tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post6708243053266598480..comments2023-07-28T09:53:02.523+01:00Comments on Dr Kelly's Death - Suicide or Murder: 'An old curving scar'brian in the tamar valleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-83128495482727460732011-07-06T11:59:17.881+01:002011-07-06T11:59:17.881+01:00I've been talking to someone I know who has ha...I've been talking to someone I know who has had to attend post mortems. He assures me that the smell that occurs with a dead body in that situation is something you don't want to experience!<br /><br />The upshot of the conversation is that you don't attend a post mortem voluntarily, you go because you have to. Also you wouldn't be clustered around the body whilst the pathologist was carrying out his grisly work but try and stand some distance away.brian in the tamar valleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-81061490145505514202011-07-04T15:26:19.219+01:002011-07-04T15:26:19.219+01:00I am just a little surprise that Dr Kelly might no...I am just a little surprise that Dr Kelly might not have seen his GP in four years over one problem,which Mrs Kelly highlights:<br /><i>"He had a bad back"</i><br />Did he take any medication for his back pain, which might have produced enhanced body levels,say, of paracetamol? <br /><br />As LL has said, sitting upright unsupported is not a comfortable position for someone with a bad back.felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-38263470536203751432011-07-04T11:05:59.762+01:002011-07-04T11:05:59.762+01:00If Dr Warner was asked to ID the body why was this...If Dr Warner was asked to ID the body why was this event kept secret?<br /><br />Btw new foi's up on TVP siteLancashreLadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635388809036821102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-26914235056523766892011-07-04T10:56:26.004+01:002011-07-04T10:56:26.004+01:00Felix, Lord Hutton's choice of who should atte...Felix, Lord Hutton's choice of who should attend the Inquiry is intriguing. I don't know when it was decided to ask Dr Warner to attend but it's possible I think that it was after Hutton was told that his Inquiry was effectively supplanting an inquest.<br /><br />Did Lord Hutton perhaps believe it was just the correct thing to do to call the GP in an inquest sort of situation? Remember that he didn't have any experience as a coroner.<br /><br />It's what witnesses DIDN'T say at the Inquiry that is almost as telling as what they did say! For instance Dr Warner makes no comment about the earlier elbow injury. We only know about this possible problem because of the reference to the scar in Dr Hunt's report and the interview given by Mai Pederson. Neither of these two things would have been anticipated as getting into the public domain at the time the Hutton Report was produced. <br /><br />Norman Baker powerfully makes the point that there should have been an interim death certificate and I concur with this. The fact that there is a full death certificate without a signature is unbelievable in my view. There must be hundreds of occasions when an interim death certificate is issued because of months or even years of delay before an inquest is completed. So why not here?<br /><br />I don't have a problem about the correspondence between the coroner's officer and Dr Warner. At that time the coroner had yet to be "thrown off the case". The coroner wouldn't have reason to know that Dr Kelly hadn't seen his GP since 1999 etc. Therefore some preliminary enquiries to the GP about Dr Kelly's health would I believe be expected of the coroner in preparing for the inquest.brian in the tamar valleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-13387054934847948342011-07-04T05:17:13.433+01:002011-07-04T05:17:13.433+01:00It is well worth reading what Dr Warner says at th...It is well worth reading what Dr Warner says at the Hutton Inquiry. (He produced exhibit MDW/1, whatever that was)<br />Very little. Fascinatingly little, in fact.<br />When had he last seen Dr Kelly? 4 years ago. Had he prescribed him co-proxamol? No.<br />An MoD health check was sent to Dr Warner after 8 July 2003 which contained nothing sigificant. (cf Police interviews of Mai Pederson). <br />So why, I ask, is Dr Warner dragged in from his patients to say precisely nothing, which is not under oath in any case? I find that highly significant.<br /><br />One question I have - who signed the Formal Notice of death? Dr Hunt confirmed the fact of death, and thus would be the attending doctor, so I would presume it was he. The coroner would then have sent a form 101 to allow burial. <br />As far as I can tell, a death such as this can only be registered after inquest. <br /><br />But the certificate produced here is not an <b>interim certificate of fact of death</b> ,which will allow probate etc to proceed,but a full but unsigned death certificate. If there has been no inquest, the death cannot be registered. Yet apparently it has been.<br /><br />What then was the point of the Hutton Inquiry? Perhaps someone can elaborate? What did the Coroner for Oxfordshire really think??<br /><br />PS I now find that this line of thought was covered in the following article:<br /><i>I believe David Kelly did not commit suicide - and I will prove it</i><br /><br />By Norman Baker MP<br />The Mail on Sunday<br />23 July 2006<br />(Hansard exchange <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20100305/mainchamberdebates/part006.html" rel="nofollow">here</a><br />I am still struggling to find Dr Warner's role here, though. Clearly there was involvement of Dr Warner in the subsequent weeks, viz<br />Letter: Dr Malcolm Warner / Coroner's Officer 04.08.03 - not for release - Police operational information TVP/10/0123 <br />Letter: Ruth Rees (coroner's officer) / Dr M Warner 28.07.03 - not for release - Police operational information TVP/10/0124.<br /><br />Would it be normal for the GP to be involved at this time when to all intents and purposes Dr Warner had no contact with his patient who would appear to Dr Warner to be healthy (though could have dropped dead at any moment,according to Nicholas Hunt due to advanced heart disease unknown to his GP!) and did not attend the scene? Again, perhaps someone can advise?felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.com