howardj
International Coach
They decided to actually do a serious story.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Bob Woolmer 'was not murdered'
- Thread starter pasag
- Start date
Calvin
Cricket Spectator
Following the report of the news that Bob wasn't actually murdered, the Sky commentator states:
'Its says something about the state of Pakistan cricket that the accusations against them were made'
How on earth such a comment comes unchallenged is beyond me. It says something of the perception of Pakistan in world media, but says more about the cynical judgement for all things Pakistani and the racism that underpins international news networks...
'Its says something about the state of Pakistan cricket that the accusations against them were made'
How on earth such a comment comes unchallenged is beyond me. It says something of the perception of Pakistan in world media, but says more about the cynical judgement for all things Pakistani and the racism that underpins international news networks...
howardj
International Coach
Moreover, some of the cynicism of current cricket journalists is of no service at all to the game. That so-called 'match fixing murder' was then the prism through which the entire World Cup was reported. Journalists went out of their way to emphasise every little negative and carried on like the game is on its last legs.
Craig
World Traveller
As Howard said, they sent one of their reporters to India to 'investigate' illegal gambling there (well obviously all gambling is illegal there) and said how dangerous was and interviewed some random bookie who said he had 'no doubt' the mafia where behind this (Woolmer's death) etc.
At least the bloody Corby's or the ratings war was being done at that time.
pasag
RTDAS
Haha dire. I've recently seen one side of the story first hand for an ACA piece. The side I heard first hand was actually the side ACA was supporting, you know how they always pick a side, and it was a bloody joke. Just so pathetic.
headhunter
International Vice-Captain
How could the police make suuch a mistake....they must of put the fanily through hell at least its over now R.I.P
You just hope that they have got it right this time and there are no more twists to come. If one is to play devil's advocate for a minute it suits the ICC that he was not murdered becuase people will stop talking about matchfixing. Another point - was the **** up due to the fact that police werr under pressure from fans, press etc to give us a decision and they do say "do things in haste, repent at leisure"
headhunter
International Vice-Captain
indeed yes people might stop going on about match fixing!!!
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Well Scotland Yard is the body that really pronounced that he was not murdered. I doubt if ICC have that much influence there
.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
From memory, Mark Shield said that the case was being investigated as a murder inquiry, not that Woolmer had been murdered which really only changes timelines but is a critical difference; a coroner's investigaton is needed before any cause of death is finalised, they take sometimes two years or more and even then, unless a suicide often they're somewhat unsure.
Cause of death isn't an exact science; a bloke who asphixiated with a broken bone in his neck, the temptation to at least suggest it was a murder would have been there which, I would suggest, is what the pathologist would have done. I also think the media kerfuffle and public outrage going on right now would have been completely dwarfed by what would have been the case had Mark Shields and the Yard said nothing until now in a wait-and-see approach. Hard to win in his situation....
Certainly there's no way he should lose his job. He was just investigating the leads and the pathologist's report would have been part of what direted the investigation. The media who played up the anti-Pakistan angle, that Woolmer was writing a book about match fixing, etc. are real nasties in the piece. Mark Shields is seeking out Bob's wife to apologise; anyone want to take a punt how many media outlet bosses will follow suit?
Cause of death isn't an exact science; a bloke who asphixiated with a broken bone in his neck, the temptation to at least suggest it was a murder would have been there which, I would suggest, is what the pathologist would have done. I also think the media kerfuffle and public outrage going on right now would have been completely dwarfed by what would have been the case had Mark Shields and the Yard said nothing until now in a wait-and-see approach. Hard to win in his situation....
Certainly there's no way he should lose his job. He was just investigating the leads and the pathologist's report would have been part of what direted the investigation. The media who played up the anti-Pakistan angle, that Woolmer was writing a book about match fixing, etc. are real nasties in the piece. Mark Shields is seeking out Bob's wife to apologise; anyone want to take a punt how many media outlet bosses will follow suit?
adharcric
International Coach
Nothing new there ... it's the media again.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Corey! Where have you been, champ?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Hopefully, very.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Forgive me if this is said on one of the links, but apparently the bruises that led them to believe he was strangled were most likely a result of the first post-mortem (they were found in the second). Sounds like shoddy work.
Whilst it's a definite positive that he was not murdered, it's sad to read that he died of chronic ill-health
Whilst it's a definite positive that he was not murdered, it's sad to read that he died of chronic ill-health
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Indeed, its an absolute disgrace. Good post.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Somehoworother missed this on my first perusal of the thread, but... yes, what Jono said. A disgrace. I hope someone spotted that and took whoever it was to task (quietly, if so).
What??
FFS isn't it obvious that this is a complete cover-up! What I find ludicrous is how people just swallow things and think "its in the media it must be true."
How would a trained pathologist get something so wrong? I remember reading that the police wanted to be 100% sure it was murder, so they got another coroner to double-check it. One guy making a mistake I can accept, but 2 different guys double-checked it each, and these people are trained to do it for a living! They were even like "yes, i'd stake my profession on it."
Don't any of you find it just a bit suspicious that allegations of betting involving millions of pounds go around, and then suddenly "oh no, he died naturally." I'm sure if massive amounts of money are involved, a cover-up would be no problem.
What about the bruises on him, the fact that he resigned 12 hours earlier (very suspicious) and there was blood across the room? And, let's be honest, Pakistani cricketers have been bent before - two of their star players were found guilty of taking steroids not a while back, but got "let off" because they thought it was "paracetomol" or some bs.
There's clearly some severe matchfixing going on in the once-great sport that was cricket, if they'll murder someone and then cover it up. I remember the two coroners being asked again and again, was it murder and they swore on it - why would they do that if they weren't 100% sure?
Basically:
what is more likely? 2 highly trained medical experts getting things wildly wrong, or guys with millions to lose making small pay-offs to hush things up?
OPEN YOUR EYES!
FFS isn't it obvious that this is a complete cover-up! What I find ludicrous is how people just swallow things and think "its in the media it must be true."
How would a trained pathologist get something so wrong? I remember reading that the police wanted to be 100% sure it was murder, so they got another coroner to double-check it. One guy making a mistake I can accept, but 2 different guys double-checked it each, and these people are trained to do it for a living! They were even like "yes, i'd stake my profession on it."
Don't any of you find it just a bit suspicious that allegations of betting involving millions of pounds go around, and then suddenly "oh no, he died naturally." I'm sure if massive amounts of money are involved, a cover-up would be no problem.
What about the bruises on him, the fact that he resigned 12 hours earlier (very suspicious) and there was blood across the room? And, let's be honest, Pakistani cricketers have been bent before - two of their star players were found guilty of taking steroids not a while back, but got "let off" because they thought it was "paracetomol" or some bs.
There's clearly some severe matchfixing going on in the once-great sport that was cricket, if they'll murder someone and then cover it up. I remember the two coroners being asked again and again, was it murder and they swore on it - why would they do that if they weren't 100% sure?
Basically:
what is more likely? 2 highly trained medical experts getting things wildly wrong, or guys with millions to lose making small pay-offs to hush things up?
OPEN YOUR EYES!
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
...or that three other leading medical experts are wrong?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6744465.stm