An article in the Telegraph reports that police are denying any attempt to mislead over the death of Ian Tomlinson.
On the subject of misleading I was intrigued by an article in the print edition of the same newspaper (which yet again seems to be missing from the online edition) reporting on the fact the officer responsible for the baton charge and push had come forward.
Buried in this second article is the following:
"A second post-mortem examination was carried out by the pathologist, Dr. Nat Carey, who was believed to be looking for signs of whether Mr. Tomlinson was bitten by a police dog or hit by a baton."
Er - when a post-mortem is carried out does/should not a pathologist investigate all possible causes of a death - especially one in such circumstances as this? Is not an inspection of the body carried out prior to any surgical investigation begun? It begs the question whether Dr. Carey didn't 'carey' very much, or whether he was only asked to investigate the heart attack angle. It will be more than interesting to see whether this will be covered by the 'independent' inquiry being carried out by the IPCC
Afterthought: Still on the subject of this newspaper and its standards of journalism - Why is the story linked above buried on-line under: Home>Finance>Finance Topics>G20 Summit?
The villains and the heroes get all mixed up
1 hour ago