Ian Tomlinson pathologist Dr Freddy Patel is dishonest, says tribunal
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The pathologist who conducted two error-strewn post-mortem examinations of Ian Tomlinson is dishonest, a disciplinary panel has found.
Dr Freddy Patel said that Mr Tomlinson, who was pushed to the ground by a police officer during the G20 protests in London in 2009, had died of coronary artery disease.
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel found that parts of Dr Patel's examination had been misleading, dishonest and liable to bring his profession into disrepute.
The panel found 68 failings in his work on the Tomlinson case, and will now decide if he should be struck off the register. The panel found that Dr Patel did not properly consider or comment on the fact that abdominal bleeding found on Mr Tomlinson could have caused his collapse and death.
It also found that the pathologist did not adequately explain how Mr Tomlinson could have died from a heart attack or adequately consider any other possible non-natural causes of his death.
Dr Patel's second post-mortem report also contained mistakes and incorrect conclusions, according to the panel, who found him to be dishonest because he did not identify changes made to his first report.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments