He died of internal bleeding, as the only reliable medical evidence tells us.
If you actually bothered trying to understand what the CPS report explains and what I have been trying to explain for pages, you'd know that it is NOT reliable medical evidence because it relies entirely on the observations made by the first pathologist - the ONLY pathologist who actually opened up the body and saw what was there as it was. And that is Freddy Patel (who, by the very nature of your comment, you clearly agree is
unreliable).
The two pathologists who conclude that the cause of death was internal bleeding do so
despite NOT being able to find any evidence of a rupture in a blood vessel, etc. which would explain such a high level of bleeding (something which Freddy Patel agrees with - he says he didn't find any evidence of any such rupture either). They reach their conclusion, therefore, on the basis of Freddy Patel's original report which stated that he found, in the abdomen,
"intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot.". They took this as meaning there was 3 litres of blood which, if correct, would be a legitimate basis for concluding death was caused by internal bleeding (3l is a big proportion of total blood and it's loss would put you into the area where death could well result). Freddy Patel, in a second report, clarified that what he actually found was "intraabdominal fluid
WITH blood about 3l with small blood clot." and he clarified in the various meetings that it was effectively blood-stained intraabdominal fluid and so the amount of blood involved was significantly less than the total volume. Because no sample was taken it is impossible to discover the
actual amount of blood and it could be anything down to a few millilitres - Freddy Patel seems to be very much suggesting that it was towards the lower end - what he saw was, in his opinion, a bit of blood staining a lot of intraabdominal fluid. If it was significantly less than 3l of blood then the two pathologists who state the cause of death was internal bleeding would (particularly in the absence of any evidence of a rupture consistent with such bleeding) be forced to answer the question "If Freddy Patel is right, and there was considerably less blood than 3l present in the total volume of fluid, would that be consistent with your conclusion that the cause of death was internal bleeding?" with "No. It wouldn't."
As we simply do not know the volume of blood and have no way of finding it out, the ONLY evidence we have is what Freddy Patel say's he saw. It is not that the other two pathologists saw what he saw and disagree with it - they simply did not see it.
Put yourself on a jury with this being played out in front of you. Could you be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of death was internal bleeding? If not, you'd
have to acquit (assuming you were doing your job properly and according to law whereas if it actually
was you you'd ignore the facts and just convict anyway because "All pigs are cunts and deserve to get done", natch ...).
THAT is the problem. Please try and understand it and if you want to discuss it further, do so from a position which demonstrates that you have actually done so.
