Monday 7 April 2008
Re: The 2nd Pathologist report
I have a couple of very important observations regarding this second report. Firstly his report is based on the WRONG information, given to him by the Police. He says Gorman received a broken nose due to an alleged headbutt outside the club. Without being examined at the nightclub how could anyone say he had a broken nose. A witness wrongly stated I head butted Gorman before I threw him out, but there was NOT one statement taken that said Gorman had any sign of an injury when he left the area of the Cellar Bar. Even Gary Sewell said he didn’t see any injuries on Gorman when they walked away together. I mentioned that because in a closed session of the court the CPS talked about dropping charges against Karl and withers and continuing the prosecution solely against me based on this report. I hope that sounds as unbelievable to you as it did to me, but it’s true. This again just shows a total disregard of the evidence. The prosecution ignored the witnesses that said Gorman was knocked down the stairs by Tony Crown and the beating Gorman received by the 3 unknowns. Again how were they ever going to prove Gorman received a broken nose inside the club? In any event they confounded everyone by changing tack again and only pursued Karl.
Something that was never followed up after this report and in my opinion should have been. The suggestion that Gorman may have inhaled drugs. Remember Gary Sewell in his interviews and his statement said how together him Gorman and Robert White had gone to Sewell’s house to pick up an inhaler Sewell had for his asthma. It isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that Gorman may have used it and had some form of reaction to it. If the Police had had their eye on the ball this might have sounded alarm bells to them. As with most things in this case if it didn’t point to me they ignored it.
Something that was never followed up after this report and in my opinion should have been. The suggestion that Gorman may have inhaled drugs. Remember Gary Sewell in his interviews and his statement said how together him Gorman and Robert White had gone to Sewell’s house to pick up an inhaler Sewell had for his asthma. It isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that Gorman may have used it and had some form of reaction to it. If the Police had had their eye on the ball this might have sounded alarm bells to them. As with most things in this case if it didn’t point to me they ignored it.
2nd Pathologist report
NAME:DAVID ANTHONY HARRIS0N
ADDRESS:
AGE / DATE OF BIRTH: OVER 21 OCCUPATION: CONSULTANT PATHOLOGIST TO THE HOME OFFICE
Who states:- This statement consisting of pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
DATED: (SIGNED)
Autopsy Ref.No: H/0 4-91
Supplementary Report
Anthony GORMAN (Deceased)
In view of the importance of any head injury in supporting the cause of death given by me following the conclusion of the post mortem examination I carried out on Anthony GORMAN on the 2nd March 1991, the fixed intact brain was at my request examined by Dr.W.R. TIMPERLEY, Consultant Neuropathologist at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital,Sheffield. I examined the brain externally at the time of the original autopsy and although there was no obvious injury, the brain appeared swollen and was heavier than normal. My conclusion that these facts indicated significant brain damage has subsequently been shown to be incorrect. Dr. TIMPERLEY'S view, and one with which I now concur, is that any brain swelling was minimal and likely to have been due to congestion due to cardiac failure, i.e. the changes I noted in the brain at autopsy were the result of the cardiac failure and not its cause. Since the head injury had been excluded as a cause of death it became necessary to examine the heart and lungs in greater detail as the underlying cause of death now appeared to primarily concern one or all of these organs. Dr.N.R.B.GARY, Consultant Pathologist at Papworth Hospital in Cambridge is an acknowledged expert in cardiopulmonary pathology, and at my request kindly examined tissue removed at autopsy. Taking into consideration the alleged circumstances surrounding the deceased's death my original autopsy findings and the stated opinions of the two experts, Dr,W.R. TIMPERLEY and Dr.N.R.B. CAREY, who have assisted in this case I should like to make the following comments.
1. During an altercation outside the night club Mr.GORMAN suffered a broken nose it is alleged as a result of a headbutt. The fractured nasal bones and swelling of the nasal bridge are in my opinion consistent with a head butt injury.
2. Rupture of small blood vessels occurring at the time the nasal bones were fractured resulted in blood trickling down the back of the nose and into the trachea, bronchi and smaller airways. The blood is seen in the trachea and bronchi in the post mortem photographs and confirmed to be in the small airways on microscopical examination of lung tissue.
3. The effect of the blood in the airways would be to reduce the efficiency whereby the lungs oxygenate the blood. The blood would therefore contain less oxygen than normal i.e. there would be a state of hypoxia.
4. The blood reaching the heart and all other body organs would therefore supply less oxygen to them, resulting in tissue hypoxia.
5. During episodes of pain, shock and stress the adrenal glands produce increased amounts of adrenaline which increases the blood pressure and causes the heart to beat faster and to contract more forcibly.
6. In certain circumstances, the increased adrenaline produced can have an adverse affect on the heart muscle and instead of causing the heart to work more efficiently, can cause the heart muscle fibres to contract irregularly (fibrillate). The heart then ceases to function as an efficient pump and in the absence of medical attention, death in cardiac failure ensues. This is particularly likely to occur under hypoxic conditions.
7. Following the altercation, which resulted in a broken nose, the deceased then walked and ran some 300 yards before a second attack occcured. During this time it is likely he was in an anxious state, in considerable pain and stressing his cardiovascular system. All these factors would tend to result in increased adrenaline production.
8. The fractured nasal bones are the only significant injury. Other injuries are relatively minor and none of the other injuries which occurred outside the night club or, shortly afterwards, at the scene where the deceased's body was found are in my opinion directly responsible for death.
9. Minor microscopic changes in the lungs are consistent with previous inhalation of foreign material although there is no obvious connection between these changes and the cause of death.
10. .As stated by Dr.CAREY it is possible that the deceased died as a result of a cardiac arrhythmia due to a combination of fright with massive release of adrenaline from the supra-renal glands, combined with increased alcohol and possibly combined with one or more drugs. The lung changes suggest that the latter may have been inhaled.
11. The anoxia produced by inhalation of blood from the fractured nasal bones would have potenated (10) above or may, in the presence of alcohol have been sufficient to cause death.
12. In conclusion, although there are several possible mechanisms by which death may have been brought about, it is evident that there is no obvious unequivocal cause of death in this case. Certainley, there is no evidence of brain injury sufficient to have caused death.
13. My original cause of death should now be disregarded and cause of death unascertained substituted.
D A HARRIS0N SIGNED
ADDRESS:
AGE / DATE OF BIRTH: OVER 21 OCCUPATION: CONSULTANT PATHOLOGIST TO THE HOME OFFICE
Who states:- This statement consisting of pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
DATED: (SIGNED)
Autopsy Ref.No: H/0 4-91
Supplementary Report
Anthony GORMAN (Deceased)
In view of the importance of any head injury in supporting the cause of death given by me following the conclusion of the post mortem examination I carried out on Anthony GORMAN on the 2nd March 1991, the fixed intact brain was at my request examined by Dr.W.R. TIMPERLEY, Consultant Neuropathologist at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital,Sheffield. I examined the brain externally at the time of the original autopsy and although there was no obvious injury, the brain appeared swollen and was heavier than normal. My conclusion that these facts indicated significant brain damage has subsequently been shown to be incorrect. Dr. TIMPERLEY'S view, and one with which I now concur, is that any brain swelling was minimal and likely to have been due to congestion due to cardiac failure, i.e. the changes I noted in the brain at autopsy were the result of the cardiac failure and not its cause. Since the head injury had been excluded as a cause of death it became necessary to examine the heart and lungs in greater detail as the underlying cause of death now appeared to primarily concern one or all of these organs. Dr.N.R.B.GARY, Consultant Pathologist at Papworth Hospital in Cambridge is an acknowledged expert in cardiopulmonary pathology, and at my request kindly examined tissue removed at autopsy. Taking into consideration the alleged circumstances surrounding the deceased's death my original autopsy findings and the stated opinions of the two experts, Dr,W.R. TIMPERLEY and Dr.N.R.B. CAREY, who have assisted in this case I should like to make the following comments.
1. During an altercation outside the night club Mr.GORMAN suffered a broken nose it is alleged as a result of a headbutt. The fractured nasal bones and swelling of the nasal bridge are in my opinion consistent with a head butt injury.
2. Rupture of small blood vessels occurring at the time the nasal bones were fractured resulted in blood trickling down the back of the nose and into the trachea, bronchi and smaller airways. The blood is seen in the trachea and bronchi in the post mortem photographs and confirmed to be in the small airways on microscopical examination of lung tissue.
3. The effect of the blood in the airways would be to reduce the efficiency whereby the lungs oxygenate the blood. The blood would therefore contain less oxygen than normal i.e. there would be a state of hypoxia.
4. The blood reaching the heart and all other body organs would therefore supply less oxygen to them, resulting in tissue hypoxia.
5. During episodes of pain, shock and stress the adrenal glands produce increased amounts of adrenaline which increases the blood pressure and causes the heart to beat faster and to contract more forcibly.
6. In certain circumstances, the increased adrenaline produced can have an adverse affect on the heart muscle and instead of causing the heart to work more efficiently, can cause the heart muscle fibres to contract irregularly (fibrillate). The heart then ceases to function as an efficient pump and in the absence of medical attention, death in cardiac failure ensues. This is particularly likely to occur under hypoxic conditions.
7. Following the altercation, which resulted in a broken nose, the deceased then walked and ran some 300 yards before a second attack occcured. During this time it is likely he was in an anxious state, in considerable pain and stressing his cardiovascular system. All these factors would tend to result in increased adrenaline production.
8. The fractured nasal bones are the only significant injury. Other injuries are relatively minor and none of the other injuries which occurred outside the night club or, shortly afterwards, at the scene where the deceased's body was found are in my opinion directly responsible for death.
9. Minor microscopic changes in the lungs are consistent with previous inhalation of foreign material although there is no obvious connection between these changes and the cause of death.
10. .As stated by Dr.CAREY it is possible that the deceased died as a result of a cardiac arrhythmia due to a combination of fright with massive release of adrenaline from the supra-renal glands, combined with increased alcohol and possibly combined with one or more drugs. The lung changes suggest that the latter may have been inhaled.
11. The anoxia produced by inhalation of blood from the fractured nasal bones would have potenated (10) above or may, in the presence of alcohol have been sufficient to cause death.
12. In conclusion, although there are several possible mechanisms by which death may have been brought about, it is evident that there is no obvious unequivocal cause of death in this case. Certainley, there is no evidence of brain injury sufficient to have caused death.
13. My original cause of death should now be disregarded and cause of death unascertained substituted.
D A HARRIS0N SIGNED
Beggars Belief
I have got a little ahead of myself because I want to post the 2nd pathologist report, I will do that next. let me explain what this letter meant. All charges relating to the death of Tony Gorman were been dropped against gary withers and myself. Karl would stand alone with a charge of violent dissorder against Gorman. Again how the CPS decide to bring what charge and against who is beyond me, I have a picture in my mind of charnley and francis flicking through a law book and one of them shouting stop and whatever the page is that's what charge they decide to act on. The next thing is how did they decide to only charge Karl? It was withers who was picked out twice on I.D. parades not Karl. Again they really havn't studied the evidence. It really was a farce, but guess what there's more to come.
Sunday 6 April 2008
Murder Charges Dropped
I want to show you how the CPS decide to prosecute a case. The following information is obtained from the CPS's own website. I can't fathom the logic behind them reducing the charges from Murder to Manslaughter. Like I've said umpteens times before they should have accepted they had originally got it wrong and dropped the charges against Karl and me altogether.
Crown Prosecutors have to ask themselves the following two questions when they are making their charging decisions
Is there enough evidence against the defendant?
There must be enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against the defendant. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed according to the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts must apply. A jury or magistrates' court should only convict the defendant if they are sure that he or she is guilty.
When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used in court and is reliable. This means that they must assess the quality of the evidence from all witnesses before reaching a decision. A decision to drop a case does not mean that the prosecutor has decided to believe one witness and not believe another.
If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, the case must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.
If there is a realistic prospect of conviction, the Crown Prosecutor will ask the next question.
Is it in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court?
The Decision To Prosecute
1. In most cases, Crown Prosecutors are responsible for deciding whether a person should be charged with a criminal offence, and if so, what that offence should be. Crown Prosecutors make these decisions in accordance with this Code and the Director's Guidance on Charging. In those cases where the police determine the charge, which are usually more minor and routine cases, they apply the same provisions.
2. Crown Prosecutors make charging decisions in accordance with the Full Code Test (see section 5 below), other than in those limited circumstances where the Threshold Test applies (see section 6 below).
3. The Threshold Test applies where the case is one in which it is proposed to keep the suspect in custody after charge, but the evidence required to apply the Full Code Test is not yet available.
4. Where a Crown Prosecutor makes a charging decision in accordance with the Threshold Test, the case must be reviewed in accordance with the Full Code Test as soon as reasonably practicable, taking into account the progress of the investigation.
5. The Full Code Test
1. The Full Code Test has two stages. The first stage is consideration of the evidence. If the case does not pass the evidential stage it must not go ahead no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must proceed to the second stage and decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest. The evidential and public interest stages are explained below.
The Evidential Stage
2. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against each defendant on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case.
3. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court should only convict if satisfied so that it is sure of a defendant's guilt.
4. When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. There will be many cases in which the evidence does not give any cause for concern. But there will also be cases in which the evidence may not be as strong as it first appears. Crown Prosecutors must ask themselves the following questions:
Can the evidence be used in court?
a. Is it likely that the evidence will be excluded by the court? There are certain legal rules which might mean that evidence which seems relevant cannot be given at a trial. For example, is it likely that the evidence will be excluded because of the way in which it was gathered? If so, is there enough other evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction?
Is the evidence reliable?
b. Is there evidence which might support or detract from the reliability of a confession? Is the reliability affected by factors such as the defendant's age, intelligence or level of understanding?
c. What explanation has the defendant given? Is a court likely to find it credible in the light of the evidence as a whole? Does it support an innocent explanation?
d. If the identity of the defendant is likely to be questioned, is the evidence about this strong enough?
e. Is the witness's background likely to weaken the prosecution case? For example, does the witness have any motive that may affect his or her attitude to the case, or a relevant previous conviction?
f. Are there concerns over the accuracy or credibility of a witness? Are these concerns based on evidence or simply information with nothing to support it? Is there further evidence which the police should be asked to seek out which may support or detract from the account of the witness?
5. Crown Prosecutors should not ignore evidence because they are not sure that it can be used or is reliable. But they should look closely at it when deciding if there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
I didn't put the Threshold test in because the decision to drop the Murder charge was in August which was plenty of time to gather evidence.
I will ask you to read the following again
03/09(6) Clifford Ellis 2nd Statement
03/16(6) More Gary Daw
03/23(12) The Forensics
Was there enough evidence to continue with a charge of Manslaughter?
How in a million years did they ever think they were going to get a conviction?
So when Mr francis says " This is the most complex matter I have ever had to deal with". The only reason it was so complexed was they were trying to fit the evidence they had to the wrong people. By that I mean Rod, Karl and me. From where I sit it looks a pretty good match to Withers and his mate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)