In the early hours of September 1, 1996 there was an altercation outside The Edge Nightclub at Long Circular Mall in St James, in which Boyce allegedly struck Jason Johnson a blow to the head.
On September 9, Johnson developed aspiration pneumonia and was put on a ventilator, where he remained in a coma until he died on September 16. At the trial it was revealed that a feeding tube was inserted into his lung and Johnson was hooked up on a malfunctioning ventilator.
Boyce was charged with murder at the preliminary enquiry stage but this was reduced to manslaughter and he was tried before Volney and a jury in July 1998.
so how is Boyce responsible for Johnson's death??
am I missing something
He claims that was the cause of death. If you bring somebody in to question someones qualifications.....then...since they qualified to question somebody's expertise.....let them interpret the evidence in the persons place nah. Nah...buh....dat eh wha he decide to do.
If he was in a coma it more than likely it is de tube aspirating into the lung that wudda cause him to die. THe necrosis and ischemia that wud take place would prob kill him. And the then ripe ground for bacterial infection on top of that. Whoever inserted the feeding tube wrongly should have faced some action at least from the hospital. That is real madness to miss the esophagus and go down the trachea. The insertion of a feeding tube in a unconscious patient eh that hard.
But fact is Brad put the man in that position in de first place.
edit: and the aspiration pneumonia is one of the worst to get. Gettin that in the hospital yuh have a high chance of having antibiotic resistant strep or staph...that reaaaaaaaal hard to get rid of.
Several things you saying here I have issue with. Apart from a paid defence witness no one ever agreed that the man had a feeding tube wrongly inserted. That was the defence case, ventilator cut of temporarily, and tube placed in lung instead ah stomach. You have also admitted that placing a feeding tube correctly in a comatose patient is not that hard.
The man had an emergency craniotomy to release pressure and bleeding subdural hematoma etc. Some of the side effects of this can be seizures, swelling,
trouble breathing etc. Now from what I learned as a medic in the military aspiration pneumonia is caused by some foreign substance in your lungs, like food (dat is why the defence came up with that), anesthesia, people who in ah coma get it, vomiting etc.
The trouble with making a diagnosis without the benefit of at least medical records is that yuh could make MANY errors.
DesVignes was there he say is de concussive force ah the blows what kill de man. Karl was doing he job and introduce aspiration pneumonia as a possibility to bring in reasonable doubt and bring in an expert to say the cause of death in his opinion was aspiration Pneu.
Aspiration Pneumonia occurs when you aspirate foreign matter into your lungs — most often when the contents of your stomach enter your lungs after you vomit.
This commonly happens when a brain injury or other condition affects your normal gag reflex. There was NO evidence that the hospital was guilty of wrongly placing a feeding tube. NONE!
The FACT that he had aspiration Pneu. is not to say he got if from malpractice, it could have been a result of aspirating foreign matter into his lungs after he got cuffed down. Look me eh no expert eh, I was simply a well trained medic in the US Navy.... and I mean well trained I was doctor on small ships and doctor to marines, I was allowed to do lots of things only licensed doctors could do in teh civilian world and I remember sometings...A common predisposing factor fuh dis type ah pneumonia is G.E.R.D. This dioes happen when contents from yuh belly happen to flow back into the upper esophagus. From dey, gastroesophageal contents can be aspirated into yuh windpipe an den into yuh lower airways. Even small amounts of gastroesophageal reflux can lead to pneumonia in people who are hospitalized, especially if yuh comatose or underwent surgery.
There is little doubt in my mind Brad get away with he ting. Volney call back a doctor and ask him if des Vignes is a qualified specialist according to certain civil servant guidelines, de man say no, and before the prosecution could cross examine de man he direct de jury to let de man go...dat really sloppy and smacks of interference. The man coulda die from aspiration pneumonia eh, but what cause he to get that is up in de air....DesVignes with the benefit of an autopsy say is de blows, a paid man reviewing the records say nah...is pneumonia, if the defence had paid for an independent autopy and the findings were different den that was anodder story.
Taken from the Privy Council ruling:
5. Events then took an unusual course. After Dr Daisley had been cross-examined, but before re-examination, the judge of his own motion recalled Dr des Vignes to ask him about his qualifications in forensic pathology. It appeared that he was not registered as such with the Trinidad and Tobago Medical Board and that his fellowship in Alberta was more in the nature of an apprenticeship than a formal course leading to a certificate or diploma. Instead, the Chief Medical Examiner, under whose general supervision he had performed some 270 autopsies, had simply written a letter recommending Dr des Vignes as competent to act as a forensic pathologist and he had been so employed by the Forensic Science Centre.
6. The judge then, still acting of his own accord, called Professor Chandulal, the Chief Forensic Pathologist, to ask him about the qualifications required for civil service appointment as a forensic pathologist. He said that one needed a medical degree followed by a postgraduate degree in forensic pathology which would be accepted as registrable by the Medical Board of Trinidad and Tobago. Professor Chandulal said that he was registered as a forensic pathologist but that Dr des Vignes was not.
7. After hearing this evidence and submissions from counsel, the judge decided that Dr des Vignes was not qualified as an expert for the purpose of giving an opinion on the cause of death and that his evidence was inadmissible and should be withdrawn from the jury. He then ruled that the evidence of Dr des Etanges did not provide a sufficient basis for a finding by the jury that Boyce had caused Johnson’s death and directed the jury to acquit.
