Dr. Ian Donaldson Craig 12-11-86

[-Harters-]

I don't think they have ever had access to any of the missing 179 or so photographic negatives...

That's not what I have been led to believe.

[Roch]

I take your points.

I think something which really needs to happen, is for a photographic expert, such as Sutherst, to come out and say a photograph, any photograph, shows Sheilas blood to be wet, then the implications of wet blood would need to be examined.

Unless I'm mistaken, to date, the suggestion that the photographs show wet blood has only come from lay people.

Another thing which is more concerning to me, is that this 'wet blood' theory has never been used in a submission to the CCRC, when lesser theories have been included.

Could we class the two Italian professors in the GDS period as an attempt to use the 'wet blood' theory?  GDS has recently expressed that he felt it was a mistake for Bamber to concentrate on the silencer evidence and not to further pursue SC time of death instead.

[Roch]

Mike, would you be prepared to detail your own theory, from what you now suspect, in a similar format to this?:

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened

A numbered step by step account (of mainly the raid).  Inclusive of the alleged mishandling of the rifle / informatives on site.

[mike tesko]

Could we class the two Italian professors in the GDS period as an attempt to use the 'wet blood' theory?  GDS has recently expressed that he felt it was a mistake for Bamber to concentrate on the silencer evidence and not to further pursue SC time of death instead.

Time of death; and consistwncy of blood on Sheila's neck, go hand in glive with one another...

[-Harters-]

Could we class the two Italian professors in the GDS period as an attempt to use the 'wet blood' theory?  GDS has recently expressed that he felt it was a mistake for Bamber to concentrate on the silencer evidence and not to further pursue SC time of death instead.

I haven't seen the details, but if it was legit why hasn't it been used?

I don't have a very good opinion of GDS, he was up on fraud charges wasn't he?

[elphick]

I take your points.

I think something which really needs to happen, is for a photographic expert, such as Sutherst, to come out and say a photograph, any photograph, shows Sheilas blood to be wet, then the implications of wet blood would need to be examined.

Unless I'm mistaken, to date, the suggestion that the photographs show wet blood has only come from lay people.

Another thing which is more concerning to me, is that this 'wet blood' theory has never been used in a submission to the CCRC, when lesser theories have been included.

I like this post. It could also be said that the interpretation by lay people that the blood looked wet has (seemingly) been done without comparing it to pictures of the blood of the other victims. For example, how 'wet looking' was the pool of Ralph's blood in the kitchen? Or how 'wet looking' was the blood on June's face? A simple comparison would be helpful to demonstrate that Sheila's blood was indeed wetter because the others had died hours before she had.

[Roch]

I haven't seen the details, but if it was legit why hasn't it been used?

I don't have a very good opinion of GDS, he was up on fraud charges wasn't he?

CCRC rejected their findings because they were based upon photographs, apparently.  They also made errors, for example they described the pools of blood as entry/exit wounds.  I can see how this could have happened because the pools obscure what is underneath them.

[Roch]

In respect of GDS.  Is there an inference that the two medical professors could have been on his payroll?  I think that's a bit naughty to be honest. 

[-Harters-]

CCRC rejected their findings because they were based upon photographs, apparently.  They also made errors, for example they described the pools of blood as entry/exit wounds.  I can see how this could have happened because the pools obscure what is underneath them.

You're not winning me over here.  It's difficult to form an opinion without seeing details.

I wonder if Macdonell referred to her blood as wet or dry. 

[mike tesko]

You're not winning me over here.  It's difficult to form an opinion without seeing details.

I wonder if Macdonell referred to her blood as wet or dry. 

Of course he did'nt, he only had the same photographs that Jeremys solicitors had access to, which did not include any images displaying wet looking blood. Police hand picked the photographs they wanted to disclose. It was easy for them to dehenhance the images in the police photography studio...

[Roch]

You're not winning me over here.  It's difficult to form an opinion without seeing details.

I wonder if Macdonell referred to her blood as wet or dry. 

Try this site.  It contains the docs plus a clear image of the vivid / enhanced / blow-up photo, to assist in understanding the point I made about the pools obscuring.

http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/bamber.php4

Regarding MacDonnell, his work is from the 90's I think.  He will therefore not have seen any batches of wet blood photos.  That seems to be the argument.  Perhaps Mike can give an opinion.

[Roch]

Of course he did'nt, he only had the same photographs that Jeremys solicitors had access to, which did not include any images displaying wet looking blood. Police hand picked the photographs they wanted to disclose. It was easy for them to dehenhance the images in the police photography studio...

Mike, what do you make of reply 47?  Is it worth a crack at (by you)?

[curiousessex]

Yes that's right, his statement is taken on 07/08/1985. I'm not sure I'm following you here.

Yes I agree, I don't believe the claims that her blood later becomes wet.

There is a reference to an officer describing her blood as running from her mouth, but I take that as a visual description rather than an assessment of the blood being wet or dry. I forget where that reference is now but I can dig it out if it becomes of further interest.

The photograph which appears to show wet blood, is actually a manipulated image and is a blown up, colour enhanced area of another photograph available at the original trial, i.e. I believe the wet appearance is due to the image being manipulated and recoloured rather than the blood actually being wet at the time of the photograph being taken.

Of course there was undoubtedly liquid blood retained in Sheilas mouth which could have spilled out if moved.

The Drs statement is dated 7th August 1985 and is the first statement from someone who is medically qualified to at least Dr level which provides details of the state of Sheila's blood resulting from her wounds.

As such in my opinion it must be considered as reliable and accurate as opposed to those statements which can be fogged by the passing of time. If the defence have never disputed the date of the Drs statement then, in my opinion, the Drs statement has to be considered of high value.

The Dr in his statement mentions one wound per person deceased.......... For me he appears to be consistent for all victims in effectively nominated a fatal wound with death by gun shot. The specific details for all wounds are later dealt with at the Post Mortem stage which followed.

As I see it the Dr appearing at WHF and certifying all deceased was required so things could move forward after all have been declared dead thus making WHF a crime scene. This he did within 10 minutes. The first (Nevill) being certified deceased at 8.40 am and the last (Nicholas) being certified deceased at 8.50 am.

I think it will be found the site of a fatal road traffic accident only becomes a crime scene after a person involved in that accident has been certified deceased by someone who is medically qualified to do / conduct such a certification.

[Patti]

Thank you for doing this for us Hartley.

I wish to comment on a few things from that document if I may.

The first thing I noticed was the fact the doctor knew Nevill Bamber.  He suggested that whoever killed him had rendered him incapable of fighting back, for he knew Nevill would have taken action.  This is significant, because for it suggests there was no fight in the kitchen which is assumed by many of Bamber's critics.

I am amazed that a doctor of 30 years of experience did not notice two wounds to Sheila's neck. On the photographs we have seen it is quite apparent. I am surprised the defence did nothing to tare that evidence apart.

So the doctor said as far as he could see, Jeremy was grief stricken, worried about his dog  and the murders were as suggested a murder/suicide.  He clearly states that Jeremy appeared like any one would appear after a death of a family member.....

[mike tesko]

The Drs statement is dated 7th August 1985 and is the first statement from someone who is medically qualified to at least Dr level which provides details of the state of Sheila's blood resulting from her wounds.

As such in my opinion it must be considered as reliable and accurate as opposed to those statements which can be fogged by the passing of time. If the defence have never disputed the date of the Drs statement then, in my opinion, the Drs statement has to be considered of high value.

The Dr in his statement mentions one wound per person deceased.......... For me he appears to be consistent for all victims in effectively nominated a fatal wound with death by gun shot. The specific details for all wounds are later dealt with at the Post Mortem stage which followed.

As I see it the Dr appearing at WHF and certifying all deceased was required so things could move forward after all have been declared dead thus making WHF a crime scene. This he did within 10 minutes. The first (Nevill) being certified deceased at 8.40 am and the last (Nicholas) being certified deceased at 8.50 am.

I think it will be found the site of a fatal road traffic accident only becomes a crime scene after a person involved in that accident has been certified deceased by someone who is medically qualified to do / conduct such a certification.

DR Craig makes a distinction in Sheila's case that he only saw one wound at that stage, something he did not say in any other case. This suggests in the clearest possible terms that Craig knew a second wound was inflicted later. Another thing, Several different versions of Dr Craigs witness statement exist dated 7th August 1985, so which version should we take note of?