Coroners Court - Rachel Peavoy

ilovelamp2000

I'm guessing a lot of people have been following this case via the media, the final portion of it was held today in The Dublin City Coroners Court.
There isn't a whole lot of coverage about it just yet (it concluded at about half seven this evening), but here's a link of an early report: http://www.thejournal.ie/rachel-peavoy-dublin-city-council-coroner-heating-ballymun-hypothermia-116922-May2011/

I attended the hearing today and was quite simply flabbergasted by the outcome.

The Coroner recorded Ms. Peavoy's death as death by misadventure, and concluded that the cause of death was hypothermia. Yet he was satisfied that it was not freezing cold in the flat at the time of Ms. Peavoy's death and that the heating was working in the flat. He relied strongly on the evidence given by a former friend of Ms. Peavoy (Jacqueline Johnston) who during questioning by Dr. Craven BL resiled significantly from her written deposition to the inquest on a number of points. She came across as lacking any credibility during questioning, particularly since this was her second lot of evidence given to the Court. This new statement apparently only being made since the last adjournment.

The Coroner relied on the fact that the written testimony stated it was warm in the flat when Ms. Johnston arrived (she resiled from this under questioning) and that she subsequently opened a kitchen window and that's why the Gardai that arrived all felt it was cold in the apartment. He entirely refused to deal with the fact that when Ms. Peavoy was found on the floor she was stone cold, her hair was wet and towels on the floor were soaking wet. Dr. Craven BL put it to him that if the heating the Ballymun flats was working (and the heating works through heated panels in the floor and roof) then the towels and hair would surely have been dry rather than wet. Which seemed to me to be an entirely sensible point. The Coroner seemed to attach no weight to any evidence given by the Gardai, other residents of the flats, and he often seemed to defy common sense. The Coroner also appeared to misunderstand / attached undue weight to points made with regard to the medication (all of it prescribed) that Ms. Peavoy was taking.

How can someone die of hypothermia in a flat where the heating was working perfectly ? - given that the cause of hypothermia is prolonged exposure to cold. Evidence was produced to the Court of numerous complaints about the lack of heating over a period of three months, residents were being given money to buy electric heaters by the County Council because of this. An earlier County Council inspection of the temperature found it to be "sub optimal" yet we're supposed to believe that on the night this lady died everything was fine, yet text messages from her phone in preceding days made reference to the cold in the flat.

A little bit of me died today in that hearing. It was an avoidable tragedy, and the result of the inquest, in my opinion, is laughable based on the evidence adduced.

If I was a cynic {SNIP}

What avenues can Ms. Peavoy's family go down now ?

I presume the Coroners Court can be subject to Judicial Review ?

I've a feeling there is a lot more to run on this story.

dublin99

I agree completely with you, ILOVELAMP. I felt sick.

The coroner chose to rely on the most bizzarre and illogical witness that turned up out of the blue but couldnt really explain why she went to make a second statement without being asked.

Did the coroner lack basic junior cert science - how can the bath water be tepid if Rachel died hours ago? How can the towels and her hair still be wet if the underfloor heating was warming the flat and hot air rises? How does one die of hypothermia in a heated flat?

The coroner heard Inspector Watters point out quite clearly that both Council Officials were "incorrect" in their evidence under oath, but made no comment on their credibility .

It was pathetic. And why was there no jury?

drkpower

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

A little bit of me died today in that hearing. It was an avoidable tragedy, and the result of the inquest, in my opinion, is laughable based on the evidence adduced.

If I was a cynic I'd make reference to the fact that the Coroner is paid by the Dublin City Council, who were charged with maintaining the condition of the flats.
.

I doubt this thread will stay open for long, so Ill be brief....;) I wasnt at the Inquest but have been following this over the weeks.

First, whatever about the verdict being 'laughable', what evidence was there to reject the only direct and uncontradicted evidence of the temperature of the flat given by a friend of the deceased?

Second, if that evidence was factually unsound, where was the evidence of the deceased's sister who apparently enetered the flat with the deceased's friend? Did she have no recollection of the supposedly 'freezing' conditions?

Third, this Coroner has been around for an age, he is probably not too far off retirement, he is probably the foremost Coroner in the country; to suggest, as you do, that he is corrupt only robs you of any credibility you may have.

Fourth, a cause of death of hypothermia was consistent with the flat not being 'freezing'.

Finally, the only way the kind of conspiracy you may be suggesting adds up is that the friend is that the Council is lying (quite possible) lying, that the deceased's friend is lying (which is quite a charge, and requires significant evidence) and that the deceased's sister is lying (which is an extraordinary charge, and requires extraordinary evidence). Do you have any?

BostonB

Why did she lack any credibility?

dublin99

Well, Rachel's flat must have been in only one in Ballymun with 24/7 heating on the night of her death.

And this bizarre "friend's" statement about a waft of warm air and her claiming to have opened a kitchen window (which no one else including 6 trained gardai, notices) was sufficient, in the coroner's mind, to explain why the lead garda repeatedly said the flat was freezing cold on the night.

Does the coroner think that Ballymun residents have below average intelligence because of where they live?

I am going to wash my hair now, and I am also taking a few pain killers. I must be very careful because these are risk factors and I may die from hypothermia even though my room is warm.

drkpower

dublin99 wrote: »

Well, Rachel's flat must have been in only one in Ballymun with 24/7 heating on the night of her death.

And this bizarre "friend's" statement about a waft of warm air and her claiming to have opened a kitchen window (which no one else including 6 trained gardai, notices) was sufficient, in the coroner's mind, to explain why the lead garda repeatedly said the flat was freezing cold on the night.

Does the coroner think that Ballymun residents have below average intelligence because of where they live?

I am going to wash my hair now, and I am also taking a few pain killers. I must be very careful because these are risk factors and I may die from hypothermia even though my room is warm.

Is sarcasm the best you can do? If you want any serious people to question the Coroner's findings, you will need to do better than that?

Why do you put 'friend' in inverted commas? Do you have any actual evidence to believe she was lying?

What was the evidence of the sister who entered the flat at the same time? If the 'friend's' evidence was wrong, why was the deceased's sister not jumping up to give evidence?

Care to try again?

FreudianSlippers

Any unfounded accusations in this thread (including bribery etc.) will be dealt with swiftly by immediate ban. I ask other posters to be vigilant with the reported post button for any offending posts as I cannot be online all day today.

Consider this the only warning.

MagicSean

Correct me if I'm wrong but when you suffer from hypothermia you don't actually feel cold. So is it not possible that she went from her shower to bed without realising how cold she actually was? Nothing to do with her intelligence just the combined effect of the hypothermia symptoms and her medication.

BostonB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothermia#Signs_and_symptoms

Bit more info and less ranting would be useful. (I mean in general not k mac - I thought that might be misinterpreted)

Wiki is useful only for general information and should not be relied on as accurate, or directly applicable to this case.

ilovelamp2000

Firstly I made no accusation of bribery. I pointed out who the coroner is employed by. Quite different.

Jacqueline Johnston contradicted and resiled from her own written testimony when questioned by both the coroner and Counsel. Her evidence in the witness.box was that she didn't remember it being warm, which was different from her written deposition. She did not understand the meaning of tepid when asked, a word that was used in her written statement to describe the water in the bath. She said she didn't remember there being vomit in a basin, but her written statement made reference to it. When asked why she felt the need to make a second statement at a late stage she said reading about the case in the paper made everything come back to her and advised later that she didn't read newspapers.

drkpower

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Firstly I made no accusation of bribery. I pointed out who the coroner is employed by. Quite different..

:rolleyes: Just because you badly mask an allegation in innuendo doesnt make it any less an allegation.

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Jacqueline Johnston contradicted and resiled from her own written testimony when questioned by both the coroner and Counsel. Her evidence in the witness.box was that she didn't remember it being warm, which was different from her written deposition. She did not understand the meaning of tepid when asked, a word that was used in her written statement to describe the water in the bath. She said she didn't remember there being vomit in a basin, but her written statement made reference to it. When asked why she felt the need to make a second statement at a late stage she said reading about the case in the paper made everything come back to her and advised later that she didn't read newspapers.

You have pointed to a number of potential inconsistencies in the woman's evidence. That is all.

Her evidence remains the only direct evidence of the temperature of the flat. It is uncontradicted. The other individual who entered the flat at the same time, the deceased's sister, has not contradicted any of it. She appears to have no recollection of the supposedly 'freezing' conditions.

The Coroner must follow the balance of the evidence. It seems he did. All you seem to be doing is following a few potential inconsitencies in the manner the friend gave evidence, and are building a conspiracy on top of it.

You need to do better than that if you want anyone to take you seriously.

BostonB

Were there not any other residents or some other means of confirming the heating was on or off? Some log or maintenance log or similar. Any other complaints on the night?

Everyone I know was complaining about the cold, and indeed it showed up a lot of issues with insulation even in modern houses. Likewise towels can take some time to dry. All seems a bit vague. I would have assumed it would more black and white.

ilovelamp2000

Drkpower, you weren't there you have no idea how the evidence is weighted.

Ms.Johnston said she did not remember it being warm when she opened the door. She resiled from the written statement which said it was warm. She said she didn't agree with that part of the statement. She contradicted her own evidence. Ms. Peavoys sister did not get a warm blast of air when the door was opened as is the written testimony of Ms. Johnston. Numerous gardai gave evidence as to the cold, none of them remember a window being open in the kitchen despite them investigating. None of them remember a breeze blowing through the flat as described by Ms. Johnston.

The council admitted there had been heating problems for a while, numerous residents have evidence of.the heating problems.

The coroner admitted there was no direct evidence on the temperature, so you can give up that line of argument

SEPT 23 1989

If the heating was on how was her hair still wet when she was found,after she lay dead on the floor(underheated) for 14 hours?

BostonB

I assume that even in a cold room hair won't stay wet indefinitely.

They should some datum for this.

drkpower

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Drkpower, you weren't there you have no idea how the evidence is weighted.

Nor do you, only the Coroner 'weights' the evidence! But if there was relevent evidence that the media missed, I'm all ears. Because you havent been able to provide anything of substance thus far tat would warrant the Coroner coming to a different conclusion.

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Ms.Johnston said she did not remember it being warm when she opened the door. She resiled from the written statement which said it was warm. She said she didn't agree with that part of the statement. She contradicted her own evidence. Ms. Peavoys sister did not get a warm blast of air when the door was opened as is the written testimony of Ms. Johnston. Numerous gardai gave evidence as to the cold, none of them remember a window being open in the kitchen despite them investigating. None of them remember a breeze blowing through the flat as described by Ms. Johnston. .

Resiling from 'warm', in a written statement, to 'not freezing', in oral evidence, does not necessarily rob her of credibility. It is extremely frequent occurrence for a witness, under questioning, to alter their evidence, sometimes even substantially. It happens every day in every court through the land. But in any case, a change from 'warm' to 'non-freezing'; does not suddenly mean the evidence becomes 'freezing'!:D

Did Ms. Peavoys sister say it was 'cold' or 'freezing'?

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

The coroner admitted there was no direct evidence on the temperature, so you can give up that line of argument

He accepted the evidence of the individual who found the body and who denied it was cold or freezing, right? That is direct evidence on temperature, or at least direct evidence against the assertion that it was cold/freezing.

Correct me if I am wrong:
You are claiming that the evidence of the friend re temperature is incorrect/fraudulent.
You are claiming that the evidence of the friend re opening the windows is incorrect/fraudulent.
You are claiming that the sister walked in when the flat was cold/freezing but did not provide evidence to this effect.
You are claiming that the Coroner wilfully misinterpreted the evidence.

All on the basis of some minor inconsistencies in the evidence.

The Coroner's job is to come to his findings based on the balance of probabilities. He did. You are so far from showing what you believe beyond the balance of probabilities, it is laughable.

ilovelamp2000

Ms. Peavoys sister did not enter the apartment initially.

And you're being remarkably presumptuous for someone not in the knowledge of any of the goings on.

seamus

k_mac wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but when you suffer from hypothermia you don't actually feel cold. So is it not possible that she went from her shower to bed without realising how cold she actually was? Nothing to do with her intelligence just the combined effect of the hypothermia symptoms and her medication.

Indeed, as BostonB's link mentions, many people in severe hypothermia have later reported that they felt extremely warm, and this in some cases leads to them shedding their clothes or searching out ways to cool down when their bodies are already very cold.

In Rachel's case, a lukewarm or even cold bath and wearing very few clothes would be consistent with someone in the final stages of hypothermia.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If the heating was on how was her hair still wet when she was found,after she lay dead on the floor(underheated) for 14 hours?

Not that I don't believe you, but I haven't been able to find this 14 hours figure anywhere else. Do you have a source?

In any case, her hair wasn't necessarily lying on the floor and so may not have necessarily been subject to such heating.

BostonB wrote: »

I assume that even in a cold room hair won't stay wet indefinitely.

Well, in the depths of winter, the temperature my ensuite drops to around 12C while the temp in the bedroom is around 17/18C. A big heavy fire door prevents the ensuite from drawing enough heat from the bedroom.
This is not intolerably cold and certainly not freezing, but definitely a bit nippy in the mornings. However my towel which I hang over the rail after my shower in the evenings, never dries in a 24 hour period. It remains slightly damp, all the time. Once the temp in the room tips back up again over 15C, the towel dries fairly quickly, over about 8 hours or so.

If the heating wasn't fully operational in the house, but she has a certain amoutn of heat, then 12-14C would certainly feel "not warm" and "not freezing" but would be enough to cause hypothermia if someone didn't dress appropriately. The woman hadn't eaten correctly in 3 days, so was likely quite weak and if her senses were deadened by medication, hypothermia onset would be quite rapid and catch her unawares. It's quite possible she accelerated the process in an attempt to "cool" down.

I see no specific reason here to disagree with the coroner's assessment. It seemed bizarre when I first heard it, but after reviewing reports from the last 2 months, it would appear that virtually all of the media coverage has been based on her family's version of events and not on any of the other evidence presented to the coroner.

Apparently the question over the window arose when a council worker claimed that the window was open when he entered the flat. This perhaps jogged the sister's memory; I'm sure she was in shock at the time and didn't really think about what she was doing nor remember her actions very clearly when she gave her initial statement.

dublin99

According to the Independent newspaper today, Dublin City Council released a statement yesterday:

"The various submissions to the inquest have now been heard and, in this regard, Dublin City Council confirmed that heating at the Shangan Road flats was operating continuously, 24 hours a day, in January 2010,"

I saw the prime-time programme last night. Is the council really saying that they were heating a block of heavily vadalised empty flats with broken windows / doors 24 hours a day in the winter with taxpayers money?

How can one reconcile this with all the other residents' evidence that they had no heating in their flats. Was Rachel's flat the only one that had heating?

Why did some of these residents have to get electric heaters? There was evidence of at least 2 residents who ran up large ESB bills which they could not afford and had to seek help from St Vincent De Paul. why did Mary Taylor who gave evidence for the Council, herself authorise a social worker to get heaters for a tenant and agree that the Council would contribute to her utility bill, if the heating was working 24 hours a day?

The senior manager Donal Barron who gave evidence on oath said he ordered that the heating be left on 24 hours continuously , was the same manager who claimed that Inspector Andrew Watters told him the windows were open. Well people in court gasped when they heard Inpectors Watters statement . Not only did Inspector Watters refute robustly Barrons claim, he repeatedly expressed his disappointment at the mis-representation made by the Council officials. He also volunteered to the court that he received a phone call, at home, at 5:01pm during the last occasion the court sat, from Barron, and obviously thought it was inappropriate.

Furthermore, Inpector Watters told the Court that one of his young gardai was taken outside the court room on the previous occasion by the councils legal representatives who spoke to him about the evidence he was going to give [in relation to the alleged open windows]. The young guard told Inspector Watters that he was very uncomfortable about that and felt that the conversation should not have taken place.

Moreover, Donal Barron also denied, again under oath, that in a meeting with residents after Rachel's death he had said that Rachel killed herself. Again there was at least one statement from a resident who attended the same meeting who contradicted what Barron said.

Was the Inpector telling the truth? Was the heating on 24/7? Is Barron a credible witness?

As to the second council official Mary Taylor who said on oath that Inspector Watters had told her Garda Byrne had told him that the windows of the flat were open, in a conversation which took place in the corridor of Bannerman Civic Centre, Inspector Watters was adamant that she was incorrect. In fact in Garda Byrne's evidence she confirmed that she had not even spoken to me Inspector waters about the case!

Well, the coroner obviously found Barron a credible witness and believed that the heating was on in Rachel's flat on the night of her death, but how did she die of hypothermia in a heated flat?

drkpower

dublin99 wrote: »

How?
Why?
Was?

Why did Peavoy's friend describe a waft of warm air as she opened the door?
Why did Peavoy's sister not contradict this evidence?

In order for there to be some kind of grand conspiracy here, the friend and the sister must be involved. Is that what you are asserting?

BostonB

Seem to me that the system, (and those that ook after it) let her down long before the night she passed away. She should have been moved as a priority, but its seemed to me that she was ignored. That would seem to be direct cause of her health problems.

The there was heating, or that it was on, on the night, wasn't really clarified, as there was contradictory information in prime time. It seemed odd that so many said there was no heating, and others who said there was heating.

At the end of the day no one should be still in those flats. There's a serious failing right there. That was disturbing on its own.

BostonB

It was caused by not moving her and her kids, as much as whatever happened on the night.

seamus

BostonB wrote: »

It was caused by not moving her and her kids, as much as whatever happened on the night.

Well my question throughout this entire thing is down to her. If she felt that her children were not safe in the flat to the point that she sent them to her mother's, then why did she stay? Why not move in with her mother at least temporarily during the snow?

BostonB

I don't see how that related to my question tbh.

I've seen different reasons given. To get some quiet, and also to have a presence in the flat so it wouldn't be targeted by the gangs in the area. It was a very stressful situation, under that duress people don't always think clearly. Indeed this had been highlighted as a reason why she was a priority to be moved. From my understanding.

drkpower

BostonB wrote: »

Seem to me that the system, (and those that ook after it) let her down long before the night she passed away. She should have been moved as a priority, but its seemed to me that she was ignored. That would seem to be direct cause of her health problems.

The there was heating, or that it was on, on the night, wasn't really clarified, as there was contradictory information in prime time. It seemed odd that so many said there was no heating, and others who said there was heating.

At the end of the day no one should be still in those flats. There's a serious failing right there. That was disturbing on its own.

But the only direct evidence provided to the Inquest of the temperature in the flat when she was found suggests that there was or had been heat over night (ie. 'waft of warm air'). That evidence was provided by the deceased's friend and uncontradicted by the deceased's sister, who enetered the flat at the same time.

There are a number of 'odd' things about this Inquest, no doubt, but you cannot ignore direct uncontradicted evidence simply to fit whatever theory or suspicions someone may have.

drkpower

It seems to me......

We have things like Inquests so that we have a slightly more objective adjudication than what 'seems to' be what happened according to someone.

drkpower

According to someone....

Come on ... you know what i mean.... it seems to me as in my opinion.... blogs etc ...get with it....

Oh, sorry, I didnt realise that you were using blogs. I take it back.

BostonB

drkpower wrote: »

But the only direct evidence provided to the Inquest of the temperature in the flat when she was found suggests that there was or had been heat over night (ie. 'waft of warm air'). That evidence was provided by the deceased's friend and uncontradicted by the deceased's sister, who enetered the flat at the same time.

There are a number of 'odd' things about this Inquest, no doubt, but you cannot ignore direct uncontradicted evidence simply to fit whatever theory or suspicions someone may have.

To clarify, I was talking about prime time specifically.

MullerMan

I've followed this case since it began and have to say that it is a very tragic case, and one which I hope to never see repeated.

While I was disappointed by the inquest, I realise that the Coroner's Court is quiet limited in the findings it can make, and thus it's bound to upset and even anger some of those involved. Where the family of the deceased go from here in terms of action is anyone's guess, though I doubt that there is any remedy for what I believe was a failing of the system, long before the passing of the deceased.

The importance of this for me is that it is more of a local, political issue rather than a legal one. The structures are already in place to ensure that mistakes are not made in future, it's up to people to be alert and use them rather than letting things lie for the sake of it.

dublin99

please spare a thought for Rachel and sign the petition:

Petition to call for a Public Inquiry over the Death of Rachel Peavoy:
http://www.petitiononline.com/jaderyan/petition.html

drkpower

There already was one. It was called a Coroner's Inquest!