A post-mortem examination report into the death of a man at the G20 protests last year has been withheld from authorities, it has emerged.

It was carried out by a forensic pathologist on behalf of the policeman who pushed Ian Tomlinson.

The report was withheld from the Crown Prosecution Service, Independent Police Complaints Commission and the coroner.

from - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11224719

What IS going on ?

We have TWO Post Mortems which discredit the original "findings".

Then the person who made the original findings is declared incompetent and struck off.

Now we hear that those findings are being kept secret (even from the IPCC who are charged with carrying out an investigation) and also the Coroner.

Thanks ITK,

I heard this on the BBC radio this morning. It is rather puzzling for a couple of reasons at least. Firstly, I thought we already knew that the third report had been withheld. It had never been made public and we all simply drew the obvious inference. Secondly, if there are doubts why have they not been pursued earlier.

From the BBC article you cite:

[i[On Tuesday, coroner Paul Matthews revealed that the officer's lawyers had refused to disclose Dr Swift's findings, citing legal privilege.

Mr Matthews said he had "doubts" about that and would "pursue" it.[/i]

Why only now does the wily Paul Matthews reveal this information? And if he does, as he says, have doubts about it, why has he not had a chance to pursue it in the year and a half that has already elapsed. I think we should pursue him. I notice the media are not doing so. There's another failing.

Finally, the implication of withholding is very clear. It's hard to believe that the suspect would have withheld the report if it tended to exonerate him. And surely if a charge had been brought it would have been possible for the court to demand to see the third postmortem, and the CPS would know this and could have gone ahead on those inferences and expectations. I'm not sure about this though, not being a legal nerd or anything like that. It just seems reasonable to me. (Perhaps someone could advise?)

Best Wishes,
Jim

So we have had

Coroner and First * discredited pathologist saying Tomlinson died of natural causes
Second and Third reports saying that it was caused by the assault
THE FOURTH Post Mortem on behalf of the officer is WITHHELD
and
I believe the family asked for a further report as well......

The IPCC were banned from the first BECAUSE THE POLICE TOLD THE CORONER IT WAS NATURAL CAUSES before the Post Mortem. This shows the "intent" to cover up existed from Day One. The Police knew the true story and spun the line about not knowing about this bloke - it was only the film shot by a tourist which came out in the Guardian which gave evidence that this was untrue. By then the Police had got the result they wanted......and they have used that "cover up" ever since to protect the killer.

If this was the public covering up the murder everyone involved would end up in court for Perverting the Course of Justice.

I think now the facts are coming out it makes clear not only TOMLINSON was murdered but the Police intentionally covered it up by pre-empting the Post Mortem by telling those doing it the "result" that they expected. Perhaps they did not even look for any other cause - so the pathologist who messed up perhaps just did not do his job.

On TV it shows each Post Mortem is filmed and recorded. So surely the first one should exist on TAPE - and could be reviewed to hear and see whether it was carried out properly.....

Too many things are being covered up.

Jim wrote:
I heard this on the BBC radio this morning. It is rather puzzling for a couple of reasons at least. Firstly, I thought we already knew that the third report had been withheld. It had never been made public and we all simply drew the obvious inference. Secondly, if there are doubts why have they not been pursued earlier.

I'm not entirely sure (at this stage) if we can blame the Coroner ? Surely he can only produce a report and make a decision when ALL the facts are known to him ?

I agree ... we can all tell what the report done for the policeman said - if it had vindicated him in any way they would have shouted it from the rooftops, not hidden it !

Thanks BR,

You are quite right generally, but in my recollection there were only three postmortems, not four or five as you suggest.

The first was by the dodgy Freddy Patel, appointed by the Coroner Paul Matthews, though not qualified to be on the Home Office list and already known to have a record of being soft on the police.

The second was requested by the family and was made public. It was the one that found he had died from internal bleeding. Perhaps it was due to the blow in the back injuring his kidneys.

The third was requested by the policeman suspect. Like the second it was private and he has a right to keep it so, for now, evidently.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Thanks ITK, you write:

"I'm not entirely sure (at this stage) if we can blame the Coroner ?"

The coroner's office in general is a last bastion of public protection against police murder or manslaughter. I suspect the coroner in this case is culpable of colluding with the police and liable to prosecution for malfeasance in public office for three reasons.

Firstly, he appointed a pathologist who was already known to have a record of being soft on the police.
In 1999 Dr Patel was disciplined by the GMC after he discussed the medical history of Roger Sylvester, a 30-year-old black man who died in police custody, outside an inquest hearing.

He told reporters: "I am aware from the medical records held at Whittington hospital that Mr Sylvester was a user of crack cocaine." Sylvester's family were devastated by the suggestion and contested that he been a user.

Guardian
Secondly, he allowed the police to have a copy of the report at a time when they were publicly denying having had any "contact" with the victim. We know this because the press were citing the police on the postmortem report. The coroner's office was unable to explain how the police got hold of the report. According to them only interested parties are allowed to do so: in this case the family and legal representatives of the family. The police can only see it if they are involved in the death. But what actually happened was that shortly after the death the police showed up at the door of the family and gently introduced them to their own redacted version of the report, that is, a version with selected parts which they had blacked out so that the family could not read them.
The family said police had prevented them from viewing Tomlinson's body for six days after his death.

Police initially tried to persuade them there was nothing suspicious about the death and gave them only an edited version of his first post-mortem exmaination.

Telling the family he had "died of a heart attack", police made no mention of significant injuries found on Tomlinson's body.

Guardian
Thirdly, the family are entitled to be present at the autopsy. They were not even invited.

Best Wishes,
Jim