- Why was one tablet left? If Dr Kelly had managed to swallow 29 tablets with 78% of the water (assuming a full bottle to start with) then I'm sure that there was enough water left for the final tablet.
- Why didn't Dr Kelly buy a half bottle of whisky say in the village instead of taking water with him. Alcohol is much much more lethal in combination with co-proxamol than water.
- The fingerprint technician (Renee Gilliland) has to record ANY marks even if they don't appear to be usable. If Dr Kelly swallowed 29 tablets then one is looking at 29 thumb/finger movements to extract the tablets. The blister packs were found in the Barbour jacket so protected from the elements. I really can't believe that Dr Kelly would have left no marks whatsoever. This comment needs some qualification in fact because one of the blister packs was kept for DNA testing so only two were checked for fingerprints. In that respect 29 should be replaced by 19 ... still an unbelievable scenario.
- Regarding the DNA testing of one blister pack Mr Green says in his report A full STR profile matching that of Dr Kelly was obtained. It's not inconceivable in my opinion that the pack aquired Dr Kelly's DNA through being in the pocket of his Barbour jacket.
- Schedule of responses to issues raised number 33 concerns post mortem changes in drug levels http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf This is part of the response: The number of pills ingested is only of relevance to cause of death if there were evidence to suggest that the drug was introduced into his body in some other way. There is no such evidence. It could also be argued that there is no evidence that the drug wasn't introduced into his body in some other way. As previously pointed out it's possible that the damage to Dr Kelly's lip happened as a result of the insertion in his mouth of a gastric tube. Perhaps the injury complex on the left wrist masked an injection site. I'm not saying I have proof on any of this but it's wrong for the official response to be so dismissive.
- In the response to issue 18 we read: Mrs Kelly stated that her husband would never take any sort of tablet, not even for a headache but that he was aware that she was prescribed co-proxamol as a painkiller. Similarly in 44 there is reference to Mai Pederson giving details to Thames Valley Police of Dr Kelly's avoidance of taking pills. From a press article we learn that Ms Pederson has also said that Dr Kelly had in fact a physical problem in swallowing pills. If TVP were aware of this then they are clearly guilty of covering up the fact. Hutton should have investigated why Dr Kelly had an aversion to taking pills. Yet again he failed to perform his task with due diligence.
Monday, 25 June 2012
The co-proxamol (6)
Now I want to highlight a few miscellaneous points not covered in the previous five posts.