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.
Showing posts with label Mr Green. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mr Green. Show all posts
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Friday, 29 June 2012
The mobile phone - finding and testing
When Dr Hunt checked the pockets of Dr Kelly's Barbour jacket at the scene he finds, among other things in the front bellows pocket, a nokia mobile phone. In his first visit to the Inquiry on 3 September ACC Page refers to items found by Dr Hunt and says:
A. Again when the body had been moved he found Dr Kelly's mobile phone.
Q. Do you know whether that was on or not?
A. My recollection is that when found it was off.
A pouch for a mobile phone was also found on the body; this will be discussed in a later post.
Mr Green states that he received swabs from the mobile phone in his laboratory on 28 July and reports as follows:
Mobile telephone: Swabs from the ear area (SART.1) and the mouth area (SART.2) of the mobile telephone, which was recovered from the jacket pocket, were examined for the presence of bloodstaining but none was found. Attempts to obtain an STR profile from these swabs were unsuccessful.
On 29 July the mobile phone (and other items) were tested by Fingerprint Development Technician Rennee Gilliland but no marks were recovered from it.
Further testing is described in Annex TVP 5 on the Attorney General's website http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%205.pdf
The mobile phone was tested by police officers on the 17th September 2003 to check it was functioning correctly. To achieve this officers took the phone back to Harrowdown Hill and performed several functions to ensure the phone was operating correctly. The phone was undamaged and in working order.
It's an interesting time gap between fingerprint checking and seeing if the phone was operational ... almost as if this last mentioned procedure was a late afterthought.
A. Again when the body had been moved he found Dr Kelly's mobile phone.
Q. Do you know whether that was on or not?
A. My recollection is that when found it was off.
A pouch for a mobile phone was also found on the body; this will be discussed in a later post.
Mr Green states that he received swabs from the mobile phone in his laboratory on 28 July and reports as follows:
Mobile telephone: Swabs from the ear area (SART.1) and the mouth area (SART.2) of the mobile telephone, which was recovered from the jacket pocket, were examined for the presence of bloodstaining but none was found. Attempts to obtain an STR profile from these swabs were unsuccessful.
On 29 July the mobile phone (and other items) were tested by Fingerprint Development Technician Rennee Gilliland but no marks were recovered from it.
Further testing is described in Annex TVP 5 on the Attorney General's website http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%205.pdf
The mobile phone was tested by police officers on the 17th September 2003 to check it was functioning correctly. To achieve this officers took the phone back to Harrowdown Hill and performed several functions to ensure the phone was operating correctly. The phone was undamaged and in working order.
It's an interesting time gap between fingerprint checking and seeing if the phone was operational ... almost as if this last mentioned procedure was a late afterthought.
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 (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.
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.
The blood: the blood on Dr Kelly's clothing (2)
In my last post I recorded the evidence of blood on Dr Kelly's Barbour jacket ... as seen through the eyes of Mr Green and Dr Hunt in their reports. Now I want to do the same thing in discussing the blood seen on Dr Kelly's jeans. It will be noticed that there are some unexplained peculiarities.
The jeans
Mr Green
The right knee of the jeans bore a roughly circular contact bloodstain that was approximately 8 cm in diameter. This showed that at sometime during the incident and after the deceased had sustained an injury to his wrist he had knelt in a pool of blood. One such area of bloodstaining was visible by the left hip of the deceased. This area of bloodstaining was sampled as item AMH.29, STR profiling of the blood on this swab produced a full profile which matched that of Dr Kelly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. What about on his face, were there any marks or stains on his clothes?
A. His jeans -- he was wearing jeans, they were pulled up slightly, exposing the lower half of his leg or his ankle. It looked as if he had slid down and his trousers had ridden up. I believe on the right-hand knee there was a patch of what I took to be blood, but I do not know what it was, but it had the appearance of blood.
The two paramedics have a very different recollection to about the size of the stain on the right knee of the jeans when compared with Mr Green's description:
Dave Bartlett (at the Hutton Inquiry): 'about 25 mm across'
Vanessa Hunt (interview in the Observer) 'the size of a 50p piece'
Dave Bartlett (interview in the Mail on Sunday) 'a spot the size of a 10p'
These three descriptions by the paramedics are essentially identical.
My thoughts
The jeans
Mr Green
The right knee of the jeans bore a roughly circular contact bloodstain that was approximately 8 cm in diameter. This showed that at sometime during the incident and after the deceased had sustained an injury to his wrist he had knelt in a pool of blood. One such area of bloodstaining was visible by the left hip of the deceased. This area of bloodstaining was sampled as item AMH.29, STR profiling of the blood on this swab produced a full profile which matched that of Dr Kelly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Item NCH.10 was a faded pair of blue jeans. The jeans bore a large contact bloodstain just below the right knee area, which measured approximately 8 cm in diameter. Although the stain was below the right knee in my opinion if the right leg of the jeans had rucked up slightly this area could have covered the right knee. STR profiling of this stain confirmed the presence of blood that could have come from Dr David Kelly. Therefore this bloodstain could have been the result of Dr Kelly kneeling in a pool of his own blood.
A diluted bloodstain of a similar size was present on the left leg below the level of the large contact bloodstain described above and more towards the left side of the leg. Small bloodstains were present over the thigh areas of both legs and several smeared contact stains were present on the upper front right, between the right pocket and the fly area. STR profiling of one of these stains gave a full STR profile, which matched that of Dr David Kelly. So this blood could have come from him. Smears of blood were present on the back of the lower left leg. A few small stains were present on the lower right leg also, together with small contact stains on the right seat.
Dr Hunt
Clothing
- A pair of blue denim jeans, the zip of which was done up. The left leg of the jeans was pulled up to approximately mid-calf level. The right leg was pulled up to just above the ankle.
- There was some bloodstaining over the right groin area and over the tops of both thighs
- There was a heavier patch of bloodstaining over the right knee area. Also in this area was greenish material.
- There was a patch of light bloodstaining over the inner aspect of the right knee.
Q. What about on his face, were there any marks or stains on his clothes?
A. His jeans -- he was wearing jeans, they were pulled up slightly, exposing the lower half of his leg or his ankle. It looked as if he had slid down and his trousers had ridden up. I believe on the right-hand knee there was a patch of what I took to be blood, but I do not know what it was, but it had the appearance of blood.
The two paramedics have a very different recollection to about the size of the stain on the right knee of the jeans when compared with Mr Green's description:
Dave Bartlett (at the Hutton Inquiry): 'about 25 mm across'
Vanessa Hunt (interview in the Observer) 'the size of a 50p piece'
Dave Bartlett (interview in the Mail on Sunday) 'a spot the size of a 10p'
These three descriptions by the paramedics are essentially identical.
My thoughts
- As one would expect the descriptions of blood on the jeans is more detailed in Mr Green's statement than those recorded in Dr Hunt's report.
- The diluted bloodstain noted by Mr Green on the left leg isn't mentioned by Dr Hunt. This suggests that it may not have been apparent until close inspection and testing was carried out at the laboratory.
- Mr Green doesn't try to explain the presence of the diluted bloodstain. Perhaps Dr Kelly had had some mishap previously leading to this bloodstain and there had been an unsuccessful attempt at washing it off.
- Apart from the bloodstain on the right knee the remaining blood spots and stains on the jeans appear to be such that because of their size or location they wouldn't be readily visible to the paramedics.
- Similarly PC Sawyer notes the stain on the right knee only.
- Surprisingly Mr Green makes no reference to the greenish material that Dr Hunt reported.
- The bloodstain seen by Mr Green on the right knee is approximately TEN times bigger in area than that reported by the paramedics. Is this credible unless blood has been added? I don't believe so. At 8 cm in diameter it would cover virtually the whole of the kneecap.
- There is no evidence that Hutton ever read Mr Green's report although it was available to the Inquiry which is not the same thing as being sent there. For Hutton to arrive at a conclusion regarding Dr Kelly's death without reference to Mr Green's detailed findings is quite ridiculous. The coroner, Nicolas Gardiner, wasn't privy to any evidence, written or spoken, from Mr Green before the death was registered on 18 August 2003.
Sunday, 10 June 2012
The blood: the blood on Dr Kelly's clothing (1)
In this post I am starting to note the details of the blood on Dr Kelly's clothing at Harrowdown Hill using the published reports of Mr Green and Dr Hunt.
Dr Hunt's observations should be the more comprehensive as he is the specialist when it comes to bloodstains and he also tested the clothing in the laboratory. Mr Green and Dr Hunt were working together at the scene so it's possible that Dr Hunt didn't notice all the bloodstains that he records in his report, perhaps Mr Green pointed them out. I might I know be doing Dr Hunt a disservice here, I'm just mentioning a possibility, not necessarily a probability.
The Barbour jacket
Mr Green:
Bloodstaining was evident on the waxed jacket (NCH.17), which was unfastened and tucked up under him so that the centre front was under the injured wrist. Heavy sprays of blood were present on the lower left sleeve area, which appears to be in keeping with the injuries. A heavy bloodstain surrounded by spots of blood was observed on the right elbow area. In my opinion this blood is likely to have sprayed onto the elbow from the injury, perhaps when one or more of the cuts were made. If this was how it became bloodstained it would mean that at least one of the cuts would have to involve a motion where the right elbow passed across the injury to the left wrist. This action could also have occurred when the deceased reached for the Evian water bottle.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The coat was heavily bloodstained especially over the lower left sleeve and lower front where there were splashes of blood that were in keeping with Dr Kelly's injuries. There was also heavy bloodstaining on the inside of the left sleeve which appeared to have run down the deceased's arm and into the sleeve.
Heavy bloodstains were present on the lower right sleeve and what appeared to be an arterial spurt was present on the back of this sleeve. STR profiling of this stain gave a full profile matching that of Dr Kelly so this blood could have come from him. Bloodstaining was also present over the front right and on the collar. There was very little bloodstaining over the back of the garment (except for the sleeves).
Dr Hunt:
Bloodstaining and contamination on clothing
Dr Hunt's observations should be the more comprehensive as he is the specialist when it comes to bloodstains and he also tested the clothing in the laboratory. Mr Green and Dr Hunt were working together at the scene so it's possible that Dr Hunt didn't notice all the bloodstains that he records in his report, perhaps Mr Green pointed them out. I might I know be doing Dr Hunt a disservice here, I'm just mentioning a possibility, not necessarily a probability.
The Barbour jacket
Mr Green:
Bloodstaining was evident on the waxed jacket (NCH.17), which was unfastened and tucked up under him so that the centre front was under the injured wrist. Heavy sprays of blood were present on the lower left sleeve area, which appears to be in keeping with the injuries. A heavy bloodstain surrounded by spots of blood was observed on the right elbow area. In my opinion this blood is likely to have sprayed onto the elbow from the injury, perhaps when one or more of the cuts were made. If this was how it became bloodstained it would mean that at least one of the cuts would have to involve a motion where the right elbow passed across the injury to the left wrist. This action could also have occurred when the deceased reached for the Evian water bottle.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The coat was heavily bloodstained especially over the lower left sleeve and lower front where there were splashes of blood that were in keeping with Dr Kelly's injuries. There was also heavy bloodstaining on the inside of the left sleeve which appeared to have run down the deceased's arm and into the sleeve.
Heavy bloodstains were present on the lower right sleeve and what appeared to be an arterial spurt was present on the back of this sleeve. STR profiling of this stain gave a full profile matching that of Dr Kelly so this blood could have come from him. Bloodstaining was also present over the front right and on the collar. There was very little bloodstaining over the back of the garment (except for the sleeves).
Dr Hunt:
Bloodstaining and contamination on clothing
- There was some bloodstaining over the right elbow region and also over the right shoulder region of the waxed jacket.
- There was heavy bloodstaining over the left arm, including that part which was within the jacket at the scene.
- Dirt and bloodstaining over the back of the left elbow
- Bloodstaining over the back of the left elbow
- I'm assuming for the moment that no blood was added to the jacket after the ambulance team left the scene.
- I have no direct knowledge on this but wonder if bloodstains on a Barbour waxed jacket would be so obviously visible to a casual inspection as say similar stains on a shirt or jeans. This may be partly why Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett didn't describe the bloodstains on the jacket.
- Mr Green states that the waxed jacket was 'tucked up under him so that the centre front was under the injured wrist'. No other witness report this, in fact Vanessa Hunt has the left arm outstretched to the left in her visit to the Inquiry. Why didn't Dr Hunt note this very important detail? It would surely have shown up on Mr McGee's photos too so Hutton should have been aware.
- The ambulance crew describe the left sleeve being pulled up toward the elbow. With a certain amount of rucking then the staining on the lower part of the sleeve would be far less evident I suggest.
- The suggestion by Mr Green that Dr Kelly might have reached over the wrist for the water bottle doesn't make much sense at all. Why not have the bottle propped up to the right of the body or failing that kept upright between his thighs.
- My belief is that Mr Green sees the body with the left sleeve rolled down. If he had seen it at the same time as the paramedics then he would surely have realised the difficulty of blood getting into the rucked sleeve area.
- Dr Hunt (correctly) records the fact that the jeans were partly pulled up the legs of the body. But there is no similar comment in his report regarding the left sleeve of the jacket. I believe that the left sleeve either was pulled down or slipped down when the lower left arm was repositioned.
The blood: the evidence on the ground
This post looks at the reported evidence of blood on the ground and on the vegetation at Harrowdown Hill.
My last posts considered the blood on the nearby nettles and whether the "arterial rain" was real or simulated. Both Vanessa Hunt and Mr Green report the presence of blood here.
I had also considered the possible blood absorbed by the leaves on the woodland floor. Mr Green presents no evidence whatsoever that any blood was so absorbed. He fails to explain how the blood was perfectly visible on the nettle leaves but seemingly invisible on the leaves on the ground. http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/mr-greens-absorbent-leaf-litter.html
When interviewed by Matt Sandy for the Mail on Sunday DC Coe said 'On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any'. Dave Bartlett, interviewed some weeks later, said to Mr Sandy: 'There was a bit [of blood] on the nettles and grass but not a lot at all'.
Dr Hunt attended the Hutton Inquiry on 16 September. This is what he had to say to Mr Knox about the blood he observed on the ground:
My last posts considered the blood on the nearby nettles and whether the "arterial rain" was real or simulated. Both Vanessa Hunt and Mr Green report the presence of blood here.
I had also considered the possible blood absorbed by the leaves on the woodland floor. Mr Green presents no evidence whatsoever that any blood was so absorbed. He fails to explain how the blood was perfectly visible on the nettle leaves but seemingly invisible on the leaves on the ground. http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/mr-greens-absorbent-leaf-litter.html
When interviewed by Matt Sandy for the Mail on Sunday DC Coe said 'On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any'. Dave Bartlett, interviewed some weeks later, said to Mr Sandy: 'There was a bit [of blood] on the nettles and grass but not a lot at all'.
Dr Hunt attended the Hutton Inquiry on 16 September. This is what he had to say to Mr Knox about the blood he observed on the ground:
Q. Was there any blood beneath the knife?
A. Yes, there was. There was blood around the area of the knife.
Q. How close to the knife was the blood?
A. It was around the knife and underneath it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Was there any other bloodstaining that you noticed in the area?
A. There was. There was an area of bloodstaining to his left side running across the undergrowth and the soil, and I estimated it was over an area of 2 to 3 feet in maximum length.
In his published report of 25 July 2003 Dr Hunt supplies a little more detail:
Lying adjacent to this [the wristwatch] was a white metal 'Sandvik' pruning-type knife, or gardener's knife, with its blade extended from the handle. There was bloodstaining over both the handles and the blade and a pool of blood beneath the knife which was approximately 8-10 by approximately 4-5 cms.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There was bloodstaining and a pool of blood in an area running from the left arm of the deceased for a total distance of in the order of 2'-3'. There was also a patch of possible bloodstaining on the ground near the left hip region.
Mr Green is oddly reticent about the bloodstaining and pools of blood in his report. This is the nearest we get to the blood pooling:
Blood had spurted out from his injured left wrist to the left of the body, to a distance of approximately 78 cm. The staining was typical of arterial bloodstaining with pooling closer to the injured limb.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Blood swab: As I have stated on page 6 of this statement, item AMH.29 was a swab of a pool of blood to the left of the deceased. STR profiling of the blood on the swab gave a full profile matching that of David Kelly.
When Mr Green came to the Inquiry "at short notice" he was focused on the arterial rain on the nettles and on the "invisible" blood absorbed by the leaf litter.
Had he and Dr Hunt come to an agreement "I'll deal with the arterial rain whilst you can look after the bloodstaining and pooling on the ground". No doubt Dr Hunt would have furnished Mr Green with a copy of his report. Did Mr Green then think "he's dealt with the bloodstaining on the ground, no need for me to repeat that observation in my report". If so that is totally unsatisfactory - Mr Green is the blood distribution expert and his report should be comprehensive on this subject and should be a stand alone document.
As mentioned in previous posts the evidence is of the left arm being moved after the ambulance team leave the scene, or at least the lower arm is moved. The knife and watch are correspondingly relocated and a pool of blood created under the knife.
Two other points need mentioning. Dr Hunt doesn't mention the width of the 2' to 3' long bloodstain. Substantially less than 2' surely or he would have mentioned it I think. It might have just been a dribble of blood of no significant width. Secondly, in his report Dr Hunt talks of the 2'-3' bloodstaining and pool of blood. The pool of blood part of this can't have been too noticeable because, at the Inquiry, it's only the bloodstaining mentioned by him in this context.
Saturday, 9 June 2012
The blood: "arterial rain" - real or simulated (1)
Dr Hunt discovered that the ulnar artery in Dr Kelly's left wrist had been severed. When an artery is cut the blood initially comes out in spurts at high pressure, not surprising when you consider that the heart is a pump. Mr Green explains at the Inquiry that this high pressure spurting produces an effect known as "arterial rain". These two extracts from Mr Green's testimony on 3rd September define arterial rain and state his observations of the same:
Q. Right. I think we have heard from an extract that Mr Page has read out to us that the ulnar artery was severed. Did you understand that to be the case at the time?
A. Obviously injuries are a pathologist's domain. However, the blood distribution was what I would expect to see if an artery had been severed. There was bloodstaining typical of that sort of injury.
Q. What do you expect to see in such circumstances?
A. Well, when veins are severed the blood comes out under a low pressure, but when arteries are severed it comes out on a much higher pressure and you get spurting of blood, you get a phenomenon known as arterial rain, where you have a great deal of smallish stains all of about the same size over the area.
Q. Did you find that arterial rain?
A. Yes.
Q. On what?
A. On the nettles -- there were nettles alongside the body of Dr Kelly.
Q. And did you look for the distribution of blood? A. Yes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Did you examine the vegetation around the body?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you form any conclusions from that examination?
A. Well, the blood staining that was highest from the ground was approximately 50 centimetres above the ground. This was above the position where Dr Kelly's left wrist was, but most of the stainings were 33 centimetres, which is approximately a foot above the ground. It was all fairly low level stuff.
Q. What does that mean? A. It meant that because the injury -- most of the injuries would have taken place while Dr Kelly was sitting down or lying down.
In his witness statement Mr Green similarly defines arterial rain on page 6 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Roy%20Green%20forensic%20statement%2027%20September%202003.pdf
On page 9 he records what he saw with a little more detail than at the Inquiry and this I have highlighted:
In my opinion the deceased appears to have received his injuries where he was found. Blood had spurted out from his injured left wrist to the left of the body, to a distance of approximately 78 cm. The staining was typical of arterial bloodstaining with pooling closer to the injured limb. The leaf litter nature of the ground meant that it would have been very absorbent to blood. The highest stains were approximately 50 cm from the ground on a nettle above the left hand, but the majority of the staining was at a height of 33 cm or lower. No large downward drips of blood were seen on the lower clothing of the deceased, there did not appear to be blood on the soles of the boots and there were no obvious areas of bloodstaining on the ground beneath the body. This all tends to support the observation that Dr Kelly received his injuries where he was found.
If, like me, you prefer imperial units then 78 cm is just over 2'6". The arterial rain spurting (onto the nettles) was specifically to the left of the body. I have already discussed the leaf litter http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/mr-greens-absorbent-leaf-litter.html and its context can be seen from the extract above. Mr Green certainly sounds very authoritative but as related in an earlier post I do wonder how many instances of slit wrists he had seen http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/how-many-slit-wrist-deaths-had-mr-green.html
That there was blood on some nettles was noticed by Vanessa Hunt from the ambulance team:
A small point regarding the questioning of Mr Green by Mr Dingemans at the Inquiry: ACC Page did not read out an extract because he didn't have a copy of Dr Hunt's report with him. Furthermore I don't see a specific reference to the ulnar artery, rather he talks of incisions to the wrist.
In the next post I shall look at the possibility that Mr Green's arterial rain was simulated.
Q. Right. I think we have heard from an extract that Mr Page has read out to us that the ulnar artery was severed. Did you understand that to be the case at the time?
A. Obviously injuries are a pathologist's domain. However, the blood distribution was what I would expect to see if an artery had been severed. There was bloodstaining typical of that sort of injury.
Q. What do you expect to see in such circumstances?
A. Well, when veins are severed the blood comes out under a low pressure, but when arteries are severed it comes out on a much higher pressure and you get spurting of blood, you get a phenomenon known as arterial rain, where you have a great deal of smallish stains all of about the same size over the area.
Q. Did you find that arterial rain?
A. Yes.
Q. On what?
A. On the nettles -- there were nettles alongside the body of Dr Kelly.
Q. And did you look for the distribution of blood? A. Yes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Did you examine the vegetation around the body?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you form any conclusions from that examination?
A. Well, the blood staining that was highest from the ground was approximately 50 centimetres above the ground. This was above the position where Dr Kelly's left wrist was, but most of the stainings were 33 centimetres, which is approximately a foot above the ground. It was all fairly low level stuff.
Q. What does that mean? A. It meant that because the injury -- most of the injuries would have taken place while Dr Kelly was sitting down or lying down.
In his witness statement Mr Green similarly defines arterial rain on page 6 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Roy%20Green%20forensic%20statement%2027%20September%202003.pdf
On page 9 he records what he saw with a little more detail than at the Inquiry and this I have highlighted:
In my opinion the deceased appears to have received his injuries where he was found. Blood had spurted out from his injured left wrist to the left of the body, to a distance of approximately 78 cm. The staining was typical of arterial bloodstaining with pooling closer to the injured limb. The leaf litter nature of the ground meant that it would have been very absorbent to blood. The highest stains were approximately 50 cm from the ground on a nettle above the left hand, but the majority of the staining was at a height of 33 cm or lower. No large downward drips of blood were seen on the lower clothing of the deceased, there did not appear to be blood on the soles of the boots and there were no obvious areas of bloodstaining on the ground beneath the body. This all tends to support the observation that Dr Kelly received his injuries where he was found.
If, like me, you prefer imperial units then 78 cm is just over 2'6". The arterial rain spurting (onto the nettles) was specifically to the left of the body. I have already discussed the leaf litter http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/mr-greens-absorbent-leaf-litter.html and its context can be seen from the extract above. Mr Green certainly sounds very authoritative but as related in an earlier post I do wonder how many instances of slit wrists he had seen http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/how-many-slit-wrist-deaths-had-mr-green.html
That there was blood on some nettles was noticed by Vanessa Hunt from the ambulance team:
Q. One of the police officers or someone this morning said there appeared to be some blood on the ground. Did you see that?
A. I could see some on -- there were some stinging nettles to the left of the body. As to on the ground, I do not remember seeing a sort of huge puddle or anything like that. A small point regarding the questioning of Mr Green by Mr Dingemans at the Inquiry: ACC Page did not read out an extract because he didn't have a copy of Dr Hunt's report with him. Furthermore I don't see a specific reference to the ulnar artery, rather he talks of incisions to the wrist.
In the next post I shall look at the possibility that Mr Green's arterial rain was simulated.
Friday, 8 June 2012
The bloodstained Barbour cap (2)
Mr Green carried out tests on the Barbour cap and reports on them in his statement of 27 September 2003. This is what he had to say:
Next to the deceased's left shoulder was a Barbour cap (AMH.6). Beyond this, approximately 25 cm from the left shoulder was an almost empty Evian water bottle (AMH.2) and 12 cm further on was its top (AMH.3). Each of these items appeared to be smeared with blood, indicating that the deceased was already injured when these items were handled.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barbour cap: Item (AMH.6) was the brown, blue, red and white checked "Barbour" cap, which was found near the deceased's left shoulder. The label inside the cap indicated that it was a size 71/4 [seven and a quarter] / 59. The inside of the cap was heavily stained with smears of blood and occasional blood spots. The underside of the peak also bore smears of blood. Tests indicated the presence of traces of blood on the upper surfaces of the cap, although apart from two small bloodstains on the edge of the peak no bloodstains were visible.
STR profiling of a bloodstain on the inside of the cap gave a full profile, which matched that of Dr Kelly, so this blood could have come from him.
In an attempt to determine whether or not the cap could have been worn by Dr Kelly a non-bloodstained area from the band around the inside of the cap was sampled and submitted for STR profiling tests. The results indicated the presence of DNA from at least two persons. The profile of the major contributor of DNA to the mixture could be determined and this matched the profile of Dr David Kelly. Therefore he could have worn the cap. The result suggested that the minor contributor to the mixture could have been a female. This person could not have been Janice Kelly, Sian Kelly or Ellen Wilson.
Thanks to Dr Hunt's report we know that the lining side of the cap was uppermost.
The early witnesses don't mention seeing any blood on the cap but it may not have been too noticeable to the casual eye. Neither Dr Hunt or Mr Green suggest an explanation of why the cap was seemingly removed by Dr Kelly from his head after he had started cutting his wrist. In fact it's surprising that Dr Hunt doesn't speculate that cap removal was yet another indicator of Dr Kelly's intent to cause self-harm.
That the bloodstaining on the cap was so extensive seems odd if all Dr Kelly did was take it off. I have a cap with a peak, not a Barbour admittedly, and have tried taking the cap off whilst lying on my back. Whichever hand is used one would get hold of the peak I suggest, I then find it difficult to imagine how the inside of the cap got heavily stained as described.
An alternative explanation could be that a scene setter smeared the cap, and the other "props" that were close to the body, with blood without perhaps any thought as to how the blood would logically have arrived on the various artifacts. In later posts I shall be looking at the apparent increase in bloodstaining on at least some of the clothing, the creation of the small pool of blood under the knife, the knife and watch together with the left arm having been repositioned. If the scene was changed to this extent then I have little problem in accepting that blood might have been later smeared on the other objects.
It has been suggested that the Barbour cap was placed over a pool of blood on the ground that was in the "wrong" place and that is how the bloodstaining appeared. I think that is quite a credible explanation. It is ridiculous that the quite extensive bloodstaining on the cap, although mentioned in passing by Dr Hunt, wasn't discussed at the Inquiry and that we had to wait until 9 June 2011 to read about Mr Green's tests on it. Frankly that's not acceptable.
Intriguing though it is I don't have any particular thoughts as to what female may have also had the Barbour cap on her head even if only momentarily. I am assuming that the DNA can "hang around" for a long time and I wouldn't want to speculate on the identity of the woman concerned.
Surprisingly a mysterious second cap makes an appearance in the Dr Kelly mystery, something to flag up in my next post.
Next to the deceased's left shoulder was a Barbour cap (AMH.6). Beyond this, approximately 25 cm from the left shoulder was an almost empty Evian water bottle (AMH.2) and 12 cm further on was its top (AMH.3). Each of these items appeared to be smeared with blood, indicating that the deceased was already injured when these items were handled.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barbour cap: Item (AMH.6) was the brown, blue, red and white checked "Barbour" cap, which was found near the deceased's left shoulder. The label inside the cap indicated that it was a size 71/4 [seven and a quarter] / 59. The inside of the cap was heavily stained with smears of blood and occasional blood spots. The underside of the peak also bore smears of blood. Tests indicated the presence of traces of blood on the upper surfaces of the cap, although apart from two small bloodstains on the edge of the peak no bloodstains were visible.
STR profiling of a bloodstain on the inside of the cap gave a full profile, which matched that of Dr Kelly, so this blood could have come from him.
In an attempt to determine whether or not the cap could have been worn by Dr Kelly a non-bloodstained area from the band around the inside of the cap was sampled and submitted for STR profiling tests. The results indicated the presence of DNA from at least two persons. The profile of the major contributor of DNA to the mixture could be determined and this matched the profile of Dr David Kelly. Therefore he could have worn the cap. The result suggested that the minor contributor to the mixture could have been a female. This person could not have been Janice Kelly, Sian Kelly or Ellen Wilson.
Thanks to Dr Hunt's report we know that the lining side of the cap was uppermost.
The early witnesses don't mention seeing any blood on the cap but it may not have been too noticeable to the casual eye. Neither Dr Hunt or Mr Green suggest an explanation of why the cap was seemingly removed by Dr Kelly from his head after he had started cutting his wrist. In fact it's surprising that Dr Hunt doesn't speculate that cap removal was yet another indicator of Dr Kelly's intent to cause self-harm.
That the bloodstaining on the cap was so extensive seems odd if all Dr Kelly did was take it off. I have a cap with a peak, not a Barbour admittedly, and have tried taking the cap off whilst lying on my back. Whichever hand is used one would get hold of the peak I suggest, I then find it difficult to imagine how the inside of the cap got heavily stained as described.
An alternative explanation could be that a scene setter smeared the cap, and the other "props" that were close to the body, with blood without perhaps any thought as to how the blood would logically have arrived on the various artifacts. In later posts I shall be looking at the apparent increase in bloodstaining on at least some of the clothing, the creation of the small pool of blood under the knife, the knife and watch together with the left arm having been repositioned. If the scene was changed to this extent then I have little problem in accepting that blood might have been later smeared on the other objects.
It has been suggested that the Barbour cap was placed over a pool of blood on the ground that was in the "wrong" place and that is how the bloodstaining appeared. I think that is quite a credible explanation. It is ridiculous that the quite extensive bloodstaining on the cap, although mentioned in passing by Dr Hunt, wasn't discussed at the Inquiry and that we had to wait until 9 June 2011 to read about Mr Green's tests on it. Frankly that's not acceptable.
Intriguing though it is I don't have any particular thoughts as to what female may have also had the Barbour cap on her head even if only momentarily. I am assuming that the DNA can "hang around" for a long time and I wouldn't want to speculate on the identity of the woman concerned.
Surprisingly a mysterious second cap makes an appearance in the Dr Kelly mystery, something to flag up in my next post.
Thursday, 7 June 2012
The bloodstained Barbour cap (1)
In previous posts I have discussed at some length the various bloodstained artifacts found in the vicinity of Dr Kelly's body: the knife, watch, Evian bottle and its top. But also, close to the head, there was a Barbour cap ... also with blood on it.
This is what the witnesses said about the cap:
Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman
Although neither of them mention the cap or are asked about it, for completeness I feel that this needs to be mentioned. What I found particularly interesting though is the fact that Louise Holmes who gets to within four feet of the body wasn't asked about what Dr Kelly was wearing yet Paul Chapman, much further away, was! So far as the disclosed parts of their police witness statements in Annex TVP 3 are concerned there is no reference to clothing or to the cap.
DC Coe
At the Inquiry DC Coe expresses a lot of uncertainty at times, as if not quite sure what answer he feels he should give, and the matter of the cap is a very good example of this.
This is what the witnesses said about the cap:
Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman
Although neither of them mention the cap or are asked about it, for completeness I feel that this needs to be mentioned. What I found particularly interesting though is the fact that Louise Holmes who gets to within four feet of the body wasn't asked about what Dr Kelly was wearing yet Paul Chapman, much further away, was! So far as the disclosed parts of their police witness statements in Annex TVP 3 are concerned there is no reference to clothing or to the cap.
DC Coe
At the Inquiry DC Coe expresses a lot of uncertainty at times, as if not quite sure what answer he feels he should give, and the matter of the cap is a very good example of this.
Q. Did this person have any clothes on?
A. He did. He was fully dressed.
Q. Could you be more particular as to what the clothes you saw were?
A. He was wearing a Barbour jacket. There was a cap, a pair of trousers and think walking boots, but I cannot be certain on that.
A. He did. He was fully dressed.
Q. Could you be more particular as to what the clothes you saw were?
A. He was wearing a Barbour jacket. There was a cap, a pair of trousers and think walking boots, but I cannot be certain on that.
Q. Was the cap on the head or was the cap apart from the body?
A. That I cannot remember -- I have a feeling the cap was off, but I cannot be sure.
Why didn't Mr Knox ask Coe to check in his notebook about the position of the cap?
In Annex TVP 1 where part of DC Coe's statement is reproduced there is no problem:
There was also a peaked cap close to this male person.
Seven years later his memory still is clear on the matter because in the interview he gave Matt Sandy for the Mail on Sunday he states:
Near him was a pruning knife with a wooden handle and a curved, three-inch blade.
On the ground was a cap, a watch and a small Evian water bottle.
On the ground was a cap, a watch and a small Evian water bottle.
As with the other objects he doesn't mention seeing any blood on the cap.
Vanessa Hunt
Doesn't mention the cap at the Inquiry but nothing should be read into that.
Dave Bartlett
At the Hutton Inquiry:
Q. Did you notice any other items of clothing nearby?
A. There was a cap ...(Pause). Yes, there was a flat cap on the left of the body, near the head end.
It seems then that the cap was in place when viewed by Coe and Bartlett, whether it was there when the searchers discovered the body is unknown.
PC Franklin
As happened with Ms Hunt he doesn't note the presence of the cap.
PC Sawyer
He uses the word "cap" but from its context he is I think referring to the top of the Evian bottle.
Q. Did you see a bottle of water?
A. I did, by Dr Kelly's head. There was an open bottle of Evian, 500 ml or 300 ml bottle, with the cap by the side of it, by his head.
A. I did, by Dr Kelly's head. There was an open bottle of Evian, 500 ml or 300 ml bottle, with the cap by the side of it, by his head.
Dr Hunt
At the Inquiry:
Q. Did you investigate the scene next to the body?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did that show?
A. There was a Barbour flat-type cap with some blood on the lining and the peak near his left shoulder and upper arm. In the region of his left hand lying on the grass there was a black resin strapped wristwatch, a digital watch, which was also bloodstained.
In his report and under "Adjacent scene":
Lying adjacent to the left shoulder/upper arm was a 'Barbour' cap with the lining side uppermost. There was blood over the lining and also the peak.
Mr Green
Cap not discussed with him at the Inquiry but the results of his tests on the cap will be noted in my next post.
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Mr Green's absorbent leaf litter
As discussed in recent posts the ambulance team of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett and the first police officer on the scene DC Graham Coe all make the point that they saw virtually no blood either on the clothing or in the immediate vicinity of the body. Hunt and Bartlett had been to dozens of attempted suicides by wrist slashing and were well familiar with seeing substantial amounts of blood at such scenes. They were so concerned about the official description of the primary cause of death (haemorrhage) that, with the permission of their employers, they went public to voice their feelings.
By the time that Dr Hunt and Mr Green start their detailed examination of the body and its environs there is evidence of MORE blood being present. Not enough though to account for all the blood that was needed to substantiate a conclusion of death by exsanguination.
When Mr Green came to the Inquiry "at short notice", the day after the ambulance team had given their testimonies, he came up with a novel explanation as to where the "missing" blood had gone. This is how he responded to questioning from Mr Dingemans:
By the time that Dr Hunt and Mr Green start their detailed examination of the body and its environs there is evidence of MORE blood being present. Not enough though to account for all the blood that was needed to substantiate a conclusion of death by exsanguination.
When Mr Green came to the Inquiry "at short notice", the day after the ambulance team had given their testimonies, he came up with a novel explanation as to where the "missing" blood had gone. This is how he responded to questioning from Mr Dingemans:
Q. We have heard from some ambulance personnel, and they said they were not specifically looking, for obvious reasons, at the distribution of blood but they noted, just on their brief glance, not very much blood. What were your detailed findings?
A. Well, there was a fair bit of blood.
LORD HUTTON: There was -- I beg your pardon?
A. A fair bit of blood, my Lord. The body was on leaf litter, the sort of detritus you might find on the floor of a wood, which is -- and that is very absorbent, so although it may not have appeared to them there was that much blood, it would obviously soak in.
MR DINGEMANS: A bit like blotting paper in some respects?
A. Yes.
A. Well, there was a fair bit of blood.
LORD HUTTON: There was -- I beg your pardon?
A. A fair bit of blood, my Lord. The body was on leaf litter, the sort of detritus you might find on the floor of a wood, which is -- and that is very absorbent, so although it may not have appeared to them there was that much blood, it would obviously soak in.
MR DINGEMANS: A bit like blotting paper in some respects?
A. Yes.
When Hutton said 'I beg your pardon' I do wonder if he said it just to ensure that Mr Green repeated what he stated so that everyone got the message.
From the photographs I've been shown of the wood in high summer it's obvious that there is very little leaf litter covering the ground. Mr Green's statement about the blood soaking into the leaf litter at the scene is 100% speculative ... he doesn't provide a shred of evidence in substantiation. He didn't say "I examined the leaf litter and noted the presence of blood" or words to that effect. In any case I don't believe for a moment that in less than 24 hours in a woodland setting that the blood would be absorbed by the leaves. Certainly it didn't happen with the "arterial rain" on the nearby nettles (more about arterial rain - real or simulated - later).
After the body had been removed a fingertip search was carried out of that particular area with nothing reported as being found. The officers concerned would be literally on their hands and knees and handling the leaves.
Mr Green makes himself look even more stupid because he wrote this in his report:
Bloodstaining was evident on the waxed jacket (NCH.17), which was unfastened and tucked up under him so that the centre front was under the injured wrist.
If Dr Kelly died in that position as Mr Green believes to be the case then the wrist wasn't even in contact with the ground. Of course it wasn't the original intention for Mr Green's report to ever get into the public domain. Mr Green is the only witness who records the fact that the injured wrist was on the centre front of the jacket. He offers no explanation as to why that might be. In a later post I will help him out on this putting forward a possible reason.
In his statement http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Roy%20Green%20forensic%20statement%2027%20September%202003.pdf Mr Green repeats his assertion about the leaf litter as a stand alone sentence;
The leaf litter nature of the ground meant that it would have been very absorbent to blood.
I've no doubt that he couldn't go any further in linking it to the evidence because a police witness statement saying something that isn't true could lead to prosecution.
In his closing statement on 25 September Mr Dingemans included this:
There was a wound on his left wrist and an artery had been severed. Dr Kelly was declared dead at the scene. Notwithstanding the cut to the wrist, the ambulance personnel when they came to give evidence reported not seeing much blood, though they accepted they were not looking in detail.
The forensic biologist has assisted in this respect. He identified the blood, the stains on the clothing and the blood on the leaves, which had acted in part as blotting paper.
The forensic biologist has assisted in this respect. He identified the blood, the stains on the clothing and the blood on the leaves, which had acted in part as blotting paper.
Dingemans misled the Inquiry by accepting what Mr Green said as fact. There was no evidence given of 'blood on the leaves', apart from the bit on the nettles, just speculative comment.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Why did Mr Green come "at short notice"? (2)
In my last post it was established that forensic biologist Mr Green attended the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September, that he came at short notice and that it was ACC Page who facilitated his visit in stage 1.
This post looks at why I think he might have been asked to come "at short notice".
On the afternoon of the previous day the two members of the ambulance team gave evidence. Counsel to the Inquiry will have their police witness statements and, as such, will be familiar with what they did at the time and can question them accordingly. As one would expect both Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were asked if there was anything else they wanted to mention. Most witnesses, as happened at the Hutton Inquiry, would say no. After all they had been examined in relation to their written statements and I would think that a natural reaction would be to end their ordeal in the spotlight just as quickly as possible.
However the ambulance team seemed to be reading from a different script. They each commented on the lack of blood at the scene, see my post http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/blood-ambulance-teams-evidence.html This would be quite alarming to those intent on promoting the conclusions reached by Dr Hunt ... effectively they were saying, as experienced professionals, that Dr Hunt couldn't be right in his belief that Dr Kelly died from haemorrhage after cutting his wrist. Moreover, because it was such an ineffective way of committing suicide they would have far more practical experience than Dr Hunt in viewing the result of wrist slashing.
Mr Dingemans quickly sees the problem and tries to recover the situation by suggesting that Ms Hunt wouldn't be examining the ground for blood loss. Well she wouldn't have been specifically doing this but she noticed the small patch of blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and some blood on nearby nettles. She would have been kneeling or squatting near the left side of the body and it's not really credible that she would miss seeing any sizeable pool of blood.
In his report Dr Hunt had recorded smears of blood here, there and everywhere. Logically, as the blood specialist, Mr Green would have seen the same or more. Therefore if he could testify at short notice then some of the harm done to the official narrative might be nullified.
Official proceedings on the afternoon of the 2nd finished at 3.50 pm. This would leave Hutton time, after discussing the situation with counsel, to phone ACC Page and get him to pop round to see Mr Green. Mr Green then on the following day went up to London and "delivered" more blood to a very grateful Lord Hutton.
There is evidence that the blood at the scene was augmented between the time that the ambulance team see it and Mr Green's arrival at Harrowdown Hill, this will be discussed later as will Mr Green's imaginative explanation of how some of the blood disappeared.
This post looks at why I think he might have been asked to come "at short notice".
On the afternoon of the previous day the two members of the ambulance team gave evidence. Counsel to the Inquiry will have their police witness statements and, as such, will be familiar with what they did at the time and can question them accordingly. As one would expect both Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were asked if there was anything else they wanted to mention. Most witnesses, as happened at the Hutton Inquiry, would say no. After all they had been examined in relation to their written statements and I would think that a natural reaction would be to end their ordeal in the spotlight just as quickly as possible.
However the ambulance team seemed to be reading from a different script. They each commented on the lack of blood at the scene, see my post http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/blood-ambulance-teams-evidence.html This would be quite alarming to those intent on promoting the conclusions reached by Dr Hunt ... effectively they were saying, as experienced professionals, that Dr Hunt couldn't be right in his belief that Dr Kelly died from haemorrhage after cutting his wrist. Moreover, because it was such an ineffective way of committing suicide they would have far more practical experience than Dr Hunt in viewing the result of wrist slashing.
Mr Dingemans quickly sees the problem and tries to recover the situation by suggesting that Ms Hunt wouldn't be examining the ground for blood loss. Well she wouldn't have been specifically doing this but she noticed the small patch of blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and some blood on nearby nettles. She would have been kneeling or squatting near the left side of the body and it's not really credible that she would miss seeing any sizeable pool of blood.
In his report Dr Hunt had recorded smears of blood here, there and everywhere. Logically, as the blood specialist, Mr Green would have seen the same or more. Therefore if he could testify at short notice then some of the harm done to the official narrative might be nullified.
Official proceedings on the afternoon of the 2nd finished at 3.50 pm. This would leave Hutton time, after discussing the situation with counsel, to phone ACC Page and get him to pop round to see Mr Green. Mr Green then on the following day went up to London and "delivered" more blood to a very grateful Lord Hutton.
There is evidence that the blood at the scene was augmented between the time that the ambulance team see it and Mr Green's arrival at Harrowdown Hill, this will be discussed later as will Mr Green's imaginative explanation of how some of the blood disappeared.
Why did Mr Green come "at short notice"? (1)
The forensic biologist Mr Green gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry on the afternoon of 3rd September 2003. At the conclusion of those proceedings Mr Dingemans said 'Thank you for coming at short notice'. The yet to be answered question is: why did Mr Green go to the Inquiry at short notice?
Wind the clock back to the morning of that day and we find ACC Page being examined by Mr Dingemans. Reference is made to the non appearance of Dr Hunt in Part One of the Inquiry and that Mr Green will be coming later:
Wind the clock back to the morning of that day and we find ACC Page being examined by Mr Dingemans. Reference is made to the non appearance of Dr Hunt in Part One of the Inquiry and that Mr Green will be coming later:
Q. We have heard how a common access path was established yesterday.
A. Yes.
Q. And the fingertip searching was carried out. Did forensic pathologists become involved?
A. Yes. 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. It was also agreed with the senior investigating officer that we would use forensic biologists who are able to look at the scene and, in particular, blood splashes and make certain determinations from those in relation to what may have happened.
Q. And the fingertip searching was carried out. Did forensic pathologists become involved?
A. Yes. 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. It was also agreed with the senior investigating officer that we would use forensic biologists who are able to look at the scene and, in particular, blood splashes and make certain determinations from those in relation to what may have happened.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. What was the name of the pathologist who --
A. The pathologist was Mr Nicholas Hunt.
Q. We were hoping to call Mr Hunt to give evidence this morning, but he is on holiday and he is coming in stage 2.
A. The pathologist was Mr Nicholas Hunt.
Q. We were hoping to call Mr Hunt to give evidence this morning, but he is on holiday and he is coming in stage 2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Right. And did he [Dr Hunt] form any conclusion about cause of death?
A. His conclusion around cause of death was that it was due to blood loss from incisions made to Dr Kelly's wrist.
Q. And we will hear from him but unhappily not today. What other searches were carried out at the scene? You have mentioned a forensic biologist. What do they do?
A. A forensic biologist, I believe you will be hearing from one later --
Q. Who was the forensic biologist?
A. A Mr Green I think. Yes, Mr Rory Green.
Q. I think you have very kindly arranged for him to come along later today?
A. That is correct, my Lord.
Q. What was he doing? We will hear in detail from him.
A. Essentially he was looking at the undergrowth around Dr Kelly's body.
Q. For what?
A. For blood splashing. Perhaps it is best to allow him to explain it himself but essentially he would be able to give a judgment as to what occurred at the scene from the pattern made by the blood splashes.
A. His conclusion around cause of death was that it was due to blood loss from incisions made to Dr Kelly's wrist.
Q. And we will hear from him but unhappily not today. What other searches were carried out at the scene? You have mentioned a forensic biologist. What do they do?
A. A forensic biologist, I believe you will be hearing from one later --
Q. Who was the forensic biologist?
A. A Mr Green I think. Yes, Mr Rory Green.
Q. I think you have very kindly arranged for him to come along later today?
A. That is correct, my Lord.
Q. What was he doing? We will hear in detail from him.
A. Essentially he was looking at the undergrowth around Dr Kelly's body.
Q. For what?
A. For blood splashing. Perhaps it is best to allow him to explain it himself but essentially he would be able to give a judgment as to what occurred at the scene from the pattern made by the blood splashes.
At this time Mr Green had further testing to do. It might be argued that in the absence of Dr Hunt it was a good idea to have a forensic expert give at least some evidence in stage 1. Surely though it would make more sense to wait until he had assembled all of his evidence in case the earlier evidence conflicted in some way with that obtained when the testing was completed. A further oddity was the fact that Mr Green didn't complete his detailed report until 27 September. Rather than the headlong rush to complete the Inquiry in double quick time wouldn't it have been better to complete the forensic testing first and the Inquiry team to look at all the forensic information before proceeding?
The other point I must mention is that it was evidently ACC Page who arranged for Mr Green to come that day. Why? It seems to me that the Inquiry team ought to have contacted Mr Green themselves.
In my next post I shall set out a possible scenario that might explain why Mr Green came "at short notice".
Saturday, 2 June 2012
The blood: ambulance team interview of 12.12.04
On 12 December 2004 there was a quite extraordinary event in the saga of the Dr Kelly mystery: the two ambulance personnel who attended the body at Harrowdown Hill went public about their concerns regarding the official explanation as to how Dr Kelly met his death. They were interviewed by respected journalist Antony Barnett, the story being published in The Observer http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BAR412A.html They then faced the TV cameras http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsyMV8C1OyI
As can be seen from these two links the lack of blood at the scene was perhaps the biggest problem for them. They were, in effect, saying that the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt had got it wrong.
This is an extract from Mr Barnett's piece:
Over the years they have raced to the scenes of dozens of attempted suicides in which somebody has cut their wrists. In only one case has the victim been successful.
As can be seen from these two links the lack of blood at the scene was perhaps the biggest problem for them. They were, in effect, saying that the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt had got it wrong.
This is an extract from Mr Barnett's piece:
Over the years they have raced to the scenes of dozens of attempted suicides in which somebody has cut their wrists. In only one case has the victim been successful.
'That was like a
slaughterhouse,' recalls Hunt. 'Just think what it would be like with
five or six pints of milk splashed everywhere.' If you slit your wrists,
that is the
equivalent amount of blood you would have to lose.
But this was not the scene which
greeted the two paramedics when their ambulance arrived at Harrowdown
Hill woods in Oxfordshire, where the body of Dr Kelly, the weapons
expert,
had been found.
Their depth of experience should be contrasted with that of Dr Hunt who, as far as we know, had never dealt with a death resulting from wrist slashing. It has to be said that Dr Kelly's death was in an outdoor setting and we don't know how many of the paramedics visits to attempted suicides by wrist slashing were indoors. There has been speculation about blood seeping into the ground at the scene but if that was the case no attempt seems to have been made to further investigate and try to quantify the blood loss.
Later in the article we read:
Both saw that the left sleeves
of his jacket and shirt had been pulled up to just below the elbow and
there was dried blood around his left wrist.
'There was no gaping wound...
there wasn't a puddle of blood around,' said Hunt. 'There was a little
bit of blood on the nettles to the left of his left arm. But there was
no real
blood on the body of the shirt. The only other bit of blood I saw was on
his clothing. It was the size of a 50p piece above the right knee on
his trousers.'
Hunt found this very strange.
'If you manage to cut a wrist and catch an artery you would get a
spraying of blood, regardless of whether it's an accident... Because of
the nature
of an arterial cut, you get a pumping action. I would certainly expect a
lot more blood on his clothing, on his shirt. If you choose to cut your
wrists, you don't worry about getting blood on your clothes.
'I didn't see any blood on his
right hand... If he used his right hand to cut his wrist, from an
arterial wound you would expect some spray.'
Bartlett agreed: 'I remember
saying to one of the policemen it didn't look like he died from that
[the wrist wound] and suggesting he must have taken an overdose or
something
else.'
Bartlett recalls being called to
one attempted suicide where the blood had spurted so high it hit the
ceiling. 'Even in this incident, the victim survived. It was like The
Texas
Chainsaw Massacre and the guy walked out alive. We have been to a vast
amount of incidents where people who have slashed their wrists,
intentionally or not. Most of them are taken down the hospital and given
a few
stitches then sent straight back home. But there is a lot of blood. It's
all over them.'
A very small correction needs to be made regarding the first sentence of this quote. According to Mr Green the shirt was a short sleeved one. The fact that the jacket sleeve was pulled up is important though as I shall explain in a later post.
Friday, 1 June 2012
The blood: DC Coe's evidence
At the end of my last post I had said that the next one would relate what the ambulance crew said about the blood at the scene. However to try and keep some degree of correct chronological sequence I want to discuss what DC Coe had to say on this subject instead.
Going to the Hutton Inquiry and DC Coe's testimony given to Peter Knox here are the exchanges:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Did you notice if there were any stains on the clothes?
A. I saw blood around the left wrist area.
In that second exchange it can be seen that DC Coe really doesn't want to get involved with bloodstains on the clothes If he was aware of blood being added to the scene then his reluctance is understandable, moreover Thames Valley Police mightn't be keen for him to talk about the blood either.
Annex TVP 1 from the Attorney General's website has this as part of Coe's witness statement:
At 0940 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr. Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr. Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back. I could see that his left wrist had blood on it. Close to the wrist was a small knife similar to a pruning knife together with a wrist watch.
There was a small bottle with a label Evian thereon. The male was wearing striped shirt blue jeans that had a stain on the right knee Barbour type jacket. There was also a peaked cap close to this male person.
At 1007 am ambulance crew attended the scene where death was pronounced.
It's interesting to note the sentence immediately preceding this quoted part of the statement in TVP 1:
Dc Coe's Police statement is very short, not particularly descriptive but factually correct. The TVP Annexes were penned by Mr McGinty at the Attorney General's Office but he assures us about the factual correctness so that is all right.
Although DC Coe doesn't mention blood being seen elsewhere it seems to me that we should assume that the only meaningful amount of blood at the scene is as he says in his evidence.
In his interview for the Matt Sandy article in the Mail on Sunday of 8 August 2010 Mr Coe feels able to firm up his observation about the lack of blood at the scene:
DC Coe is clear on the amount of blood he saw. He said: 'I certainly didn't see a lot of blood anywhere. There was some on his left wrist but it wasn't on his clothes. On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any.
'I didn't see any bloodstains on the bottle and I didn't check the knife.'
So the only difference I think with the press interview is that he is being more explicit.
He didn't see any bloodstains on the bottle although he had noted the Evian label. He didn't check the knife which according to Mr Green was heavily stained with blood but did notice that (part of) the watch was on top of the knife. Mr Coe's memory appears to be very selective!
As we shall see DC Coe's description of the paucity of blood at the scene is matched by the two members of the ambulance team but is at odds with the evidence from Dr Hunt and Mr Green.
Going to the Hutton Inquiry and DC Coe's testimony given to Peter Knox here are the exchanges:
Q. Did you notice anything about the body?
A. I did.
Q. What did you notice?
A. I noticed that there was blood round the left wrist. I saw a knife, like a pruning knife, and a watch.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Did you notice if there were any stains on the clothes?
A. I saw blood around the left wrist area.
In that second exchange it can be seen that DC Coe really doesn't want to get involved with bloodstains on the clothes If he was aware of blood being added to the scene then his reluctance is understandable, moreover Thames Valley Police mightn't be keen for him to talk about the blood either.
Annex TVP 1 from the Attorney General's website has this as part of Coe's witness statement:
At 0940 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr. Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr. Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back. I could see that his left wrist had blood on it. Close to the wrist was a small knife similar to a pruning knife together with a wrist watch.
There was a small bottle with a label Evian thereon. The male was wearing striped shirt blue jeans that had a stain on the right knee Barbour type jacket. There was also a peaked cap close to this male person.
At 1007 am ambulance crew attended the scene where death was pronounced.
It's interesting to note the sentence immediately preceding this quoted part of the statement in TVP 1:
Dc Coe's Police statement is very short, not particularly descriptive but factually correct. The TVP Annexes were penned by Mr McGinty at the Attorney General's Office but he assures us about the factual correctness so that is all right.
Although DC Coe doesn't mention blood being seen elsewhere it seems to me that we should assume that the only meaningful amount of blood at the scene is as he says in his evidence.
In his interview for the Matt Sandy article in the Mail on Sunday of 8 August 2010 Mr Coe feels able to firm up his observation about the lack of blood at the scene:
DC Coe is clear on the amount of blood he saw. He said: 'I certainly didn't see a lot of blood anywhere. There was some on his left wrist but it wasn't on his clothes. On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any.
'I didn't see any bloodstains on the bottle and I didn't check the knife.'
So the only difference I think with the press interview is that he is being more explicit.
He didn't see any bloodstains on the bottle although he had noted the Evian label. He didn't check the knife which according to Mr Green was heavily stained with blood but did notice that (part of) the watch was on top of the knife. Mr Coe's memory appears to be very selective!
As we shall see DC Coe's description of the paucity of blood at the scene is matched by the two members of the ambulance team but is at odds with the evidence from Dr Hunt and Mr Green.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)