Memo 618
Dodgy Pathologists & The Men in Black.
I had a recent call with a contact who had some fascinating insights, not only into the Bamber case, but some other major cases all connected in some way to the questionable forensics and pathology around some high profile investigations and crimes.
Let’s just say he’s a knowledgeable insider on the Bamber case in more ways than one,
For example ….. you know, him and Michael Heath were rogue pathologists there, or not necessarily rogue, but what we call Memo 618 pathologists.
That phrase, “Memo 618” cropped up a couple of times in our call.
Memo 618 is a metaphor on how governments manipulate justice, favour the powerful and ferment corruption. Money from taxes are applied to corruption, justice is manipulated, and the dirty secrets of politics are shelved. The term was first used in the US drama the Good Fight and was a recurring theme throughout the show.
Michael Heath, whilst maybe not working under the guidance of “Memo 618”, definitely had a bit of form, certainly with another infamous Essex case.
1According to the BBC, Dr. Michael Heath, “led a disputed forensic enquiry into the death of Stuart Lubbock after a party at Michael Barrymore’s home”. His work came under scrutiny as his findings differed from other pathologists2.
At the time he was a Home Office pathologist. (other pathologists found evidence of strangulation - it’s always been ‘sold’ to the public that Lubbock died in a drowning accident and to date no-one has ever been charged.)
Also according to the BBC,
His work also lead to a man being wrongly convicted.
For 20 years Dr Heath's career has been littered with controversy.
In 2009 the GMC found Dr Heath guilty of serious misconduct
A government disciplinary panel in 2006 found that Dr Heath bungled post-mortem examinations on Mary Anne Moore and Jacqueline Tindsley, leading to their partners being tried for murder.
This goes to show that letters after your name and a designation as a Home Office official does not necessarily go hand in hand with competence or integrity.
And so to another Home Office pathologist - Professor Peter Vanezis OBE (MB, ChB, DMJ(Path), MD, PhD, FRCPath, FRCP(Glasg.), FFFLM) .
Again, my contact, in reference to Vanezis’s work at the crime scene on the morning of the 7th August 1985,
I actually spoke to Vanezis and one of the things that is sadly missing from the (report) that is the time of death. The first thing you do as a pathologist is time of death, but they're missing.
Why are they missing?
Once he realised, that we'd had a report, medical report based upon photographs, he refused to speak to me.
