PATHOLOGIST ACCUSED OF FAILING TO SPOT 'OBVIOUS' EVIDENCE IN MURDER CASE
A Home Office-appointed disciplinary tribunal has heard allegations that a senior pathologist did not identify what were said to be 'obvious' signs of violence when conducting a post mortem on a pensioner who had been reportedly assaulted and beaten to death.
Dr Peter Acland faces a long list of charges around his investigation into the death of 69 year old Mervyn Fletcher, whose body was found in the garden of his home in the West Midlands in October 2004.
The allegations include failing to include adequate descriptions and measurements of Mr Fletcher's injuries, providing too brief a description of the fatal injury, failing to detect a second skull fracture on the victim and not recognising the "medico-legal significance' of particular matters in terms of their indication as to the likely cause of death."
The tribunal was told that he was found collapsed in a pool of blood, with numerous injuries including a fractured skull and broken ribs and his wallet missing.
The first post mortem concluded that he died from the head injuries as a result of what was believed at the time to be the result of a diabetes-induced fall.
Weeks later, police officers found that money was still being withdrawn from his bank account and a man, Mustafa Abdullah, admitted using the stolen cards.
The second post mortem, conducted by Dr Acland, concluded that some of the injuries were consistent with a heavy fall but reported that there was no convincing evidence of a direct assault, although one could not be discounted.
Mr Fletcher's body was exhumed and a third post mortem carried out.
Three years after Mr Fletcher's death, Abdullah was convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of murdering the pensioner.
Opening the tribunal on a complaint by the National Policing Improvement Agency. Paul Ozin, on behalf of the disciplinary committee of the Pathology Delivery Board, argued that the nature of the pensioner's injuries should have been obvious.
Mr Ozin said that a second Home Office pathologist Dr Peter Jerreat recognised immediately that Mr Fletcher's injuries were not accidental.
He said: "We say the evidence available to Dr Acland should have been used by him to identify the death as non-accidental." He added that, on the case presented, "so obvious was the position that Dr Jerreat was able to come to that conclusion on the documentary material alone." He continued : "He formed a very clear view that this was a non-accidental death."
Mr Ozin said that Dr Acland had failed to initially recognise that some of the injuries had been caused by blows from an instrument.
He added that the pathologist had failed to detect the second skull fracture and had not taken trace samples from under the pensioner's fingernails and that he had not detected a fracture of the right shoulder blade.
Mr Ozim criticised Dr Acland for "adhering to the view" that Mr Fletcher sustained serious injury by falling against a pebble-dashed wall in the alleyway at the side of his house.
On examination, a stone from the pebble-dashed wall was found to protrude nearly an inch (2cm).
He explained: "There was, on the face of it, a lack of diligence in adhering to the view that the 2cm projecting stone may have caused a major injury."
He also criticised Dr Acland for not visiting the scene of the murder personally.
Mr Ozim told the tribunal that Dr Acland complained that police had not been forthcoming in enabling him to visit Mr Fletcher's home.
He said: "It really is not good enough to blame the police for not visiting the scene if that's what he thought he should have done."
Concerns over Dr Acland's conduct were raised by the prosecution counsel in Abdullah's murder trial who criticised his post-mortem examination report.
The hearing is expected to continue throughout this week.
ENDS