How many slit wrist deaths had Dr Hunt seen (continued)

(Note: I had trouble with using blogger in my last post.  Hopefully that was a one off glitch.  This post then should be read as a continuation of the last one)

In my previous post I had wondered if Dr Hunt had had previous experience of examining a wrist slashing that led to death.  He never said so and as wrist slashing is almost never fatal I strongly suspect that he hasn't ever examined one.  I also linked to quotations in a judgement on an appeal relating to the conviction for murder of Sally Clark.

Just to be clear: the judgement at the Court of Appeal leading to Sally's convictions being quashed was made on 29 January 2003.  The date of 11 April was the date of the full judgement of the court.

It's interesting to read the judgement relating to the actions of the pathologist.  The fact that the judgement was just months before Dr Kelly's death should have been something of a "wake up call" to pathologists: the Sally Clark case was very high profile and I would be amazed if Dr Hunt wasn't conversant with the outcome of this judgement and how the conclusions impinged on the work of pathologists.

I think that by coming to such a rapid conclusion over Dr Kelly's death Dr Hunt was being reckless.  Bearing in mind the Sally Clark judgement I would make the following points:

• This seems to have been the first death of this nature investigated by Dr Hunt, an exceedingly rare form of death
• Dr Hunt should have been well aware that co-proxamol poisoning might have been a contributor to the death.  He should have waited  the relatively short time Dr Allan needed to carry out the toxicological tests and looked at both wrist cutting and possible tablet ingestion together.
• Having noted the scar on the right elbow Dr Hunt failed to investigate further it seems as to whether there was any resultant weakness in the right hand.  Did he speak to the family or Dr Warner about the scar?  Did he look at Dr Kelly's medical notes?  There is no evidence that he did any of these things.
• Dr Hunt considers certain matters ... which he then speculates point towards an act of self-harm.  This is what they are: speculation.
• Dr Hunt one would have thought would be aware that Dr Kelly was a very intelligent man.  He should have reflected on the fact that it would be very odd for such a person to select a difficult and unreliable method of killing himself.
• That a perfectly literate person like Dr Kelly hadn't left a suicide note should have concerned him.
• Dr Hunt might have felt that it looked as if Dr Kelly had committed suicide but there is no indication that he thought of the possibility that a murder had been committed with the scene then made to look like suicide.

These are not the only criticisms to be made of Dr Hunt, they are some indicators though of the way he rushed to a conclusion without taking the more cautious approach the Sally Clark judgement indicates should have been taken.

How many slit wrist deaths has Dr Hunt seen?

Forget what detective stories might say, the reality is that very, very few deaths result from blood loss following the cutting of one or both wrists.  There are two arteries that pass through the wrist to the hand, the radial artery and the ulnar artery.  To carry out the most thorough job then would necessitate cutting 4 arteries, in the case of Dr Kelly it was just one.  I have noticed instances from those who go along with the suicide conclusion saying that Dr Kelly slit his wrists (plural).  To me this demonstrates a failure to appreciate the known facts.

That cutting a wrist is such an ineffectual way to commit suicide or to kill somebody else inevitably means that a pathologist called to examine a dead body will possibly never have seen a case of death from a cut wrist.  At the Hutton Inquiry Dr Hunt didn't say that he had previously come across such a situation.  I stand to be corrected but I'm not aware of Dr Hunt in the nine years since the death of Dr Kelly having dealt with a death from a single transected ulnar artery.  It is of course no fault of his if he hadn't seen a death of this sort before he was called to Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003.  What it does mean is that he should have been very cautious about coming to his conclusions when he wrote his first report following the post mortem. 

Dr Hunt states in his report that the post mortem was concluded at 00.15 on Saturday 19 July.  At some time on the 19th he produces his preliminary report.  Having found 3 almost empty blister packs of co-proxamol in a pocket of Dr Kelly's Barbour jacket it should have been obvious to him that co-proxamol poisoning might very well be a factor in the death.  Yet he charges ahead and produces a post mortem report anyway with conclusions about the death.  This was a very politically charged death and in fairness he might have felt under enormous pressure to produce some answers; I suspect that this might happen quite often.


Regarding the approach of a pathologist it is pertinent to read paragraph 19 of the judgment on the second appeal regarding the conviction of Sally Clark: http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/Judgment03.html  Sally, it may be remembered, was wrongly charged and convicted of the murder of two of her children.  The judgment dated 11 April 2003 was only three months before Dr Kelly's death and the content of paragraph 19 should have been something pathologists were aware of I would have thought.


This sentence from paragraph 19 is very relevant:

Amongst the questions the pathologist will want to answer are whether any competing
explanations for the death are consistent with his findings.

Also the last two sentences: 

A competent pathologist will not assume that any one of the explanations for death
advanced is necessarily the correct explanation but in considering the range of
possibilities, he will have specific regard to evidence consistent with or
contradictory of such explanations.  It is, of course, important that the pathologist
records such information so that any one else can understand any matter that he may 
have had in mind in conducting the examination.