MR DINGEMANS: Ms Hunt, please.
MS VANESSA ELIZABETH HUNT (called)
Examined by MR DINGEMANS
Q. Can you tell his Lordship your full name?
A. Vanessa Elizabeth Hunt.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a paramedic.
Q. Were you on duty on 18th July?
A. Yes I was.
Q. What time did you start work?
A. 0700 hours.
Q. And where were you based at the time?
A. At Abingdon ambulance station.
Q. Did you have any calls that morning?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did you have any call relating to Dr Kelly?
A. Yes.
Q. What time did you get that call?
A. At 0940 hours to the ambulance station.
The time of 9.40 is twenty minutes after Paul Chapman makes his 999 call. Neither Dingemans nor Hutton investigate any reason for this delay.
Q. What were you asked to do?
A. We were asked to mobilise towards Southmoor for a male patient but we were given no more details at that time.
Q. So, did you set off?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. In an ambulance?
A. In an ambulance with my colleague Dave Bartlett.
Q. And you drove to Southmoor?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone meet you there?
A. On the way we were given some more information on our data screens.
Q. What did that say?
A. It just said that we were attending the address -- Harrowdown Hill in Longworth for a male believed to be a kilo 1 which is actually deceased, and the Thames Valley Police were on the scene.
It's not known who notified the ambulance service or how familiar they were with the geography. I find it surprising though that Harrowdown Hill wasn't given as the original location rather than Southmoor.
Q. When you arrived on the scene was anyone there?
A. Yes, there were a number of police officers.
Q. Do you remember how many?
A. Just lots and there was police vehicles there as well.
I'll comment on the significant police presence in a later post.
Q. Did you drive off the public road?
A. We parked up at the end of the public road, I do not know the name of the road.
Q. And you proceeded on foot?
A. Yes.
Q. Who had met you?
A. There was an officer in regulation clothing who directed us to two or three other officers in combat trousers and black polo shirts and we followed them along the track.
It seems that the officer in regulation clothing was Sergeant Dadd and he directed them to PCs Franklin and Sawyer.
Q. You followed them along the track?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did that lead to?
A. To a wooded area that was on the left of the track.
Q. And once you got to the wooded area did you stay on the outside of the wood?
A. Initially there were three people on the track, what I now know to be detective constable, one was the search and rescue and there was another gentleman there. The police officers that we had followed stopped and spoke to them and then we followed the two chaps up into the wooded area.
The mention of 'the search and rescue' matches the evidence of Franklin and Sawyer who had stated in the morning session that they had met Paul Chapman.
Q. And when you got into the wooded area, what did you see?
A. There was a male on his back, feet towards us.
Q. Yes.
A. And no obvious signs of life.
Q. Was there anything marking your route in to the body?
A. As we walked into the wooded area the police officers were marking a route off with metal posts. We just walked behind them.
This last answer confirms what was said by PC Sawyer about putting the poles in to mark out the common approach path ... as they were approaching the body.
Q. And can you describe what was being worn by the man?
A. It was -- it looked like a wax type jacket, dark colour.
Q. Yes.
A. A shirt and I believe jeans, but I cannot be certain of the lower clothing. He also had a pair of boots or trainer cross type footwear on.
Q. Could you see anything on the body itself?
A. On his left arm, which was outstretched to the left of him, there was some dry blood.
The description of the left arm being outstretched is very significant as will be discussed in a later post. She refers to dry blood on the left arm rather than the hand or wrist, indicative of at least part of the arm being exposed. Again this is a matter of some importance to look at in detail in due course.
Q. Did you go towards the body?
A. We stood behind the police officers while they took photographs. Then once they had taken the photographs I went to the right side of the body and my colleague went to the left side.
Q. And what was done to check for signs of life?
A. My colleague lifted the eyelids to check for pupil reaction, also felt the gentleman's neck for a carotid pulse and I initially placed the heart monitor paddles on to the chest over the top of his shirt.
Q. Did you get any reading at all?
A. There was some artefact reading I believed to be from myself as opposed to the body, so we said to the police officers would it be possible to place four sticky electrodes on to the chest, to verify that life was extinct.
Q. What did the police say to you?
A. Could they just take some more photographs before we undid the shirt, which they then did. My colleague unbuttoned the shirt and I placed the four electrodes on to the chest, two on the upper part of the chest and two underneath the rib cage area.
Q. Did you connect those electrodes to anything?
A. To the heart monitor.
Q. What did that show?
A. That showed asystole which is a flat line.
Q. What does that mean?
A. It means there is no cardiac output and life is extinct.
Q. Did you declare life extinct?
A. We pronounced we were unable to certify but we said, yes, that, you know ...
PC Sawyer's earlier testimony is matching her evidence well in this section. I think that in her last answer she is trying to explain that she can, unofficially at least, confirm the body is dead but officially a paramedic can't certify death ... that would have to be done by a doctor.
Q. What did you do with the strips from the machine?
A. Took three strips and handed them all to the police officer.
Q. And what did the strips show?
A. Just a flat line.
Q. And having carried out those activities, what did you do then?
A. I said would they like us to leave the electrodes in situ, they requested that we did, remove the leads from the chest and left the shirt unbuttoned.
Q. Did you yourself move the body at all?
A. The only part of the body we moved was Dr Kelly's right arm, which was over the chest, to facilitate us to place the fourth lead on to the chest. It was just lifted slightly from the body.
Louise Holmes stated in her evidence that the right arm was by the side, not over the chest.
Q. Right. And do you recall, now, what Dr Kelly was wearing?
A. As I say, a dark coloured wax jacket, a shirt and I believe it to be jeans, but I am not certain.
Q. Right. And anything on his feet?
A. Trainers or cross trainer/boot type footwear.
Mr Dingemans likes to say 'Right' when he wants to move forward quickly. Vanessa Hunt has already told him what Dr Kelly was wearing, why ask again? Has he a reason to feel nervous?
Q. Right. And did you see anything on the ground?
A. There was a silver bladed knife, a wristwatch, which was off of the wrist.
Q. Yes.
A. And, oh, a water bottle, a small water bottle stood up to the left side of Dr Kelly's head.
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.
Q. Right. And what were you wearing while you were carrying out this?
A. My green squad suit and black boots
It's interesting that he asks about the mobile phone. As with Paul Chapman he asks the witness what she was wearing at the scene.
Q. And is there anything else that you know of about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?
A. Only that the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing.
Q. On the clothing?
A. Yes.
This lack of blood flagged up by Vanessa Hunt (and later by Dave Bartlett) is very bad news for the "death caused by haemorrhage" hypothesis.
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. There was dried blood on the left wrist. His jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from that area down towards the hand there was dried blood, but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just dried blood.
Q. You did not see the wound?
A. I did not see the wound, no.
Q. You were not looking at the wound, then?
A. The hand -- from what I remember, his arm -- left arm was outstretched to the left of the body.
The jacket pulled up to the mid forearm area and confirmation of the left arm being outstretched.
Q. Yes.
A. Palm up or slightly on the side (indicates) and, as I say, there was dried blood from the edge of the jacket down towards the hand but no gaping wound or anything obvious that I could see from the position I was in.
Q. Were you examining the wrist for --
A. No, I was not. No.
Q. And were you examining the ground for blood or blood loss?
A. No.
MR DINGEMANS: Right. Thank you.
LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much Ms Hunt. Thank you.
Mr Dingemans makes some sort of recovery here hinting that there could be blood loss but that the reason Ms Hunt didn't see it was because she wasn't examining the ground. Good try Mr Dingemans but I'm afraid not good enough! Whereas it's true that she wasn't at Harrowdown Hill to examine the ground she as an experienced paramedic would be mentally noting various bits of information at the scene not directly related to her checking for signs of life. For instance she noticed some blood on the nearby stinging nettles.
If there was any significant amount of blood visible on the ground she would surely have seen it as she was squatting or kneeling in the area where the blood would be.
The description 'Palm up or slightly on the side' indicates the natural palm position when an arm is oustretched.
Showing posts with label Vanessa Hunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vanessa Hunt. Show all posts
Saturday, 15 September 2012
Sunday, 1 July 2012
The 'Virgin Atlantic' pouch
A pouch, suitable it seems to house a mobile phone, was attached to the trouser belt. There's very little about it on the Hutton website but it gets a mention in this exchange between Mr Dingemans and paramedic Vanessa Hunt:
Q. And did you note whether or not he had a mobile phone?
A. There was a mobile phone pouch clipped to his belt on his front but slightly to the right side, but you could not see if there was a phone within the pouch or not.
Dr Hunt notes its presence, together with the belt, in his report under 'Clothing':
A brown leather belt with a white metal buckle which was done up at the waist. On the brown leather belt, over the right hip area, was a 'Virgin Atlantic', Velcro closed pouch. The Velcro was done up although the pouch flap was at something of an angle.
The two descriptions of the pouch position differ slightly; some people will say that this is just two witnesses effectively stating the same thing, alternatively I think that the pouch position might have shifted as a result of the body being moved to a small degree after the paramedics left the scene. This should NOT be confused with the very significant movement of the body away from the tree prior to the arrival of the ambulance team.
Dr Hunt correctly separates the belt and pouch in his exhibits list. Mr Green receives both these items amongst others at his laboratory on 25 July 2003. In his report Mr Green says:
He was dressed in brown hiking boots (NCH.4&5), beige socks (NCH.6&7), faded blue jeans (NCH.10) with a leather belt (NCH.8) that had a "Virgin Atlantic" pouch (NCH.9) attached at the front.
Mr Green and Dr Hunt are viewing the same scene so one saying the pouch was attached at the front, the other that it was over the right hip area shouldn't I suppose give cause for concern. Perhaps Vanessa Hunt was the most accurate of the three in her description!
Mr Green deals with the results of his testing of the pouch on page 13 of his report:
The belt (NCH.8) was made of tan coloured leather. This item was examined visually for the presence of bloodstaining but none was found.
Item NCH.9 was an empty pouch, which had been connected to the deceased's belt. The pouch was beige and black in colour and bore the "Virgin Atlantic" logo on the front. The pouch was closed with a Velcro flap. The outside of the flap bore a small contact stain and another small bloodstain was present on the right side of the pouch. Traces of bloodstaining were also observed on the Velcro under surface of the flap and the corresponding surface of the pouch. STR profiling of the blood under the flap produced a full profile, which matched that of Dr Kelly therefore this blood could have come from him. This finding tends to suggest that Dr Kelly was already injured at the time the pouch was opened.
I wouldn't like to say whether any of this blood on the pouch was seen at Harrowdown Hill or perhaps it was only noted when Mr Green gave the item a really close inspection a week later. How it came to be there is an interesting question, I would just mention again though that by the time Mr Green inspects the scene there appears to be more blood present than earlier ,,, for example the stain on the right knee is about 10 times bigger in area than when seen by the ambulance team and that there is now a pool of blood under the knife, a fact inexplicably missed by DC Coe as well as the paramedics.
There is plenty to consider regarding events at Harrowdown Hill on the 18th July. However I'm going to leave that for the moment and I'll explain some of my thoughts on the legal aspects of this business.
Q. And did you note whether or not he had a mobile phone?
A. There was a mobile phone pouch clipped to his belt on his front but slightly to the right side, but you could not see if there was a phone within the pouch or not.
Dr Hunt notes its presence, together with the belt, in his report under 'Clothing':
A brown leather belt with a white metal buckle which was done up at the waist. On the brown leather belt, over the right hip area, was a 'Virgin Atlantic', Velcro closed pouch. The Velcro was done up although the pouch flap was at something of an angle.
The two descriptions of the pouch position differ slightly; some people will say that this is just two witnesses effectively stating the same thing, alternatively I think that the pouch position might have shifted as a result of the body being moved to a small degree after the paramedics left the scene. This should NOT be confused with the very significant movement of the body away from the tree prior to the arrival of the ambulance team.
Dr Hunt correctly separates the belt and pouch in his exhibits list. Mr Green receives both these items amongst others at his laboratory on 25 July 2003. In his report Mr Green says:
He was dressed in brown hiking boots (NCH.4&5), beige socks (NCH.6&7), faded blue jeans (NCH.10) with a leather belt (NCH.8) that had a "Virgin Atlantic" pouch (NCH.9) attached at the front.
Mr Green and Dr Hunt are viewing the same scene so one saying the pouch was attached at the front, the other that it was over the right hip area shouldn't I suppose give cause for concern. Perhaps Vanessa Hunt was the most accurate of the three in her description!
Mr Green deals with the results of his testing of the pouch on page 13 of his report:
The belt (NCH.8) was made of tan coloured leather. This item was examined visually for the presence of bloodstaining but none was found.
Item NCH.9 was an empty pouch, which had been connected to the deceased's belt. The pouch was beige and black in colour and bore the "Virgin Atlantic" logo on the front. The pouch was closed with a Velcro flap. The outside of the flap bore a small contact stain and another small bloodstain was present on the right side of the pouch. Traces of bloodstaining were also observed on the Velcro under surface of the flap and the corresponding surface of the pouch. STR profiling of the blood under the flap produced a full profile, which matched that of Dr Kelly therefore this blood could have come from him. This finding tends to suggest that Dr Kelly was already injured at the time the pouch was opened.
I wouldn't like to say whether any of this blood on the pouch was seen at Harrowdown Hill or perhaps it was only noted when Mr Green gave the item a really close inspection a week later. How it came to be there is an interesting question, I would just mention again though that by the time Mr Green inspects the scene there appears to be more blood present than earlier ,,, for example the stain on the right knee is about 10 times bigger in area than when seen by the ambulance team and that there is now a pool of blood under the knife, a fact inexplicably missed by DC Coe as well as the paramedics.
There is plenty to consider regarding events at Harrowdown Hill on the 18th July. However I'm going to leave that for the moment and I'll explain some of my thoughts on the legal aspects of this business.
Monday, 18 June 2012
Dr Kelly's "hardening of the arteries" (1)
In his now published report of 25 July 2003 Dr Hunt describes the condition of Dr Kelly's heart at post mortem on page 8 of the pdf http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
Quite correctly his report uses medical terminology but at the Hutton Inquiry he presents the relevant evidence in language more suited to the layman:
Q. Can you say what significant findings you made on the internal examination?
A. Yes, in terms of significant positive findings, there was evidence that at the time of his death Dr Kelly had a significant amount of narrowing of the arteries to his heart, his coronary arteries by a process called atherosclerosis or, colloquially, hardening of the arteries. That was the only positive evidence of natural disease, but I could not find evidence that he had had a heart attack as a consequence of that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. And in summary, what is your opinion as to the major factor involved in Dr Kelly's death?
A. It is the haemorrhage as a result of the incised wounds to his left wrist.
Q. If that had not occurred, would Dr Kelly have died?
A. He may not have done at this time, with that level of dextropropoxyphene.
Q. What role, if any, did the coronary disease play?
A. As with the drug dextropropoxyphene, it would have hastened death rather than caused it, as such.
Q. So how would you summarise, in brief, your conclusions as to the cause of death?
A. In the formulation, the cause of death is given as 1(a) haemorrhage due to 1(b) incised wounds of the left wrist. Under part 2 of the formulation of the medical cause of death, Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis.
In his Opening Statement on 1st August Hutton refers to Dr Hunt's preliminary post mortem report of 19 July 2003 and says:
The post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr Hunt also states: "It is noted that [Dr Kelly] has a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but not
the major part in the cause of death."
I think that it can be agreed that what Dr Hunt wrote in his report has to be his definitive point of view and that it is perfectly sensible, even desirable, to explain that in layman's terms to an audience of non specialists if the exact sense is retained. So far, so good. Then, seven years later, on 22 August 2010 something quite extraordinary and unprecedented happened: Dr Hunt elaborated on what he wrote in his report and subsequently said at the Hutton Inquiry. An article appeared in the Sunday Times that day and we read:
During the autopsy, Hunt discovered that Kelly was suffering from a severe form of coronary heart disease called atherosclerosis, although he had been unaware of this.
Two of his main coronary arteries were 70%-80% narrower than normal, creating a significant risk of cardiac arrest. "If he had dropped dead in the canteen at Porton Down [the government research establishment where he had worked] and you had seen his coronary arteries, you would have had a very good reason to believe that was the only reason he died," said Hunt.
His condition greatly reduced the ability of his heart to withstand sudden blood loss, and also made him more susceptible to stress. It also made his heart more vulnerable to a synthetic opiate in the painkiller he had taken, co-proxamol. The prescription painkiller was withdrawn in 2007 after it emerged that overdoses, either accidental or deliberate, were causing up to 400 deaths a year. It contains dextropropoxyphene, a synthetic opiate that can cause the heart to develop an abnormal rhythm, leading to cardiac arrest.
Two points worth making here: firstly it can be seen that Dr Hunt is making a lot more of the atherosclerosis seven years later, he should have made this clear at that earlier time. Secondly, what on earth was he doing talking to the papers about this? He is answerable to the coroner and there is no indication that he spoke to Mr Gardiner or sought his permission. His behaviour was totally unprofessional and unacceptable.
The subject of the Sunday Times interview was raised with the Attorney General Dominic Grieve as number 74 in the Schedule http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf
I won't discuss the detail of 74 for the moment because the response was mainly concerned with the blood at the scene, not the subject of this particular post. Suffice to note that it glosses over the behaviour of Dr Hunt: The interview with the Sunday Times and justification for it is a matter for Dr Hunt but there is nothing in the account that undermines the findings of the Inquiry. Well I'm sorry but the question of justification for the interview should NOT be just casually passed over in this way.
Dr Hunt's cavalier behaviour is in stark contrast with that of the ambulance team who were interviewed by Antony Barnett for the Observer of 12 December 2004:
Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt sought permission from their employer, Oxfordshire Ambulance Trust, before agreeing to be interviewed. They spoke as individuals and not as representatives of the trust.
A further interesting point arises here. Assuming that the Ambulance Trust had a broad idea of what the content of the interview was likely to be then that suggests that it wasn't just Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett who were concerned about the conclusions of the pathologist!
Quite correctly his report uses medical terminology but at the Hutton Inquiry he presents the relevant evidence in language more suited to the layman:
Q. Can you say what significant findings you made on the internal examination?
A. Yes, in terms of significant positive findings, there was evidence that at the time of his death Dr Kelly had a significant amount of narrowing of the arteries to his heart, his coronary arteries by a process called atherosclerosis or, colloquially, hardening of the arteries. That was the only positive evidence of natural disease, but I could not find evidence that he had had a heart attack as a consequence of that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. And in summary, what is your opinion as to the major factor involved in Dr Kelly's death?
A. It is the haemorrhage as a result of the incised wounds to his left wrist.
Q. If that had not occurred, would Dr Kelly have died?
A. He may not have done at this time, with that level of dextropropoxyphene.
Q. What role, if any, did the coronary disease play?
A. As with the drug dextropropoxyphene, it would have hastened death rather than caused it, as such.
Q. So how would you summarise, in brief, your conclusions as to the cause of death?
A. In the formulation, the cause of death is given as 1(a) haemorrhage due to 1(b) incised wounds of the left wrist. Under part 2 of the formulation of the medical cause of death, Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis.
In his Opening Statement on 1st August Hutton refers to Dr Hunt's preliminary post mortem report of 19 July 2003 and says:
The post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr Hunt also states: "It is noted that [Dr Kelly] has a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but not
the major part in the cause of death."
I think that it can be agreed that what Dr Hunt wrote in his report has to be his definitive point of view and that it is perfectly sensible, even desirable, to explain that in layman's terms to an audience of non specialists if the exact sense is retained. So far, so good. Then, seven years later, on 22 August 2010 something quite extraordinary and unprecedented happened: Dr Hunt elaborated on what he wrote in his report and subsequently said at the Hutton Inquiry. An article appeared in the Sunday Times that day and we read:
During the autopsy, Hunt discovered that Kelly was suffering from a severe form of coronary heart disease called atherosclerosis, although he had been unaware of this.
Two of his main coronary arteries were 70%-80% narrower than normal, creating a significant risk of cardiac arrest. "If he had dropped dead in the canteen at Porton Down [the government research establishment where he had worked] and you had seen his coronary arteries, you would have had a very good reason to believe that was the only reason he died," said Hunt.
His condition greatly reduced the ability of his heart to withstand sudden blood loss, and also made him more susceptible to stress. It also made his heart more vulnerable to a synthetic opiate in the painkiller he had taken, co-proxamol. The prescription painkiller was withdrawn in 2007 after it emerged that overdoses, either accidental or deliberate, were causing up to 400 deaths a year. It contains dextropropoxyphene, a synthetic opiate that can cause the heart to develop an abnormal rhythm, leading to cardiac arrest.
Two points worth making here: firstly it can be seen that Dr Hunt is making a lot more of the atherosclerosis seven years later, he should have made this clear at that earlier time. Secondly, what on earth was he doing talking to the papers about this? He is answerable to the coroner and there is no indication that he spoke to Mr Gardiner or sought his permission. His behaviour was totally unprofessional and unacceptable.
The subject of the Sunday Times interview was raised with the Attorney General Dominic Grieve as number 74 in the Schedule http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf
I won't discuss the detail of 74 for the moment because the response was mainly concerned with the blood at the scene, not the subject of this particular post. Suffice to note that it glosses over the behaviour of Dr Hunt: The interview with the Sunday Times and justification for it is a matter for Dr Hunt but there is nothing in the account that undermines the findings of the Inquiry. Well I'm sorry but the question of justification for the interview should NOT be just casually passed over in this way.
Dr Hunt's cavalier behaviour is in stark contrast with that of the ambulance team who were interviewed by Antony Barnett for the Observer of 12 December 2004:
Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt sought permission from their employer, Oxfordshire Ambulance Trust, before agreeing to be interviewed. They spoke as individuals and not as representatives of the trust.
A further interesting point arises here. Assuming that the Ambulance Trust had a broad idea of what the content of the interview was likely to be then that suggests that it wasn't just Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett who were concerned about the conclusions of the pathologist!
Saturday, 16 June 2012
Incisions to the left wrist
In Dr Hunt's opinion the cause of death was:
1a. Haemorrhage
1b. Incised wounds to the left wrist
2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis
I know that it has been suggested that the co-proxamol ingestion should have been placed as the primary cause of death. I'm also aware of one writer at least who considers that the heart disease was sufficiently bad that, in a sense, that should be considered as the main reason for Dr Kelly dying. For the start of this post though I will stay with Dr Hunt's assumption.
Dr Hunt observed a number of incisions, of varied lengths and depths, to the left wrist. I'm not going to repeat the quite lengthy information he provides but suggest that the interested reader go to his report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
This pdf is 14 pages long and the relevant section is on page 6 under the heading "Signs of sharp force injury". Of note is the fact that the complex of wounds extended 8 cm from side to side and about 5 cm from top to bottom. Now my left wrist is about 8 cm across so it seems that the wounds when considered together occupied the full width of the wrist. The longest wound was one of 6 cm, most of the others much shorter. The deepest wound (1 to 1.5 cm deep) was at the elbow end of the complex. Surprisingly the much shallower radial artery was intact as was the radial nerve.
In talking of some of the shallower cuts Dr Hunt said: 'The impression given was of multiple so-called 'tentative' or hesitation' marks'. Dr Hunt wrote in the Sunday Times of 22 August 2010 it was a 'classic case of self-inflicted injury'. It seems to be the so-called tentative or hesitation marks that really convinced him of suicide ... if he was being honest in his assessment.
My worry is the fact that there was evidence that went against the suicide hypothesis as well. Some of this, perhaps most obviously the movement of the body, may not have been known to Dr Hunt at the time. Human nature might have played a part here as well: having seen the tentative marks was Dr Hunt then totally sold on the suicide hypothesis, even to the extent of downplaying or ignoring any contrary evidence.
Imagine for a moment malevolent third parties intent on dressing up a murder to look like suicide. They wouldn't know how sharp a visiting forensic pathologist would be. The job would have to be really convincing. An everyday criminal in this situation wouldn't consider mimicking the shallow hesitation cuts in my opinion but the security services of this or another country would be much more likely to.
There has been a suggestion that the wrist cutting covered up an injection site. I think that's quite possible. Dr Shepherd, in his report of 16 March 2011 to the Attorney General, states, without any caveats, 'there were no injection sites anywhere on the body'. This is an unverifiable statement in a report which is generally sloppy and inept. Much more on Shepherd in due course no doubt
It was one thing having Dr Hunt on board with the suicide hypothesis. What couldn't have been imagined I think was the problems created by the ambulance team in their testimonies at the Hutton Inquiry and, perhaps more importantly, their interview that went into the Observer on 12 December 2004, and talking in front of the cameras. For the paramedics to carry out such an action, fundamentally undermining the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry, must surely be unprecedented.
I believe that the actions of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were absolutely pivotal in bringing the suicide conclusion into disrepute.
1a. Haemorrhage
1b. Incised wounds to the left wrist
2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis
I know that it has been suggested that the co-proxamol ingestion should have been placed as the primary cause of death. I'm also aware of one writer at least who considers that the heart disease was sufficiently bad that, in a sense, that should be considered as the main reason for Dr Kelly dying. For the start of this post though I will stay with Dr Hunt's assumption.
Dr Hunt observed a number of incisions, of varied lengths and depths, to the left wrist. I'm not going to repeat the quite lengthy information he provides but suggest that the interested reader go to his report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
This pdf is 14 pages long and the relevant section is on page 6 under the heading "Signs of sharp force injury". Of note is the fact that the complex of wounds extended 8 cm from side to side and about 5 cm from top to bottom. Now my left wrist is about 8 cm across so it seems that the wounds when considered together occupied the full width of the wrist. The longest wound was one of 6 cm, most of the others much shorter. The deepest wound (1 to 1.5 cm deep) was at the elbow end of the complex. Surprisingly the much shallower radial artery was intact as was the radial nerve.
In talking of some of the shallower cuts Dr Hunt said: 'The impression given was of multiple so-called 'tentative' or hesitation' marks'. Dr Hunt wrote in the Sunday Times of 22 August 2010 it was a 'classic case of self-inflicted injury'. It seems to be the so-called tentative or hesitation marks that really convinced him of suicide ... if he was being honest in his assessment.
My worry is the fact that there was evidence that went against the suicide hypothesis as well. Some of this, perhaps most obviously the movement of the body, may not have been known to Dr Hunt at the time. Human nature might have played a part here as well: having seen the tentative marks was Dr Hunt then totally sold on the suicide hypothesis, even to the extent of downplaying or ignoring any contrary evidence.
Imagine for a moment malevolent third parties intent on dressing up a murder to look like suicide. They wouldn't know how sharp a visiting forensic pathologist would be. The job would have to be really convincing. An everyday criminal in this situation wouldn't consider mimicking the shallow hesitation cuts in my opinion but the security services of this or another country would be much more likely to.
There has been a suggestion that the wrist cutting covered up an injection site. I think that's quite possible. Dr Shepherd, in his report of 16 March 2011 to the Attorney General, states, without any caveats, 'there were no injection sites anywhere on the body'. This is an unverifiable statement in a report which is generally sloppy and inept. Much more on Shepherd in due course no doubt
It was one thing having Dr Hunt on board with the suicide hypothesis. What couldn't have been imagined I think was the problems created by the ambulance team in their testimonies at the Hutton Inquiry and, perhaps more importantly, their interview that went into the Observer on 12 December 2004, and talking in front of the cameras. For the paramedics to carry out such an action, fundamentally undermining the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry, must surely be unprecedented.
I believe that the actions of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were absolutely pivotal in bringing the suicide conclusion into disrepute.
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.
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.
The blood: the ambulance team's evidence
Dr Kelly's body was discovered by "Brock" the search dog owned by Louise Holmes at about 9.15 am on Friday 18 July 2003. DC Coe sees the body at 9.40, the same time as an ambulance is called. The narrative states that at 10.07 the ambulance crew determine that the body is deceased. DC Coe, in his testimony and in a newspaper article, records the fact that there was very little blood at the scene.
What then did paramedic Vanessa Hunt and ambulance technician Dave Bartlett have to say to the Inquiry about blood at the scene? As experienced professionals who had attended many attempted suicides by wrist slashing their evidence would surely be of great importance. First Ms Hunt was examined by Mr Dingemans and then Mr Bartlett by Mr Knox.
Vanessa Hunt's testimony re blood at the scene
What then did paramedic Vanessa Hunt and ambulance technician Dave Bartlett have to say to the Inquiry about blood at the scene? As experienced professionals who had attended many attempted suicides by wrist slashing their evidence would surely be of great importance. First Ms Hunt was examined by Mr Dingemans and then Mr Bartlett by Mr Knox.
Vanessa Hunt's testimony re blood at the scene
Q. Could you see anything on the body itself?
A. On his left arm, which was outstretched to the left of him, there was some dry blood.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. And is there anything else that you know of about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?
A. Only that the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing.
Q. On the clothing?
A. Yes.
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. There was dried blood on the left wrist. His jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from that area down towards the hand there was dried blood, but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just dried blood.
Q. You did not see the wound?
A. I did not see the wound, no.
Q. You were not looking at the wound, then?
A. The hand -- from what I remember, his arm -- left arm was outstretched to the left of the body.
Q. Yes.
Q. You did not see the wound?
A. I did not see the wound, no.
Q. You were not looking at the wound, then?
A. The hand -- from what I remember, his arm -- left arm was outstretched to the left of the body.
Q. Yes.
A. Palm up or slightly on the side (indicates) and, as I say, there was dried blood from the edge of the jacket down towards the hand but no gaping wound or anything obvious that I could see from the position I was in.
Q. Were you examining the wrist for --
A. No, I was not. No.
Q. And were you examining the ground for blood or blood loss?
A. No.
Dave Bartlett's testimony re blood at the scene
Q. Did you notice any injuries?
A. Just some dried blood across the wrist.
Q. Which wrist would that be?
A. The left wrist.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. You mentioned the injury to the wrist. You saw some blood, did you?
A. There was dried blood across the top, yes.
Q. Was that congealed or not?
A. I did not touch it. It was dried, it started to crack like when it goes dry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. And were there any stains on the clothes?
A. Not that I could see apart from on the deceased's right knee, there was a bloodstain about 25 mm across.
Q. When you say on the right knee, you mean on the trousers?
A. Yes, on the right knee of the trousers.
Q. When you say on the right knee, you mean on the trousers?
A. Yes, on the right knee of the trousers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Is there anything else you would like to say about the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death?
A. Just the same as my colleague actually, we was surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterial bleed.
Their testimonies, given two weeks before DC Coe appeared at the Inquiry, also suggest that there was remarkably little blood at the scene. Apart from the dried blood on the left wrist/arm they note some blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and also on the nettles to the left of the body. And that's it! If they were observant enough to see the blood on the nettles and the 25 mm diameter bloodstain on the jeans then it would be truly remarkable if they had missed any other significant amounts of blood. It must be borne in mind too that they were actually working on the body with the implication therefore of squatting close to the ground or even kneeling so would surely be aware of blood on the ground.
When Vanessa Hunt tells Mr Dingemans that there was a minimal amount of blood present he instantly realises that this isn't good news for the suicide hypothesis. He tries to downgrade her evidence by getting her to say that she wasn't really looking at the wound or blood on the ground. Such matters may not have been her primary focus but as a highly experienced paramedic she would be taking in peripheral information.
Dave Bartlett also comments on the lack of blood on the body.
Their testimonies, given two weeks before DC Coe appeared at the Inquiry, also suggest that there was remarkably little blood at the scene. Apart from the dried blood on the left wrist/arm they note some blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and also on the nettles to the left of the body. And that's it! If they were observant enough to see the blood on the nettles and the 25 mm diameter bloodstain on the jeans then it would be truly remarkable if they had missed any other significant amounts of blood. It must be borne in mind too that they were actually working on the body with the implication therefore of squatting close to the ground or even kneeling so would surely be aware of blood on the ground.
When Vanessa Hunt tells Mr Dingemans that there was a minimal amount of blood present he instantly realises that this isn't good news for the suicide hypothesis. He tries to downgrade her evidence by getting her to say that she wasn't really looking at the wound or blood on the ground. Such matters may not have been her primary focus but as a highly experienced paramedic she would be taking in peripheral information.
Dave Bartlett also comments on the lack of blood on the body.
Sunday, 27 May 2012
The knife at Harrowdown Hill
A knife was found at Harrowdown Hill to the left of the body. The purpose of this post is to record the descriptions of the knife through the eyes of the witnesses.
Although apparently close to the body the knife isn't mentioned by either of the civilian searchers at the Hutton Inquiry or in that part of their police statements that have been disclosed. Neither the counsel to the Inquiry nor Lord Hutton ask Louise Holmes or Paul Chapman about the knife. The searchers aren't asked about any of the other objects near the body nor do they volunteer information about them, suggesting that they were added after the searchers left the scene. As will be discussed later the evidence is of the body being moved as well as each arm relative to the body. Therefore the possibility of the various artifacts being added by a third party can't be ruled out.
This is DC Coe at the Hutton Inquiry:
Although apparently close to the body the knife isn't mentioned by either of the civilian searchers at the Hutton Inquiry or in that part of their police statements that have been disclosed. Neither the counsel to the Inquiry nor Lord Hutton ask Louise Holmes or Paul Chapman about the knife. The searchers aren't asked about any of the other objects near the body nor do they volunteer information about them, suggesting that they were added after the searchers left the scene. As will be discussed later the evidence is of the body being moved as well as each arm relative to the body. Therefore the possibility of the various artifacts being added by a third party can't be ruled out.
This is DC Coe at the Hutton Inquiry:
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.
DC Coe police witness statement (from Annex TVP 1)
I could see that his left wrist had blood on it. Close to the wrist was a small knife like a pruning knife together with a wrist watch.
PC Franklin at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. And what did the knife look like?
A. The blade was open. It was some sort of lock knife. I cannot be that precise. I believe it had a curved -- slight curve to the blade. The blade was maybe 3 to 4 inches long.
Q. Was there anything on the blade?
A. Blood.
A. The blade was open. It was some sort of lock knife. I cannot be that precise. I believe it had a curved -- slight curve to the blade. The blade was maybe 3 to 4 inches long.
Q. Was there anything on the blade?
A. Blood.
PC Franklin police witness statement (from Annex TVP 3)
... the deceased had an apparent cut to his left arm, his wristwatch and a knife were lying close to the left arm ...
PC Sawyer at the Hutton Inquiry
There was a large amount of blood on the back of the left arm. There was a watch and a curved knife by that wrist.
Q. And you say a curved knife. Was it open? Was it a penknife?
A. It was open. I have seen gardening pruning knives which look identical. I would have called it a pruning knife.
Q. And you say a curved knife. Was it open? Was it a penknife?
A. It was open. I have seen gardening pruning knives which look identical. I would have called it a pruning knife.
The published extract of PC Sawyer's witness statement is very short and doesn't include any reference to the knife.
Paramedic Vanessa Hunt at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. Right. And did you see anything on the ground?
A. There was a silver bladed knife, a wristwatch, which was off of the wrist.
Q. Yes.
A. And, oh, a water bottle, a small water bottle stood up to the left side of Dr Kelly's head.
The published extract of Vanessa Hunts witness statement in Annex TVP 3 just deals with the body position.
Ambulance Technician Dave Bartlett at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What type of a knife was it?
A. I think it was one of those silver quite flat ones with like a curved blade, more like a pruning knife.
Dave Bartlett police witness statement (Annex TVP 3)
On the ground next to the left arm I saw a watch and an open penknife and an empty water bottle.
Forensic Pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What about next to the watch?
A. Lying next to that was a pruning knife or gardener's knife.
A. Lying next to that was a pruning knife or gardener's knife.
Q. Can you describe what type of pruning knife it was?
A. The make was a Sandvig knife. It was one with a little hook or lip towards the tip of the blade. It is a fairly standard gardeners' type knife.
Dr Hunt in his report
Lying near his left hand, on the grass, was a black resin-strapped wristwatch; presumably a digital watch, lying face down and showing some bloodstaining.
Lying adjacent to this 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.
Forensic biologist Roy Green at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What else did you see around the body?
A. There was a bloodstained watch and a knife to --
Q. Was the knife bloodstained?
A. Yes, it was, yes.
Mr Green's written statement
The "Sandvik" knife (AMH.5) was a stainless steel penknife. The single blade, which was curved and measured 7.5 cm in length, was exposed. The blade and the handle were heavily stained with blood especially on the right side.
So what information can we draw from this? The basic description of the knife is consistent between the various witnesses at Harrowdown Hill which is hardly surprising. What is noticeable is that neither the ambulance crew nor DC Coe mention blood on the knife, by the time Mr Green sees it both the blade and handle are heavily stained with blood. Even more theatrically Dr Hunt describes a pool of blood beneath the knife. I shall explain later the evidence of the knife (and watch) having been moved between the time the ambulance crew are at the scene and the examination of the scene by Dr Hunt and Mr Green.
Mr Green, not surprisingly, gives us the most accurate description of the knife. I have just made a measurement to see how wide my wrist is: it is almost exactly 7.5 cm across ... the same as the length of the blade. The fact that the blade was curved demonstrates to me that its shape was far from ideal for the purpose. I would have thought a knife of the "Stanley" type with a straight blade would have been far better for making incisions.
Some more interesting aspects of the knife to come in my next posts.
Dr Hunt in his report
Lying near his left hand, on the grass, was a black resin-strapped wristwatch; presumably a digital watch, lying face down and showing some bloodstaining.
Lying adjacent to this 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.
Forensic biologist Roy Green at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What else did you see around the body?
A. There was a bloodstained watch and a knife to --
Q. Was the knife bloodstained?
A. Yes, it was, yes.
Mr Green's written statement
The "Sandvik" knife (AMH.5) was a stainless steel penknife. The single blade, which was curved and measured 7.5 cm in length, was exposed. The blade and the handle were heavily stained with blood especially on the right side.
So what information can we draw from this? The basic description of the knife is consistent between the various witnesses at Harrowdown Hill which is hardly surprising. What is noticeable is that neither the ambulance crew nor DC Coe mention blood on the knife, by the time Mr Green sees it both the blade and handle are heavily stained with blood. Even more theatrically Dr Hunt describes a pool of blood beneath the knife. I shall explain later the evidence of the knife (and watch) having been moved between the time the ambulance crew are at the scene and the examination of the scene by Dr Hunt and Mr Green.
Mr Green, not surprisingly, gives us the most accurate description of the knife. I have just made a measurement to see how wide my wrist is: it is almost exactly 7.5 cm across ... the same as the length of the blade. The fact that the blade was curved demonstrates to me that its shape was far from ideal for the purpose. I would have thought a knife of the "Stanley" type with a straight blade would have been far better for making incisions.
Some more interesting aspects of the knife to come in my next posts.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
The ambulance crew and the slit wrist hypothesis
Unlike people such as Dr Hunt and Mr Green ambulance crew are going to see both live and dead bodies in the course of their work. They will see many attempted suicides and some successful ones too. So when Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett, the two ambulance crew that confirmed that the body was dead, are interviewed by Antony Barnett for the Observer of 12 December 2004 I think that we should take note of what they had to say.
This is part of it:
The whole article can be read here http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BAR412A.html
The whole question about lack of blood will be covered later. Suffice to say at the moment that two ambulance crew with years of experience had attended plenty of attempted wrist slashings but only noted one that had succeeded in its objective. Of course they wouldn't have had the expertise of a doctor but their huge experience mustn't be overlooked.
This is part of it:
On 18 July last year Bartlett
and Hunt received an emergency call to attend a suspected suicide. 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.
The whole article can be read here http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BAR412A.html
The whole question about lack of blood will be covered later. Suffice to say at the moment that two ambulance crew with years of experience had attended plenty of attempted wrist slashings but only noted one that had succeeded in its objective. Of course they wouldn't have had the expertise of a doctor but their huge experience mustn't be overlooked.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)