Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News1 min ago
Tomlinson Death - Police Apologise Agter 4 Yrs
44 Answers
.
Newspaper reports that the Tomlinson case would be settled with a private npayment seems justified.
Inquest jury found that the death was unlawful
Jury trial of a policeman for manslaughter ended in acquittal.
This was a case marked by early lying by the authorities,
and then a video of Iam tomlinson's being pushed turned up by an America tourist.
Family comment - this is just about as far as we will get....
Another Victory for British Justice - huh
Newspaper reports that the Tomlinson case would be settled with a private npayment seems justified.
Inquest jury found that the death was unlawful
Jury trial of a policeman for manslaughter ended in acquittal.
This was a case marked by early lying by the authorities,
and then a video of Iam tomlinson's being pushed turned up by an America tourist.
Family comment - this is just about as far as we will get....
Another Victory for British Justice - huh
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Peter Pedant. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The PC Blakelock affair was dreadful. But it doesn't detract from the issue in discussion about Mr Tomlinson. :::
http://
The last sentence of the above BBC news item is very telling, from the IPCC :::
IPCC deputy chairwoman Deborah Glass said: "This situation may never have arisen had concerns about PC Harwood's previous conduct been dealt with properly, by his superiors and those who re-employed him.
"This should never happen again."
http://
The last sentence of the above BBC news item is very telling, from the IPCC :::
IPCC deputy chairwoman Deborah Glass said: "This situation may never have arisen had concerns about PC Harwood's previous conduct been dealt with properly, by his superiors and those who re-employed him.
"This should never happen again."
it might not, but all this police bashing does my bloody head in, they are the ones we turn to when burgled, robbed, mugged, raped, and indeed anything else, a copper was a badun, and Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed, we get it, however you can't bring poor Mr Tomlinson back, all the police can do is fess up, they should have done so from the start, they didn't, i don't know why, perhaps like the army they protect their own....
No sqad - you've got it wrong.
In the first post-mortem Dr Patel did find "three litres of intra-abdominal fluid blood", and damage to the liver, but still concluded Ian Tomlinson died of a heart attack. More details here.
http://
http://
In the first post-mortem Dr Patel did find "three litres of intra-abdominal fluid blood", and damage to the liver, but still concluded Ian Tomlinson died of a heart attack. More details here.
http://
http://
Big difference between PC Blakelock and Tomlinson. The attack on Tomlinson was filmed and there were plenty of independent witnesses.
Perhaps if the Police had investigated Blakelocks murder rather better, they wouldn't have got the wrong man in the first place.
My feelings go out to the families of both men...murdered because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Perhaps if the Police had investigated Blakelocks murder rather better, they wouldn't have got the wrong man in the first place.
My feelings go out to the families of both men...murdered because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
slaney
\\He later said he had meant to record that there had been three litres of fluid with blood, and that the fluid was mostly ascites, a bodily fluid found in patients with liver disease.\\
Ascitic fluid from a ruptured liver............doesn't sound right does it.
Three litres of blood.....now that is different.
Which was it.....blood OR ascites?
\\He later said he had meant to record that there had been three litres of fluid with blood, and that the fluid was mostly ascites, a bodily fluid found in patients with liver disease.\\
Ascitic fluid from a ruptured liver............doesn't sound right does it.
Three litres of blood.....now that is different.
Which was it.....blood OR ascites?
@Sqad - You seem to be propagating a conspiracy theory, Sqad - one where you have not actually seen or reviewed or examined the evidence yourself.
Freddy Patel, the original pathologist, was already under review over his abilities. It has since emerged that he lied on his CV. He was suspended for 4 months for a botched PM of a victim of a serial killer.And he had earlier been suspended for failing in at least 3 other PMs. Police were in attendance during the PM. It is not the UK Forensics service greatest hour, true. If their is a conspiracy at all, it seems to me far more likely that the police, knowing Patel as being somewhat pliant, went along and "encouraged" him to report findings that would rule out baton strike/ fall / internal bleeding.
The main finding of Patels, wrt damage to internal organs, was of 3L of fluid, a mixture of Ascites and blood - but he made no effort to quantify the amount of blood, nor did he retain the fluid. Interestingly, during the cross-examination of Patel, they went into the state of the liver and the damage to it. Enlarged, Cirrhotic etc - but Patel himself was specifically asked if he saw any evidence of trauma to the liver or surrounding capsule that might account for a catastrophic internal bleed - and he conceded that it might have been possible. Questions remain over the amount of blood found in the fluid in the peritoneal cavity - at least one interpretation of his findings was that it was mostly blood - but that would certainly be at odds with his findings of death from coronary artery disease.
Given the state of Tomlinsons liver ( rigourous CPR, cirrhotic and enlarged liver, the abdominal fluid sample that was thrown away etc I agree that it is not possible to point to a picture of the Liver and say - it was this rupture here that caused the bleeding.
So on the one hand we have Patel - discredited, previously suspended, conducting a PM with police pressure and directions from the police to find a "natural" cause of death, whose first contemporaneous report about the fluid in the peritoneal cavity was suggestive of 3L of blood with somc ascites; this description amended by him later on to better suit his own conclusion that this was a natural death from coronary artery disease.
On the other hand, we have 2 additional Post Mortems, carried out by 3 different Pathologists, one of whom is an examiner for the Royal College of Pathologists, who concluded Patel was substantively in error when he described the injuries from the baton strike as being "due to a fall", who described the puncture wounds as being " due to glass or other sharp object on the ground" when the wounds were actually more consistent with a dog bite, and who have all concluded that Patels interpretation of the ECG taken at the scene when they were attempting to resuscitate Tomlinson was in error; A conclusion agreed with by at least 2 eminent cardiac surgeons called in as expert witnesses during the enquiry.
It should also be noted that of the 2 subsequent PMs, involving 3 pathologists, one had been retained by Simon Harewoods legal team. If he had any doubts over the findings of an internal bleed from the liver conistent with fall onto elbow and hence damage to the abdominal cavity, he did no express those doubts. Indeed, as best I can tell, he fully supported the conclusion that Tomlinson died as a result of internal bleeding following damage to his liver.
I think your inference - that the subsequent PMs and pathologists were swayed by the media and public opinion - is not borne out by the corroborating evidence presented in the inquiry.
Freddy Patel, the original pathologist, was already under review over his abilities. It has since emerged that he lied on his CV. He was suspended for 4 months for a botched PM of a victim of a serial killer.And he had earlier been suspended for failing in at least 3 other PMs. Police were in attendance during the PM. It is not the UK Forensics service greatest hour, true. If their is a conspiracy at all, it seems to me far more likely that the police, knowing Patel as being somewhat pliant, went along and "encouraged" him to report findings that would rule out baton strike/ fall / internal bleeding.
The main finding of Patels, wrt damage to internal organs, was of 3L of fluid, a mixture of Ascites and blood - but he made no effort to quantify the amount of blood, nor did he retain the fluid. Interestingly, during the cross-examination of Patel, they went into the state of the liver and the damage to it. Enlarged, Cirrhotic etc - but Patel himself was specifically asked if he saw any evidence of trauma to the liver or surrounding capsule that might account for a catastrophic internal bleed - and he conceded that it might have been possible. Questions remain over the amount of blood found in the fluid in the peritoneal cavity - at least one interpretation of his findings was that it was mostly blood - but that would certainly be at odds with his findings of death from coronary artery disease.
Given the state of Tomlinsons liver ( rigourous CPR, cirrhotic and enlarged liver, the abdominal fluid sample that was thrown away etc I agree that it is not possible to point to a picture of the Liver and say - it was this rupture here that caused the bleeding.
So on the one hand we have Patel - discredited, previously suspended, conducting a PM with police pressure and directions from the police to find a "natural" cause of death, whose first contemporaneous report about the fluid in the peritoneal cavity was suggestive of 3L of blood with somc ascites; this description amended by him later on to better suit his own conclusion that this was a natural death from coronary artery disease.
On the other hand, we have 2 additional Post Mortems, carried out by 3 different Pathologists, one of whom is an examiner for the Royal College of Pathologists, who concluded Patel was substantively in error when he described the injuries from the baton strike as being "due to a fall", who described the puncture wounds as being " due to glass or other sharp object on the ground" when the wounds were actually more consistent with a dog bite, and who have all concluded that Patels interpretation of the ECG taken at the scene when they were attempting to resuscitate Tomlinson was in error; A conclusion agreed with by at least 2 eminent cardiac surgeons called in as expert witnesses during the enquiry.
It should also be noted that of the 2 subsequent PMs, involving 3 pathologists, one had been retained by Simon Harewoods legal team. If he had any doubts over the findings of an internal bleed from the liver conistent with fall onto elbow and hence damage to the abdominal cavity, he did no express those doubts. Indeed, as best I can tell, he fully supported the conclusion that Tomlinson died as a result of internal bleeding following damage to his liver.
I think your inference - that the subsequent PMs and pathologists were swayed by the media and public opinion - is not borne out by the corroborating evidence presented in the inquiry.
Well LazyGun...there we go.
The medical evidence in my opinion was "iffy" and did not due justice to Forensic Medicine, Sir Bernard Spilsby, Francis Camps et al would be turning in their graves.
Seeing that video of an almost glancing blow, rupturing a liver defies belief, but as you so rightly say...I am not an expert.
We will have to agree to be on opposite sides of the coin.
The medical evidence in my opinion was "iffy" and did not due justice to Forensic Medicine, Sir Bernard Spilsby, Francis Camps et al would be turning in their graves.
Seeing that video of an almost glancing blow, rupturing a liver defies belief, but as you so rightly say...I am not an expert.
We will have to agree to be on opposite sides of the coin.
I am obviously being dense, PP - what point are you trying to make when you say this?
"It is terrible - if you screw up the post-mortem, they get off.
I am surprised there has been so much discussion about Dr Freddie Patel's rather obvious deficiencies."
And why are you surprised that some of Patels's deficiencies have been pointed out?
"It is terrible - if you screw up the post-mortem, they get off.
I am surprised there has been so much discussion about Dr Freddie Patel's rather obvious deficiencies."
And why are you surprised that some of Patels's deficiencies have been pointed out?
Peter
\\\\\I am surprised there has been so much discussion about Dr Freddie Patel's rather obvious deficiencies.\\\\
If they were so "obvious" then why was he appointed as a Home Office Pathologist? Unless you are suggesting that his deficiencies were as a result of his appointment.......unlikely wouldn't you say?
\\\\\I am surprised there has been so much discussion about Dr Freddie Patel's rather obvious deficiencies.\\\\
If they were so "obvious" then why was he appointed as a Home Office Pathologist? Unless you are suggesting that his deficiencies were as a result of his appointment.......unlikely wouldn't you say?
@ Sqad He was 20 years a pathologist, and given what has emerged of his poor practices, as well as irregularities on his CV, the fact that it took the Tomlinson report to prompt some action shows how moribund HM Coroners office was at oversight.
This is a letter, published back in 2012 by Prof Sebastien Lucas, St. Thomas' Hospital;
"In all the justified contumely being poured on Dr Freddy Patel’s head (and I was a witness in the previous General Medical Council hearings against him, testifying about his poor autopsy practice), let us not forget one important fact (Tomlinson pathologist found unfit to practise, 22 August).
All his autopsies were performed for HM coroners, with or without a police interest, and they were happy to employ him, since he provided convenient diagnoses, did not over-investigate cases, and was always available. Did they, as employers using state funds to pay him, take an interest in the quality of his product?
Apparently not. I, and other pathologists, informed many coroners and their officers of our opinion on his poor performance, but only after the Tomlinson affair did any take note and express regret that they had not reviewed his work more critically.
Professor Sebastian Lucas
Department of histopathology, St Thomas’s hospital, London
Sclerotic Bureaucracy...
This is a letter, published back in 2012 by Prof Sebastien Lucas, St. Thomas' Hospital;
"In all the justified contumely being poured on Dr Freddy Patel’s head (and I was a witness in the previous General Medical Council hearings against him, testifying about his poor autopsy practice), let us not forget one important fact (Tomlinson pathologist found unfit to practise, 22 August).
All his autopsies were performed for HM coroners, with or without a police interest, and they were happy to employ him, since he provided convenient diagnoses, did not over-investigate cases, and was always available. Did they, as employers using state funds to pay him, take an interest in the quality of his product?
Apparently not. I, and other pathologists, informed many coroners and their officers of our opinion on his poor performance, but only after the Tomlinson affair did any take note and express regret that they had not reviewed his work more critically.
Professor Sebastian Lucas
Department of histopathology, St Thomas’s hospital, London
Sclerotic Bureaucracy...
LazyGun....your points are well taken.
For anyone non medical, this indicates 3 litres of fluid (imagine 3 litres of milk) in the peritoneal cavity (in the stomach)
If the liver bleeds .......it bleeds.... and if ALL that fluid was blood, then yes, I would accept that the cause of death was a ruptured liver, due to trauma.
BUT we have been told that the 3 litres was a mixture of ascitic fluid and blood, the percentage depending upon the description you would like to believe...........ascitic fluid......not associated with a ruptured liver......even an abnormal liver. Then look at video evidence of the force of injury..was that severe enough to rupture an organ defended by the last six ribs?
I understand your acceptance of expert medical witness, that doesn't mean that i accept their conclusions.
For anyone non medical, this indicates 3 litres of fluid (imagine 3 litres of milk) in the peritoneal cavity (in the stomach)
If the liver bleeds .......it bleeds.... and if ALL that fluid was blood, then yes, I would accept that the cause of death was a ruptured liver, due to trauma.
BUT we have been told that the 3 litres was a mixture of ascitic fluid and blood, the percentage depending upon the description you would like to believe...........ascitic fluid......not associated with a ruptured liver......even an abnormal liver. Then look at video evidence of the force of injury..was that severe enough to rupture an organ defended by the last six ribs?
I understand your acceptance of expert medical witness, that doesn't mean that i accept their conclusions.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Maxine de Brunner said: "Simon Harwood's actions fell far below the standard we expect from our officers. I accept the finding of the inquest that Mr Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. Today, I apologise unreservedly for Simon Harwood's use of excessive and unlawful force, which caused Mr Tomlinson's death, and for the suffering and distress caused to his family as a result."
So he did kill Ian Tomlinson. The earlier aquittal was a wrong decision. Harwood should face re-trial.
So he did kill Ian Tomlinson. The earlier aquittal was a wrong decision. Harwood should face re-trial.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
Strands #269 “Come Fly With...
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.