Dr Kelly's injury to his right elbow

If Dr Kelly did indeed commit suicide by severing the ulnar artery in his left wrist it would, it seems to me,  need a well functioning right arm to perform the necessary action.  Lets just remind ourselves that the ulnar artery is buried in the little finger side of the underside of the wrist.  The radial artery, on the thumb side, is much closer to the surface and it is the radial artery with which people will be familiar as the one commonly felt to check ones pulse.

To get to the ulnar artery requires cutting through tendons and nerves; in the case of Dr Kelly the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt says in his report 'The wound was up to approximately 1 - 1.5 cms deep'.  An open bloodstained knife was found at the scene.  Mrs Kelly says at the Inquiry:

A. We were not shown the knife; we were shown a photocopy of I presume the knife which we recognised as a knife he had had for many years and kept in his drawer.
Q. It was a knife he had had what, from childhood?
A. From childhood I believe. I think probably from the Boy Scouts.

This would make the knife 40 to 50 years old in my estimation.  It would seem that the knife wasn't particularly sharp, certainly no laboratory tests seem to have been done to ascertain if the knife  was sufficiently sharp at that time.  To make the incisions described by Dr Hunt would have needed Dr Kelly to grasp the knife tightly which makes it even more unbelievable that fingerprints weren't present.


A marked lack of functionality in the right arm would make the suicide hypothesis untenable in my opinion.

In late 1991 Dr Kelly suffered a fractured right elbow as a result of an accident.  He underwent surgery followed in the early part of 1992 by a number of physiotherapy sessions.  That much is agreed.  In 2(b) of his report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf  Dr Shepherd looks at the question of the strength of the right arm.  Shepherd makes the assumption that everything is more or less back to normal on the basis it seems that there is no further reference to the injury in the later medical notes pertaining to Dr Kelly nor were there repeat referrals to orthopaedic surgeons.  It seems to me that this forensic pathologist is trying to pose as an expert on bone fracture and subsequent healing.

To get a better insight and understanding of this whole subject I recommend going to the Andrew Watts blog and reading this post http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-articles-on-elbow.html

The question of whether Dr Kelly had the right arm strength to cut through the tendons and ulnar artery of his left wrist has been brought sharply into focus by statements given by his friend and confidante Mai Pederson.  At this juncture I suggest reading this report by Sharon Churcher from 2008: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050919/David-Kellys-closest-female-confidante-COULDNT-killed-himself.html

I'm assuming with the volume of detail in the article that the report is fairly reflecting the comments of Ms Pederson.  So perhaps she was lying?  In trying to see whether an individual is lying I ask myself (a) what is the benefit to the "liar" in telling a lie and (b) what are the downsides to telling the lie.

So far as (a) is concerned I really can't see any gain for Ms Pederson by lying about such a matter.  But it is (b) - looking at the downside which is particularly significant I think.  Let us suppose that Dr Kelly's injury had completely healed.  Mrs Kelly could have gone to her solicitor and made a sworn statement to that effect.  To date she hasn't.  Such a statement would have sunk Ms Pederson's credibility.

At the post mortem examination Dr Hunt reports the presence of 'An old, curving scar around the outer aspect of the right elbow'  He doesn't investigate further which makes him negligent in my opinion.  He should have got the police to interview both the family and the GP Dr Warner to get the background as to the presence of this scar.  Failure to investigate further is shocking even though he must have been under pressure to come to a quick conclusion.

I would point out finally that Shepherd disgracefully derides the observation of Dr Shuttleworth in his letter of 30 April 2010.