Free Colin Norris

Free Colin Norris!

Investigations started in a Leeds hospital, where Colin worked, when an 86 year old patient was found to be in a hypoglycaemic coma.  After treatment her blood levels returned to normal but she remained in a coma for three weeks.  One blood sample was taken after deterioration in the patient’s health.  As it was due to be sent for insulin testing, it was supposed to be frozen, it was not.  A second sample was taken later that morning and the correct procedure followed.  The patient was monitored and cared for until her death three weeks later.  The blood sample appeared to show high levels of pharmaceutical insulin, suggesting an overdose.  A post mortem was carried out roughly 9 weeks after the patient’s death, which appeared to rule out natural causes.

As Colin had been on duty, with two other nurses, at the time of the death an investigation was conducted to ascertain if any other patients had died in similar circumstances and Colin was highlighted as a common denominator, having also nursed other women who had died of recorded ‘natural causes’. As a result of the investigation Colin was arrested on suspicion of murder and released on bail after 29 hours at the police station.  He was on bail from 12 December 2002 until 12 October 2005, when he was officially charged with the murder of the first patient as well as the murder of 3 others and the attempted murder of another.  All of the patients had suffered sudden, severe and unexplained hypoglycaemia.

At first glance, it would appear that there may have been suspicious circumstances surrounding the deaths of these patients there was no proof offered that murder had taken place.   Even though the prosecutions’ evidence presented contained many inconsistencies and failed to produce any conclusive evidence to prove Colin’s guilt in any crime, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was accepted as evidence of guilt.   No motive was suggested either.

Some of the obvious flaws are highlighted on this page.

Ø          In the case of patient A, although a full post mortem was conducted there were no signs of puncture wounds on her body to suggest an injection had been administered.  Conflicting opinions were given in court as to whether an “injection site” would still have been visible after roughly 9 weeks at the post mortem.  Given that the puncture marks were still visible on the fingers from the taking of the blood sugar levels it would suggest that any puncture marks resulting from an improper administration of insulin or any other substance would not have healed on the patient and have been visible at the time of the post mortem.

 

Ø           In the case patient B, who went into a coma on 25th June 2002 and died on the 27th no post mortem was conducted as her death was diagnosed as natural causes and her body was cremated.   No blood samples were taken and sent for analysis as there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the death at the time.  Defence evidence stated the patient had recovered consciousness from the coma and may have died from a deterioration of her pre-existing heart condition or a stroke.  It is an accepted medical fact that the body naturally produces insulin if someone suffers a stroke.

Ø          Patient C, who died on 22nd July 2002 was also diagnosed, at the time of death, as dying of natural causes.  She was buried but her body was exhumed 14 months later for a post mortem.  It was stated, in court, that the post mortem was “compromised”.  The results were inconclusive from the testing they were able to do.  Again, no blood samples were taken to find the cause of the low blood sugar episode.  Defence experts suggested that she might have died from hypoglycaemia caused by tumours producing Insulin-growth factor or by metastatic breast cancer.  There is much discussion on the ability of a post mortem to differentiate between natural and synthetic insulin found in the body after 14 months.Ø           Patient D, who was found in a coma on 19th October 2002 was also diagnosed to have died of natural causes and her body was cremated.  No post mortem was ever conducted or blood sample properly analysed.  Defence lawyers argued that she may have died of a stroke.Ø          In the case of the patient E, who went into a coma on 17th May 2002 and survived, she lived for a further 8 months and died of “unrelated” natural causes.  Again, she was cremated and no post mortem was conducted.   No testing was done to confirm cause of hypoglycaemic episode.

Ø          There was also another patient who died in similar circumstances with a hypoglycaemic episode prior to her death, admitted to hospital for a hip operation with a long list of medical problems.  The issue for the prosecution here was that Colin was still in Dundee doing his training so could not possibly have any involvement.  The prosecution say this patient died of natural causes.  The defence questioned the difference with this patient compared to the other’s Colin had been charged with.

At trial, Colin Norris’ defence team revealed to the jury a patient who had initially been investigated as a further potential murder victim but who was dismissed as being a suspicious death when it became apparent Colin Norris did not even work at the hospital at the time.  The BBC team found another case in the course of their research. This family told the BBC they were visited by the police and were told they suspected Colin had killed their elderly relative. 10 months later the police returned and showed the family hospital time sheets which showed Colin was not on duty when she fell into a coma from which she later died. These records were used by the police to explain to the family why they no longer considered this death to be suspicious.  So if Colin Norris was on duty these deaths were murder. If he was not their deaths were natural causes!!!!!!!

 
The above is only a brief introduction to some of the facts that question the decision of the court in this case. Months of conflicting and confusing medical evidence were put before the courts and many factors seem to have been ignored. All the evidence presented by the prosecution was circumstantial in relation to Colin’s guilt. We, obviously, believe fully in Colin’s innocence. It is not just the inconsistencies and misjudgements in this case that allow us to come to this decision but our knowledge of him as a person. We have created this site to show the true facts and present a case for Colin’s innocence. Please take the time to read through the evidence contained on this site and form your own judgement.