What excuse now for the police?"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?
***UPDATE 19/4/09
"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"
5 comments:
"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?
Do you have a reference for that? I've heard it as well but just wanted a source. What often saddens me about such cases is the stupid attempt at spinning the story why? I mean surely it would be better in the 21st century if our capital's police said something like 'An individual has died after a demonstration that was policed by our officers. We would like to reassure the public a thorough investigation is being undertaken to establish exactly what occurred'. Perhaps I'm naive, I'm also disappointed.
Do you have a reference for that?Sure thing. Where do I begin.
Try this link where you'll find the first police statement of date Wed 1 Apr with: "made no mention of any prior police contact with Tomlinson. The following day, journalists were briefed by police that he was not a protester, had not been involved with police or been in a crush and had died of natural causes outside of the police cordon."Also, remember "Police said they were pelted with missiles believed to include bottles as they tried to save his life". (link hereOn 4 Apr, the first post-mortem arrived. "A post-mortem examination... found he died of natural causes," a City of London Police spokesman said. "(He) suffered a sudden heart attack while on his way home from work." (LINK).
Have you been away for the past 20 days? Or do you have problems with your web connection or something?
Paul,
just a wee question.
Are you one of those who, until about the nineth G20 video appeared, were still saying the police were in the clear?
Just asking, plz don't take offence.
Are you one of those who, until about the nineth G20 video appeared, were still saying the police were in the clear?
No. My questions were not intended to demonstrate some form of incredulity.
It may sound controversial, but let's at least hope Tomlinson didn't die in vain. This time there's a real chance things may change in terms of the policing of demonstrations.
Even Melanie Phillips was slagging off the police yobs yesterday!
Post a Comment