TT 2022 ??

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Newbie said:

It is, as you say, a sensitive matter. The situation has highlighted a conflict between the interests of the Coroner, and maintaining the integrity of the Coronial Inquiry, and the interests of the surviving competitor in this circumstance. A further consideration is that the event organisers require (and indeed have) a very good working relationship with the Coroner. The Coroner allows the event organisers considerable latitude when dealing with fatalities that occur during racing/practicing.

In this particular circumstance, the event organisers had, through their own investigative process, been able to establish that there was some doubt about the identification which had previously been established through the normal procedures, and had been thought to be definitive. As soon as these came to light (on Tues 7th June) these doubts were relayed to the Coroner, and to Walton Hospital, where the surviving competitor was receiving treatment. 

Following the receipt of further information from Walton Hospital, later on the Tuesday, confirming their suspicions, the event organisers were able to inform the competitors families of the exact situation. It had been the intention of the event organisers to issue a statement at that time, announcing the misidentification, and giving some background as to how it had occurred. However, working with the Coroner, and on her instructions, they agreed to withhold that statement, largely in order to preserve the integrity of the subsequent inquiry. It was only the following day, when it became apparent that rumours were rife both in the paddock and on Social Media (and there was the belief among many people that both competitors had died), that the Coroner agreed to the release of a statement. The wording of that statement was agreed with the Coroner, being a form of words that she felt would not hamper her subsequent investigations.

It can only ever be a request. How others choose to report it or portray it, or the rumour mill, isn’t necessarily a fair reflection.

I can’t see how you think it can possibly have been adverse to the health, or other, interests of the survivor.

[Ghost Ship]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

You know it’s not like US cop series. Nobles didn’t hold dental records for either of them. Neither did Aintree. Nobles, or Aintree, can’t log into each other’s records. And certainly not into the records of any unidentified dental practice in a foreign country. These things take time,

I wasn't suggesting that either Noble's or Aintree did have access to those records.  

I know it would take time to check these things.  Which is what would make me question whether it was correct to announce the name of the deceased rider before these things had been checked.

[Declan]

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

Following the receipt of further information from Walton Hospital, later on the Tuesday, confirming their suspicions, the event organisers were able to inform the competitors families of the exact situation. It had been the intention of the event organisers to issue a statement at that time, announcing the misidentification, and giving some background as to how it had occurred. However, working with the Coroner, and on her instructions, they agreed to withhold that statement, largely in order to preserve the integrity of the subsequent inquiry. It was only the following day, when it became apparent that rumours were rife both in the paddock and on Social Media (and there was the belief among many people that both competitors had died), that the Coroner agreed to the release of a statement. The wording of that statement was agreed with the Coroner, being a form of words that she felt would not hamper her subsequent investigations.

That's quite shocking, if true, that the coronor sought to silence the news and then demanded the matter-of-fact tone of the announcement.

Who does the coronor report to?

[Newbie]

8 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It can only ever be a request. How others choose to report it or portray it, or the rumour mill, isn’t necessarily a fair reflection.

I can’t see how you think it can possibly have been adverse to the health, or other, interests of the survivor.

I take your point, but at the time it doesn’t feel like a request. 
The conflict with the surviving spectator is simply that in this set of circumstances it was impossible realistically to put out a statement about one competitor and not the other. 
There is an expectation on the race organiser to issue information, and although the Coroner has no real interest (in a legal sense) in the surviving competitor, the race organiser was unable to do so in this case without potentially compromising the Coroner’s inquiry into the deceased competitor.

[Ghost Ship]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

Please tell us of the wording. I’d like to know. I’ve previously posted the Chief Coroners guidance.

The reason is easy to understand. The coroner, if they’ve made the request, doesn’t want the recollection of witnesses contaminated by rumour and speculation. 

It’s a sensitive matter.

I can fully appreciate and understand the coroner's concerns, but how does all that fit in with the ACU's announcement that they have already launched their own investigation?

Isle of Man TT: Event organisers launch 'comprehensive investigative process' into deaths - BBC Sport

Isn't there a danger that the ACU investigation will contaminate the recollection of witnesses for the coroner?

Which investigation takes precedence?

The fact that the ACU have started this investigation so quickly might suggest - rightly or wrongly - to some that the organisers have a cosy relationship with the coroner...

Edited June 15, 2022 by Ghost Ship

[Andy Onchan]

Was what was being shown on the big screen opposite the Grandstand the same as the online streaming? If so, why?

I thought the big screen was to replace the scoreboard only?

And how much did the big screen cost? Was it within the budget that was approved by Treasury or did it exceed the budget?  

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Newbie said:

I take your point, but at the time it doesn’t feel like a request. 
The conflict with the surviving spectator is simply that in this set of circumstances it was impossible realistically to put out a statement about one competitor and not the other. 
There is an expectation on the race organiser to issue information, and although the Coroner has no real interest (in a legal sense) in the surviving competitor, the race organiser was unable to do so in this case without potentially compromising the Coroner’s inquiry into the deceased competitor.

That’s not really the interests of the survivor, or their family, but everyone thinking they have a right to know everything - immediately. And being miffed when it doesn’t happen to their liking.

[Newbie]

Just now, John Wright said:

That’s not really the interests of the survivor, or their family, but everyone thinking they have a right to know everything - immediately. And being miffed when it doesn’t happen to their liking.

Well, except at the time the survivor was presumed by everyone to be dead. That does have an effect on the survivor’s family even though the survivor himself was unaware as a consequence of his medical condition 

[John Wright]

Just now, Newbie said:

Well, except at the time the survivor was presumed by everyone to be dead. That does have an effect on the survivor’s family even though the survivor himself was unaware as a consequence of his medical condition 

I suspect the families would have been told before any announcement, as soon as the hospital became aware. Before the organisers and coroner. That’s standard.

The timing of the tweets on Tuesday late evening indicate that.

[Newbie]

24 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I suspect the families would have been told before any announcement, as soon as the hospital became aware. Before the organisers and coroner. That’s standard.

The timing of the tweets on Tuesday late evening indicate that.

True. And then you either leave them to explain that to all their friends and family, and anyone else they meet, or you try to take that load off them by getting the information into the public domain (with their permission)

[manxman1980]

28 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

The fact that the ACU have started this investigation so quickly might suggest - rightly or wrongly - to some that the organisers have a cosy relationship with the coroner...

In the event of a fatality in the workplace there are a number of investigations that would be triggered all of which would begin immediately following the incident.

The employer would commence an internal investigation. 

The Coroner would commence an investigation.

The HSE would commence an investigation. 

They are all likely to run concurrently although the they all have different responsibilities and evidential requirements as I understand it.

[John Wright]

38 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

I can fully appreciate and understand the coroner's concerns, but how does all that fit in with the ACU's announcement that they have already launched their own investigation?

Isle of Man TT: Event organisers launch 'comprehensive investigative process' into deaths - BBC Sport

Isn't there a danger that the ACU investigation will contaminate the recollection of witnesses for the coroner?

Which investigation takes precedence?

The fact that the ACU have started this investigation so quickly might suggest - rightly or wrongly - to some that the organisers have a cosy relationship with the coroner...

It’s not uncommon for two, or more, enquiries to run side by side, each with different responsibilities and areas of enquiry.

There are protocols to deal with that, and overlaps.

The Coroners enquiry is, initially,  identity, where, when and cause of death. That’s dealt with first and then often is delayed to allow completion of police enquiry, or an ACU or other enquiry ( utilising their expertise )

So the circumstances as to how there has been a misidentification is obviously in the purview of both, but with primacy to the Coroner.

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, Kopek said:

Surely the misidentification would not affect the Coroners Inquiry? Witnesses would not be aware of the names of those involved, perhaps they would refer to the one in the garden? The competitors could be 'x and y' in the immediate aftermath and witnesses 'a,b,c' etc. Statements could be matched up later?

Medical care would have been the first priority.

Isn't identification of the deceased part of the Coroner's inquiry and findings?

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Isn't identification of the deceased part of the Coroner's inquiry and findings?

The primary purpose is who, when, where, how. 

It’s not to apportion blame or to give rise to civil or criminal liability, so the how is limited. 

In this case the coroner has had one death, but two identities  reported. Why needs resolving.

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Newbie said:

True. And then you either leave them to explain that to all their friends and family, and anyone else they meet, or you try to take that load off them by getting the information into the public domain (with their permission)

Which of course isn't what happened.  The family released the tweet about their son's death, possibly because they had got to Aintree and realised that the injured patient wasn't their son.  The tweet got picked up by the media who all assumed that, because they had been told the Aintree patient was Chanal, that he had died as well.  Only later in the morning did organisers release their statement.  Clearly they were unaware of the identity mix-up till after the tweet. 

If the organisers had been in touch with the family at all they would have known before that and released information earlier.