The co-proxamol (6)

Now I want to highlight a few miscellaneous points not covered in the previous five posts.

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

The knife - summarising my observations

The last seven posts on this blog have been concerned with the knife found close to the body at Harrowdown Hill.  Here is a summary of my thoughts on this particular aspect of the Dr Kelly mystery:

• There is general agreement in the description of the knife by witnesses.  An exception is DC Coe who, in the Mail on Sunday, stated that it had a wooden handle.
• The searchers fail to mention the presence of the knife.  They aren't asked about it either.
• The ambulance crew report the presence of the knife but don't talk of blood on it.  Nor do they observe a pool of blood under the knife.
• DC Coe states at the Hutton Inquiry that the watch was on top of the knife.  This was subsequently interpreted from photographic evidence as part of the watchstrap lying on the handle of the knife.  Despite this observation by DC Coe he fails to note the pool of blood under the knife.  In fact he states in the Mail on Sunday 'On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any'
• My belief is that the knife and watch were repositioned after being seen by the ambulance crew (I'll explain the reasoning later).  This might readily explain why neither Dr Hunt nor Mr Green see the watchstrap partly over the knife handle.
• The description of the knife demonstrates that it was totally unsuitable for the incision of the ulnar artery.  Ideally a very sharp straight blade with a knobbly sort of handle for good grip would be used, the traditional style of "Stanley" knife then would be much better than a pruning knife.
• Dr Hunt records the presence of crushed edges to the wrist wound which suggests that the knife wasn't very sharp.
• In 2010 Tom Mangold makes a comment about gaffer-tape on the handle of the knife contrary to previous recorded evidence.  The gaffer-tape story appears to have been brought into play to explain why fingerprints weren't recorded on the knife; when asked Mangold refuses to explain how the gaffer-tape story originated.
• The official narrative has the knife normally in a draw in Dr Kelly's study.  The implication from this it seems is that Dr Kelly took it from the drawer before he started his last walk thus lending some credence to the suicide hypothesis.
• Lord Hutton mentions comment about the knife by daughters Rachel and Ellen in his Report.  However the only oral evidence from the family about the knife came from Mrs Kelly.
• Mai Pederson believed that she had seen the knife and that Dr Kelly habitually carried it in a pocket of his Barbour jacket.

Mai Pederson and the knife

There is a fascinating article by Sharon Churcher who interviews Dr Kelly's friend Mai Pederson: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050919/David-Kellys-closest-female-confidante-COULDNT-killed-himself.html  For the purpose of this post I'll just look at what Ms Pederson said about the knife, or at least a knife:

Ms Pederson said she believed she was familiar with the knife Dr Kelly is said to have used. 

‘He always wore a Barbour jacket and he kept a knife in his pocket,’ she said. ‘It had a folding blade and I remember him telling me he couldn’t sharpen it because his right hand didn’t have the strength to hold a sharpener. 

The date of the article is 31 August 2008.

Make of this what you will but seemingly Ms Pederson is contradicting the evidence given by Mrs Kelly that the knife was normally kept in a draw.