G20 Policeman charged with manslaughter

[kdubya]

Never been in a Coroner's Court, but have been in Crown Court on more occasions than I care to recall.

 

I have seen some verdicts which defied logic, so I still think there is a long way to go before people start convicting the Policeman. We are in danger of reaching a conclusion based on a short video and some reported "facts". I doubt that CPS think that it's in the bag.

 

sorry Gordon your some reported facts are, lied under oath, threw a bbc camera man to the ground (video now available) struck mr Tomlinson with a baton, then threw him to the ground when he failed to respond to the baton ( admitted in court that he never gave him time to respond)stated thomlinson was threatening him (he had hands in pockets and was walking away)harwood should not have been there should have been a van driver at the time,he was reported by some of his colleagues for excessive use of force ( evidence initially held back)

the list goes on and on porridge and vaseline on order.

 

KW

Edited May 24, 2011 by kdubya

[kdubya]

I assume then that you have never been in a Coroner's Court.

 

Assuming that your experience of Crown Court is the norm then I wonder why they bother going to all that expense and don't just acquit people to save time and money?

 

 

I thought exactly the same at the time IE what a shoddy shambling waste of ratepayers money thanks to an inept poorly presented case

 

 

 

KW

[death from below]

totally true I am afraid for a coroner to record a verdict of unlawful killing the verdict must be based on the terms BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as in a normal court of law.

 

 

KW

 

You are indeed right - shows how 'knowledge' can leak/fudge after 20 years or so.

[poontang]

That, along with the initial PM will cloud the issue beyond the comprehension of 12 lay people.

 

You are of course assuming that those 12 'lay' people may well include doctors, nurses or any manner of other health proffesionals.

 

I'm sure the PM findings won't be beyond their comprehension.

[UKPoacher]

I thought exactly the same at the time IE what a shoddy shambling waste of ratepayers money thanks to an inept poorly presented case

 

 

 

KW

 

So, given your experience, ahem, vast experience in these matters it would seem that it is a foregone conclusion that the prosecution will be a shambles the the defendant be acquitted?

[UKPoacher]

You are of course assuming that those 12 'lay' people may well include doctors, nurses or any manner of other health proffesionals.

 

I'm sure the PM findings won't be beyond their comprehension.

 

Which PM findings? That's the crux. Medical matters are rarelyif ever cut and dried, merely opinions.

[kdubya]

Which PM findings? That's the crux. Medical matters are rarelyif ever cut and dried, merely opinions.

 

put the spade down soon australia is getting close.

 

KW

[Gordon R]

kdubya - I am not questioning what has been said. I am not convinced it will be a simple trial. You have said yourself that your experience was not good. It might well not be a short trial. I cannot say what jurors will take in and retain or whether they will get bored. Justice is sometimes blind.

 

My wife did Jury Service. She had to be excused from a trial because she knew something about the case. The Jurors talked, during breaks, about how boring the Prosecuting Barrister was and compared him unfavourably with the "nice" Defence Barrister. Two were convicted and one acquitted. I know what the evidence was and one person got a result. I hope it wasn't a popularity contest result.

[UKPoacher]

kdubya,

The problem with your posts is that you want this copper to be proved guilty so much that you can't see the wood for the trees. You own court experience, for what it is, should have indicated that prosecutions are not always thorough and cases are lost through negligence. Add that to the lottery of a jury, some of whom will believe that no police officer has ever done wrong, and if that isn't enough we have a conflict of medical evidence.

 

Your blindness to the situation is also evident in the fact that you are convinced that I am defending the officer. There is nothing in my posts to suggest this.

[Boromir]

What difference does it matter if he was drunk or not? Well the first difference would be he probably not of been in the area if he was sober.

 

I do think though that the copper did wrong hitting him as he was walking away. Hope its a fair trial.

[poontang]

Which PM findings? That's the crux. Medical matters are rarelyif ever cut and dried, merely opinions.

 

Merely opinions?

 

Well as far as I know there have been 4 PM's so far? (although I think PC Harwood had one done on his behalf, not sure if that one has been made public yet?).

 

Three of them state Tomlinson died from internal bleeding from injuries comensurate with the earlier assault.

 

The other PM was carried out by Freddy Patel, who changed his findings on numerous occasions and has since been suspended for misconduct and dishonesty, so hardly a credible witness!!

 

I suspect the met will hang him out to dry, and reading the inquest judges' summing up it's easy to see why.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/28/ian-tomlinson-inquest-summing-up-live-updates

[kdubya]

kdubya,

The problem with your posts is that you want this copper to be proved guilty so much that you can't see the wood for the trees. You own court experience, for what it is, should have indicated that prosecutions are not always thorough and cases are lost through negligence. Add that to the lottery of a jury, some of whom will believe that no police officer has ever done wrong, and if that isn't enough we have a conflict of medical evidence.

 

Your blindness to the situation is also evident in the fact that you are convinced that I am defending the officer. There is nothing in my posts to suggest this.

 

no all I want is for this proven thug to get his just deserts, you would have him free to assault again, I am not blind at all far from it and I don't wear blinkers either, you will say owt do owt to see a thug walk, oh and everything in your posts show an attempt to defend him simple as.

 

we have no conflict of medical evidence either it HAS been established he died from a hemorrhage

the original post mortem has been discounted and dr Freddy Patel well and truly discredited think they have now struck him orf

 

here's your thug at work BEFORE he attacks thomlinson

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPY4snnrRh8

 

KW

Edited May 24, 2011 by kdubya

[paulf]

This trial has been a long time coming, hopefully he will be brought to account. The actions of the guy do the majority of the police service a big disservice.

[Bluebarrels]

Instead of enforcing the law that day,he went outta his way to display thuggish behaviour,and thought by wearing a police uniform he would get off the hook Hope he gets whats coming to him BB

Edited May 24, 2011 by Bluebarrels

[Mungler]

There is sufficient to charge and prosecute him. There is a case to answer.

 

Whether there is enough to convict him - I will wait for the verdict.

 

Exactly, big whiff and they need transparancy now.

 

Iffy first coroner's report, iffy and supressed evidence.

 

People want to see fair and open - give it an airing in Court in front of a jury and go from there.

 

The copper is still innocent until proven guilty.

[UKPoacher]

no all I want is for this proven thug to get his just deserts, you would have him free to assault again, I am not blind at all far from it and I don't wear blinkers either, you will say owt do owt to see a thug walk, oh and everything in your posts show an attempt to defend him simple as.

 

we have no conflict of medical evidence either it HAS been established he died from a hemorrhage

the original post mortem has been discounted and dr Freddy Patel well and truly discredited think they have now struck him orf

 

here's your thug at work BEFORE he attacks thomlinson

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPY4snnrRh8

 

KW

 

Sigh! It seems the monkey hanging philosophy is still thriving in Hartlepool. Once more for the thick hard of understanding; Inquest verdict word for word: "“abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.” i.e. a fit and healthy person would probably not have suffered the haemorrhage. THAT is where there is an opening for medical opinions to differ.

 

I also repeat as you seem to have missed or ignored the point; You seem to think that I am defending this officer. Just for my benefit please point to any comments I have made that might suggest that my opinion is one of support for him and not an informed opinion of the liklihood of an acquittal.

[guest1957]

Sigh! It seems the monkey hanging philosophy is still thriving in Hartlepool. Once more for the thick hard of understanding; Inquest verdict word for word: "“abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.” i.e. a fit and healthy person would probably not have suffered the haemorrhage. THAT is where there is an opening for medical opinions to differ.

 

I also repeat as you seem to have missed or ignored the point; You seem to think that I am defending this officer. Just for my benefit please point to any comments I have made that might suggest that my opinion is one of support for him and not an informed opinion of the liklihood of an acquittal.

 

Provided the haemorrhage was caused by the trauma, the fact that the cirrhosis aggravated it, or made him more succesptable to the bleed is immaterial is it not? R v Blaue 'taking you victim as you find him'?

[kdubya]

Sigh! It seems the monkey hanging philosophy is still thriving in Hartlepool. Once more for the thick hard of understanding; Inquest verdict word for word: "“abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.” i.e. a fit and healthy person would probably not have suffered the haemorrhage. THAT is where there is an opening for medical opinions to differ.

 

I also repeat as you seem to have missed or ignored the point; You seem to think that I am defending this officer. Just for my benefit please point to any comments I have made that might suggest that my opinion is one of support for him and not an informed opinion of the liklihood of an acquittal.

 

oh well insults, that means you've lost, never mind old chap keep it up it shows your intellect well.

 

kw

[UKPoacher]

oh well insults, that means you've lost, never mind old chap keep it up it shows your intellect well.

 

kw

 

Not so fast!

 

Please show where I have shown support for the officer and not given an opinion of the liklihood of an acquittal.

[Vince Green]

All the coppers on here, and there are several, will know that there are people in uniform who shouldn't be in the job and would see a demonstration like that as an excuse to throw their weight around. His pattern of behaviour on that day suggests to me that he was one of them. I think he was up for a scrap that day and although he could not have forseen the outcome he was too aggressive by far.

 

The Met are going to have to live with this for a long time, he's done a lot of damage

Edited May 24, 2011 by Vince Green

[kdubya]

Sigh! It seems the monkey hanging philosophy is still thriving in Hartlepool. Once more for the thick hard of understanding; Inquest verdict word for word: "“abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.” i.e. a fit and healthy person would probably not have suffered the haemorrhage. THAT is where there is an opening for medical opinions to differ.

 

I also repeat as you seem to have missed or ignored the point; You seem to think that I am defending this officer. Just for my benefit please point to any comments I have made that might suggest that my opinion is one of support for him and not an informed opinion of the liklihood of an acquittal.

 

 

sorry but thick as I am this is the wording of those who made the decision to prosecute re the medical evidence please note the last paragraph

 

However, matters have moved on in two ways since the original decision was taken in this case. First, new medical evidence was presented at the inquest. Second, the various accounts and opinions given by the medical experts, including Dr Patel, were tested in extensive questioning at the inquest; this has changed the basis upon which the case falls to be considered.

 

But for the inquest, the significant conflicts in the evidence that had previously existed could not have been addressed; and the inquest process, which is less confined than a criminal trial, has allowed a degree of clarity to emerge.

 

We have considered the new evidence adduced at the inquest and the final positions adopted by the medical experts very carefully indeed. We have also taken the advice of leading counsel, Mr Tim Owen QC, on the critical medical issues that remain.

 

Having done so, we are satisfied that the position in relation to the medical evidence about the cause of death has clearly changed. The difficulties that would now confront any prosecution have changed in nature and scale from last year when a decision was taken not to prosecute, although it is clear that real difficulties remain.

 

Taking the evidence as it now stands, we have concluded that, even with those remaining difficulties, there is now sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of successfully prosecuting PC Simon Harwood for the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson. That being the case, it is clearly in the public interest that criminal proceedings be brought.

 

 

KW

[UKPoacher]

Provided the haemorrhage was caused by the trauma, the fact that the cirrhosis aggravated it, or made him more succesptable to the bleed is immaterial is it not? R v Blaue 'taking you victim as you find him'?

 

Agreed. But that still leaves room for doubt. Public order situation, drunk and unsteady on his feet, one witness states that he bumped into a bollard or post. Have they positively concluded that there was only one injury? I don't think it is a cut and dried as some would like it to be. Where medical opinions meet legal arguments there is usually a quagmire.

[UKPoacher]

sorry but thick as I am this is the wording of those who made the decision to prosecute re the medical evidence please note the last paragraph

 

However, matters have moved on in two ways since the original decision was taken in this case. First, new medical evidence was presented at the inquest. Second, the various accounts and opinions given by the medical experts, including Dr Patel, were tested in extensive questioning at the inquest; this has changed the basis upon which the case falls to be considered.

 

But for the inquest, the significant conflicts in the evidence that had previously existed could not have been addressed; and the inquest process, which is less confined than a criminal trial, has allowed a degree of clarity to emerge.

 

We have considered the new evidence adduced at the inquest and the final positions adopted by the medical experts very carefully indeed. We have also taken the advice of leading counsel, Mr Tim Owen QC, on the critical medical issues that remain.

 

Having done so, we are satisfied that the position in relation to the medical evidence about the cause of death has clearly changed. The difficulties that would now confront any prosecution have changed in nature and scale from last year when a decision was taken not to prosecute, although it is clear that real difficulties remain.

 

Taking the evidence as it now stands, we have concluded that, even with those remaining difficulties, there is now sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of successfully prosecuting PC Simon Harwood for the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson. That being the case, it is clearly in the public interest that criminal proceedings be brought.

 

 

KW

 

At last! He's got it - I think

Edited May 24, 2011 by UKPoacher

[kdubya]

At last! He's got it - I think

 

 

you thought wrong! I got something entirely different tenner says he goes down

 

 

Taking the evidence as it now stands, we have concluded that, even with those remaining difficulties, there is now sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of successfully prosecuting PC Simon Harwood for the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson. That being the case, it is clearly in the public interest that criminal proceedings be brought.

 

 

KW

[Harnser]

I have followed this thread with great interest and realize that not to many people on hear actually realise what really happens in a crown court trial . This trial will be decided on how the slick silk can discredit and bully witnesses and evidence .It will be like all trials a battle of words and bluffs . Witnesses will be intimidated and the silk that is prepared to go the extra mile trying to put over the deceit and the carefully inferred lies will win the heart of the jury . You can be as guilty as sin ,but with a good brief you can be aquitted . Never plead guilty to any thing ,deny,deny ,deny and get a good brief .

 

Harnser .