How did Willie McRae die?
What would the post mortem examination uncover?
What would forensic analysis yield?
Only two official documents refer to the post mortem in any detail although two others mention it or a finding [the latter two can be read here and here].
The two which give detail are the first page of the Lord Advocate’s 1990 letter to Nicholas Fairbairn and Annex A (part of FOI response to Steven Semple). The relevant parts of each document are shown below: the letter first followed by Annex A.
These documents are full of observations, conclusions and more and so, in Table 1, I label key words in the order in which they appear as observations, reasoning, conclusions, view and fact.
What would the post mortem examination uncover?
What would forensic analysis yield?
Only two official documents refer to the post mortem in any detail although two others mention it or a finding [the latter two can be read here and here].
The two which give detail are the first page of the Lord Advocate’s 1990 letter to Nicholas Fairbairn and Annex A (part of FOI response to Steven Semple). The relevant parts of each document are shown below: the letter first followed by Annex A.
These documents are full of observations, conclusions and more and so, in Table 1, I label key words in the order in which they appear as observations, reasoning, conclusions, view and fact.
TABLE 1 – Observations, Reasoning, Conclusions, Fact and View
I debated with myself about the first three observations. Were they observations or facts? They were observed during the post mortem and so I leave them as observations.
The two observations listed in the Lord Advocate’s letter tell us nothing about whether McRae’s death was suicide or murder but they were the first to state that there was only one shot wound to the head and no other bullet injuries.
Interestingly there is nothing in Annex A which refers to either of these two points. Annex A talks about the ‘entrance wound’ in the singular implying that there was only one head wound.
There is nothing in Annex A about the presence or absence of bullet injuries elsewhere on his body. In fact, Annex A tells us nothing about McRae’s body other than his head wound. I assume the post mortem covered McRae’s whole body but we are not told.
There is no observation listed which supports the Lord Advocate’s conclusion – McRae died from a single gun shot wound to the head but I accept that the damage done by the bullet was sufficient to cause death.
The Lord Advocate’s second conclusion I’ll ignore because I’ll cover it off under Annex A.
Now let’s look in more detail at the four conclusions which come from Annex A.
suggestive of suicide
This is based upon the observation that the head wound was in the temple. And I don’t quibble with the conclusion: it is suggestive of suicide.
But that is all it is. It is suggestive of, but not definitive of, suicide.
typical of contact or near contact between the muzzle of the gun and skin
This conclusion comes from the observation, [t]he presence of much powder debris in the wound. Here I accept that this conclusion is definitive.
suggesting that there was no room for such spread to occur and that the muzzle was held firmly against the skin
This is based upon there being no evidence for the spread of powder around the wound entrance and this is definitive for the gun being held firmly against the skin. I have no problem here.
pathologist was of the view that the wound was self-inflicted
Later I’ll come back to the fact this was called a ‘view’ but for now let’s see on what this is based.
There are three indicators:
- position of head wound in temple
- powder debris driven into the wound
- no powder spread around the wound entrance
We need to be clear that although there are three indicators the second and third are related.
If a gun is held firmly against the head there will be powder debris in the wound AND there will not be powder spread around the entrance. These two together confirm that the gun was held firmly against the head. They tell us nothing about suicide or murder.
Therefore, we are down to two suicide indicators:
- temple wound
- gun held firmly against the head
These two are indicative , suggestive only. They are not definitive.
Of those who choose to commit suicide with a gun, the temple is one of the positions of choice.
Holding the gun against the head is also common.
And so I see how the pathologist has come to his view BUT a murderer could, if he chooses, hold his gun tightly against his victim’s head and shoot him in the temple.
Therefore, we have observations which are typical of suicide and atypical for murder – whatever our definitions of typical and atypical I don’t know.
The most we can glean from the post mortem information released is that McRae died from a gunshot wound to his temple with the gun held tightly against his head
I need to come back to ‘the pathologist was of the view that the wound was self-inflicted. '
Clearly we don’t know what words the pathologist used in his report but I find it incredible that the writer of Annex A chose to use such weak words as ‘was of the view’ as regards whether McRae’s death was suicide or not.
An expert witness who used such a phrase in court would be taken apart. The credibility of such a witness would be destroyed.
And this is what we are given!!
In the title I mention forensics. Other than the firearms analysis, nothing! There is nothing about powder debris on McRae’s hand, clothes, nothing about anything which might bring some enlightenment.
This is a case which is long on rumour and speculation and short on facts and as long as this remains the case the authorities can sit and claim that there is insufficient evidence for an inquiry.
This reminds me of the Probo Koala incident in which toxic waste produced by Trafigura was dumped in Abidjan in Côte d’Ivoire. I wrote extensively during 2010 and 2011 and there was a massive truth gap between what we knew about Trafigura and what they acknowledged publicly.
Here we have a truth gap and the refusal of the authorities to release information reinforces the gap.
Sometime those in authority are their own worst enemies.
The two observations listed in the Lord Advocate’s letter tell us nothing about whether McRae’s death was suicide or murder but they were the first to state that there was only one shot wound to the head and no other bullet injuries.
Interestingly there is nothing in Annex A which refers to either of these two points. Annex A talks about the ‘entrance wound’ in the singular implying that there was only one head wound.
There is nothing in Annex A about the presence or absence of bullet injuries elsewhere on his body. In fact, Annex A tells us nothing about McRae’s body other than his head wound. I assume the post mortem covered McRae’s whole body but we are not told.
There is no observation listed which supports the Lord Advocate’s conclusion – McRae died from a single gun shot wound to the head but I accept that the damage done by the bullet was sufficient to cause death.
The Lord Advocate’s second conclusion I’ll ignore because I’ll cover it off under Annex A.
Now let’s look in more detail at the four conclusions which come from Annex A.
suggestive of suicide
This is based upon the observation that the head wound was in the temple. And I don’t quibble with the conclusion: it is suggestive of suicide.
But that is all it is. It is suggestive of, but not definitive of, suicide.
typical of contact or near contact between the muzzle of the gun and skin
This conclusion comes from the observation, [t]he presence of much powder debris in the wound. Here I accept that this conclusion is definitive.
suggesting that there was no room for such spread to occur and that the muzzle was held firmly against the skin
This is based upon there being no evidence for the spread of powder around the wound entrance and this is definitive for the gun being held firmly against the skin. I have no problem here.
pathologist was of the view that the wound was self-inflicted
Later I’ll come back to the fact this was called a ‘view’ but for now let’s see on what this is based.
There are three indicators:
- position of head wound in temple
- powder debris driven into the wound
- no powder spread around the wound entrance
We need to be clear that although there are three indicators the second and third are related.
If a gun is held firmly against the head there will be powder debris in the wound AND there will not be powder spread around the entrance. These two together confirm that the gun was held firmly against the head. They tell us nothing about suicide or murder.
Therefore, we are down to two suicide indicators:
- temple wound
- gun held firmly against the head
These two are indicative , suggestive only. They are not definitive.
Of those who choose to commit suicide with a gun, the temple is one of the positions of choice.
Holding the gun against the head is also common.
And so I see how the pathologist has come to his view BUT a murderer could, if he chooses, hold his gun tightly against his victim’s head and shoot him in the temple.
Therefore, we have observations which are typical of suicide and atypical for murder – whatever our definitions of typical and atypical I don’t know.
The most we can glean from the post mortem information released is that McRae died from a gunshot wound to his temple with the gun held tightly against his head
I need to come back to ‘the pathologist was of the view that the wound was self-inflicted. '
Clearly we don’t know what words the pathologist used in his report but I find it incredible that the writer of Annex A chose to use such weak words as ‘was of the view’ as regards whether McRae’s death was suicide or not.
An expert witness who used such a phrase in court would be taken apart. The credibility of such a witness would be destroyed.
And this is what we are given!!
In the title I mention forensics. Other than the firearms analysis, nothing! There is nothing about powder debris on McRae’s hand, clothes, nothing about anything which might bring some enlightenment.
This is a case which is long on rumour and speculation and short on facts and as long as this remains the case the authorities can sit and claim that there is insufficient evidence for an inquiry.
This reminds me of the Probo Koala incident in which toxic waste produced by Trafigura was dumped in Abidjan in Côte d’Ivoire. I wrote extensively during 2010 and 2011 and there was a massive truth gap between what we knew about Trafigura and what they acknowledged publicly.
Here we have a truth gap and the refusal of the authorities to release information reinforces the gap.
Sometime those in authority are their own worst enemies.
[originally posted 16 February 2015]
__________________________________________________________________
If you have thoughts, or more, feel free to:
email me at calumsblogATgmailDOTcom or
tweet me at >@calumcarr
© CalumCarr 2015
__________________________________________________________________
COPYRIGHT
Copyright over this article is retained by me, CalumCarr.
Please feel free to reproduce extracts and images provided you attribute the words and images to me taking into account the provisos below.
If you wish to use more than one quarter of the article then contact me for permission at calumsblogATgmailDOTcom.