Once again you are cherry picking Dr Craig's words in order to deny Jeremy has an alibi. Shame on you.
Lets take a close look.
"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."
Dr. Ian Craig ws 12/11/86
I could ask you again. How Dr Craig only noticed one gunshot wound and failed to noticed the other less than 2 inches away in plain sight. But i wont. Because you know the answer to this. But you can't post a straight answer without admitting that Dr Craig was paying no attention to the obvious manifestations of Sheila's body. Rendering his opinion on the time of death untrustworthy. Not like his own admittance above is not enough.
To cherry pick Dr Craig's words in the manner that you are is reckless and thoroughly unscientific.
I'm watching you.
If JB had a reliable alibi he wouldn't have been convicted in the first place let alone remain incarcerated to this very day. The fact that you believe you can see something that the medical professionals involved in the case overlooked isn't evidence of a reliable alibi.
I suggest you take a look at Chief Sup Harris' WS. He states arrangements were made for Dr Craig to attend to certify deaths. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that it was not for Dr Craig to interfere with the victims or soc before all necessary soc photos had been taken. Chief Sup Harris also states he briefed Dr Craig before he entered WHF. It appears most of those who first observed SC only noted 1 gsw. Hardly suprising when you consider most in the UK don't have access to firearms and therefore rates of suicide by firearms are low and even lower for multiple gsw's. The mind will make assumptions and often override what the eyes see. I have pointed out to you previously SC's neck was bloody and her gsw's measured 3/16" and 1/4" in diameter so easily missed for someone not tasked with carrying out a detailed examination. You on the other hand would have us believe that noticeable differences exist between SC and June in terms of lividity present over large areas of exposed body. At the time of WHF Dr Craig had 30 years experience as a police surgeon. I believe this was a combined role acting as a local GP. How many deaths due you think Dr Craig had observed over 30 odd years involving non gsw's v gsw's? More than enough deaths from all causes that he was able to draw any conclusions about lividity. Even if some differences existed it means squat as there are so many factors that affect the onset of lividity.
So lets get this straight police surgeon Dr Craig with 30 years experience fails to notice at soc what you claim is evident in terms of a noticeable difference in lividity between soc photos of SC and June. None of the raid team or first respondents noticed any difference including the police photographer. Dr Vanezis who carried out the autopsies and had access to soc photos also fails to notice any difference along with Prof Knight who had access to all relevant material and soc photos. Is this it? Have I understood you correctly David?
Cherry picking would mean there are aspects of Dr Craig's testimony that I reject or ignore whilst playing up other aspects which isn't true. I see him as a competent and reliable expert witness.
The shame is with you and most other JB supporters: Mike, Lookout and CT all of whom are devoid of critical thinking skills.
