Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"

[butchersapron]

The full CPS statement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson

It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.

So the 3rd autopsy agreed with the 2nd and this is not a reason to proceed with charges but, in fact, the key reason not to. That's amazing.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't want to lose the police with what's coming over the next few years.

 

[cesare]

Police do get done for causing deaths. Just not human ones: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8528878.stm

 

[butchersapron]

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.

(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.

So his incompetence is yet another line of defence.

 

[xes]

Don't want to lose the police with what's coming over the next few years.

I do, I hope we lose every single last fucking one of them. To a painful desease of some kind.

 

[butchersapron]

I do, I hope we lose every single last fucking one of them. To a painful desease of some kind.

I think you've missed the point there.

 

[agricola]

So his incompetence is yet another line of defence.

Indeed. You can also make the argument that the whole tenor of his report was changed simply by adding the word "with":

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.

 

[Fedayn]

The full CPS statement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson

It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.

So here we have some of the info from the 3rd autopsy...??

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.

So we have some of the third autopsy report, it concurs with the second report.

Ian Tomlinson did not fall, he was pushed to the ground, he was pushed by a policeman, quite how then they come to the conclusion they have is beyond me frankly.

It then goes on.....

Having concluded that the officer's actions could constitute an assault

, the CPS then considered the possible criminal charges.

And yet no charges...

And again......

Conclusion
In this case there has always been and, despite the efforts of the prosecution team to resolve issues, there remains an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death.

What happens if Mr Patel is found guilty of misconduct, perhaps struck off, what then? His conclusions would cwertainly be subject to more intense scrutiny.


This fucking stinks......

 

[trevhagl]

Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.

"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html

Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.

words fail me

 

[DotCommunist]

it's the tacit implied contract between state and police 'We'll always back you up and should you get killed we'll get the man-any man- into jail'

I'd like to say that this shit won't slide but I really suspect that t will.

 

[killer b]

while this is entirely the expected result, it's still kind of unbelievable.

 

[ymu]

I'm sure there was an article at the time which claimed that there were oddities over Patel doing the autopsy in the first place - summat to do with not being on the list or on duty at the time. He got struck off the register a couple of months after because of these other cases - but IIRC this was claimed at the time. It's a tough google - anyone have a better memory than me?

 

[DotCommunist]

I think it was that he wasn't on duty. search in the G20 thread IIRC it was mentioned there

 

[agricola]

I'm sure there was an article at the time which claimed that there were oddities over Patel doing the autopsy in the first place - summat to do with not being on the list or on duty at the time. He got struck off the register a couple of months after because of these other cases - but IIRC this was claimed at the time. It's a tough google - anyone have a better memory than me?

this?

http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2009/070209/news070209_02.html

 

[claphamboy]

Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.

"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html

Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.

Please fuck off.

And die.

 

[xes]

Please fuck off.

And die.

seconded, thirded forthed and fithed. Pig loving cunt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The full CPS statement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson

It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.

Could the decision be judicially reviewed?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Please fuck off.

And die.

You forgot the words "slowly and painfully".

 

[DotCommunist]

ignore cobblers, the subject at hand is the disgusting miscarriage of justice not the inane ramblings of a piss stained middle management sort with delusion of wealth.

 

[ymu]

this?

http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2009/070209/news070209_02.html

Yes. Thanks.

Investigators want to know why Dr Patel conducted the post mortem on Mr Tomlinson when it appeared he does not currently hold a police contract, another requirement of the Home Office rules.

 

[OneStrike]

I am not suprised at the result, it is the sheer audacity that I find amazing. I was happy to just see the family appearing resolved and to have a good understanding of the system in the BBC footage just shown. I hope the wanky griffin story doesn't get the headlines over this disgusting farce.

 

[Spymaster]

The more I read, the more I'm astounded. I'm normally reasonably supportive of the police, but this is wrong.

Very wrong.

 

[agricola]

Could the decision be judicially reviewed?

You would think so - both in the decision itself and in the proportionality of the CPS Full Code Test, which gives an astonishing amount of power to prosecutors (who essentially determine whether or not there is a realistic proposition of success).

I should also state that the CPS are right that a charge for manslaughter would inevitably face the question of whether or not they could prove that Officer A's actions caused Tomlinsons death, and that there was a sizeable chance that a trial would not have been able to determine it beyond all reasonable doubt - its just that they should have left this up to the trial, given the obvious public interest issues in the case (and deaths following police contact generally), and most importantly that there are issues that appear to seriously affect the credibility of Patel as a witness.

 

[Teaboy]

The more I read, the more I'm astounded. I'm normally reasonably supportive of the police, but this is wrong.

Very wrong.

If you can shoot a man in the back 6 times in front of 50 witnesses and not have to answer for it then a mere baton whack followed by a push is nothing.

ETA: And of course it's not the Police's fault if CPS don't prosecute etc etc.

 

[agricola]

Yes. Thanks.

Another point rising from that article which appears to be of relevance to this decision is that Patel's post-mortem of Sally White (which apparently stated she died of a heart attack and ascribed it to natural causes) did not stop the CPS going on to charge Antony Hardy with her murder, even without an admission from Hardy at that stage.

 

[Cobbles]

It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.

In which case it is clearly the correct decision to have made on the basis that whichever elements of all 3 autopsies the CPS decided lo lead as evidence could easily be refuted by any number of medical expert witnesses.

The prospect of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that a blow/push was the actual cause of death would therefore be 0.

Even if they could get past that little hurdle, the CPS would also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who dealt the blow acted in a premeditated or criminally negligent fashion - extremely difficult if not impossible.

 

[Teaboy]

In which case it is clearly the correct decision to have made on the basis that whichever elements of all 3 autopsies the CPS decided lo lead as evidence could easily be refuted by any number of medical expert witnesses.

The prospect of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that a blow/push was the actual cause of death would therefore be 0.

Even if they could get past that little hurdle, the CPS would also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who dealt the blow acted in a premeditated or criminally negligent fashion - extremely difficult if not impossible.

Yes but you seem to be ignoring the fact that Patel is extremley suspect that alone should be considered when deciding on his report. If Patel is found guilty of misconduct then his evidence is worthless.

There was never going to be a murder charge because it's quite obvious there was no intent to kill, but no manslaughter or even ABH, that fucking stinks.

 

[butchersapron]

The CPS isn't the defence cobblers. All 3 autopsies are available to defence and prosecution. You seem rather confused. If not downright ignorant.

Idea: Let's all ignore cobbles.

 

[agricola]

In which case it is clearly the correct decision to have made on the basis that whichever elements of all 3 autopsies the CPS decided lo lead as evidence could easily be refuted by any number of medical expert witnesses.

The prospect of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that a blow/push was the actual cause of death would therefore be 0.

Even if they could get past that little hurdle, the CPS would also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who dealt the blow acted in a premeditated or criminally negligent fashion - extremely difficult if not impossible.

As has been said, there would have been difficulty proving a charge of manslaughter in court - however, the CPS have recently charged and convicted someone of murder even with Patel's autopsy saying something else, and there are questions that they could have raised about the credibility of both Patel and his autopsy of Tomlinson. It would have been difficult, but it would have been a much better course of action than this is.

 

[Hollis]

Suprise, suprise..