Further thoughts on Mrs Kelly's co-proxamol

A couple of days ago I put up a post about Mrs Kelly's co-proxamol tablets http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/06/mrs-kellys-store-of-co-proxamol-tablets.html From that post and subsequent comments it can be seen that no proof whatsoever has been produced linking the blister packs in the Barbour jacket pocket with the tablets in the two locations in the Kelly home.

This is what we read in Chapter 5 Paragraph 147 of Lord Hutton's Report:

  147.  It also appears probable that the Coproxamol tablets which Dr Kelly took just before his death came from a store of those tablets which Mrs Kelly, who suffered from arthritis, kept in their home. In a statement furnished to the Inquiry Detective Constable Eldridge stated:

At 1000hrs on Thursday 7th AUGUST 2003 I was on duty at Long Hanborough Incident Room when I removed from secure storage the following items for examination:—

1.  Exhibit SK/2 CO-PROXAMOL BOX AND STRIP OF TEN TABLETS taken from Janice KELLY

2.  Exhibit NCH/17/2 CO-PROXAMOL BLISTER PACKETS FRONT BOTTOM BELLOWS POCKET these had been removed from Dr KELLY'S coat pocket by the Pathologist

On examining both items I saw that they were identical. They were marked M & A Pharmacy Ltd and had the wording CO-PROXAMOL PL/4077/0174 written on the foil side of each of the blister type packs.

I can say that enquiries have been made with M & A PHARMACHEM who are the manufacturers of CO-PROXAMOL. The batch number shown on the tablets in our possession was checked with a view to tracing the chemist that these tablets had been purchased from. I can say that this batch number relates to approximately 1.6 million packets of tablets that will have been distributed to various chemists throughout the country.

It was way back in November last year that Andrew Watt had pointed out that the "PL" number was the Product License Number http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-of-david-kelly-possible-important.html  On the face of it DC Eldridge was asking the wrong question!

Lord Hutton uses the word 'probable' in his first sentence.  At an inquest a verdict of suicide would demand proof beyond reasonable doubt.  I submit that if it can't be clearly shown that the blister packs found in the jacket pocket originated from Mrs Kelly's supply then the suicide hypothesis is fatally undermined.  Also there is this in the sparse testimony of Dr Kelly's GP Dr Warner:

Q. Did you ever have to prescribe Coproxamol to Dr Kelly?
A. No.

No proof at all has been demonstrated that the "jacket pocket tablets" came from Mrs Kelly's supply, there is no evidence that the police properly looked into the matter and Mr Dingemans posed something of a leading question on the subject at the inquiry.  Whereas the co-proxamol has played "second fiddle" to the knife wounds the co-proxamol evidence has to be similarly viable for a suicide conclusion to be reached.  

Put simply: the origin of the co-proxamol constituents found in Dr Kelly's body cannot be positively linked to the tablets in Mrs Kelly's supply.  This being the case the conclusion that Dr Kelly committed suicide cannot be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.