Prior to Lord Hutton publishing his report on 28 January 2004 some medical experts were already asking how it was possible to lose sufficient blood (in medical parlance "exsanguination") from a severed wrist artery to lead to death. Although some people have said that it can and has happened I would want to see a pathologist's report to be convinced.
Prior to carrying out the post mortem on Dr Kelly's body Dr Hunt had performed thousands of autopsies as I pointed out in this post http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dr-hunt-had-conducted-thousands-of-post.html Before 18th July 2003 it seems that he had never carried out a post mortem on a person who had died as a result of haemorrhage from cutting a single artery in the wrist, certainly not the ulnar. Effectively he was in, to him, uncharted territory.
Attempted suicide by wrist slashing isn't that uncommon but usually the physical damage that results is quite limited. This is what one of the ambulance crew, Dave Bartlett, said in a newspaper interview on 12 September 2010:
The ambulance crew were interviewed for The Observer by Antony Barnett on 12 December 2004. This is Dave Bartlett again:
Most of them are taken down the hospital and given a few stitches then sent straight back home.
There is an interesting comment in the "Jack of Kent" blog by someone calling themselves "London Cardiologist" http://jackofkent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/blogging-on-death-of-dr-david-kelly.html
This is the comment:
I am a hospital doctor who regularly needs to cut the radial artery in the wrist as part of planned therapeutic procedure. I perform this procedure 5-6 times per day, as do my colleagues.
None of us have ever seen anyone lose more than a small amount of blood from radial artery trauma, let alone bleed to death (as was the stated cause of death for Dr Kelly). Our personal experience is compatitble with all of the medical textbooks and current scientific literature.
The artery clamps down and spasms when it is cut - preventing further blood loss - which is presumably an evolutionary mechanism. Although the possibility of the occurance of fatal radial artery haemorrhage exists, its theoretical likelihood is very small.
Scientific knowledge would be advanced if the inquest notes here were in the public domain. The medical profession might change its practice and preconceptions about radial artery trauma with the information provided.
Put simply, one of the major functions of the inquest system is to advance the total sum of human knowledge. Until this information is in the public domain, it can't be critically appraised. These are the reasons why all skeptics should be drawing attention to this; the conspiracy theorists have nothing to do with it.
This doctor is talking about the radial artery but it is almost identical in size to the ulnar artery. To all intents and purposes a single transected wrist artery out in the open and with the person having no blood clotting problems should not lead to sufficient blood loss to lead to death.
Hutton is seriously at fault once again in not asking about the likelihood of death resulting from a single cut artery. Dr Hunt appears to have given little thought about whether this supposed cause of death stands up to scrutiny.
At the moment then we have an unsuitable knife, the wrong artery being cut and the near impossibility of death from cutting a single ulnar artery. As we shall see the evidence doesn't show that there was sufficient blood loss at Harrowdown Hill to support the official cause of death.