All Over Bar the Shouting: The GMC Hearing 6th - 9th July

By Martin J Walker

I haven't thought of, or heard the expression 'all over bar the shouting', since my father used it during my childhood in the North of England fifty odd years ago. It's a strange expression, at first glance almost oxymoronic. What it seems to means is that the end is here now despite the irrelevantly raised voices and kerfuffle that will undoubtedly follow. So this is perhaps the clearest statement of where the General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practice hearing is now belayed. What evidence there was is in and the hearing is over apart from the shouting which will inevitably follow the verdicts on whichever side they fall.

In an odd way, the verdicts are irrelevant, the GMC in league with the government and the pharmaceutical companies have managed quite effectively to drag the defendants through two years of juridical hell that has destroyed their reputation, stifled public discussion about vaccine damage and created a moratorium on research. Nevertheless, were the jury to come back with findings of 'not guilty' on the great majority of the charges it is just possible that the post-hearing 'shouting' could signal the end of the GMC as we know it. 

The three closing speeches on behalf of the defendants, came to an end with the finish of Mr Hopkins speech on Wednesday 8th July. Mr Hopkin's presentation made me consider the individual style of all three speeches. Although all three defendants were in the same hearing and subject to the same bogus prosecution, their defences, as presented by counsel, were quite different.

The closing presentation of each counsel echoed not just their own style but their clients requirements. Having listened to the closing speeches, I settled on labels for the counsel, Mr Coonan was The Pragmatist, he presented his case on behalf of Dr Wakefield with a bluff almost take-it-or-leave-it pragmatism that reflected Dr Wakefield's knowing acceptance that he had been well 'fitted-up' by the State, the Sunday Times and the GMC. Mr Coonan's speech strongly reflected Dr Wakefield's unanswered questions about due process and his honourable desire to square up to, rather than dodge, the prosecution.

The closing speech of Mr Miller remains to my mind the best. That Mr Miller represented the retired and clearly honourable Professor Walker-Smith meant Mr Miller and Ms Lindsay Strugo could run the most morally outraged defence. I think one could happily call Mr Miller, The Radical because while presenting Professor Walk-Smith's exceptional position, he kept swinging back like a guerilla fighter to excoriate the prosecution. I liked the speech because it almost satisfied not just ones outrage at what was being done to Professor Walker-Smith but also one's need to hear a clear evidential defence.

I had waited with great expectations for the closing presentation of Mr Hopkins on behalf of Professor Simon Murch simply because one had witnessed his earlier defence presentation and cross examination in all their brilliance. But if I had expected razor sharp criticism of the GMC and the bogus case against Professor Murch I was to be disappointed. For very good reasons, it occurred to me later, Mr Hopkins took a rather reconciliatory approach to the prosecution. In a sense he let the prosecution off the hook as he argued that it was quite possible to see the evidence against Professor Murch from a different perspective.

I say that Mr Hopkins took this tack 'for good reasons' because when all is said and done, there was no evidence against Professor Murch, basically all he had done during the lead up to the Lancet paper, was carry out colonoscopies. He had done his clinical job with the efficiency, care and humanity of one of the most highly regarded colonoscopists in Britain.

At the end of the evidence we had heard three closing speeches which were quite different and in some ways told different stories; they had been written on behalf of three different defendants who found themselves differently attacked by the prosecution.

Mr Hopkin's Closing Speech

It was quiet clear from the start that Adrian Hopkins' closing speech was going to be reconciliatory, almost one felt as befitted the personality of Professor Murch who has always seemed a quiet and sensitive man who nevertheless managed to be very firm while facing cross-examination. Just as an aside, despite their differences, all three defendants acquitted themselves with real personal strength and transparent honesty under cross examination.

While the other two counsel opened their closing speeches with the almost self-evident matter that there was not enough evidence and what evidence there was had come from the wrong witnesses or was simply quite wrong, Mr Hopkins began by talking about paradigms. When the evidence was looked at from one perspective it presented one picture, one paradigm, when it was viewed from another, it presented another picture.

Mr Hopkins illustrated the theory of two paradigms created from the same evidence with a drawing that when viewed from one perspective was one thing, while turned round represented something else. He followed up this graphic illustration with the historical example of the conflict between the Catholic Church that insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe and those who put forward the dissident view of Galileo Galilei that the earth moved round the sun. Mr Hopkins was talking paradigms big time.

I must admit that from the beginning of Mr Hopkins closing speech my stomach began to fall and it rarely stopped over the next two days. My sense of queasiness was not on behalf of Professor Murch who has been very well served by Mr Hopkins throughout the hearing; I worried for the truth. Both the other barristers had rested their case upon the idea that a singular lack of evidence, the presentation of expert witnesses who were neither expert nor witnesses and the manipulation of the legal process had shaped the prosecution case. Now Mr Hopkins sounded as if he were saying that the prosecution might have a case but whether it could be proven depended on where you were standing...  Read the full report HERE.

Martin J Walker is an investigative writer who has written four books about aspects of the medical industrial complex. He started focusing on conflict of interest, intervention by pharmaceutical companies in government and patient groups in 1993. Over the last three years he has been a campaign writer for the parents of MMR vaccine damaged children covering every day of the now two year hearing of the General Medical Council that is trying Dr Wakefield and two other doctors. His GMC accounts can be found at www.cryshame.com, and his own website is, www.slingshotpublications.com .

Comments

[Jake Crosby]

Thank you for all your hard work documenting this hearing. You are undoubtedly shaping history.

[Luke 12:2-3]

You Brits have a way with words. Your title is perfect, and your description vivid. I am reminded of the website name, cryshame, which is also succinct and conjures up the whole vibe about this spectacle.

One of my few satisfying thoughts is that, in years to come, the reputations of the craven fools involved in this spectacle will reflect their words and actions today. Thanks to you, Mr. Walker, these words and deeds are well documented.