Paula
Lannas's methods of investigation were described
as "demonstrating a continuing pattern of inadequate and unsatisfactory
examinations and breaches of accepted forensic pathology
practice". When the board failed to reach
a conclusion due to a "conflict of interest or lack of impartiality" -
meaning that members of the board did not feel comfortable passing judgement on
a colleague - the case collapsed. Senior Home Office forensic pathologist Nat Cary observed
wryly, "It may be a cynical view, but I think they want to keep the lid on
things".
Given that at least two
of these Home Office pathologists were criticised for some years and yet
remained in their jobs, it begs the question: were
these government professionals huddling together for protection, or
were some of these "mistakes" and "omissions" made deliberately, or allowed
to pass, for political reasons?
With fallibility -
and corruption - in mind, it may be instructive
to review Nicholas Hunt's testimony to the Hutton
Inquiry.
BLOOD
What is striking
in Nicholas Hunt's account of Dr Kelly's death is the impression he
creates of blood everywhere: blood on Kelly's jacket, on his
trousers, on his left wrist, on the palm of his right hand,
on the right side of his neck, and on the right side of his
face. But actually he is not talking of large amounts
- only of small patches smeared on the body and clothing.
Contrast this with the paramedics' assertion that, in their professional view,
there was very little blood around for an arterial bleed. Normally an artery (which Hunt says was
"completely severed") would produce copious amounts of blood spurting from the
wound. Yet to quote paramedic Vanessa Hunt:
"....the amount of blood that
was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on
his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of
blood or huge blood loss of any obvious loss on the
clothing."
PC Franklin, one
of the police constables at the scene, reported blood being "puddled
around". However, this was not what the paramedics saw contemporaneously.
Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett worked much closer to the body
than the two police constables; had there been blood puddled around when
they unbuttoned Kelly's shirt to put the electrodes on his chest, they
would have been practically kneeling in it. Vanessa Hunt also
commented "On his left arm...there was some dry blood"....." -
only some blood, while Bartlett expressed surprise there was not
more blood on the body itself, suggesting that is what he would expect to have
found with an arterial bleed.
WRIST
INCISIONS
According to
Nicholas Hunt, there "was a series of incised wounds, cuts, of varying depth
over the front [inside] of the left wrist and they extended.. over about 8 by 5
cm...", some of which he describes as "hesitation
marks."
Perhaps we
too need to hesitate, and ask: why would this world-class scientist - and
according to Keith Hawton the psyciatrist, an "extremely meticulous" man
- choose such an astonishingly clumsy and uncertain method of
suicide? The following information is from an internet police
investigation site:
"Wrist slashing by
itself is not a very effective means of committing suicide and few people
actually die of it. This is especially true if the victim cuts laterally
across the wrist. He or she may do substantial damage to the important tendons
which control the fingers. He or she may even cut an important artery or
vein but the blood vessels will immediately draw back into the muscles
surrounding them, effectively sealing off any major leakage of blood."
Most people
attempting suicide in this way slash both wrists with the intention
of losing as much blood in as short a time as possible. They also
know the importance of immersing the wrists in hot water to help
prevent blood coagulation and keep the wound open. Even so, "success" is
not guaranteed, and many wake up later in a tub of cold
water.
Other internet
sources point out that the best way to kill oneself using a knife is to
make a longitudinal incision, from the crease of the inside of the wrist up
to the elbow. Kelly would surely have been aware of this.
It seems surprising that he chose to slash his wrist. As a
professional scientist, once Head of Microbiology at Porton Down, one would
imagine he might have chosen a much more effective & certain
method.
But to follow Nicholas Hunt's
version of events, far from acting in the precise and careful manner of a
world-class scientist, Kelly apparently kills himself in the most painful manner
possible. Hunt tells the inquiry that amongst the multiple incised wounds
to the inside of the wrist was one much deeper wound. He says that
this represented the severing of the ulnar artery. Why though,
would Kelly choose to sever the ulnar artery on the little finger
side - one which is deep within the wrist - rather than the radial
artery on the thumb side, which is much more accessible. Moreover the
ulnar artery was not just cut but COMPLETELY SEVERED. How likely is
it that Kelly would cut so deep into his own wrist that he would
completely sever one of the trickiest arteries to reach?
In his article: "The Murder of
David Kelly" Part 1, Jim Rarey points out that cutting the ulnar artery
suggests not so much a right-handed Kelly slashing from left to right,
missing the superficial radial and cutting deep into the ulnar, as someone other
than Kelly standing in front of the body slashing deep into the inside of
the wrist (the ulnar side) across to the outside (the radial side) of the
wrist.
Hunt describes "hesitation marks" which "are
commonly seen prior to a deep cut being made into somebody's skin."
These hestation marks might seem to indicate that this was indeed a
genuine suicide - but how do we know that they were not added
after the body had been removed from the scene, as part of a
staged, state-sanctioned murder? An assassin might have slashed the wrist
once while Kelly was unconscious & left the detail to
others. There is sufficient evidence - see article Dark Actors at the Scene of Kelly's Death by Rowena Thursby
- to suggest that this may have been a "show" suicide,
intended to dupe the layperson into believing this was suicide when it may have
been murder made to look like suicide.
ABRASIONS
Nicholas Hunt
next mentions abrasions to the left side of Kelly's scalp. But rather
than leave the reason for those scalp abrasions open, he jumps in and
tries to make them seem perfectly normal:
"... and of
course that part of his head was relatively close to the
undergrowth."
How many
abrasions does one receive on one's head just from walking
through a wood? Kelly was a seasoned and vigorous walker, fully capable
of ducking under or pushing aside any branches or twigs in his
way.
Lord Hutton
however, appears to support Hunt's line of reasoning; he
asks: "Were those abrasions consistent with having been in
contact with the undergrowth?" - as if receiving abrasions from
walking through a wood was an everyday occurrence! (One starts to wonder
whether there might not be a degree of collusion between the questioner and the
witness).
But Hunt does not
stop there. His testimony starts to descend into the realms of high
farce.
Pleased that Lord
Hutton is uncritically following his drift he answers:
"They were
entirely, my Lord; particularly branches, pebbles and the
like."
Pebbles? Is
this man serious? He is in a wood, not on a
beach! Woods do not contain pebbles. Even allowing
for a slip of the tongue - let us say he meant to say "stones" as, indeed
he states later - how is Dr Kelly's scalp supposed to have come into contact
with stones? He had three fresh scalp abrasions: are we
supposed to believe this cool scientist, whose brain, according to Tom
Mangold, could "boil water", been hitting his head repeatedly on the
ground?
BRUISES
Hunt next
attempts to explain away a number of bruises on Kelly's
body:
"There was a
bruise below the left knee. There were two bruises below the right knee
over the shin and there were two bruises over the left side of his chest.
All of these were small..."
When asked how
they could have occurred Hunt states:
"They would
have occurred following a blunt impact against any firm object and it would not
have to a particularly heavy impact....some of them may have been caused as Dr
Kelly was stumbling, if you like, at the scene."
First we
have Kelly banging his head on the odd stone that happened to be lying on
the floor of the wood, and now Hunt now tries to seduce us into imagining
Kelly "stumbling at the scene". Why should Kelly have been stumbling at
the scene? If the official scenario is to be believed, here was a man,
calmly looking for a place in the wood where he could end his life.
According to Keith Hawton, the psychiatrist, having made the decision to commit
suicide, Kelly would have felt a sense of peace and calm. So why now
are we being asked to accept as consistent the notion that he was
"stumbling" around the wood?
We are reassured
by Hunt there were "no signs of defensive injuries.... and by that I mean
injuries that occur as a reult of somebody tryping to parry blows from a weapon
or trying to grasp a weapon."
But what if
someone, or a group, assaulted Kelly without a weapon? Perhaps the bruise
on the chest for example occurred as a result of a single sharp push. It
is possible that the grazes on the head could have occurred if Kelly
had been manhandled. A cut on the mouth mentioned by Hunt, again may
have been the result an assault.
Much is made of
the possiblity of Kelly having been attacked with a knife.
Why? Because a knife was found at the scene? Hunt appears to be
suggesting that one of the few alternatives to suicide would have
been murder at the hands of a random knife-wielder lurking in the
wood. The possiblity of a small group of state-sponsored
professional assassins setting up a suicide scene appears to be regarded
as taboo or too hot to mention. Kelly may have been accosted
before he reached the wood, abducted, and drugged - and only later placed
in the copse with suicide props around him.
When seeking reasons for the cuts and bruises on the scalp, chest
and mouth, why is murder-made-to-look-like-suicide not properly explored? Presumably pathologists employed by the Home Office know better than to
mention such a scenario.
PRE-JUDGING THE
CASE
Throughout his testimony Hunt
starts from a position of assuming Kelly's death was probably
straightforward suicide:
"The orientation and arrangement
of the wounds over the left wrist are typical of self-inflicted injury.
Also typical of this was the presence of small cuts called tentative or
hesitation marks. The fact that his watch appeared to have been removed
whilst blood was already flowing suggests that it had been removed deliberately
in order to facilitate access to the wrist. The removal of the watch in
that way and indeed the removal of the spectacles are features pointing towards
this being an act of self-harm"
Plus, he adds, the "neat way in
which the bottle an its top were placed, the lack of obvious sign of trampling
of the undergrouth or damage to the
clothing..."and the pleasant
and private location of the spot.
But is it right to start with a
theory, or should the evidence be examined without pre-judgement? When
facts are interpreted - or misinterpreted - through a filter of prejudice which
says "this looks like suicide" crucial points may be missed.
For example, how does Hunt know the
watch was removed whilst blood was already flowing? We are left to
assume it is because he found blood on the watch. But blood on the
watch need not mean that the watch was still on the wrist. Blood may have
splashed onto the watch after it was removed. Moreover it need
not have necessarily have been Kelly who removed the watch. Had
he removed his own watch it would have made more sense to do so before he
started cutting. Another party - a professional assassin intent
on creating a suicide-scene - could have removed the watch. So the
interpretation of "watch removed by suicidal man in order to
gain better access to wrist" is but one possibility. Hunt
alights upon this tortuous explanation either to back his prejudice or
to convince his audience that this was straightforward suicide.
Unfortunately the system is set up
to regard him as an expert whose interpretation is of great value. But it
is still only one interpretation, and can obviously be wrong. The
neat placement of the bottle & top need not mean Kelly himself had arranged
them. A private spot may be considered by some an
ideal location for a suicide - but by others, for a
murder.
The possiblity of murder is
dismissed point by point, without proper examination. No evidence was
found, says Hunt, of:
- restraint-type
injury
- sustained violent
assault
- strangulation or use of arm
hold.
But had Kelly
been frogmarched through the wood with a gun to his back, violent assault
or restraint would be unnecessary. And had he been overpowered
by a chloroform-type substance, prior to the cutting of his wrists, we would be
none the wiser. Interestingly, Hunt was questioned on this last
point, which suggests that some kind of assassination was being
considered, but he merely refers to the toxicologist's report, which
to date has not been made available. Is it hoped that such "details" may
be forgotten as the media circus transfers its focus from the details of the
death itself onto whose political head will fall?
FINAL
WORD
Hunt's final assessment, his own
personal interpretation - "there was no pathological evidence to
indicate the involvement of a third party in Dr Kelly's death.... the features
are quite typical, I would say, of self-inflicted injury if one ignores all the
other features of the case" - is the version of
events the media reports. The pathologist has spoken - the
silent inference being that he is best placed to know - so we
must bow to his "expertise". But as we have seen in the introduction, such
"expertise" is sometimes questionable.
In Hunt's qualifier - "if
one ignores all the other features of the case" - lies the
rub. Ignore the fact that Kelly had become an embarrassment to the
establishment through divulging inconvenient facts &
suppositions to the media? Ignore the fact that he was
about to return to Iraq, where his by- now public profile would have guaranteed
publicity to the dearth of WMDs? The fact that this would highlight
the mendacity employed in persuading the British and American public
to support a war with Iraq? The fact that here was a
man scrupulous about a truth they did not want told? The fact
that Kelly had met and was discussing book projects with Victoria Roddam, a
publisher in Oxford who in an e-mail to the scientist only a
week before his death wrote: "I think the time is ripe now more than
ever for a title which addresses the relationship between government policy and
war - I'm sure you would agree."?**
Far from ignoring Kelly's pivotal
political position at the time of his death, we should
surely highlight it: as we explore the physical evidence provided at
the death scene, the fact that there were elements in government
and intelligence who wanted Kelly silenced has to figure prominently
in understanding how
he died.
Nicholas Hunt may have been a
pathologist doing his job in the way he saw fit, nothing more than
that. Perhaps, like other Home Office pathologists, he was
displaying a degree of bias in his interpretations.
Alternatively, Hunt may have been party to a political plan requiring
solid indications that on 17th-18th August, Dr Kelly had killed
himself on Harrowdown Hill by slashing his own left wrist.
** See article: "David Kelly and Victoria's Secret" by Jim
Rarey.
See also "The Murder of Dr David
Kelly", Parts 1 and 2, by Jim Rarey & article: "Dark Actors at the Scene of Kelly's Death" by Rowena
Thursby
