More confusing than it appears.
The glove had been used to examine another patient
(according to the defence, me included) The guy was at the
end of a long night shift and walked into the room with
the glove on and put it in the bin in the room. Not
hygienic I admit.
He examined her knee and thigh only ( he is a very young
and innocent indian guy)
Her allegation is one intimate exam with a glove on, with
her knickers at her knee, using language seen in Sunday
Sport or behind the bike sheds, not that of a high caste
Hindu indian in the first three months in the UK.
He goes out and returns at her request (not disputed)
He then does a second internal with her lying face down
with her legs together, this time without a glove!
No one ever aked if this was possible, I asked the defence
team to ask me but it was not asked, and It would have
been dismissed had I answered I imagine.
This in our quiet room but with the door open and visible
to the nurses station according to the other witnesses.
There is also a set of evidence of phone calls to her
including a recording on an MP3 player (how do you do
that?) that is allegedly him confessing all and praying to
Jesus! On this played in court, you can hear her voice and
no other. It lasts 10 minutes!
Telephone records show his mobile never contacted her land
line.
It also shows there is no unidentified contact at the
stated time of the recording.
Also at that time the mobile record shows he was calling
his family in India.
All this and all defence witness statements were strongly
dismissed by word and intonation according to 3 court
regulars who were supporting him.
The sister in charge at the time of the claim is accused
of lying in all but the words and my statement is
dismissed because it was written 4 hours after the events
(just after the police left with the boy) and was
therefore not contemporaneous. Her statement was not
formally taken for several hours after!
No FME exam was made of her (I know who was on since i
used to do the job in my spare time)
We are doing what we can but this is a very senior judge
who does the appeal court. I imagine he will be skillful
enough that the words on the transcript will be legally
sound. Of course the transcript does not include the
silences, the intonation and the raised eyebrows.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:52:47 +0000
Abimbola Afolabi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It makes one wonders whether it is worth it at all.
>These days, I tend to
> go OTT with examinations (both male & female) and insist
>on a chaperone
> hoping their evidence would be believed in court. I
>document the name and
> grade of the chaperone. We cant be too careful guys.
> Bim Afolabi
>
>
>
>
> John Paskins
>
> <John.Paskins@DBH
>
> .NHS.UK>
> To
> Sent by: Accident
> [log in to unmask]
> and Emergency
> cc
> Academic List
>
> <ACAD-AE-MED@JISC
> Subject
> MAIL.AC.UK> Re: Danger to
>doctors[Scanned]
>
>
>
>
> 12/06/2006 08:18
>
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> Accident and
>
> Emergency
>
> Academic List
>
> <ACAD-AE-MED@JISC
>
> MAIL.AC.UK>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Frightening rather than fascinating. How are you supposed
>to refuse to
> examine someone who is injured? We all recognise the
>barn-door dangerous
> patient and I have an experienced nurse to chaperone and
>make a lot of
> fuss about telling everyone what I am doing, but you
>can't spot 'em all.
> One of our team is serving a four year sentence so we
>are a bit careful.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian
>Fogarty
> Sent: 06 December 2006 00:21
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Danger to doctors[Scanned]
>
>Fascinating, but disturbing.
>
> The first thing I would say is you and your colleagues
>must now refuse
> to carry out any "forensic" type examinations, such as
>this type of
> examination for domestic violence. They are not part of
>our core work
> practice.
>
> The second thing I note is the judge's comments: "you
>forfeited the
> sympathy of the court by the nature of the defence,
>which was to call
> the complainant a liar in no uncertain terms", which, as
>you suggest
> Andy, makes things rather difficult for medics faced
>with vexatious
> complainants, as, let's face it, they are by definition
>liars. In other
> words, how can we protect ourselves from liars with
>vexatious complaints
> if we come up against a judge like this? However, I
>suspect these
> comments came following the verdict.
>
>Finally, I don't understand this idea that: "samples,
>found on a latex
> glove used by the doctor for the first examination,
>linked it to the
> woman", as clearly the doctor did examine her so surely
>any samples
> found were quite legitimate.
>
> AF
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrew Volans" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:40 PM
> Subject: Danger to doctors
>
>> This is an evil and sordid tale and is headlined here:
>>
>>
> http://www.scarboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=800&Articl
> eID=1913458
>>
>> An SHO was accused of two intimate exams during an
>>examination for
>> domestic violence.
>> The police had to be called, I hoped , to clear him,
>>but some rather
>> spurious DNA evidence was found.
>> I will have to be a bit cautious as we are seeking
>>judicial review for
> him
>> and must not mess up the field.
>>
>> There was much evidence to prove that the prosecution
>>case was poor
> and
>> there was more than reasonable doubt by the end of the
>>Barristers'
> summing
>> up.
>>
>> The real damage was done by the Judges summing up. Again
>>I must be
>> cautious for now, but reports from collegues with a lot
>>of court
>> experience suggest that he refuted all the defence's
>>evidence, but the
>
>> killer point, and this i see as a danger to us all, he
>>told the jury
> to
>> disregard the evidence from his proffessional collegues,
>>including
> myself
>> and basically accused us of collusion with him. This
>>includes the
> nurses
>> who were with him, although they did not formally
>>chaperone him as he
> was
>> only examining a knee and lower thigh injury, however it
>>was in
> reasonable
>> view of nurses within a cubicle.
>>
>> This means that our testimony is to be put aside. How
>>then can we
> defend
>> ourselves against vexatious complainants.
>> If he realy did say what they all heard, then a
>>chaperone will not be
>> protection
>>
>> I am devastated for the poor lad, but I am also scared
>>for myself and
> my
>> collegues.
>> Yesterday I examined a woman without a chaperone, I
>>examined her knee,
> I
>> was scared for myself, the first time in 25 years. I
>>hope she didn't
> know.
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are
>confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
>to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error
>please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has
>been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.clearswift.com
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com
|