You are welcome. ‘someone’ is trying to scapegoat the police officers.
Coroners report vs Inquest.
The inquest is a separate event. The coroners report already exists. Unlike the US, the report is not released and made public by the courts. The description of the wounds should be from the coroners report.
Fatal wound:
“The knife passed through, several layers of
clothing, as demonstrated by the multiple slits in his dark top where the material had been overlaid on itself in the struggle and the single slit in his shirt. It passed upwards through soft tissue, between the two uppermost ribs, catching a lung and cutting an important vein, behind the collar bone. This was to a depth of 8cm from the skin surface. The consequent bleeding flowed into his chest cavity”
Other wounds:
“You also stabbed him twice to the upper leg at some point and once again to the lower abdomen/groin area at the front. The latter only resulted in a knife tip injury; the former were both to a substantial depth although not as deep as the chest wound. Henry’s face was also slashed with the blade of the dagger but I cannot be sure that was aimed or intended.”
Pathologist.
“The pathologist, Amanda Jeffrey, found 1200 ml, or over 2 pints, of blood there. She said that no emergency medical treatment would have permitted access to the bleeding vein. In simple terms, he would not have survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or expert medical treatment.”
Likely inquest results:
1. No police action contributed to the death. The blame lays squarely on the murder, and the murderers accomplices.
2. The 999 dispatcher ended the call to call the ambulance. That call should have been placed just before police arrived on the scene.
3. The police officers on the scene also called for an ambulance within 2 minutes of starting treatment on the patient.
4. The police were accessing the facial wound and checking pupil reaction when the patient went unconscious. They had not discovered any of the other injuries. They had the victim on his side because they thought he was going to vomit.
5. The police initially treating the victim as a person ‘drunk to the point of passing out’ was appropriate given the visual appearance of the victim and the statements of the murderer, the murderers father, the murderers brother and perhaps even the murderers mother.
6. There were no obvious bleeders for the police to apply direct pressure to. The bleeding at that time was almost all internal - with 2 pints in the chest cavity.
7. As soon as the patient went unconscious, the police uncuffed him and started CPR.
8. We do not have the time that the ambulance medics arrived and took over. My estimate is that they did not arrive until 15 minutes after the patient went unconscious. We do not know what treatment the medics provided.
9. We do not have the time that the Trauma doctor was flown out to the patient. Presumably before the patient was declared dead at 0:37. We do not know what treatment the Trauma doctor performed.
10. The fatal stab wound was in a very difficult location to apply pressure to stop the bleeding, and first it has to be found.
11. To have any chance of survival Henry needed to be transported to a trauma center ASAP. I cannot comprehend a system that would keep the victim in the field - in an unsanitary environment with poor lighting, minimal medical equipment, and very few medical personnel.
12. A valid finding would be to chastise the police management for excessive focus on ‘racist’ complaints. The murder’s brother was extremely assertive with trying to pain Henry as racist. His 999 call lasted for 12 minutes. That misinformation severely poisoned the information well for the responding officers.
- they were informed that the victim was a ‘belligerent, feisty drunkard’. That is probably a common call.
- they were informed that there were no weapons on the scene.
- they were informed that the victim had fallen and split his lip. So a minor medical issue and nothing major.
FWIW, AI came up with the following summary of standard UK practice on this question:
The British trauma system utilizes a hybrid approach, favouring rapid stabilisation at the scene only for critical interventions, followed by immediate transfer to a specialist hospital. It generally avoids "scoop and run" (rushing to the nearest hospital without field care) and "stay and play" (prolonged on-scene treatment) in favour of a balanced model.How the system operates depends on the patient's condition and location:
.1 Direct Transfer to a Major Trauma Centre (MTC)
For the most severe, life-threatening injuries, the priority is getting the patient to a specialist centre (MTC) as quickly as possible.
Pre-Hospital Care: Paramedics and medical teams (e.g., Air Ambulances) will perform only immediate, time-critical interventions at the scene—such as securing an airway or controlling catastrophic haemorrhage.
The 45-Minute Rule: Regional ambulance services use specific regional trauma triage tools to identify major trauma. If the patient can safely reach an MTC within 45–60 minutes, they will bypass smaller local hospitals entirely.
2. "Pit Stop" Stabilisation and Secondary Transfer
If a patient is too unstable to survive a long journey to a Major Trauma Centre, or if the travel time exceeds 60 minutes, the ambulance will divert to the nearest Trauma Unit (TU)
.Stabilisation: The local hospital serves as an emergency "pit stop" to resuscitate and stabilise the patient.
Onward Transfer: Once stabilised, the patient is rapidly transferred (often via a blue-light ambulance or emergency helicopter) to an MTC for definitive, specialist surgery or intensive care