Times of death

[Lugg]

I have linked to Dr. Craig's statement just for an example of certification of death of each of the victims. This one being that of poor June Bamber. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
My question if Jeremy was charged with and convicted of murder why therefore was not the death of each person recorded more accurately. Because if the death of each person was recorded after 8 am then logically Jeremy could not be found guilty of the murders as he was with the police at that time?
Now the obvious answer of course is that the Doctor recorded all the deaths at the same time because that was when he examined them.
But sorry. But that is not good enough. Because it should be within every doctor's capabilities to estimate the times of death with a modicum of accuracy. Also it is evident that Sheila Caffell was killed last of all. Yet he still recorded the time of death as being around 8.44am.
If therefore the court heard the times of death then by default they should have found Jeremy not guilty. For they had nothing else but the doctor's statement to go by. So it was completely out of order for the court to state that all had been killed befor 3am to 3.30am as the doctor had already recorded a time of death as being after 8am.

[tyler]

The potassium level in the eye increases substantially after death,creating a clear jelly-like substance in the eye socket known as vitreous humour. Biochemical testing of this substance can provide a fairly reliable estimate for the time of death.

[lookout]

The potassium level in the eye increases substantially after death,creating a clear jelly-like substance in the eye socket known as vitreous humour. Biochemical testing of this substance can provide a fairly reliable estimate for the time of death.

That,and a rectal thermometer,tyler. Both methods should have been carried out.
As Lugg says,,if their deaths weren't registered until later,,then it goes without saying that it could be taken as the times of deaths. As it stood in court,,it wasn't acceptable and gave rise for all the speculation that's been around all these years. Appalling,,I'd say,,and no excuse not to have been done properly given the enormity of the case,,and the one man it rested on.

[nugnug]

when you consider he had 5 bodys not just one he should of been able to get an accurate time.

[lookout]

when you consider he had 5 bodys not just one he should of been able to get an accurate time.

Of course he could,nugs,,easily.That was his job after all. I think it's disgusting and has always been a bone of contention with me,,personally.

[Lugg]

I'll give you one reason. He was my doctor. He was old fashioned, lazy and a bad doctor. He misdiagnosed both my daughter and eldest son. In fact when she was two years old my daughter nearly died because of his misdiagnosis. If it was not for my own initiative in rushing her to St. Johns child unit at 2 in the morning she would have died. I disliked him intensely.

[lookout]

I'll give you one reason. He was my doctor. He was old fashioned, lazy and a bad doctor. He misdiagnosed both my daughter and eldest son. In fact when she was two years old my daughter nearly died because of his misdiagnosis. If it was not for my own initiative in rushing her to St. Johns child unit at 2 in the morning she would have died. I disliked him intensely.

That's dreadful,,Lugg. His actions,,or lack of them,speak for themselves then. There's nothing like knowing them personally to form your own opinion.
I imagine the rest of the " clan " who supposedly investigated the crime,,were of the same mentality.

[lookout]

I'm sick and tired of hearing about some of these characters who are held in high esteem. They're rogues. Take Professor Sir Roy Meadow,,the childrens' welfare specialist/paediatrician,,who was responsible for sending innocent women to prison,who he thought had abused murdered their children in some way,,until it was found that the babies/children had died either naturally,or of an underlying illness.
What a hateful character he was who indirectly was the cause of Sally Clarks' death. I felt very strongly about that case,,that neither her,nor her husband had anything to do with the deaths of their sons.
I wrote my disgust about that case years ago when the poor woman was sentenced.

[Jane]

I'll give you one reason. He was my doctor. He was old fashioned, lazy and a bad doctor. He misdiagnosed both my daughter and eldest son. In fact when she was two years old my daughter nearly died because of his misdiagnosis. If it was not for my own initiative in rushing her to St. Johns child unit at 2 in the morning she would have died. I disliked him intensely.

If Jeremy had had ANYONE on his side, the good doctor's findings may have been challenged. Why would his rellies have challenged them when what he said worked in their favour?

[Lugg]

If Jeremy had had ANYONE on his side, the good doctor's findings may have been challenged. Why would his rellies have challenged them when what he said worked in their favour?

I don't know why counsel didn't challenge the doctor on the times of death? If his estimated times of death was past 8am then Jeremy would have had to be found not guilty by default.

[tyler]

But isn't 'pronouncing' someone as dead different from 'estimating' their time of death?

[Jane]

But isn't 'pronouncing' someone as dead different from 'estimating' their time of death?

Entirely, Tyler.

[lookout]

I don't know why counsel didn't challenge the doctor on the times of death? If his estimated times of death was past 8am then Jeremy would have had to be found not guilty by default.

That on it's own wouldn't be acceptable today in court. It would be like a judge asking what time of death,and someone muttering " erm,,,I don't know,, your honour." Do you think that would be challenged nowadays.? Insufficient evidence.
I think it's the most important factor in any case of murder,especially this one. The time of death,,for Gods' sake. In the days of hanging,,it would have saved some poor sod from the gallows.

[Jane]

I don't know why counsel didn't challenge the doctor on the times of death? If his estimated times of death was past 8am then Jeremy would have had to be found not guilty by default.

Why did they not challenge? Let me count the reasons )'scuse the paraphrase( !. They were incompetent  2. They didn't think it was necessary.  3. They assumed that whatever was said re timing to be correct.  4. Certain policies were adhered to following consultation/discussion with the other side.    Please feel free to add any more you can think of.

[Caroline R]

I'll give you one reason. He was my doctor. He was old fashioned, lazy and a bad doctor. He misdiagnosed both my daughter and eldest son. In fact when she was two years old my daughter nearly died because of his misdiagnosis. If it was not for my own initiative in rushing her to St. Johns child unit at 2 in the morning she would have died. I disliked him intensely.

Terrible!! In many cases doctors seem to act as pharmacists rather than doctors. They don't take the time to investigate an illness or condition properly and palm people off with a prescription. My mums aunt went to her GP with a sore throat - I can understand him initially prescribing antibiotics but when it continued for over a year and he was STILL prescribing them in various forms - she asked to see a specialist. She died within six months from throat cancer which might have been operable if this idiot took the time to make a proper diagnosis!!