PUBLISHER'S NOTE: So many questions swirl around discredited British pathologist Michael Heath. But most of all, how to undo the harm he has caused to individuals who wrongly convicted because of the role he played in their cases - (identifying all of these cases would be a good start) - and secondly, why has the British government never forcefully intervened to stop him in his tracks. Similar questions, and many more) are at the heart of the tragic Charles Smith saga in Canada, as illustrated in this Blog, and currently swirling around Colin Manock in Australia (South Australia's former Chief Forensic Pathologist), who was responsible for the notorious wrongful convictions and imprisonments of Henry Keogh, Derek Bromley and all too many others. Smith; Manock; Heath: A notorious trio indeed.
Harold Levy; Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "He was the first pathologist to examine Mr Lubbock after he was found dead in Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool. Dr Heath’s claim that Mr Lubbock had drowned meant that vital weeks were missed in the police investigation. Terry Lubbock, Stuart’s father, said that he was “concerned” that he was still registered and he should have been “struck off years ago”.
------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Real concerns were first raised about his work after his investigation into Mr Lubbock’s death failed to link injuries he had suffered to sexual assault and concluded the cause of death was drowning, meaning the police did not immediately launch a murder inquiry. Weeks later three other pathologists agreed his injuries showed he died of asphyxia, possibly from having an arm clamped round his throat during a sexual assault. Mr Lubbock snr, who has terminal cancer and whose final wish after a 20-year fight for justice is to see a second inquest opened, said: “His finding’s in my son’s case were ridiculous, how could a man of that distinction say that? “He should have been struck off a long time ago.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "In the following years numerous other pathologists questioned his findings that two women, Jacqueline Tindsley and Mary Anne Moore, had been killed. In the case of Miss Moore, Dr Heath insisted she had been killed by a blow to the head but her partner Kenneth Fraser was acquitted after a trial as other pathologists agreed she had fallen down the stairs. Stephen Puaca, Miss Tindsley’s partner, was convicted of murdering her by smothering on Dr Heath’s say so and only acquitted by Appeal judges three years later when evidence proved she had died of a drug overdose. Just months later another judge quashed the murder convictions of three men because Dr Heath’s evidence was "discredited" and may have misled the jury.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is a time limit on how long a sanction remains on a doctor’s record depending on the outcome of the hearing. Whilst it is unclear how many post mortems have been carried out by Dr Heath since 2006, he has been named in a number of high profile cases in the south east in recent years.
--------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "New probe: Barrymore pool pathologist who missed evidence in Stuart Lubbock's faces new probe," by Special Correspondent Hayley Dixon, published by 'The Telegraph' on March 27, 2021.
SUB-HEADING: "Dr. Michael Heath is now subject to a fresh investigation by The General Medical Council."
GIST: "A discredited pathologist who missed evidence in Stuart Lubbock’s murder is under fresh investigation for failing to carry out a proper inquiry into a death, the Telegraph can disclose.
Bereaved relatives last night questioned how Dr Michael Heath has been allowed to carry out sensitive post-mortems despite a 20-year litany of failings on his record, including two quashed murder convictions.
He is now subject to a fresh investigation by the General Medical Council and a series of stringent conditions were placed upon his licence to practice earlier this month.
A source close to the investigation has told this newspaper that a whistleblower contacted regulators to raise concerns that Dr Heath made a litany of serious failings in a post-mortem that he carried out last year.
The news that he is still practicing, and subject to a new investigation, will raise questions about whether other post-mortems he has presided over need to be reviewed.
The news comes two decades after serious questions were raised about his credibility.
He was the first pathologist to examine Mr Lubbock after he was found dead in Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool. Dr Heath’s claim that Mr Lubbock had drowned meant that vital weeks were missed in the police investigation.
Terry Lubbock, Stuart’s father, said that he was “concerned” that he was still registered and he should have been “struck off years ago”.
Unreliability of Dr Heath’s earlier evidence led to the convictions for two murders being quashed and an appeal being granted for road rage killer Kenneth Noye, which later failed.
In one case, an innocent man spent three years in prison after Dr Heath wrongly concluded that his girlfriend had been murdered.
Dr Heath’s disgrace over the case and another in which he falsely claimed a woman had been killed led to a tribunal against him and his resignation as a Home Office pathologist in 2006.
However, since then he has quietly continued to carry out post-mortems for coroners and despite two further tribunals in front of the GMC has been allowed to keep his registration.
It is only after the latest allegations surfaced that stringent conditions were placed upon the work of the pathologist, who is now in his early 70s.
The conditions, placed during a preliminary hearing at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service last month, include that he can only work to complete or comment on investigations he has already started.
The GMC said it could not comment on ongoing investigations, but it is understood that conditions are only placed when allegations are serious enough that, if proven, would mean the doctor poses a threat to patients or the public.
Last night one bereaved relative, who wished to remain anonymous, said that he had a “long history of harm” and should never have been allowed to carry out a recent post-mortem on their loved one.
They told the Telegraph: “I want to see him struck off and I want all of his cases to be scrutinised independently. How many families has he hurt?”
During an illustrious career Dr Heath undertook thousands of forensic pathology cases including those involving Moors murderer Myra Hindley and Michael Stone, who was convicted of the 1996 murders of Lin Russell and her daughter Megan in Kent.
Real concerns were first raised about his work after his investigation into Mr Lubbock’s death failed to link injuries he had suffered to sexual assault and concluded the cause of death was drowning, meaning the police did not immediately launch a murder inquiry.
Weeks later three other pathologists agreed his injuries showed he died of asphyxia, possibly from having an arm clamped round his throat during a sexual assault.
Mr Lubbock snr, who has terminal cancer and whose final wish after a 20-year fight for justice is to see a second inquest opened, said: “His finding’s in my son’s case were ridiculous, how could a man of that distinction say that?
“He should have been struck off a long time ago.”
In the following years numerous other pathologists questioned his findings that two women, Jacqueline Tindsley and Mary Anne Moore, had been killed.
In the case of Miss Moore, Dr Heath insisted she had been killed by a blow to the head but her partner Kenneth Fraser was acquitted after a trial as other pathologists agreed she had fallen down the stairs.
Stephen Puaca, Miss Tindsley’s partner, was convicted of murdering her by smothering on Dr Heath’s say so and only acquitted by Appeal judges three years later when evidence proved she had died of a drug overdose.
Just months later another judge quashed the murder convictions of three men because Dr Heath’s evidence was "discredited" and may have misled the jury.
The cases of Mr Puaca and Mr Fraser led a Government disciplinary tribunal and Dr Heath was found to have failed in his duties and resigned from his post with the Home Office.
In the wake of his resignation at least 50 other convictions he had been instrumental in were looked at, including that of Stone who has always protested his innocence.
Five convictions caused concern at the Criminal Cases Review Commission and were investigated in more detail, but none were taken to the Court of Appeal.
He remained on the register and in 2009 the GMC held a separate tribunal looking at the cases of Mr Puaca and Mr Fraser in which Dr Heath admitted he had been "incredibly arrogant".
The tribunal found him guilty of serious misconduct but because he had assured them he would not return to forensic pathology he was allowed to continue practising.
A year later he was before a tribunal again after he claimed that a woman died of heart disease when in fact a surgeon punctured an artery during surgery. Dr Heath said he had assumed the prick in the heart was made during resuscitation attempts.
Neither of these cases appear on his registration, and the GMC refused to reveal the outcome of the 2010 hearing when requested by this newspaper.
There is a time limit on how long a sanction remains on a doctor’s record depending on the outcome of the hearing.
Whilst it is unclear how many post mortems have been carried out by Dr Heath since 2006, he has been named in a number of high profile cases in the south east in recent years.
Dr Heath did not respond to requests for comment."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. 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: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
