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 with 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.