G20 Protests

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Why does it take sixteen months to conclude an investigation of this type?

Because some said yes and some said no, and they had to keep having meetings to see if anyone has changed their mind since.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

He has got away with, at the very least, an assault charge. Although, in my opinion, he should have been charged with manslaughter.

There is no evidence at all that he "deliberately walked in front of the police."

then i suggest you watch the video it seems very clear

An open question to anyone who cares to answer:

Why does it take sixteen months to conclude an investigation of this type

a) lots of evidence to go through
b) so many idiots not enough investigators

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

then i suggest you watch the video it seems very clear

The thing that gets me over all this is, it's very clear to some that he did this and it's very clear to the same some that it's very obvious that you're going to get hit by an officer if you're as stupid as Tomlinson was.

but when it comes to did he die from banging his head as a result of being hit and pushed over by an officer. the answer is most certainly not.

or was it he deserved it? I'm not quite sure what the some are saying.

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

...snippety snip snip...

An open question to anyone who cares to answer:

Why does it take sixteen months to conclude an investigation of this type?

..snip snip...

From the CPS

The Coroner for the District appointed a pathologist, Dr Patel, to carry out a post mortem. He did so on 3 April 2009. No other medical expert was present. Because Mr Tomlinson had walked some distance from the incident in Royal Exchange before collapsing on Cornhill, the two events were not immediately linked and, when he carried out his post mortem, Dr Patel was not aware of the incident involving PC 'A'. He concluded that Mr Tomlinson's death was "consistent with natural causes" and he gave the cause of death as "coronary artery disease".

The family and the IPCC sought a second post mortem and this was undertaken by a second pathologist, Dr Cary, on 9 April 2009. He concluded that whilst Mr Tomlinson had a partial blockage of the artery, his death was the result of abdominal haemorrhage from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver. It was Dr Cary's view that when Mr Tomlinson fell, his elbow had impacted in the area of his liver causing an internal bleed which had led to his death a few minutes later.

On 22 April 2009 the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards instructed another pathologist, Dr Shorrock, to perform a third post mortem. Dr Shorrock agreed with Dr Cary's conclusion.
Other expert evidence was obtained from Dr Wilson, Professor Williamson, Dr Alexander and Dr Sheppard. Their evidence related to accident and emergency procedures, issues relating to the liver and microscopic changes to tissue.

In the face of this fundamental disagreement between the experts about the cause of Mr Tomlinson's death, the prosecution team (the CPS and the IPCC) embarked on a detailed and careful examination of all the notes and findings recorded, and then held a series of meetings with the experts. This inevitably took some considerable time.

In his first report, Dr Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot." This had been interpreted by the other medical experts to mean that he had found 3 litres of blood in the abdomen.

If Dr Patel had found 3 litres of blood, this would have been approximately 60% of Mr Tomlinson's blood volume and would have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death.

However, when Dr Patel provided a further report on 6 April 2010, he recorded that he had found "intraabdominal fluid with blood about 3l with small blood clot". Since Dr Cary and Dr Shorrock inevitably depended on Dr Patel's notes of this finding to inform their own opinions, the significance of this more recent description of Dr Patel's findings had to be clarified with Dr Patel and discussed with the other experts.

Dr Patel was seen twice in conference by the prosecution team. Dr Patel maintained that the total fluid was somewhat in excess of three litres but that it was mainly ascites (a substance which forms in a damaged liver), which had been stained with blood. He had not retained the fluid nor had he sampled it in order to ascertain the proportion of blood because, he said, he had handled blood all his professional life and he knew that this was not blood but blood-stained ascites.

Dr Patel also confirmed that he had found no internal rupture which would have led to such a level of blood loss.

Dr Patel's more recent description of his findings brought into even sharper focus the difference of opinion between him and the other experts as to the cause of death. The prosecution team therefore met a number of the experts to explore where there was common ground and where, if possible, any differences could be reconciled.

As a result of that extensive exercise, the following became clear:
(a) Since Dr Patel had not retained the 3 litres of fluid he found and since he had not sampled it in order to ascertain the proportion of blood, firm conclusions about the nature of the fluid cannot now be drawn.
(b) For Mr Tomlinson's death to have occurred from blood loss so quickly, there would have to have been an internal rupture of some significance.
(c) Dr Patel found no internal rupture which would have led to such a level of blood loss.
(d) At the later post mortems there was no visible sign of a rupture.
(e) Since Dr Patel was the only person to examine Mr Tomlinson's intact body, he was in the best position to have considered the nature of the fluid he had observed and removed, and he was in the best position to have identified any rupture.

It is clear from this that even after the extensive exercise of examining all the notes and findings recorded carefully, and meeting with the experts on several occasions, there remained an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death.

As you can see from the above statement, by simplifying the coroners' findings, the newspapers also missed out why it is not as clear-cut as it would initially seem.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

then i suggest you watch the video it seems very clear





a) lots of evidence to go through
b) so many idiots not enough investigators

Or

c) too many people telling lies.

I am sorry, but it doesn't take that long to sit in front of a witness and ask them questions. If they tell the truth, why should it take so long?

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Gary L

The thing that gets me over all this is, it's very clear to some that he did this and it's very clear to the same some that it's very obvious that you're going to get hit by an officer if you're as stupid as Tomlinson was.

but when it comes to did he die from banging his head as a result of being hit and pushed over by an officer. the answer is most certainly not.

or was it he deserved it? I'm not quite sure what the some are saying.

no he didn't deserve it ,it was just an unfortunate result of his own poor judgement... that tends to happen

he died from a abdominal hemorrhage not a bang on the head

---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Or

c) too many people telling lies.

I am sorry, but it doesn't take that long to sit in front of a witness and ask them questions. If they tell the truth, why should it take so long?

didn't see you complaining about the lenght of time the bloody sunday enquiry took ..oh wait you approved of that verdict

[Flyboy]

Apart from being way off topic, I seem to remember that I did.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

From the CPS

As you can see from the above statement, by simplifying the coroners' findings, the newspapers also missed out why it is not as clear-cut as it would initially seem.

Who cares about any of that? The 'assailant' was a police officer and he's guilty, no need for a lengthy enquiry to establish the facts FGS, it's all a state sponsored conspiracy and they should just sling the book at him! It's as simple as that....

.....for some anyway...

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Don't you think that is thirty-three deaths per year (or one every ten days, for thirty years) too many? Are all these deaths down to illness, suicide or " 'e fell down the stairs guv, honest?"

Nope. I'm a realist and know that people who are generally in poor health occasionally die suddenly.

I notice you ignored the whole bit about how many people spend a night in the cells and compared to the number of deaths is remarkably low.

As for the 'fell down the stairs' comment. That just shows how cynical, bitter and out of touch you really are.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Nope. I'm a realist and know that people who are generally in poor health occasionally die suddenly.

I notice you ignored the whole bit about how many people spend a night in the cells and compared to the number of deaths is remarkably low.

As for the 'fell down the stairs' comment. That just shows how cynical, bitter and out of touch you really are.

Maybe the reason enquiries, inquests etc. usually take as long as they do is that they don't tend to just ignore stuff that doesn't suit some skewed agenda. Just a thought.......

[RizzyKing]

Some people just don't like the police and never will for whatever reason and even if they had a good experience with the police would still hate them no point trying to push a rock up a hill give it up guys.

[Damien]

It should be remembered the level of intensity the police officers went under during these protests. A day of people throwing things, shoving officers, and otherwise causing issues. The officer who pushed him would have been feeling quite pressured and stressed as a result IMO.

[Matt D]

G20 pathologist guilty of misconduct

Originally Posted by BBC News

The pathologist involved in a row over the death of a man at the G20 protests has been found guilty of misconduct by the General Medical Council.

A panel had been considering three unrelated post-mortem examinations carried out by Dr Freddy Patel between 2002 and 2005. It said his fitness to practise was impaired.

The GMC will consider sanctions later on Tuesday and on Wednesday.

Dr Patel examined Ian Tomlinson, who died during protests in London in 2009.

The pathologist involved in a row over the death of a man at the G20 protests has been found guilty of misconduct by the General Medical Council.

A panel had been considering three unrelated post-mortem examinations carried out by Dr Freddy Patel between 2002 and 2005. It said his fitness to practise was impaired.

The GMC will consider sanctions later on Tuesday and on Wednesday.

Dr Patel examined Ian Tomlinson, who died during protests in London in 2009.

'Deficient performance'

The panel had already concluded the 63-year-old was "irresponsible" and failed to meet professional standards during examinations of the bodies of a five-year-old girl in 2002, a four-week-old baby in 2003 and a woman in 2005.

It ruled he acted in a way liable to bring the profession into disrepute when he changed the woman's cause of death.

In an examination in January, he decided she had died from a blood clot in the coronary arteries.

But a month later he changed that to a brain haemorrhage after a second post-mortem by another pathologist.

He told an inquest into the woman's death he made the changes "to satisfy the family".

(snip)

The pathologist was also found guilty of misconduct in a post-mortem examination on a four-week-old baby in August 2003.

(snip)

An earlier hearing found Dr Patel was "irresponsible" when he failed to identify marks on the body of a five-year-old girl which suggested she had been violently attacked prior to her death in 2002.

Mr Davies said in this case Dr Patel's conduct amounted to deficient professional performance but not misconduct.

Dr Patel carried out the first post-mortem examination of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests in London on 1 April 2009.

He concluded that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease.

But two other pathologists later separately concluded that Mr Tomlinson - who had been pushed by a police officer - died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver.

The failure of the three pathologists to all agree led to the director of public prosecutions ruling that the policeman in question would not face any charges.

[Gary L]

A lot of people suspected he lied. either that or he was wrong.

[Tuftus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11864361

Surprised that the cop haterz have missed this one.

Why is it that if even the CPS won't touch it the matter is still not over?

I don't get that.