SC's Palms and Fingers

[Holly Goodhead]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9173.msg431364.html?PHPSESSID=2qg62bui5t6e94m05lrdj62391#msg431364

Where Caroline refers to "beauty products" I'm assuming she is referring to cleansers, moisturisers etc many of which contain copper and zinc.  This is how common these chemicals are in everyday items so trying to connect them with the cartridges is imo futile. 

[david1819]

I've no idea what you hope to achieve by poring over this?  As far as I can see the only way to advance it is by carrying out new tests:

I am not trying to advance anything. I am simply trying to interpret the evidence available.

How do you believe the lead, Iron and copper got on Sheila's hands that night? And don't say well it could be this or that or chocolate. Sheila must done or engaged in some task using inanimate objects containing those elements. What do you believe that was?

-Swab hands
-If lead present remove with lead removal product
-Swab again to check all lead removed and keep repeating until all lead removed ie clear lead free swab
-Load cartridges into mag 26 times
-Swab hands and check for lead levels
-If no lead present or same levels of lead as SC's swabs = probably indicative of her loading cartridges
-If more lead then we're back to ritual washing or considering JB might be guilty!  

No. Just that she didn't load the weapon shortly before her death. Since Venezis never gave a time of death Rivlin could have made such argument in court whether you believe its true or not.

Just like he could have argued Neville made the phone call before rushing upstairs hearing Sheila shooting June. Nevill entered the bedroom and got shot. There was nothing to preclude that argument either.

Sometimes I think Rivlin was deliberately making life easier for his fellow prosecutor.

[Holly Goodhead]

I am not trying to advance anything. I am simply trying to interpret the evidence available.

How do you believe the lead, Iron and copper got on Sheila's hands that night? And don't say well it could be this or that or chocolate. Sheila must done or engaged in some task using inanimate objects containing those elements. What do you believe that was?

I'm just reading one of JB's letters about the matter.  He states he has both graphs in front of him which for SC he refers to as 3314.  He states shows raised levels of zinc, copper, bromine and low levels of lead.  For the male member of staff he refers to graph 3285 showing raised levels of calcium, zinc, copper, bromine and a raised level of lead.

I know Elliot used gamma rays to detect and measure lead.  How were the other chemicals detected and measured?  Do these tests identify all chemicals present on the hand swabs or just the chemicals picked up by whatever method they used to detect and measure the other chemicals?

I've only see the quantities for lead but these were negligible and could just be from touching that old paintwork in WHF eg pushing open doors.  Or old items in existence from an age when lead was used in many products.  Don't ask me exactly what coz I don't know but WHF looks like it contained lots of old tat.  Lead on hands from scientist could come from filling up car with leaded petrol.  I've already said copper and zinc are everywhere: atmosphere, everday items, food stuff, body and will present on skin as sweat.  Check it out for yourself.

Can't you just accept Elliot and Fletcher were not forensic scientists as we know them today.  At best they were guys with a science degree.  You will recall Fletcher's intro to the court: "small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a boy", and we know high profile quality failings prevailed at FSS during the 80's.  Need I say more!?  These hand swab test results are meaningless and the jury were misled for sure.  In the same way they were misled when Fletcher said it was "virtually certain" SC's gsw's would result in drawback.   

No. Just that she didn't load the weapon shortly before her death. Since Venezis never gave a time of death Rivlin could have made such argument in court whether you believe its true or not.

You've lost me!?  DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands during the afternoon of 7th Aug at PM.  The chemicals clearly still present on the swab so I don't see how tod or when SC loaded rifle impacts?  If indeed SC did load rifle!

Just like he could have argued Neville made the phone call before rushing upstairs hearing Sheila shooting June. Nevill entered the bedroom and got shot. There was nothing to preclude that argument either.

Sometimes I think Rivlin was deliberately making life easier for his fellow prosecutor.

It's hardly surprising it went the way it did with the numpty scientists from FSS, Elliot and Fletcher in particular, and the lawyers. 

[david1819]

I'm just reading one of JB's letters about the matter.  He states he has both graphs in front of him which for SC he refers to as 3314.  He states shows raised levels of zinc, copper, bromine and low levels of lead.  For the male member of staff he refers to graph 3285 showing raised levels of calcium, zinc, copper, bromine and a raised level of lead.

I know Elliot used gamma rays to detect and measure lead.  How were the other chemicals detected and measured?  Do these tests identify all chemicals present on the hand swabs or just the chemicals picked up by whatever method they used to detect and measure the other chemicals?

The machine will pick up on most metals in the period table such as gold, mercury, silver and everything else you see on the charts.  The machines have detection limitations. If the composition is too low the elements will not be picked up on.

I've only see the quantities for lead but these were negligible and could just be from touching that old paintwork in WHF eg pushing open doors.  Or old items in existence from an age when lead was used in many products.  Don't ask me exactly what coz I don't know but WHF looks like it contained lots of old tat.  Lead on hands from scientist could come from filling up car with leaded petrol.  I've already said copper and zinc are everywhere: atmosphere, everday items, food stuff, body and will present on skin as sweat.  Check it out for yourself.

XRF tests will not pick up on copper or lead in sweat or the body. In order to find the composition of sweat scientists have to put subjects in full body bags and have them exercise for long periods of time. Like chocolate your going to need a lot of sweat to finds its composition.


Can you please answer my question?

You've lost me!?  DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands during the afternoon of 7th Aug at PM.  The chemicals clearly still present on the swab so I don't see how tod or when SC loaded rifle impacts?  If indeed SC did load rifle!

Seriously? Ive discussed this with you several times already. Detectible lead particles dont stay on the hands for very long. Unless the person is dead! Try reading the stuff I post. You can go on about lead and copper in skin, sweat and chocolate all you like but those are not detectible with a hand swab. The composition is FAR too low.  Read what Brian Elliot writes in his conclusions.

[david1819]

Can't you just accept Elliot and Fletcher were not forensic scientists as we know them today.  At best they were guys with a science degree.  You will recall Fletcher's intro to the court: "small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a boy", and we know high profile quality failings prevailed at FSS during the 80's.  Need I say more!?  These hand swab test results are meaningless and the jury were misled for sure.  In the same way they were misled when Fletcher said it was "virtually certain" SC's gsw's would result in drawback.   

Brian Elliot is not Malcom Fletcher and Malcom Fletcher is not Brian Elliot.

Here is Brian Elliot's CV from 2007. He was not just a "guy with a science degree"

[Holly Goodhead]

Brian Elliot is not Malcom Fletcher and Malcom Fletcher is not Brian Elliot.

Here is Brian Elliot's CV from 2007. He was not just a "guy with a science degree"

It's exactly as I said a guy with a science degree. There's no evidence he had any academic qualifications or training in forensic science.

Even I would know that if you wanted to compare SC's swabs with swabs taken from testees after loading mag you would need to take control swabs from testees hands prior to the test being carried out as washing alone is insufficient to remove all trace elements.  A so-called scientist that makes such a simple error over such an important matter is not to be relied upon IMO. 

I've pointed out to you that this test doesn't feature in VDM's book or any other forensic science text book. Nor does it feature as an available test/service with UK providers of forensic science services.  Why?  Because the test has no forensic scientific basis to it.  You're trying to make sense out of something that's senseless and in the fullness of time I'm sure you will come to appreciate this.

[Holly Goodhead]

The machine will pick up on most metals in the period table such as gold, mercury, silver and everything else you see on the charts.  The machines have detection limitations. If the composition is too low the elements will not be picked up on.

XRF tests will not pick up on copper or lead in sweat or the body. In order to find the composition of sweat scientists have to put subjects in full body bags and have them exercise for long periods of time. Like chocolate your going to need a lot of sweat to finds its composition.

Can you please answer my question?

Please allow Dr Lloyd to answer on my behalf:

218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Seriously? Ive discussed this with you several times already. Detectible lead particles dont stay on the hands for very long. Unless the person is dead! Try reading the stuff I post. You can go on about lead and copper in skin, sweat and chocolate all you like but those are not detectible with a hand swab. The composition is FAR too low.  Read what Brian Elliot writes in his conclusions.

Likewise

The following is in the link I provided here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg444167#msg444167

Use an effective lead removal product to clean your hands. Washing skin with standard soap and water is not enough to remove lead residues.

Lets be clear what we're talking about here: the test results revolve around whether or not the levels of lead detected on the swabs indicate whether or not SC handled the cartridges.  Other chemicals presented on the graph eg copper etc are a sideshow. 

I must say Brian Elliot's conclusions are presented very professionally NOT.  Am I supposed to be impressed with this scrap of paper where he appears to have difficulty constructing a single sentence?  You will note above Dr Lloyd produced a report.

[Holly Goodhead]

Please allow Dr Lloyd to answer on my behalf:

218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Likewise

The following is in the link I provided here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg444167#msg444167

Use an effective lead removal product to clean your hands. Washing skin with standard soap and water is not enough to remove lead residues.

Lets be clear what we're talking about here: the test results revolve around whether or not the levels of lead detected on the swabs indicate whether or not SC handled the cartridges.  Other chemicals presented on the graph eg copper etc are a sideshow. 

I must say Brian Elliot's conclusions are presented very professionally NOT.  Am I supposed to be impressed with this scrap of paper where he appears to have difficulty constructing a single sentence?  You will note above Dr Lloyd produced a report.

And he wasn't alone, was he!  What better endorsement than parliament!

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

[david1819]

I must say Brian Elliot's conclusions are presented very professionally NOT.  Am I supposed to be impressed with this scrap of paper where he appears to have difficulty constructing a single sentence?  You will note above Dr Lloyd produced a report.

They are lab notes and the far right of the page has not been scanned. It does not really matter how his hand writing looks. Its what is written that is important.

"These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death."

The prosecution misrepresented this as. Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine period. Once you look at the primary source (Elliots Notes) you will find they are not incriminating at all.

I do not know if these notes were avalaible at trial or not. But it would have been so simple to cross examine BE on the them.

Here is what could have transpired. I have used capital letters to represent hypothetical time.


Q: Mr Elliot. These are your lab notes on the experiment. Correct?

A: Correct.

Q: In your own words you arrived at the conclusion that Sheila is "unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death"

A: That is what I wrote yes.

Q: What period of time do you mean by shortly?

A: Anywhere between X amount of time and Y amount of time. 

Q: So based on your findings Sheila may well have loaded the weapon at A o'clock and taken her own life at say B o'clock?

A: Yes.

Q: And would it not be very misleading and factualy incorrect Mr Elliot to say as the prosecution claim that Sheila is unlikley to have loading the gun to any extent that night?

A: That is correct.


Done.

Whether you agree with Brian Elliot or not, his evidence could easily have been dealt with.

[Holly Goodhead]

They are lab notes and the far right of the page has not been scanned. It does not really matter how his hand writing looks. Its what is written that is important.

"These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death."

The prosecution misrepresented this as. Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine period. Once you look at the primary source (Elliots Notes) you will find they are not incriminating at all.

I do not know if these notes were avalaible at trial or not. But it would have been so simple to cross examine BE on the them.

Here is what could have transpired. I have used capital letters to represent hypothetical time.


Q: Mr Elliot. These are your lab notes on the experiment. Correct?

A: Correct.

Q: In your own words you arrived at the conclusion that Sheila is "unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death"

A: That is what I wrote yes.

Q: What period of time do you mean by shortly?

A: Anywhere between X amount of time and Y amount of time. 

Q: So based on your findings Sheila may well have loaded the weapon at A o'clock and taken her own life at say B o'clock?

A: Yes.

Q: And would it not be very misleading and factualy incorrect Mr Elliot to say as the prosecution claim that Sheila is unlikley to have loading the gun to any extent that night?

A: That is correct.


Done.

Whether you agree with Brian Elliot or not, his evidence could easily have been dealt with.

Nothing to do with handwriting.  I was basing my criticism of his notes on the fact he seemed to struggle to construct a single sentence based on the crossing out and amendments.  Have you got the rest of the doc or Elliot's trial testimony and/or any other docs relating to his evidence?  Elliot was responsible for analysing the windows too I think? 

I think you're reading too much into "shortly before her death" because it fits with your view that SC took her life much later than the other victims ie potentially there was a lengthy delay between SC last loading the rifle/handling cartridges and taking her own life, not a view I share I hasten to add in terms of SC taking her life later. 

There's a reason such a test (handling cartridges) doesn't feature in forensic text books and/or is not offered as a test/service by forensic scientists in private practice and it's because such a test can never be carried out on a scientific basis.  A half decent defence would kill it dead before it got off the starting block.

Elliot's flawed trial testimony re levels of lead on hands was very harmful to JB and likely to be the sort of thing that would resonate with jurors.  Along with Fletcher's claims of black discolouration.  Chipping away in the minds of jurors. 

The expert evidence at trial was that SC was either murdered or took her own life around the same time the other victims lost their lives circa 3.30am.  Yes I support Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight in this regard and I find your RM/LM images very unconvincing.   

[ActualMat]

They are lab notes and the far right of the page has not been scanned. It does not really matter how his hand writing looks. Its what is written that is important.

"These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death."

The prosecution misrepresented this as. Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine period. Once you look at the primary source (Elliots Notes) you will find they are not incriminating at all.

I do not know if these notes were avalaible at trial or not. But it would have been so simple to cross examine BE on the them.

Here is what could have transpired. I have used capital letters to represent hypothetical time.


Q: Mr Elliot. These are your lab notes on the experiment. Correct?

A: Correct.

Q: In your own words you arrived at the conclusion that Sheila is "unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death"

A: That is what I wrote yes.

Q: What period of time do you mean by shortly?

A: Anywhere between X amount of time and Y amount of time. 

Q: So based on your findings Sheila may well have loaded the weapon at A o'clock and taken her own life at say B o'clock?

A: Yes.

Q: And would it not be very misleading and factualy incorrect Mr Elliot to say as the prosecution claim that Sheila is unlikley to have loading the gun to any extent that night?

A: That is correct.


Done.

Whether you agree with Brian Elliot or not, his evidence could easily have been dealt with.

I give it a few months until someone quotes the bits in bold by DDavid and quote it as trial testimony.

[david1819]

The expert evidence at trial was that SC was either murdered or took her own life around the same time the other victims lost their lives circa 3.30am.  Yes I support Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight in this regard and I find your RM/LM images very unconvincing.   

You support Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight in what?

Did Vanezis give a time of death? No

Did Prof Knight give a time of death? No

Is Dr Craig a pathologist? No

Did Dr Craig carry out an examination of the bodies? No

Did police ask Dr Craig to establish a TOD? No

Do you have any good reason to believe Sheila died around 3.30am? No

Are you trying to create a false impression that Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight disagree on a late TOD? Yes

Are you trying to create a false impression that Dr Craig was in the eligible position to give an accurate TOD? Yes

Is it a double standard to critisize Brian Elliots expert capacity and then find every excuse under the sun for Dr Craig? Yes.

[Holly Goodhead]

You support Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight in what?

Did Vanezis give a time of death? No

Did Prof Knight give a time of death? No

Is Dr Craig a pathologist? No

Did Dr Craig carry out an examination of the bodies? No

Did police ask Dr Craig to establish a TOD? No

Do you have any good reason to believe Sheila died around 3.30am? No

Are you trying to create a false impression that Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight disagree on a late TOD? Yes

Are you trying to create a false impression that Dr Craig was in the eligible position to give an accurate TOD? Yes

Is it a double standard to critisize Brian Elliots expert capacity and then find every excuse under the sun for Dr Craig? Yes.

  
I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions it is impossible to provide an exact time of death so why would anyone attempt to do so?  Perhaps you would prefer the doctors cobbled together something like Elliot with the handswabs or Fletcher with his "virtually certain" drawback?

Dr Craig said the following and I've no reason to believe otherwise:

38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.

I also have confidence in Chief Sup Harris.  Had SC's state in terms of Lividity/Rigmor Mortis  appeared different to other victims I've no doubt he would have observed such and noted in his wit stat but he didn't.  You don't get to rise thru the ranks to Chief Sup if you're a  numpty.  Prior to WHF he had presided over some 60 murders.  Remember also Dr Craig was president of police surgeons association.  Both men were hugely experienced along with Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight.  The medi people well qualified by way of formal qualifications and on the job training.  Of course medi people are capable of calling it wrong eg Sir Roy Meadows and perpetuating  acts of pure evil eg Dr Shipman but in this case we would have to say Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight all overlooked what you think you can see and I just don't buy it.

Difference between Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and the likes of Elliot and Fletcher is that they were all well qualified and trained in their respective fields.  The likes of Elliot (and Fletcher whose qualifications are unclear) is that they were not forensic scientists as we know them today just guys with science degrees attempting to apply such to the criminal justice system ie forensic science.  They were allowed to do so unfettered as the lawyers were out of their depth with such a soc.  The lawyers should have sought experts from US familiar with mass shootings and gun crime.  

[david1819]

 
I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions it is impossible to provide an exact time of death so why would anyone attempt to do so?  Perhaps you would prefer the doctors cobbled together something like Elliot with the handswabs or Fletcher with his "virtually certain" drawback?

Dr Craig said the following and I've no reason to believe otherwise:

38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.

I also have confidence in Chief Sup Harris.  Had SC's state in terms of Lividity/Rigmor Mortis  appeared different to other victims I've no doubt he would have observed such and noted in his wit stat but he didn't.  You don't get to rise thru the ranks to Chief Sup if you're a  numpty.  Prior to WHF he had presided over some 60 murders.  Remember also Dr Craig was president of police surgeons association.  Both men were hugely experienced along with Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight.  The medi people well qualified by way of formal qualifications and on the job training.  Of course medi people are capable of calling it wrong eg Sir Roy Meadows and perpetuating  acts of pure evil eg Dr Shipman but in this case we would have to say Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight all overlooked what you think you can see and I just don't buy it.

Difference between Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and the likes of Elliot and Fletcher is that they were all well qualified and trained in their respective fields.  The likes of Elliot (and Fletcher whose qualifications are unclear) is that they were not forensic scientists as we know them today just guys with science degrees attempting to apply such to the criminal justice system ie forensic science.  They were allowed to do so unfettered as the lawyers were out of their depth with such a soc.  The lawyers should have sought experts from US familiar with mass shootings and gun crime. 

How can Dr Craig give a time frame when he did not examine the body? He does not elaborate on what he means by "previous night" This enables you to frame the statement into any timeframe that suits your argument.

Furthermore Prof Knight does say that there can be hours of delay between the murders and the suicide. And that "typical activities" and "mundane tasks" are done by the killer hours after the murders. But you wont listen to Prof Knight when it comes to this. Why?

I wont use Knights claims of a delay to support my argument regardless because I think his trial testimony was very harmful to JB and Knight made a total idiot of himself.


Alridge QC:  You see, what you say is this it is headed, this particular section
     "Accident, Suicide or Murder? certain elementary observations can give
      immediate answers in some cases. The absense of a weapon at the scene
      of a shooting naturally excludes suicide" -- So that if there is not
      a weapon there, then it cannot be suicide?

Numpty Knight:  Well Agatha Christie used this in a plot once.

Arlidge QC:  I see, so even that is possible is it?

Numpty Knight:  Well, yes.



Arlidge QC: "Several other useful pointers exist in suicide by shooting. One general
     principle is" and this is where you have italicised it "a shot woman is
    a murdered woman until proven otherwise"

Numpty Knight:  Yes.



Knight then goes on to say that "anything is possible in forensics". Which more or less defeats the whole object of what forensics is for.

It would not surprise me if Robert Boutflour borrowed a book from his local library shorty after the tragedy. The book was  Accident, Suicide or Murder? by Bernard Knight. As soon as he read the words "One general
principle is a shot woman is a murdered woman until proven otherwise" JBs fate was sealed.

[Holly Goodhead]

How can Dr Craig give a time frame when he did not examine the body? He does not elaborate on what he means by "previous night" This enables you to frame the statement into any timeframe that suits your argument.

Furthermore Prof Knight does say that there can be hours of delay between the murders and the suicide. And that "typical activities" and "mundane tasks" are done by the killer hours after the murders. But you wont listen to Prof Knight when it comes to this. Why?

I wont use Knights claims of a delay to support my argument regardless because I think his trial testimony was very harmful to JB and Knight made a total idiot of himself.


Alridge QC:  You see, what you say is this it is headed, this particular section
     "Accident, Suicide or Murder? certain elementary observations can give
      immediate answers in some cases. The absense of a weapon at the scene
      of a shooting naturally excludes suicide" -- So that if there is not
      a weapon there, then it cannot be suicide?

Numpty Knight:  Well Agatha Christie used this in a plot once.

Arlidge QC:  I see, so even that is possible is it?

Numpty Knight:  Well, yes.



Arlidge QC: "Several other useful pointers exist in suicide by shooting. One general
     principle is" and this is where you have italicised it "a shot woman is
    a murdered woman until proven otherwise"

Numpty Knight:  Yes.



Knight then goes on to say that "anything is possible in forensics". Which more or less defeats the whole object of what forensics is for.

It would not surprise me if Robert Boutflour borrowed a book from his local library shorty after the tragedy. The book was  Accident, Suicide or Murder? by Bernard Knight. As soon as he read the words "One general
principle is a shot woman is a murdered woman until proven otherwise" JBs fate was sealed.

You believe SC took her own life much later than the other victims were murdered due to differences in physical appearance ie lividity/rigor mortis?  If this is so how come no one else observed what you think you can see?  Not only a medi doctor but numerous police officers one of whom had presided over some 60 murder investigations ie observed lots of dead bodies. 

Was Dr Craig criticised for his role by judge or in the Dickenson report?

From Prof Knight:

The time of death is sometimes extremely important. It is a question almost invariably asked by police officers, sometimes with a touching faith in the accuracy of the estimate. Determining the time of death is extremely difficult, and accuracy is impossible.

-Bernard Knight, Legal Aspects of Medical Practice, 4th edition, 1987, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh page 115

You seem to think a physician can walk into a soc like WHF and say X died at 3.49.20 when it's impossible to do so.

Prof Knight CV:

https://www.uc.pt/fmuc/DocumentosHomepage/2009/Maio/CVKnight

V

Malcom Fletcher - "Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a boy"

I rest my case.

And don't bother attempting to contact Prof Knight as I beat you to it over a year ago.