My Complaint Filed to the Home Office Forensic Pathology Unit Regarding Nicola Bulley's Autopsy
I've sent the following as an email to the HOFPU this morning. Please feel free to copy and paste any of this info and send your own email.
I've sent the following as an email to the HOFPU this morning. Please feel free to copy and paste any of this info and send your own email to pathology@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk and pathology@homeoffice.gov.uk.
I am writing to establish a complaint regarding the autopsy findings of Nicola Bulley as presented at her inquest on June 26 and 27 of this year. The details provided by Ms. Alison Armour at the inquest were, based on my extensive research on this case, insufficient to prove drowning.
Related to Ms. Bulley's cause of death, I have conducted research on Fitbits, the type of wearable device Ms. Bulley was found to be wearing on February 19, which is within my professional field. That research strongly suggests Ms. Bulley was not in the water for several days or weeks prior to her body being located. Ms. Bulley's model of Fitbit, due to its battery type, could only last about one to two days in 3.6-degree Celsius river water, not eight days as claimed at the inquest. The device also frequently records false heart rate spikes when it is off a person's body, and can also record false heart rate after a person has died (but is not located in water).
Based on the technology used to power the device, a lithium polymer battery, it is my educated belief that the device was on land, and possibly not on Ms. Bulley's wrist, until shortly before she was found. It simply would not function in water as long as was stated at the inquest, and another explanation for false heart rate spikes until February 4 must be explored.
In conjunction with my findings on the Fitbit are my serious concerns about the lack of thorough information provided about Ms. Bulley's cause of death at the inquest. These two areas are, I believe, inextricably linked in helping to establish how, when and where Ms. Bulley died.
I will now reference the Royal College of Pathologists' official documentation, "Guidelines on autopsy practice: Autopsy for bodies recovered in water" (2018, and due to be updated again at the end of 2023) to delineate the many physical phenomena that must be examined closely due to their ability to be seen in non-drowning victims as well as drowning victims.
Ms. Armour described at the inquest the presence of "flecks and fragments of dirt" in Ms. Bulley's throat, as well as water "in and around her lungs." The RCoP's own documentation (p. 16) describes the frequency with which both these phenomena can be seen in non-drowning victims:
- Sediment is seen in the trachea and main bronchi in 46% of non-drowning cases, vs 100% of drowning cases
- Fluid is seen in the trachea main bronchi in 68% of non-drowning cases, vs. 55% of drowning cases
- The throat on its own is not referenced anywhere in the RCoP guidelines' decision-making algorithm
Ms. Armour did not mention, to my knowledge, the presence or absence of these features:
- Sediment in Ms. Bulley's stomach or sinuses
- Frothy fluid in the trachea
- Fluid in the sinuses
- Fluid in the mastoid cells
- Gastric distension
- Ground-glass opacity
All of these are, according to the RCoP, crucial aspects of the autopsy process for bodies found in water. Death by drowning is one of the most difficult causes of death to prove. This is widely acknowledged in the pathology community worldwide, and new techniques and research on the topic are frequently published in well-regarded journals.
Further, there are standard tests that help to establish time and location of death that appear not to have been performed on Ms. Bulley. Namely, diatom testing to determine the type of sediment or fluid in her lungs and elsewhere, and fingernail testing, which is now commonly used in several countries to help establish an approximate time of death. If these were conducted, the results were never shared at Ms. Bulley's inquest.
As part of my complaint, I am seeking further information that can either confirm or refute what I have outlined here. I look forward to your reply.