QV: You are an angel! Thank you so much for all that you do! We have been lied to again! Does this Surprise anyone? Of Course not!

The truth is coming and it won’t be long!

Here is a link that explains the possible outcome of an Inquest and what each option means and what would be necessary to come up with that verdict!:

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-rights-of-the-bereaved/coroner’s-inquest/verdicts.shtml

You are here > Home > Your Rights > The Rights of the Bereaved >
Coroner’s Inquest
Verdicts
At the conclusion of the evidence the coroner will sum up the facts.
If there is a jury, he will also direct them on the law. No one else
is entitled to address the coroner on the facts. It is only
permissible to address the coroner on matters of law and there is an
entitlement to address the coroner on matters of law – including
verdicts – whether he is sitting alone or with a jury. The coroner
will then record his – or the jury’s – verdict as to how the deceased
came to his death. The coroner or jury certifies the facts of the
death on an inquisition form. There is a suggested list of verdicts
contained in the notes to the inquisition form. There is however no
statutory requirement that the verdict should be in any particular
form. In certain circumstances some form of words – other than those
suggested on the inquisition form – may be regarded as more
appropriately reflecting how the deceased came to his death. All that
is necessary as a matter of law is that the verdict is expressed in
concise and ordinary language. This is subject to the rule that the
verdict shall not appear to determine any question of criminal
liability on the part of a named person or civil liability.

Suggested verdicts

The verdicts suggested on the back of the inquisition form are that
the deceased:

• died from natural causes
• died from industrial disease
• died from dependence on drugs / non-dependent abuse of drugs
• died from want of attention at birth
• killed himself – whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed
• died as the result of an attempted/self induced abortion
• died as the result of an accident/misadventure
• was killed lawfully
• was killed unlawfully – murder, manslaughter, infanticide
• was stillborn.

The deceased killed himself – whilst the balance of his mind was
disturbed

Suicide – the self-killing of a person of sound mind and years of
discretion – was a criminal offence until the Suicide Act 1961. This
is reflected in the fact that the standard of proof for this verdict
to be returned is still beyond reasonable doubt. For this verdict to
be returned it must be proved that:

• the deceased killed himself, and
• intended to kill himself.

In order to meet this burden, positive evidence should be produced of
the deceased’s intention to kill himself, for example a ’so-called’
suicide note, although this is not usually read in open court. A
coroner should only infer suicide from the facts in the clearest
circumstances where there can be no other explanation, other than that
the deceased killed himself and intended to do so. If the deceased had
taken an overdose or was drunk there may be an issue about whether he
was aware of the nature and quality of the act he was doing. If, at
the time of his death, the deceased was suffering from a psychiatric
condition, the Coroner may record that he killed himself whilst the
balance of his mind was disturbed. The Coroner should be satisfied
that the deceased was capable of forming the intention to take his own
life and was not acting under a delusion, for example.

Accident / misadventure

To return a verdict of accident or misadventure the coroner or jury
must be satisfied upon the balance of probabilities. For statistical
purposes the verdicts are treated as the same, although in reality the
verdicts have slightly different meanings. An accident connotes
something over which there is no human control, whereas misadventure
suggests a lawful human act, which takes an unexpected turn and leads
to death. There is some authority suggesting that the term
misadventure’ is without purpose or effect, nonetheless it continues
to be a verdict returned by Coroners in appropriate circumstances.

Verdicts of accident / misadventure can be applied in a wide range of
situations from a gas explosion to a surgical accident, where, for
example, the surgeon’s knife slips, causing a fatal injury. If the
deceased had a natural life threatening condition that was either
exacerbated by medical treatment or was allowed to progress because of
the failure to treat this, the death might be considered to be the
result of accident or misadventure. The Court of Appeal considered
circumstances where there was a delay of forty minutes in the
ambulance service attending a woman – aged 17 – having an asthma
attack. The woman, who otherwise would probably have survived, in fact
died. The coroner concluded that death was by natural causes as it was
the asthmatic attack that caused the death. The courts considered
however that the decision might be different where the patient had a
non life threatening condition such as a strangulated hernia or
ectopic pregnancy which ‘ought never to result in death’ in which case
the clear failure of the emergency services / medical treatment
altered its essential character.

Where a person is suffering from a condition which does not in any way
threaten his life and such person undergoes treatment which causes
death then the verdict should be death by accident / misadventure or
in appropriate circumstances, unlawful killing. If, on the other hand,
the underlying cause of death is the condition that proved fatal then
the correct verdict would be death from natural causes, rather than
accident/misadventure.

Neglect

Neglect has a much narrower meaning in coronial law, than in the civil
courts and has a different meaning from the term ‘negligence.’

The definition of the term ‘neglect’ is set out in a case called R v
North Humberside Coroner ex parte Jamieson [1995] QB 1 in which it was
held that:

‘Neglect in this context means a gross failure to provide adequate
nourishment or liquid, or provide or procure basic medical attention
or shelter or warmth for someone in a dependent position – because of
youth, age, illness or incarceration – who cannot provide it for
himself.’

The first element of neglect is the proof of a gross failure. The
failure must be more than transitory or a ‘mere’ error of judgement.
The following are examples of situations upheld by the court to
constitute ‘gross’ failures: a police surgeon’s failure to properly
search the deceased – in breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 – and thereby discover a bottle of pills; the failure to act
on the Police national computer printout containing highly relevant
information on the deceased’s condition and the failure to procure for
the deceased effective medical treatment throughout the night.

The Coroner must also be satisfied that the deceased was a dependent
person in obvious need of attention. ‘Obvious need’ refers to the
deceased’s mental as well as his physical condition. This requirement
will usually be satisfied If the deceased was known to be at risk of
self-harm, had been diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness, or
was in a hospital or prison.

The neglect must be directly connected with the deceased’s death and
must be at least a contributory cause. However, there is good
authority that the neglect need not be the sole or even the dominant
cause of the death.

In the medical context, neglect is capable of including a gross
failure to provide basic medical attention. However, the mere fact
that clinical judgement had been exercised incorrectly will not
justify a neglect verdict. The failure must be gross; it must relate
to more than a single, transitory error. In one case the court
considered that a neglect verdict might be appropriate in a clinical
context where the deceased was in hospital for a period of nearly 12
hours before she died, during which time the care she received
suffered from a continuous sequence of shortcomings.

There is some debate about whether neglect can ever be a free standing
verdict. More commonly, neglect is applied as an adjunct to another
verdict, so that the verdict is expressed as, for example, ’suicide
contributed to by neglect.’

The Coroner can also record a verdict of self-neglect. This verdict is
appropriate where a person dies as a result of the failure to take
proper care for themselves. For example, an elderly person dying of
hypothermia at home.

Unlawful killing

Unlawful killing encompasses murder, unlawful act manslaughter and
gross negligence. To return a verdict of unlawful killing the Coroner
or jury needs to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this is how
the deceased came to his death. A coroner cannot find any person
guilty of any of these offences, although in some cases it will be
obvious that a particular person was involved. In other cases, it will
be impossible to infer from the verdict who was responsible for the
death and it is not the business of the court to enquire into this.

If a person has been charged with any of the offences of:-

• murder, manslaughter or infanticide of the deceased, or

• dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drink
or drugs – causing the death of the deceased – or

• aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of the
deceased,

the coroner will adjourn the inquest until after the conclusion of the
criminal proceedings, unless the Director of Public Prosecutions
informs him that it is unnecessary. After the conclusion of the
criminal proceedings the coroner may resume the inquest if there is
sufficient cause. If the coroner does not resume the adjourned
inquest, he or she will send a certificate to the registrar of deaths
stating the results of the criminal proceedings. If the coroner does
resume the inquest, the findings of the inquest are not permitted to
be inconsistent with the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Gross negligence

Gross negligence must be distinguished from negligence and neglect.
The principles to be applied are set out in the leading case of R v
Adomako [1995] 1 A.C 171. This case concerned the conduct of an
anaesthetist when during the course of an operation the tube became
disconnected from the ventilator and the patient suffered a cardiac
arrest and died. It was alleged that he had failed to respond
appropriately to signs that a disconnection had occurred and that the
patient had ceased to breathe, failed to notice at various stages that
the patient’s chest was not moving, the dials on the mechanical
ventilating machine were not operating, the disconnection in the
endotracheal tube, that the alarm on the ventilator was switched on
and that the patient was becoming progressively blue. He also failed
to understand the significance that the patient’s pulse and blood
pressure had dropped.

It was held that in considering whether there was evidence of gross
negligence that the ordinary principles of negligence apply to
determine whether the defendant was in breach of a duty of care
towards the victim. One should then ask whether this breach caused the
death of the victim and if so, whether it should be characterised as
gross negligence and therefore a crime. This will depend upon the
seriousness of the breach committed in all the circumstances in which
a person was placed when it occurred. The extent to which the conduct
departed from the proper standard of care, involving as it must have
done a risk of death to the patient, such that it should be judged
criminal. Whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the
conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal
act or omission. If gross negligence is shown, then it is sufficient
if it was a contributing cause of the death for such a verdict to be
returned.

If the Coroner or jury return a verdict of “unlawful killing,”
although the individual impugned must not be named – and there is no
sanction as a result of the verdict in itself – the expectation would
be that the Director of Public Prosecution would institute
proceedings. Therefore, if you believe that the deceased has been
unlawfully killed or if you are a person whose conduct may be impugned
at an inquest it is important that advice, and if necessary,
representation is obtained for the hearing.

Death in violation of Article 2

A violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights
may occur where the deceased dies as a consequence of the State’s
failure to discharge its positive obligation to protect his/her life -
where for example the deceased died in custody or as a patient – or
where state agents – such as police officers – have intentionally
taken the deceased’s life with the use of force.

As there is no legal requirement for a verdict to be limited to those
in the notes to the inquisition form, it is open to the Coroner in the
exercise of his discretion to leave a verdict that ‘the Deceased died
in violation of Article 2′ if there is sufficient evidence for such a
verdict to be left. It is arguable that this verdict may be left where
existing verdicts do not adequately reflect the circumstances of the
deceased’s death. For instance, Article 2 differs from unlawful
killing in that Article 2 is violated where the action resulting in
the death has not been shown to be absolutely necessary.

Alternatively, if he does not intend to record a verdict that the
deceased died in violation of Article 2, the Coroner should be
satisfied that the existing verdicts are applied to reflect a finding
that there was a violation of Article 2. This may potentially mean
broadening the range of “verdicts” or “conclusions” that may be
returned at the end of an Inquest.

Although it is relatively early to predict how the courts will
reconcile the existing verdicts to the need to provide an opportunity
to reflect evidence that there has been a violation of Article 2, at
least one recent cases suggests that for the inquest to satisfy the
requirement for an effective investigation for the purposes of Article
2, there should be an opportunity to record a finding of breach in the
verdict.

Prevention of similar fatalities

Rule 43 provides a coroner with an important power, that is to report
to a person or authority, action that a coroner believes should be
taken to prevent the recurrence of fatalities similar to that in
respect of which the inquest is being held. This may be appropriate
where, during the course of the inquest, deficiencies in systems are
identified. Therefore, even if these types of deficiencies are not
capable of reflection in the verdict, the Coroner has the power to
report his findings to the relevant authority, in the expectation that
steps will be taken to prevent similar fatalities in the future.

What a day! Trying to glean the truth in a jungle of propaganda! I think the most definitive quote of the day is as follows:

“The evidence appears to be simple, but it requires more time for review,” he said. (the magistrate)

The jurors have been given a lot of conflicting testimony and they are going to have to decide what the truth is. Whatever verdict they give will have to be supported with testimony!

The second most definitive quote is:

The seven-member jury will formally determine what killed Daniel Smith and has the power to recommend criminal charges if it finds evidence of wrongdoing.

The verdict will be decided by the jury with the evidence provided to them. As far as I can see there is nothing to support the notion that the jury will not include homicide in there choice of proper verdict! I believe that this misinterpretation of what was said is a semantics game being used by those that are not champions of the TRUTH!

So, we have to wait again! I pondered yesterday, “What would be the most wishy-washy verdict this jury can come up with?” I joked that there would be another delay! LOL! There is a delay!

If I was to make a prediction it would be that the jury will come up with a open verdict. That is the second most wishy-washy verdict that they can come up with. I would be amazed if they come up with any other verdict! There is a lot of information that was kept from the jury because of missing nannies and sick uncooperative witnesses! They have been lied to in the most obvious way! And, I just do not believe the Bahamians want to have to deal with Howard K. Stern on a long term basis!

QV, you are such a treasure! What would we do without you standing at the gate of truth? We would be stuck in a jungle of propaganda and ensnarled in a mass of tangled lies! There is only one place we can go to see the sunlight of TRUTH and that is your site QV! I know that no matter what, whether we like it or not, you will print the TRUTH! And I will always be grateful to you for that!

#

leaks. Very interesting.
# Uh oh Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm

I just want to point out that Wayne Munroe is in the video with Howard coming out of the inquest on Tuesday, the day Howard testified. It is incorrect that he wasn’t there that day. He was there. The only day that he wasn’t in court was when GBT and Gaither testified.

_________________________________

I have been told by a reliable source that Munroe was not there on the day that Howard K. Stern testified. Now how would we know that he was there on one day and not the other? A change in tie color? I believe the source that stated he was not there on the day that Howard K. Stern testified. Why would he not be there on any day? Strange going-ons in the Bahamas. Why did the Attorneys give their summations behind closed doors? Inquest are supposed to be opened, are they not? I am not trying to be argumentative Uh-oh, it is just that the source that told me this is very reliable. With all of the inaccurate information being bandied about it is difficult to glean the truth, I can attest to that! It is very strange that everything from the Inquest is so hush-hush! Maybe something is up!

I hope that you ALL have a very nice Easter Holiday!