Rider death first aid questions

M

Mr_Ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 August 2003
Messages
149
Visit site
"The family of a horse rider who died after falling on a ride at an event near Margam Park in south Wales have questioned the first aid she received.

Jayne Jones, 42, of St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, suffered severe internal injuries landing on a log, an inquest jury in Neath has heard.

First aiders said they did everything possible and the event was found to be well organised with good medical cover.

The jury recorded a verdict of accidental death."

More from BBC News Online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/6940401.stm
 
I think in these circumstances it is natural and human for people to want to attribute blame or responsibility to a third party, rather than accept that the deceased was entirely responsible for the choices made on the day.

I have seen people die of internal bleeding after road accidents; they often don't have a single mark on them and it is impossible to tell exactly which major organs or major blood vessels are causing the problem. One chap actually managed to climb out of his car, was standing up and talking to people when the ambulance arrived, then had to lie down, then became comatose - it didn't matter how much fluid they put into him, they simply couldn't match the rate it was leaking out of him into his abdomen. Post mortem it was established he had sliced through his liver and damaged a kidney severely too. A full surgical team at the scene couldn't have saved him.

And so it is with this particular lady. A trade off between stabilising at scene and rushing to hospital. If the patient can be stabilised then a check on blood pressure or pulse will show slower deterioration, a drip can go some way to replacing lost fluids - this could have been done in the ambulance en route to the hospital. In the event of serious internal blood loss the only thing that will prevent severe blood loss and death is surgical intervention.

Finally the comment from one of the relatives that 'everybody knows you don't move anyone' is wrong, wrong, wrong. Don't move the casualty if they are conscious with a relatively normal pulse and you can watch them while help arrives, DO move the casualty if they are in a position of danger, likely to choke or vomit or require immediate surgical intervention to prevent death.
 
But why did it take half an hour for medical cover to get there? And why did another rider have to alert a check point? Surely there should be someone at every jump like there is XC and medical cover at various parts of the course - not half an hour away?
Those are just my initial thoughts.
 
Don't think she actuallyt fell at a jump - [ QUOTE ]
Mrs Jones fell heavily onto a log at the side of the course.


[/ QUOTE ] It would be impossible to man a whole lenght of a 12 mile course (thus it is normal for marshals to be placed at jumps and/or checkpoints).

There probably was medical cover at various parts of the course, but on a 12 mile route (off road) it is always going to take time for help to get there, even with a 4x4 (which they had).

It's very sad for the family, but accidents happen.
 
Actually..having read the press reports now I remembered that I knew her vaguely, she always seemed very pleasant (would have been about the time she was on bail pre trial) and the last person you would imagine would do something like that.
 
I think a good point was raised in that the "competitors" were not advised as what to do in an emergency. I think in the light of this it would be pertinent to ensure everyone carries a mobile phone and is given the emergency contact no. for any pleasure ride. This could be included in the rules. Its not fail safe but would be easy to include.
 
I can't comment on what happened at this ride as I wasn't there, but it is standard practice at all EGB rides that the emergency mobile number is given out to all the competitors both in the ride info and on the notice board at the venue. However, as endurance/pleasure rides often cover areas with sporadic mobile reception, we also have raynet/revcom communications placed along the route with direct access to emergency radio frequencies. Also full details of the speeds allowed for each class (including pleasure rides) is given out to the riders both in the ride info, on the EGB website, and at the venue. A full copy of the rulebook is available for reference with the secretary at every ride. I would be extremely surprised if this ride, which was one of the largest rides on the Welsh Calendar and which was being held in conjunction with the Welsh Festival of the Horse, did not follow this standard practice.
 
Just to add that it is also standard practice for stickers to be provided for each rider and horse with the emergency contact details on them, usually to be stuck on the rider's hat and saddle, in case they part company.
 
I have to agree with the Watcher, a friend of ours was deliberately run over by a lorry driven by his neighbour, and he appeared ok in hospital, talking to Police and his family. By late afternoon he was dead of internal bleeding.
The Police couldn't prosecute because the only witness was scared stiff by the same people.
Revenge happened however, when a terrible storm that week caused lightning to strike the neighbour's farm, burning it to the ground.
I can understand the woman's family feeling more could have been done but by the report they followed exactly what they should have done, just one of those tragic accidents I'm afraid.
 
I was really commenting in terms of pleasure rides not linked to EGB. EGB have clearly got things right in this sense but pleasure rides not linked to EGB should follow this example. I havent been on one for a couple of years and things may have changed but certainly on the ones Ive done and am intending to do (NOT EGB), no mention has been made of having to carry a mobile etc. The sticker idea is also a good one!
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
hmm..seems what goes around comes around...how could you kill someone over a cup of coffee!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well given she only served 18 months and was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, I would guess there is considerably more to it than a cup of coffee and the killing was in fact considered partially justifiable...
crazy.gif


I find it terribly sad, and horribly sensationalist that that's how the press describe her in covering her death; not to mention quoting the man's family as taking pleasure in her death... Her poor children.
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmm..seems what goes around comes around...how could you kill someone over a cup of coffee!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well given she only served 18 months and was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, I would guess there is considerably more to it than a cup of coffee and the killing was in fact considered partially justifiable...
crazy.gif


I find it terribly sad, and horribly sensationalist that that's how the press describe her in covering her death; not to mention quoting the man's family as taking pleasure in her death... Her poor children.
frown.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree link to the original story on the sentence from Bristol Crown Court
 
Not sure how any 'killing' can be considered justifiable! Bet you wouldnt think that if you were the sister or brother of the poor man who was killed. Im sure there is more to it, but the fact remains, most people will argue with their partners at some point but dont go killing them!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure how any 'killing' can be considered justifiable!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well actually, I said partially justified
smirk.gif
A justified killing would be, for example, one done in the name of self defence, or to protect the life of another. A partially justified killing would be one for which you have a partial defence - such as provocation.

Yes, plenty of couples row without killing one another.... also, plenty of couples row without resorting to domestic violence.
crazy.gif


Given the compulsory life sentence for murder convictions, I would presume there's a very good reason that in this case the women got such a minor sentence. Therefore, to my mind, to allow his family to gloat over her accidental death, and to use that as the primary description of her, is distasteful.
crazy.gif
 
Newspapers like a good story I suppose and this just adds a new angle. The family of the dead guy were always going to gloat and putting it in the paper doesnt change that. It may be distasteful but if thats what happened then why not print it?
It would be interesting to know why she only got 18 months...you do tend to find women get off more lightly then men... at the end of the day though, she still ended someones life. I dont care how much provocation there is, you still have a choice in your actions.
 
Apparently the reason her sentence was so light was so she could look after her 2 young children. It was originally for 4 years. She stabbed him after a row about him drinking coffee in the newly decorated lounge when she wanted him to drink it in the kitchen! Nice to know it was about something really important then. Must have been really provocated about that to stab him to death...
 
The link given by the watcher also states
[ QUOTE ]
there had been three occasions when he used violence towards Jones, including on the night of the stabbing

[/ QUOTE ]

though this was not considered to justify provocation or self defence. We don't know the full story of their relationship. People can 'flip' over relatively minor arguments etc if things have been building up over a length of time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Newspapers like a good story I suppose and this just adds a new angle. The family of the dead guy were always going to gloat and putting it in the paper doesnt change that. It may be distasteful but if thats what happened then why not print it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm, because printing it is exactly how her children are going to hear of their gloating.
crazy.gif
Yes, they may be would do it anyway, but without the press printing it then her children/friends/family wouldn't be made so painfully aware of others taking pleasure in their loved one's death.


[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting to know why she only got 18 months...you do tend to find women get off more lightly then men...

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact she was assaulted that night, and on previous occassions prior to picking up the knife. The fact that she was reportedly an excellent mother and that to be jailed for a longer time would lead her children to suffer greatly. The fact that she was drunk at the time, probably leading to a misjudgement as to the danger she was in when the violence started that night. The fact she called the paramedics after the event....etc etc The argument may have started over the cup of coffee, but it doesn't mean that she killed him over a cup of coffee.

[ QUOTE ]
at the end of the day though, she still ended someones life. I dont care how much provocation there is, you still have a choice in your actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, she did end someone's life - that's why she was convicted for manslaughter. And yes, provocation being permitted as a partial defence may not be an ideal concept; expecially for us ordinary people who have a resonably degree of self control, it seems shocking that those with less control don't have to live to such high standards... <u>However</u>, the only way that they will abolish partial defences, is if they do away with the mandatory life sentence for murder (at the moment partial defences are a means of reducing charges to manslaughter), and that won't happen for political reasons as much as anything else.
 
I do feel for her children but I feel for his more. The people whos lives have been ruined have a right to speak and if the paper wants to print it i dont find it distasteful. At the end of the day if she wanted to protect her children from any backlash she shouldnt have got her self so drunk as to leave herself so open such a 'misjudgement'. She was heard by a neighbour saying Im going to kill you...She clearly had intent, although at the end of the day there obviously wasnt enough evidence to prove it. As for calling an ambulance, in my opinion thats the least she could have done!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I do feel for her children but I feel for his more. The people whos lives have been ruined have a right to speak and if the paper wants to print it i dont find it distasteful.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's a totally separate issue - her criminal record/time served, and her accidental death... The two aren't remotely related, so why should they be reported as such?! I don't believe that when someone dies in a tragic accident that everyone they've ever upset should get to gloat in the press - that's distateful IMO!!
crazy.gif


[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day if she wanted to protect her children from any backlash she shouldnt have got her self so drunk as to leave herself so open such a 'misjudgement'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about her protecting her children
confused.gif
I said that the Judge was, in giving her such a lenient sentence.

You can hardly argue that all that happened was a foreseeable consequence of getting so drunk...?!
crazy.gif


[ QUOTE ]
She was heard by a neighbour saying Im going to kill you...She clearly had intent, although at the end of the day there obviously wasnt enough evidence to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, the jury specifically found that she did not have either of the necessary intents to constitute murder - hence the manslaughter charge.

[ QUOTE ]
As for calling an ambulance, in my opinion thats the least she could have done!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is the least, but many in the same scenario wouldn't have done it, and it's only correct that the courts take into account that she did...
 
Newspapers report it like that because thats what they do! Not sure I understand your second point...I thought you were worried about how her children would take it..now you say you were commenting on the judge protecting her children?? My point is you seem to be more worried about her and her family and not about the other side who in my opinion have every right to be agreived.
I wasnt arguing that all that happened was forseeable, as a result of being drunk..i was replying to your comment which seems to try to justify her actions because she was drunk. Most people go out and get drunk, but as far as I am aware, I have never stabbed anyone to death because of it! Are you saying as long as you have a valid reason, its ok to do it??! I dont think you are.
As for intent..its very difficult to prove. I was only quoting from the statement made by the witness. she wouldnt have made up someone saying 'im going to kill you'. My point was that it wasnt an instinctive reaction of self defence if you had time to say that.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Newspapers report it like that because thats what they do! Not sure I understand your second point...I thought you were worried about how her children would take it..now you say you were commenting on the judge protecting her children??

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is, that I mentioned part of the reason her sentence was so lenient was so as to protect her children - that was a decision made by the judge. Then you said "if she wanted to protect her children from any backlash she shouldnt have got her self so drunk" to which I said, what happened was hardly a foreseeable result of her getting drunk. Whether she wanted to protect her children is neither here nor there,
confused.gif
I commented that it was the judge's intention at sentencing to protect her children.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is you seem to be more worried about her and her family and not about the other side who in my opinion have every right to be agreived.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm bothered by the press reporting a terrible accident in a sensationalist way and reporting/quoting people taking delight in her death. I find that distasteful, especially given that the court had attributed a relatively low level of blame to her for what happened at the (totally unrelated) crime, and the fact she has young children who would have to see those headlines. If she had been convicted of murder, it may be another matter, but the fact it was manslaughter, and the killing was one she was not found to have had the intent to commit, (reflected in the sentence), leads me to feel this way.

[ QUOTE ]
I wasnt arguing that all that happened was forseeable, as a result of being drunk..i was replying to your comment which seems to try to justify her actions because she was drunk. Most people go out and get drunk, but as far as I am aware, I have never stabbed anyone to death because of it! Are you saying as long as you have a valid reason, its ok to do it??! I dont think you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not saying that because she was drunk it was ok. I'm saying it is likely that she misjudged the danger she was in that night, and the amount of self defence needed, due to being drunk. i.e he hit her, she panicked somewhat excessively, due to being intoxicated, and so she picked up the knife.

I'm not saying that everyone who gets drunks goes and stabs someone - of course I'm not. But most people when they've been drunk have badly misjudged a stiuation at some point or another.

[ QUOTE ]
As for intent..its very difficult to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! I know that; subject of my first ever criminal supervision
wink.gif
But that's exactly why I mentioned that the court specifically stated she did not have EITHER of the possible intents required for murder. Not just that they couldn't prove it, but that they were confident she didn't possess the mens rea at the time of the incident.

[ QUOTE ]
I was only quoting from the statement made by the witness. she wouldnt have made up someone saying 'im going to kill you'. My point was that it wasnt an instinctive reaction of self defence if you had time to say that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes, the neighbours may have heard that but combined with the other evidence the court still found she did not have a murderous intention, hence the charge of manslaughter.

With regard to whether or not it was an instinctive reaction - he hit her, she tried to call the police, he used violence again, and THEN she picked up the knife. Who's to say at what point she screamed at him?! It seems just as likely and logical that it was BEFORE the second, more serious, assult occurred and that when she then used the knife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top