G20: Getting to the truth- the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP

[winjer]

I wonder how many other cops think it's ok to attack someone for being "defiant"?

Some of the people who might have been able to answer that question, from a command/training position:

Guess how many of them have spoken at the inquest.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Two Bronzes in one picture! Does that win a prize?

 

[sim667]

That's not what I understand from the details contained in the link I included.

My impression is that they were deciding whether to prosecute at all and considered a number of different charges.



http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/

So are they bringing charges against harwood or not?

The dog that bit, if it wasnt instructed to should have been put down like any domestic dog that bites.

 

[Nice one]

what is interesting is that is was harwood who instigated the chain of events which led to tomlinson's death, reinforcing the single rogue cop scenario. Harwood changes the mood and direction of crowd when he hits the protestors head against the door, crowd chase him up Cornhill, where harwood and other cops are pinned to the 'builidng line'. It's Harwood who encourages other coppers to move round into Royal exchange passage into middle of crowd, where copper gets hit in face and all the other coppers have to move round into passage to make arrest, eventually making their way up the passage to other end. This instigates the command for the the dog handlers moving down the passage to clear the crowd to the bottom of at Cornhill where tomlinson was hit.

It's all harwood's doing. And his every step is documented on film. I think the met are very happy with the way things are going, apart form harwood's 'this is the way i was trained' the policing of the g20 hasn't been addressed critically at all.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

How exactly do you 'pull someone away from yourself'?

Footage here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-pc-simon-harwood-cameraman-video1

There's a throw in one of the senior Judo kata and various ju-jitsu styles that works like that, can't recall the name ..

(I want to say Ushiro Otoshi but that just brings up footage of Aikido guys doing Ushiro Otoshi Ukemi, which is a breakfall used when someone throws you like that.)

You basically pull their shoulders backwards to get them off balance while moving out of the way to let them fall over. You don't do it in competition Judo because of the risk of splatting the back of their head against the ground.

edited to add: apparently Tomiki Aikido guys call it 'Ushiro Ate'

You can see from this video it's essentially the same move as Constable Savage uses on the cameraman

... the only obvious difference being that he comes in from the BBC guy's blind side rather than his front.

 

[shaman75]

the 999 call

http://soundcloud.com/shaman/999-call-for-ian-tomlinson

 

[Fruitloop]

Push hands throws someone away from you, sort of.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Push hands throws someone away from you, sort of.

Yeah, but what he does to the cameraman is something quite specific, he pulls his shoulders, especially the shoulder carrying the heavy camera, backwards and down while the guy is moving and does so too fast for the BBC cameraman to get his feet back under him.

In Judo competition, you only do a hip throw version, where contact is maintained and you can make sure they fall safely rather than splatting the back of their head into the ground hard, as is very likely if you do it the way Constable Savage is demonstrating above. In some kinds of Aikido and Ju-Jitsu you do learn a breakfall to deal with that throw, but it's an advanced breakfall. Doing that technique to a random citizen, one carrying a heavy camera which he may instinctively try to protect rather than using his arms to break his fall, especially when coming in from his blind side so that he's totally unaware, carries a high risk of smashing the back of his skull on the pavement. It's quite clearly a potentially lethal attack.

What I wonder is whether it was purely improvised or whether he's trained (as quite a few cops do) in Tomiki Aikido or something similar?

 

[nick h.]

He looks trained. See how he springs back and bounces on the balls of his feet after pushing Tomlinson. Look at his stance in the pic in post 2281 upthread. He treats his job like Kendo. In the pics of him in a suit he looks to have the chest and neck of a bodybuilder. I bet he's got swords and steroids and all sorts at home.

 

[laptop]

He looks trained. See how he springs back and bounces on the balls of his feet after pushing Tomlinson. Look at his stance in the pic in post 2281 upthread. He treats his job like Kendo. In the pics of him in a suit he looks to have the chest and neck of a bodybuilder. I bet he's got swords and steroids and all sorts at home.

Pity he wasn't asked about that at the inquest...

Meanwhile, coroner Patel is on the stand. Gory, only, so far: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/12/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates

 

[shaman75]

Stunned really...

A senior police officer asked a pathologist whether Ian Tomlinson's injuries were consistent with a baton strike and dog bite – four days before video footage emerged showing his encounter with police. Dr Freddy Patel, the first pathologist to examine the newspaper seller's body, told the inquest that Detective Superintendent Tony Crampton, of City of London police, asked the question during a postmortem examination on 3 April 2009. Video footage showing Tomlinson's confrontation with police did not emerge until four days later.

Patel said DS Crampton and three other police officers were present during the postmortem, and he was asked to "rule out" injuries consistent with an assault at the G20 protests. He said the officers gave him "additional information" about the circumstances of the death. They told him there was "a lot of broken glass bottles and a lot of protesters were using sticks and there were a lot of sticks around the body where it was found".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/12/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates

 

[butchersapron]

I expect they'll try to paint him a a grudge bearer now. I doubt if he kept contemporaneous notes on that aspect.

 

[Corax]

So now he'll have both sides trying to discredit him. Are the other BMA rulings against him admissible?

 

[ymu]

So now he'll have both sides trying to discredit him. Are the other BMA rulings against him admissible?

It's an inquest, so presumably they will be examining his competence, and the opinions of the other pathologists, very carefully indeed.

Patel isn't on trial, so I'm not sure there's any issue of admissibility anyway - lawyers have to be able to question the competence of witnesses.

 

[Nice one]

Patel has his barrister who has been introduced to the jury. The question of patel's past history/disciplinary hearings, misconduct charges has come up and been discussed (in the absense of the jury). The judge has given a big hint to the barristers concerned that of those things proved against PAtel "findings of guilt" can be brought up and left it to the barristers how they should proceed, carefully.

Patel came across as assured in his job but there it was a lot of expert knowledge that we couldn't really challenge and will have to wait to the other pathologists testimony if there are any faults in his post mortem procedure.

Patel made notes while he was doing the post mortem and a preliminary report published on the 6th april. The report is interesting because he states in it "chronic liver disease affect the clotting and may explain the large volume of intra-abdominal bleed"

When asked about this large volume of bleed he back pedals and claims he meant the blood clot found along with the abdominal fluid, and not the fluid (3 litres of it) which was dark red but not all blood. This fluid was "discarded" after the post mortem. Patel couldn't find evidence of it coming from any of the major organs or blood vessels.

He was also quick to dismiss both the dog bite and the baton strike injuries which is odd given he must have come across such injuries previously. How much the police had in influencing his decision is still not known (Crampton on being called as a witness apparently). There were 4 coppers present at the orginal post mortem.

Tomlinson's barrister has yet to ask any questions, but given how he handled harwood i'm not expecting we'll get any more new useful information from their exchange.

 

[lopsidedbunny]

No wonder they picked Patel to do the job it's like the T.V. script from Life from Mars... it's all a stich up from beginning to the end...

 

[laptop]

Aye. I'm waiting for the explanation of how "can you please rule out..." really means "can you scrupulously investigate the possibility of..."

 

[Corax]

It's an inquest, so presumably they will be examining his competence, and the opinions of the other pathologists, very carefully indeed.

Patel isn't on trial, so I'm not sure there's any issue of admissibility anyway - lawyers have to be able to question the competence of witnesses.

I just knew someone would pick me up using the word 'admissable'! You knew what I meant though.

It was brought up today:

An important development in terms of Patel's credibility before the jury.

Jurors have just been told that the pathologisthas been suspended twice in the last seven months by a disciplinary panel of the General Medical Council (GMC). This has been widely reported, but it is the first time the jury has been told of the details.

First, Patel confirmed that he was suspended in September after facing "a number of allegations" relating to his performance in three cases in which he conducted post mortems between 2002 and 2005.

Patel's fitness to practice had been impaired by "misconduct and deficient professional performance", the jury was told.

Second, Patel confirmed he is currently suspended because of his performance in a case between January 2002 and 2003. Part of the case, the jury was told, contained the suggestion that the contents of his CV were inaccurate, and he had therefore been "dishonest".

This bit's very much worth noting IMO:

ust to make clear: Patel has in fact said there was a "compelling association" between Tomlinson being pushed to the ground and struck with a baton, and any subsequent heart attack.

Ryder intends to argue that Tomlinson died of internal bleeding and not a heart attack. But there is a second layer of argument.

The barrister has got Patel to agree that – if it turns out Tomlinson did die of a heart attack – it may have been triggered by his "stressful" encounter with PC Harwood.

 

[Fruitloop]

Yeah, but what he does to the cameraman is something quite specific, he pulls his shoulders, especially the shoulder carrying the heavy camera, backwards and down while the guy is moving and does so too fast for the BBC cameraman to get his feet back under him.

In Judo competition, you only do a hip throw version, where contact is maintained and you can make sure they fall safely rather than splatting the back of their head into the ground hard, as is very likely if you do it the way Constable Savage is demonstrating above. In some kinds of Aikido and Ju-Jitsu you do learn a breakfall to deal with that throw, but it's an advanced breakfall. Doing that technique to a random citizen, one carrying a heavy camera which he may instinctively try to protect rather than using his arms to break his fall, especially when coming in from his blind side so that he's totally unaware, carries a high risk of smashing the back of his skull on the pavement. It's quite clearly a potentially lethal attack.

What I wonder is whether it was purely improvised or whether he's trained (as quite a few cops do) in Tomiki Aikido or something similar?

Yeah you're absolutely right, I hadn't watched the video before. Is he also applying pressure to the back of the guy's knee as well? Also the way he springs back into action, although that could be adrenaline tbf.

I've done a fair bit of judo but I would be very hesitant indeed to use it in a scrap for exactly the reason that you mention, that it was pure luck he didn't brain that cameraman.

 

[lopsidedbunny]

Footage of PC Simon Harwood pulling a BBC cameraman at the G20 protests in the City of London in 2009. This happened on Royal Exchange Buildings, just a few minutes before his encounter with Ian Tomlinson. The cameraman is seen falling backwards
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-pc-simon-harwood-cameraman-video1

This makes me laugh!

Here he is seen standing with other officers on the south end of Royal Exchange Buildings, near Threadneedle Street. He has retracted a claim that at this time he was surrounded by protesters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-inquest-pc-simon-harwood-video

 

[ymu]

Looks like he's trying to stop the cameraman filming another cop roughing up a protester. There's a cop in a big black coat there too - looks like he picks up a radio and then goes to punch the protester.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-pc-simon-harwood-cameraman-video1

 

[winjer]

(Crampton on being called as a witness apparently).

It's bizarre that Crampton's listed as statement to be read.

 

[newbie]

I don't know how that works, do the lawyers agree beforehand which witnesses will be live and which use written statements? In any event there must be a mechanism to override the initial arrangement if, as in this case, it's clear there are questions to be answered.

 

[audiotech]

Hit with batons, threatened with gnashing dogs and pushed over with riot shields too you know.

 

[winjer]

I don't know how that works, do the lawyers agree beforehand which witnesses will be live and which use written statements?

That's how it is criminal trials, so I expect it's the same at inquests.

The extra complication is that you're not supposed to ask questions about things outside the agreed scope of the inquest, which - as the coroner reminded the Tomlinson family's lawyer yesterday - does not currently include any "post-death cover-up".

 

[winjer]

Hit with batons, threatened with gnashing dogs and pushed over with riot shields too you know.

Pushed over with riot shields? Not heard that at the inquest.

 

[butchersapron]

Update on related important stuff:

The Met's kettling of 4-5000 protesters at the G20 protests was unlawful - High Court

edit: balls the paper has changed the story to add 'partially'

 

[revlon]

the guardian piece reads like the violence used was the unlawful bit rather that the containment tactic. Maybe further details will clarify
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/14/kettling-g20-protesters-police-illegal

 

[Barking_Mad]

Looks like Patel is rught under the kosh here.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Update on related important stuff:

The Met's kettling of 4-5000 protesters at the G20 protests was unlawful - High Court

edit: balls the paper has changed the story to add 'partially'

If I'm reading it right, they're basically saying "kettling is only OK when it's clear that the situation will otherwise get out of hand" which means they've at least got to be able to justify it, rather than using it as a punitive tactic whenever they feel the urge. The issue is going to be how easily they're going to be able to get away with saying 'In our judgement kettling was the only option'

If it's whenever they feel like saying it with no comebacks even if it's obvious bullshit, then the situation hasn't really changed much as a result ...