The evidence of Dr. Craig

[Erik Narramore]

Dr. Craig admitted that he did not undertake a close physical examination of the bodies.  For that reason alone, anything he says about the forensic medical aspects beyond simple declarations of death cannot be relied on.  He may well have told the court that the deaths were at any time during the night, but that is because he didn't have a clue, and the reason he didn't have a clue is that he did not go beyond the basic core duty on him: to declare clinical death, perhaps under the influence of CS Harris who told him that it was a murder-suicide.  For some reason, Dr. Craig did not question this and right up to his evidence at trial, he maintained his impression that Sheila had died by her own hand.

As an experienced police surgeon, Dr. Craig was a presumed expert in clinical forensic medicine, not forensic pathology - two different disciplines.  However, while the police surgeon was not a pathologist, he was expected to raise concerns, give advice and recommend a pathologist be brought in.  The bottom line is that, beyond declaring death, there would have been an expectation incumbent on Dr. Craig to highlight to Taff Jones any grounds for doubt about the murder-suicide conclusion, and if there were doubts, advise him to bring a pathologist on the scene.  We can't be sure what Dr. Craig said to officers at the scene.  He may in fact have expressed concerns, but it appears he didn't.

I must add that I have done some research of my own on Dr. Craig, and I can say that it appears he was a highly-respected police surgeon in 1985 who held the correct qualifications to undertake the role.

[Erik Narramore]

Yes, it is necessary, because any view he offers will be examined in court later and, given his training and qualifications, he will have understood this very well.

I do not say he was an expert of 'calibre'.  I merely say I have reason to believe he was highly-respected in forensic clinical medicine and I have verified that he held the required qualification.  Doesn't mean he was actually good at his job.

[Erik Narramore]

The allegation that Dr. Craig was an alcoholic has no support on its face and can be dismissed, albeit with the rider that it is relevant and we should be open to new evidence on the point.

The allegation comes from a former Blue Forum member with the screenname 'Grahameb'.  It's not that I think 'Grahameb' is lying, but:

(i). the notion of Dr. Craig as an alcoholic seems to be second-hand.  Grahameb is not vouching for it himself;

(ii). Grahameb was on Dr. Craig's local patient list, but confines his assessment of the good doctor to saying he was 'miserable'.

Where I do agree with you is that if Dr. Craig did have these sorts of personal issues in 1985, then it is relevant information.

am keeping an open mind on this point, for the following reasons.

First, I don't accept that it was necessarily incumbent on Dr. Craig to identify and particularise all wounds to the bodies found.  It is important to bear in mind that Dr. Craig's role was clinical forensic medicine, not forensic pathology.  In a complex crime scene such as this, it may be that Dr. Craig 'stood down' from his independent professional role somewhat and was inclined to defer to the police and their initial assessment of things.  It's easy to overlook that in complex incidents, there is a personal dynamic and personal/organisational 'politics' between professionals and experts that can affect how they go about their roles.

I can imagine a situation in which CS Harris told Dr. Craig that the police have decided it's murder-suicide and Dr. Craig accepted what he could see with his own eyes (Sheila with rifle on body) and he confined himself to his officious role of verifying clinical death and did not look behind the provisional detective judgement of police officers.

Yes, he should have looked behind it, but why should that worry the pro-innocent camp?  Why are you so concerned with painting Dr. Craig simplistically as an alcoholic?  How does that help the defence?  I'm unclear.  Even if he was an alcoholic, it doesn't follow he was incapable of carrying out his duties.  He was an experienced medical man and respected as a police surgeon, and he held the relevant qualification.  Also, have you considered the fact that he was carrying a whisky flask with him and what that may suggest?  Jane is quite right that it was common back then, but more to the point, an alcoholic would not normally do this.

However - and this slightly goes against my first point - there is a point in your favour, which is that by missing the second wound to Sheila's throat, Dr. Craig missed an opportunity to challenge the murder-suicide theory.  It is true that in his role as a forensic clinician qualified and experienced in medicine and practising as a rural Essex GP, Dr. Craig should have been expected to identify ballistic oddities that would be apparent to a trained medical observer (I must assume that's why Essex Police appointed him in the first place), and David is right that it was Dr. Craig's duty to say to Taff: "Hold on, there are two gunshot wounds here, you need a pathologist!"  If Taff had then refused, Dr. Craig could - and should - have overruled him and called in those resources himself.  That was part of the independent role Dr. Craig held.  I say all that while also recognising that the 'personal politics/dynamics' of these situations mean that it's not as simple as it looks to those of us who have the luxury of hindsight.

[Erik Narramore]

Grahame could be telling the absolute truth of what he has been told, but what he has been told may be exaggerated gossip.  Graham is not the one saying Dr. Craig was an alcoholic.  He is merely passing on what sounds like gossip, which may be substantiated or not.  Graham admits that he was a patient of Dr. Craig but does not report him as an alcoholic from personal experience, which weakens your case.

I also don't accept the deduction made that Dr. Craig is an alcoholic merely because he was carrying whisky.  The whisky is mentioned in Blood Relations, a book published in the early 1990s (page 18 of the first edition).  Jeremy asked for whisky and Dr. Craig went to his car and fetched some.  I doubt Roger Wilkes has got that right.  Probably more likely is that Dr. Craig took the initiative and offered him the whisky.  The salient points are that Jeremy being offered whisky was already common knowledge for anyone following the case in detail, and there was nothing unusual in a roaming medical doctor having whisky on him to offer to patients and family members.  Very common thing in the days when medical men went house calling and had to deal with all sorts.

I'm old enough to remember.  Those were different days.  Folk were less risk averse and behaviour was more human.  All manner of people, including professionals, used to drink in situations that would invite horror now.  I once knew a judge who took brandy in chambers between cases.  You have to judge situations and people's actions in their context.

However, none of this tells me Graham is wrong and I don't say that.  I'm certainly not suggesting he is lying.  I merely say that we lack conclusive evidence.

[Erik Narramore]

This was 1985.  People were still allowed to be human beings back then and give a young man in distress a drop of whisky.  This was in the days before hypochondriac control freakery took hold on society.