The Bulley Inquest. An open and shut case?
This Inquest is yet another reminder of how unsatisfactory a process it is, full of assumptions treated as fact, an absence of any challenge or enquiry and a frusting lack of detail available to the public.
There are so many unanswered questions and problems but here is one of the most glaring: the Coroner held that the increase in heart beat recorded by the FitBit was synonymous with her entering the water. Yet this is incompatible with the FACT that the FitBit recorded a 273 steps between 9.15 and 9.30 am but none after 9.30.
The PC who gave evidence about the FitBit, did not say how many steps were recorded between 9.22 and 9.30 am, but the fact that they continued up to 9.30 appears to absolutely disprove the Coroner's conclusion she died instantaeously at 9.22. She apparently was still walking up to 9.30 am and only three minutes before she was discovered missing and a full 8 minutes after she was supposed to have drowned!
Even more amazing and disturbing is the revealed fact that the FitBit continued to record a heart beat (her heartbeat?) up to eight days after she was supposed to have drowned and until the battery lost power. The obvious explanation for this that she was actually alive for eight days at least, was jettisoned on the basis of the adopted hypothesis she had drowned - a completely implausible explanation of it being attributed to water passing over it, substituted in its place.
There are two conflicting and opposing theories in relation to her in the water. EITHER she went to the bottom and stayed there or floated towards the weir and then the shallows of the bridge. As the PC stated, their searches confirmed she was not on the bottom. If on the other hand she had floated she was not seen and did not ground on the shallows at the bridge even if it had gone over the weir. The evidence, totally ignored by police and Coroner overwhelming points to her NOT being in the river.
There are two conflicting and opposing theories in relation to her in the water. EITHER she went to the bottom and stayed there or floated towards the weir and then the shallows of the bridge. As the PC stated, their searches confirmed she was not on the bottom. If on the other hand she had floated she was not seen and did not ground on the shallows at the bridge even if it had gone over the weir. The evidence, totally ignored by police and Coroner overwhelming points to her NOT being in the river.
The whole police investigation and Inquest proceedings were based on the assumption Nicola fell in the river at the bench and almost immediately drowned from the shock of the cold (4 degrees) and imbibing water. Yet as the Coroner admitted, there is no evidence how or even if she entered the river at that point. In fact all the circumstantial evidence points against it:
1. Although there were several people in the vicinity and the river clearly visible from the footpaths and bridge, no floating body was seen.
2. Both police and expert underwater searches immediately after she was reported missing, proved there was no body on the bed of the river, snagged in obstructions or grounded on the shallows. The subsequent searches went well past where her body was eventually recovered, again without result.
3. Even if she had for some inexplicable reason fallen down the bank, there is a shallow ridge before deeper water which would have allowed her to get back out.
Nicola was an expert swimmer and the slow moving river would not have presented an insuperable obstacle to survival.
4. The suggestion that the cold water would have immediately caused her death is highly hypothetical and contentious. Nicola was young, fit and used to swimming. In addition her clothes for some minutes would have mitigated the impact of the cold water. There are many examples of survival for longer periods in water at that temperature, influenced by many physiological and other factors.
5. There is no evidence of intent either to enter the water or to harm herself.
6. Attempted suicide is ruled out by the factual and circumstantial evidence: she had made plans for the rest of the day and weekend; she had a work meeting scheduled for 10 am (her partner stated); she left not note or other indication she intended to end her life; she wasn't inebriated or under the influence of drugs; she wasn't otherwise disabled; she would not have left her beloved dog that she 'regarded as another child'; the dog was dry and had not attempted to enter the water after her, despite its attachment and a swimmer.
2. Both police and expert underwater searches immediately after she was reported missing, proved there was no body on the bed of the river, snagged in obstructions or grounded on the shallows. The subsequent searches went well past where her body was eventually recovered, again without result.
3. Even if she had for some inexplicable reason fallen down the bank, there is a shallow ridge before deeper water which would have allowed her to get back out.
Nicola was an expert swimmer and the slow moving river would not have presented an insuperable obstacle to survival.
4. The suggestion that the cold water would have immediately caused her death is highly hypothetical and contentious. Nicola was young, fit and used to swimming. In addition her clothes for some minutes would have mitigated the impact of the cold water. There are many examples of survival for longer periods in water at that temperature, influenced by many physiological and other factors.
5. There is no evidence of intent either to enter the water or to harm herself.
6. Attempted suicide is ruled out by the factual and circumstantial evidence: she had made plans for the rest of the day and weekend; she had a work meeting scheduled for 10 am (her partner stated); she left not note or other indication she intended to end her life; she wasn't inebriated or under the influence of drugs; she wasn't otherwise disabled; she would not have left her beloved dog that she 'regarded as another child'; the dog was dry and had not attempted to enter the water after her, despite its attachment and a swimmer.
All this and all the other worrying aspects of the case discussed elsewhere, is sufficient to persuade me that not only is there insufficient evidence to prove the explanation advanced for Nicola's death, it positively points against it, and despite all the associated difficulties, a different explanation should have been sought and found.
At the very least, the verdict recorded by the Senior Coroner, Dr. James Adeley, is inappropriate in the circumstances. Given that he accepts the basic fact that there is no evidence to support either she went into the the river, or how she entered it, indeed that all the evidence circumstantial and otherwise, points against it, the conclusion that it was an accident is premature and probably inaccurate. Other explanations must exist for her demise, however uncomfortable or seemingly unlikely.
In the circumstances therefore, in my honest and unbiased opinion, and despite the reluctance of the court to find it, an 'Open' or unexplained verdict would have more accurately reflected the prevailing situation, leaving open the possibility of further enquiry. The process may have been cathartic for the family. For the general public it leaves a multitude of questions and reservations unresolved.
See:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.