G20 death was not heart attack

reply to post by daveyp1986

DETECTIVES dropped a murder investigation into Anthony Hardy a year before the discovery of body parts in Camden Town after a pathologist decided his first known victim had died from “natural causes”.
Police arrested Hardy on suspicion of murder after finding Sally Rose White’s naked body locked in his spare room.
The key to the room, which Hardy said was let to a lodger who was overseas for three weeks, was found stitched into a secret lining of his coat.
The Old Bailey heard on Tuesday that she had sustained a blow to the head and inside the bedroom a blood-stained hooded sweatshirt – thought to be worn by Ms White – was found. On the palm of her hand was written the words: “I only want £15”.
Prosecutor Richard Horwell said: “She had received a wound to the top of the head. She had a bite mark to the right thigh that the defendant had caused – that has been shown by scientific evidence.”
But detectives said after Tuesday’s hearing that the case had been “discontinued” following a report from Home Office pathologist Dr Freddy Patel which revealed the dead woman had suffered from coronary heart disease.
Dr Patel ruled Ms White, whose family live in Hampshire, had died from a heart attack and an inquest at St Pancras Coroner’s Court resulted in a “natural causes” verdict.
Coroner Dr Stephen Chan did not call Hardy to give evidence to the hearing. “There is no evidence of foul play or third party intervention,” he said.
The New Journal was the only newspaper in court and the case was heard in 15 minutes.
Dr Patel told the hearing: “There were no marks of violence.”
Detective Sergeant Alan Bostock added: “There is no evidence to suggest that he (Hardy) was responsible for her death. The investigation has been closed.”
Dr Chan has since left his post at St Pancras Coroner’s Court and has not been traced since.
Dr Patel was forced to review his decision on the case on January 1 as police began linking Hardy with the deaths of prostitutes Elizabeth Valad and Brigitte MacClennan.
Mr Horwell said that the pathologist had found evidence of heart disease. Dr Patel was unavailable for comment but police press officials said it had been discontinued “in the light of findings of Dr Patel that death had been from natural causes”.

www.camdennewjournal.co.uk...

Originally posted by daveyp1986
Checkered past....? Can u ellaborate?

Dr Patel has been in trouble with the General Medical Council in the past due to another case where he worked with the police. In the previous case, a woman (Sally White) was said to have died through natural causes - as a coincidence, like Tomlinson, White was said to have died of a heart attack - even though the actual death was suspicious (suspicious enough for the police to be involved in the first place).

However, one of the chief suspects, the man who actually owned and lived in the flat where White was found, turned out to be an alcoholic with mental health problems who later murdered two women.

Originally posted by andy1033
I am just glad, we may get justice for at least one person. See how quick they did the first psot mortem, they covered it up they thought.

This is the thing that really doesn't sit right with me. I would have thought it fairly easy to distinguish between a heart attack and internal bleeding.

Internal bleeding = abdominal cavity full of blood when you cut the guy open.

Heart attack = abdominal cavity NOT full of blood when you cut the guy open.

Cover up? Or incompetence?

Were it not for these video's coming out, the poor family would never have known how their father died.

Did Patel completely miss the internal bleeding , if he did it's incompetence. If he didn't, then he must have attributed it as being caused by the heart attack . I can't see that , it has to be the other way around , the heart attack being caused by the abdominal bleeding , thereby by potentially suspicious causes . That is if he had a heart attack at all . Something isn't right .

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Drexl]

We should be grateful to the channel4 news for the vid,a nd the net for people like here, talking about this.

Like said above, if not for those vids, there would be no justice at all like usual way.

they hit that guy as he was walking away with both hands in his pockets...what a bunch of punks......I'm sorry, but cops need to get a grip.....don't make this a battle with the people......YOU WILL LOSE......the "We the People" stampede will soon be coming....be a part of the stampede or get trampled under foot!

Yeah it seems that the powers that be wanted to brush this under the rug. 'The police are just doing their jobs'. Even if it means killing innocent people. What a wonderful world.

Wasn't the cop that did this supposedly hospitalized for a 'heart attack' earlier this week????

If so, does that REALLY mean 'other officers beat him in the gutt'??

because heart attack seems to be the new term for someone who gets beaten into bleeding INTERNALLY!

eesh

Originally posted by suzque66
Wasn't the cop that did this supposedly hospitalized for a 'heart attack' earlier this week????

Did he die? Maybe there is a God...


As for a heart attack causing internal bleeding? WTF?

Heart attack actually lowers blood pressure making internal bleeding almost impossible unless an organ/blood vessel is physically ruptured... as far as I know... and how do organs get ruptured?

Well - a few ways actually. Maybe the guy had one of a number of viruses/infections. Maybe he'd had some kind of surgery in the weeks preceding the incident? Maybe the guy just got beat in the gut by a police man...

Interestingly - I don't see the fall the man suffered in the video as being sufficient to cause an internal bleed - would have to have been really unlucky. That said - maybe it was more of a punch than a push? Is that clear from the video? Otherwise, I think this may be the way the officer gets out of the charge - by suggesting an earlier incident either involving the police or not, was actually the source of the wound.

I do kind of feel for the officer in a way. I mean - if he'd been told this kind of aggression was OK by his superiors (remember, on the day we have lots of reports of police acting in a similar manner), then he probably thought he was just doing his job. After all - I've been in situations where I've pushed guys (albeit this was to defend myself, they didn't have their back turned to me) and I didn't for a minute expect the push to kill them.

Maybe this investigation should also be looking at charging superior officers with corporate manslaughter too.

The point is...the article from the UK paper said that the cop didn't know it was him that did this until the youtube video arose...and that gave him a heart attack lol yaa okkk They denied having anything to do with it UNTIL the youtube video even appeared...

'they' claim (from autopsy) that the innocent bystander's organs were not in top shape to begin with...so what? it is his body!!

One is still culpable of death if you injure a sick man as you are if he is healthy....he had no business pushing him sick or healthy to the ground. What next? people claiming that persons in the hospital are going to die anyways so lets knock em on the ground to finish the job?

Now he will be charged with manslaughter? doubt it, they will hide him on a wonderful island resort.

Originally posted by andy1033
We should be grateful to the channel4 news for the vid,a nd the net for people like here, talking about this.

Like said above, if not for those vids, there would be no justice at all like usual way.

Haha good call. I like Channel4, out of the main UK news services, they seem to be the most switched on, unafraid to prod and question the party line. That they had the sense to bring this video to light is tetament to that.
The BBC jumped on it a couple of days after, probably making sure it wasn't too anti-Labour to air it. Wimps...

Interestingly, in a lot of these complaint accounts you hear now, it's often the case that the office in question isn't wearing the numbers to identify him by. Seems a lot conveniently 'forgot' and went out to pick a fight. Like with the officer who clobbered that woman with his riot gauntlet and baton. Animals.

Originally posted by suzque66

'they' claim (from autopsy) that the innocent bystander's organs were not in top shape to begin with...so what? it is his body!!

I wonder how many smokers are going to get taken down now?

'Look, 'es smoking a cig! Drop 'im boys!'

Not in top shape to begin with.... The nerve.

I don't know , there seems to be a nasty web of concealment, fabrication and obscuration afoot here and with the level of public interest in the matter, it may not be as easy to extricate themselves from the mess as they usually manage to do . They know suspicion and distrust of the police is an issue with this case and it could be that heads could roll over this . I'd have the IPCC/ Police investigate the officers that have not come forward ( just 4 so far have ?) for withholding evidence too .

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Drexl]

It is right and just that this officer feels the full force of the law. If it had been the victim that pushed the officer and the officer had died Im sure Mr Tomlinson would have been on a murder charge as well as many other charges.

Somewhere out there are more videos taken by the public/demonstrators at the G20. Im sure they will all pop up over time and we may yet see any prior violence used against him.

IMO he looks sluggish (in pain, dazed, hurt?) as he walks away before being pushed to the ground. Maybe he was feeling the effects of a prior injury before this incident was filmed.

Respects

The article states:

"That examination, carried out by Dr Freddy Patel, concluded Mr Tomlinson had diseased heart and liver and a substantial amount of blood in the abdominal cavity. "

yes, sure, he was dying anyways perhaps???? His body chose THAT DAY to drop dead on a sidewalk??

He was walking around dying, had a decent day's work, walking home from his job , hands in pockets minding his business, no visible pain and voila....he started bleeding internally enough to kill him by an ACT of God, a cop pushed him and now his illnesses are in the newspapers.

Yes, sounds so SANE lol..nottttttttttttttt

"IMO he looks sluggish (in pain, dazed, hurt?) as he walks away before being pushed to the ground. Maybe he was feeling the effects of a prior injury before this incident was filmed. "

I have to say.....if you maybe had a job doing newspapers and likey this guy is up at 3ish am, busy day maybe or lack of business because of this summit, maybe his selling area was even sealed off from pedestrians and he didn't sell a thing. I bet he had other things on his mind and wasn't even thinking about this G-20 crap going on around him. He maybe wanted to get home to a shower and a hot meal. Have you ever had a long, tiring day? If so, if you look ragged and thoughtful does that mean people have the right to deem you 'suspicious-looking' and worthy of a beating?

Originally posted by Drexl
I don't know , there seems to be a nasty web of concealment, fabrication and obscuration afoot here and with the level of public interest in the matter, it may not be as easy to extricate themselves from the mess as they usually manage to do . They know suspicion and distrust of the police is an issue with this case and it could be that heads could roll over this . I'd have the IPCC/ Police investigate the officers that have not come forward ( just 4 so far have ?) for withholding evidence too .

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Drexl]

My old man is an officer, though he's an inspector, not on the streets bashing heads, and he has a pretty poor opinion of the IPCC. They do so little about so much quite often because their hands are so often tied. No wonder only 4 officers have voiced opinions.

reply to post by jericanman


Let's just clarify it isn't illegal to film the Police. Here's a quote from me in another thread explaining so:

It's a common misconception (and actively promoted by the Police) that you canot take pictures of them on duty.

The law that this relates to prohibits the taking of photographs of service personnel, installations and law enforcement if the purpose of those photographs is for terrorism. The onus is on the Police to prove a link to teorrist activites.

However, as stated, the Police will often intimidate people into not taking pictures or giving up their camera's/deleting images because of ignorance of the law, particularly section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism 2008 Act and section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000:

"anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'."

Bottom line is, if an Officer asks to see, or try to delete your images, you should be able to refuse as long as you're not a terrorist. You have the right to take images as long as your not up to anything "terroristy".

ATS Thread

Oh, it took so long because the IPCC didn't want to prejudice the investigation by leaking the results of the 2nd Post Mortem. It was actually carried out last week and the family of Mr tomlinson knew the results but kept stum at the request of the IPCC.

Some of you though are ever the pessimists. When this first emerged as a story many were saying "they'll never investigate it" or "theyll cover it up". Now your clapping the investigation but are saying things like "he'll get off" "he won't even face charges".

At what point do you stop with the negativity and allow Justice to takes it course. By all means moan afterwards if it isn't to your liking, but so far most of the pessimism is unfounded.

Originally posted by purehughness
Interestingly, in a lot of these complaint accounts you hear now, it's often the case that the office in question isn't wearing the numbers to identify him by. Seems a lot conveniently 'forgot' and went out to pick a fight. Like with the officer who clobbered that woman with his riot gauntlet and baton. Animals.

Then there needs to be an inquiry as to why any of them forgot. It is a legal requirement that an officer has to identify themselves to any citizen who asks, and to maintain privacy and prevent fear or reprisal, they have to give their badge number instead of name etc.

In this kind of scenario, it should be clearly on display.

Having said that, I have seen numerous reports where protesters did ask for badge numbers, and they were refused.

We need a full, open investigation into this, with the protesters who experienced Police brutality posing the questions, the officers responsible responding to those allegations, and the correct punishment metered out.
Then we need protesters and *moral* officers (though I am starting to think that none exist) to work together to review current procedures for crowd control in these events.

Anything less than that is an injustice and a whitewash.

Unfortunately, our government and police are so morally bankrupt nothing will be done beyond "expressing regret" and "endeavoring to review current procedures". No commitment, no admission of guilt, and no justice.
Just as usual.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by purehughness
Interestingly, in a lot of these complaint accounts you hear now, it's often the case that the office in question isn't wearing the numbers to identify him by. Seems a lot conveniently 'forgot' and went out to pick a fight. Like with the officer who clobbered that woman with his riot gauntlet and baton. Animals.

Then there needs to be an inquiry as to why any of them forgot. It is a legal requirement that an officer has to identify themselves to any citizen who asks, and to maintain privacy and prevent fear or reprisal, they have to give their badge number instead of name etc.

In this kind of scenario, it should be clearly on display.

Having said that, I have seen numerous reports where protesters did ask for badge numbers, and they were refused.

We need a full, open investigation into this, with the protesters who experienced Police brutality posing the questions, the officers responsible responding to those allegations, and the correct punishment metered out.
Then we need protesters and *moral* officers (though I am starting to think that none exist) to work together to review current procedures for crowd control in these events.

Anything less than that is an injustice and a whitewash.

Unfortunately, our government and police are so morally bankrupt nothing will be done beyond "expressing regret" and "endeavoring to review current procedures". No commitment, no admission of guilt, and no justice.
Just as usual.

Noble words indeed my friend. Star for you.

Although I know a couple of moral officers, they're few and far between...
Our government is shameful. It really is. No one dares say sorry to anything lest they appear weak, it's always 'we will do everything in our power to prevent..(insert act for which the govt is ENTIRELY to blame for here).
Total shambles. And watch as all of these offending officers walk away scot free because there was no way to positively identify them other than shaky, blurry video footage. Boooo.