[Closed] Ian tomlinson

He was (from the limited attention I have paid) an alcoholic. He was pushed over with his hands in his pockets and landed hard / awkwardly. He then died from internal bleeding around his liver (I think they said that. Correct me if I've made it up).

If he had a fragile or bloated liver from alcohol abuse, it could have made it more probe to rupturing, no?

Not sure how any of the 'proportionate force' or 'posed a threat' defence lines can wash when he was clearly walking slowly away with his hands in his pockets!

Dave

Not sure how any of the 'proportionate force' or 'posed a threat' defence lines can wash when he was clearly walking slowly away with his hands in his pockets!

Indeed. The PC himself has admitted at the inquest that IT posed no threat. The CPS concluded that there was "sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that the actions of PC 'A' in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. "

Due to discrepancies between PM results, the CPS decided they were unlikely to be able to prove that the strike and/or push caused IT's death. Legal time limits meant they couldn't prosecute for simple assault.

[url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/index.html ]Full reasoning here.[/url] To be reconsidered at the conclusion of the inquest.

Absolute travesty. That no-one will ever be tried for causing that innocent man's death is a disgrace, and a mockery of justice.

the CPS decided they were unlikely to be able to prove that the strike and/or push caused IT's death

"Unlikely" ? Well probably not worth pursuing then. If the crime had been a bit more serious than merely killing a newspaper seller, then I guess the risk of failing to secure a conviction might have been worth taking.

That no-one will ever be tried for causing that innocent man's death is a disgrace, and a mockery of justice.

Unfortunately the CPS was constrained by legal time limits. And initially they had very little evidence to go by, only a video of the whole incident, and independent witness.

Sometimes trauma from falls is enough to cause abdominal bleeds, if he was indeed an alcoholic then his clotting system will have been very poor so he would bleed pretty heavily.

Without know too many details it's hard to say if the fall was enough for it to happen, also there was a considerable time difference so a lot could have happened between what was seen and what happened afterwards.

the original coroner did a nudge nudge wink wink favour for the.police as he'd possibly done several times before and. the police kindly let him take the fall by which time the actual cause of death could no longer be determined
met police killing an innocent. man and then colliding to cover it up and lying under oath. no where have we heard that before ?

Don't matter alcoholic or not- he died as a result of injuries caused by being assaulted by a police officer.

He's not the first, and won't be the last, sadly.

Now now, Kimbers; how dare you besmirch the good name of Her Maj's Finest?

Don't matter alcoholic or not- he died as a result of injuries caused by being assaulted by a police officer.

Never said it mattered and I don't know if the injuries that resulted from the incident lead to his death or not.

Elf - surely the only prosecution possible would have been for a minor assault tho?

Without know too many details it's hard to say if the fall was enough for it to happen

It's probably not too hard to establish whether he was unlawfully assaulted though - irrespective of what damage the assault caused. Very few people suggest that he wasn't assaulted. In fact, does anyone deny it ?

Pc Harwood has been told he will not face any criminal prosecutions over what happened. A [i]huge[/i] blunder imo, which will do the reputation of the police no good. Quite apart from the injustice of course.

we don't know coz the dodgy coroner covered it up for the police in the first place

funny how not hitting a policeman with a fire extinguisher gets you sent down while actually killing someone gets you time in the naughty chair

gets you time in the naughty chair

And don't forget - on full pay.

Elf - surely the only prosecution possible would have been for a minor assault tho?

Not when someone dies as a result.

Kimbers - I think you mean the original pathologist rather than coroner. Patel was his name I think, plenty of info came out afterwards suggesting that he should never have been allowed near a PM.
Ernie - agreed. I've only read the BBC coverage of the inquest, but PC Haywood has so far failed to justify the level of force used as far as I'm concerned. I've never really been convinced that the CPS logic of only running cases they think they're likely to win is right either. Financially logical, probably. Just, no, not always. This one deserved to go to court I think. Probably wouldn't get a murder or manslaughter conviction, the PM cock ups are a gift to the defence, but who knows? At the very least for the sake of his family and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Elfinsafety - Member

"Elf - surely the only prosecution possible would have been for a minor assault tho?"

Not when someone dies as a result.

What you going to charge him with then?

Manslaughter?

At the very least for the sake of his family and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Yup. If there had been a prosecution and conviction then I reckon the police's reputation would have remained intact, enhanced even maybe. But I guess the CPS aren't that bothered about such considerations. And of course his family and all who were close to him deserve to see justice.

Doubt it elf - I really don't see that it meets the standard for manslaughter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law#Manslaughter_by_gross_negligence

Causing death through recklessness or criminal negligence.

Your link supports this, TJ.

I'm not going to argue with you over this though cos life is just too short.

If you think it's not manslaughter then ok fine as long as your happy.

OK?

TJ - manslaughter by unlawful act would be more relevant than manslaughter by gross negligence I think.

Here's the CPS page, might be the source of some of the wikipedia info, I don't know. [url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#a08 ]CPS[/url]

In this case, I think they would have a high chance of proving the act was unlawful, and a low chance of proving the act caused death, due to the aforementioned reasons. That seems to be the conclusion they came to.

Off to bed.

Manslaughter by unlawful act.

I think they would have a high chance of proving the act was unlawful, and a low chance of proving the act caused death

Really? Why? The question is whether the act did or did not cause death, not whether it was likely to cause death, surely? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

tHe whole episode stinks, from the actual assault, through to the lack of anyone being punished. Wonder if the copper involved had many sleepless nights....

Is anyone actually surprised that it happened, that's the question!

There was an initial attempt to cover it up at the beginning if you remember with the police claiming he'd had no contact with officers until someone whispered 'mobile phones and CCTV' in their ears.

This man was killed by the police, he may have had existing medical issues that hastened his demise, but the truth is plain for all to see.

The police have got away with it - AGAIN

Is it any wonder people don't trust them?

Not much of a suprise really,is it? Maybe it might have been different if it was not IT. As it is,pep talk to the policeman in question and desk duties for a while no doubt.

Konabunny, possibly a misunderstanding, yes. You are correct, they have to prove that the act DID cause the death, not PROBABLY caused the death. What I meant was that the prosecution are unlikely to be able to prove that the act definitely caused the death, due to the conflicting pathologist's opinions. I didn't mean that it was unlikely that the act caused the death.

What is really amazing is that the cop has been claiming at the inquest that Tomlinson was walking towards him, when the video shows, plain as day, that he was walking away. When testimony is so completely and utterly at odds with the facts, even when there is clear video evidence, what hope is there that cops tell the truth under ANY circumstances?

This man was killed by the police, he may have had existing medical issues that hastened his demise, but the truth is plain for all to see.

How do you come to that conclusion then as those who did post mortems and other examinations couldn't say for sure?

How do you come to that conclusion then as those who did post mortems and other examinations couldn't say for sure

from the beeb:

'The second pathologist to examine Mr Tomlinson, Dr Nat Cary, tells the Guardian he has "no doubt" that the push from the police officer caused his fatal haemorrhage. "He was vulnerable to this because of the liver disease he had," Dr Cary says.'

'A third post-mortem examination is ordered at the request of the Metropolitan Police. It later agrees with the conclusions of the second.'

Oh! 😳

I guess I've haven't been following this as close as thought. You have my apology.

Never said it mattered and I don't know if the injuries that resulted from the incident lead to his death or not.

I think there is something in law called eggshell syndrome or similar. The jist of it as I understand it was that if you hit someone with a blow that normal would cause only a minor injury but unknown to you they have a medical complaint which means that such a blow causes death then you are still liable for murder. You have effectively taken that risk when striking the person. It makes no difference that IT was perhaps more vulnerable to internal bleeding due to his alcohol abuse the fall resulted in the bleed.

The thing that still dosent add up for me is the abdominal blow the coroner refers to.
If that caused the death then this copper didnt appear from what I can see to have caused the death.
on the BBC website witnesses state that Tomlinson had been hit by officers, so are there are a number of police officers who need to be on trial,
Did Tomlinson get hit again either before or after this push to cause the injury?

When testimony is so completely and utterly at odds with the facts, even when there is clear video evidence, what hope is there that cops tell the truth under ANY circumstances?

Well you would have thought the fact that lying under oath is an offence, was sufficient guarantee that coppers don't lie. Although I won't be holding my breath whilst I wait to see if Pc Harwood gets done for perjury. Despite the fact even MPs aren't above the law and can get custodial sentences when they lie under oath to cover up their actions.

The second pathologist concluded that there was abdominal trauma from Ian Tomlinson's elbow hitting his abdomen near the liver when he fell.

Wasn't the first pathologist the disgraced Freddy Patel? The same chap who has subsequently been suspending pending further investigation on an unrelated case, who had falsified his own CV and has been criticized thus:

"irresponsible, not of the standard expected of a competent forensic pathologist and liable to bring the medical profession into disrepute".

So on the back of his evidence, and despite the following two pathologists having 'no doubt' that the cause of death was the decking he got... that was filmed, the copper still can't be prosecuted because of a technicality of in the statute of limitations on assault.

Stitch up. Remind me again why the general public should obey the law?

Problem is, both the second and third post mortems based their conclusions on a mistake in the first. They both made their conclusions on the fluid found in the body, neither pathologist actually saw that fluid though.

In his first report, Dr Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot." This had been interpreted by the other medical experts to mean that he had found 3 litres of blood in the abdomen.

If Dr Patel had found 3 litres of blood, this would have been approximately 60% of Mr Tomlinson's blood volume and would have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death.

However, when Dr Patel provided a further report on 6 April 2010, he recorded that he had found "intraabdominal fluid [b]with[/b] blood about 3l with small blood clot". Since Dr Cary and Dr Shorrock inevitably depended on Dr Patel's notes of this finding to inform their own opinions, the significance of this more recent description of Dr Patel's findings had to be clarified with Dr Patel and discussed with the other experts.

Dr Patel was seen twice in conference by the prosecution team. Dr Patel maintained that the total fluid was somewhat in excess of three litres but that it was mainly ascites (a substance which forms in a damaged liver), which had been stained with blood. He had not retained the fluid nor had he sampled it in order to ascertain the proportion of blood because, he said, he had handled blood all his professional life and he knew that this was not blood but blood-stained ascites.

Dr Patel also confirmed that he had found no internal rupture which would have led to such a level of blood loss.

(b) For Mr Tomlinson's death to have occurred from blood loss so quickly, there would have to have been an internal rupture of some significance.

(c) Dr Patel found no internal rupture which would have led to such a level of blood loss.

(d) At the later post mortems there was no visible sign of a rupture.

Did Tomlinson get hit again either before or after this push to cause the injury?

Sancho, I'm not following this too closely but I think they were saying he fell badly after the push with his hands tucked in his pockets so he in effect caused his own abdominal injury.

Pretty shocking when you can replay that video and the copper is still adamant he didn't have his back to him...

they were saying he fell badly after the push with his hands tucked in his pockets so he in effect caused his own abdominal injury.

The push by PC Harwood is what made Ian Tomlinson fall over. Tomlinson did not cause "his own abdominal injury", PC Harwood caused the injuries.

It's a bit like arguing "M'lord, yes I pulling the trigger, but the victim should have ducked to avoid the bullet and is therefore responsible for his own injuries".

The video shows that he stood no chance of remaining upright after the push. It also shows that his hands were out of his pockets as he started going over, and were in front of his body well before he hit the ground. The 'hands in the pocket issue' is therefore irrelevant.

PC Harwood would have been fully aware of the certain outcome of pushing an aware person from behind like that, ie, they will hit the deck and injure themselves.

hadn't watched that footage for a while... watching it again, I only have one question - seriously [i][b]HOW THE F*CK[/b][/i] can PC Harwood be getting away with this?? It's making me rather angry... 👿

I remember a lot of talk on here at the time about how the guy deserved it, shouldn't have been there in the first place, asking for trouble etc etc

Harwood should be up for Manslaughter and Freddy Patel should be struck off as a doctor.

If you want to see the full misery of this, there is a video on the Guardian website which shows all Tomlinson's movements right up to where he is bein stretchered away, presumable dead. Very very sad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-last-words-g20

[b]GUILTY as charged![/b]

He was walking away.

That footage is very clear and close-up, so it's the one shown most. Viewed from the side though, it's clear that the "shove" lifted him clear of the ground and sent him sprawling a couple of feet away, after hitting his head hard too. He then got up and moved away before crumpling and hitting his side hard on the back wall before collapsing fully, so more occasions for injury. Grim.

I saw footage earlier today of Harwood also pushing over a cameraman. He will get off in the same way that the killer of Blair Peach got off. Britain's finest, eh?

was it assault without any shadow of a doubt it was assault
Did it cause the death - probably but hard to prove and made even harder by the police and CPS
The subsequent cover up and behaviour of the state is reprehensible.
This would never have happened if Tomlinson had pushed over the copper and he died. The coppers account is not even a defence.
Shameful day for the police and the country

I think it would a mistake to automatically assume that PC Harwood, and him alone, is responsible for the assault on Tomlinson. We don't know what the Territorial Support Group were told in their brief on that morning and how psyched up they had been made. Certainly iirc senior Met officers had been making very bellicose comments before the G20 summit. And we know for a fact that senior officers at the very least, fully tolerated PCs on duty without their numbers on display.

I suspect that the feedback from the senior officers to the lower ranks was very likely to be "go get'em lads". I also suspect that PC Harwood did no more than what he believed was expected from him, sadly with tragic consequences. Blaming it all on PC Harwood and stopping there, without knowing the full facts is a cop out imo. I think senior Met officers have a lot to answer for, specially as they are so ready to take the credit when things go right, as well as the very generous salaries.

They could also explain why they were so readily feeding the media with false information until the first video was discovered.

Ernie - You are probably right about the senior officers, but 'only following orders' is not a valid defence for Harwood.

having read the cps report again I cannot folow their logic

If, as we have concluded, the prosecution cannot prove a causal link between the push and Mr Tomlinson's death because of the conflict in the medical evidence, it follows that actual bodily harm cannot be proved either.

'only following orders' is not a valid defence for Harwood.

It might not be a valid defence for PC Harwood, but it's a cop out to automatically blame him solely. The troops on the sharp end are always expected to carry the can for the tactics and strategies decided by the those who have the responsibility, for deciding the tactics and strategies.

The huge demo on the 26 March just gone, went without incident (apart for some unrelated trouble). A great deal of the reason for that was because of the tactics decided by senior Met officers. It wasn't because all the officers in the Territorial Support Group suddenly decided to behave on that day.

I don't think it's right for PC Harwood to be treated as a scapegoat.

Ironically if Harwood had been only obeying orders it would never have happened he was a van driver and ordered to stay by his van. He appears to have wandered off from his post looking for a bit of action.

Who ever directs us in anyway, surely we are all responsible for our own actions unless we've been physically coerced or threatened with violence. PC Harwood is responsible for his own actions, he wasn't bullied into hitting anyone with a baton. What anyone else has said to him is a separate subject.
He's supposed to be a policeman, not some kind of nazi stormtrooper.
He killed Ian Tomlinson. I can believe he didn't mean to, but his actions ultimately did.
How much respect can people be expected to have for the police if they can seemingly get away with murder?

What anyone else has said to him is a separate subject.

Of course it isn't, it's the same subject. The level of PC Harwood's culpability is depend to an extent on how he and other officers in the Territorial Support Group, had been told to behave, and what was expected from them.

For example, PC Harwood claims that he believed he could use his baton when not under threat "in some circumstances". Do we know for a fact that no TSG officer has never had that suggested to them by their superiors ? I certainly don't know that. Neither do I know, as I've already mention, what they were told at their brief - I'm fairly sure that what was "expected of them" will have been discussed though. How far did PC Harwood stray from that, if at all ? All part of the same subject imo.

No matter how 'guilty' PC Harwood is, it doesn't mean that others are blameless. And yet everyone appears to be concerned solely with PC Harwood's alleged guilt, and nothing else.

EDIT : Of course the converse is true, ie, if PC Harwood and other TSG officers had been told to go "softly softly" on that day, and specifically, for example, not to use their batons on anyone who wasn't posing a clear threat, then PC Harwood's culpability is even greater.

They are issues that should be treated separately.
He should personally be guilty of some charge of the cause of death of Ian Tomlinson.
Anyone else might be guilty of incitement. And that will be a separate charge.
If PC Haywood is that naive he shouldn't be a police officer in the first place. He should know the law, it's his job.

grum - I also remember those comments..."Its a shame a man died but to blame it all on the police isn't realistic. He could have walked away quicker..." and so on.

If PC Haywood is that naive he shouldn't be a police officer in the first place.

That Simon Harwood shouldn't have been a police officer in the first place seems a strongly arguable case: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20-summit/7905549/G20-riots-Policeman-who-struck-Ian-Tomlinson-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html

(blah blah blah typical leftie police-hating bullshit from the...Daily Telegraph)

dodgy pathologist claims police asked him to clear them of blame
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/12/tomlinson-inquest-pathologist-freddy-patel ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/12/tomlinson-inquest-pathologist-freddy-patel[/url]

No, he didn't claim that at all - You clearly don't understand the difference between being "asked if he could rule out the possibility of assault or crush injuries as a result of public order?" and being "asked to rule that the injuries could not have been caused by assault or crush injuries"

edit - exact quote:

"I would have been informed by the coroner's officer that they would like to rule out if he had suffered any injuries as a result of an assault - and there was a big crowd there, whether he suffered any crush injuries related to the protesters in the public disorder."

Thats really not the same as being asked to cover it up is it?

"was requested by the police to rule out any assault or crush injuries as a result of public order?" Patel replied: "Yes. That's right."

is what they asked him acoording to the guardian transcript

cant see how thats a healthy thing. myself

All the Met had to ask the pathologist was to establish the cause of death.

I can't see why they needed to point him in any direction.

The reference by the police of a "public disorder" situation was completely irrelevant to the pathologist.

"Tomlinson, 47, a father of nine" FFS !! (and an alchoholic)

'London Weighting' for newpaper vendors must be more than I thought.

"Tomlinson, 47, a father of nine" FFS !! (and an alchoholic)

Makes you wonder why it took the police so long to kill him, eh ?

Looks a lot like "The system" works then!

will see if the cps prosecute