UK UK - Joshua Clayton, 23, homicide or ?, Tresco Island, Isles of Scilly, 13 Sept 2015

[ApparentlyInDenial]

I think the case was that decomposition and time since death meant it was so bad the pathologist could not tell. I will get the full pathologist report out and maybe post it privately somewhere...

I remember he could not tell if Josh was dead before going into the water or not. He couldn’t rule out certain physical harm as the decomposition was so bad. I asked about the neck and any way to tell if choked, he said impossible to discount it 100% due to the amount of damage to the neck by sea life.

The quote from the pathologist I’ve seen in the media is that there was no trauma, which was a definitive statement. Do you have anything written from the coroner/pathologist that could give more details about the difficulties carrying out the post-mortem?

One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that advanced decomposition would not enable those very clear blood and urine alcohol levels to be found. So I think it’s a safe conclusion that the decomposition wasn’t so severe - otherwise there wouldn’t have been usable samples of urine and blood to get those alcohol levels.

My own opinion, backed with some professional exposure to autopsy reports in various countries. And not discouraging, pls don’t delete this.

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

The quote from the pathologist I’ve seen in the media is that there was no trauma, which was a definitive statement. Do you have anything written from the coroner/pathologist that could give more details about the difficulties carrying out the post-mortem?

One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that advanced decomposition would not enable those very clear blood and urine alcohol levels to be found. So I think it’s a safe conclusion that the decomposition wasn’t so severe - otherwise there wouldn’t have been usable samples of urine and blood to get those alcohol levels.

My own opinion, backed with some professional exposure to autopsy reports in various countries. And not discouraging, pls don’t delete this.

Any discussion is valid.

so the body was in water for up to 10 days, then taken out and moved around. A further 12 days I think before actual autopsy.

the body was badly damaged by sea life activity.

the body decomposition accelerated due to being out of water (it kind of holds nicer in sea water I understand), the body being taken out of place, bagged, opened, put back, moved again to another hospital, further opening, closing, to another hospital etc.

some number of pathologists refused to carry out this autopsy as it was not requested as forensic. The nhs pathologists refusing because the timeline wasn’t right.

We had to really complain at this point. I fell out with the coroner assistant over the phone, he said it was the police matter not the coroner.

when mum offered to pay for forensic exam they got Delaney to do it.

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

The quote from the pathologist I’ve seen in the media is that there was no trauma, which was a definitive statement. Do you have anything written from the coroner/pathologist that could give more details about the difficulties carrying out the post-mortem?

One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that advanced decomposition would not enable those very clear blood and urine alcohol levels to be found. So I think it’s a safe conclusion that the decomposition wasn’t so severe - otherwise there wouldn’t have been usable samples of urine and blood to get those alcohol levels.

My own opinion, backed with some professional exposure to autopsy reports in various countries. And not discouraging, pls don’t delete this.

Also, I’m sorry if this is narrative (!) but the special form and instruction given to the pathologist to do the exam contained no mention whatsoever of the events going on that night. The pathologist was not given a clear outline of what to look for.
They did a general autopsy with a forensics on the toxicology. They hung their hat and gambled on the toxicology coming back to show drugs and a high level of alcohol.
When the toxicology came back with not what they expected they returned again to look for designer drugs.
They’d destroyed the blood stained t shirt and the black jeans immediately after autopsy with no analysis. Toxicology was all they had to go on to confirm what they staked their claim on.

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

I’m trying to demonstrate that all facts are based on weak physical evidence with no forensic where it would have been important and necessary to rule out 3rd party witness involvement.

Witness testimony is the only evidence I believe we have.
Witnesses were not allowed to the second inquest and most of them didn’t come to the first.
We had to spend 70k to get them to agree for Leroy to come to the inquest. It was a proper fight, then he did what he did at the inquest.
I was there and spent time alone with him in the room outside the court. I wish I could go back in time and ask just a few questions privately.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

I’m trying to demonstrate that all facts are based on weak physical evidence with no forensic where it would have been important and necessary to rule out 3rd party witness involvement.

Witness testimony is the only evidence I believe we have.
Witnesses were not allowed to the second inquest and most of them didn’t come to the first.
We had to spend 70k to get them to agree for Leroy to come to the inquest. It was a proper fight, then he did what he did at the inquest.
I was there and spent time alone with him in the room outside the court. I wish I could go back in time and ask just a few questions privately.

That they could get an intact urine and blood sample for ethanol testing means the decomposition was not advanced. It couldn’t have been or those samples wouldn’t exist.

I’ve no doubt there was decomposition from exposure and the sea (sea water isn’t great in fact, for a number of reasons including movement, wildlife, etc.) but the body would have been refrigerated once removed from the sea.

Again though, this is a fact rather than my opinion: you can’t get a valid urine & blood tox reading from a body in advanced decomposition. And they did they get one for Josh.

 

[Tortoise]

<rsbm>

He is seen outside the Shed with two other individuals that shortly later are in her group that leave. Her last sight of Josh is to assume he was heading in the opposite direction and she assumes this was to get a bicycle. He was headed towards the “banks” area and this would not be suitable for bicycles, even in the day-time which everybody knew. This witness, F, says she last saw Josh around 1:50am. He had a torch/light illuminating his face from the iPhone he owned.

Witness statements now begin to blatantly differ.

Where is the "banks" area?

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

That they could get an intact urine and blood sample for ethanol testing means the decomposition was not advanced. It couldn’t have been or those samples wouldn’t exist.

I’ve no doubt there was decomposition from exposure and the sea (sea water isn’t great in fact, for a number of reasons including movement, wildlife, etc.) but the body would have been refrigerated once removed from the sea.

Again though, this is a fact rather than my opinion: you can’t get a valid urine & blood tox reading from a body in advanced decomposition. And they did they get one for Josh.

Excerpt from the PM :

Joshua Aaron Pickard (aka Clayton) was a 23-year-oid man who went missing from Tresco after a party. His body was later recovered from an island north of Tresco.

There was extensive post mortem decomposition with skin and soft tissue defects due to marine predation and possibly contact with the beach and/or rocks. Within the limitations imposed by this there were no positive signs of drowning. In particular there was no froth in his airways. However, even if there were originally positive signs of drowning it would be most unusual for those signs to still be visible after this period of time in the water after death. The possibility of so-called dry drowning should also be considered — a very rapid death on entering the water Often under the influence of alcohol, thought to be due to sudden cardiac arrest in relation to cold water contacting the back of the upper airway. Under those circumstances there will be no positive signs of drowning due to the rapidity of death.

There was no evidence of any significant natural disease process that could explain his sudden death.

Within the limitations imposed by the degree of post mortem decomposition there was no evidence of any significant injury that could explain his sudden death or provide an explanation of how he entered the water. There were no positive injuries identified to suggest that he had been violently assaulted at any point prior to his death.

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

Where is the "banks" area?

The banks area I believe is the green area between the blue and red lines on this map. Starting at the top Blockhouse coming down to Lizard Point and maybe further besides Pentle Bay. I could be wrong of the exact size of the area, but the Banks Area being that green space. I am sure there are plenty of pics of it on Google maps from tourists who have uploaded pics of this area.

Getting down to the beach from here is not easy. You need to go there to appreciate it.

 

[Tortoise]

The banks area I believe is the green area between the blue and red lines on this map. Starting at the top Blockhouse coming down to Lizard Point and maybe further besides Pentle Bay. I could be wrong of the exact size of the area, but the Banks Area being that green space. I am sure there are plenty of pics of it on Google maps from tourists who have uploaded pics of this area.

Getting down to the beach from here is not easy. You need to go there to appreciate it.

View attachment 292485

So that's also the area in which his bike was found, or is that incorrect?

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

Excerpt from the PM :

Joshua Aaron Pickard (aka Clayton) was a 23-year-oid man who went missing from Tresco after a party. His body was later recovered from an island north of Tresco.

There was extensive post mortem decomposition with skin and soft tissue defects due to marine predation and possibly contact with the beach and/or rocks. Within the limitations imposed by this there were no positive signs of drowning. In particular there was no froth in his airways. However, even if there were originally positive signs of drowning it would be most unusual for those signs to still be visible after this period of time in the water after death. The possibility of so-called dry drowning should also be considered — a very rapid death on entering the water Often under the influence of alcohol, thought to be due to sudden cardiac arrest in relation to cold water contacting the back of the upper airway. Under those circumstances there will be no positive signs of drowning due to the rapidity of death.

There was no evidence of any significant natural disease process that could explain his sudden death.

Within the limitations imposed by the degree of post mortem decomposition there was no evidence of any significant injury that could explain his sudden death or provide an explanation of how he entered the water. There were no positive injuries identified to suggest that he had been violently assaulted at any point prior to his death.

This passage for me says there was no abnormal decomposition beyond what the sea caused:

“There was extensive post mortem decomposition with skin and soft tissue defects due to marine predation and possibly contact with the beach and/or rocks.”

They likely would have also done a CT scan to look for trauma injuries on bones regardless of the soft flesh state.

I think based on this it’s okay to rule out:

- that there was decomposition more than normal for such a case
- that decomposition prevented a very skilled Home Office pathologist doing a fair job
- that decomposition was so bad that it prevented urine and blood samples being taken.

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

This passage for me says there was no abnormal decomposition beyond what the sea caused:

“There was extensive post mortem decomposition with skin and soft tissue defects due to marine predation and possibly contact with the beach and/or rocks.”

They likely would have also done a CT scan to look for trauma injuries on bones regardless of the soft flesh state.

I think based on this it’s okay to rule out:

- that there was decomposition more than normal for such a case
- that decomposition prevented a very skilled Home Office pathologist doing a fair job
- that decomposition was so bad that it prevented urine and blood samples being taken.

I asked the Pathologist at inquest to tell me if there was any way to tell if Josh was choked. He said no, the state of the neck didn't allow him to identify if so.

The pathologist did not view Josh with any background to the violence, sexual assaults and even incidents involving drink driving of buggies and vans.

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

This passage for me says there was no abnormal decomposition beyond what the sea caused:

“There was extensive post mortem decomposition with skin and soft tissue defects due to marine predation and possibly contact with the beach and/or rocks.”

They likely would have also done a CT scan to look for trauma injuries on bones regardless of the soft flesh state.

I think based on this it’s okay to rule out:

- that there was decomposition more than normal for such a case
- that decomposition prevented a very skilled Home Office pathologist doing a fair job
- that decomposition was so bad that it prevented urine and blood samples being taken.

"Shocking" and "Unforgivable". He said the examination should typically take place within 72 hours and ideally within 24 hours. "The body is already decomposing... and so you bring that body out of the water and then you let it rot for another 15 days? Now that's unheard of," he said. "It is absolutely no surprise to me that after they subjected this poor man to these ridiculous delays and transfers in vans and morgues that they couldn't come up with a cause of death."

Prof Lemos said it appeared the police had approached the evidence believing there was no foul play. "When you go and look at something forensically it is not because you expect the world to be a nice place, it is because you expect criminal activity. "You assume something bad happened and you hope that all of the evidence will point to the other reason - that nothing bad happened to Josh."

Nikolas Lemos, Professor of forensic medical sciences at Queen Mary University of London

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

"Shocking" and "Unforgivable". He said the examination should typically take place within 72 hours and ideally within 24 hours. "The body is already decomposing... and so you bring that body out of the water and then you let it rot for another 15 days? Now that's unheard of," he said. "It is absolutely no surprise to me that after they subjected this poor man to these ridiculous delays and transfers in vans and morgues that they couldn't come up with a cause of death."

Prof Lemos said it appeared the police had approached the evidence believing there was no foul play. "When you go and look at something forensically it is not because you expect the world to be a nice place, it is because you expect criminal activity. "You assume something bad happened and you hope that all of the evidence will point to the other reason - that nothing bad happened to Josh."

Nikolas Lemos, Professor of forensic medical sciences at Queen Mary University of London

No, the pathologist said the decomposition was purely from being at sea. NOT storage or movement. If the body was preserved like any mortuary would have, a delay would be reasonable.

I feel like you only want the answers you already decided on. It is clear the decomposition was not an issue, from the pathologist and from the fact they could take urine and blood samples.

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

No, the pathologist said the decomposition was purely from being at sea. NOT storage or movement. If the body was preserved like any mortuary would have, a delay would be reasonable.

I feel like you only want the answers you already decided on. It is clear the decomposition was not an issue, from the pathologist and from the fact they could take urine and blood samples.

I feel like you have not even looked into the witness testimony?

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

Any delay to the examination is not reasonable. That was a body, a potential crime scene.

please double check what you’re writing before hitting post reply.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

Any delay to the examination is not reasonable. That was a body, a potential crime scene.

please double check what you’re writing before hitting post reply.

It can often take several weeks for examinations to be carried out. You've said that the delay has caused decomposition that might be masking a true cause of death.

I want to examine what's on record with the pathologist myself, so I can decide if the true cause of death is being masked by decomposition caused by delay.

Basically I'm double-checking each part of the story so I can find where the real query is, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm doing what I'd do in any case like this. It's just logical deduction.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

I feel like you have not even looked into the witness testimony?

Correct. Could you provide it?

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

The Pathologist should be leading the examination and he should be in total charge of the exam and take good instruction with as much detail known of the case surrounding the deceased.

BBC iPlayer - Horizon - 1967-1968: Investigating Murder About 21 minutes in, fascinating.

In this case he clearly wasn't. He was crowded over by the police attending the examination, they mislead him in the absence of background to the case and timeline leading up to the disappearance.

The form 95a contains no mention whatsoever of anything going on that night with really only suggesting that Josh was 'smashed', looked 'vacant' and was in a rush to get home, tried to take a buggy then didn't, he was left alone and then upon return was gone and not seen again.

I cannot find any examples of delays to autopsy being acceptable, even the NHS website says it should be carried out within 2 or 3 days in normal deaths.

 

[ash_uk@somebody]

So that's also the area in which his bike was found, or is that incorrect?

Here is the location of bike and items.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

The Pathologist should be leading the examination and he should be in total charge of the exam and take good instruction with as much detail known of the case surrounding the deceased.

BBC iPlayer - Horizon - 1967-1968: Investigating Murder About 21 minutes in, fascinating.

In this case he clearly wasn't. He was crowded over by the police attending the examination, they mislead him in the absence of background to the case and timeline leading up to the disappearance.

The form 95a contains no mention whatsoever of anything going on that night with really only suggesting that Josh was 'smashed', looked 'vacant' and was in a rush to get home, tried to take a buggy then didn't, he was left alone and then upon return was gone and not seen again.

I cannot find any examples of delays to autopsy being acceptable, even the NHS website says it should be carried out within 2 or 3 days in normal deaths.

We’ll have to disagree. All I’ve read is actual evidence on physical issues - tox, trauma, etc. Not surrounding circumstances. I wanted to know the scientific medical conclusions so that I could get a picture for myself, before looking at surrounding factors.

Surrounding factors aren’t relevant ones if they don’t show up in medical facts. You’re obviously an intelligent man - you must realise there’s a huge dose of cognitive dissonance here.

If I die right now, and my autopsy says no trauma, but someone claims I was bashed with an axe over the head, the autopsy is still correct.

I’d strongly encourage you to publish any witness statements you can, if you want to.