"2: Why were the coroner and pathologist not told about the crucial new evidence on 3 April
The Met said it told City of London Police about new witnesses at 4.15pm on 3 April, before Dr Freddy Patel's postmortem. Senior City of London Police investigators have contradicted the Met, saying the information was not relayed until the postmortem was well under way. Who is telling the truth? Even assuming the information was not received until after 5pm, why was the coroner not told the next day?"
REPORTER PAUL LEWIS: THE GUARDIAN;
REMINDER: EXECUTION BY FIRE Friday, May 13, 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)
(In 1991 three little girls died in a fire that gutted their home in a small Texas town. Sympathy turned to rage when their father was charged with murder by arson. After a thirteen-year battle to prove his innocence and despite new evidence casting doubt over the conviction, Todd Willingham was executed by lethal injection in 2004. Since Willingham’s death, leading fire scientists have challenged the underpinnings of the case, concluding it was an accidental fire. Today, Willingham’s family is still battling to clear his name and for the first time Texas may be forced to admit to executing an innocent man. Another documentary by renowned Canadian journalist Julian Sher. “What can be more crushing than the nightmare of losing your child,” asks Sher. “And then the nightmare gets unimaginably worse when the police accuse you of the murder and you know you’re innocent? These were compelling human dramas and trials that grabbed the headlines. We tried to look at the toll these cases took not only on the accused but also on their families—their loved ones, the other children. It’s also about how communities turn against the guilty suspect in our midst – how we are all guilty of jumping to conclusions.”)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A thorough account of "The death of Ian Tomlinson" can be found on Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: If Dr. Freddy Patel had the last word, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor named Ian Tomlinson's death after he collapsed on the pavement on the fringes of protests at the G20 on April 1, 2009 would have been written off as "natural causes." However amateur video footage emerged showing him being pushed to the ground by a police officer who faces misconduct proceedings after an inquest beginning in March 2011 is completed. As noted on Wikipedia: "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. A first postmortem examination indicated that he had suffered a heart attack brought on by coronary artery disease, and had died of natural causes. His death became controversial a week later when The Guardian obtained footage of his last moments, filmed by an American investment fund manager who was visiting London. The video showed Tomlinson being struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding an extendable baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. It appeared to show no provocation on Tomlinson's part—he was not a protester, and at the time he was struck, the footage showed him walking along with his hands in his pockets. He walked away after the incident, but collapsed and died moments later. After The Guardian published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began a criminal inquiry. A second postmortem indicated that Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding caused by a blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver. A third postmortem was arranged by the defence team of the accused officer, PC Simon Harwood; the third pathologist agreed that the cause of death was internal bleeding. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced in July 2010 that no charges would be brought, because medical disagreement about the cause of the death meant prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between the death and the alleged assault. The first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, was suspended for three months in August 2010 for "deficient professional performance" in several unrelated cases." As the Guardian reported on March 19, 2011, Patel, who had been previously suspended for incompetence in a series of high profile autopsies, was found guilty of professional misconduct after failing to spot that a murder victim had been suffocated. He now faces being struck off the medical register.
A disciplinary panel of the General Medical Council ruled that his "fitness to practise was impaired" because of his reluctance to consider asphyxiation in the murder case, the falsification of his professional CV, and his failure to redress previous professional shortcomings. The UK Press Association says that the inquest, "is likely to examine the actions of police, the pathologist, the coroner and independent investigators in the aftermath of Mr Tomlinson's death." The Goudge Inquiry into many of former Dr. Charles Smith's cases also examined relationships between pathologists and police - particularly a case in which Smith agreed to interview a woman, suspected of murdering her baby, at her home while fully aware that the home had been secretly bugged by the authorities.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Two days after Ian Tomlinson died, three Metropolitan police constables said they had seen a colleague strike him with a baton and push him to the ground," the Guardian story by reporter Paul Lewis published earlier today begins, under the heading, "Ian Tomlinson death: the unanswered questions; Key questions that the police are yet to answer."
"Senior officers at City of London Police are now under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission for not passing this information on to the police watchdog, coroner or family. These are the key questions that have yet to be answered," the story continues.
"1: Why was the IPCC not immediately informed that police witnesses had seen their colleague strike Tomlinson?
Police forces have a statutory obligation to inform the IPCC when there is evidence of police contact that may have contributed to a person's death. Why did this not happen? The Met said it was not in breach of its obligation, because it realised the significance of the police witnesses and relayed their reports to City of London Police investigators. When exactly did the IPCC first become aware of the new police witnesses, and what was its response?
2: Why were the coroner and pathologist not told about the crucial new evidence on 3 April
The Met said it told City of London Police about new witnesses at 4.15pm on 3 April, before Dr Freddy Patel's postmortem. Senior City of London Police investigators have contradicted the Met, saying the information was not relayed until the postmortem was well under way. Who is telling the truth? Even assuming the information was not received until after 5pm, why was the coroner not told the next day?
3: Should information from the police witnesses have changed what police told the media?
The IPCC has ruled that the media were not misled by police. That conclusion was reached before the watchdog launched its investigation into information supplied by the three police witnesses on 3 April. Why did the City of London detective superintendent in charge of the investigation, Anthony Crampton, authorise a press statement released the following day, 4 April, that made no mention of the police witnesses? Who decided to describe the cause of death as a "sudden" heart attack – and why?
4: When was it decided to keep so much information from Ian Tomlinson's family?
Det Supt Crampton recorded in his log that he did not want to tell Tomlinson's family about marks found on the body to avoid "unnecessary alarm or distress". Was that the real reason? Why were they not told about the police witnesses as soon as they came forward? Crucially, why – once City of London Police knew about the police witnesses – did they provide the family with a misleading statement that claimed there was "no evidence" that police in the area were involved in the death?
5: Should the IPCC have launched an independent investigation sooner?
Given that Tomlinson died so soon after violent clashes with police, why did the watchdog not instantly launch an inquiry? If not then, why not on 3 April, when members of the public contacted the IPCC independently to say that they had seen a police officer attack Tomlinson? Or on 5 April, when photographs emerged showing him at the feet of riot officers? And why has it taken two years for the IPCC to launch an investigation into the handling of information supplied by the three police witness?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/ian-tomlinson-death-unanswered-questions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
