Why the silence over Woolmer inquest?
| 18:00 UK time, Friday, 30 November 2007
Before the inquest into the death of Bob Woolmer began, his widow Gill predicted it would be βsame old, same old.β She turned out to be right, as even after more than 50 witness statements, the jury in Jamaica could not give a definitive answer as to how or why the Pakistan coach died so suddenly during the 2007 World Cup. He was found lying unconscious in grim circumstances in his hotel room the morning after , and shortly afterwards.
The by the inquestβs 11-man jury was inevitable, given the contradictions by expert witnesses. Five toxicologists studied samples of Woolmerβs blood, urine and stomach contents; three found traces of the deadly pesticide cypermethrin while two did not. Four pathologists examined the post mortem documents; three believe that he died of natural causes while Dr. Ere Seshaiah, who conducted the initial autopsy, that Woolmer was strangled.
Gill Woolmer stands by her own beliefs that her husband died of natural causes.
It was surprising that the inquest attracted such a small amount of media interest compared to . On one hand the u-turns in the case could be seen to discredit the entire investigation, and Gill Woolmer could not be blamed for saying she thought the inquest was pointless and a waste of time. However it was a chance for the facts to come out and for the media to redeem themselves with some thorough reportage and journalism, unlike the free-for-all manner in which wild theories filled some sections of the press back in March, when the lobby of the Pegasus hotel became a Big Top, with the Jamaica Constabulary acting as ring masters of the show.
Ironically, the facts that were so desperately sought by reporters, including myself, nine months ago, have been laid out and dissected in public at , yet very few outlets across the world have bothered to pay much attention.
One of very few comment pieces I have found about the result of this inquest contains criticism of the cricket media for their silence over the last few months; for effectively turning their back on something which was, admittedly, an altogether unpleasant and disarming story to be caught up in.
In truth it became a βnewsβ story rather than a sports story, but the cricket fraternity is still suffering from the loss of Bob Woolmer and his coaching genius cannot be replaced. None have suffered more though than his family. Questions will always be asked about how the 58 year old died, but perhaps now that the police have closed the case with no plans to investigate further, the Woolmers may at last be left alone.
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύPost your comment
I'm sure it's a well-intentioned article, but the point you want to make evades me.
Complain about this comment
This whole thing has frustrated a lot of people from day 1. I believe that everyone including his family and cricket fans deserve to know the true reasons for his tragic death.
I cant believe that some of the best toxicologists and pathologists in the world with countless study cant come up with something conclusive.
The conspiracy theories will be out but i still refuse to believe that if he died of natural causes,they would have so much trouble proving it..
There was something fishy from the very begining about this case and to me its obvious that someone has meticulously planned his murder and got away with it due to the incomeptence of the jamaican police at the time. And it is unjustifiable that someone has gotten away with murder of such a respected and loved man.
And its nice to see that atleast some journalists are giving this the needed coverage.
Complain about this comment
From the begining jamaican police is trying to spoil the evidenace.
He is casting doubts on local forensic labs and pathologist,My question is how come he is working in jamaica such a long time and accepting the reports from the both departments and never expressed doubts.
It is not the issue with the toxicoligists or pathologist.
The issue is with the police.They spolied the investigation.
Complain about this comment
The only point the article makes, is that hopefully the woolmers can now continue with there lives. Unfortunatly people like Allison Mitchell keep putting it back in the media with catchy headlines like "why the silence". In answer to your question Ms Mitchell, the silence is because the majority of real journalist's and editors accept the ruling of the courts and really do want to leave the Woolmers alone.
Complain about this comment
The headline asks "Why the silence?" Why does the author not therfore try to explain this. Her article is shallow and weak in content.Either conduct a proper and thourough Journalistic enquiry into the matter and the people involved oe leave the Woolmers in peace.
Complain about this comment
A perfectly good and fairly presented article by someone who respected Bob. With the greatest respect to Gill Woolmer, she wasn't the only person to know and love Bob.
Far from being 'the same old...,' information was coming to light every day about things which hadn't been mentioned before. I weould have thought, to echo one of the preceding comments, that if Bob's death was natural it would have been easy enough to prove. The ICC of course, want to protect the good name of cricket come what may. which is why they hired attorneys to do just that. The JCF was happy to suppress evidence until they were forced to do so and even then made an attempt to minimise its importance and 'muddy the waters' whenever possible. There was nothing 'natural' about Bob's death or the circumstances surrounding it.
The truth, whatever it turns out to be is no less than Bob deserves.
Complain about this comment
Three pathologists concluded he died of natural causes, one conluded that he was murdered. The police could find no circumstantial evidence for murder. Should we not respect the weight of the evidence? Should valuable resources be used to investigate further, with a very low probability of finding any further definitve evidence?
Complain about this comment
A glaring example of media hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps we can now remember that Bob Woolmer was a great cricketer, coach and gentleman who leaves behind a lasting impact on the game, particularly at international level. Hopefully his positive contribution will soon be the thing we associate with his name rather than the farcical circus that has surrounded his unfortunate death.
Complain about this comment
Why the silence, you ask... breaking the silence, and answering your own question by eloquently demonstrating that there isn't much left to say about the whole sorry mess.
There will never be total silence about it, of course, as evidenced by other comments to this piece. But the murmuring will continue solely because it is impossible to prove a negative (that he was not murdered).
The poor man is dead in a horribly public and undignified way. Why the silence? Maybe because decent journalists are sensitive to the fact that he deserves to rest in peace and his family, and Jamaica, to be left in peace.
Complain about this comment
A fantastic player and a fantastic coach. The fact that he was a Zimbabwean meant that he was never afforded the same respect that perhaps English coaches would've been given.
Complain about this comment
I think too many people have been watching CSI! forensic science is rarely exact and produces conclusions based on balance of probabilities (c/f the McCanns). Verdicts of suicide or murder cannot be returned except on the basis of strong, corroborating evidence and this is clearly not present here. An open verdict, with a presumption of Natural Causes, is clearly the obvious outcome. This may be bad news for those who like conspiracy theories but good news for Mr Woolmer's family and friends and all who love cricket
Complain about this comment
I won't argue with anything that Richard Lane says except this:
"The fact that he was a Zimbabwean..."
Really? He was born in India and was capped 19 times at Test level for England.
Complain about this comment
it certainly is better for many, no doubt, that the 'verdict' be 'natural' causes !
Complain about this comment
'three pathologists concluded he (Bob) died of natural causes.' Actually, although it keeps getting reported that way, they only said that originally,(from a great distance); two of them later agreed it was no longer safe to say it was natural due to the presence of a toxin in the toxicology reports (which they hadn't been told about). A measurable amount of cypermethrin WAS found in samples tested by a Barbadian Forensic Scientist - carried out, incidentally under the exacting standards laid down by British Forensic science. Perhaps he was
making that up just to be awkward ? Other later tests were carried out after it was already known (certainly by anybody with a degree in Forensic Science) that they would be time-degraded to such a point that the outcome would be almost certainly negative. This was admitted by the tester. (Cypermethrin degrades and to all intents and purposes 'disappears' from tissue, even under a sterile environment between 20-25 weeks).
Also, it is quite clear that Dr. Sheshia was inventing his prognosis in order to put the already hard-worked JCF under increased strain with the added incentive of procuring for himself a minor stroke because of the pressure he was himself being put under by sticking to what he saw as the only pathologist to witness the scene.
'An open verdict, with a presumption of natural causes' - would Richard like to check out the meaning of open ? There is no 'weighted' presumption in an open verdict, otherwise it wouldn't actually be 'open'.
St george is quite right, it suits many to think it is natural. If I die under such bizarre and clearly 'unnatural' circumstances I only hope someone takes the trouble to find out why.
Complain about this comment
I am sure that St George would love nothing better than a good conspiracy theory and I am sorry that he feels cheated but co-incidence is not a subsitute for evidence. Pakistan lost a match that the form-book suggested they should win but that happens in one-day cricket where the time factor rarely allows a pasage of poor play to be recovered from. Pakistan had playes who had probably played one to many one-day games and Ireland, stuffed with Australians with grade cricket experience and tough enough to take advantage of a break and make it pay. Bob Woolmer was not in the best of health (he was a diabetic) and had had a stressful day. There is nothing suspicious about death by natural causes in that context. No police or other evidence showed break-ins or suspicious people around. And why would the Jamaican authorities want to be involved in a cover up anyway. If there was a cover up why did they ask a British detective to assist in the investigations.
Complain about this comment
I am getting more confused - why was the Cricoid bone in the throat broken? - or was it? I thought that was a major factor in relation to the initial diagnosis and murder theory or speculation. It's a small bone above the larynx not broken by falling over or fainting in "normal" circumstances. It is not most commonly seen with violent strangulation or throttling??
Complain about this comment
Hello - thank you for your comments.
As a journalist who covered the story from the start and was reporting and blogging on these pages throughout the week following Bob Woolmerβs death, I felt in writing this piece that it was appropriate to reflect on what we presume and hope will be the last chapter in this sad affair.
As to the question 'why the silence ?', I intimate in the piece that there has been little comment from cricket writers because the inquest became a news story rather than a sports story. The cricket world has kept Bob Woolmer in their minds by paying tribute to him with charity matches, memorial services and much more in the months since his death. However, I believe the inquest merited more coverage from news outlets because it was finally a chance for the facts to be presented clearly and in full for the first time since the police opened their initial inquiry.
Complain about this comment