the charles smith blog

Thursday, May 5, 2011

IAN TOMLINSON INQUEST: AFTERMATH (1); OFFICER COULD FACE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE. BUT WILL CHANGES IN PATEL'S OPINION IMPEDE PROSECUTION? THE GUARDIAN;

"Within minutes of the verdict being announced, the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said a "thorough review" of his earlier decision not to bring criminal prosecutions against Harwood had begun.

"That review will now take place and will be thorough," he said. "It will take into account all of the evidence now available, including any new evidence that emerged at the inquest, the issues left by the coroner to the jury and the conclusions they reached. The review will be conducted as quickly as is compatible with the care and rigour required in a thorough exercise.........

The Tomlinson inquest verdict comes just over a year after the Met was forced to accept one of its officers almost certainly killed Blair Peach, an anti-fascist protester, at a protest in Southall, west London, in 1979.

The Met kept a report into Peach's death secret for more than 30 years. It revealed he was killed by an officer from the Special Patrol Group – the precursor to the TSG.

Police initially denied Tomlinson had had contact with police officers before his death. Reporters were briefed that Tomlinson had died of "natural causes".

Tomlinson's family, who have alleged that police covered up information about involvement in his death, were told he probably died of a heart attack before a postmortem had even taken place.

They were discouraged from talking to reporters investigating the death and told Tomlinson has simply been seen to "run out of batteries".

Details about a bruise on his leg and puncture marks in his skin, now known to have been caused by a baton strike and dog bite, were also withheld from them.

However, the release six days later of footage obtained by the Guardian showing the newspaper seller's encounter with Harwood prompted the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to launch a criminal inquiry."

REPORTER PAUL LEWIS: THE GUARDIAN;

REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Friday May 6, 2011, on Global TV. 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A thorough account of "The death of Ian Tomlinson" can be found on Wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

RICHARD BRANT: NATIONAL POST'S LINDA NGUYEN: SMITH WAS "ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED" DUSTIN DIED FROM SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME;

"Outside the court, Brant said he'd like Smith to understand all he has endured in the last 18 years.

"I don't think of him at all but if there was to be anything, I think he needs to go to jail for a little while to see what he put a lot of people through," he said. "He ruined a lot of people's lives. I think he needs to see what it's like inside jail."

Much of the Crown's case was based on Smith's report that he was "absolutely convinced" Dustin died from "shaken baby syndrome."

In arriving at this finding, Smith had dismissed a report by another pathologist who had performed the autopsy and found that the baby more likely died from pneumonia and respiratory failure brought on by a pre-existing condition from birth.

In 2005, four European pathologists and a biomedical engineer reexamined the medical reports and determined Dustin died from natural causes.

They also took into account that Smith was unable to examine the baby's brain — a vital component of his investigation — for his conclusions because proper protocols were not followed at the coroner's office. The brain had been accidentally placed in water the week before and had deteriorated.

In an affidavit read out in court, Brant said he has always maintained his innocence but was told by his lawyer that Smith was a "king in his field" and that challenging his conclusions was next to impossible........."

REPORTER LINDA NGUYEN. THE NATIONAL POST;

REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Friday May 6, 2011, on Global TV. 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"TORONTO — A man who pleaded guilty in the death of his infant son nearly two decades ago after he was pressured by erroneous evidence from disgraced pathologist Charles Smith was acquitted Wednesday by Ontario's highest court," the National Post story by reporter Linda Nguyen published earlier today under the heading, "Another conviction based on disgraced pathologist's testimony overturned," begins.

""I can hold my head up high. No more doubts. No more thoughts," said 38-year-old Richard Brant following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. "It's all over," the story continues.

"In 1993, Brant was charged with manslaughter after his two-month-old son, Dustin, died while the two were out for a walk in Belleville, Ont., just east of Toronto.

"At the time, Brant faced a possible six-year sentence upon conviction so his lawyer encouraged the then-19-year-old to plead guilty to the lesser charge of aggravated assault and serve a six-month jail sentence.

"I was questioning over and over again if there was any possible chance (I killed Dustin)," said Brant, who is now a truck driver with two daughters living outside of Moncton, N.B. "Like I said, it wasn't good. It ruined me."

Outside the court, Brant said he'd like Smith to understand all he has endured in the last 18 years.

"I don't think of him at all but if there was to be anything, I think he needs to go to jail for a little while to see what he put a lot of people through," he said. "He ruined a lot of people's lives. I think he needs to see what it's like inside jail."

Much of the Crown's case was based on Smith's report that he was "absolutely convinced" Dustin died from "shaken baby syndrome."

In arriving at this finding, Smith had dismissed a report by another pathologist who had performed the autopsy and found that the baby more likely died from pneumonia and respiratory failure brought on by a pre-existing condition from birth.

In 2005, four European pathologists and a biomedical engineer reexamined the medical reports and determined Dustin died from natural causes.

They also took into account that Smith was unable to examine the baby's brain — a vital component of his investigation — for his conclusions because proper protocols were not followed at the coroner's office. The brain had been accidentally placed in water the week before and had deteriorated.

In an affidavit read out in court, Brant said he has always maintained his innocence but was told by his lawyer that Smith was a "king in his field" and that challenging his conclusions was next to impossible.

Throughout the hour-long submissions, Brant hung his head, while his ex-wife Mary Farrell, openly wept along with her sister and a friend.

"We know this has been a terrible ordeal for you two," said Ontario Justice Marc Rosenberg, adding that this case was an example of a "miscarriage of justice."

Dustin's mother said the two had been a loving young couple when they were ripped apart by the allegations. The couple broke up shortly after the baby's death.

" . . . I knew he was innocent from Day 1 and I knew they had destroyed our lives, our family and our relationships," said 40-year-old Mary Farrell.

Brant will be seeking compensation.

James Lockyer of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted who has represented a number of people sent to jail or accused in the deaths of their children based on Smith's testimony is still working on appeals for five cases similar to Brant's.

During the 1980s and '90s, Smith was regarded as the leading expert in the field of child pathology. He testified at hundreds of cases without any formal accreditation in forensic pathology or formal training.

In 2007, the Ontario chief coroner launched a two-year probe into Smith's work and found major problems with 20 of the 44 autopsies the former doctor performed. Twelve of those cases had resulted in charges or convictions.

Earlier this year, Ontario's medical regulatory body handed down its harshest sentence by stripping Smith of his medical license. He was also fined $3,650.

Smith, who is reportedly living in Victoria, was ordered to appear for his reprimand but he did not show up."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story can be found at:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Another+conviction+bas
ed+disgraced+pathologist+testimony+overturned/4725783/story.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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;

RICHARD BRANT; TORONTO STAR REPORTER TRACEY TYLER ON TODAY'S ACQUITTAL; CHILD'S MOTHER PAID HEAVY PRICE TOO;

"A police officer who witnessed the incident from his cruiser at a nearby stoplight confirmed that Brant appeared genuinely surprised and upset by the condition of the child, who died in hospital two days later.

Yet investigators suspected he was responsible and that drops of red liquid found in the family’s home were blood. They turned out to be cough syrup.

Undeterred, police brought in the heavy artillery in the form of Smith, who concluded Dustin died of blunt force trauma to the head, likely caused by shaking.

But fresh evidence from forensic experts who recently reviewed the autopsy findings shows there is nothing to support Smith’s opinion, the court was told on Wednesday.

Instead, the evidence suggests Dustin died of natural causes, likely pneumonia, the same conclusion reached by the neuropathologist who performed the autopsy before Smith arrived on the scene........."

LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER TRACEY TYLER; THE TORONTO STAR;

REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Friday May 6, 2011, on Global TV. 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Having been wrongly convicted for the death of his son — then jailed, shunned and driven out of Ontario — Richard Brant is one of the more visible victims of pathologist Charles Smith’s incompetence," the Toronto Star story by reporter Tracey Tyler published earlier today under the heading, "18 years later, dead infant’s father finally exonerated," begins.

"But Mary Farrell, the child’s mother, also paid a heavy price for Brant’s 1993 conviction and her belief in his innocence," the story continues.

"Her two-year-old daughter was taken away from her and Farrell battled her own mother for custody, making for a relationship that remained strained until the elder woman’s death last December.

“We lost our son,” said Farrell, 40. Yet police “treated us like criminals. We were loving young parents.”

The former couple, who hadn’t seen each other in 16 years, was reunited in Toronto Wednesday before the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed Brant’s conviction for aggravated assault in connection with the death of their two-month-old son, Dustin.

Brant was out for a walk with the child in Belleville on Nov. 17, 1992 when he bumped into a distant relative on the street and lifted the plastic rain cover on a stroller to show off his newborn.

What he found was the boy in distress, with what appeared to be red foam around his mouth.

A police officer who witnessed the incident from his cruiser at a nearby stoplight confirmed that Brant appeared genuinely surprised and upset by the condition of the child, who died in hospital two days later.

Yet investigators suspected he was responsible and that drops of red liquid found in the family’s home were blood. They turned out to be cough syrup.

Undeterred, police brought in the heavy artillery in the form of Smith, who concluded Dustin died of blunt force trauma to the head, likely caused by shaking.

But fresh evidence from forensic experts who recently reviewed the autopsy findings shows there is nothing to support Smith’s opinion, the court was told on Wednesday.

Instead, the evidence suggests Dustin died of natural causes, likely pneumonia, the same conclusion reached by the neuropathologist who performed the autopsy before Smith arrived on the scene.

It was, said Justice Marc Rosenberg, a “miscarriage of justice.”

“It lifts a great weight off my shoulder,” Brant, 38, said Wednesday. “This just destroyed me.”

Brant said after serving a six-month jail sentence, he was shunned by neighbours on the Tyendinaga reserve, near Belleville.

The experience shattered his relationship with Farrell, despite her belief in his innocence. He moved to Montreal with a new girlfriend, then to Moncton to start a new life.

Brant said he felt pressured to accept the Crown’s offer to plead guilty to a reduced charge. His trial lawyer informed him Smith’s opinions were considered unassailable and he could get up to 15 years in prison if convicted of manslaughter at a trial.

That was the choice facing many parents who were victims of Smith’s mistakes, James Lockyer, Brant’s appeal lawyer, told the court.

A review by the Office of the Chief Coroner found Smith botched 20 child autopsies. Prior to a 2008 public inquiry into the debacle, four people had charges withdrawn or were otherwise exonerated. Since the inquiry, convictions have been quashed in five cases. Others are before the courts.

Brant said learning Smith had been proven wrong in his case left him angry, happy and confused about how such a highly-regarded “professional” could mess up so badly.

“That’s not a little wee mistake,” he said Wednesday. “That’s a life mistake. It (pertains) to lives he’s destroyed.”"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/charlessmith/article/985447--18-years-later-dead-infant-s-father-finally-exonerated

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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;

RICHARD BRANT; ACQUITTED BY THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL; EXPLAINS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY; CTV NEWS;

"Although Brant maintained he never did anything to intentionally cause Dustin's death, he pleaded guilty in 1995 to the lesser charge and was sentenced to six months after his lawyer Robert Graydon, now an Ontario Court judge, told him Smith was the "God" of his profession.

In the court the defence had requested that Brant be acquitted and the Crown agreed that there had been a miscarriage of justice."

REPORTER JOHN MUSSELMAN: CTV NEWS;

REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Friday May 6, 2011, on Global TV. 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: (GLOBE AND MAIL); Richard Brant was convicted of aggravated assault in 1995 for the death of his two-month-old son, Dustin. Mr. Brant was taking Dustin for a walk when he noticed red foam around the baby’s nose. Dustin died two days later, on Nov. 18, 1992. (Then) Dr. Smith (but since struck from the register of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) concluded Dustin had been shaken to death, despite the fact that the baby’s brain had rotted away after morgue staff mistakenly left it in a container of water. His findings contradicted the findings of a neuropathologist who had examined the child’s brain and concluded he had likely died of pneumonia. Mr. Brant said he felt compelled to plead guilty to aggravated assault to avoid a possible manslaughter conviction. He conceded he had accidentally jostled Dustin during a physical struggle with his wife. In January, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted Mr. Brant permission to reopen the case and fight his conviction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Richard Brant, the man who pleaded guilty in the death of his two-month-old son in the 1990s because of a report from a now-disgraced pathologist, was acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeal on Wednesday," the CTV news story by reporter John Musselman published earlier today under the heading, "Dad acquitted in infant son's death, 18 years later," begins.

"Brant, who originally hails from Moncton, was charged in 1993 with manslaughter in his baby's death the previous year," the story continues.

"He eventually pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after testimony from Charles Smith said his son, Dustin, died of Shaken Baby Syndrome.

His conclusions flew in the face of another pathologist who listed pneumonia and respiratory failure as causes of death.

Although Brant maintained he never did anything to intentionally cause Dustin's death, he pleaded guilty in 1995 to the lesser charge and was sentenced to six months after his lawyer Robert Graydon, now an Ontario Court judge, told him Smith was the "God" of his profession.

In the court the defence had requested that Brant be acquitted and the Crown agreed that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Speaking to CTV's John Musselman, Brant said the outcome was a huge relief.

"A lot of weight is off my shoulders," said the 38-year-old. "I am glad the truth finally came out. A lot of people they listened to this professional man who gave his report…and it made everyone doubt what I was saying."

He said he made the decision to plead to aggravated assault after speaking to his then-pregnant wife, who said it would be a better decision in order to ensure he could spend time with his other child.

As for what Brant thinks of Smith now, he said: "I can't say my thoughts on TV, they're not good.""

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story can be found at:

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110504/father-acquittal-baby-manslaughter-case-court-appeal-ontario-brant-dustin-smith-110504/20110504/?hub=TorontoNewHome

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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;

SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME; TIMELY STORY IN THE DAILY MAIL; (U.K.) DR. WANEY SQUIER; ONE HALF OF PARENTS CHARGED ON BASIS OF SBS WRONGLY CONVICTED;

"'But Dr Squier is one of a growing number of doctors who believe that relying on the triad alone is no longer enough.

‘Over the past ten years so much more has been discovered about how a baby’s brain develops in its first year and these developments have seriously undermined SBS,’ she explains.

‘We now know, for example, that almost half of babies have a triad at birth, which can be caused by different factors.

‘In the past four years there have been several discoveries about the dura, the membrane covering the brain. It was thought that it was there to protect the brain from shock, but we now know it also has the very important function of controlling blood flow out of the brain.

‘At birth the dura has huge blood channels that can leak – and not always as a result of trauma. They do, however, disappear during the child’s second year of life.

‘These findings are so significant that I now believe that half or even more of those who have been brought to trial in the past for SBS have been wrongly convicted.

'I am also convinced we can virtually exclude shaking as a cause of death in babies unless, as well as bleeding in the brain, we have additional evidence of trauma, such as serious damage to the neck.........'"

REPORTER ANGELA LEVIN; THE DAILY MAIL;

EXCELLENT BACKGROUNDER FOR RICHARD BRANT'S APPEAL - SET FOR TODAY: HIS FACTUM;

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-brant-another-charles-smith.html

ALSO WORTH READING IN CONNECTION WITH TODAY'S APPEAL: RICHARD BRANT'S OWN WORDS; HIS AFFIDAVIT; (ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-brant-charles-smith-case-his.html

REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Friday May 6, 2011, on Global TV. 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The following article from the Daily Mail is timely as it coincides with Richard Brant's appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal which is to be held this morning. Dr. Waney Squeir is a courageous individual who had the courage to reverse her own opinion on Shaken Baby Syndrome in the face of developments in scientific knowledge of the workings of babies brain's - and refuses to stand by while innocent people such as Richard Brant, are charged based on little more than a pathologist's finding of SBS, put through hell and wrongly convicted. Brant's anticipated exoneration is yet another legacy of the committed legal work undertaken by lawyer James Lockyer and his colleagues at the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (including the extraordinary Win Wahrer who liases with AIDWYC's clients) which has played a key role in most of the Charles Smith cases - and a legacy of Justice Stephen Goudge and his far-reaching independent Inquiry which is still resonating today far beyond Ontario's borders.

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is a case that haunts Dr Waney Squier and one any parent will find deeply distressing," the Daily Mail story by reporter Angela Levin published under the heading, "At least half of all parents tried over shaken baby syndrome have been wrongly convicted, expert warns," begins.

"Eleven years ago, Lorraine Harris stood trial at Nottingham Crown Court charged with manslaughter. Although described as a woman of good character and a careful and caring mother, she was accused of shaking her four-month-old baby Patrick to death two years earlier," the story continues.

""Neuropathologist Dr Squier wrote a report for the prosecution saying that the child was the victim of shaken baby syndrome (SBS).

Impeccable record: Dr Waney Squier says she is determined not to be silenced

Lorraine, who vehemently protested her innocence, was convicted and jailed for three years.

Her punishment was not limited to incarceration, as tragic consequences rippled out from Patrick’s death. Lorraine wasn’t allowed to go to his funeral; a baby she gave birth to as she was starting her sentence was taken away for adoption; her partner left her and both her parents died while she was in prison. Her life fell apart.

By the time Lorraine’s appeal was heard in 2005, Dr Squier had become convinced the criteria she had used to define whether SBS had taken place were wrong. In a complete U-turn, she now appeared as an expert witness for the defence. Lorraine’s conviction was quashed.

It is difficult to imagine Lorraine’s feelings as she digested this news. Relief, perhaps, but the occasion could hardly be described as joyous. One of her children had died and she had not been allowed to grieve. Another child had been taken from her. And she would possibly never be free from the taint of the original conviction.
Ordeal: Lorraine Harris was accused of killing her baby son

Ordeal: Lorraine Harris was accused of killing her baby son

‘Her conviction was overturned but it was a hollow victory because her life had been completely devastated,’ says Dr Squier, who had helped right a wrong but could not erase the pain it had caused.

‘I did and sometimes still do feel terrible about what happened.

‘I now believe that half or even more of those who have been brought to trial in the past for SBS have been wrongly convicted. It is a frightening thought.’

It is indeed, and it is an extraordinary claim but one that should be taken seriously. Dr Squier, 63, is the most experienced paediatric neuropathologist in the country. She has spent 30 years researching baby brains and has a solid international reputation.

She has appeared countless times in court as an expert witness in cases of SBS, when a child is said to have been shaken so violently that it results in brain injury or death.

You would imagine that when such an eminent scientist says recent scientific developments show that, in the past, she and others have been wrong about SBS, she would be listened to.

Instead Dr Squier has been on the receiving end of vicious attacks by some doctors, lawyers and police officers who do not like her views. She has even been referred to as a supporter of child abusers.

‘Why would I want to do that?’ she asks.

‘I have children of my own. I am chilled by the thought of getting it wrong because of the risk of sending babies back to abusive households, or taking them away from families, or putting people in prison.’

About 250 SBS cases go to court each year. Expert witnesses play a pivotal role in trials. Babies often do not have any symptoms other than bleeding to the head and eyes so, unlike most criminal cases, the opinion of the pathologist may be the only evidence to consider.

However, some convictions are controversial. The problem has been that there is no single agreed definition of SBS. Instead, for the past 30 years, the findings of a U.S. radiologist, John Caffey, have been used in courts.

These findings centre on three signs – swelling of the brain, bleeding between the skull and the brain, and bleeding in the retina – known collectively as the triad. If they are present then a conviction is likely.

But Dr Squier is one of a growing number of doctors who believe that relying on the triad alone is no longer enough.

‘Over the past ten years so much more has been discovered about how a baby’s brain develops in its first year and these developments have seriously undermined SBS,’ she explains.

‘We now know, for example, that almost half of babies have a triad at birth, which can be caused by different factors.

‘In the past four years there have been several discoveries about the dura, the membrane covering the brain. It was thought that it was there to protect the brain from shock, but we now know it also has the very important function of controlling blood flow out of the brain.

‘At birth the dura has huge blood channels that can leak – and not always as a result of trauma. They do, however, disappear during the child’s second year of life.

‘These findings are so significant that I now believe that half or even more of those who have been brought to trial in the past for SBS have been wrongly convicted.

'I am also convinced we can virtually exclude shaking as a cause of death in babies unless, as well as bleeding in the brain, we have additional evidence of trauma, such as serious damage to the neck.

‘When a baby is shaken, the head will flop back and forth and the neck becomes the weak point. In other words, if you shake a baby so hard that it dies, it is the neck that is going to show the damage, not the brain.’

Although her view is gathering momentum worldwide, it has ignited an increasingly toxic argument between doctors, lawyers and police.

‘Some pathologists want to remain in an unchallenging comfort zone of an outdated theory,’ Dr Squier explains.

‘Some judges don’t like the fact that new scientific discoveries make convictions more complex, and the police don’t like them because it can prevent them from getting the convictions they want.

Fragile: Blood channels in an infant's brain can leak during the first year of life

‘I think the police are so put-out that they are trying to ban me from court. It’s why I would like Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke to set up an inquiry into the methods police have used to deter expert witnesses who challenge old mainstream beliefs.

'This raises serious concerns that one side of the argument is not being heard and means there cannot be a fair trial.

‘If I am blocked from giving evidence in court, defendants already having to cope with the tragic death of a baby will not get the benefit of the new science. Equally, if the courts fail to accept that the mainstream view of 30 years ago can no longer be relied upon, there will be serious miscarriages of justice.’

Dr Squier, who is divorced with two grown-up daughters, is devoted to her work and, despite the pressure she is under, she speaks calmly. Born in Surrey, she qualified as a doctor at Leeds Medical School.

After spells in Bristol, Cornwall and London, she moved to Oxford in 1984 and took up a post as consultant pathologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital, where we talked.

‘Once I came here I specialised in baby brains,’ she explains. ‘I have looked at thousands and written more than 100 medical papers on normal brain development and what happens when things go wrong both in pregnancy and after birth. In the past 15 years, I have investigated many unexpected deaths.’

Her change of opinion was triggered ten years ago by pioneering work carried out by Jennian Geddes, a former consultant neuropathologist at the Royal London Hospital.

Geddes argued that, in a small number of cases, injuries associated with the triad can occur naturally; that some babies suffer from a lack of oxygen supply that triggers bleeding; and that there should be some signs that the baby suffered trauma.

‘A light went on in my head,’ Dr Squier says.

‘I became concerned that the whole basis for shaking was poor.’

She began to conduct her own investigations and found similar evidence to Geddes.

‘It made me feel guilty about my previous unquestioning acceptance of the shaking hypothesis.

‘All my cases are now based on a newer understanding of the science. I am happy with rigorous debate but take exception to attacks on my integrity and professionalism. It is intellectual laziness to apply the old triad diagnosis when symptoms can be explained by natural causes.’

'I am happy with rigorous debate but take exception to attacks on my integrity and professionalism. It is intellectual laziness to apply the old triad diagnosis when symptoms can be explained by natural causes.’

Dr Squier has an impeccable professional reputation so she was shocked early last year to receive a letter from the Human Tissue Authority, an organisation which ensures that doctors keep good records and have consent for everything they do.

‘The Metropolitan Police had raised concerns about the way I was handling post-mortem tissue and the possibility that unrecorded material was being stored, used and disposed of without the knowledge of the police. Fortunately, our procedures at John Radcliffe are absolutely robust, we know where every piece of tissue is, and no action was taken.

‘Then last June, I heard that a complaint on the same subject had been lodged against me with the General Medical Council.’

Dr Squier had to face an interim orders panel, which was set up after the conviction of Harold Shipman to protect the public and the profession from dangerous doctors. Her appearance was requested by the National Policing Improvement Agency and Detective Inspector Colin Welsh, lead investigator at Scotland Yard’s child abuse investigation command.

‘I barely slept for six weeks,’ she says.

‘It was a terrible experience but the hearing had barely got under way when it was dismissed and no restrictions were made on my practice.

‘However, the panel couldn’t remove the complaint lodged about me with the GMC and I don’t know whether it will take it forward. It is hanging over me like a dark cloud.

'I know the GMC will not approve of me speaking out but too much is at stake for me to stay silent.’

Unknown territory: Doctors are still learning how a baby's brain develops - and discoveries in just the last ten years have 'seriously undermined SBS' according to Dr Squier

Unknown territory: Doctors are still learning how a baby's brain develops - and discoveries in just the last ten years have 'seriously undermined SBS' according to Dr Squier

The accusations began to make sense following a conference on shaken babies, which took place in Atlanta, Georgia, last September.

DI Welsh, in a public lecture, talked disparagingly about prosecution cases that had failed largely due to expert defence witnesses.

He described a way of eliminating them from criminal and possibly family court trials, thus precluding alternative views being presented. He believed they confused the jury and possibly the judges with the complexity of science.

DI Welsh’s solutions included ‘questioning everything – qualifications, employment history, testimony, research papers presented by these experts, go to their bodies to see if we can turn up anything’.

Among the audience was lawyer Heather Kirkwood, who was so shocked that she took notes and has signed an affidavit that these notes are a true record.

She says: ‘In the past decade, we have learned that much of what we thought we knew about SBS was wrong, and that many of the babies that we thought were shaken were instead suffering from birth injuries, childhood stroke, or metabolic or infectious disease.

‘Now that we know we got it wrong, we need to get it right. Instead, many prominent advocates of shaken baby theory have resorted to attacking researchers such as Dr Squier, who is one of the world’s leading experts on the infant brain.

‘Families and children deserve better. To get it right, we need open, honest debate, not cover-ups or attacks on those identifying the problems and seeking solutions.’

Dr Squier was outraged to learn of DI Welsh’s comments.

‘It proved in my mind that the police have set out to remove me and two other neuropathologists who share the same view from the courts because we have stood in the way of their campaign to improve conviction rates. If an expert witness bases an opinion on reasonable scientific ground, even if the opinion is a minority one, it should not be excluded.

‘I am determined not to be silenced and if I can’t speak out in court, I shall do it in scientific papers. It cannot be fair to gag one body of opinion. The whole thing is a nightmare, not least because instead of researching vital things about babies, I have to spend time trying to clear my name.

‘Meanwhile, the number of court cases I have been asked to attend has plummeted from 30 a year a few years ago to five in the past year.

‘Some lawyers are still willing to instruct me because they believe I will give them an opinion based on the science. Others feel they can’t use me while the complaint is hanging over me.

‘The experience has made me feel like a whistleblower – on the one hand challenging all those who prefer the comfort of old mainstream opinion, and on the other struggling for my professional life.’

DI Welsh was unavailable for comment, but Scotland Yard said in a statement: ‘The Metropolitan Police did register concerns about certain practices of a doctor with the Human Tissue Authority in December 2009. The Metropolitan Police also agreed to provide any relevant information to the GMC following a report registered by the National Policing Improvement Agency with the GMC.’

The story can be found at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-parents-tried-shaken-baby-syndrome-wrongly-convicted-expert-warns.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

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;

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

RICHARD BRANT; CROWN AND DEFENCE JOINTLY CALL FOR HIS ACQUITTAL IN 1992 INFANT DEATH AT TOMORROW'S (WEDNESDAY 4 MAY, 2011) APPEAL; THE CANADIAN PRESS;

"The Crown is conceding that it was a "miscarriage of justice" when a man pleaded guilty in the death of his two-month-old son because of the daunting spectre of testimony from now-disgraced pathologist Charles Smith.

Both the Crown and the defence are calling for the Court of Appeal for Ontario to acquit Richard Brant, in light of fresh evidence. The court is scheduled to hear his case Wednesday."

REPORTER ALLISON JONES; THE CANADIAN PRESS;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXCELLENT BACKGROUNDER FOR RICHARD BRANT'S APPEAL: HIS FACTUM;

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-brant-another-charles-smith.html

ALSO WORTH READING IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEAL: RICHARD BRANT'S OWN WORDS; HIS AFFIDAVIT; (ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-brant-charles-smith-case-his.html

REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Friday May 6, 2011, on Global TV. 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: (GLOBE AND MAIL); Richard Brant was convicted of aggravated assault in 1995 for the death of his two-month-old son, Dustin. Mr. Brant was taking Dustin for a walk when he noticed red foam around the baby’s nose. Dustin died two days later, on Nov. 18, 1992. (Then) Dr. Smith (but since struck from the register of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) concluded Dustin had been shaken to death, despite the fact that the baby’s brain had rotted away after morgue staff mistakenly left it in a container of water. His findings contradicted the findings of a neuropathologist who had examined the child’s brain and concluded he had likely died of pneumonia. Mr. Brant said he felt compelled to plead guilty to aggravated assault to avoid a possible manslaughter conviction. He conceded he had accidentally jostled Dustin during a physical struggle with his wife. In January, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted Mr. Brant permission to reopen the case and fight his conviction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(MORE BACKGROUND: ASSOCIATION IN DEFENCE OF THE WRONGLY CONVICTED PRESS RELEASE: }Tomorrow morning, Wednesday, May 4, 2011, Richard Brant will appear before the Ontario Court of Appeal to request that his 1995 conviction for aggravated assault be quashed and to be acquitted of the charge. On November 17, 1992, while out for a walk in downtown Belleville, Richard Brant found his nine week old son Dustin lifeless in his baby carriage. Dustin was rushed to hospital, but died early the next morning. An autopsy was conducted at Kingston General Hospital by Dr. Sukrita Nag, Professor of Neuropathology, who determined that Dustin likely died from pneumonia. The police requested a second opinion from Charles Smith. On April 15, 1993, Dr. Smith provided a report in which he concluded that Dustin had died from “either shaking or something hit his head or his head hit something” while he was with his father. He asserted that Dustin exhibited the classic symptoms of Shaken Baby Syndrome, and suggested that the original autopsy report should be “filed in the garbage can”. Mr. Brant was charged with manslaughter. Following a preliminary inquiry in which Dr. Smith testified, Mr. Brant was offered a short custodial sentence and told his manslaughter charge would be dropped if he agreed to plead guilty to aggravated assault. He was advised by his lawyer that his chances of being convicted of manslaughter at trial were high, and that he would be sent to prison for many years. On April 21, 1993, Mr. Brant entered a guilty plea to aggravated assault in Belleville and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Four neuropathologists and a biomechanical engineer have since reviewed Dustin’s case. All agree with Dr. Nag’s opinion back in 1993 that Dustin’s death could have been caused by pneumonia. Richard Brant always maintained his innocence to his lawyer, family and friends. In his affidavit filed in the Court of Appeal, he says: “I did not cause Dustin’s death or assault him in any way, and pled guilty because I felt I had no other realistic option. I entered my plea because I feared the consequences of flawed pathology. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have done so. I ask the Court to take the burden of having harmed him from my shoulders.”
_________________________________________________________

"TORONTO - The Crown is conceding that it was a "miscarriage of justice" when a man pleaded guilty in the death of his two-month-old son because of the daunting spectre of testimony from now-disgraced pathologist Charles Smith," the Canadian Press story by reporter Allison Jones published earlier today under the heading, "Crown and defence jointly call for father's acquittal in 1992 infant death," begins.

"Both the Crown and the defence are calling for the Court of Appeal for Ontario to acquit Richard Brant, in light of fresh evidence. The court is scheduled to hear his case Wednesday," the story continues.

"Brant, now 38, was charged in 1993 with manslaughter in his baby's death the previous year. He eventually pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

Brant was taking Dustin for a walk after the boy had been sick for a few days. When he lifted the rain guard on the stroller he was horrified to find Dustin's lifeless body with thick, red foam around his nose, Brant says in an affidavit.

The infant was taken to hospital and died two days later.

While the pathologist who conducted the autopsy listed pneumonia and respiratory failure as causes of death, Smith examined the case and concluded Dustin likely died from Shaken Baby Syndrome.

He maintained he never did anything to intentionally cause Dustin's death, but his lawyer Robert Graydon, now an Ontario Court judge, told him Smith was the "God" of his profession.

With his word against Smith's word, facing a lengthy prison term if convicted, and having just found out his girlfriend was pregnant, Brant pleaded guilty in 1995 to the lesser charge and was sentenced to six months, Brant's lawyer writes in documents filed with the court.

"If I knew then what I know now, I would not have done so," Brant says of his guilty plea in an affidavit. "I ask the court to take the burden of having harmed him from my shoulders."

Once considered an unassailable expert on child forensic pathology, an inquiry found that errors in Smith's work were responsible, in part, for several people being wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for killing children.

In addition to the inquiry coming down hard on Smith, other reports and reviews have noted his errors and his findings have been lambasted numerous times in court in recent years.

His medical licence was revoked earlier this year.

The Crown and defence had experts examine the evidence, and while none of them can eliminate shaking as a possible cause of death, all independently put forward an alternative cause or causes of death, Brant's lawyer James Lockyer writes in court documents.

"The evidence establishes that Dustin likely died of natural causes while in the case of (Brant)," he writes.

The Crown agrees with Lockyer's call for an acquittal, saying in documents filed with the court that with changes in science and forensic pathology, the evidence now can't support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Brant harmed Dustin.

"Fresh evidence establishes that the plea should be set aside as a miscarriage of justice," writes Crown lawyer Alison Wheeler. "The appellant has explained his guilty plea, and there is compelling fresh evidence which now shows that no reasonable jury could convict the appellant of the alleged offence.""

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story can be found at:

http://www.am770chqr.com/News/National/Article.aspx?id=279268

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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;

IAN TOMLINSON INQUEST: THE JURY'S VERDICT: "UNLAWFUL KILLING"; JURY REJECTS DR. FREDDY PATEL'S ACCOUNT OF THE INJURIES AND CAUSE OF DEATH; GUARDIAN;

"What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease?

Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.

If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances?

Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings ... This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.

The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".

"As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death." The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and "posed no threat".

What is the jury's conclusion as to the death?

Unlawful killing.

3.45pm: For legal reasons, the jury was not permitted to name "the police officer", but we know that he was PC Simon Harwood, a member of the Metropolitan Police's Territorial Support Group."

THE GUARDIAN: LIVE BLOG;

REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Global TV on Friday May 6, 2011. 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IAN TOMLINSON INQUEST; LINK TO THE GUARDIAN'S LIVE UP-DATE COVERAGE: AUTOMATICALLY UP-DATED EVERY MINUTE;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/may/03/ian-tomlinson-inquest-verdict-live-blog

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"3.30pm: Welcome back to the Ian Tomlinson inquest blog. The verdict is now imminent," the Guardian Live Blog post filed earlier today begins.

"For five weeks eleven men and women have heard detailed evidence about Tomlinson's death at the G20 protests on April 1, 2009," the post continues.

"They heard how he was struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by Metropolitan police officer Simon Harwood at 7.20pm. Tomlinson collapsed just under three minutes later.

They retired to deliberate their findings at 11.15am. They are about to come back and deliver their verdict.

3.32pm: The jury has taken just three hours and fifteen minutes to reach their verdict.

3.34pm: The jury has concluded Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a police officer at the G20 protests.

3.37pm: Ian Tomlinson's family could be heard shouting "yes" at the verdict. His wife, Julia, six of their children are present at the hearing and have broken down, crying.

3.42pm: The court was caught unaware by the jury's quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition.

What was the name of the deceased?
Ian Tomlinson.

What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease?
Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.

If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances?
Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings ... This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.

The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".

"As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death." The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and "posed no threat".

What is the jury's conclusion as to the death?
Unlawful killing.

3.45pm: For legal reasons, the jury was not permitted to name "the police officer", but we know that he was PC Simon Harwood, a member of the Metropolitan Police's Territorial Support Group.

The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, who decided in July last year not to prosecute Harwood for manslaughter, will now be under intense pressure to reverse that decision.

An official Crown Prosecution Service review of the decision not to prosecute Harwood is now under way.

3.47pm: A quick word on the importance of "unlawful killing" as a verdict.

To reach an unlawful killing conclusion, the jury were required to have been satisfied to a higher burden of proof than the other possible verdicts, which could have been reached "on the balance of probabilities".

But to reach the unlawful killing verdict, the jury had to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt", the same threshold used in criminal trials.
Ian Tomlinson's widow, Julia, arrives at the inquest with stepsons Richard King and Paul King Ian Tomlinson's widow, Julia, arrived at an earlier hearing of the inquest into his death with her stepsons Richard King (left) and Paul King (right). Photograph: Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images

3.53pm: We've just published my news story on the verdict, which recaps the evidence from the hearing and explains how jurors were given two divergent explanations of Tomlinson's death.

The first pathologist to conduct a postmortem examination on the body, Dr Freddy Patel, said he died of a heart attack as a result of coronary heart disease. He was contradicted by three other pathologists who examined Tomlinson's body, all of whom found he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen.

Starmer said last July that complications with medical evidence led him to believe prosecutors were unlikely to prove a cause of death. His decision was supported by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve.

Both will now have to consider how a jury of seven men and four women concluded Tomlinson died as a result of being pushed by Harwood.

3.55pm: Ian Tomlinson's family will be giving a statement in about 25 minutes. I'll post an update with the details here.

4.00pm: We've now also published my profile of Ian Tomlinson: a "gentle, unassuming man who always avoided confrontation".

4.05pm: Jules Carey, of Tuckers solicitors, representing the Tomlinson family, has just released a statement. It says:

Today's decision is a huge relief to Mr Tomlinson's family. To many, today's verdict will seem like a statement of the blindingly obvious, however this fails to take account of the significant and many obstacles faced by the family over the last two years to get to this decision. The CPS will now review whether a prosecution will be brought following today's verdict and the way in which the evidence has been clarified during the inquest process.

This is Sam Jones taking over from Paul, who's gathering some reaction from the aftermath of the inquest.

4.11pm: OK. Here's the line we were waiting for from the CPS: the DPP has now promise a "thorough review" of the evidence.

This is the statement in full:

"The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, made it clear last year that the decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson would be reviewed in light of the evidence heard at the Inquest. That review will now take place and will be thorough. It will take into account all of the evidence now available, including any new evidence that emerged at the Inquest, the issues left by the Coroner to the jury and the conclusions they reached. The review will be conducted as quickly as is compatible with the care and rigour required in a thorough exercise. It accords with our usual practice and the Attorney General's review into deaths in custody published in 2003."

4.13pm: We're now waiting for a statement from the Met, which is due to be read out soon. The Mayor's office is also thought to be putting something out.

4.16pm: While we wait for more comment, here's a tweet from one of Tomlinson's sons, Francis King

YESSSSSS we won the case. Love u dad RIPless than a minute ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® Favorite Retweet Replyfrancis
franie_king

4.22pm: We've just got a statement from Jenny Jones, a Green party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority.

She says:

"Ian Tomlinson's family must be relieved to finally have public recognition of the fact that he was unlawfully killed. But the question remains as to when PC Harwood will face the consequences of what he has done. There simply has to be a prosecution to bring him to justice.
We have so often seen the police appearing to get away with serious assault or even manslaughter. From Blair Peach to Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson's death must not join that list."

4.26pm: Another of Tomlinson's sons, Paul King, has just said a few words to the media outside the inquest

He said:

"We've got a long way ahead of us. We've been let down for two years … We're grateful that we're going a step further than we did two years ago … [Hearing the verdict] was nice; a bit of closure for the family. It feels like something is being done by the right authority and I hope we'll get some answers. It's been proven that he was killed unlawfully. [Now] we'd like to go to court and continue with the manslaughter charges."

4.31pm: In order to minimise the risk of contempt of court, we have not been allowing comments on our daily live blogs from the inquest hearings.
Now that the jury has delivered its verdict, that risk no longer exists and we have now opened comments on this blog.

4.36pm: Just spoken to the attorney general's office, who say they have nothing to add to the CPS statement.

4.47pm: We've got a statement from the Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner Rose Fitzpatrick:

"Over the last few weeks we have heard in detail the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death and I wish to express my profound condolences to this family.

"It is a matter of deep regret that the actions of an MPS officer have been found to have caused the death of a member of the public.

"Policing major public order events is a challenging and difficult task. It has been demonstrated in this case that all police officers are accountable for their actions and we would not want it any other way.

"If someone dies following police contact it is only right their death is thoroughly investigated. It is in the best interests of all affected that the facts of what happened are fully established and the MPS has fully supported and cooperated with the independent IPCC investigations.

"PC Harwood will now be subject to misconduct proceedings and the Crown Prosecution Service will reconsider the case. It would therefore be inappropriate to say anything further at this point."

4.52pm: Paul has just emailed me over a verbatim transcript of the verdict. As you might expect, it is stark but very thorough:

JUDGE THORNTON: Could you give, please, your conclusions on questions 1 to 5 in turn?
Firstly, question 1: name of deceased?

THE FOREMAN: Ian Tomlinson.

JUDGE THORNTON: Question 2: section 2, injury or disease causing death?

THE FOREMAN: Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.

JUDGE THORNTON: Section 3: time, place and circumstances at or in which injury was sustained?

THE FOREMAN: Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on 1 April 2009, during the G20 demonstrations. He was fatally injured at around 19.20 in Royal Exchange Buildings, the passage, near to the junction with Cornhill, London EC3. This was as a result of a baton strike from behind and a push in the back by a police officer which caused Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily. Both the baton strike and the push were excessive and unreasonable. As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death. At the time of the strike and the push, Mr Tomlinson was walking away from the police line. He was complying with police instructions to leave Royal Exchange Buildings, the passage. He posed no threat.

JUDGE THORNTON: Section 4: conclusion of the jury as to the death?

THE FOREMAN: Unlawful killing.

JUDGE THORNTON: Section 5: particulars for the time being required by the Registration Acts to be registered concerning the death?

THE FOREMAN: Date and place of death: 1 April 2009, the Royal London Hospital. Name and surname: Mr Ian Tomlinson, male. Date and place of birth: 7 February 1962. Age: 47 years. Occupation and usual address: newspaper vendor's assistant, Lindsey Hotel, Lindsey Street, London EC1.

JUDGE THORNTON: And those are the conclusions of you all?

THE FOREMAN: And those are the conclusions of us all.

5.01pm: Deborah Coles, co-director of the Inquest charity, has said that the evidence against Harwood must now be properly examined.

She adds:

For too long there has been a pattern of cases where inquest juries have found overwhelming evidence of unlawful and excessive use of force or gross neglect and yet no police officer has been held responsible. It is vital that the rule of law is upheld and applies equally to all, including police officers, and that they do not believe that they can act with impunity. This jury's findings in this case demonstrate the vital importance of a properly conducted and resourced inquest process."

5.04pm: Ian Tomlinson, as you can guess, is now trending on Twitter. Here's a little taste of what's out there:

It can't bring him back, but justice has been done for Ian Tomlinson's family.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplySarah Hapgood
sjhstrangetales

5.11pm: This statement from Joanne McCartney, London Assembly Labour Group police spokesperson.

She points out that if it hadn't been for the evidence supplied by a citizen journalist — Chris La Jaunie, a New York fund manager who passed his video of Tomlinson's encounter with Harwood to my colleague Paul Lewis — all this might never have happened.

She says:

I welcome the conclusion of the inquest and my thoughts are with Mr Tomlinson's family, who have already waited a great deal of time for this verdict. Last year the CPS decided there were no criminal charges to be brought, yet following today's verdict it is right and proper that they reconsider in the light of the jury's findings and all the evidence heard. I hope they will carry out this review as a matter of urgency to end the family's long period of uncertainty.

This verdict shows the power of the public. Had it not been for the citizen journalist, the inquest jury may not have seen the vital evidence that led to today's verdict.

5.18pm: A bit more from the twittersphere:

i hope that Ian Tomlinson is resting in peace now that justice is finally bein servedless than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Replyfelicity naana afia
imhotchocolate

5.30pm: Another tweet from Tomlinson's son Francis King:

Feeling so happy right now. R.I.P. DAD. IAN TOMLINSONless than a minute ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® Favorite Retweet Replyfrancis
franie_king

5.46pm: Acpo — the Association of Chief Police Officers — has no plans to put out a statement on the inquest verdict, a spokeswoman has told us.

5.52pm: We've now got a statement from Harwood's lawyers, in which the TSG officer says he "did not intend, or foresee at the time, that his push would cause Mr Tomlinson to fall over, let alone that it would result in any injury".

Here's the statement from his solicitors, Reynolds Dawson, in full:

"Pc Harwood would like to repeat how sorry he is that Mr Tomlinson died.

"Although Pc Harwood's contact with Mr Tomlinson lasted only a few seconds, it has been examined in great detail over several weeks of evidence.

"The mass of video and other evidence gathered by the IPCC now presents a picture very different from the one which Pc Harwood had on the day.

"In particular, he wishes that he had known then all that he now knows about Mr Tomlinson's movements and fragile state of health.

"Pc Harwood did not intend, or foresee at the time, that his push would cause Mr Tomlinson to fall over, let alone that it would result in any injury.

"Pc Harwood gave evidence to the coroner and jury for three days. He did his best to answer truthfully every question he was asked, even when he was told by the coroner that he did not have to.

"Pc Harwood is not a medical expert, but he has tried to follow the evidence which the many doctors have given, and recognises that the jury will have considered all that evidence with the greatest possible care."

–

6.08pm:This is video footage of Ian Tomlinson's family speaking after the verdict was delivered.

6.14pm: A little more from the Tomlinson family.

Standing alongside Tomlinson's widow, Julia, his son Paul King said:

"After two years, we're really grateful that the inquest process has made a strong statement about how Ian died.

"We are grateful to the jury and the coroner and we think the jury finding speaks for itself in the verdict of unlawful killing."

6.22pm: We've also put together an interactive map of the footage of Tomlinson's final minutes. It can be found here

6.33pm: Paul and I are signing off the live blog now. The comment thread will close at 8pm, but we'll post more stories on the Ian Tomlinson inquest verdict and what it means soon. Thanks."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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;

the charles smith blog

Thursday, May 5, 2011

IAN TOMLINSON INQUEST: AFTERMATH (1); OFFICER COULD FACE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE. BUT WILL CHANGES IN PATEL'S OPINION IMPEDE PROSECUTION? THE GUARDIAN;

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

RICHARD BRANT: NATIONAL POST'S LINDA NGUYEN: SMITH WAS "ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED" DUSTIN DIED FROM SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME;

RICHARD BRANT; TORONTO STAR REPORTER TRACEY TYLER ON TODAY'S ACQUITTAL; CHILD'S MOTHER PAID HEAVY PRICE TOO;

RICHARD BRANT; ACQUITTED BY THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL; EXPLAINS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY; CTV NEWS;

SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME; TIMELY STORY IN THE DAILY MAIL; (U.K.) DR. WANEY SQUIER; ONE HALF OF PARENTS CHARGED ON BASIS OF SBS WRONGLY CONVICTED;

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

RICHARD BRANT; CROWN AND DEFENCE JOINTLY CALL FOR HIS ACQUITTAL IN 1992 INFANT DEATH AT TOMORROW'S (WEDNESDAY 4 MAY, 2011) APPEAL; THE CANADIAN PRESS;

IAN TOMLINSON INQUEST: THE JURY'S VERDICT: "UNLAWFUL KILLING"; JURY REJECTS DR. FREDDY PATEL'S ACCOUNT OF THE INJURIES AND CAUSE OF DEATH; GUARDIAN;

Blog Nation Badge

Followers

The Charles smith blog

Blog Archive

About Me

Search This Blog

https://forensicresources.org/

http://www.personal.psu.edu/dhk3/blogs/DoubleHelixLaw/