The pathologist who drew criticism from a High Court judge over his initial conclusions on Katie Simpson’s death has left his post and is currently not licensed to practice.
While there is no suggestion this played any role in his decision to leave, it is unclear if he will now attend the pending inquest.
The postmortem was carried after Katie passed away six days after being presented unresponsive to Altnagelvin Hospital.
Death was deemed ‘probable hanging’ however it later emerged this was largely based on the account provided by Katie’s killer, Jonathan Creswell.
He claimed to have rescued her from hanging but the truth was much more sinister.
Katie had been subjected to sustained and savage assault after Creswell discovered she had spent the night with a new boyfriend.
Having first driven her across the border during which it is believed she was ‘interrogated’ and while in possession of her phone, Creswell returned to the house in Gortnessy Meadows Derry/Londonderry in the early hours of August 3, 2020.
At some point after that, Creswell strangled Katie, then staged a hanging scenario.
Despite his obvious inconsistencies and frantic reports to PSNI of Creswell’s propensity for strangulation, no action was taken.
Forensic photographs were not taken of Katie’s battered body on the day she was admitted to hospital.
Incomprehensibility, throughout the week Katie fought for her life, police were providing updates to Creswell.
However a detective did attend the postmortem, leading the pathologist to enquire why this was necessary.
He was advised there was a ‘level of suspicion’ and the detective was thereafter asked to contact Creswell for further information, which police sources have confirmed was done and recorded in the case log.
While images were taken of Katie’s injuries at postmortem these did not appear to cause alarm, having been explained away by Creswell’s claims she was trampled by a horse.
The later descriptions of these injuries were clearly inconsistent with trampling.
With the postmortem signed off as ‘probable hanging’ police closed the case as non-suspicious.
This was entirely rejected by some who simply refused to accept the narrative.
After significant agitation a second PSNI team took over and a murder enquiry was launched.
The postmortem images were reviewed by a Home Office pathologist who noted linear marks on Katie’s limbs indicative of ‘tramline injuries’ having been inflicted with a rod-type implement. These present as twin red or bruised lines side-by-side, caused by the implement bearing down and the skin on either side being pulled inward.
Injuries on Katie’s hands suggested defensive wounds, and bruising to her inner thigh pointed to ‘grip marks’ often seen in violent sexual assault.
Presented with the alternative opinion the original pathologist changed the cause of death to ‘possible hanging’.
During a High Court bail application, prosecution counsel said: “The pathologist described (death) as possible hanging. That’s mainly on the face of information given to him by the applicant (Creswell).”
Mr Justice O’Hara responded: “But if that’s right, the pathologist should not – with all due respect – be signing off the cause of death on the basis of what somebody has told them. The pathologist should only be signing off on the basis of a medical examination, and then say either ‘I can’t say what the cause of death was’ or ‘The cause of death was consistent with A, B or C.’”
Creswell’s senior counsel added: “There must assuredly have been communication with investigating police and the pathologist. It’s perhaps somewhat trite to suggest the pathologist findings are from what he was told by the accused. That simply wouldn’t happen and its nonsense to suggest that would happen.”
The judge replied: “It certainly shouldn’t happen.”
The remarks were put to the Department of Justice and a spokesperson replied: “The pathologist has confirmed that they did not contact or speak with anyone other than the police and colleagues about this case, as would be normal practice.”
Challenged on this, the department was asked if the pathologist asked police to speak to Creswell.
They replied: “We have nothing to add.”
All further attempts for clarification since have been met with a response that the pathologist would wait until the inquest.
However, the pathologist has now left and when asked on the circumstances the Department said: “Personal information about current and former members of staff cannot be released.”
A Freedom of Information response showed the post became vacant on April 1, 2025 and advertised the following June.
There were two applications and the post was filled on January 19 this year.
The pathologist remains registered with the General Medical Council but has not had a licence to practice since January 2025.
However, this does not necessarily mean there are concerns as a doctor may relinquish their licence, for a range of reasons including retirement, moving abroad or deciding to pursue other work.
The Department of Justice which encompasses the State Pathologist Office was asked to contact the former pathologist or clarify on his behalf that he will attend to give evidence at Katie pending inquest, having since left his post.
A spokesperson replied: “This case is subject to an ongoing coronial investigation. Decisions regarding witnesses are a matter for the Coroner and, as such it would not be appropriate for the Department to comment.”
However, a follow up enquiry confirmed a coroner can require people to attend an inquest and consider any request not to attend.
