But he would not have had to look very far to see the other wounds on any of the bodies would he? Surely he could have said "one wound was between the eyes , and there were other shots?/ injuries " then declared them as being dead. He described other parts of the scene that were not necessary - so it seems very unprofessional to me.
Its sloppy statements like this that cause ambiguity . And although I can appreciate your point of view this combines with the police telling the relatives she died of one gun shot and then Sheila saying the same thing seems ridiculous. If they thought it was murder suicide and they all knew she died of two
shots then why not say so.
Also if he left at 9.50 why did the bodies go to the morgue until 3pm?
5 hours of taking photos? Lots of which we apparently have not seen?
The only ambiguity in the statement is in saying they died hours plural earlier. It would be nice if he stated the characteristics that lead to such conclusion such as rigor. He was able to be questioned at any time needed and to testify at trial if need be so didn't need more detail. His statement of them dying hours earlier doesn't leave the possibility open of Sheila dying as police entered at 7:30. If she died hours earlier as claimed then the possibility of police being the ones who moved her flat as she was still bleeding and to have opened and closed the bible is out the window.
Not wearching for every wound to document them is not ambiguous. It is the job of the coroner to locate and cocument all wounds and marks of any kind to he body and determine the cause of death. People can be shot and have died from something else. His job was to determine they were dead, recite the apparent cause of death if there was an apparent cause and to assess a tentative time of death if possible to aid those on the scene so they can at least have an idea of what evidence they should look for and try to collect. The scene work is prliminary the ME report is what is important for the overall case.
Years later you can try pretending a lot of things like that Craig was asserting each only had 1 wound. A proper investigator though if they truly believed such were a possibility would interview Craig and ask him. Was he asserting there was only asingle wound on each victim or did he merely decide to note only 1. I guarantee his answer woudl be he chose to note onyl 1 and most people realize that so would not even question him.
But this is the proper way an investigation down the road happens. You look for things and then you try to find further information about those things that you find concerning. It is totally improper to do what many do in thei case and others which is to try to pretend a statement means something it might not or worse something it clearly doesn't.
A good example of this is with Bonnet's call form. His form stated he received a message from PC West, he put PC West as the caller. It noted how West spoke to Nevill's son, and quoted what Nevill allegedly told his son. He also wrote down the phone number of WHF so that they could get the operator to try to break in. He recorded the call at 3:36AM. In his statement Bonnet made it clear PC West called him on an internal line and passed the message. He didn't claim to have spoken to Nevill. Some people chose to ignore his statement discussing PC West as transferring the message and also to ignore how on the form he detailed PC West as the caller and to instead concentrate on the quote and phone number to pretend it was evidence of a call from Nevill. This is no good for court, they woudl need to interview Bonnet and get an affidavit to submit to court where he claied to have received a call from Nevill. An investigator who wondered if such were possible woul dhave to interview him and then get an affidavit isf he said something favorable. But they alreayd had reaosn to know he would not support their revisionist account so never spoke to him. Instead they just twist the form ignoring his written statment about the events.
The same is tried with Craig's actual statement but his whole statement isn't posted because then it would be apparent he only noted 1 wound on each victim and the jig would be up.
I have no problem with investigations of convictions to make sure they are sound. I have a problem when evidence it twisted to try to pretend someone was wrongly convicted but there is no actual reliable evidence they were wrongly convicted.
When substantial evidence shows that Stanley Jones did not search the house for evidence but rather went to Goldahnger to spend most of the day interviewing witnesses, and there are no forms to indicate that Jones collected any physical evidence on the day in question only testimonial evidence then when someone makes an allegation he collected a moderator on the day in question it is not credible. When the claim is made that it was assigned designation SJ/1 but no documentary evidence is offered to prove anything with such designation was collected it is all the more reason not to believe it. SJ is not the prefix assigned to his exhibits in cases SBJ was the prefix assigned to him. So the claim is not supported by any proof and is not credible for a variety of reasons. then to make matters worse the allegation was made it was changed to DB-1 though there is no plausible reaosn why it would be changed to such and in fact there is reliable proof that the suppressor foundby Botflour was changed to this and it was because he found it so that is why it was changed to reflect his initials.
There are cases with demonstrated wrongdoings by police, prosecutors, witnesses and even cases without wrongdoing where innocent people were convicted. There simply is no evidence that is the case here. Some people seem not content that there is a lack of evidence of his innocence or any evidence of wrongdoing and want to invent it.
They look through statements like this for anything they can manipulate for their purposes. Such manipulation will never help an appeal court to free him it will at best convince some members of the public to argue on his behalf that he is innocent but won't work on most.
.
