Dr Tormey V's Prof Cassidy

my point with my neighbour was just an illustration of how a small injury can be magnified by a small amount of alcohol.
cassidy may be wrong.
if pathology is -as it seems to be-so contencious why should we beleive tormey who also didnt see body or even photos/slides/documents???
the pictures cassidy saw would have clearly shown the damage to face of deceased,she says it was minor harbison says it was severe,big difference.
 
bearishbull said:
I think you misunderstood me ,im referring to prof harbison and prof cassidy who gave widely different accounts from the same evidence,both were/are the chief state pathologist and the case wasnt a particularly difficult one to decide on.
Click to expand...

Okay, I understand that point now. However, as highlighted by JohnnyBoy above, or in a slightly different way, Dr.Cassidy and Dr.Tormey have come to their different conclusions based on more or less the same amount of information - or more particularly, without either of them having seen the actual body of the victom.

Dr.Harbison is the only person in this issue who has actually examined the body. Dr.Cassidy has not examined the body, and therefore, they were not working of the same evidence.

Therefore, it is likely that Dr.Harbison and Dr.Cassidy could feasibly come up with different conclusions.

Purple - the story of the aftermath of Dr.Cassidys statement, and quotes from that statement, is linked in one of my posts above. I think I heard on the radio somewhere that the full report was published somewhere, but I can't find where.
 

Not true. Dr Tormey had access the media reports on the case. Dr Cassidy had access to all the case files from Dr Harbison. Dr Tormey was in no way qualified to comment and I believe that this was all about getting his name out there in advance of the general election.
 
Please be extremely careful about the nature of comments made on this thread. I've just deleted one speculative comment. Let's stick to the facts.
 
Hi, having read the Tribune at the weekend the following seem good points to mention,
1. The person had consumed more than 3 pints and had taken some drugs - i think pot.
2. Dr. Tormey posted his letter to more than one paper but only the classy Indo published it.
3. Dr. Tormey was incorrect in his facts and was corrected on air,
4. The other doctors that were backing him were not named and as such did not really lend weight to his argument

To be honest I think Dr. Torney was trying to make a name for himself in the media. But then I think that whole trial from start to finish was a media event rather than about seeing justice done.
 
nelly said:
3. Dr. Tormey was incorrect in his facts and was corrected on air,
Click to expand...
Can you give details?
nelly said:
4. The other doctors that were backing him were not named and as such did not really lend weight to his argument
Click to expand...
I agree and that's possibly the strangest thing about this.

nelly said:
To be honest I think Dr. Torney was trying to make a name for himself in the media.
Click to expand...
No such thing as bad publicity and all that, as he ramps up for his run for the Dail. Especially in a case which evoked such emotion and the D4 killers were vilified. I think that a reasonable reading of the situation could conclude that Dr. Tormey is just being populist. This may not be the case of course.
 
the article mentioned that he kept stating that the blood alcohol level was 100mg but it was 138 (i think) and when it was pointed out he just said "oh but thats not much of a difference...." Now i am only a Jo public but if he can't be bothered quoting the correct facts, why would anyone be bothered believing him?
 
JohnnyBoy said:
I hear he was on the Late Late Show-what was he like?
Click to expand...
That was he doing on the Late Late, other than increasing his public profile?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register