8.4.05

Reply to letter "Coroner Stands Down"

Charlotte Peters Rock,Holly House,Middlewich Road,
Allostock,Knutsford,Cheshire.WA16 9JX
4th April 2005
Personal Attention of: Mr ES Hooper, HM Coroner, South Yorkshire (East District),
Coroner’s Court and Office, 5 Union Street,
Off St Sepulchre Gate West, Doncaster. DN1 3AE
(by fax and email)

Dear Mr Hooper,

To reply to your highly inaccurate letter, point by point:
FOR RECORD PURPOSES
1 You state in page 1, para 1:
“Partly for record purposes,..”
Perhaps, in that case, I could point out that 'for record purposes your comment should be accurate .. and I find very little of your letter of the 29th March 2005, to be accurate.

2 In page 1, para 1, line 3, page 1, you state:
“..without going into unnecessary detail, I record that I opened an inquest..”
The detail which needs to be gone into, in this case, is that you opened an inquest having tried to ensure that neither I nor my sister, Linda, had any details about the date and time of the inquest. We found out, inadvertently, from someone else, about the time and date; and wrote, if you remember, objecting to fact that we hadn’t been informed, in spite of your having had, with our affidavit and statement, our full contact details, (26th April 2004).

3 You state: page 1, para 1, line 4:
“Before the inquest I wrote to you and told you that the opening of the inquest would be formal..”
When you finally wrote to me about the inquest, it was only because I had written to you objecting, to not being told when it was to be held.
What was I supposed to make of the word, ‘formal’? I had had no experience of inquests, so it was a relatively meaningless word in that context, since it arrived with no other explanation.
4 You state, page 1, para1, line 5:
“.. notwithstanding that, you made plain that you wanted to give evidence, did so, and told me that you were on that day questioning your father’s testamentary capacity when he made his last will, shortly before he died..”
At the inquest, (6th May 2004), I 'made plain', as you put it, that I 'wished to give evidence', because it was obvious that otherwise the whole affair would have been over, with no investigation having taken place. This was made particularly obvious because of the presence in the court of Richard/ Raymond Walker, who I understand was expecting to collect my father's body and put it through either his undertaker service or his undertaker and cremation service.

5 You state, page 1, para 1, line 8:
“..but, on 6 May 2004, were questioning no more than that.”
The reason why I queried my father's will, was because I was aware that that was a way to stop the inquest from being an 'open and shut' affair, because such things as objections to a will, were taken more seriously than a murder, (which is what I am certain, had taken place.) Also, because I was the only one, in my immediate family who had never had any expectation of featuring in any will of my father’s, I decided to object to my father's rather laughable will; it being obvious to me, if not to you, that I was in an unassailable position as someone who had nothing to gain by objecting to his will - but who still objected to it, because it was a laughable affair.

6 To repeat: you state, para 1, line 8:
“..but, on 6th May 2004, were questioning no more than that.”
This, as you must be aware, is an absolute lie. I had already questioned my father's entire treatment, and had suggested to you , by 26th April 2004, in my Affidavit, that my father's death was involuntary euthanasia, which amounted to murder. Your cherry-picking choice of words, as you must be aware, does neither you nor the coronal service any credit.

7 You state, page 1, para 1, line 13:
“..it is my general understanding that if your father's will should be declared invalid you may well inherit a share of your late father's estate.”
Though not being aware of where your ‘general understanding’ came from, ( I suspect from Nina Clayton, though I may be wrong in this), nevertheless I object to such an ‘understanding’. Having never particularly 'got on' with my late father, I have never had any expectation of receiving anything from any of his wills. He was a particularly unpleasant man, who liked to buy people. I was never for sale. I saw him from time to time - for short periods - and hadn’t fallen out with him.
I still, no matter what I may have though of my father, object to his murder. After all, if every unpleasant person was murdered, there would be many people in this country who would no longer exist. (and a fair few of them would be public servants.)

8 You state, page 1, para 2, line 1:
“Since 6 May 2004 you have questioned a very great deal more than your late father's testamentary capacity in his last will.”
Whilst that is true, I still object to the fact that it is thus stated. I objected to my father's treatment, before he was finally killed. I further objected to his treatment when I called in the police, who were on the premises when he finally succumbed to the appalling treatment meted out to him under the auspices of Doncaster East and Doncaster Central Primary Care Trusts, and their agents. I also objected to you, to Doncaster East Primary Care Trust and to South Yorkshire Police by Affidavit, which you all had in your hands by 26th April 2004.

9 You state page 1, para 2, line 2:
“You have repeatedly made plain that it is your belief that your late father was the subject of involuntary euthanasia, was the subject of a conspiracy by more than 40 healthcare professionals, was put down, and was murdered.”
My response to this statement is that I certainly stated part of this. The only difficulty which I have with your statement is that where you quote 40 healthcare professionals, you are being inaccurate. I stated that, during the 6 days when my father was being killed, there were at least 42 visits by health professionals. That is not quite the same as your statement, as some of these people (particularly, District Nursing SisterJulie Marshall, RGN Susan Grimshaw and Dr Rachel S Sykes, came on several occasions, which added to the 42 visits.

10 You state, page 1, para 2, line 4:
“You have repeated these allegations on numerous occasions, and have copied your allegations to a large number of people, including the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, various high ranking police officers and others.”
About this I would note: I have repeated facts.

WHEN THE CORONER, THE POLICE AND THE PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS WILL NOT DO THEIR JOB, WHERE ELSE CAN WE TURN?

11 You state, page 1, para 1, line 6:
“I am reliably informed by a Yorkshire newspaper that you have telephone them and said that your father was "put down" by a particular group of people, although I understand that that newspaper chose not to report that allegation by you.”
Perhaps ‘that newspaper chose not to report that allegation' by me, because its editor is suitably cognisant of the threat of the libel laws?
Editors have informed me that when this evidence is repeated, which it will be, in open inquest, they will be at liberty to report the lot. What I stated, probably by email, because mostly, I can afford no other, was accurately put, and has also been put to you. Further, it is in the general public domain, because I have also emailed the national press and broadcasters, who stood me in such good stead during and after the opened - and adjourned - inquest, by reporting facts reasonably - though not entirely - accurately.
I point out to you that in a free democratic society, information is made public. In this case, to keep the freedom and democracy, I have every intention of keeping it public

12 You state, page 1, para 2, line 9:
“You have repeatedly made complaints about the way that have dealt with the preparations for the inquest, notwithstandng that I have explained to you on a number of occasions that inquests are for limited purposes, that I am not concerned with intra-Winstanley family litigation but, rather, with very limited matters, and that I have been unable to proceed with things as early as I might have hoped because I have not yet received all the medical reports which you seek.”
I would comment here, that I do understand that an inquest is not a criminal court. What I do not understand is why, considering the documentary evidence which you hold, you still haven't asked the police to do a thorough investigation of my father's murder? I also do not understand why the Chief Constable has not set about an investigation on his own account.
Also,
‘intra-Winstanley family litigation’, is something which, has a great bearing on his death. This has already been explained to you and to South Yorkshire Police and both Primary Care Trusts.
Also,
I would ask you why, exactly, you have not yet received all the medical reports? This seems to be very remiss, after 11months. I repeat that I expect that I will be able to receive copies of all the medical and pharmaceutical reports on my father. As Coroner, I expect that you will, at least in some respects, do your job properly - even if retrospectively. So I expect that those reports which I have already asked you for, will, at least, be forthcoming. But when? Perhaps you will let me know?

OBSTRUCTION?

13 You state, page 1, para 2, line 14:
“You have quite improperly accused me of obstructing your participation in, and the continuation of, the inquest touching your late father's death.”
As you are aware, you did not inform me or my sister of the inquest date and time. I consider that this was improper, and obstructive.

14 You state, page 1, para 2, line 15:
“You have said that I have ‘attempted, four times … to release [your] father's body, without asking for adequate tests to be done’. That is untrue,…”
I have indeed stated that. As you are more than aware, you have still not asked that any testing is done for HIV/Aids. I asked for this test to be done, on the 26th April 2004.. And it has still not been done. My sister is left, to remain at risk because of your cavalier attitude to her health. That is an utter disgrace on the coronal system,,, and you are the cause of it.

15 You state, page 2, para 1, line 7:
“.. that you may have a second post-mortem examination of Ralph Winstanley at your own expense.”
Well, this beggars belief! There should never be any need for this, assuming that the coroner has done his job adequately.

16 You state, page 2, para 2, line 1:
“I have had made a post mortem examination of Ralph Winstanley by a pathologist on the Home Office list, and extensive tests carried out by and under the direction of a distinguised forensic toxicologist and you have copies of their reports.”
It seems to me the the tests carried out, have been meagre in the extreme, and have only been carried out at all because of our insistence. The tests for the presence of Diamorphine, Haloperidol and Midazolam, were taken, in the main, outside the time when such tests could be of any value, (according to information which I have researched).
The tests for Sildenafil and Norsildenafil done on our father's blood, showed nothing, but would they have been expected to, so long after the event.
The tests for metals, assuming there had been some form of metal(s) to account for our father's extreme - and sudden - weight loss, would have needed to be done, as far as I am aware, on the place where such metals were stored. I am told that that would not be in the blood but in the bone.

BIAS

17 You state, page 2, para 2, line 3:
“You have it that I have already reached a conclusion, being that your father died from natural causes. That is also untrue: what I have told you is that ‘on the evidence presently available to me’ it appears that your father's death was due to natural causes, ‘but I have not closed my mind, to the possibility that he died from an unnatural cause.’"
a You have been furnished with more than enough documentary evidence over the past 11 months, from various sources, which my brother, my sister and I have gleaned, and which shows that his death was not imminent, was lied about and was deliberately carried out.
b When I and my sister were in your office, paying for the still deficient, medical records, you stated that you thought that our father had died from natural causes. What are we to make of such a statement?
c You have a copy of Dr Brown's letter, of 28th May 2004, written to Mr Jonathan Goodwin of Bridge Sanderson Munro, solicitors, over a month after our father was killed. This states:
i ”As you are aware Mr Winstanley had been seeing me as his General Practitioner regularly since November 2003, for problems relating to chest and epigastric pain, which was found to be due to cancer growing around his lower oesophagus and stomach.”

ii He also made rather dubious statements in respect of my father’s mental health; claiming
“..with my special experience in mental health examinations, during the time when Mr Winstanley was preparing his will, no doubts arose concerning his mental state, although I did not undertake a formal examination of his mental health as such.”

This ‘doctor’ was fully aware that, his training, (if training he had) in Section 12 of The Mental Health Act 1993, specifically precluded him from making such statements, without setting up, with the patient, a proper consultation on the state of his mental health, and a quite separate consultation, for the patient, with a completely independent doctor, who also knew the patient.

CHARGING ‘HOME OFFICE’ FEES AND ASKING FOR PERSONAL CHEQUES

18 You state, page 2, para 2, line 8:
“You have come close to suggesting that I am dealing with fees that are due to me (Coroners Rules 1984, Rule 57) in an improper and dishonest way.”
That statement is wide of the truth. I am accusing you of insisting, in writing, that a cheque for the purchase of my father’s still deficient medical records, was made out to your personal name, and not to your office as HM Coroner, as the Home Office wrote to me, it should have been.

The paragraph to which I refer, is contained on the first page of the letter which you wrote to me, and others of my family, on 7 February 2005. It states:

“I have now received a post-mortem report from Professor Helen Whitwell.”
It continues:
“I will make available copies of Professor Whitwells’ post-mortem report to all those to whom this letter is sent on payment of the statutory fee of £8.80; Coroners Records (Fees for Copies) Rules 2002. Please make the cheque payable to E S Hooper.”

In an addendum to that letter, written on 8 February 2005, you state:

“I can make available photocopies of the medical records that are in my possession, but the charge per Coroners Records (Fees for Copies) Rules 2002 would be of the order of £1.10 per sheet and I estimate there are in the region of 400+ pages.”
I confirm that when my sister and I came to your office to collect a copy of those medical records, you re-stated verbally, in the hearing of four people, that the cheque had to be made out to ES Hooper. My original cheque was made out - for the total of £390.50 - to ES Hooper. However, following contact with the Home Office, I cancelled that cheque and issued another, for the same amount, to HM Coroner, Doncaster.

I would be interested to know what the Home Office makes of this. I understand that you have been HM Coroner for around 15 years? Has it always been the case that cheques have had to be made out to your personal name and not that of your office?

19 You then continue with a long paragraph - page 2 para 3 - which is startling in its accuracy.

20 Following this, page 2, para 4 - you revert to type by stating that:
"My attention has been drawn to a libellous web site posted by you, in which you express the belief that I - together with South Yorkshire Police - have some sort of vested interest in not having your father’s murder investigated."
That statement is close to the truth. However, I have had much time to consider the matter, over the last 11 months and am still making my mind up as to the proportion of ‘vested interest’ to ‘sheer incompetence’, which has combined to create this fiasco of ‘justice’, in which no ‘justice’, however healthy, could possibly survive.

About the libellous nature of your written sentence on the ‘libellous’ (as you claim), nature of the web site, I will for the moment, reserve comment. However, I would remind you that being HM Coroner does not allow you to issue libel.

WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAS BEEN DONE TO INVESTIGATE MY FATHER’S KILLING?

21 Your statement, page 2, para 4, line 4, is very interesting:
“..and I am doing everything that I can to make sure that your father’s death will be properly investigated.”
I would ask that you give me full information as to exactly what you claim to have done to expedite this.

i What duties have you given to your Coroner’s Officers in this respect?
ii What exactly have you asked South Yorkshire Police to do?
iii What have you done, (having had pointed out to you the deficiencies in the medical records), to gain accurate medical records
iv What moves have you made to gain Pharmaceutical records?
v What did you ask Professor Whitwell and Professor Forrest to do?
vi What else have you done?

If you cannot answer this, whatever makes you think that my father’s death could possibly be ‘properly investigated’?

ODD IDEAS

22 In page 3, para 1, you seem to be saying that emails which I send, late at night (and on Easter Sunday), when it suits me, might be disturbing you? This is hardly likely, since I understand that they are picked up via your office computer, which is completely unattended at night and on Sundays and Bank Holidays. I am sure that I do understand that you were trying by your phrase:
"..in an email sent to me two days ago, on Easter Sunday, 27th March 2005 at 22.30 hours.."

to indicate that I was unnecessarily harassing you late at night on a holiday. That, as you are fully aware, is complete eyewash.

DID SOUTH YORKSHIRE CHIEF CONSTABLE REFUSE A REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION?

23 You also state, page 3, para 1, line 4:
“You have it that I, knowing that your father’s cause of death was severely disputed, and that Health Professionals were involved in it, have over a period of more then ten months refused to ask the South Yorkshire Police to investigate what happened.”

That is precisely what I think. And I would need proof that you had asked them to do anything.

Detective Superintendent Robert Haworth, assures me that South Yorkshire Police has not been asked to do anything by you. If you object to that, or find it inaccurate, then I suggest that you take it up with them and produce proof of your actions to me.

24 You also state, page 3, para 1, line 7:

"..that if there should be any proper medical evidence to demonstrate that your father’s death was other than unnatural (sic) I shall ask the South Yorkshire Police to deal with, and investigate the death, very thoroughly.”

So, why, having been presented with,
I a sworn affidavit from me,
ii a statement from my sister,
iii great swathe of documentary evidence
and finally
iv a Pathology Report, which makes no mention of oesophageal/stomach cancer and states that my father’s chronic lymphocytic leukaemia was still in a relatively benign state,
have you not asked South Yorkshire Police to act?

Is it that you can’t read? Or that you do not understand medical evidence? Or is it for some other reason? If the latter is the case, perhaps you would explain?

25 You state, page 3, para 1, line 9:
“You have it that I am aware that the present Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, Mr Meredydd Hughes, and his respected predecessor, Mr Michael Hedges QPM, were and are refusing to do their duty.”
You are right in assuming that I believe that both Mike Hedges and Meredydd Hughes have refused - and Meredydd Hughes is still refusing - to perform the duty of a Chief Constable and investigate an obvious murder.

WITNESSES

26 You state, page 3, para 1, line 11:
“You have sent to me a list of witnesses Whom in your view should be called at the resumed inquest, totalling no less than seventy-seven people. They include the man whom I understand your late father’s executors(if, as you will no doubt point out, executors they be) have instructed to be the funeral undertaker, a number of officers of two Primary care Trusts, Mr Hedges, Mr Hughes, a number of solicitors ‘all of whom were involved [you aver] at the time of [your late father’s] death’, and, at number 76 out of the 77 witnesses whom you think should be called to give evidence, me. I fail to see how I may be a witness in my own court.”

The long list of witnesses which I have already sent to you -and which includes you - has needed to grow exponentially because of the obstructive attitude of you, and the various people/levels of police of South Yorkshire, and senior executives at Doncaster East and Doncaster Central Primary Care Trust.

You seem to cavil at being called as a witness? You will still be called.. And possibly in other courts than that of HM Coroner.

CONSPIRACY - OR INCOMPETENCE - OR?

27 You state, page 3, para 2, line 4:
“.. you will not be satisfied with any finding by me other than that your father was murdered by a conspiracy - and possibly an international conspiracy - of health care professionals, lawyers, and others. Further, from what you have written and emailed to me, sometimes in the middle of the night, I apprehend that in the absence of such a finding you will conclude that I am part of a general conspiracy to suppress proper investigation of your late father’s death.”

The conspiracy of which you speak, is something which has become patently obvious over the last 11 months. What else could explain the overall stonewalling destructiveness with which my sister, brothers and I have had to deal? Sheer incompetence, although I am sure that it has played its part, from the various quarters where we have found it to exist, would not be enough to explain, adequately, the terrible shambles which we have had to live through.

I have thus far, not deemed it to be an international conspiracy, but perhaps you know that it was? In that case I would be interested to hear it.

I do feel that you are yet again intimating that you have been disturbed by the fact that I send emails in the middle of the night. Does that mean that when I send an email a bell sounds in your home and you dress and rush down to your office to read it, rather than waiting for morning? That would be a very strange thing to do.

Also you seem to assume that I think that you can make a coroner’s finding of “murder”. I have always been fully cognisant of the fact that a coroner’s inquest is a very limited affair. “Murder” is not a finding that a coroner can make. Unless, it is a finding which you, as coroner, have made in the past? In which case, you would not have been working to Coroners Rules.

NOW I WANT THE REST OF THE RECORDS - ALL OF THEM

28 You state, page 3, para 2, line 9:
“I am acceding to your formal request that the whole matter should be shifted out of the Doncaster and South Yorkshire area and looked at elsewhere, made on 19 May 2004. I very much regret that I am constrained so to do. In what is now nearly fifteen years of coronal service, after six years service in a Commonwealth country when I discharged duties broadly equivalent to those of an English Circuit Judge, I am recusing myself for the first time in my judicial career. I shall tomorrow, put in hand finding another coroner, who sits without the county of South Yorkshire, to take over this inquest.”

I am grateful that the inquest will finally be shifted out of the South Yorkshire area, as I have been requesting since 19th May 2004. What a pity it took so long.

What a shame my family and I have had to waste so much time, when, in theory at least, you are supposed to have been someone to whom we could have turned for help in a pretty dire situation.

This situation is still one which we will have to face. I take no comfort from the fact that you have “recused” yourself the inquest. It now gives me just one job more to do, in trying to get you “recused” more generally. However, I will pursue it with due diligence.

REASONS WHY YOUR LETTER WAS WRITTEN - AND IN SUCH VEIN.

29 I am aware that the entire letter, to which I am replying was written with only end in mind; and that was to ‘turn’ the coroner who finally has the unenviable job of completing my father’s inquest.

That is the only reason why I have written this letter, to put on record that your comments, expressed in your letter to me, (and therefore to the new coroner, since it will obviously go ‘on file’), of 29th March 2005, contained inaccuracies which no hard -working legally-minded coroner should ever make.

REQUEST FOR RETURN OF DOCUMENTS

30 I would now like to have the whole of the documentary evidence, which I and my family have supplied to you, returned to us. You can take copies to pass on to the new coroner. I would also like to have an inventory of those copies, so that it can be checked against the information which we expect the new coroner will need - and which you will have sent to him.

For the record, I swear that the point by point objections made in this letter, are absolutely as accurate as I can make them.

Yours sincerely,

Charlotte Peters Rock

return to: http://ralphwinstanleyofwath.blogspot.com
or go to : http://ralphwinstanley.blogspot.com
or go to: http://winstanleyr.blogspot.com
or go to: http://rwinstanley.blogspot.com
or go to: http://ralphwinstanley83.blogspot.com
or my own site:
http://charlottepetersrock.blogspot.com

No comments:

Protest songs and poems - coming shortly

  • A Full Index
  • Abide With Me (mine)
  • Dead An Buried? Ardly!
  • Director of Public Health - Dr Tony Baxter
  • If - (not by Rudyard Kipling)
  • Jayne Brown - The Cover-Up Woman
  • Practice - Field Road Made
  • Quack Quack Dr Lee
  • St John's Hospice - My Father Was Not Dying
  • Thanksgivin? Thanksgivin? Ah'll be Waitin On
  • The NHS/PCT Thinks You Should Go
  • The Palliative Gillian
  • The Power behind the Patient Dr Brown

Who was Ralph Winstanley?

My photo
sister sites: 1.http://rwinstanley.blogspot.com 2.http://ralphwinstanley.blogspot.com 3.http://ralphwinstanley83.blogspot.com 4.http://winstanleyr.blogspot.com 5.http://ralphwinstanleyofwath.blogspot.com