In his hearing on 16 March Mr Gardiner makes reference to other experts (apart from Dr Hunt):
Others, although I think not generally experienced Forensic Pathologists, have expressed doubts as to the views of Dr. Hunt and accepted by Lord Hutton. It is certainly not exceptional for experts to disagree with each other. It is probably exceptional if they do not. This disagreement is far more likely to occur if some of them do not have full access to all the data, and I do not consider those disagreements to amount to exceptional reason, and in any event are as likely to arise out of an Inquest as out of a Public Inquiry.
Gardiner is having to walk a tightrope here, he has to be careful to avoid total denigration of the opinions given by "The Doctors". Whilst he points out that the views of Dr Hunt were accepted by Lord Hutton he fails to note that the cause of death as described by Dr Hunt was also accepted by himself. This is really important. It seems as if Dr Hunt's final report of 25 July and conclusions therein were formally accepted as evidence when Mr Gardiner resumed on 14 August ... without question. From there it was one small step to advise the registrar about the cause of death. Thus Mr Gardiner might find it professionally difficult to cast any doubt on Dr Hunt's findings.
It is of course obvious that a forensic pathologist will have greater expertise in certain areas than other medical specialists. Changes in the body after death including the onset of rigor mortis would be one such area I suggest. I have covered this before but it need to be stated again: successful suicide by wrist slashing is very rare, attempted suicide (including a "cry for help") much more common. There is no evidence that as a pathologist Dr Hunt had ever attended a scene where someone had died from a cut wrist, he certainly never mentioned it. Again we don't know whether Mr Green had actually visited such an event. Their experience in dealing with such a situation would be at best minimal and very likely non-existent.
Contrast this with the ambulance team: Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett had attended plenty of attempted suicides by wrist slashing, in other words they knew what the scene would look like under such circumstances. Mr Bartlett was to later comment that he had seen more blood from a nosebleed than he had noted at Harrowdown Hill. Similarly one of the doctors trying to get an inquest, David Halpin, has had a lot of experience in repairing cut wrist arteries and knows that if one such artery is completely transected the body's defences are fired up and the small, matchstick thickness artery retracts and stops the bleeding. The blood loss is quite minimal providing the person isn't suffering from a blood clotting disorder. There was no evidence of such a problem with Dr Kelly.
It must be remembered too that Dr Hunt, on the 19th July, had stated the cause of death simply as haemorrhage and incised wounds to the left wrist. It wasn't until his altered report six days later that he decided to add co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis.
Showing posts with label Dr Hunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr Hunt. Show all posts
Friday, 13 July 2012
Thursday, 12 July 2012
Mr Gardiner's practical problems on 16 March
On 28 January 2004 Lord Hutton delivered his report. One outcome of this was the fact that Mr Gardiner had to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances for him to reconvene the inquest. The very fact that Hutton hadn't heard evidence under oath was an exceptional reason I suggest. I made the point in my last post that Mr Gardiner had a couple of practical problems to deal with if he decided to reconvene and these I will now discuss.
The first of these was the fact that Lord Falconer and Tony Blair stated that they were satisfied with the report ... it was hardly likely that they wouldn't be of course! So the Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister were content with the report resulting from an inquiry carried out by a very senior judge. If Mr Gardiner had reconvened it would suggest that he disagreed with these very big guns. The point is though so far as David Kelly's death was concerned the coroner was still king. He should not have let himself be overawed by them.
It wasn't just possible timidity on Gardiner's part though. His second practical problem was of his own making - I'm not aware of anyone really discussing it before now. On 14 August Mr Gardiner formally accepted the final report of Dr Hunt and the first report of Dr Allan at the resumed hearing of that date. From these reports he provided information for the registrar to register Dr Kelly's death four days later (two of those days were the weekend). Of course Mr Gardiner couldn't declare at the same time whether his conclusion was one of "suicide", "unlawful killing" or an "open verdict". This was before the advent of narrative verdicts by the way.
At a renewed hearing he would have to contemplate the possibility that some of the previously registered details were incorrect. Suppose that he did conclude that the verdict was suicide then "Found dead at Harrowdown Hill" would not be satisfactory, bearing in mind dead men don't walk. What would happen if some significant detail was expressed differently when evidence was heard under oath. He had already accepted Dr Hunt's explanation about the mode of death without question. "The Doctors", had already expressed disquiet about Dr Hunt's conclusions and the ambulance crew in both commenting at the Inquiry about the lack of blood had poured more cold water on whether death could be from haemorrhage.
It can be seen then that if Mr Gardiner pressed ahead, as he should have done, he would have faced a range of uncertainties, allied to the fact that he might have appeared unwise even incompetent in registering the death when all he should have done to comply with Section 17A was to provide an interim certificate confirming the identity of the deceased.
Mr Gardiner found himself in an invidious position on 16 March. He decided to take the easy option.
The first of these was the fact that Lord Falconer and Tony Blair stated that they were satisfied with the report ... it was hardly likely that they wouldn't be of course! So the Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister were content with the report resulting from an inquiry carried out by a very senior judge. If Mr Gardiner had reconvened it would suggest that he disagreed with these very big guns. The point is though so far as David Kelly's death was concerned the coroner was still king. He should not have let himself be overawed by them.
It wasn't just possible timidity on Gardiner's part though. His second practical problem was of his own making - I'm not aware of anyone really discussing it before now. On 14 August Mr Gardiner formally accepted the final report of Dr Hunt and the first report of Dr Allan at the resumed hearing of that date. From these reports he provided information for the registrar to register Dr Kelly's death four days later (two of those days were the weekend). Of course Mr Gardiner couldn't declare at the same time whether his conclusion was one of "suicide", "unlawful killing" or an "open verdict". This was before the advent of narrative verdicts by the way.
At a renewed hearing he would have to contemplate the possibility that some of the previously registered details were incorrect. Suppose that he did conclude that the verdict was suicide then "Found dead at Harrowdown Hill" would not be satisfactory, bearing in mind dead men don't walk. What would happen if some significant detail was expressed differently when evidence was heard under oath. He had already accepted Dr Hunt's explanation about the mode of death without question. "The Doctors", had already expressed disquiet about Dr Hunt's conclusions and the ambulance crew in both commenting at the Inquiry about the lack of blood had poured more cold water on whether death could be from haemorrhage.
It can be seen then that if Mr Gardiner pressed ahead, as he should have done, he would have faced a range of uncertainties, allied to the fact that he might have appeared unwise even incompetent in registering the death when all he should have done to comply with Section 17A was to provide an interim certificate confirming the identity of the deceased.
Mr Gardiner found himself in an invidious position on 16 March. He decided to take the easy option.
Monday, 2 July 2012
The inquest is opened and adjourned
In the post before last I quoted a paragraph in a letter from the Coroner to the Attorney General's office. Mr Gardiner explained how he was contacted by the police on the morning of the 18th July and it was agreed that a forensic pathologist should be called in and that Dr Hunt was selected to visit the scene and to carry out the post mortem.
In the next paragraph Mr Gardiner moves on to the post mortem itself and the opening of the inquest:
The body would then have been taken to the mortuary of the John Radcliffe Hospital where Dr Hunt would carry out the post mortem examination. I have no note of it but I am sure Dr Hunt telephoned me after he had concluded the macroscopic examination and would have indicated that the primary cause of death was likely to be haemorrhage as a result of incised wounds to the left wrist. Matters relating to the identification had been resolved and so I opened the inquest in open court on the 21st July; evidence as to Dr Hunt's view of the cause of death being given by my officer. The toxicology and histology tests were carried out very quickly and within a few days Dr Hunt was able to tell me that as a result he needed to expand on the cause of death by indicating that co-proximal and heart disease would be given as contributing causes.
As to the media recording the opening of the inquest the best report I've found so far is this from the Press Association in the Guardian of 22 July:
An inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly was opened and adjourned yesterday.
The Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, said the 59-year-old had died from an "incised wound" to the left wrist. He was awaiting the results of toxicology tests before releasing the body to the family for burial, the coroner's court in central Oxford heard. None of Dr Kelly's family attended the five-minute hearing.
Mr Gardiner gave the scientist's full name as David Christopher Kelly, saying he was born on May 14, 1944 in Pontypridd, South Wales.
He said Dr Kelly, of Southmoor, Oxfordshire, was a civil servant and married to Janice Kelly, a teacher.
The coroner added: "The circumstances were that he was reported missing on July 17 and on Friday July 18 he was found dead at Harrowdown Hill. "I think on Saturday his wife confirmed the ID to a coroner's officer. It had been confirmed circumstantially anyway."
Mr Gardiner said Dr Kelly's family had asked for a burial order as soon as possible.
He continued: "I understand that the pathologist gave the original cause of death as a haemorrhage due to an incised wound to the left wrist and the results of toxicology tests are still outstanding."
The coroner adjourned the inquest to an unspecified date.
He said he would sign the release form for the body as soon as he had the results of the tests, expected in the next few days.- Press Association
I have to say that I have concerns about Mr Gardiner here. He is quoted by the PA as saying "I think on Saturday his wife confirmed the ID to a coroner's officer. It had been confirmed circumstantially anyway". He isn't sure about this most basic detail ... the formal identication of the deceased! For a coroner to be so casual about such a fundamental takes my breath away!
It's interesting that in his letter Mr Gardiner states that it was his officer that gave evidence as to Dr Hunt's view as to the cause of death. My assumption would be that the evidence of Dr Hunt's view has to be delivered by a third person, certainly I would expect Mr Gardiner to have the 19th July post mortem in front of him. From the letter and the press report one would be led to believe that at that stage Dr Hunt hadn't considered that the heart disease was a contributory factor in the death. Hutton, in his opening statement on 1 August, also refers to the 19 July version of Dr Hunt's report and quotes Dr Hunt as saying:
In the next paragraph Mr Gardiner moves on to the post mortem itself and the opening of the inquest:
The body would then have been taken to the mortuary of the John Radcliffe Hospital where Dr Hunt would carry out the post mortem examination. I have no note of it but I am sure Dr Hunt telephoned me after he had concluded the macroscopic examination and would have indicated that the primary cause of death was likely to be haemorrhage as a result of incised wounds to the left wrist. Matters relating to the identification had been resolved and so I opened the inquest in open court on the 21st July; evidence as to Dr Hunt's view of the cause of death being given by my officer. The toxicology and histology tests were carried out very quickly and within a few days Dr Hunt was able to tell me that as a result he needed to expand on the cause of death by indicating that co-proximal and heart disease would be given as contributing causes.
As to the media recording the opening of the inquest the best report I've found so far is this from the Press Association in the Guardian of 22 July:
An inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly was opened and adjourned yesterday.
The Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, said the 59-year-old had died from an "incised wound" to the left wrist. He was awaiting the results of toxicology tests before releasing the body to the family for burial, the coroner's court in central Oxford heard. None of Dr Kelly's family attended the five-minute hearing.
Mr Gardiner gave the scientist's full name as David Christopher Kelly, saying he was born on May 14, 1944 in Pontypridd, South Wales.
He said Dr Kelly, of Southmoor, Oxfordshire, was a civil servant and married to Janice Kelly, a teacher.
The coroner added: "The circumstances were that he was reported missing on July 17 and on Friday July 18 he was found dead at Harrowdown Hill. "I think on Saturday his wife confirmed the ID to a coroner's officer. It had been confirmed circumstantially anyway."
Mr Gardiner said Dr Kelly's family had asked for a burial order as soon as possible.
He continued: "I understand that the pathologist gave the original cause of death as a haemorrhage due to an incised wound to the left wrist and the results of toxicology tests are still outstanding."
The coroner adjourned the inquest to an unspecified date.
He said he would sign the release form for the body as soon as he had the results of the tests, expected in the next few days.- Press Association
I have to say that I have concerns about Mr Gardiner here. He is quoted by the PA as saying "I think on Saturday his wife confirmed the ID to a coroner's officer. It had been confirmed circumstantially anyway". He isn't sure about this most basic detail ... the formal identication of the deceased! For a coroner to be so casual about such a fundamental takes my breath away!
It's interesting that in his letter Mr Gardiner states that it was his officer that gave evidence as to Dr Hunt's view as to the cause of death. My assumption would be that the evidence of Dr Hunt's view has to be delivered by a third person, certainly I would expect Mr Gardiner to have the 19th July post mortem in front of him. From the letter and the press report one would be led to believe that at that stage Dr Hunt hadn't considered that the heart disease was a contributory factor in the death. Hutton, in his opening statement on 1 August, also refers to the 19 July version of Dr Hunt's report and quotes Dr Hunt as saying:
"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."
This wording is the same as conclusion 11 in the published post mortem report of 25 July 2003. It seems to me that that particular conclusion is common to the two reports. However it looks to me as if "coronary artery atherosclorosis" (in conjunction with co-proxamol ingestion) was added as the secondary cause of death on the 25th. In other words on 19 July haemorrhage and incision of the left wrist was thought to be the sole cause of death.
Finally, assuming accurate recall on the part of Mr Gardiner, Dr Hunt contacted him before completing the autopsy to say he thought the primary cause of death would be haemorrhage. Exactly when that contact was made we don't know other than Dr Hunt had completed the macroscopic (ie eye level) examination by that time.
The formal identification of the body
This is a copy of a Freedom of Information request and response from the Thames Valley Police website:
This request, reference RFI2010000737, was received on Thursday 28 October 2010, 11:51am.
Question
1) Who formally identified the body of Dr. David Kelly (on or around 18th July 2003)?
2) On what date and time was formal identification carried out?
3) At what location was the body identified?
4) On whose authority and on what grounds was the person making formal identification of the body chosen?
Response
1) Dr Kelly’s body was formally identified by his widow, Janice Kelly.
2) 11:25am on Saturday 19th July 2003
3) Chapel of Rest – John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford
4) It is normal practice to use a close family member to provide the formal identification.
My understanding is that normally formal identification would be by looking at the face of the deceased. The mortuary technician would resew the skin where incisions had been made to examine the internal organs; I'm told that after this is done that the corpse is as presentable as it can be for viewing by one or more relatives. Dr Kelly's death was viewed as suspicious and Dr Hunt carried out a "special" post mortem going further in his examination than a pathologist normally would. As stated in my last post Dr Hunt dissected the facial soft tissues to the level of the bone. To add to Mrs Kelly's trauma she would have viewed her late husband's face hacked about in the way described.
With a suspicious death and following the examination at the scene by the pathologist then one would expect the autopsy at the mortuary to be carried out as soon as possible. In the case of Dr Kelly there would have been further time pressure because samples from the body were needed for the toxicologist. As stated in a previous post the toxicologist, Dr Allan, came in on the Saturday morning to conduct some tests although inexplicably his testing wasn't completed at this time.
We are told on the one hand that throughout the 18th Dr Hunt was viewing the death as potentially suspicious. Yet at the same time the police were telling Mrs Kelly that the death wasn't suspicious, that it was sadly a case of suicide.
It is a short distance from Southmoor to Oxford (about ten miles) so couldn't she have been taken to identify her huband at the Chapel of Rest before Dr Hunt started the post mortem?
The fact that the formal identification was delayed in the way it was may be more "cock up" than "conspiracy". It was nevertheless very unfortunate and to me suggests that the situation for Mrs Kelly was made even more awful than it needed to be.
The first involvement of the coroner
A body is found. The police are called. The death appears unusual. One of the first things for the police to do is to inform the coroner, in the case of Dr Kelly's death this was the Oxfordshire County Coroner Nicholas Gardiner.
A person who has been appointed as a coroner unsurprisingly has to have either a legal or medical background. In the most perfect of worlds they would have had some experience in both these disciplines. Mr Gardiner, now retired, came to his post via the legal route http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9556523.Coroner_calls_time_on_a_daily_date_with_death/
Dr Kelly died in unusual circumstances and it seems to me that Mr Gardiner would have been more dependent than usual on the reports from the forensic pathologist and toxicologist as to cause and mode of death.
I'm fascinated by the relationship between coroner, pathologist and the police, something I've thought about because of the death of Dr Kelly. Fundamentally the pathologist is answerable to the coroner and in our case Dr Hunt sent his reports to Mr Gardiner. Obviously the post mortem report is likely to be of great interest to the police. What I haven't investigated is, whether as a matter of protocol, the pathologist only writes to the coroner with him/her in turn passing the report to the police or whether the police are automatically copied in when the coroner is sent the report.
Having just written the last paragraph I now see on Dr Hunt's report published on the internet on 22 October 2010 the words: This is a confidential report to the coroner and should not be disclosed to a third party without his permission. The same report is on the Attorney General's website but recast as a police witness statement and thus doesn't include the reference to it being a confidential report to the coroner. I hope that this makes sense.
Mr Gardiner wrote to the Attorney General's office on 6 May 2011 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Gardiner%20to%20AGO%206%20May%202011.pdf
The specifics relating to the morning of the 18th are recorded in this paragraph:
To turn to this particular case the discovery of Dr Kelly's body was reported to me by the police on the morning of the 18th July. From the outset it was clear that this was going to be a high profile case. Amongst matters I would have discussed with the police at that point would have been the identity of the pathologist who would be carrying out the post mortem examination. We were both clear in our minds that this would have to be what is commonly called a Forensic Pathologist, that is one recognized by the Home Office, we decided that Dr Hunt would be appropriate. There are a number of facts governing this choice although the number of Home Office recognized pathologists is quite small and they are not always available. Dr Hunt was available and he actually lived locally and so was able to get to the scene quite quickly. As you know he did go to the scene and his observations are recorded.
On his first visit to the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September ACC Page said:
A person who has been appointed as a coroner unsurprisingly has to have either a legal or medical background. In the most perfect of worlds they would have had some experience in both these disciplines. Mr Gardiner, now retired, came to his post via the legal route http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9556523.Coroner_calls_time_on_a_daily_date_with_death/
Dr Kelly died in unusual circumstances and it seems to me that Mr Gardiner would have been more dependent than usual on the reports from the forensic pathologist and toxicologist as to cause and mode of death.
I'm fascinated by the relationship between coroner, pathologist and the police, something I've thought about because of the death of Dr Kelly. Fundamentally the pathologist is answerable to the coroner and in our case Dr Hunt sent his reports to Mr Gardiner. Obviously the post mortem report is likely to be of great interest to the police. What I haven't investigated is, whether as a matter of protocol, the pathologist only writes to the coroner with him/her in turn passing the report to the police or whether the police are automatically copied in when the coroner is sent the report.
Having just written the last paragraph I now see on Dr Hunt's report published on the internet on 22 October 2010 the words: This is a confidential report to the coroner and should not be disclosed to a third party without his permission. The same report is on the Attorney General's website but recast as a police witness statement and thus doesn't include the reference to it being a confidential report to the coroner. I hope that this makes sense.
Mr Gardiner wrote to the Attorney General's office on 6 May 2011 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Gardiner%20to%20AGO%206%20May%202011.pdf
The specifics relating to the morning of the 18th are recorded in this paragraph:
To turn to this particular case the discovery of Dr Kelly's body was reported to me by the police on the morning of the 18th July. From the outset it was clear that this was going to be a high profile case. Amongst matters I would have discussed with the police at that point would have been the identity of the pathologist who would be carrying out the post mortem examination. We were both clear in our minds that this would have to be what is commonly called a Forensic Pathologist, that is one recognized by the Home Office, we decided that Dr Hunt would be appropriate. There are a number of facts governing this choice although the number of Home Office recognized pathologists is quite small and they are not always available. Dr Hunt was available and he actually lived locally and so was able to get to the scene quite quickly. As you know he did go to the scene and his observations are recorded.
On his first visit to the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September ACC Page said:
We were very anxious, from the outset, to ensure the most thorough possible examination of the scene. I spoke to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Gardiner, and we agreed between us that we would use a Home Office pathologist, which is a very highly trained pathologist.
In his 2007 book Norman Baker states that there are 43 forensic pathologists on the Home Office register. Unless Dr Hunt had recently moved into the area then I suspect that he had conducted a large number of post mortems for Mr Gardiner. Rather like a retained fireman a pathologist has to be "on call" and one imagines that coroners are kept up to date regarding availability of pathologists, when they are on holiday, etc.
An earlier post described Dr Hunt's location when the police called him to attend the scene at Harrowdown Hill http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/dr-hunt-what-he-did-before-1410-1.html
In his report Dr Hunt states: 'The facial soft tissues were dissected to the level of the bone'. This has some relevance to my next post.
In his report Dr Hunt states: 'The facial soft tissues were dissected to the level of the bone'. This has some relevance to my next post.
Sunday, 1 July 2012
The 'Virgin Atlantic' pouch
A pouch, suitable it seems to house a mobile phone, was attached to the trouser belt. There's very little about it on the Hutton website but it gets a mention in this exchange between Mr Dingemans and paramedic Vanessa Hunt:
Q. And did you note whether or not he had a mobile phone?
A. There was a mobile phone pouch clipped to his belt on his front but slightly to the right side, but you could not see if there was a phone within the pouch or not.
Dr Hunt notes its presence, together with the belt, in his report under 'Clothing':
A brown leather belt with a white metal buckle which was done up at the waist. On the brown leather belt, over the right hip area, was a 'Virgin Atlantic', Velcro closed pouch. The Velcro was done up although the pouch flap was at something of an angle.
The two descriptions of the pouch position differ slightly; some people will say that this is just two witnesses effectively stating the same thing, alternatively I think that the pouch position might have shifted as a result of the body being moved to a small degree after the paramedics left the scene. This should NOT be confused with the very significant movement of the body away from the tree prior to the arrival of the ambulance team.
Dr Hunt correctly separates the belt and pouch in his exhibits list. Mr Green receives both these items amongst others at his laboratory on 25 July 2003. In his report Mr Green says:
He was dressed in brown hiking boots (NCH.4&5), beige socks (NCH.6&7), faded blue jeans (NCH.10) with a leather belt (NCH.8) that had a "Virgin Atlantic" pouch (NCH.9) attached at the front.
Mr Green and Dr Hunt are viewing the same scene so one saying the pouch was attached at the front, the other that it was over the right hip area shouldn't I suppose give cause for concern. Perhaps Vanessa Hunt was the most accurate of the three in her description!
Mr Green deals with the results of his testing of the pouch on page 13 of his report:
The belt (NCH.8) was made of tan coloured leather. This item was examined visually for the presence of bloodstaining but none was found.
Item NCH.9 was an empty pouch, which had been connected to the deceased's belt. The pouch was beige and black in colour and bore the "Virgin Atlantic" logo on the front. The pouch was closed with a Velcro flap. The outside of the flap bore a small contact stain and another small bloodstain was present on the right side of the pouch. Traces of bloodstaining were also observed on the Velcro under surface of the flap and the corresponding surface of the pouch. STR profiling of the blood under the flap produced a full profile, which matched that of Dr Kelly therefore this blood could have come from him. This finding tends to suggest that Dr Kelly was already injured at the time the pouch was opened.
I wouldn't like to say whether any of this blood on the pouch was seen at Harrowdown Hill or perhaps it was only noted when Mr Green gave the item a really close inspection a week later. How it came to be there is an interesting question, I would just mention again though that by the time Mr Green inspects the scene there appears to be more blood present than earlier ,,, for example the stain on the right knee is about 10 times bigger in area than when seen by the ambulance team and that there is now a pool of blood under the knife, a fact inexplicably missed by DC Coe as well as the paramedics.
There is plenty to consider regarding events at Harrowdown Hill on the 18th July. However I'm going to leave that for the moment and I'll explain some of my thoughts on the legal aspects of this business.
Q. And did you note whether or not he had a mobile phone?
A. There was a mobile phone pouch clipped to his belt on his front but slightly to the right side, but you could not see if there was a phone within the pouch or not.
Dr Hunt notes its presence, together with the belt, in his report under 'Clothing':
A brown leather belt with a white metal buckle which was done up at the waist. On the brown leather belt, over the right hip area, was a 'Virgin Atlantic', Velcro closed pouch. The Velcro was done up although the pouch flap was at something of an angle.
The two descriptions of the pouch position differ slightly; some people will say that this is just two witnesses effectively stating the same thing, alternatively I think that the pouch position might have shifted as a result of the body being moved to a small degree after the paramedics left the scene. This should NOT be confused with the very significant movement of the body away from the tree prior to the arrival of the ambulance team.
Dr Hunt correctly separates the belt and pouch in his exhibits list. Mr Green receives both these items amongst others at his laboratory on 25 July 2003. In his report Mr Green says:
He was dressed in brown hiking boots (NCH.4&5), beige socks (NCH.6&7), faded blue jeans (NCH.10) with a leather belt (NCH.8) that had a "Virgin Atlantic" pouch (NCH.9) attached at the front.
Mr Green and Dr Hunt are viewing the same scene so one saying the pouch was attached at the front, the other that it was over the right hip area shouldn't I suppose give cause for concern. Perhaps Vanessa Hunt was the most accurate of the three in her description!
Mr Green deals with the results of his testing of the pouch on page 13 of his report:
The belt (NCH.8) was made of tan coloured leather. This item was examined visually for the presence of bloodstaining but none was found.
Item NCH.9 was an empty pouch, which had been connected to the deceased's belt. The pouch was beige and black in colour and bore the "Virgin Atlantic" logo on the front. The pouch was closed with a Velcro flap. The outside of the flap bore a small contact stain and another small bloodstain was present on the right side of the pouch. Traces of bloodstaining were also observed on the Velcro under surface of the flap and the corresponding surface of the pouch. STR profiling of the blood under the flap produced a full profile, which matched that of Dr Kelly therefore this blood could have come from him. This finding tends to suggest that Dr Kelly was already injured at the time the pouch was opened.
I wouldn't like to say whether any of this blood on the pouch was seen at Harrowdown Hill or perhaps it was only noted when Mr Green gave the item a really close inspection a week later. How it came to be there is an interesting question, I would just mention again though that by the time Mr Green inspects the scene there appears to be more blood present than earlier ,,, for example the stain on the right knee is about 10 times bigger in area than when seen by the ambulance team and that there is now a pool of blood under the knife, a fact inexplicably missed by DC Coe as well as the paramedics.
There is plenty to consider regarding events at Harrowdown Hill on the 18th July. However I'm going to leave that for the moment and I'll explain some of my thoughts on the legal aspects of this business.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
The co-proxamol (1)
Before examining the evidence relating to the co-proxamol I think it's worth reminding ourselves first of all about Dr Hunt's conclusions on the subject.
Clothing
At the time of completing this report, I have been provided with the following verbal information by Dr Alexander Allan, a forensic toxicologist from Forensic Alliance Limited.
The levels of dextropropoxyphene and paracetamol in the blood were confirmed as above.
Conclusions
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.
13. The toxicology result indicates that prior to his death he had consumed a significant quantity of these tablets. The active ingredients of co-proxamol are paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene. The absolute levels of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene in the blood are not particularly high and may not ordinarily have caused death in their own right. In this particular case however, even these levels may be relevant as one must consider that dextropropoxyphene may cause death by its actions upon the heart leading to abnormalities of heart rhythm. Such abnormalities of heart rhythm are made all the more easy to induce if there is hypotension (low blood pressure) as the result of bleeding and underlying narrowing of the coronary arteries. In this case, both the latter factors would be operant.
14. Dextropropoxyphene is an opioid drug which is relatively rapidly absorbed into the blood following ingestion. It has an analgesic effect and hence would be expected to deaden the perception of pain due to injury, particularly when taken in the sort of amount seen here which is above the normal therapeutic range.
25. In summary, it is my opinion that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of David Kelly is the bleeding from the incised wounds to his left wrist. Had this not occurred he may well have not died at this time. Furthermore, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the ingestion of an excess number of co-proxamol tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery disease would both have played a part in bringing about death more certainly and more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case. Therefore I give as the cause of death:
1a. Haemorrhage
1b. Incised wounds to the left wrist
2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis
The extract above is from Dr Hunt's final report of 25 July 2003. He had made a preliminary report six days earlier on the 19th, in other words two days before Dr Allan's (first) formal statement. In his opening statement on 1 August Hutton states:
37. A post-mortem examination was carried out by Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist and his post-mortem report dated 19th July has been sent to me by the coroner. A toxicology report has also been sent to me by the coroner. 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."
Because he removed the three blister packs from the jacket pocket Dr Hunt ought to have considered at that time that co-proxamol might have been a contributor to the death. Perhaps he did but on the 19th the toxicology results from Dr Allan wouldn't be to hand. Therefore he, perhaps knowingly, produced a post mortem report that would likely have to be amended. The subject of the production of more than one post mortem report by a pathologist is one that will have to keep for another day; here though we have the situation of Dr Hunt initially providing a report for the coroner in which he doesn't refer to co-proxamol ingestion in the "cause of death".
Clothing
- A green 'Barbour' waxed jacket, which was undone at the zip and buttons at the front. A mobile telephone, pair of bi-focal spectacles, a key-fob and a total of 3 blister packs of co-proxamol (10 packs) were found in the bellows pocket on the front right panel of the jacket. Only one co-proxamol tablet remained in its blister pack.
At the time of completing this report, I have been provided with the following verbal information by Dr Alexander Allan, a forensic toxicologist from Forensic Alliance Limited.
- The blood sample contains the drug dextrpropoxyphene at a concentration of 1.0 micrograms per millilitre.
- The blood sample contains the drug paracetamol at a concentration of 97 micrograms per millilitre.
- Paracetamol is present in the stomach contents.
- No alcohol has been detected.
The levels of dextropropoxyphene and paracetamol in the blood were confirmed as above.
Conclusions
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.
13. The toxicology result indicates that prior to his death he had consumed a significant quantity of these tablets. The active ingredients of co-proxamol are paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene. The absolute levels of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene in the blood are not particularly high and may not ordinarily have caused death in their own right. In this particular case however, even these levels may be relevant as one must consider that dextropropoxyphene may cause death by its actions upon the heart leading to abnormalities of heart rhythm. Such abnormalities of heart rhythm are made all the more easy to induce if there is hypotension (low blood pressure) as the result of bleeding and underlying narrowing of the coronary arteries. In this case, both the latter factors would be operant.
14. Dextropropoxyphene is an opioid drug which is relatively rapidly absorbed into the blood following ingestion. It has an analgesic effect and hence would be expected to deaden the perception of pain due to injury, particularly when taken in the sort of amount seen here which is above the normal therapeutic range.
25. In summary, it is my opinion that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of David Kelly is the bleeding from the incised wounds to his left wrist. Had this not occurred he may well have not died at this time. Furthermore, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the ingestion of an excess number of co-proxamol tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery disease would both have played a part in bringing about death more certainly and more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case. Therefore I give as the cause of death:
1a. Haemorrhage
1b. Incised wounds to the left wrist
2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis
The extract above is from Dr Hunt's final report of 25 July 2003. He had made a preliminary report six days earlier on the 19th, in other words two days before Dr Allan's (first) formal statement. In his opening statement on 1 August Hutton states:
37. A post-mortem examination was carried out by Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist and his post-mortem report dated 19th July has been sent to me by the coroner. A toxicology report has also been sent to me by the coroner. 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."
Because he removed the three blister packs from the jacket pocket Dr Hunt ought to have considered at that time that co-proxamol might have been a contributor to the death. Perhaps he did but on the 19th the toxicology results from Dr Allan wouldn't be to hand. Therefore he, perhaps knowingly, produced a post mortem report that would likely have to be amended. The subject of the production of more than one post mortem report by a pathologist is one that will have to keep for another day; here though we have the situation of Dr Hunt initially providing a report for the coroner in which he doesn't refer to co-proxamol ingestion in the "cause of death".
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Were there factual errors in Dr Hunt's report?
Any post mortem report must be factually accurate ... I hope that is accepted. In the case of Dr Kelly's death there are grave doubts about whether Dr Hunt's report is 100% accurate as to the facts. I'm not talking about his interpretation of what he saw, it's the facts pure and simple that I want to discuss in this post.
In normal circumstances of course we wouldn't know whether the pathologist has recorded everything correctly, we just assume that is the case. Occasionally there is a death where the report of the pathologist is so obviously wrong that it finds its way into the public domain. A classic instance of this concerned the repatriated body of SAC Bridge wherein Dr Hunt evidently was reporting on the wrong body. http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dr-hunt-and-senior-aircraftman.html This could be seen as an exceptional case but does call into question whether Dr Hunt tended to be habitually careless - or was this a "one off"?
On 22 October 2010 Dr Hunt's final report, dated 25 July 2003, was published on the internet. Some of the facts he lists are of questionable accuracy as I shall now explain.
Update (8 Oct 2012)
It's been pointed out to me that it's very likely that Dr Hunt transposed the weights of the lungs. With the heart being on the left side of a human body the expectation I'm told is that the left lung would be somewhat smaller than the right. Dr Hunt appends these weights in his report: R Lung 368 gms, L Lung 475 gms.
In normal circumstances of course we wouldn't know whether the pathologist has recorded everything correctly, we just assume that is the case. Occasionally there is a death where the report of the pathologist is so obviously wrong that it finds its way into the public domain. A classic instance of this concerned the repatriated body of SAC Bridge wherein Dr Hunt evidently was reporting on the wrong body. http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dr-hunt-and-senior-aircraftman.html This could be seen as an exceptional case but does call into question whether Dr Hunt tended to be habitually careless - or was this a "one off"?
On 22 October 2010 Dr Hunt's final report, dated 25 July 2003, was published on the internet. Some of the facts he lists are of questionable accuracy as I shall now explain.
- Some very minor errors, not crucial perhaps but indicative of a somewhat casual approach: his statement consisted of 14 pages not 144; Dr Kelly's date of birth 14.5.44 immediately transposed to (15/05/1944); Dr Eileen Hickey was described as Eileen Hetty; logged in at the inner cordon by PC1971 Hayes, logged out by DC1971 Hayes.
- The only witness to record the right fist clenched over the right chest area. Others just refer to the right hand.
- Under "Bloodstaining and contamination on clothing" he writes 'There was bloodstaining visible over front of the right side of the shirt beneath the left hand, the palm of which was bloodstained'. I have to believe he meant the right hand.
- His left fist wasn't clenched, 'his left hand pointing down towards his feet'. Compare this with Mr Green's testimony at the Hutton Inquiry: 'He was on his back with his left wrist curled back in this sort of matter (Indicates)' Later I shall explain why the evidence points towards the left arm being repositioned relative to the body after the departure of the ambulance personnel.
- He writes 'He was of medium build. He weighed 59 kgs, and was approximately 170 cms tall'. It has been pointed out that this a surprisingly low weight for a person of that height, particularly when Dr Hunt says in his first conclusion 'The deceased was an apparently adequately nourished man'. Dr Shepherd states that his weight on his medical record checked 9 days before his death was 74 kg but Shepherd tries to close the gap by saying that the discrepancy was mainly due to the difference between clothed and unclothed weights together with the weight of the blood that was lost. Fifteen kg does seem too much of a difference to me! The weight of the body has a particular relevance in estimating time of death.
- Dr Hunt records the weight of Dr Kelly's liver as 136 gm, less than the weight of either kidney. That of course is ridiculous..
Update (8 Oct 2012)
It's been pointed out to me that it's very likely that Dr Hunt transposed the weights of the lungs. With the heart being on the left side of a human body the expectation I'm told is that the left lung would be somewhat smaller than the right. Dr Hunt appends these weights in his report: R Lung 368 gms, L Lung 475 gms.
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
Dr Hunt - what he did before 14.10 (3)
Mentioned in my last post was the fact that Dr Hunt confirmed the death at the scene at 12.35. His detailed examination with Mr Green commenced at 14.10. He withdrew from the scene and was away from it for just over one and a half hours. Did he use this time to advantage?
Frustratingly we don't know what he did in this time gap and he was never asked. This post is concerned with some things, in my opinion, he should have been doing and thinking about.
Frustratingly we don't know what he did in this time gap and he was never asked. This post is concerned with some things, in my opinion, he should have been doing and thinking about.
- He should have asked the police to find out about Dr Kelly's handedness in view of the injury to the left wrist. In a statement WPC Roberts (Family liaison officer) said that she asked this question of Sian Kelly on 19 July but it's not known if Dr Hunt was told http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_16_0001.pdf
- In view of Dr Kelly's job it was quite likely that there would be a history of medical tests by a government doctor. Any such reports and any similar from his GP should have been requested.
- If there was a possibility of suicide then the fact that the body wasn't leaning against a tree when he first saw it should have been something to think about. As DC Coe said to journalist Matt Sandy: 'As I got closer, I could see Dr Kelly's body sideways on, with his head and shoulders against a large tree. He wasn't dead flat along the ground. If you wanted to die, you'd never lie flat out. But neither was he sat upright.'
- The fact that there was blood on the Barbour cap off the body was another anomaly.
- Dr Hunt showed remarkably little interest in the open bottle of water. The fact is that it was very close to the left shoulder where, as the ambulance crew later remarked, it was surprising that it wasn't knocked over. To all intents and purposes it was impossible to reach from the body's position too.
Dr Hunt - what he did before 14.10 (2)
Dr Hunt starts his post mortem report as follows:
At approximately mid-day on 18th July 2003 (18/07/2003), at the request of Thames Valley Police, I attended the scene of a suspicious death near Longworth, Oxfordshire.
I was logged into the outer cordon of the scene at 12.00 (1200) hrs.
I approached the inner cordon via a farm track and field. I was logged into this cordon at 12.04 (1204) hrs by PC1971 Hayes.
On arrival I was met by DI Ashleigh Smith, Acting Principal SOCO, Mark Schollar and Senior SOCO John Sharpley.
DCI Young (the Senior Investigating Officer) was logged in at the outer cordon just minutes later at 12.06.
Dr Hunt goes on to describe being given brief background information by Mr Schollar http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
He is then shown a "scene video" by SOCO Andrew Hodgson. I seem to remember being critical of this in my earlier Dr Kelly blog. This still seems to me to be very wrong. It is essential in my opinion for the pathologist to first view the scene through his own eyes, he is the one who will write his report and make his judgements. He is a short distance from the scene, why not just get on with the job? Rant over.
Dr Hunt now confirms the fact of death:
Having met with the Senior Investigating Officer, DCI Young, I then proceeded to examine the body itself for the purposes of verifying the fact of his death.
The fact of death was confirmed at 12.35 hrs (1235).
There then followed a period of time during which a fingertip search was conducted of the common approach pathway and the arrival of the forensic biologist was awaited.
Moving on to "Scene Examination" Dr Hunt writes:
At 14.10 (1410) hrs I was logged back into the inner cordon by DC928 Riley in the company of Roy Green, Eileen Hetty and John Sharpley.
By the time I returned to the immediate scene a scene tent had been erected over the deceased.
The "Eileen Hetty" he refers to is evidently Dr Eileen Hickey, Mr Green's assistant.
Regarding the time of his being called out and his arrival at the scene Mr Green responds to Mr Dingemans as follows:
At approximately mid-day on 18th July 2003 (18/07/2003), at the request of Thames Valley Police, I attended the scene of a suspicious death near Longworth, Oxfordshire.
I was logged into the outer cordon of the scene at 12.00 (1200) hrs.
I approached the inner cordon via a farm track and field. I was logged into this cordon at 12.04 (1204) hrs by PC1971 Hayes.
On arrival I was met by DI Ashleigh Smith, Acting Principal SOCO, Mark Schollar and Senior SOCO John Sharpley.
DCI Young (the Senior Investigating Officer) was logged in at the outer cordon just minutes later at 12.06.
Dr Hunt goes on to describe being given brief background information by Mr Schollar http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
He is then shown a "scene video" by SOCO Andrew Hodgson. I seem to remember being critical of this in my earlier Dr Kelly blog. This still seems to me to be very wrong. It is essential in my opinion for the pathologist to first view the scene through his own eyes, he is the one who will write his report and make his judgements. He is a short distance from the scene, why not just get on with the job? Rant over.
Dr Hunt now confirms the fact of death:
Having met with the Senior Investigating Officer, DCI Young, I then proceeded to examine the body itself for the purposes of verifying the fact of his death.
The fact of death was confirmed at 12.35 hrs (1235).
There then followed a period of time during which a fingertip search was conducted of the common approach pathway and the arrival of the forensic biologist was awaited.
Moving on to "Scene Examination" Dr Hunt writes:
At 14.10 (1410) hrs I was logged back into the inner cordon by DC928 Riley in the company of Roy Green, Eileen Hetty and John Sharpley.
By the time I returned to the immediate scene a scene tent had been erected over the deceased.
The "Eileen Hetty" he refers to is evidently Dr Eileen Hickey, Mr Green's assistant.
Regarding the time of his being called out and his arrival at the scene Mr Green responds to Mr Dingemans as follows:
Q. And when was your first involvement?
A. May I refer to my notes, if that is all right?
Q. Yes, of course.
A. I received a phone call on 18th July.
Q. At what time, morning, evening?
A. It was around about dinner time.
Q. Around about?
A. Dinner time.
Q. What did you do as a result of that?
A. May I refer to my notes, if that is all right?
Q. Yes, of course.
A. I received a phone call on 18th July.
Q. At what time, morning, evening?
A. It was around about dinner time.
Q. Around about?
A. Dinner time.
Q. What did you do as a result of that?
A. I attended Harrowdown Hill accompanied by one of my colleagues.
Q. What was the name of your colleague?
Q. What was the name of your colleague?
A. Dr Eileen Hickey.
One has to assume I think that the call to Mr Green was made as a result of the discussion between Hunt and Young. Never mind public perceptions: death from incised wrist wounds is exceptionally rare and there is no evidence from Dr Hunt to say that he had come across such a case before. I don't know whether it was he or DCI Young who suggested that a forensic expert (with a special knowledge of bloodstaining for instance) should attend. What it did mean was a delay of about an hour and a half before the forensic examination of the body and its very immediate surroundings really began. It would be understandable that Dr Hunt would want to await Mr Green's arrival. I suspect that some of Dr Hunt's observations in his report had originally come from Mr Green.
Dr Hunt - what he did before 14.10 (1)
Dr Kelly's body was discovered at about 9.15 on the morning of Friday 18 July 2003. It was though nearly three hours before the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt arrived at Harrowdown Hill and then two more hours before the examination of the scene started in earnest. It is self evidently a matter of commonsense that the pathologist should start his investigation as soon as possible.
On page 27 of his book Norman Baker makes some criticism about the time it took for Dr Hunt to arrive. However I feel he is being a little unfair on Hunt ... unless Mr Baker is party to some information that I haven't yet seen. Critically, I don't know when on that morning Dr Hunt was contacted and asked to attend the scene.
We have a little information from the coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, who, in a letter to Kevin McGinty at the Attorney General's Office dated 6 May 2011 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Gardiner%20to%20AGO%206%20May%202011.pdf included this:
To turn to this particular case the discovery of Dr Kelly's body was reported to me by the police on the morning of 18th July. From the outset it was clear that this was going to be a high profile case. Amongst matters I would have discussed with the police at that point would have been the identity of the pathologist who would be carrying out the post mortem examination. We were both clear in our minds that this would have to be what is commonly called a Forensic Pathologist, that is one recognized by the Home Office, we decided that Dr Hunt would be appropriate. There are a number of factors governing this choice although the number of Home Office recognized pathologists is quite small and they are not always available. Dr Hunt was available and he actually lived locally and so was able to get to the scene quite quickly. As you know he did go to the scene and his observations are recorded.
When ACC Page attended the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September he told Mr Dingemans:
On page 27 of his book Norman Baker makes some criticism about the time it took for Dr Hunt to arrive. However I feel he is being a little unfair on Hunt ... unless Mr Baker is party to some information that I haven't yet seen. Critically, I don't know when on that morning Dr Hunt was contacted and asked to attend the scene.
We have a little information from the coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, who, in a letter to Kevin McGinty at the Attorney General's Office dated 6 May 2011 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Gardiner%20to%20AGO%206%20May%202011.pdf included this:
To turn to this particular case the discovery of Dr Kelly's body was reported to me by the police on the morning of 18th July. From the outset it was clear that this was going to be a high profile case. Amongst matters I would have discussed with the police at that point would have been the identity of the pathologist who would be carrying out the post mortem examination. We were both clear in our minds that this would have to be what is commonly called a Forensic Pathologist, that is one recognized by the Home Office, we decided that Dr Hunt would be appropriate. There are a number of factors governing this choice although the number of Home Office recognized pathologists is quite small and they are not always available. Dr Hunt was available and he actually lived locally and so was able to get to the scene quite quickly. As you know he did go to the scene and his observations are recorded.
When ACC Page attended the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September he told Mr Dingemans:
We were very anxious, from the outset, to ensure the most thorough possible examination of the scene. I spoke to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Gardiner, and we agreed between us that we would use a Home Office pathologist, which is a very highly trained pathologist.
A little earlier he had said this:
Q. Having received the information about Dr Kelly's body being found, did you go to the scene?
A. No, I did not.
Q. What happened after that information had come to your attention?
A. No, I did not.
Q. What happened after that information had come to your attention?
A. Well, from my perspective I appointed a senior investigating officer [DCI Alan Young], a man who would, if you like, carry out the technical issues around the investigation. I met fairly quickly with my Chief Constable [Peter Neyroud] and we decided what levels of resourcing and what levels of investigation we should apply to these circumstances.
I would have thought that ACC Page would have contacted the coroner sooner than later and would suggest that the initial conversation between them would have occurred by 10 o'clock. It must be remembered that finding the body wasn't totally a "bolt from the blue", significant resources were already available as a result of what had been a missing person investigation.
In the "Dr Hunt interview" in the Sunday Times of 22 August 2010 the first sentence reads 'On July 18, 2003, Nicholas Hunt was conducting a case review at the National Crime Faculty in Bramshill, Hampshire, when he
took a phone call that still weighs heavily upon him.' Dr Hunt would, I think, have been here http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10755.htm Looking at one internet source it seems that the drive from Bramshill to Harrowdown Hill would take a little over an hour, say an hour and a quarter. My assumption (and hope) is that Dr Hunt carries his forensic suit and other necessary gear in his car.
Possibly Mr Baker does have a point: what we don't know is just when TVP spoke to Dr Hunt and whether the latter decided to complete his "case review" before making his way to the site where Dr Kelly's body had been located.
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
Livor mortis and rigor mortis
Two of the physical changes that happen following death are called livor mortis (or hypostasis) and the better known rigor mortis. These are explanations for these features:
In his report Dr Hunt records the following information:
Rigor mortis
At approximately 17.30 hrs (1730) following the tapings and swabs I was able to examine the body more fully and I noted that rigor mortis was fully established in all muscle groups.
Then at the mortuary -
Post mortem changes
Medical commentators have pointed out that the presence of hypostasis is another indicator of insufficient blood loss to account for a death from haemorrhage.
livor mortis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livor_mortis
rigor mortis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortisIn his report Dr Hunt records the following information:
Rigor mortis
At approximately 17.30 hrs (1730) following the tapings and swabs I was able to examine the body more fully and I noted that rigor mortis was fully established in all muscle groups.
Then at the mortuary -
Post mortem changes
- Rigor mortis was still firmly established in all muscle groups
- The primary pattern of hypostasis was entirely posterior with blanching over mid-back and buttocks
- Hypostasis was still mobile and shifted anteriorly on turning the body.
- It was noted that hypostasis was generally weakly developed.
Medical commentators have pointed out that the presence of hypostasis is another indicator of insufficient blood loss to account for a death from haemorrhage.
Other signs of injuries/marks on the body
Following on from the injuries to the left wrist described in Dr Hunt's report and the subject of my last post there is a section starting at the bottom of page 6 headed "Other signs of injury/marks upon the body." Again I'll leave the reader to make his or her way through it http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
Briefly it covers three minor areas of abrasion on the left side of the head, one minor lesion in the left lower limb and three lesions in the right lower limb. There was also an area of reddish discolouration on the upper part of the left calf/shin.
The fact that he noted these particular features and recorded them is fine but his conclusion about the presence of the abrasions in particular takes some believing. These are conclusions 17 and 18 in his report:
17. The minor abrasions over the head are entirely consistent with scraping against rough undergrowth such as the small twigs, branches and stones which were present at the scene.
18. The minor reddened lesions on the lower limbs are typical of areas of minor hair follicle irritation.
This is what he said in response to questioning from Mr Knox at the Inquiry:
Q. Did you see any other signs of injury or marks on the body?
A. I did. Over the left side of his head there were three minor abrasions or grazes to his scalp, and of course that part of his head was relatively close to undergrowth. In addition to that --
LORD HUTTON: Were those abrasions consistent with having been in contact with the undergrowth?
A. They were entirely, my Lord; particularly branches, pebbles and the like. There was no bruising deep to those, I should add, at this stage.
MR KNOX: Were there any other injuries or bruises?
A. Yes. Those were only revealed during the dissection part of the examination. There was a bruise below the left knee. There were two bruises below the right knee over the shin and there were two bruises over the left side of his chest. All of these were small and affected the skin but not the deeper tissues.
Q. Would you be able to say how those bruises or injuries could have occurred?
A. They would have occurred following a blunt impact against any firm object and it would not have to be a particularly heavy impact. They may be caused -- some of them may have been caused as Dr Kelly was stumbling, if you like, at the scene. They may have been caused well before he got to the woods. It is not possible to age them so precisely.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Briefly it covers three minor areas of abrasion on the left side of the head, one minor lesion in the left lower limb and three lesions in the right lower limb. There was also an area of reddish discolouration on the upper part of the left calf/shin.
The fact that he noted these particular features and recorded them is fine but his conclusion about the presence of the abrasions in particular takes some believing. These are conclusions 17 and 18 in his report:
17. The minor abrasions over the head are entirely consistent with scraping against rough undergrowth such as the small twigs, branches and stones which were present at the scene.
18. The minor reddened lesions on the lower limbs are typical of areas of minor hair follicle irritation.
This is what he said in response to questioning from Mr Knox at the Inquiry:
Q. Did you see any other signs of injury or marks on the body?
A. I did. Over the left side of his head there were three minor abrasions or grazes to his scalp, and of course that part of his head was relatively close to undergrowth. In addition to that --
LORD HUTTON: Were those abrasions consistent with having been in contact with the undergrowth?
A. They were entirely, my Lord; particularly branches, pebbles and the like. There was no bruising deep to those, I should add, at this stage.
MR KNOX: Were there any other injuries or bruises?
A. Yes. Those were only revealed during the dissection part of the examination. There was a bruise below the left knee. There were two bruises below the right knee over the shin and there were two bruises over the left side of his chest. All of these were small and affected the skin but not the deeper tissues.
Q. Would you be able to say how those bruises or injuries could have occurred?
A. They would have occurred following a blunt impact against any firm object and it would not have to be a particularly heavy impact. They may be caused -- some of them may have been caused as Dr Kelly was stumbling, if you like, at the scene. They may have been caused well before he got to the woods. It is not possible to age them so precisely.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR KNOX: If you move on to conclusion 18.
A. Certainly. The minor reddened lesions on the lower limbs are typical of areas of minor hair follicle irritation or skin irritation, so they were not injuries in particular. They were not puncture wounds. (My emphasis)
Dr Hunt seems to me to have turned his speculation about Dr Kelly stumbling around at the scene and banging his head almost into fact. Other commentators have made the point that it would be unlikely that Dr Kelly who was an experienced walker and knew the area well would be having such collisions. Was Dr Hunt in a position where he had to come up with some explanation, no matter how implausible or was there some other (hidden) reason for the abrasions and bruising.
If he was sure that the lesions weren't puncture wounds it's perhaps a little strange he didn't clarify this point in his report also.
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.
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
The blood: the blood on Dr Kelly's boots and socks
There was blood on Dr Kelly's boots and socks as noted by Mr Green in his statement:
Footwear: Items NCH.4&5 were a pair of "Timberland" hiking boots. The right boot (NCH.4) bore a few small bloodstains on the heel and over the inner aspect. (The inner aspect of a pair of shoes are the sides that would face one another when they are worn as a pair, whilst the outer aspects would face away from each other). There was a directional bloodstain that appeared to have originated from the right of the shoe; a full STR profile was obtained from this stain that matched the profile of Dr Kelly. The left boot (NCH.5) bore bloodstaining on the top of the inner aspect of the ankle surround. The heaviest stain was selected for STR profiling tests, which showed that this blood could have come from Dr Kelly.
Items NCH.6 and 7 were a pair of beige socks. Both socks bore bloodstains on the ankle part of the socks. None of these stains were selected for STR profiling.
Dr Hunt just describes the items:
There is no evidence of Hutton seeing Mr Green's report so here again it seems that there was an oddity which was not discussed.
Footwear: Items NCH.4&5 were a pair of "Timberland" hiking boots. The right boot (NCH.4) bore a few small bloodstains on the heel and over the inner aspect. (The inner aspect of a pair of shoes are the sides that would face one another when they are worn as a pair, whilst the outer aspects would face away from each other). There was a directional bloodstain that appeared to have originated from the right of the shoe; a full STR profile was obtained from this stain that matched the profile of Dr Kelly. The left boot (NCH.5) bore bloodstaining on the top of the inner aspect of the ankle surround. The heaviest stain was selected for STR profiling tests, which showed that this blood could have come from Dr Kelly.
Items NCH.6 and 7 were a pair of beige socks. Both socks bore bloodstains on the ankle part of the socks. None of these stains were selected for STR profiling.
Dr Hunt just describes the items:
Clothing
- A pair of beige socks
- A pair of walking-type boots, brown leather, with the laces done up in double bows
There is no evidence of Hutton seeing Mr Green's report so here again it seems that there was an oddity which was not discussed.
Monday, 11 June 2012
The blood: the blood on Dr Kelly's clothing (3)
This post will focus on what was reported about Dr Kelly's shirt
The shirt
Mr Green
He wore a striped shirt (NCH.18), that was partly unbuttoned, exposing his chest and over this was a green Barbour waxed jacket (NCH.17).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The shirt (NCH.18) had short sleeves and had buttons up the centre front. There were light contact smears of blood over the right side and collar. A few small heavier bloodstains were present on the upper front of the shirt. Contact bloodstains were present over much of the back of the left sleeve. This bloodstaining could be accounted for by transfer of blood from the inside of the left sleeve of the Barbour jacket on to the shirt.
A few small heavy bloodstains were found on the back of the right sleeve. These stains had not originated from the jacket and the jacket would have covered these areas when it was worn. STR profiling showed that this blood could have come from Dr Kelly. In my opinion the staining on the back of the right sleeve occurred when the garment was removed from the body of the deceased and therefore is of no evidential significance.
Dr Hunt
Clothing
The shirt
Mr Green
He wore a striped shirt (NCH.18), that was partly unbuttoned, exposing his chest and over this was a green Barbour waxed jacket (NCH.17).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The shirt (NCH.18) had short sleeves and had buttons up the centre front. There were light contact smears of blood over the right side and collar. A few small heavier bloodstains were present on the upper front of the shirt. Contact bloodstains were present over much of the back of the left sleeve. This bloodstaining could be accounted for by transfer of blood from the inside of the left sleeve of the Barbour jacket on to the shirt.
A few small heavy bloodstains were found on the back of the right sleeve. These stains had not originated from the jacket and the jacket would have covered these areas when it was worn. STR profiling showed that this blood could have come from Dr Kelly. In my opinion the staining on the back of the right sleeve occurred when the garment was removed from the body of the deceased and therefore is of no evidential significance.
Dr Hunt
Clothing
- A blue, grey and white-striped shirt; the upper four buttons of which were undone. The shirt had been left slightly open to expose the upper chest area and an ECG electrode pad was visible over the left, upper chest.
- There was bloodstaining visible over front of the right side of the shirt beneath the left hand, the palm of which was bloodstained.
- Mr Green sees some bloodstains on the upper front of the shirt. Do these match up with the blood on the palm of the right hand? According to Dr Hunt though, and contrary to other witnesses the right fist was clenched over the right chest area. More thoughts later on the right arm/hand.
- Dave Bartlett in his interview with Matt Sandy and published on 12 September 2010 said there were 'a few specks on his shirt'. Perhaps this is the blood just referred to and became visible when the right hand was lifted from the chest area.
- Mr Green gives a possible reason for the presence of the few small heavy bloodstains on the back of the right sleeve. This is difficult to believe but unless the jacket was put on after the blood arrived there then it is difficult to think of an alternative explanation.
- Mr Green records the fact that it was a short sleeved shirt. I can only think that it was a mistake on the part of Dr Hunt to refer to the left hand over the right side of the shirt.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)