Disastrous Disgraced pathologist Michael Heath has a long history of inadequate investigations and testimony. He made a complete mess of the case against a teenage agriculture student from Kent. If ever an example were needed of the need for an integrated approach to various forensic science disciplines, Neil Sayers' case was it. It was a very complicated investigation as a maggot-infested, partially burned and mutilated body was discovered several days after Sayers' friend and fellow student Russell Crookes went missing in May 1998. Obviously, forensic science offered the best prospect of unravelling the mystery, but Heath's conduct robbed it of the opportunity to do so when it mattered most.
Sayers is either a liar and a vicious killer, or a very wronged young man. Various scientific investigations ought to have been conducted during 1998. The police chose not to. That was their right. They had a confession from Sayers' co-accused, Graham Wallis, but this wasn't really a confession; it was an accusation. Wallis blamed Sayers for virtually everything, but the facts were also consistent with another explanation.
Wallis had acted alone and then, knowing what had happened, inserted Sayers into his confession to cut a better deal for himself. Forensic science could have resolved many issues in this case over a decade ago, but it wasn't given the opportunity it deserved by the police, prosecution or even Sayers' defence. Despite great difficulties, it still can, although it is far harder than it could have been and now it will cost a great deal more than if it had been investigated adequately as it should have been in 1998.
Extensive Error-Strewn Pathology Heath had the best opportunity to establish the pathology evidence. He conducted the first post-mortem examination and claimed that the body of Russell Crookes had suffered extensive fire-damage. Extensive compared to what? Examination of the evidence leaves only one conclusion. Heath was completely wrong. Body fat had not even been rendered into the fire, which would have fuelled it and the dissection conducted by Heath proved that far from suffering extensive fire-damage, flesh was red raw.
This showed that the temperature reached inside the body was not even high enough to allow the body fat to drip into the fire – hardly consistent with a blaze that caused extensive fire-damage. A competent pathologist ought to have recognised both this and that the fire-damage varied throughout the body. There was surface damage consistent with the wick-effect (clothing acts as a wick that raised the temperature in the areas under the clothing and resulted in greater damage), but Heath's inadequate explanations proved disastrous.
Consequences Plainly, the body had not suffered extensive fire-damage, but these issues should have been raised by Sayers' pathologist, Peter Jerreat as well. He could have advised Sayers' solicitor to initiate scientific investigations. He failed to recommend consulting a forensic entomologist. He failed to collect his own maggots from his examination of the body. He also failed to recommend that a forensic fire expert be consulted.
The failures of the pathologists, especially Heath, would later affect the ability of forensic entomology to resolve important issues and other scientific disciplines too. It was in practice the only way to establish a post-mortem-interval in this case, although it would not necessarily mean time of death as this was a very complicated case – one that would eventually require revolutionary new techniques to establish the significance of the entomological evidence.
Heath's error regarding the extent of fire-damage, added to his conduct at the crime-scene, caused serious problems. He collected maggots from the body and handed them to police. He did not establish environmental conditions at the scene or in the body. He also failed to sample other areas of the body extensively. This prevented the maggots from telling their tale.
If Heath advised the police on what to do with the maggots, they ignored it and left the maggots to die with some liver in a fridge at the police station. They were not reared or even observed and the temperatures were not recorded either. The evidence that the maggots could have given was utterly wasted. It was not Sayers' fault, but the law held him alone accountable for the failures of pathologists, police and lawyers. Apparently, teenage agriculture students should be budding forensic entomologists as well. |
Add comment
|
|
Like Fitted In?
Get the book

Fitted In
Inscribed to you, signed by and direct from the author Satish Sekar.
Please email Satish@fittedin.com for details.
Fitted In - to Britain £15.00
Fitted In - to Europe £17.50
Fitted In - The Rest of the World £20.00
|