Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"
- Thread starter solidyeoman
- Start date
No. I'm not. I'm basically saying either could be right, or all three could be wrong, on the basis of the evidence available.
If you bother to read the thread you'll see why. In short Patel was the ONLY pathologist to see the body when he first cut it open. He says he found about 3l of fluid in the abdomen. It may have been blood, it may have been intrabdominal fluid or it may have been a mixture of both (probably the latter, but in what proportion is not known). No samples were taken. Patel says it was primarily fluid, with a bit of blood staining. That would be inconsistent with death by internal bleeding. The other two read his observations as meaning it was blood. If it was (entirely, or mostly) that would be consistent with death by internal bleeding. Patel says they read his observations wrong. They didn't actually see the fluid (it wan't kept or sampled) so they don;t know for themselves.
What all three DO appear to agree on is that there was no obvious rupture of a blood vessel, organ, etc. which would be consistent with fatal internal bleeding (but sometimes it can come from other not visible causes apparently). To this extent the conclusion of death by internal bleeding is less than incontroversial.
xes
F.O.A.D
But it's not just based on prejudices (I was playing along, y'see) It's also based on the fact that time and time again, police get away with breaking the law. The very laws that they are employed to uphold. And until you see that point, there's no point in debating with you.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Well, I only mentioned it because he said it was "profoundly unsatisfactory". He has the wherewithal to have a look into it.
I can see that point to a certain extent. There are (unfortunately) cases in which police officers "get away with" breaking the law (i.e. there IS sufficient evidence that a police officer did something unlawful but insufficient evidence to prove that a particular police officer did something unlawful or that (more rarely) there IS sufficient evidence that a particular police officer did something unlawful and for some reason it is decided not to prosecute them). But the first situation is just as is the case for everyone else - there are lots of other crimes which are not prosecuted because we can't prove who did it and it is hardly any sort of technicality or conspiracy. And there is no alternative - what do you suggest, just picking someone who happened to be there and summarily convicting them? The second situation is, in my view, indefensible. If there IS sufficient evidence a police officer should always be prosecuted. Full stop. It is why I am not at all happy that there has been no prosecution for ABH / Common Assault in this case. There should have been.
But I suspect you are not just taking about these two categories of case. I suspect you are talking about cases where there is a tragic outcome which you ASSUME means there must be some criminal act and where an investigation / consideration of the evidence / inquest concludes that there is insufficient evidence of a crime (or, frequently, positively proves that a crime has NOT happened). In that case no police officer has "got away" with breaking the law or anything else - the law has not, so far as can be proven, been broken. No matter how tragic the outcome.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged last night from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.
He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.
Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, said: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. The injuries were not relatively minor. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with a baton strike, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is." source
He certainly has ... but I think through some one-off arrangement rather than by using HMCPSI who's job it is not and who probably don't have the necessary expertise. (Sounds like a job for a judge to be honest).
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Well I hope he does appoint someone, if he's that disappointed with the decision.
Er ... yes. And seeing as that is exactly what I have said from the outset about their decision re-ABH (i.e. that they have made it on their Charging Standard policy guidance and not on the legal definition), your point is ...
And why post that in response to a quote from me which discusses causation of death when it is on an entirely different point?
I agree. There's lots to look at in relation to the arrangements for the first PM too (again as I have repeatedly said). But don't hold your breath. If it goes the same way as everything else seems to be they'll probably ask if there's a couple of NEETS with a few days spare who'd like to volunteer to do it for nothing ...
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
oh, and on the "reliability" of patel's evidence:
The confusion about the fluid and the improperly kept records largely swings on a single word, according to the CPS report. In his first report, written on 3 April 2009, Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 31 with small blood clot". This, the CPS notes, would have accounted for around 60% of Tomlinson's blood volume and would "have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death".
But three days later, Patel wrote a new report in which he claimed that he had found "intraabdominal fluid WITH blood". source
strange how patel's wording was subsequently amended to fit his findings isn't it? no evidence of any cover-ups there is there, oh no?
The confusion about the fluid and the improperly kept records largely swings on a single word, according to the CPS report. In his first report, written on 3 April 2009, Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 31 with small blood clot". This, the CPS notes, would have accounted for around 60% of Tomlinson's blood volume and would "have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death".
But three days later, Patel wrote a new report in which he claimed that he had found "intraabdominal fluid WITH blood". source
strange how patel's wording was subsequently amended to fit his findings isn't it? no evidence of any cover-ups there is there, oh no?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
And clearly there is clear evidence in this case that the now named officer clearly did break the law. This is not in doubt even if, like you clearly do, you agree re the doubts said clearly visible physical assault caused the death. There is video evidence clearly showing physical assault. So in this case, even if you accept the lack of a clear causal link with death, that the named plod got away with it because he clearly physically assaulted an entirely innocent man and is not even to be charged with assault occasioning ABH. You clearly agree with that, as such what reason do you think there have been no charges brought against the police officer?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
any doubt that there is relies on the evidence of a pathologist who's currently suspended and involved in a misconduct hearing at the GMC involving 26 charges for which he is almost certain to be struck off, therefore it would not be reasonable to rely on this evidence to cast sufficient doubt on the cause of death given that 2 separate pathologists not facing any disciplinary charges concur with each other as to the cause of death.Make your mind up. Either it "couldn't be clearer" OR there is some doubt. You can't have it both ways.
Read the thread to see my repeated explanation for why the conclusions of the second and third pathologists are irretrievably tainted by the findings of the first. (And for how the first pathologist was NOT appointed by the Met ...)
I never said the 1st pathologist was appointed by the met, I said that they used their influence to get him (or presumably AN Other tame pathologist) appointed. I also gave another option of it being entirely random that such a tame / incompetent / probably bent pathologist happened to be appointed to such a high profile case, and just happened to produce an autopsy that wrongly exonerated the met by coming up with natural causes, and actually managed to somehow write off 3 litres of blood found where it shouldn't have been next to an internal wound as not being the cause of death.
so, in your opinion was it pure chance, or was it a deliberate part of an attempted establishment cover up that such an incompetent pathologist was appointed?
detective-boy;10917811[quoteHad this gone to court can you honestly argue that any sane jury would have been left in any reasonable doubt about the medical evidence (assuming a half competent prosecution team)?[/QUOTE said:
the chain of causation is clear though. There's a witness statement saying that he was hit in the stomach with a batton, then witness and video evidence of him being pushed forcefully to the ground seconds later by the same officer, then minutes later he's found collapsed close to the scene of him being attacked by the officer, and postmortem evidence from 2 pathologists saying that he died as a result of internal bleeding from wounds consistent with those likely to result from the attack minutes earlier.
The only potential flaw in the chain of causation (other than the contradictory statement from the dodgy soon to be struck off pathologist) here would be an arguement that he may have been injured by someone else at some point in the minutes between him being attacked by the police and dying. Given the profile of the incident though, and the number of witnesses crowding the area, the chances of this happening without a single witness or piece of photo or video evidence of it happening should easily be considered to be so slim as to not provide reasonable doubt.
bottom line, the evidence here including the chain of causation is easily strong enough to have justified being taken to court and prosecuted to allow a jury to determine whether or not it was proven beyond reasonable doubt, rather than the CPS deciding this internally, and denying Tomlinson and his family access to the justice they should be guaranteed in any free and democratic society.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
go on then DB, explain exactly how the met's long running policy of ensuring that the only officers to have their numbers displayed when on protest / riot duty are sergeants and above (IIRC, maybe it's higher than sergeants?) is not a long running conspiracy by the met to protect their officers from any charges that could result from any of their individual actions while on riot/protest duty?
what other justification can you possibly come up with for why this has been the met's policy for decades to the point that they even carried it on in Scotland at the G8 where such actions are actually illegal under scottish law?
Again you quote something which is exactly what I have posted. What the fuck is it with you lot - you can't even bring yourselves to say "Oh yeah, you're right" when you find something which fucking proves what I have been saying ...
It would have been stranger if he had insisted it was all / mainly blood (and thus a clear indication of a potential cause of death by internal bleeding) if he hadn't even considered that in his initial report. Pathologists, like all doctors, tend to abbreviate things in their reports (especially if they are routine ones) and I have seen things like "intrabdominal fluid blood" which could mean "intrabdominalfluid and blood" or "intrabdominal fluid with blood" or "intrabdominal fluid /blood" or any number of other things dozens of times and had to send them back for clarification.strange how patel's wording was subsequently amended to fit his findings isn't it? no evidence of any cover-ups there is there, oh no?
It's sloppy. It's not evidence of any "conspiracy".
It was probably poured away immediately it's volume was measured. That would be the standard practice at a routine PM if not sample was considered necessary.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
do you see yourself as being entirely unbiased?You see, this is exactly what's so fucking annoying about you lot. You simply cannot bring yourselves to admit the patently bleeding obvious. If you di we could just dismiss you and move on. Instead you state things based plainly and simply on prejudice and then don't have the fucking backbone to admit it.
Why are you so pathetic? Why can't you either (a) stand up for what you believe or (b) stop spouting shite you are unwilling to stand behind?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Poured away where? (Seems a bit insanitary)
Yes, clearly I do. Look at what I have posted on the point:
... Oh no. Hang on a minute ...
Why the fuck can't you READ what I actually fucking post instead of making up what I have posted.
:mad And you wonder why I end up throwing fucks into you.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
the button
out on the kocker
Readers of this thread may be interested to know that it is now possible to donate to the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign via PayPal. Link from here: -
http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/
That is all.
http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/
That is all.
Yes, of course it would. The fact he is discredited undermines anything he says. And they unavoidably have to rely on what he says as the basis for their conclusions. Which are therefore tainted with doubt. If he said something different and they came to their conclusions entirely on the basis of their own observations (i.e. what they saw for themselves and not what he told them he saw) then I'd agree (as would the CPS - they discuss the point in detail in their report) ... but they don't unfortunately.
(a) You are ASSUMING it was blood and he is lying when he says it was a mix (mainly intrabdominal fluid). There is NO evidence to this effect at all. Nor any suggestion from anyone that he is lying.
(b) He did NOT find any "internal wound". They did not find any "internal wound" either. None of them are able to say where any blood in the mix came from. It is far less likely that 3l of blood appeared without their being a clear rupture than if a lesser amount (as suggested by Patel). The absence of an obvious rupture mitigates against the internal bleeding cause of death.
My guess would be chance. But I do not know and nor do you (or anyone else in the public domain). He was not on the Home Office approved list for "special" post mortems but it wasn't a "special" post mortem (there are issues about why not for the police / IPCC / Coroner to answer). He was NOT, however, suspended entirely and hence he was available for "routine" post mortems. They run a rota / on-call system. The Coroner / the Coroner's Officer (not a police officer any more, usually a local authority employee) would simply call the one scheduled to work.
As I have said from the outset, the very LAST pathologist any Met investigating officer would call would be Patel. (I refused to let him anywhere near a body of mine ten years ago, even when he was still on the Home Office list ...)
No. It simply isn't.
No-one is saying that. Why are you making things up that are simply not being said?
No, it isn't.
There is certainly an argument that either the CPS decided wrongly on the likelihood of it being fatal to a conviction. Or that in such cases the sufficiency of evidence test they apply shouldn't apply. But no lawyer would tell you that it would be a case likely to succeed. Quite the contrary.
Probably.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Makes me wonder just what gets into our water supply.
I find that a bit hard to believe though (I'm not saying I don't believe you) ... any kind of body fluid could be contaminated.
It isn't the fucking Met's "policy" at all as you know perfectly well. The vast majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done. They also now have numbers on riot helmets.
(And when you suggest that the policy is actually officers "higher than sergeants" you really do demonstrate your ignorance - officers above sergeant don't HAVE fucking numbers ...)
Yet again you are talking absolute bollocks and, in doing so, entirely undermining any seriousness with which anyone takes you.
Not particularly. But I try and recognise my biases and not let them affect the objectivity of my explanations.
Mortuaries obviously have appropriate hygiene arrangements in place for contaminated fluids and stuff ... but I won't pretend to know what they are ...
When you cut open a body blood and fluid comes out. There are drains on the tables. They are hosed down. Stuff is poured down the drains if it is not needed. I assume it is collected somehow and disposed of in an appropriate way. How does this make any difference?
