- The title is provocative, and is meant to be. When the
slant put on the reporting of a case almost guarantees a suicide "verdict",
it is important to focus on the players who seed this interpretation.
In the Kelly case, journalists in the mainstream media promoted a suicide
bias from the beginning, but many of their cues were taken from professional
figures at the Hutton Inquiry.
-
- Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist who testified
before Lord Hutton in September, is one of only 35 Home Office-accredited
pathologists in the UK. We might imagine, being appointed by the British
government, Dr Hunt would be of the highest calibre, displaying impeccable
professional judgement. Television news and drama, with their frequent
references to "DNA evidence", bolster a view of the forensic
pathologist as "never wrong". However, this article highlights
a number of recent cases where flawed assessments by Home Office pathologists
have given rise to unsafe convictions, and explores how professional fallibility
may have led to similarly erroneous interpretations from Dr Hunt regarding
the death of Dr David Kelly. It also raises the more sinister possibility
that Hunt's interpretations were weighted deliberately with the express
purpose of convincing us this was suicide.
-
-
- ERRORS & OMISSIONS
-
- One case found to be unsafe as a result of a pathologist's
mistake was that of Stuart Lubbock, who died in the swimming-pool of the
UK entertainer, Michael Barrymore. A BBC
report on the case reads as follows:
-
- "A police investigation into the death of a man
in Michael Barrymore's swimming pool may have been hampered by a Home Office
pathologist's failure to spot crucial evidence...... Dr Heath was brought
in when Stuart Lubbock was found dead at the entertainer's Essex home in
April last year. He concluded the 31-year-old had drowned. But three
other pathologists told the inquest into his death this month that marks
on his face indicated he died of asphyxia, possibly from having an arm
clamped round his throat during a violent sexual assault."
-
- Two further cases showed Dr Heath's findings to be wrong.
Steven Taylor, a traveller, spent 10 months on remand facing a murder-charge
after Dr Heath said he had strangled his wife. But two other pathologists
concluded that marks on Beatrice Taylor's neck were caused by procedures
carried out by a mortuary technician. Kenneth Fraser was accused of killing
his girlfriend after Dr Heath maintained that she had been hit on the head
with a plank of wood. Fraser was released after four other pathologists
found she had fallen downstairs. Serious errors like these are not infrequent.
-
- In previous cases Dr Heath was also criticised for omissions
A further case
where a crucial omission was made was that of Sally Clark, wrongfully accused
of murdering her two children and sent to prison for life. Her conviction
was overturned on appeal after it was discovered that Alan Williams, another
Home Office pathologist, had deliberately withheld cerebral spinal fluid
test results from the original trial. These indicated one of Clark's children
had had bacterial meningitis. Dr Williams, the holder of a distinction
award which boosts his salary by an extra £27,000, is currently under
investigation by the General Medical Council.
-
- Astonishingly, it is not a question of just a few bad
apples in the barrel - the very system which investigates professional
incompetence and malpractise is itself flawed. A Guardian article
relates how, after a lengthy investigation, Paula Lannas, a Home Office
pathologist, went before a police advisory board in 2001, accused of botching
post-mortem examinations.
-
- 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 <http://dmmoyle.com/simeans.htm>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 <http://www.rense.com/general44/jelly.htm>article:
"David Kelly and Victoria's Secret" by Jim Rarey.
-
- See also "The Murder of Dr David Kelly", Parts<http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm>
1 and <http://www.rense.com/general43/helly2.htm>2, by Jim Rarey
& <http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1164>article:
"Dark Actors at the Scene of Kelly's Death" by Rowena Thursby
-
- More investigations into the circumstances of Kelly's
death at <http://www.deadscientists.blogspot.com>www.deadscientists.blogspot.com.
|
