I have indicated before on this blog that I don't have a very high regard for the mainstream media (MSM), yes there may be the odd occasion when they get it right but in my mind it tends to be the exception rather than the rule. There is no doubt that significant numbers of people will have had their minds made up as to the cause of Dr Kelly's death following the release of the Forensic Pathologist's report and Toxicologist's report on the internet on the 21st October. The presentation of these releases by the MSM in newspaper, radio or TV format could very easily influence the conclusions reached by the reader, listener or viewer. Factual reports in the press ought to be fine although even these can lead the reader away from what should be totally non committal by the subtle use of headlines for instance.
Where I get particularly irate though is in the way certain commentary pieces are written with a total lack of objectivity. In fact they are often just strewn with rubbish and what were once considered to be the quality papers are as guilty of this if not more so than the "popular press". I'll just flag up a couple of examples, one in the Telegraph and one in the Guardian, that followed the recent release of the documents mentioned earlier and they demonstrate all too clearly in my view how impoverished their writers are in the opinions expressed.
So let's look at the Telegraph piece first, written by one Andrew Gilligan (remember him?). His offering can be read here. You will see, if you didn't know already, that Gilligan is firmly in the "it was suicide" camp. That's fine, even though I'm leaning more and more toward the belief that Dr Kelly was murdered I'm very happy to engage with anyone with an opposite view providing they are presenting some sort of sensible, coherent argument. Gilligan I'm afraid is coming out with rubbish.
"The only other wounds visible at all were superficial abrasions to the head and minor bruising to the limbs – consistent, says the report, with scraping against rough undergrowth (presumably as his body was removed)." This is just one statement of his that got my blood pressure rising. Think about it for a moment. What Gilligan seems to be implying here is that Dr Kelly's body was manhandled through the undergrowth to the waiting hearse when it arrived at Harrowdown Hill on the Friday evening prior to its journey to the mortuary slab. Are we supposed to take Gilligan seriously? The undertakers would have walked into the wood with a coffin and gently lifted the body into it. This is what undertakers do for God's sake!
"What this week’s report does do, however, is show the murder theory to be even more absurd and fantastic than it already was. For Dr Kelly to be killed, it would have needed someone to force 29 pills down his throat, making him swallow them without protest." Another piece of nonsense from Gilligan! As with all the "suiciders" it's a case of 29 tablets missing - therefore 29 tablets were ingested by Dr Kelly. Let me spell it out: there is no incontrovertible proof that Dr Kelly ingested 29 co-proxamol tablets. All we can safely say at the moment is that evidence was found of the two constituents that make up co-proxamol being in the body. This is very different from what Gilligan is saying. Much more from me on another day about the tablets.
There are other examples where his logic can be knocked down but I'll leave the reader with an open mind to consider them. I now want to have a quick look at what Vikram Dodd wrote in the Guardian. The headline is "The experts are clear on how David Kelly died" and immediately underneath we read "Not a single forensic pathologist has challenged the conclusions of the Hutton inquiry". The implication clearly is that these two statements are two sides of the same coin - that they are effectively saying the same thing. Now I realise that when a reporter sends his or her copy in someone else will conjure up a headline. In this instance we are talking about commentary that appeared a few days later. I would have thought that Dodd would have written this headline or at least agreed with it. It took me all of a millisecond I would think to realise the incompatibility of the two statements.
Let's delve a little deeper into what Dodd is saying. It's here. His piece appears to be built around the premise that as none of this country's forensic pathologists have criticised Dr Hunt's findings then obviously the suicide verdict is correct. Now we are led to assume that the experts (implied meaning; other forensic pathologists) are "clear" about something because they have never commented on it! No logic there whatsoever so a poor start indeed Mr Dodd. There aren't many of these forensic pathologists about - I don't have a figure to hand but understand it's less than 50 - so I would be amazed if in that sort of profession one would break ranks and carp about Dr Hunt when that would suggest incompetency. Like me these other forensic pathologists weren't at Harrowdown Hill so somewhat difficult for them to suggest that Dr Hunt was coming to the right conclusions. I mean if one had commented who would you believe a forensic pathologist trying to protect the name of his profession or an ambulance crew well experienced in observing the aftermath of arterial bleeds. Yet Dodd is intimating that the silence of other forensic pathologists is indicative of a correct deduction by Dr Hunt. What planet is Dodd on? And Gilligan come to that. It's absolutely ridiculous - to use a familiar phrase "you couldn't make it up!"
Friday, 29 October 2010
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Interview with Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett
No this is not me interviewing the two ambulance crew that went to Harrowdown Hill on the morning of 18th July 2003. Instead I want to point to the interview by Antony Barnett, one of the better people from the MSM. You can read it here. They were so concerned about what they considered to be the lack of blood for an arterial bleed that they wanted to put on record their worries; I believe it was Rowena Thursby who was able to get them to see Mr Barnett. They don't appear to be people looking for the limelight, in fact they had already voiced their thoughts at the Hutton Inquiry. In reply to Mr Dingemans Ms Hunt had said "no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing." At the end of Mr Knox's examination we have Mr Bartlett saying "we was surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterial bleed." The ambulance crew can also be seen talking about the lack of blood on this video.
From Mr Barnett's report we learn that the medics had been to dozens of incidents of attempted suicide by wrist slashing and they were very familiar with the amount of blood resulting from these actions. Now it's very easy to be seduced by all the medical terminology in Dr Hunt's report into thinking "As forensic pathologist he is the expert, look at his qualifications, look at all the tests he did on Dr Kelly, surely we must believe him rather than anyone else regarding medical matters". My response would be "As a pathologist and then a forensic pathologist has he even once seen a death from an arterial bleed. After all we know that almost all attempts at wrist cutting are unsuccessful so such instances would be seen by paramedics rather than pathologists."
Being as even handed as possible it has to be stated in Dr Hunt's defence that (obviously) he spent time looking at blood stains on Dr Kelly's clothes and on the body itself and so would see evidence of blood in areas that the medics might failed to have noticed. Dr Hunt talks about heavy bloodstaining over the left arm and "a heavier patch of bloodstaining over the right knee area". As to the other areas where blood was seen one gets the impression it was more a case of blood just getting smeared around.
There are those that are keen on the suicide explanation who say that Dr Kelly lost more blood but that it soaked into the ground or into leaf litter at the scene. Regarding leaf litter let's remember that this was July, I've also read very erudite comments on the internet by somebody who has visited the site and stated there was no leaf litter at the location and also that Harrowdown Hill itself is composed of hard Oxford clay and is virtually impermeable to liquids that might otherwise soak into the ground. No attempt at all had been made to analyse soil samples, to estimate the quantity of blood loss or to estimate the quantity of blood still in the body after arrival at the mortuary.
In the real world it might not be easy to get these figures with much accuracy. But on the basis of seeing a lot of blood smeared around it would appear that Dr Hunt made the judgement that Dr Kelly had lost sufficient blood from cutting the ulnar artery to cause death. This is not good enough. Not nearly good enough. One has always to bear in mind for a valid verdict of suicide it has to be shown beyond all reasonable doubt that it was suicide. So far as the blood loss resulting from Dr Kelly's cut ulnar artery is concerned there is insufficient evidence to prove that Dr Kelly died from that cause. Dr Hunt might paint a scenario that leads him to believe that Dr Kelly died that way. The rock solid evidence needed is just not there.
From Mr Barnett's report we learn that the medics had been to dozens of incidents of attempted suicide by wrist slashing and they were very familiar with the amount of blood resulting from these actions. Now it's very easy to be seduced by all the medical terminology in Dr Hunt's report into thinking "As forensic pathologist he is the expert, look at his qualifications, look at all the tests he did on Dr Kelly, surely we must believe him rather than anyone else regarding medical matters". My response would be "As a pathologist and then a forensic pathologist has he even once seen a death from an arterial bleed. After all we know that almost all attempts at wrist cutting are unsuccessful so such instances would be seen by paramedics rather than pathologists."
Being as even handed as possible it has to be stated in Dr Hunt's defence that (obviously) he spent time looking at blood stains on Dr Kelly's clothes and on the body itself and so would see evidence of blood in areas that the medics might failed to have noticed. Dr Hunt talks about heavy bloodstaining over the left arm and "a heavier patch of bloodstaining over the right knee area". As to the other areas where blood was seen one gets the impression it was more a case of blood just getting smeared around.
There are those that are keen on the suicide explanation who say that Dr Kelly lost more blood but that it soaked into the ground or into leaf litter at the scene. Regarding leaf litter let's remember that this was July, I've also read very erudite comments on the internet by somebody who has visited the site and stated there was no leaf litter at the location and also that Harrowdown Hill itself is composed of hard Oxford clay and is virtually impermeable to liquids that might otherwise soak into the ground. No attempt at all had been made to analyse soil samples, to estimate the quantity of blood loss or to estimate the quantity of blood still in the body after arrival at the mortuary.
In the real world it might not be easy to get these figures with much accuracy. But on the basis of seeing a lot of blood smeared around it would appear that Dr Hunt made the judgement that Dr Kelly had lost sufficient blood from cutting the ulnar artery to cause death. This is not good enough. Not nearly good enough. One has always to bear in mind for a valid verdict of suicide it has to be shown beyond all reasonable doubt that it was suicide. So far as the blood loss resulting from Dr Kelly's cut ulnar artery is concerned there is insufficient evidence to prove that Dr Kelly died from that cause. Dr Hunt might paint a scenario that leads him to believe that Dr Kelly died that way. The rock solid evidence needed is just not there.
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
The moving of Dr David Kelly's body
It will be noticed in the title heading to this post I am implying as a fact that the dead body of Dr David Kelly was moved after it was first discovered on the morning of 18th July 2003. I am stating this not as a possibility, nor a probability, but as a fact, to me as much of a fact as seeing the sun rise in the east and set in the west.
That the fact that Dr Kelly's body had been moved by a person or persons unknown after its discovery by search dog Brock shortly before 9.20 am does not in itself prove that Dr Kelly's death was something other than suicide. It does obviously beg the question though: why was it moved?
Let's look at the evidence submitted by the individual witnesses at the Hutton Inquiry, to which I will add my own bits of commentary where relevant.
Louise Holmes
Following the evidence of the search dog's discovery of the body of Dr Kelly these were the exchanges:
A little further on is this exchange:
That the fact that Dr Kelly's body had been moved by a person or persons unknown after its discovery by search dog Brock shortly before 9.20 am does not in itself prove that Dr Kelly's death was something other than suicide. It does obviously beg the question though: why was it moved?
Let's look at the evidence submitted by the individual witnesses at the Hutton Inquiry, to which I will add my own bits of commentary where relevant.
Louise Holmes
Following the evidence of the search dog's discovery of the body of Dr Kelly these were the exchanges:
MR KNOX: What did you see? | MS HOLMES: I could see a body slumped against the bottom of a tree, so I turned around and shouted to Paul to ring Control and tell them that we had found something and then went closer to just see whether there was any first aid that I needed to administer. |
MR KNOX: And how close up to the body did you go? | MS HOLMES: Within sort of a few feet of the body. |
MR KNOX: And did you notice anything about the position of the body? | MS HOLMES: He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree. |
MR KNOX: I take it you did not actually go up to the body itself and feel the pulse?
MS HOLMES: I did not touch it, no.
Ms Holmes can be seen on this video (scroll to about 6.32) confirming what she saw and what she said at the Inquiry. Note that she had got to within a few feet of the body and that it wasn't just Dr Kelly's head against the tree but his shoulders as well.
Paul Chapman
These are the relevant exchanges:
MR DINGEMANS.: Did you see what Brock the dog had found? | MR CHAPMAN: Yes. |
MR DINGEMANS.: And what was that? | MR CHAPMAN: The body of a gentleman sitting up against a tree. |
MR DINGEMANS.: And can you recall what he was wearing? | MR CHAPMAN: All I could see from the distance I got was he was wearing a dark jacket and light coloured shirt. |
MR DINGEMANS.: And how close did you get to the body? | MR CHAPMAN: I probably reached about 15 to 20 metres from it. |
MR DINGEMANS.: Could you see anything at all? | MR CHAPMAN: He was sitting with his back up against a tree and there was an obvious injury to his left arm. |
MR DINGEMANS.: An obvious injury to his left arm. What was that injury? | MR CHAPMAN: In as far as it was all covered in blood. |
So we have Mr Chapman using the words "sitting up against a tree" and then "sitting with his back up against a tree". This again is absolutely clear that it is more than Dr Kelly's head against the tree. We must remember too that Paul also would have seen the body a little later because in his evidence he says "I took DC Coe in to show him where the body was." Another point that perhaps others haven't noticed was his answer about what Dr Kelly was wearing: "a dark jacket and light coloured shirt". From the distance of 15 to 20 metres what was in his near vertical line of sight would have registered rather better than the part of the body in contact with the ground.
DC Coe
Here is the exchange with Mr Knox:
MR KNOX: And how was the body positioned?
COE: It was laying on its back -- the body was laying on its back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the tree.
It can be seen there is absolutely no mention here of the head or any part of the body up against the tree - "the head is towards the trunk of the tree". We have the situation then of DC Coe and Mr Chapman looking at the same scene simultaneously when the former was shown the body by the latter. It is quite clear from the testimony that DC Coe was physically shown the body, it wasn't a case of them getting to the edge of the wood and Mr Chapman pointing DC Coe in the right direction. To my mind it is absolutely impossible to reconcile the descriptions of the body position by these two witnesses.
PC Franklin
MR DINGEMANS: And what did you see there? | POLICE CONSTABLE DEAN FRANKLIN: We walked between 50 and 70 metres into the wood up a slight gradient, and in a clearing at the base of a tree was the body of a white male. |
MR DINGEMANS: Do you recall what was being worn? | POLICE CONSTABLE DEAN FRANKLIN: I believe he had a blue jacket on, a white coloured shirt and blue denim jeans. |
MR DINGEMANS: And what was his position? | POLICE CONSTABLE DEAN FRANKLIN: He was lying on his back with his right hand to his side and his left hand was sort of inverted with the palm facing down (Indicates), facing up on his back. |
PC Sawyer
MR KNOX: Before the paramedics approached Dr Kelly's body, can you remember what position it was in?
POLICE CONSTABLE SAWYER: Lying on its back with its head at the base of a tree, a large tree. The head was tilted to the left. The right arm was by the side. The left arm was palm down. 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.
Both these two policemen refer to the tree but don't indicate that the head or any other part of the anatomy were up against the tree.
Vanessa Hunt (Paramedic)
MR DINGEMANS : And when you got into the wooded area, what did you see?
MS HUNT: There was a male on his back, feet towards us.
David Bartlett (Ambulance Technician)
MR KNOX : What did you then come across?
MR BARTLETT: They led us up to where the body was laid, feet facing us, laid on its back, left arm out to one side (indicates) and the right arm across the chest.
The ambulance crew were as close to the body as anyone could be but there is no mention at all of any part of Dr Kelly's body up against a tree. Later, in talking to the media, Mr Bartlett was to say that Dr Kelly's body was well clear of the tree as you can read here I also think that Rowena Thursby had ascertained the same information from Mr Bartlett at some earlier time.
Dr Nicholas Hunt (Forensic pathologist)
| Could you describe the position of the body at the scene? | MR HUNT: Yes, certainly. He was laying on his back near a tree. The left arm was extended out from the body slightly, closer to shoulder level, his right arm was laying across his chest area and his legs were extended out straight in front of him. |
MR KNOX: I take it from what you just said he was laying on his back? | MR HUNT: He was, yes. |
MR KNOX: Was any part of his body actually touching the tree; can you recall? | MR HUNT: I recall that his head was quite close to branches and so forth, but not actually over the tree. |
Lord Hutton was obviously aware of the concern regarding apparent difference in body position as testified by different witnesses. This is what he says in his report:
"I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree."
So that's all right then! Except of course it isn't. His Lordship's statement is quite vague as to its content. Is the photograph one of the many taken by PC Sawyer at the scene? In which case it being an official photo would have had a time and date stamp on it for sure with the camera set to do this automatically. Perhaps Paul Chapman, who we know had a mobile phone with him, had a camera facility on the phone and sneaked a picture when he showed DC Coe the body. I would suspect not but who knows. Certainly Lord Hutton's statement doesn't resolve the issue. At heart here (to me) are the statements by Paul Chapman and DC Coe and I consider them irreconcilable.
Monday, 25 October 2010
A few general thoughts from me about Dr Kelly's death
Before I continue looking at the issues surrounding David Kelly's death I want to stop for a moment and jot down some of my more general thoughts before returning to the minutiae. There is no particular order to this, just a case of recording some things I consider important.
1. Publication of the Forensic Pathologist's report and Toxicologists report. I will be making a line by line comparison of the content of these two reports with what was said at the Inquiry but not today. What concerns me now is the tactic the government has used to supposedly reassure the public. For the moment let's put aside the aspect of distaste by making these intimate details available to all and sundry. It seems to me that the correct procedure would have been to allow access to a group of medical and legal experts to not only of what has recently gone on line but all the photographs that relate in any way to the death. The headlines that the mainstream media (MSM) were screaming following the publication of the reports were essentially the matters that Dr Hunt had previously intimated to the media. So in that sense there were no huge surprises and the average casual reader of the reports shouldn't have found anything too amazing within them.
2. Dr Hunt and the media. Some little while prior to the release of the reports just mentioned the forensic pathologist had been talking to the media about his examination of Dr Kelly. Now whether Dr Hunt did this entirely off his own bat or there were others who considered it a good idea for him to do a bit of talking prior to the release of the documents I don't know. It's possible that Dr Hunt speaking out was part of a 'holding operation' because we know about the group of concerned individuals who, using legal channels, have been endeavouring to get a proper inquest to take place. If Dr Hunt's public intervention was wholly his own idea then I would condemn that unreservedly. It is not acceptable in my opinion for a professional person in his position to use the media in that way particularly with the possibility of some future legal process regarding Dr Kelly's death. Sorry to be quite so blunt about this but it is one of my 'gold standards' of professional behaviour. Sadly it seems as if the boundaries of professional behaviour are getting blurred.
3. The hopelessness of the mainstream media (MSM). Again I'm going to be blunt but I have to say that by and large the MSM are very poor. One only has to look at what was said when the two reports saw light of day last week. Mostly the same things and quite predictable. One has to search the internet to find blogs, forums and obscure websites that give the interested person the more detailed information and independent thought that is missing from the MSM. At this juncture and trying to be even handed I have to say that the MSM have the constant problem of working to tight deadlines and they have to supply instant gratification to the majority of their audience. I, on the other hand, with this style of blog can take a longer more considered view.
4. Because of all the doubts about the official explanation of Dr Kelly's death it is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that every detail one uncovers that doesn't quite fit in with our perception of the truth must mean yet again another part of a vast conspiracy. I can see just how easily this happens and how much has to be done to keep focused on facts and not make irrational judgements. There will always be posts in this blog intended to add to the picture of events but not intended to come down on either side of the suicide v murder argument. Lots of writers in the MSM, commentators on TV and writers of blogs have their own political agenda, that is inevitable of course but I want to make it clear that only the truth matters for me. For instance I haven't yet read through Tony Blair's evidence at the Hutton Inquiry. Whether I considered what he said was honest or dishonest that is what I would describe on this blog.
5. In forming a judgement Lord Hutton had access to a lot more information than we, reading what witnesses said at the Inquiry, were privy to. On the official Hutton website there is a list of all the pieces of evidence submitted to the Inquiry by Thames Valley Police - I think it was Andrew in a comment who drew my attention to this. A good deal of this paperwork from TVP was not for publication which is not surprising. One of these I noted was a personal witness statement from Graham Peter Coe and there were statements from many other police as well. In his personal witness statement surely he would have included the detail of the 'third man' and surely that information was something Mr Knox would have noted before his questioning of Mr Coe. And surely Lord Hutton would have compared witness statements to the police with what was said at the Inquiry before publishing his report. I wonder what discrepancies there were. Certainly Mr Knox appears to have had some foreknowledge he was able to give a witness, informing David Bartlett that the ambulance used on the mission to Harrowdown Hill was number 934.
With that last piece of not very relevant information I'll end this post.
1. Publication of the Forensic Pathologist's report and Toxicologists report. I will be making a line by line comparison of the content of these two reports with what was said at the Inquiry but not today. What concerns me now is the tactic the government has used to supposedly reassure the public. For the moment let's put aside the aspect of distaste by making these intimate details available to all and sundry. It seems to me that the correct procedure would have been to allow access to a group of medical and legal experts to not only of what has recently gone on line but all the photographs that relate in any way to the death. The headlines that the mainstream media (MSM) were screaming following the publication of the reports were essentially the matters that Dr Hunt had previously intimated to the media. So in that sense there were no huge surprises and the average casual reader of the reports shouldn't have found anything too amazing within them.
2. Dr Hunt and the media. Some little while prior to the release of the reports just mentioned the forensic pathologist had been talking to the media about his examination of Dr Kelly. Now whether Dr Hunt did this entirely off his own bat or there were others who considered it a good idea for him to do a bit of talking prior to the release of the documents I don't know. It's possible that Dr Hunt speaking out was part of a 'holding operation' because we know about the group of concerned individuals who, using legal channels, have been endeavouring to get a proper inquest to take place. If Dr Hunt's public intervention was wholly his own idea then I would condemn that unreservedly. It is not acceptable in my opinion for a professional person in his position to use the media in that way particularly with the possibility of some future legal process regarding Dr Kelly's death. Sorry to be quite so blunt about this but it is one of my 'gold standards' of professional behaviour. Sadly it seems as if the boundaries of professional behaviour are getting blurred.
3. The hopelessness of the mainstream media (MSM). Again I'm going to be blunt but I have to say that by and large the MSM are very poor. One only has to look at what was said when the two reports saw light of day last week. Mostly the same things and quite predictable. One has to search the internet to find blogs, forums and obscure websites that give the interested person the more detailed information and independent thought that is missing from the MSM. At this juncture and trying to be even handed I have to say that the MSM have the constant problem of working to tight deadlines and they have to supply instant gratification to the majority of their audience. I, on the other hand, with this style of blog can take a longer more considered view.
4. Because of all the doubts about the official explanation of Dr Kelly's death it is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that every detail one uncovers that doesn't quite fit in with our perception of the truth must mean yet again another part of a vast conspiracy. I can see just how easily this happens and how much has to be done to keep focused on facts and not make irrational judgements. There will always be posts in this blog intended to add to the picture of events but not intended to come down on either side of the suicide v murder argument. Lots of writers in the MSM, commentators on TV and writers of blogs have their own political agenda, that is inevitable of course but I want to make it clear that only the truth matters for me. For instance I haven't yet read through Tony Blair's evidence at the Hutton Inquiry. Whether I considered what he said was honest or dishonest that is what I would describe on this blog.
5. In forming a judgement Lord Hutton had access to a lot more information than we, reading what witnesses said at the Inquiry, were privy to. On the official Hutton website there is a list of all the pieces of evidence submitted to the Inquiry by Thames Valley Police - I think it was Andrew in a comment who drew my attention to this. A good deal of this paperwork from TVP was not for publication which is not surprising. One of these I noted was a personal witness statement from Graham Peter Coe and there were statements from many other police as well. In his personal witness statement surely he would have included the detail of the 'third man' and surely that information was something Mr Knox would have noted before his questioning of Mr Coe. And surely Lord Hutton would have compared witness statements to the police with what was said at the Inquiry before publishing his report. I wonder what discrepancies there were. Certainly Mr Knox appears to have had some foreknowledge he was able to give a witness, informing David Bartlett that the ambulance used on the mission to Harrowdown Hill was number 934.
With that last piece of not very relevant information I'll end this post.
Sunday, 24 October 2010
A leisurely approach by Thames Valley Police?
In a recent post I attempted to make sense of the time points of events between the finding of Dr Kelly's body at 9.20 on the 18th July and the declaration 47 minutes later that life was extinct. I had, and still have, problems making the witness evidence at the Hutton Inquiry fit the available time frame. The primary problem for me is the assertion by ambulance technician David Bartlett that he and paramedic Vanessa Hunt arrived at 9.55 which doesn't give them enough time to walk up the track to the woods and then check for signs of life, this checking procedure being interrupted by PC Sawyer taking photographs.
My gut feeling is that Mr Bartlett was mistaken and that the ambulance arrived at 9.50 or very soon afterwards. Ms Hunt stated that it was 9.40 when Abingdon ambulance station got the call regarding Dr Kelly. Paul Chapman reckons it took Louise Holmes 10 or 15 minutes earlier that morning to drive from the police station to the start of the search area. It would seem that they had little traffic to contend with at that time of day. I think it's conceivable that the ambulance did its journey in 10 minutes. From witness evidence they arrived at about the same time as PC Sawyer's land rover.
Even though it took the police 20 minutes from the news of Dr Kelly being found to putting a call through to the ambulance station (it's possible that the call was routed through some ambulance central control room and that they in turn called the local ambulance station) we find from Ms Hunt's evidence that initially they were tasked to mobilise towards Southmoor. En route their data screens give the further information that it is to Harrowdown Hill that they need to go.
When Paul Chapman made contact with Abingdon police station he would have said that they had found Dr Kelly and explained where. Would he have categorically have stated that Dr Kelly was dead though or might he have said "it appears to us that he is dead". Surely within two or three minutes an ambulance would be called and a couple of police in a fast car instructed to go to Harrowdown Hill. No, twenty minutes are wasted in calling the ambulance and PC Sawyer with five other policeman take to the land rover in what one couldn't expect to be a fast drive to Harrowdown Hill.
Unless ACC Page was aware that DC Coe and companions were close to Harrowdown Hill at the time the body was discovered he wouldn't have known that they were available to secure the scene. It is possible I suppose that one of the officers with DC Coe and staying out on the track could have radioed to Abingdon that they were on site and that DC Coe had gone into the wood to stand over the body but even this scenario of events wouldn't have completed before 9.30 I would have thought.
In my opinion then there was a certain lack of urgency in getting out to Harrowdown Hill.
My gut feeling is that Mr Bartlett was mistaken and that the ambulance arrived at 9.50 or very soon afterwards. Ms Hunt stated that it was 9.40 when Abingdon ambulance station got the call regarding Dr Kelly. Paul Chapman reckons it took Louise Holmes 10 or 15 minutes earlier that morning to drive from the police station to the start of the search area. It would seem that they had little traffic to contend with at that time of day. I think it's conceivable that the ambulance did its journey in 10 minutes. From witness evidence they arrived at about the same time as PC Sawyer's land rover.
Even though it took the police 20 minutes from the news of Dr Kelly being found to putting a call through to the ambulance station (it's possible that the call was routed through some ambulance central control room and that they in turn called the local ambulance station) we find from Ms Hunt's evidence that initially they were tasked to mobilise towards Southmoor. En route their data screens give the further information that it is to Harrowdown Hill that they need to go.
When Paul Chapman made contact with Abingdon police station he would have said that they had found Dr Kelly and explained where. Would he have categorically have stated that Dr Kelly was dead though or might he have said "it appears to us that he is dead". Surely within two or three minutes an ambulance would be called and a couple of police in a fast car instructed to go to Harrowdown Hill. No, twenty minutes are wasted in calling the ambulance and PC Sawyer with five other policeman take to the land rover in what one couldn't expect to be a fast drive to Harrowdown Hill.
Unless ACC Page was aware that DC Coe and companions were close to Harrowdown Hill at the time the body was discovered he wouldn't have known that they were available to secure the scene. It is possible I suppose that one of the officers with DC Coe and staying out on the track could have radioed to Abingdon that they were on site and that DC Coe had gone into the wood to stand over the body but even this scenario of events wouldn't have completed before 9.30 I would have thought.
In my opinion then there was a certain lack of urgency in getting out to Harrowdown Hill.
Friday, 22 October 2010
Time of formal identification of Dr Kelly
Anyone looking at the pathologists report now on the internet isn't in for a comfortable read. To put times into perspective we see that Dr Hunt's examination of Dr Kelly on site extended well into the evening and that it wasn't until 19.35 that he was logged out of the police outer cordon at Harrowdown Hill. Having initially arrived at about midday I imagine he was very much in need of sustenance before starting the grisly task of wielding the knife at the mortuary of the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. We learn from his report that the post-mortem commenced at 21.20 hours. From a logical point of view it would seem that at some time prior to 21.20 Mrs Kelly would be taken to the mortuary to confirm that the body is indeed that of her husband.
In my naivety I had imagined that any examination of internal organs would be confined to areas below the neck. Not so in this instance as confirmed by what is written on page 8 of the report. I am not going to discuss the anatomical detail revealed in the internal examination some of which I don't understand anyway. Suffice to say what would be visible of Dr Kelly's head for a relative to identify would be much diminished and extremely upsetting.
I don't know if it is ever normal for the identification to be done following the post-mortem but in this instance there must have ample time for Mrs Kelly to complete this onerous task on the previous evening. But, and this is absolutely extraordinary, on page 3 of Norman Baker's book we are told that Mrs Kelly accompanied by one of her daughters is taken to the John Radcliffe Hospital on the following day (Saturday) to formally identify her late husband and that the time of identification was 11.25. I have to assume that the time quoted by NB is a matter of official record.
Here is another interesting fact regarding activities that Saturday: PC Sawyer in his evidence to Hutton relates that he and a search team start a search at the Kelly premises at 11.05 which I imagine is close to the time that Mrs Kelly would have left for Oxford although I would think that her other daughter at least would have been still at the house. It is all very peculiar.
In my naivety I had imagined that any examination of internal organs would be confined to areas below the neck. Not so in this instance as confirmed by what is written on page 8 of the report. I am not going to discuss the anatomical detail revealed in the internal examination some of which I don't understand anyway. Suffice to say what would be visible of Dr Kelly's head for a relative to identify would be much diminished and extremely upsetting.
I don't know if it is ever normal for the identification to be done following the post-mortem but in this instance there must have ample time for Mrs Kelly to complete this onerous task on the previous evening. But, and this is absolutely extraordinary, on page 3 of Norman Baker's book we are told that Mrs Kelly accompanied by one of her daughters is taken to the John Radcliffe Hospital on the following day (Saturday) to formally identify her late husband and that the time of identification was 11.25. I have to assume that the time quoted by NB is a matter of official record.
Here is another interesting fact regarding activities that Saturday: PC Sawyer in his evidence to Hutton relates that he and a search team start a search at the Kelly premises at 11.05 which I imagine is close to the time that Mrs Kelly would have left for Oxford although I would think that her other daughter at least would have been still at the house. It is all very peculiar.
++ Pathologist's report now on line ++
Following my last post I can now confirm that the report of forensic pathologist Dr Hunt dated 25 July 2003 is now on line and can be viewed here. I have only skimmed through it and will not comment at length about it in this post.
The conclusions made by Dr Hunt from my quick reading seem to be largely what we already knew. An area of interest to the medical profession will I'm sure be the more detailed description of the distribution of blood, it appears that even Dr Kelly's cap wasn't immune from blood!
Two very quick points I've noted are the fact that not only was the rectal temperature taken very late in his examination at 19.15 hours, a fact already in the public domain, but it seems that it wasn't until about 17.30 that he was noting rigor mortis. Extraordinary in my opinion.
On page 1 of his statement we have Dr Hunt saying: "He was apparently seen heading for a walk at approximately 15.00 hours on the 17th July 2003. He was subsequently seen at 15.30 hours walking northwards. That I understand was the last known sighting of him (at this stage)." When one looks at the Hutton Inquiry transcripts this statement by Dr Hunt with its timings is very interesting indeed!
UPDATE: Included with this post should have been a link to the toxicologists report. It is here.
The conclusions made by Dr Hunt from my quick reading seem to be largely what we already knew. An area of interest to the medical profession will I'm sure be the more detailed description of the distribution of blood, it appears that even Dr Kelly's cap wasn't immune from blood!
Two very quick points I've noted are the fact that not only was the rectal temperature taken very late in his examination at 19.15 hours, a fact already in the public domain, but it seems that it wasn't until about 17.30 that he was noting rigor mortis. Extraordinary in my opinion.
On page 1 of his statement we have Dr Hunt saying: "He was apparently seen heading for a walk at approximately 15.00 hours on the 17th July 2003. He was subsequently seen at 15.30 hours walking northwards. That I understand was the last known sighting of him (at this stage)." When one looks at the Hutton Inquiry transcripts this statement by Dr Hunt with its timings is very interesting indeed!
UPDATE: Included with this post should have been a link to the toxicologists report. It is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)