian Donaldson Craig viewed and certified the bodies?

It may be the case that Sheila was the last having already certified Nevill, the twins in bed, June and then Sheila.

Nevill, the twins and June all being deceased.

[-Harters-]

Does anyone know the order in which Dr Ian Donaldson Craig viewed and certified the bodies?

It may be the case that Sheila was the last having already certified Nevill, the twins in bed, June and then Sheila.

Nevill, the twins and June all being deceased.

Hmm good question, I'll see what I can find, I'm not hopeful though.

[-Harters-]

Hmm good question, I'll see what I can find, I'm not hopeful though.

Actually it is in his statement dated 7/8/85:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html

Ralph
June
Sheila
Daniel
Nicholas

[curiousessex]

Actually it is in his statement dated 7/8/85:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html

Ralph
June
Sheila
Daniel
Nicholas

Thanks for the link.

Interesting to say the least.

All certified dead within 10 minutes in the order you have since detailed.

Is the date of the Dr's statement in dispute?

I note the Dr, with specific reference to Sheila, details 'there was a quantity of dried blood which had come apparently from her mouth and what appeared to be an entry wound in her throat.' I certified death at 8.44 am.'

The time 8.44 am is the same time as June being certified dead.

With respect to June the Dr noted 'there was what appeared to be an entry wound between the eyes.'

Having read the whole statement it appears to me that Dr Ian Donaldson Craig has mentioned only what appears to be the entry wounds which could have been the fatal entry wounds. As we all know Nevill had multiple entry wounds yet the Dr mentions one head wound with the appearance of brain matter. June had multiple entry wounds yet the Dr mentions one wound between the eyes. The twins had multiple entry wounds yet the Dr mentions for one twin had an entry wound behind the left ear and for the second twin an entry wound between the eyes. Sheila had two entry wounds and the Dr mentions only a single wound to the throat whilst noting a large quantity of dried blood which appears from Sheila's mouth.

[mike tesko]

I don't think that needed to happen.

Thinking of the photograph linked to below (there's no need to keep re-posting them), I think it's quite possible that if you stood at the end of the bed near Sheilas feet that you might only see a single wound, the lower one being obscured by the rifle barrel.

I also expect that Dr Craig would have attempted to limit any disruption of the murder scene, especially given the fact that SOCO hadn't investigated the scene at that time.

Photograph of Sheilas body: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image

This theory is problematic...


First of all, if Sheila was on floor as you suggest, and Craig stood at foot of bed, how did he see Sheila's right hand on the wooden butt of the rifle? If he could see her right hand on the gun, and the barrel poiting towards her chin, then he would have had no excuse for not seeing two woubds if she had got two wounds by that stage?  The other thing, Dr Craig told Ewen That Sheila's body was on the bed when he pronounced her as being dead - contact Ewen Smith and ask him yourself if you don't believe me...

The other thing...

It was always going to be the case that Dr Craig would end up saying that he paid very little attention to Sheila's body - he would say that because ultimately if he had done his job right, Sheila would probably still be alive today. Ask yourself, how could Sheila have all that wet looking blood on her neck, 76 minutes after Craig and Miller saw her on the far side of the bed with what appeared to be a solitary wound on her neck? You need to find an explantion for why Craig and Miller only see one bullet hole in Sheila's neck at 8:44am, and how the blood could still be running and pourung and leaking on her neck 76 minutes later when PC Bird starts to take his pictures from 10am?

[-Harters-]

..................
Is the date of the Dr's statement in dispute?
...................

What do you mean about the date being in dispute?

[Roch]

I found his statement very rudimentary.  Perhaps it is supposed to be like that.