Did Dr Kelly repeatedly dislodge blood clots?

This is conclusion 9 in the report of forensic pathologist Dr Hunt:

Many of the injuries over the left wrist show evidence of a well-developed vital reaction suggesting that they have been inflicted over a reasonable period of time (minutes rather than seconds or hours) before death.

At the Inquiry Hutton asks about the meaning of a "vital reaction":

Many of the injuries over the left wrist show evidence of a well developed vital reaction which suggests that they had been inflicted over a reasonable period of time, minutes, though, rather than seconds or many hours before death.

LORD HUTTON: What do you mean by a "vital reaction"?

A. A vital reaction, my Lord, is the body's response to an area of damage. It manifests itself chiefly in the form of reddening and swelling around the area. 

I'm no expert on the subject of "vital reaction" but would just mention that it would I'm sure take quite some time to cut through the well buried ulnar artery using an old blunt knife especially by someone getting on in years who seemingly had a weak right arm; the last point will be discussed in detail in another post.  In view of what is to follow Dr Hunt doesn't make any reference in his report, or at the Hutton Inquiry, to Dr Kelly repeatedly having to dislodge blood clots or scabs to keep the blood flowing.  

On 22 August 2010 there was an article (behind the paywall) in the Sunday Times by Dr Hunt.  It looked as if its primary aim was to refocus on the amount of blood that Dr Hunt says he saw, all the more important then because just two weeks earlier DC Coe had been telling the world via the Mail on Sunday that there was hardly any blood around. There was a report the following day in the Mail summarising some of the points just made by Dr Hunt.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305159/Dr-David-Kelly-pathologist-Nicholas-Hunt-demands-inquest-Ive-hide.html#ixzz1wj4B7E5R

Following the report it can be seen that there are a number of "doubts" and "rebuttals" displayed.  There appears to be some paraphrasing, unfortunately we aren't necessarily seeing the exact questions and responses throughout.  Therefore the content isn't quite so good as it might be.  This is one of the doubts and its rebuttal:

Doubt

'The ulnar artery slashed in Dr Kelly's left wrist was too small to have caused him to bleed to death'.  Critics added that the wound would have clotted, meaning any bleeding would have stopped long before death could occur.

Rebuttal

Dr Hunt says he found up to a dozen cuts on Dr Kelly's wrist, each around 2in to 3in long, one of which opened the ulnar artery.  'Some cuts were very shallow, some were deeper and deeper, which is typical of someone feeling their way.  You have a knife, apply light pressure and realise that it actually takes a bit more effort and you get more bold as your resolve increases.  It's one of the classic features of self-inflicted injury.'  He adds that there was clear evidence Dr Kelly repeatedly dislodged clots or scabs to ensure he continued bleeding.  'His wrist was red so he must have been doing this for some time.'

(My emphasis added)

In his report and at the Hutton Inquiry Dr Hunt makes no mention of dislodging clots or scabs and gives an alternative reason for the reddening of the wrist area.  

From the word go the lack of blood has caused huge unresolved problems for the hypothesis that the primary cause of death was haemorrhage.  In the summer of 2010, seven years after the event, there is something akin to panic, over the sufficiency of blood loss question.  I think that this is why Dr Hunt was wheeled out to try once and for all to put the blood problem to rest.  Significantly, on that very same day (22 August) Tom Mangold writes a piece in the Independent on Sunday to finally deal with the motive for suicide.  

The lack of blood at the scene and inability to show intent to commit suicide were surely two of the biggest headaches for the authorities to resolve at that time.

The knife - summarising my observations

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

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

The knife, gaffer tape and Tom Mangold

On 4 July 2010 freelance journalist Tom Mangold, who has described himself as a friend of the late Dr David Kelly, wrote an article in the Independent on Sunday.  Mr Mangold is very much a defender of the suicide hypothesis.

The article attracted a considerable number of comments, some of which were just juvenile name calling, others though were very interesting.  Someone had evidently drawn attention to the lack of fingerprints on the knife because Mr Mangold responded with a comment of his own:

The pruning knife used by David to cut his wrist was covered in gaffer-tape, as are many knives, to prevent the fingers slipping on to the blade and provide a firmer grip. It is almost impossible to retrieve finger prints from this kind of material. For what its worth, I believe that had the government allowed a normal inquest to take place then the fruit-cake theories would never have gained traction.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-kelly-murdered-yes-and-i-bet-you-believe-in-the-tooth-fairy-too-2017805.html#comment-60548168

This was something of a bolt from the blue because there had been no mention of any gaffer-tape at the Hutton Inquiry nor, so far as I was aware, had there been a reference to that effect from anywhere else.

Dr Andrew Watt, author of the "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog wrote an open letter to Tom Mangold about this http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-open-letter-to-tom.html

This was Mangold's response:

Thank you for your enquiry.

Ever since the recent publication of the pathologists report and further details confirming beyond all doubt the suicide of David Kelly, I have decided to decline all further involvements of any sort from those who continue to believe in any other theory.

Tom Mangold

I think that might be described as a "non answer"!

Andrew Gilligan repeats the story about the gaffer tape in an article the following month http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7947544/David-Kelly-was-not-murdered.html#

The absence of fingerprints on the knife may be explained by the fact that the knife handle was reportedly covered in gaffer tape, which does not easily hold fingerprints

To obtain absolute clarity on the matter a Freedom of Information request was made to Thames Valley Police:

Question

The body of Dr David Kelly was discovered on 18th July 2003. Close to the body a knife was found. My FOI request is to be told whether there was any string, tape or any other material attached to the handle of this knife when this knife was examined subsequent to the discovery of Dr Kelly's body.

Response

There were no items or material attached to this knife.

Where then did Mangold get his information about the gaffer-tape?  Does he really know whether gaffer-tape is often attached to a knife handle?  The knife blade was retractable so obviously the tape couldn't go right round the handle.  Gaffer-tape of course is really sticky and I would have thought it very fiddly to apply it to such a small surface and to avoid the slot into which the blade retracts.

Was Mangold making it up?  Foolish surely because nobody had previously mentioned it and a simple FOI request demolished the claim.  Perhaps he was fed a line.

It's an interesting fact that throughout the summer of 2010 and into the autumn there appears to have been a determined effort to rebut the charges of dodgy evidence and cover up, something to discuss later.

The gaffer-tape story really was a bit of nonsense that went well over the top.