egafd.com

"The trouble is we do not know how hard the blow was, It was not a Rodney King type beating. I think that is why a manslaughter charge did not stick."

Again this is wrong. Just as your comment about the fitness of Tomlinson is irrlevant, if you checked the law on manslaughter you would realise that the hardness of the blow is irrelevant.

Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness. In my view, Harwood attacked Tomlinson in a reckless manner, given that his back was turned, his hands in his pockets and he was walking away. Tomlinson died very soon after as a result of abdominal bleeding. Was this pure coincidence? Obviously not.

Harwood got off because he was a policeman. No other reason.

I'm afraid that it is very rare for a mugger to be charged with murder if the victim dies as a result of a beating. This is because the slime ball can always agrue that there was, "No malice aforethought". "I didn't want the old lady to die, honest yor honour, she struggled when I tried to nick her handbag!"

I must agree with David Johnson. If you or I were to slam someone with a truncheon and then shortly after shove him to the ground after which he died, I have no doubt we would be found guilty of manslaughter, regardless of the previous physical state of the victim.

Wasn't the pathologist a "Favourite" with the police at the time, because they knew he would fuck up the PM?

jimslip wrote:


>
> I must agree with David Johnson. If you or I were to slam
> someone with a truncheon and then shortly after shove him to
> the ground after which he died, I have no doubt we would be
> found guilty of manslaughter, regardless of the previous
> physical state of the victim.
>
> Wasn't the pathologist a "Favourite" with the police at the
> time, because they knew he would fuck up the PM?
>

The difference is that we are not policemen in a public order situation, the event has to be seen in context. As to the doctor, I don't know about that, but he was not fit to carry out a forensic PM.

David Johnson wrote:

> "The trouble is we do not know how hard the blow was, It was
> not a Rodney King type beating. I think that is why a
> manslaughter charge did not stick."
>
> Again this is wrong. Just as your comment about the fitness of
> Tomlinson is irrlevant, if you checked the law on manslaughter
> you would realise that the hardness of the blow is irrelevant.
>
> Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not
> intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of
> another through recklessness. In my view, Harwood attacked
> Tomlinson in a reckless manner, given that his back was turned,
> his hands in his pockets and he was walking away. Tomlinson
> died very soon after as a result of abdominal bleeding. Was
> this pure coincidence? Obviously not.
>
> Harwood got off because he was a policeman. No other reason.

The only reason Harwood was there was because he was a policeman. But clearly, the jury did not accept that there was enough evidence that PC Harwood caused Mr Tomlinson's death, and that goes back to the inept PM. If the videos had shown Harwood giving him a prolonged beating the verdict no doubt would have been different.

On any context Harwood should have been found guilty.

At the inquest in 2011 the jury ruled that the officer in question?Harwood was not named in the decision for legal reasons?had used excessive and unreasonable force in hitting Tomlinson, and had acted "illegally, recklessly and dangerously".

This was what forced the CPS to bring a manslaughter case. The Tomlinson family were fully entitled to expect a conviction on the basis that a similar level of proof is required to to come up with an unlawful killing verdict in a inquest as is required for a manslaughter charge in a criminal court.

"The only reason Harwood was there was because he was a policeman. But clearly, the jury did not accept that there was enough evidence that PC Harwood caused Mr Tomlinson's death, and that goes back to the inept PM."

That is probably because either they were misdirected by the judge or they were idiots.

Information heard at the inquest and subsequently available.

" Nathaniel Cary, the second pathologist, objected to the CPS's decision not to prosecute. . Cary told The Guardian that the push had caused a haemorrhage to Tomlinson's abdomen, and the haemorrhage caused him to collapse a minute or two later. Cary said Tomlinson was vulnerable to this because he had liver disease"

"The court heard on 18 April from Professor Kevin Channer, a cardiologist at Royal Hallamshire Hospital, who was asked to analyse electrocardiogram (ECG) data from the defibrillator paramedics had used on Tomlinson. He said the readings were inconsistent with an arrhythmic heart attack, but consistent with a death from internal bleeding. Pathologist Nat Carey concurred regarding the cause of death. He told the inquest: "It doesn't matter how you look at this case, whether you look at the heart and the coronary arteries or heart, you look at the ECG traces and clinical status, you come to the same view. Mr Tomlinson did not die due to a so-called heart attack, or arrhythmic heart attack, due to coronary artery disease." Liver expert Dr. Graeme Alexander said that in his opinion Tomlinson died of internal bleeding as a result of trauma to the liver after the fall. He told the court that Tomlinson already suffered from serious liver disease, which would have made him susceptible to collapse from internal bleeding"

If Harwood used "reasonable force" given Tomlinson was walking away, back turned and hands in pocket, then I'm Kylie Minogue.

The jury were buffoons.

David Johnson wrote:

"
>
> That is probably because either they were misdirected by the
> judge or they were idiots.
>
> Information heard at the inquest and subsequently available.
>

I don't think you are being fair here. The jury heard the evidence before them, they would not have been told about the findings of the inquest. You don't know why the jury found as they did, but they were 12 random people, not relatives of PC Harwood.

The fact that Mr Tomlinson had severe liver disease was no doubt a factor the jury had to bear in mind, he was not subject to a severe beating, if a shove was enough to kill him his life was clearly hanging on a thread. As I said, I think PC Harwood would have been found guilty of assault, manslaughter was too heavy a charge, but assault was not an option due to the time lag after the initial flawed PM.

As to PC Harwood, the fact that he was there that day as a Met PC is a travesty, but no doubt "lessons have been learned". They always are. I'm sure it will "never happen again", at least until the next time.

"The jury heard the evidence before them, they would not have been told about the findings of the inquest."

The same evidence was put to the jury in the manslaughter trial. Why wouldn't it?

Your argument is going round in circles. I have already discarded your thoughts on whether a severe beating was important or not.

I don't want to waste any more time on this.

I know several who "Wore the cloth" and they think this bastard should have been "hung out to dry" Let's not forget, there are many many more good coppers who do their duty selflessly day in and day out without a thankyou from anybody. One rotten bastard comes along and the whole force is tainted. When compared to the Frogs and the Krauts, or any other force for that matter the British police are the best. I would like to think that a private prosecution will nail this bastard to the wall where he belongs.

Actualy one of his colleagues reported him for using excessive force in an arrest but it was "overlooked" by his superiors. Fucking useless supervision allowed this bastard to get away with it for so long, methinks.