#manslaughter-murder — Public Fediverse posts

OPIATE OVERDOSE, AN OPEN VERDICT AND WITHHELD INQUEST RECORDS: WHY WAS THE DEATH OF CATHRYN LOUISE SMITH NOT INVESTIGATED AS A POTENTIAL UNLAWFUL KILLING?

Medical records show that Cathryn Louise Smith had documented adverse reactions to dihydrocodeine, including a rash. Despite those warnings, dihydrocodeine was subsequently listed as a repeat prescription, alongside Zomorph modified-release morphine. Cathryn later died from an overdose of opiates, and the inquest returned an open verdict.

The underlying toxicology, post-mortem evidence, prescribing records and complete inquest file have not been provided to her partner, Martin Newbold. He has instead been told that he is not recognised as an interested person.

These circumstances do not permit the public simply to conclude that nothing criminal occurred. They require an independent homicide assessment, preservation of all records and disclosure of the evidence needed to establish precisely which substances caused Cathryn’s death, how she obtained them, who prescribed or supplied them, and whether another person’s actions or failures caused or contributed to her death.

I am therefore asking every MP subscribed to this system I am asking you to examine and formally refer the evidence concerning the death of Cathryn Louise Smith.

Her medical history records adverse reactions to dihydrocodeine, including a rash. The same records later show further prescribing of dihydrocodeine and modified-release morphine. Cathryn subsequently died from an overdose of opiates, and the inquest returned an open verdict.

The complete toxicology, post-mortem and inquest evidence has not been disclosed to me, despite Cathryn being my partner and the mother of my daughter.

For murder in England and Wales, there must be evidence that someone unlawfully caused the death with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. https://www.cps.gov.uk/…/homicide-murder-manslaughter… If a person knowingly prescribed or administered a drug despite a documented allergy, and medical evidence proved that it caused the death, that could support an investigation into unlawful killing.

“The coroner informed my mum that Catherine had 7% alcohol in her body, along with benzodiazepine/diazepam. Taken together, these substances can cause heavy sedation, unconsciousness, breathing suppression, or death.”

Reported to Sussex Police who did not want to act on 982/01082026.

Catherine’s medical record documented an adverse reaction to dihydrocodeine, including a rash, in 2007. Despite this, dihydrocodeine was subsequently listed as a repeat prescription in May 2009, alongside Zomorph, a morphine-based opiate, prescribed in April 2009. Her death certificate later recorded her cause of death as an overdose of opiates. This apparent contradiction requires investigation of the prescribing decisions, dispensing records, warnings available to clinicians and the substances identified at post-mortem.

The record says “adverse reaction”, rather than proving a life-threatening allergy. It does not, by itself, establish murder, but it does provide documentary grounds for questioning why dihydrocodeine was prescribed again after the recorded reaction and how the opiate prescriptions related to her death.

Without evidence of intent, a death caused by grossly dangerous medical conduct could amount to gross-negligence manslaughter. However, if a member of the opposing party in the Family Court proceedings deliberately planned and caused her death, intending to kill her or cause serious harm, that would be a premeditated murder.

The record shows that Catherine/Cathryn had two documented adverse reactions to dihydrocodeine, including a rash, yet dihydrocodeine was later issued again as a repeat prescription. She was also prescribed modified-release morphine and later died from an overdose of opiates.

2011-03-22 – Emilys Mums Death Certificate – overdose of opiates.pdf

That is evidence of a potentially unlawful killing that required a proper criminal and prescribing investigation.

But these pages alone do not prove murder, because they do not show who supplied or administered the fatal dose or that anyone intended to kill her or cause serious harm. Without that intent, a death caused by grossly dangerous medical conduct would more likely fall under gross-negligence manslaughter, or murder. If it is connected to premediated event in Family court.

The interim certificate dated 16 July 2010 recorded the medical cause of death as “Unascertainable.” The final certificate subsequently recorded “Overdose of opiates,” with an open verdict. The toxicology, post-mortem evidence and complete inquest records have not been disclosed to her partner.

What precise document was restricted, who ordered the restriction, on what date, under which legal authority, for how long, and did the restricted material include the post-mortem report, toxicology results, prescription and dispensing records, witness evidence or the coroner’s notes?

Evidence

Related Posts

• The Fabian Society
• “The eleventh hour”
• Why was the Victims Minister contradicted on an Epstein public inquiry? — Evidence from Reuters
• Safeguarding: Did I Raise It – Or Did You Just Fail To Record & Assess It?
• Government Failures in Child Protection and child trafficking

The Fabian Society

“The eleventh hour”

Why was the Victims Minister contradicted on an Epstein public inquiry? — Evidence from Reuters