The second member of the ambulance team, Dave Bartlett, gave his evidence immediately after the testimony of his colleague Vanessa Hunt had been heard.
MR KNOX: My Lord, the next witness is Mr Bartlett.
LORD HUTTON: Yes.
MR DAVID IAN BARTLETT (called)
Examined by MR KNOX
Q. Mr Bartlett, what is your full name?
A. David Ian Bartlett.
Q. And what is your occupation?
A. Ambulance technician.
Q. And who are you employed by?
5. Oxford Ambulance.
Q. And you are based at?
A. Abingdon.
Q. Abingdon ambulance station?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you on duty on the early morning of 18th July?
A. Yes.
Q. And what time did you get in?
A. 0700 hours.
Q. What is the number of the ambulance you were working in that day; can you remember?
A. I cannot remember to be honest without going back to the computer readouts. We use so many different ones.
Q. If I say number 934, does that sound right?
A. Could be, yes.
I stand to be corrected on this but I think that the different terms "paramedic" and "ambulance technician" came into being as a result of a set-to between the ambulance drivers and the then Tory government, the latter in the form of the Health Secretary Ken Clarke. There's no doubt that Mr Bartlett was highly experienced in his profession but that he would have to defer to Ms Hunt. Even if technically incorrect the ambulance team are commonly referred to as "the paramedics".
We don't know how Mr Knox knew that the ambulance was 'number 934' but the patient report form seems to me to be the most likely source of that information. Subsequent to the Hutton Inquiry and Report a press report revealed that the patient report form that the paramedics would have completed on 18 July had gone missing.
Q. Do you remember what happened about 20 to 10?
A. Yes, we had a call to attend the Longworth area and on the way there -- excuse me, I have a bad cold --
LORD HUTTON: Yes, do you have a glass of water there? That might help.
A. Yes. We got an update saying it was a male query kilo 1 which as my colleague explained is a person presumed dead.
MR KNOX: You say you got an update, was that?
A. On the computer readout in the ambulance.
Q. That meant what?
A. They had come across a body or a body had been reported and had not been certified but presumed dead.
Q. Can you remember when you arrived at the place you were going to?
A. The time?
Q. Yes, the time.
A. 9.55.
Q. That was at Harrowdown Hill, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Off Tucks Lane?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened when you arrived?
A. We parked at the end of the lane where there were some cars already parked, a lot of police officers there. We asked one police officer who directed us to the police that were in the combat uniforms and they asked us to bring some equipment and follow them down into the woods.
Fifteen minutes to get to Harrowdown Hill from Abingdon ambulance station seems reasonable to me. We don't know how soon after setting off that they were updated about the patient they were going to see.
As with Vanessa Hunt Mr Bartlett mentions the presence of a lot of police officers when they arrive at the bottom of the lane.
Q. And you did that?
A. Yes. We took a defib monitor with us and our own personal kit.
Q. You walked down into the woods, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you eventually come across?
A. We got to the end of the lane, there were some more police officers there. I think it was two or three, I cannot remember, I think it was two, took us up into the woods which was like right angles to the track. As we walked up they were in front of us putting the marker posts in and told us to stay between the two posts.
Q. So you stayed between the two posts and carried on presumably?
A. Yes.
Although it's unfortunate that Dave Bartlett is unsure about the number of police officers seen at the end of the lane it's understandable that there is this uncertainty. Exact numbers of personnel wouldn't be relevant to the medical evidence he had to recall in my opinion.
There is further confirmation of the common approach path being staked out. By saying that they were asked to stay between the two posts leads one to think that Sawyer would have been putting the metal stakes in on one side of the path and Franklin on the other.
Q. What did you then come across?
A. They led us up to where the body was laid, feet facing us, laid on its back, left arm out to one side (indicates) and the right arm across the chest.
Q. What about the hands? Did you notice anything about the position of the hands?
A. It was slightly wrist up, more wrist up than down.
Q. What about the right arm?
A. That was across the chest, palm down.
This description of arm and wrist positions, as might be expected, matches that given by Ms Hunt.
Q. Did you notice any injuries?
A. Just some dried blood across the wrist.
Q. Which wrist would that be?
A. The left wrist.
Q. What about the face? Did you notice anything about the face?
A. Yes, going from the corners of the mouth were two stains, one slightly longer than the other.
Q. Where did the stains go to from the mouth?
A. Towards the bottom of the ears.
I have been somewhat perplexed about the fact that the paramedics reported the dried blood on the left arm or wrist but seemed oblivious of the several wrist wounds later described by Dr Hunt. It's possible that a scene setter added further incisions after the ambulance crew left the scene. But also consider this: with the left arm out to the left or outstretched to the left the wrist wouldn't be in the direct line of vision of anyone concentrating on checking for signs of life (A paramedic would I think check the carotid pulse in the neck, as happened here, rather than the wrist for a pulse).
We also know that the cutting left the radial artery untouched. In other words the incisions were biased towards the little finger (or ulnar artery) side of the wrist. With an arm outstretched the natural position of the wrist is more up than down with the little finger side of the wrist far less prominent than the thumb side. Thus, it might be argued that it wasn't too surprising for the paramedics to miss seeing the incisions although any blood would be far more obvious.
The fact that the left arm was outstretched to the left when seen by the paramedics is very odd to me particularly when both Dr Hunt and Mr Green see it bent at the elbow. This discrepancy will be explored in detail later. Imagine a scene setter has more work to do on the left wrist but knows that the ambulance team is on its way. Laying the left arm out to the left with the wrist partly turned down might be seen as a good move for the time that the paramedics are at the scene..
Q. Did you check for a pulse?
A. Yes, checked the carotid pulse, also pupil reaction.
Q. The pupils of the eyes that is?
A. Yes, and then my colleague placed the two paddles across the chest and in between times the police were taking photographs.
Q. Can I just check, did the police take photographs before or after --
A. Before. Every time we did something they took another photograph.
Q. Your colleague was Ms Hunt who we have just heard?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you feel the skin of the body at all?
A. Yes, it was pale and clammy.
Q. You mentioned the injury to the wrist. You saw some blood, did you?
A. There was dried blood across the top, yes.
Q. Was that congealed or not?
A. I did not touch it. It was dried, it started to crack like when it goes dry.
This exchange demonstrates the deviousness of counsel at the Inquiry. Mr Knox said: 'You mentioned the injury to the wrist' . When the previous section of reproduced text is read it can be seen that Mr Bartlett did NOT mention the injury to the wrist, he merely referred to the dried blood across the wrist.
Q. Did you see any items next to the body?
A. Yes, to the left side above just where the arm was, there was a wristwatch, a silver knife with a curved blade and a bottle of water.
Q. And the bottle of water, was that empty or full or --
A. I think it was empty.
Q. Was it upright or can you remember?
A. Yes, it was upright.
Q. What type of a knife was it?
A. I think it was one of those silver quite flat ones with like a curved blade, more like a pruning knife.
It was also Mr Knox who failed to ask Ms Holmes 'Did you see any items next to the body?' The bottle was eventually found to be 22% full so either Mr Bartlett failed to notice this or water was added later. To be fair he thinks it was empty so there is a degree of uncertainty in his reply.
Q. What clothes was the man wearing?
A. It was a dark coloured jacket, sort of a wax type jacket, striped shirt, blue and white striped shirt, and I think it was jeans.
Q. And was the top button done up on the shirt or undone?
A. No, I think the top one was undone.
Q. Did you notice any other items of clothing nearby?
A. There was a cap ...(Pause). Yes, there was a flat cap on the left of the body, near the head end.
Q. And were there any stains on the clothes?
A. Not that I could see apart from on the deceased's right knee, there was a bloodstain about 25 mm across.
Q. When you say on the right knee, you mean on the trousers?
A. Yes, on the right knee of the trousers.
Quite specific about the size of the right knee bloodstain.
Q. Did you yourself do anything to the body?
A. I unbuttoned the shirt as my colleague was putting the electrodes on, and moved the right arm up so we could get the electrode down the bottom.
Q. And once the electrodes had been put on was any activity noticed?
A. No, no. It was just -- no output or anything.
Q. And what about -- was there any heart activity or anything like that?
A. No, nothing.
Q. Did you have the ability to print out the results on the spot?
A. Yes, I believe my colleague printed three strips out and gave those to the police.
Q. And were any alterations made to the printouts?
A. Yes, the time that is printed on the machine because they are the never the right time. We always write the time across the top of them.
Q. What was the time that the printout showed before you made the alteration?
A. I cannot remember because the colleague made the time. It is usually an hour out.
Q. So you put it back or forward an hour to get the right time?
A. Yes, one or the other.
Q. You checked that against what? How did you know you were putting the right time on?
A. Against our watches.
Q. Can you remember at what time death was pronounced?
A. (Pause). No, I did not actually make a note of the time. It would have been what was wrote on the strips.
Q. It was noted on the strips?
A. Yes.
Apart from the time being written on the strips it would surely be recorded on the patient report form ... the form that was to go missing. If it was on the PRF then it's arguable that the paramedics wouldn't have been too concerned to mention it (the time) in their police witness statements.
Q. How long were you at the scene altogether?
A. 5 to 10 minutes.
Q. Once the printouts had been done, what did you do with them?
A. The police officer took some more pictures and then they told us to go back down through the marker posts to the main track.
Q. Sorry, through the same track you had come up?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you go back there to the ambulance; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. When you left were the electrodes still on the body or had they been taken off?
A. No, we left the electrodes on, just removed the wires.
Q. Was there any reason for that?
A. We just -- we always just leave them on.
Q. And then what did you do after that? You went to the ambulance, did you?
A. We went back up to the ambulance and the police just asked us to check the young lady who had actually found the body but she was fine. They said she was a bit shaken but we had a chat with her and she was fine.
Confirmation that Louise Holmes was still at the parking area when the paramedics returned to the ambulance and didn't appear to have suffered anything very much in the way of delayed shock.
Q. Is there anything else you would like to say about the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death?
A. Just the same as my colleague actually, we was surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterial bleed.
MR KNOX: Thank you very much.
LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed Mr Bartlett.
Mr Dingemans had to spend some time getting to the point with Ms Hunt that she hadn't examined the ground for blood after she had expressed surprise at not seeing more of it. I think it was very wise of Mr Knox not to pursue the matter when Mr Bartlett makes a similar comment.
Showing posts with label Dave Bartlett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dave Bartlett. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 September 2012
Sunday, 24 June 2012
The co-proxamol (5)
The interview by Antony Barnett of the two ambulance team for the Observer of 12 December 2004 has plenty of interesting information http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BAR412A.html
At one point Dave Bartlett says: I remember saying to one of the policemen it didn't look like he died from that [the wrist wound] and suggesting he must have taken an overdose or something else.
I have already mentioned number 18 in the schedule of responses to issues raised http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf This is part of it:
Following the discovery of Dr Kelly's body a search was made of his house. Mrs Janice Kelly was present and was asked to show officers any medicines in the house.
Whether at that time Mrs Kelly felt there were any of her medicines missing I don't know; the only slight hint is her reply to Dingemans that she 'assumed' that the blister packs found on the body had come from her supply.
At the Inquiry there is this interesting commentary by PC Franklin responding to Mr Dingemans:
At one point Dave Bartlett says: I remember saying to one of the policemen it didn't look like he died from that [the wrist wound] and suggesting he must have taken an overdose or something else.
I have already mentioned number 18 in the schedule of responses to issues raised http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf This is part of it:
Following the discovery of Dr Kelly's body a search was made of his house. Mrs Janice Kelly was present and was asked to show officers any medicines in the house.
Whether at that time Mrs Kelly felt there were any of her medicines missing I don't know; the only slight hint is her reply to Dingemans that she 'assumed' that the blister packs found on the body had come from her supply.
At the Inquiry there is this interesting commentary by PC Franklin responding to Mr Dingemans:
Q. When the forensic kit arrives and you start doing the fingertip search, do you start on the common approach path?
A. I actually, as police search adviser, do not do the search; that was run by PC Sawyer.
Q. You watched them all doing it for you?
A. Some of the time. As police search adviser I have to liaise with the senior officers about the policies for the search and what we hope to get out of it, so I was backwards and forwards.
Q. What were you hoping to get out of this search?
A. We have to speak to the DCI initially and he wanted us to look for -- if again I may refer to my notes -- medicine or pill bottles, pills, pill foils or any receptacle or bag that may contain medicines.
Q. You are doing a search for that. Are you also looking for anything else?
A. Yes. The police search teams I work with would pick up anything that would be dropped by a human or out of the ordinary. Those are the items that were just specified to us, but as a search team we tend to look for anything that should not be there.
A. I actually, as police search adviser, do not do the search; that was run by PC Sawyer.
Q. You watched them all doing it for you?
A. Some of the time. As police search adviser I have to liaise with the senior officers about the policies for the search and what we hope to get out of it, so I was backwards and forwards.
Q. What were you hoping to get out of this search?
A. We have to speak to the DCI initially and he wanted us to look for -- if again I may refer to my notes -- medicine or pill bottles, pills, pill foils or any receptacle or bag that may contain medicines.
Q. You are doing a search for that. Are you also looking for anything else?
A. Yes. The police search teams I work with would pick up anything that would be dropped by a human or out of the ordinary. Those are the items that were just specified to us, but as a search team we tend to look for anything that should not be there.
It is strange isn't it that DCI Young makes that specific point that I have highlighted. Did DCI Young go to Harrowdown Hill via the Kelly home at Southmoor? Assuming that he was appointed the Chief Investigating Officer by ACC Page shortly after the body discovery then it seems that it was another two and a half hours approximately before he arrived at the scene.
Monday, 18 June 2012
Dr Kelly's "hardening of the arteries" (1)
In his now published report of 25 July 2003 Dr Hunt describes the condition of Dr Kelly's heart at post mortem on page 8 of the pdf http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
Quite correctly his report uses medical terminology but at the Hutton Inquiry he presents the relevant evidence in language more suited to the layman:
Q. Can you say what significant findings you made on the internal examination?
A. Yes, in terms of significant positive findings, there was evidence that at the time of his death Dr Kelly had a significant amount of narrowing of the arteries to his heart, his coronary arteries by a process called atherosclerosis or, colloquially, hardening of the arteries. That was the only positive evidence of natural disease, but I could not find evidence that he had had a heart attack as a consequence of that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. And in summary, what is your opinion as to the major factor involved in Dr Kelly's death?
A. It is the haemorrhage as a result of the incised wounds to his left wrist.
Q. If that had not occurred, would Dr Kelly have died?
A. He may not have done at this time, with that level of dextropropoxyphene.
Q. What role, if any, did the coronary disease play?
A. As with the drug dextropropoxyphene, it would have hastened death rather than caused it, as such.
Q. So how would you summarise, in brief, your conclusions as to the cause of death?
A. In the formulation, the cause of death is given as 1(a) haemorrhage due to 1(b) incised wounds of the left wrist. Under part 2 of the formulation of the medical cause of death, Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis.
In his Opening Statement on 1st August Hutton refers to Dr Hunt's preliminary post mortem report of 19 July 2003 and says:
The post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr Hunt also states: "It is noted that [Dr Kelly] has a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but not
the major part in the cause of death."
I think that it can be agreed that what Dr Hunt wrote in his report has to be his definitive point of view and that it is perfectly sensible, even desirable, to explain that in layman's terms to an audience of non specialists if the exact sense is retained. So far, so good. Then, seven years later, on 22 August 2010 something quite extraordinary and unprecedented happened: Dr Hunt elaborated on what he wrote in his report and subsequently said at the Hutton Inquiry. An article appeared in the Sunday Times that day and we read:
During the autopsy, Hunt discovered that Kelly was suffering from a severe form of coronary heart disease called atherosclerosis, although he had been unaware of this.
Two of his main coronary arteries were 70%-80% narrower than normal, creating a significant risk of cardiac arrest. "If he had dropped dead in the canteen at Porton Down [the government research establishment where he had worked] and you had seen his coronary arteries, you would have had a very good reason to believe that was the only reason he died," said Hunt.
His condition greatly reduced the ability of his heart to withstand sudden blood loss, and also made him more susceptible to stress. It also made his heart more vulnerable to a synthetic opiate in the painkiller he had taken, co-proxamol. The prescription painkiller was withdrawn in 2007 after it emerged that overdoses, either accidental or deliberate, were causing up to 400 deaths a year. It contains dextropropoxyphene, a synthetic opiate that can cause the heart to develop an abnormal rhythm, leading to cardiac arrest.
Two points worth making here: firstly it can be seen that Dr Hunt is making a lot more of the atherosclerosis seven years later, he should have made this clear at that earlier time. Secondly, what on earth was he doing talking to the papers about this? He is answerable to the coroner and there is no indication that he spoke to Mr Gardiner or sought his permission. His behaviour was totally unprofessional and unacceptable.
The subject of the Sunday Times interview was raised with the Attorney General Dominic Grieve as number 74 in the Schedule http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf
I won't discuss the detail of 74 for the moment because the response was mainly concerned with the blood at the scene, not the subject of this particular post. Suffice to note that it glosses over the behaviour of Dr Hunt: The interview with the Sunday Times and justification for it is a matter for Dr Hunt but there is nothing in the account that undermines the findings of the Inquiry. Well I'm sorry but the question of justification for the interview should NOT be just casually passed over in this way.
Dr Hunt's cavalier behaviour is in stark contrast with that of the ambulance team who were interviewed by Antony Barnett for the Observer of 12 December 2004:
Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt sought permission from their employer, Oxfordshire Ambulance Trust, before agreeing to be interviewed. They spoke as individuals and not as representatives of the trust.
A further interesting point arises here. Assuming that the Ambulance Trust had a broad idea of what the content of the interview was likely to be then that suggests that it wasn't just Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett who were concerned about the conclusions of the pathologist!
Quite correctly his report uses medical terminology but at the Hutton Inquiry he presents the relevant evidence in language more suited to the layman:
Q. Can you say what significant findings you made on the internal examination?
A. Yes, in terms of significant positive findings, there was evidence that at the time of his death Dr Kelly had a significant amount of narrowing of the arteries to his heart, his coronary arteries by a process called atherosclerosis or, colloquially, hardening of the arteries. That was the only positive evidence of natural disease, but I could not find evidence that he had had a heart attack as a consequence of that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. And in summary, what is your opinion as to the major factor involved in Dr Kelly's death?
A. It is the haemorrhage as a result of the incised wounds to his left wrist.
Q. If that had not occurred, would Dr Kelly have died?
A. He may not have done at this time, with that level of dextropropoxyphene.
Q. What role, if any, did the coronary disease play?
A. As with the drug dextropropoxyphene, it would have hastened death rather than caused it, as such.
Q. So how would you summarise, in brief, your conclusions as to the cause of death?
A. In the formulation, the cause of death is given as 1(a) haemorrhage due to 1(b) incised wounds of the left wrist. Under part 2 of the formulation of the medical cause of death, Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis.
In his Opening Statement on 1st August Hutton refers to Dr Hunt's preliminary post mortem report of 19 July 2003 and says:
The post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr Hunt also states: "It is noted that [Dr Kelly] has a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but not
the major part in the cause of death."
I think that it can be agreed that what Dr Hunt wrote in his report has to be his definitive point of view and that it is perfectly sensible, even desirable, to explain that in layman's terms to an audience of non specialists if the exact sense is retained. So far, so good. Then, seven years later, on 22 August 2010 something quite extraordinary and unprecedented happened: Dr Hunt elaborated on what he wrote in his report and subsequently said at the Hutton Inquiry. An article appeared in the Sunday Times that day and we read:
During the autopsy, Hunt discovered that Kelly was suffering from a severe form of coronary heart disease called atherosclerosis, although he had been unaware of this.
Two of his main coronary arteries were 70%-80% narrower than normal, creating a significant risk of cardiac arrest. "If he had dropped dead in the canteen at Porton Down [the government research establishment where he had worked] and you had seen his coronary arteries, you would have had a very good reason to believe that was the only reason he died," said Hunt.
His condition greatly reduced the ability of his heart to withstand sudden blood loss, and also made him more susceptible to stress. It also made his heart more vulnerable to a synthetic opiate in the painkiller he had taken, co-proxamol. The prescription painkiller was withdrawn in 2007 after it emerged that overdoses, either accidental or deliberate, were causing up to 400 deaths a year. It contains dextropropoxyphene, a synthetic opiate that can cause the heart to develop an abnormal rhythm, leading to cardiac arrest.
Two points worth making here: firstly it can be seen that Dr Hunt is making a lot more of the atherosclerosis seven years later, he should have made this clear at that earlier time. Secondly, what on earth was he doing talking to the papers about this? He is answerable to the coroner and there is no indication that he spoke to Mr Gardiner or sought his permission. His behaviour was totally unprofessional and unacceptable.
The subject of the Sunday Times interview was raised with the Attorney General Dominic Grieve as number 74 in the Schedule http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf
I won't discuss the detail of 74 for the moment because the response was mainly concerned with the blood at the scene, not the subject of this particular post. Suffice to note that it glosses over the behaviour of Dr Hunt: The interview with the Sunday Times and justification for it is a matter for Dr Hunt but there is nothing in the account that undermines the findings of the Inquiry. Well I'm sorry but the question of justification for the interview should NOT be just casually passed over in this way.
Dr Hunt's cavalier behaviour is in stark contrast with that of the ambulance team who were interviewed by Antony Barnett for the Observer of 12 December 2004:
Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt sought permission from their employer, Oxfordshire Ambulance Trust, before agreeing to be interviewed. They spoke as individuals and not as representatives of the trust.
A further interesting point arises here. Assuming that the Ambulance Trust had a broad idea of what the content of the interview was likely to be then that suggests that it wasn't just Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett who were concerned about the conclusions of the pathologist!
Saturday, 16 June 2012
Incisions to the left wrist
In Dr Hunt's opinion the cause of death was:
1a. Haemorrhage
1b. Incised wounds to the left wrist
2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis
I know that it has been suggested that the co-proxamol ingestion should have been placed as the primary cause of death. I'm also aware of one writer at least who considers that the heart disease was sufficiently bad that, in a sense, that should be considered as the main reason for Dr Kelly dying. For the start of this post though I will stay with Dr Hunt's assumption.
Dr Hunt observed a number of incisions, of varied lengths and depths, to the left wrist. I'm not going to repeat the quite lengthy information he provides but suggest that the interested reader go to his report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
This pdf is 14 pages long and the relevant section is on page 6 under the heading "Signs of sharp force injury". Of note is the fact that the complex of wounds extended 8 cm from side to side and about 5 cm from top to bottom. Now my left wrist is about 8 cm across so it seems that the wounds when considered together occupied the full width of the wrist. The longest wound was one of 6 cm, most of the others much shorter. The deepest wound (1 to 1.5 cm deep) was at the elbow end of the complex. Surprisingly the much shallower radial artery was intact as was the radial nerve.
In talking of some of the shallower cuts Dr Hunt said: 'The impression given was of multiple so-called 'tentative' or hesitation' marks'. Dr Hunt wrote in the Sunday Times of 22 August 2010 it was a 'classic case of self-inflicted injury'. It seems to be the so-called tentative or hesitation marks that really convinced him of suicide ... if he was being honest in his assessment.
My worry is the fact that there was evidence that went against the suicide hypothesis as well. Some of this, perhaps most obviously the movement of the body, may not have been known to Dr Hunt at the time. Human nature might have played a part here as well: having seen the tentative marks was Dr Hunt then totally sold on the suicide hypothesis, even to the extent of downplaying or ignoring any contrary evidence.
Imagine for a moment malevolent third parties intent on dressing up a murder to look like suicide. They wouldn't know how sharp a visiting forensic pathologist would be. The job would have to be really convincing. An everyday criminal in this situation wouldn't consider mimicking the shallow hesitation cuts in my opinion but the security services of this or another country would be much more likely to.
There has been a suggestion that the wrist cutting covered up an injection site. I think that's quite possible. Dr Shepherd, in his report of 16 March 2011 to the Attorney General, states, without any caveats, 'there were no injection sites anywhere on the body'. This is an unverifiable statement in a report which is generally sloppy and inept. Much more on Shepherd in due course no doubt
It was one thing having Dr Hunt on board with the suicide hypothesis. What couldn't have been imagined I think was the problems created by the ambulance team in their testimonies at the Hutton Inquiry and, perhaps more importantly, their interview that went into the Observer on 12 December 2004, and talking in front of the cameras. For the paramedics to carry out such an action, fundamentally undermining the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry, must surely be unprecedented.
I believe that the actions of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were absolutely pivotal in bringing the suicide conclusion into disrepute.
1a. Haemorrhage
1b. Incised wounds to the left wrist
2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis
I know that it has been suggested that the co-proxamol ingestion should have been placed as the primary cause of death. I'm also aware of one writer at least who considers that the heart disease was sufficiently bad that, in a sense, that should be considered as the main reason for Dr Kelly dying. For the start of this post though I will stay with Dr Hunt's assumption.
Dr Hunt observed a number of incisions, of varied lengths and depths, to the left wrist. I'm not going to repeat the quite lengthy information he provides but suggest that the interested reader go to his report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
This pdf is 14 pages long and the relevant section is on page 6 under the heading "Signs of sharp force injury". Of note is the fact that the complex of wounds extended 8 cm from side to side and about 5 cm from top to bottom. Now my left wrist is about 8 cm across so it seems that the wounds when considered together occupied the full width of the wrist. The longest wound was one of 6 cm, most of the others much shorter. The deepest wound (1 to 1.5 cm deep) was at the elbow end of the complex. Surprisingly the much shallower radial artery was intact as was the radial nerve.
In talking of some of the shallower cuts Dr Hunt said: 'The impression given was of multiple so-called 'tentative' or hesitation' marks'. Dr Hunt wrote in the Sunday Times of 22 August 2010 it was a 'classic case of self-inflicted injury'. It seems to be the so-called tentative or hesitation marks that really convinced him of suicide ... if he was being honest in his assessment.
My worry is the fact that there was evidence that went against the suicide hypothesis as well. Some of this, perhaps most obviously the movement of the body, may not have been known to Dr Hunt at the time. Human nature might have played a part here as well: having seen the tentative marks was Dr Hunt then totally sold on the suicide hypothesis, even to the extent of downplaying or ignoring any contrary evidence.
Imagine for a moment malevolent third parties intent on dressing up a murder to look like suicide. They wouldn't know how sharp a visiting forensic pathologist would be. The job would have to be really convincing. An everyday criminal in this situation wouldn't consider mimicking the shallow hesitation cuts in my opinion but the security services of this or another country would be much more likely to.
There has been a suggestion that the wrist cutting covered up an injection site. I think that's quite possible. Dr Shepherd, in his report of 16 March 2011 to the Attorney General, states, without any caveats, 'there were no injection sites anywhere on the body'. This is an unverifiable statement in a report which is generally sloppy and inept. Much more on Shepherd in due course no doubt
It was one thing having Dr Hunt on board with the suicide hypothesis. What couldn't have been imagined I think was the problems created by the ambulance team in their testimonies at the Hutton Inquiry and, perhaps more importantly, their interview that went into the Observer on 12 December 2004, and talking in front of the cameras. For the paramedics to carry out such an action, fundamentally undermining the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry, must surely be unprecedented.
I believe that the actions of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were absolutely pivotal in bringing the suicide conclusion into disrepute.
Friday, 15 June 2012
Vomitus on the body and on the ground (1)
There was evidence of vomiting at the scene ... on Dr Kelly's face, his clothing and on the ground. This is what was said and written:
12. Given the finding of blister packs of co-proxamol tablets within the coat pocket and the vomitus around the mouth and floor, it is an entirely reasonable supposition that he may have consumed a quantity of these tablets either on the way to or at the scene itself.
Mr Green (in his report)
Areas of possible vomit-like staining were observed on both sides of deceased's face coming from the mouth, on the jacket (NCH.17) and on the ground partially covered by the cap (AMH.6).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An area of whitish vomit-like staining was observed on the upper back [of the Barbour jacket] but this was not analysed further.
My thoughts
Ambulanceman Dave Bartlett (at the Inquiry)
Q. What about the face? Did you notice anything about the face?
A. Yes, going from the corners of the mouth were two stains, one slightly longer than the other.
Q. Where did the stains go to from the mouth?
A. Towards the bottom of the ears.
A. Yes, going from the corners of the mouth were two stains, one slightly longer than the other.
Q. Where did the stains go to from the mouth?
A. Towards the bottom of the ears.
PC Sawyer (at the Inquiry)
Q. What injuries did you see on the body itself?
A. I could not see any actual injuries because the injuries, I believe, were hidden by the wrist being turned down. But there was a large amount of blood there, and also from the mouth, the corner of -- the right-hand corner of the mouth to the ear there was a dark stain where I took it that Dr Kelly had vomited and it had run down the side of his face.
A. I could not see any actual injuries because the injuries, I believe, were hidden by the wrist being turned down. But there was a large amount of blood there, and also from the mouth, the corner of -- the right-hand corner of the mouth to the ear there was a dark stain where I took it that Dr Kelly had vomited and it had run down the side of his face.
Dr Hunt (at the Inquiry)
Q. Did you notice anything about the face?
A. His face appeared, firstly, rather pale but there was also what looked like vomit running from the right corner of the mouth and also from the left corner of the mouth and streaking the face.
A. His face appeared, firstly, rather pale but there was also what looked like vomit running from the right corner of the mouth and also from the left corner of the mouth and streaking the face.
Q. What would that appear to indicate?
A. It suggested that he had tried to vomit whilst he was lying on his back and it had trickled down.
Q. Was there any vomit found on the scene itself?
A. Yes, there was some vomit. There was some vomit staining over the left shoulder of the jacket and also on the ground in the region of his left shoulder.
Dr Hunt (in his report)
- There was a band of what appeared to be vomitus running from the right corner of the mouth, slightly upwards over the right earlobe tip and then onto the right mastoid area. This appeared to have relatively uniform and parallel sides. Such material was noted around the mouth over both upper and lower lips. Vomitus could also be seen running from the left corner of the mouth and there was a possible patch of vomit staining in proximity to the left shoulder on the ground. There was some vomit staining on the back of the left shoulder area of the waxed jacket and also on the outer aspect of the upper sleeve on that side of the jacket.
12. Given the finding of blister packs of co-proxamol tablets within the coat pocket and the vomitus around the mouth and floor, it is an entirely reasonable supposition that he may have consumed a quantity of these tablets either on the way to or at the scene itself.
Mr Green (in his report)
Areas of possible vomit-like staining were observed on both sides of deceased's face coming from the mouth, on the jacket (NCH.17) and on the ground partially covered by the cap (AMH.6).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An area of whitish vomit-like staining was observed on the upper back [of the Barbour jacket] but this was not analysed further.
My thoughts
- Although tests weren't carried out on the presumed vomitus I don't have any reason to think that it wasn't Dr Kelly's vomit that was observed.
- Both Dave Bartlett and PC Sawyer observe the vomit on the face, this perhaps more obvious than the vomitus on the jacket and ground.
- The evidence of vomit streaking going towards the ears is critical ... from that it has been deduced that Dr Kelly vomited whilst lying down. This needs to be seen in the context of Dr Kelly's body being discovered with his head and shoulders slumped against a tree, of which more later. It has been suggested, very sensibly in my opinion, that one reason to move the body to a lying down position could be the realisation that the vomit streaks wouldn't match the partially sitting up position of the body.
- Thanks to the eventual publication of Mr Green's report we now know that the vomitus on the ground was partially covered by the Barbour cap. The mystery relating to the removal of the cap, and the blood on it, remains.
Thursday, 7 June 2012
The bloodstained Barbour cap (1)
In previous posts I have discussed at some length the various bloodstained artifacts found in the vicinity of Dr Kelly's body: the knife, watch, Evian bottle and its top. But also, close to the head, there was a Barbour cap ... also with blood on it.
This is what the witnesses said about the cap:
Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman
Although neither of them mention the cap or are asked about it, for completeness I feel that this needs to be mentioned. What I found particularly interesting though is the fact that Louise Holmes who gets to within four feet of the body wasn't asked about what Dr Kelly was wearing yet Paul Chapman, much further away, was! So far as the disclosed parts of their police witness statements in Annex TVP 3 are concerned there is no reference to clothing or to the cap.
DC Coe
At the Inquiry DC Coe expresses a lot of uncertainty at times, as if not quite sure what answer he feels he should give, and the matter of the cap is a very good example of this.
This is what the witnesses said about the cap:
Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman
Although neither of them mention the cap or are asked about it, for completeness I feel that this needs to be mentioned. What I found particularly interesting though is the fact that Louise Holmes who gets to within four feet of the body wasn't asked about what Dr Kelly was wearing yet Paul Chapman, much further away, was! So far as the disclosed parts of their police witness statements in Annex TVP 3 are concerned there is no reference to clothing or to the cap.
DC Coe
At the Inquiry DC Coe expresses a lot of uncertainty at times, as if not quite sure what answer he feels he should give, and the matter of the cap is a very good example of this.
Q. Did this person have any clothes on?
A. He did. He was fully dressed.
Q. Could you be more particular as to what the clothes you saw were?
A. He was wearing a Barbour jacket. There was a cap, a pair of trousers and think walking boots, but I cannot be certain on that.
A. He did. He was fully dressed.
Q. Could you be more particular as to what the clothes you saw were?
A. He was wearing a Barbour jacket. There was a cap, a pair of trousers and think walking boots, but I cannot be certain on that.
Q. Was the cap on the head or was the cap apart from the body?
A. That I cannot remember -- I have a feeling the cap was off, but I cannot be sure.
Why didn't Mr Knox ask Coe to check in his notebook about the position of the cap?
In Annex TVP 1 where part of DC Coe's statement is reproduced there is no problem:
There was also a peaked cap close to this male person.
Seven years later his memory still is clear on the matter because in the interview he gave Matt Sandy for the Mail on Sunday he states:
Near him was a pruning knife with a wooden handle and a curved, three-inch blade.
On the ground was a cap, a watch and a small Evian water bottle.
On the ground was a cap, a watch and a small Evian water bottle.
As with the other objects he doesn't mention seeing any blood on the cap.
Vanessa Hunt
Doesn't mention the cap at the Inquiry but nothing should be read into that.
Dave Bartlett
At the Hutton Inquiry:
Q. Did you notice any other items of clothing nearby?
A. There was a cap ...(Pause). Yes, there was a flat cap on the left of the body, near the head end.
It seems then that the cap was in place when viewed by Coe and Bartlett, whether it was there when the searchers discovered the body is unknown.
PC Franklin
As happened with Ms Hunt he doesn't note the presence of the cap.
PC Sawyer
He uses the word "cap" but from its context he is I think referring to the top of the Evian bottle.
Q. Did you see a bottle of water?
A. I did, by Dr Kelly's head. There was an open bottle of Evian, 500 ml or 300 ml bottle, with the cap by the side of it, by his head.
A. I did, by Dr Kelly's head. There was an open bottle of Evian, 500 ml or 300 ml bottle, with the cap by the side of it, by his head.
Dr Hunt
At the Inquiry:
Q. Did you investigate the scene next to the body?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did that show?
A. There was a Barbour flat-type cap with some blood on the lining and the peak near his left shoulder and upper arm. In the region of his left hand lying on the grass there was a black resin strapped wristwatch, a digital watch, which was also bloodstained.
In his report and under "Adjacent scene":
Lying adjacent to the left shoulder/upper arm was a 'Barbour' cap with the lining side uppermost. There was blood over the lining and also the peak.
Mr Green
Cap not discussed with him at the Inquiry but the results of his tests on the cap will be noted in my next post.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Why did Mr Green come "at short notice"? (2)
In my last post it was established that forensic biologist Mr Green attended the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September, that he came at short notice and that it was ACC Page who facilitated his visit in stage 1.
This post looks at why I think he might have been asked to come "at short notice".
On the afternoon of the previous day the two members of the ambulance team gave evidence. Counsel to the Inquiry will have their police witness statements and, as such, will be familiar with what they did at the time and can question them accordingly. As one would expect both Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were asked if there was anything else they wanted to mention. Most witnesses, as happened at the Hutton Inquiry, would say no. After all they had been examined in relation to their written statements and I would think that a natural reaction would be to end their ordeal in the spotlight just as quickly as possible.
However the ambulance team seemed to be reading from a different script. They each commented on the lack of blood at the scene, see my post http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/blood-ambulance-teams-evidence.html This would be quite alarming to those intent on promoting the conclusions reached by Dr Hunt ... effectively they were saying, as experienced professionals, that Dr Hunt couldn't be right in his belief that Dr Kelly died from haemorrhage after cutting his wrist. Moreover, because it was such an ineffective way of committing suicide they would have far more practical experience than Dr Hunt in viewing the result of wrist slashing.
Mr Dingemans quickly sees the problem and tries to recover the situation by suggesting that Ms Hunt wouldn't be examining the ground for blood loss. Well she wouldn't have been specifically doing this but she noticed the small patch of blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and some blood on nearby nettles. She would have been kneeling or squatting near the left side of the body and it's not really credible that she would miss seeing any sizeable pool of blood.
In his report Dr Hunt had recorded smears of blood here, there and everywhere. Logically, as the blood specialist, Mr Green would have seen the same or more. Therefore if he could testify at short notice then some of the harm done to the official narrative might be nullified.
Official proceedings on the afternoon of the 2nd finished at 3.50 pm. This would leave Hutton time, after discussing the situation with counsel, to phone ACC Page and get him to pop round to see Mr Green. Mr Green then on the following day went up to London and "delivered" more blood to a very grateful Lord Hutton.
There is evidence that the blood at the scene was augmented between the time that the ambulance team see it and Mr Green's arrival at Harrowdown Hill, this will be discussed later as will Mr Green's imaginative explanation of how some of the blood disappeared.
This post looks at why I think he might have been asked to come "at short notice".
On the afternoon of the previous day the two members of the ambulance team gave evidence. Counsel to the Inquiry will have their police witness statements and, as such, will be familiar with what they did at the time and can question them accordingly. As one would expect both Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were asked if there was anything else they wanted to mention. Most witnesses, as happened at the Hutton Inquiry, would say no. After all they had been examined in relation to their written statements and I would think that a natural reaction would be to end their ordeal in the spotlight just as quickly as possible.
However the ambulance team seemed to be reading from a different script. They each commented on the lack of blood at the scene, see my post http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/blood-ambulance-teams-evidence.html This would be quite alarming to those intent on promoting the conclusions reached by Dr Hunt ... effectively they were saying, as experienced professionals, that Dr Hunt couldn't be right in his belief that Dr Kelly died from haemorrhage after cutting his wrist. Moreover, because it was such an ineffective way of committing suicide they would have far more practical experience than Dr Hunt in viewing the result of wrist slashing.
Mr Dingemans quickly sees the problem and tries to recover the situation by suggesting that Ms Hunt wouldn't be examining the ground for blood loss. Well she wouldn't have been specifically doing this but she noticed the small patch of blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and some blood on nearby nettles. She would have been kneeling or squatting near the left side of the body and it's not really credible that she would miss seeing any sizeable pool of blood.
In his report Dr Hunt had recorded smears of blood here, there and everywhere. Logically, as the blood specialist, Mr Green would have seen the same or more. Therefore if he could testify at short notice then some of the harm done to the official narrative might be nullified.
Official proceedings on the afternoon of the 2nd finished at 3.50 pm. This would leave Hutton time, after discussing the situation with counsel, to phone ACC Page and get him to pop round to see Mr Green. Mr Green then on the following day went up to London and "delivered" more blood to a very grateful Lord Hutton.
There is evidence that the blood at the scene was augmented between the time that the ambulance team see it and Mr Green's arrival at Harrowdown Hill, this will be discussed later as will Mr Green's imaginative explanation of how some of the blood disappeared.
Sunday, 3 June 2012
The blood: Dave Bartlett interview of 12.9.10
In my last post I had written about an interview given by the two members of the ambulance crew to Antony Barnett and published in the Observer of 12 December 2004. Six years later concerns haven't abated and ambulance technician Dave Bartlett gives an interview to journalist Matt Sandy which is published in the Mail on Sunday of 12 September 2010.
The article is here http://www.pressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/entries-01011-00568.pdf
(you will need to scroll down to near the bottom)
This post, as in the immediately preceding ones, focuses just on the blood although there is plenty of other "meat" to discuss on another day.
The relevant part of the article has been reproduced below:
Some experts have said that for someone to have died in the way Dr Kelly is said to have done, they would have to lose several pints of blood, which would most probably spray in all directions.
Mr Bartlett said: 'I've been to loads of slashed wrists and you always get loads of blood. I would have thought that he would of got more blood over him. If he's going to bleed to death, you'll get a fair old bit.
'To me, people rarely commit suicide by slitting their wrists. They'll usually do it and end up in hospital.'
But that was not the scene they found. He said: 'There was some [blood] on his left wrist, a few specks on his shirt and a spot the size of a 10p on his trousers. There was a bit on the nettles and grass but not a lot at all.
'We said at the time we doubted very much he would have died from that wound we saw. When it came out that the autopsy was from blood loss, we were really surprised. I've seen more blood at a nosebleed than I saw there.
'I'm not saying he didn't commit suicide. But there was very little blood for someone who allegedly bled to death.'
My emphasis has been added to this extract.
It can be seen that the above backs up what was said to Antony Barnett and what Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett said at the Hutton Inquiry.
The article is here http://www.pressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/entries-01011-00568.pdf
(you will need to scroll down to near the bottom)
This post, as in the immediately preceding ones, focuses just on the blood although there is plenty of other "meat" to discuss on another day.
The relevant part of the article has been reproduced below:
Some experts have said that for someone to have died in the way Dr Kelly is said to have done, they would have to lose several pints of blood, which would most probably spray in all directions.
Mr Bartlett said: 'I've been to loads of slashed wrists and you always get loads of blood. I would have thought that he would of got more blood over him. If he's going to bleed to death, you'll get a fair old bit.
'To me, people rarely commit suicide by slitting their wrists. They'll usually do it and end up in hospital.'
But that was not the scene they found. He said: 'There was some [blood] on his left wrist, a few specks on his shirt and a spot the size of a 10p on his trousers. There was a bit on the nettles and grass but not a lot at all.
'We said at the time we doubted very much he would have died from that wound we saw. When it came out that the autopsy was from blood loss, we were really surprised. I've seen more blood at a nosebleed than I saw there.
'I'm not saying he didn't commit suicide. But there was very little blood for someone who allegedly bled to death.'
My emphasis has been added to this extract.
It can be seen that the above backs up what was said to Antony Barnett and what Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett said at the Hutton Inquiry.
Saturday, 2 June 2012
The blood: ambulance team interview of 12.12.04
On 12 December 2004 there was a quite extraordinary event in the saga of the Dr Kelly mystery: the two ambulance personnel who attended the body at Harrowdown Hill went public about their concerns regarding the official explanation as to how Dr Kelly met his death. They were interviewed by respected journalist Antony Barnett, the story being published in The Observer http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BAR412A.html They then faced the TV cameras http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsyMV8C1OyI
As can be seen from these two links the lack of blood at the scene was perhaps the biggest problem for them. They were, in effect, saying that the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt had got it wrong.
This is an extract from Mr Barnett's piece:
Over the years they have raced to the scenes of dozens of attempted suicides in which somebody has cut their wrists. In only one case has the victim been successful.
As can be seen from these two links the lack of blood at the scene was perhaps the biggest problem for them. They were, in effect, saying that the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt had got it wrong.
This is an extract from Mr Barnett's piece:
Over the years they have raced to the scenes of dozens of attempted suicides in which somebody has cut their wrists. In only one case has the victim been successful.
'That was like a
slaughterhouse,' recalls Hunt. 'Just think what it would be like with
five or six pints of milk splashed everywhere.' If you slit your wrists,
that is the
equivalent amount of blood you would have to lose.
But this was not the scene which
greeted the two paramedics when their ambulance arrived at Harrowdown
Hill woods in Oxfordshire, where the body of Dr Kelly, the weapons
expert,
had been found.
Their depth of experience should be contrasted with that of Dr Hunt who, as far as we know, had never dealt with a death resulting from wrist slashing. It has to be said that Dr Kelly's death was in an outdoor setting and we don't know how many of the paramedics visits to attempted suicides by wrist slashing were indoors. There has been speculation about blood seeping into the ground at the scene but if that was the case no attempt seems to have been made to further investigate and try to quantify the blood loss.
Later in the article we read:
Both saw that the left sleeves
of his jacket and shirt had been pulled up to just below the elbow and
there was dried blood around his left wrist.
'There was no gaping wound...
there wasn't a puddle of blood around,' said Hunt. 'There was a little
bit of blood on the nettles to the left of his left arm. But there was
no real
blood on the body of the shirt. The only other bit of blood I saw was on
his clothing. It was the size of a 50p piece above the right knee on
his trousers.'
Hunt found this very strange.
'If you manage to cut a wrist and catch an artery you would get a
spraying of blood, regardless of whether it's an accident... Because of
the nature
of an arterial cut, you get a pumping action. I would certainly expect a
lot more blood on his clothing, on his shirt. If you choose to cut your
wrists, you don't worry about getting blood on your clothes.
'I didn't see any blood on his
right hand... If he used his right hand to cut his wrist, from an
arterial wound you would expect some spray.'
Bartlett agreed: 'I remember
saying to one of the policemen it didn't look like he died from that
[the wrist wound] and suggesting he must have taken an overdose or
something
else.'
Bartlett recalls being called to
one attempted suicide where the blood had spurted so high it hit the
ceiling. 'Even in this incident, the victim survived. It was like The
Texas
Chainsaw Massacre and the guy walked out alive. We have been to a vast
amount of incidents where people who have slashed their wrists,
intentionally or not. Most of them are taken down the hospital and given
a few
stitches then sent straight back home. But there is a lot of blood. It's
all over them.'
A very small correction needs to be made regarding the first sentence of this quote. According to Mr Green the shirt was a short sleeved one. The fact that the jacket sleeve was pulled up is important though as I shall explain in a later post.
The blood: the ambulance team's evidence
Dr Kelly's body was discovered by "Brock" the search dog owned by Louise Holmes at about 9.15 am on Friday 18 July 2003. DC Coe sees the body at 9.40, the same time as an ambulance is called. The narrative states that at 10.07 the ambulance crew determine that the body is deceased. DC Coe, in his testimony and in a newspaper article, records the fact that there was very little blood at the scene.
What then did paramedic Vanessa Hunt and ambulance technician Dave Bartlett have to say to the Inquiry about blood at the scene? As experienced professionals who had attended many attempted suicides by wrist slashing their evidence would surely be of great importance. First Ms Hunt was examined by Mr Dingemans and then Mr Bartlett by Mr Knox.
Vanessa Hunt's testimony re blood at the scene
What then did paramedic Vanessa Hunt and ambulance technician Dave Bartlett have to say to the Inquiry about blood at the scene? As experienced professionals who had attended many attempted suicides by wrist slashing their evidence would surely be of great importance. First Ms Hunt was examined by Mr Dingemans and then Mr Bartlett by Mr Knox.
Vanessa Hunt's testimony re blood at the scene
Q. Could you see anything on the body itself?
A. On his left arm, which was outstretched to the left of him, there was some dry blood.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. And is there anything else that you know of about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?
A. Only that the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing.
Q. On the clothing?
A. Yes.
Q. One of the police officers or someone this morning said there appeared to be some blood on the ground. Did you see that?
A. I could see some on -- there were some stinging nettles to the left of the body. As to on the ground, I do not remember seeing a sort of huge puddle or anything like that. There was dried blood on the left wrist. His jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from that area down towards the hand there was dried blood, but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just dried blood.
Q. You did not see the wound?
A. I did not see the wound, no.
Q. You were not looking at the wound, then?
A. The hand -- from what I remember, his arm -- left arm was outstretched to the left of the body.
Q. Yes.
Q. You did not see the wound?
A. I did not see the wound, no.
Q. You were not looking at the wound, then?
A. The hand -- from what I remember, his arm -- left arm was outstretched to the left of the body.
Q. Yes.
A. Palm up or slightly on the side (indicates) and, as I say, there was dried blood from the edge of the jacket down towards the hand but no gaping wound or anything obvious that I could see from the position I was in.
Q. Were you examining the wrist for --
A. No, I was not. No.
Q. And were you examining the ground for blood or blood loss?
A. No.
Dave Bartlett's testimony re blood at the scene
Q. Did you notice any injuries?
A. Just some dried blood across the wrist.
Q. Which wrist would that be?
A. The left wrist.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. You mentioned the injury to the wrist. You saw some blood, did you?
A. There was dried blood across the top, yes.
Q. Was that congealed or not?
A. I did not touch it. It was dried, it started to crack like when it goes dry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. And were there any stains on the clothes?
A. Not that I could see apart from on the deceased's right knee, there was a bloodstain about 25 mm across.
Q. When you say on the right knee, you mean on the trousers?
A. Yes, on the right knee of the trousers.
Q. When you say on the right knee, you mean on the trousers?
A. Yes, on the right knee of the trousers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Is there anything else you would like to say about the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death?
A. Just the same as my colleague actually, we was surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterial bleed.
Their testimonies, given two weeks before DC Coe appeared at the Inquiry, also suggest that there was remarkably little blood at the scene. Apart from the dried blood on the left wrist/arm they note some blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and also on the nettles to the left of the body. And that's it! If they were observant enough to see the blood on the nettles and the 25 mm diameter bloodstain on the jeans then it would be truly remarkable if they had missed any other significant amounts of blood. It must be borne in mind too that they were actually working on the body with the implication therefore of squatting close to the ground or even kneeling so would surely be aware of blood on the ground.
When Vanessa Hunt tells Mr Dingemans that there was a minimal amount of blood present he instantly realises that this isn't good news for the suicide hypothesis. He tries to downgrade her evidence by getting her to say that she wasn't really looking at the wound or blood on the ground. Such matters may not have been her primary focus but as a highly experienced paramedic she would be taking in peripheral information.
Dave Bartlett also comments on the lack of blood on the body.
Their testimonies, given two weeks before DC Coe appeared at the Inquiry, also suggest that there was remarkably little blood at the scene. Apart from the dried blood on the left wrist/arm they note some blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and also on the nettles to the left of the body. And that's it! If they were observant enough to see the blood on the nettles and the 25 mm diameter bloodstain on the jeans then it would be truly remarkable if they had missed any other significant amounts of blood. It must be borne in mind too that they were actually working on the body with the implication therefore of squatting close to the ground or even kneeling so would surely be aware of blood on the ground.
When Vanessa Hunt tells Mr Dingemans that there was a minimal amount of blood present he instantly realises that this isn't good news for the suicide hypothesis. He tries to downgrade her evidence by getting her to say that she wasn't really looking at the wound or blood on the ground. Such matters may not have been her primary focus but as a highly experienced paramedic she would be taking in peripheral information.
Dave Bartlett also comments on the lack of blood on the body.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Death and a single cut wrist artery
In my last post I had considered the illogicality of selecting the ulnar artery for incision if a person was contemplating suicide. Previous to that post I had discussed the knife found close to Dr Kelly's body and pointed out that it wasn't a sensible choice for someone bent on cutting their wrist. Even more important than these points perhaps is the question of whether someone can die from blood loss as a result of incising a wrist artery and it's this matter that I now want to address.
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.
As with the medical experts I am talking about a deceased who doesn't have a blood clotting disorder, a person who cuts just one wrist artery and someone who isn't sitting in a bath with the wrist immersed in water to keep the blood flowing. Moreover it needs to be a case where there isn't another major contributory cause to the death.
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:
‘To me, people rarely commit suicide by slitting their wrists. They’ll usually do it and end up in hospital.’
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.
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.
Sunday, 27 May 2012
The knife at Harrowdown Hill
A knife was found at Harrowdown Hill to the left of the body. The purpose of this post is to record the descriptions of the knife through the eyes of the witnesses.
Although apparently close to the body the knife isn't mentioned by either of the civilian searchers at the Hutton Inquiry or in that part of their police statements that have been disclosed. Neither the counsel to the Inquiry nor Lord Hutton ask Louise Holmes or Paul Chapman about the knife. The searchers aren't asked about any of the other objects near the body nor do they volunteer information about them, suggesting that they were added after the searchers left the scene. As will be discussed later the evidence is of the body being moved as well as each arm relative to the body. Therefore the possibility of the various artifacts being added by a third party can't be ruled out.
This is DC Coe at the Hutton Inquiry:
Although apparently close to the body the knife isn't mentioned by either of the civilian searchers at the Hutton Inquiry or in that part of their police statements that have been disclosed. Neither the counsel to the Inquiry nor Lord Hutton ask Louise Holmes or Paul Chapman about the knife. The searchers aren't asked about any of the other objects near the body nor do they volunteer information about them, suggesting that they were added after the searchers left the scene. As will be discussed later the evidence is of the body being moved as well as each arm relative to the body. Therefore the possibility of the various artifacts being added by a third party can't be ruled out.
This is DC Coe at the Hutton Inquiry:
Q. Did you notice anything about the body?
A. I did.
Q. What did you notice?
A. I noticed that there was blood round the left wrist. I saw a knife, like a pruning knife, and a watch.
DC Coe police witness statement (from Annex TVP 1)
I could see that his left wrist had blood on it. Close to the wrist was a small knife like a pruning knife together with a wrist watch.
PC Franklin at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. And what did the knife look like?
A. The blade was open. It was some sort of lock knife. I cannot be that precise. I believe it had a curved -- slight curve to the blade. The blade was maybe 3 to 4 inches long.
Q. Was there anything on the blade?
A. Blood.
A. The blade was open. It was some sort of lock knife. I cannot be that precise. I believe it had a curved -- slight curve to the blade. The blade was maybe 3 to 4 inches long.
Q. Was there anything on the blade?
A. Blood.
PC Franklin police witness statement (from Annex TVP 3)
... the deceased had an apparent cut to his left arm, his wristwatch and a knife were lying close to the left arm ...
PC Sawyer at the Hutton Inquiry
There was a large amount of blood on the back of the left arm. There was a watch and a curved knife by that wrist.
Q. And you say a curved knife. Was it open? Was it a penknife?
A. It was open. I have seen gardening pruning knives which look identical. I would have called it a pruning knife.
Q. And you say a curved knife. Was it open? Was it a penknife?
A. It was open. I have seen gardening pruning knives which look identical. I would have called it a pruning knife.
The published extract of PC Sawyer's witness statement is very short and doesn't include any reference to the knife.
Paramedic Vanessa Hunt at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. Right. And did you see anything on the ground?
A. There was a silver bladed knife, a wristwatch, which was off of the wrist.
Q. Yes.
A. And, oh, a water bottle, a small water bottle stood up to the left side of Dr Kelly's head.
The published extract of Vanessa Hunts witness statement in Annex TVP 3 just deals with the body position.
Ambulance Technician Dave Bartlett at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What type of a knife was it?
A. I think it was one of those silver quite flat ones with like a curved blade, more like a pruning knife.
Dave Bartlett police witness statement (Annex TVP 3)
On the ground next to the left arm I saw a watch and an open penknife and an empty water bottle.
Forensic Pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What about next to the watch?
A. Lying next to that was a pruning knife or gardener's knife.
A. Lying next to that was a pruning knife or gardener's knife.
Q. Can you describe what type of pruning knife it was?
A. The make was a Sandvig knife. It was one with a little hook or lip towards the tip of the blade. It is a fairly standard gardeners' type knife.
Dr Hunt in his report
Lying near his left hand, on the grass, was a black resin-strapped wristwatch; presumably a digital watch, lying face down and showing some bloodstaining.
Lying adjacent to this was a white metal 'Sandvik' pruning type knife, or gardener's knife, with its blade extended from the handle. There was bloodstaining over both the handles and the blade and a pool of blood beneath the knife which was approximately 8-10 by approximately 4-5 cms.
Forensic biologist Roy Green at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What else did you see around the body?
A. There was a bloodstained watch and a knife to --
Q. Was the knife bloodstained?
A. Yes, it was, yes.
Mr Green's written statement
The "Sandvik" knife (AMH.5) was a stainless steel penknife. The single blade, which was curved and measured 7.5 cm in length, was exposed. The blade and the handle were heavily stained with blood especially on the right side.
So what information can we draw from this? The basic description of the knife is consistent between the various witnesses at Harrowdown Hill which is hardly surprising. What is noticeable is that neither the ambulance crew nor DC Coe mention blood on the knife, by the time Mr Green sees it both the blade and handle are heavily stained with blood. Even more theatrically Dr Hunt describes a pool of blood beneath the knife. I shall explain later the evidence of the knife (and watch) having been moved between the time the ambulance crew are at the scene and the examination of the scene by Dr Hunt and Mr Green.
Mr Green, not surprisingly, gives us the most accurate description of the knife. I have just made a measurement to see how wide my wrist is: it is almost exactly 7.5 cm across ... the same as the length of the blade. The fact that the blade was curved demonstrates to me that its shape was far from ideal for the purpose. I would have thought a knife of the "Stanley" type with a straight blade would have been far better for making incisions.
Some more interesting aspects of the knife to come in my next posts.
Dr Hunt in his report
Lying near his left hand, on the grass, was a black resin-strapped wristwatch; presumably a digital watch, lying face down and showing some bloodstaining.
Lying adjacent to this was a white metal 'Sandvik' pruning type knife, or gardener's knife, with its blade extended from the handle. There was bloodstaining over both the handles and the blade and a pool of blood beneath the knife which was approximately 8-10 by approximately 4-5 cms.
Forensic biologist Roy Green at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What else did you see around the body?
A. There was a bloodstained watch and a knife to --
Q. Was the knife bloodstained?
A. Yes, it was, yes.
Mr Green's written statement
The "Sandvik" knife (AMH.5) was a stainless steel penknife. The single blade, which was curved and measured 7.5 cm in length, was exposed. The blade and the handle were heavily stained with blood especially on the right side.
So what information can we draw from this? The basic description of the knife is consistent between the various witnesses at Harrowdown Hill which is hardly surprising. What is noticeable is that neither the ambulance crew nor DC Coe mention blood on the knife, by the time Mr Green sees it both the blade and handle are heavily stained with blood. Even more theatrically Dr Hunt describes a pool of blood beneath the knife. I shall explain later the evidence of the knife (and watch) having been moved between the time the ambulance crew are at the scene and the examination of the scene by Dr Hunt and Mr Green.
Mr Green, not surprisingly, gives us the most accurate description of the knife. I have just made a measurement to see how wide my wrist is: it is almost exactly 7.5 cm across ... the same as the length of the blade. The fact that the blade was curved demonstrates to me that its shape was far from ideal for the purpose. I would have thought a knife of the "Stanley" type with a straight blade would have been far better for making incisions.
Some more interesting aspects of the knife to come in my next posts.
Sunday, 20 May 2012
The position of the Evian bottle
Mr Green, the forensic biologist, seems to be certain that Dr Kelly died in the position in which he sees the body on the afternoon of 18th July. Likewise Dr Hunt is sure that the dead body wasn't moved. Each of them gives us some information about the position of the Evian bottle and this is reproduced below.
In his report of 25 July 2003 Dr Hunt states:
Lying propped against some broken branches, to the deceased's left and about 1' from his left elbow was an open bottle of 'Evian' water (500 mls). The top lay close by but further away from the deceased.
Mr Green, in his report of 27 September 2003, describes the geography thus:
Next to the deceased's left shoulder was a Barbour cap (AMH.6). Beyond this, approximately 25 cm from the left shoulder was an almost empty Evian water bottle (AMH.2) and 12 cm further on was its top (AMH.3).
Ambulance technician Dave Bartlett was interviewed by Matt Sandy for the Mail on Sunday (12 September 2010). The article includes the following paragraphs:
He said 'I said to the copper at the time, "Who stood the bottle of water up or has it been moved?" They said it hadn't been moved. 'For someone lying like that on leaf mould with a bottle of water there, he would have knocked it over while dying, I would have thought. It seemed very odd to me.'
Why did Mr Green and Dr Hunt, the forensic experts, fail to comment on the position of the water bottle? It took Dave Bartlett, who was at the scene for 5 to 10 minutes, to point out the oddity of the bottle not getting knocked over. Did Green and Hunt who were there all afternoon fail to spot this? Clearly too Dr Kelly wouldn't have been able to reach the bottle in its final position whilst lying on his back.
It was established that Dr Kelly was right handed. Yet Barbour cap, knife, watch, the water bottle and its top are all found to the left of the body and the "experts" don't comment on the fact. A possible scenario exists whereby Dr Kelly placed the bottle, propped up against some branches, whilst on his left side. Somehow though he managed to toss the bottle cap another 5 inches further on and very carefully turned on to his back without disturbing the upright bottle. Is this really believable?
I will just mention at this point that subsequent to the discovery of the body by "Brock", the search dog of Louise Holmes, the body was moved. Not only that but the left arm was repositioned relative to the body as well. These matters will have to await later posts for consideration.
In his report of 25 July 2003 Dr Hunt states:
Lying propped against some broken branches, to the deceased's left and about 1' from his left elbow was an open bottle of 'Evian' water (500 mls). The top lay close by but further away from the deceased.
Mr Green, in his report of 27 September 2003, describes the geography thus:
Next to the deceased's left shoulder was a Barbour cap (AMH.6). Beyond this, approximately 25 cm from the left shoulder was an almost empty Evian water bottle (AMH.2) and 12 cm further on was its top (AMH.3).
Ambulance technician Dave Bartlett was interviewed by Matt Sandy for the Mail on Sunday (12 September 2010). The article includes the following paragraphs:
Mr Bartlett has another concern. The Evian water bottle was standing upright no more than six inches from Dr Kelly's left upper arm, and he is amazed that he would not knocked it over while dying.
Why did Mr Green and Dr Hunt, the forensic experts, fail to comment on the position of the water bottle? It took Dave Bartlett, who was at the scene for 5 to 10 minutes, to point out the oddity of the bottle not getting knocked over. Did Green and Hunt who were there all afternoon fail to spot this? Clearly too Dr Kelly wouldn't have been able to reach the bottle in its final position whilst lying on his back.
It was established that Dr Kelly was right handed. Yet Barbour cap, knife, watch, the water bottle and its top are all found to the left of the body and the "experts" don't comment on the fact. A possible scenario exists whereby Dr Kelly placed the bottle, propped up against some branches, whilst on his left side. Somehow though he managed to toss the bottle cap another 5 inches further on and very carefully turned on to his back without disturbing the upright bottle. Is this really believable?
I will just mention at this point that subsequent to the discovery of the body by "Brock", the search dog of Louise Holmes, the body was moved. Not only that but the left arm was repositioned relative to the body as well. These matters will have to await later posts for consideration.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
The ambulance crew and the slit wrist hypothesis
Unlike people such as Dr Hunt and Mr Green ambulance crew are going to see both live and dead bodies in the course of their work. They will see many attempted suicides and some successful ones too. So when Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett, the two ambulance crew that confirmed that the body was dead, are interviewed by Antony Barnett for the Observer of 12 December 2004 I think that we should take note of what they had to say.
This is part of it:
The whole article can be read here http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BAR412A.html
The whole question about lack of blood will be covered later. Suffice to say at the moment that two ambulance crew with years of experience had attended plenty of attempted wrist slashings but only noted one that had succeeded in its objective. Of course they wouldn't have had the expertise of a doctor but their huge experience mustn't be overlooked.
This is part of it:
On 18 July last year Bartlett
and Hunt received an emergency call to attend a suspected suicide. Over
the years they have raced to the scenes of dozens of attempted suicides
in
which somebody has cut their wrists. In only one case has the victim
been successful.
'That was like a
slaughterhouse,' recalls Hunt. 'Just think what it would be like with
five or six pints of milk splashed everywhere.' If you slit your wrists,
that is the
equivalent amount of blood you would have to lose.
But this was not the scene which
greeted the two paramedics when their ambulance arrived at Harrowdown
Hill woods in Oxfordshire, where the body of Dr Kelly, the weapons
expert,
had been found.
The whole article can be read here http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BAR412A.html
The whole question about lack of blood will be covered later. Suffice to say at the moment that two ambulance crew with years of experience had attended plenty of attempted wrist slashings but only noted one that had succeeded in its objective. Of course they wouldn't have had the expertise of a doctor but their huge experience mustn't be overlooked.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)