Club Anabel case - Inquest is best way to allay worries

Bringing this vexed issue to a head, Dr Tormey has claimed that several doctors shared his doubts about Prof Cassidy’s conclusion that the amount of alcohol consumed by Mr Murphy, estimated at two or three pints, was a factor in the 18-year-old student’s death outside the Club Anabel nightclub in south Dublin.

By suggesting that possibility, Dr Cassidy effectively contradicted the conclusions reached by her predecessor. Professor John Harbison found that Mr Murphy’s injuries were the most likely cause of death, a view shared by Dr Tormey.

However, because he is ill, the former State Pathologist was unable to give evidence at the Laide trial, which was abandoned in sensational circumstances.

There is pressing need for greater clarity in this highly complex situation where leading pathologists differ radically on matters of the utmost gravity.

Nor is it surprising that public concern should be growing over the deeply confusing backdrop to a terrible tragedy which has engulfed two families.

Despite the arguments now raging in forensic medical circles, Dr Cassidy has refused to enter a public debate with the consultant who questioned her finding.

In her opinion, the issues were not for the media.

No stranger to controversy, she emphasised that she is willing to discuss them with the Murphy family who have been left with the perception that their son was somehow complicit in his own death.

While being mindful of the necessity to guard the independence of the office of the State Pathologist, there is, nevertheless, an undeniable onus on Dr Cassidy to publicly allay doubts which have undeniably been raised in the popular mind.

There is a compelling need to bring into the public arena all the relevant facts surrounding this controversy.

Indeed, that very point was underlined yesterday by Forensic and Legal Medicine Professor Denis Cusack of UCD. Speaking on the Pat Kenny show on RTÉ radio, he said it important for the facts to be put into evidence.

Furthermore, he argued that the doctors concerned should be allowed to answer the questions and to bring forward the evidence relating to their findings.

He also called on Government to reform the system, including the recommendation that, in suspicious or homicide type deaths, autopsies be carried out by two doctors, one of them a pathologist.

Since the coroner has extensive powers to hear applications on behalf of the victim’s family, and to call both Dr Cassidy and Dr Tormey to assist him in reaching his conclusions, the unanswered questions can best be resolved by resuming the inquest into Brian Murphy’s death.

It would be utterly unacceptable for this grave matter to be swept under the carpet.

Nor can the questions be dismissed by saying it is reasonable for experts to differ, and leave it at that.

Like it or not, petrol has been thrown on the flames of a controversy which has far-reaching ramifications and is in danger of eroding public confidence in the vital area of forensic medicine.