"He had a heart attack and the only contact he had with the police was when officers went to his rescue as he collapsed to the floor". Remember that?
Imagine if that New York fund manager had not come forward with his video evidence. That hasty, sweeping initial statement from the police would have remained unquestioned, a bit a-la David Kelly.
For his "incontrovertible" evidence forced the authorities to order a second post-mortem examination. It is now clear that Tomlinson did not suffer a heart attack. He died of "an internal bleeding in the adbdomen", a potential consequence of the police baton charging him and shoving him to the ground.
According to the Independent: "Tomlinson pathologist's decisions questioned", with the added info that "Dr Patel, who is on a Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists, has had his handling of suspicious deaths questioned twice."
Even the Daily Mail joins the ranks: "G20 officer could face a charge of killing as post-mortem shows protester did NOT suffer a heart attack". Dacre's paper runs a special feature: "Day by day how the police version was contradicted" - though wouldn't it be great if the Mail also had another one about how their own version too keeps changing by the minute?
"Channel 4 News has learned that the IPCC asked to be present during the first post mortem examination carried out on Ian Tomlinson but the coroner refused"