continuing from Bob Woolmer inquest: raises more questions

Woolmer toxicology tests inconclusive: Analyst

Cricket Times of India | KINGSTON, October 27:

Toxicology tests on Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer showed conflicting results as to whether he had ingested poison, a Jamaican forensic analyst told the inquest into Woolmer’s death here on Friday.

Marcia Dunbar testified that evidence of the pesticide cypermethrin was found in blood and urine samples. Of three samples of blood taken from Woolmer, Dunbar said one tested for cypermethrin while the others did not.

Questioned by Jermaine Spence, an attorney representing the interest of the International Cricket Council (ICC), if this was unique, Dunbar replied: “I am not sure”.

Inconclusive?!!
Cypermethrin was found in one blood sample and (at least one urine) sample(s).

That is at least in TWO different samples.
That is not only inconclusive, but highly significant.
The pesticide must have been in the blood to be filtered by the kidneys into his urine.

How did the pesticide get into his system?

Controversial finding on Woolmer ripped on procedures

KINGSTON, October 30: Controversial government pathologist Ere Sheshiah was criticized for not following usual global practices on the 10th day of an inquest into the death of former Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer.

Monday’s pressure came from Jermaine Spence, the attorney representing the International Cricket Council, who questioned why anyone should accept his findings of wrongdoing in Woolmer’s death.

Sheshiah, who was the only person with access to the body, said under questioning that there are times when one can divert from global practice to satisfy themselves. “The person who examines the bone can say whether it’s broken or not, not somebody who analyzes a photo,” he said.

That led to lengthy questioning by Spence, who attacked the doctor’s credibility, saying his findings were unreliable and wondering how anyone could accept his findings when he said the hyoid bone was fractured when it was not.

“I have already told the court of my opinion, so I am not deviating,” Sheshiah replied.

Sheshaiah originally had said Woolmer’s hyoid bone was fractured, which indicated the former England player was strangled. But when given the X-ray in court last week, he admitted he made a mistake, then insisted the hyoid bone in a 58-year-old man don’t have to be broken to prove that he was strangled.

Too right.
The person who examines the bone is the only one who can confirm a fracture.
Not “experts” sitting miles away, by looking at XRays.

The big question:
why does ICC have an attorney at the inquest, challanging the pathologist?

What has ICC got to hide?