Wasn't it the pathologist who got struck off? I don't recall seeing anything about the coroner being dismissed, he just reaches a verdict based on the evidence available to him.
The thing is Patti,that years ago they'd have been more likely to have got away with dodgy evidence,as it was unheard of compared to today where people are more aware of corruption,especially where the police are concerned. In Ian Thomlinsons' case,there'd been corruption in the officer that said " he only pushed the man ".The coroner had said natural causes,because the man suffered medical problems anyway,so how easy was that.? But the family weren't happy with the outcome and sought for the truth.
To cut a long story short,Ian had suffered a ruptured liver because he'd been bashed,not just pushed,so as a consequence,the coroner was dismissed from his job.
The Ian Tomlinson story does give quite an interesting insight into the machinations of police corruption , or how police cock up , depending on your viewpoint . ( cock up or conspiracy ?)
The pathologist used by the police for the post mortem , Freddy Patel , was basically a pathologist who appears to be used when the police "know what verdict they want" . In the case of a civilian dying after contact with a police officer I think the police would "want" a natural causes verdict . Patel duly gave a verdict of death by natural causes , a verdict later disputed by two further pathologists .
At the inquest into Tomlinson's death a jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing by a police officer . This is what makes Simon Harwood's acquittal all the more surprising .
A Medical Practitioner's Tribunal found 68 failings in Patel's work on the Tomlinson case and he was found to "dishonest" and "liable to bring his profession into disrepute" .
In Simon Harwood's trial for manslaughter a number of fellow officers evidence against Harwood testifying to his thuggery was not allowed to be heard . This decision was made in chambers, for reasons that don't really stand up to scrutiny, by justice Fulford . The cause of death was also somehow portrayed as being unclear in the manslaughter trial , this despite the previous inquest verdict .I believe that the judge created this confusion again with decisions made in chambers that again are not seen as reasonable by many .
Some would believe that using a "dishonest" pathologist, which then creates a conflict of opinions with subsequent post mortem verdicts by more reputable pathologists was a genuine and honest but misguided decision by the police . Those of a more cynical disposition would believe it to be a deliberate attempt to "mucky the waters" should any challenge be made . Getting the fix in early .
This sort of thing happens far too often IMO to believe the cock up theory .
The trial judge appears to have been "generous" to the defence in relation to ruling evidence inadmissible .The fact that Patel had been suspended twice previously for "mistakes" in other post mortem examinations is one gem as ruled by the judge . The judge seems to have bent over backwards in order to be able to portray Patel as somehow credible in the manslaughter trial .
Again depending on your viewpoint , this is either the judge making a honest and fair decision on evidence admissibility or an establishment stooge doing his masters bidding and making sure that the "correct" verdict is returned .
Sorry for being long winded but lookout raised an interesting point and I believe the corruption goes much deeper .
In the Ian Tomlinson case it takes a generous view to believe that no corruption happened . All implicitly understood of course .
