Thursday, July 19, 2012

P.C. Simon Harwood; Aftermath of verdict. (1) Guardian reporter Paul Lewis asks what influence discredited pathologist Freddy Patel had on the jury.

STORY: "Ian Tomlinson's family faced with two contradctory verdicts," by reporter Paul Lewis, published in the Guardian on July 19, 2012.

GIST: "While the video may have answered some questions about Tomlinson's treatment, the contested medical evidence created more uncertainty. With the investigation still in the hands of City of London police, the controversial pathologist Dr Freddy Patel was asked by the coroner to conduct the first postmortem examination. City of London police were present at the autopsy – the IPCC was barred. Patel concluded that Tomlinson, an alcoholic with serious liver damage, had died of a heart attack. It would turn out to be a hugely controversial finding. Patel's judgment had been called into serious question before that autopsy on Tomlinson's body, and has been since. He is no longer registered on the Home Office list of forensic pathologists, and has been suspended twice by the General Medical Council after being found guilty of conducting botched postmortems and falsifying his CV. In one case, Patel is suspected of having conducted an autopsy on the wrong body. It is impossible to know what swayed the jury in their deliberations, but Patel's testimony must have been central to their considerations. His findings in relation to Tomlinson were contradicted by three other forensic pathologists, all of whom agreed that the cause of death was internal bleeding in the abdomen. But Patel – who conducted the first and most important autopsy and discarded the bloody fluid found in Tomlinson's abdomen – was the key witness. It is impossible to know what swayed the jury in their deliberations, but his evidence must have had a bearing on their considerations.The small community of forensic pathologists privately expressed surprise when it first emerged that such a high-profile autopsy had been entrusted to Patel."The entire story can be found at:


I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.

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:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.