|
« The WMD mystery
Main |
January 27, 2004
Death of Dr Kelly
Maybe I've been reading too many thrillers, but I was transfixed by this letter in today's Guardian: 'As specialist medical professionals, we do not consider the evidence given at the Hutton inquiry has demonstrated that Dr David Kelly committed suicide. Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist at the Hutton inquiry, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound to his left wrist. We view this as highly improbable. Arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness and severing them does not lead to life-threatening blood loss. Dr Hunt stated that the only artery that had been cut - the ulnar artery - had been completely transected. Complete transection causes the artery to quickly retract and close down, and this promotes clotting of the blood. 'The ambulance team reported that the quantity of blood at the scene was minimal and surprisingly small. It is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at a pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vasoconstricting. To have died from haemorrhage, Dr Kelly would have had to lose about five pints of blood - it is unlikely that he would have lost more than a pint. 'Alexander Allan, the forensic toxicologist at the inquiry, considered the amount ingested of Co-Proxamol insufficient to have caused death. Allan could not show that Dr Kelly had ingested the 29 tablets said to be missing from the packets found. Only a fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach. Although levels of Co-Proxamol in the blood were higher than therapeutic levels, Allan conceded that the blood level of each of the drug's two components was less than a third of what would normally be found in a fatal overdose. 'We dispute that Dr Kelly could have died from haemorrhage or from Co-Proxamol ingestion or from both. The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, has spoken recently of resuming the inquest into his death. If it re-opens, as in our opinion it should, a clear need exists to scrutinise more closely Dr Hunt's conclusions as to the cause of death. 'David Halpin Now I'm the first person to pour scorn on conspiracy theory. But I myself had noticed, when the pathologists gave evidence to Hutton, the strange absence of blood and the even stranger absence of any close questioning of this fact. I suppressed this doubt on the basis that this way lies the blinding flash in the Alma tunnel and the whole Diana madness. But here are some medically qualified folk expressing similar reservations. Maybe these 'ologists are speaking out of the back of their stethoscopes. But just because conspiracy theory is loopy, on the basis that it denies observable facts, doesn't mean there aren't real conspiracies which can only be detected through observable facts. Naah, it's rubbish. Isn't it? Posted by melanie at January 27, 2004
Comments
They are issuing a professional opinion; I cannot give a definitive answer, I believe further investigation is necessary. Press reports say 500 witness statements were taken, but Hutton only saw 70. With the way this saga has unfolded and news that Clare Short broke Cabinet Confidentiality it seems she primed Gilligan with thoughts and words he probably ascribed to Kelly. This is a chocolate mess, and I think these gentlemen should have their hypothesis tested....it would be refreshing for someone to do something with thoroughness in this affair; hoping for anything but exculpatory smears from the Government is futile; and only a thorough investigation will even begin to lift the stench and fog caused by belching windbags in Whitehall who have abused public trust and destroyed human life Posted by: John of Gaunt at January 27, 2004 04:06 PMWho benefited from his death? Posted by: GrimReaper at January 27, 2004 05:42 PMBefore the media revolution allowed us to know all about everything (as we like to believe) deaths such as David Kelly's would have been ascribed simply to a broken heart (he certainly had suffered a broken career). Maybe there is more wisdom in that drawing of a veil than scurrying about in the coffin hoping to uncover salacious details that can only be destructive of trust and therefore of society. Posted by: michael at January 27, 2004 08:34 PMMichael is completely wrong. For centuries we have had Coroners and there is a public obligation for an Inquest, which has not occurred in the case of Dr Kelly.
Your argument was to leave Shipman's victims in peace and not disturb the karma ! Dr Kelly was not a moonstruck lover, he was an important international scientist connected to SIS, CIA, DIS, MI5, and with contacts to the Mukhabarat in Iraq, FSB/KGB, and to the UN Security Council and Kofi Annan. A man who is on police surveillance as a special security personage in the Thames Valley, should not have an unexplained and univestigated death. This is not yet the USSR where The Party accepts unexplained disappearances and deaths.....but it would appear from 'leaks' (by A Campbell ?) to The British Izvestiya (The Sun) that there are those who think Communist tactics are well-applied in this country. All you need to know about the Kelly conspiracy : There has to be a "proper" inquest. The public reaction to the Hutton whitewash shows what is felt about that fiasco. The British people would like to believe that they deserve sufficient respect not to be regarded as ninnies by the clear ignoring of the evidence by his eminent Lordship. The Kelly family certainly deserve the respect of an establishment that wants to hide all the details surrounding the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death. We can only hope that, if a proper inquest is held, it will be by a stronger character than the one who gave his "verdict" this week. Posted by: at February 1, 2004 08:08 PM |
