xfordshire Coroner Nicholas Gardiner has a problem.
On March 16
th he is holding a hearing to
determine if he should resume the inquest into the
death of microbiologist David Kelly that was cut
short with the appointment of Lord Hutton to head an
inquiry.
Earlier, Gardiner had been quoted
as saying he had seen no “fresh” evidence that would
warrant reopening the inquest. The hearing was
expected to be a pro forma announcement of that
decision. However, Tuesday evening Dr. Nicholas
Hunt, the Home Office pathologist on whose testimony
Lord Hutton relied for his suicide verdict, dropped
a bombshell in Gardiner’s lap during a Channel 4
news program.
|
Dr. David Kelly
(1944-2003) |
Alex Thomson was airing film
clips of interviews with medical specialists who
challenged the medical evidence provided by Hunt
(and toxicologist Allan) and were calling for
resumption of the inquest. Thomson also showed clips
from supporters of Hutton’s verdict.
During Thomson’s how, Dr. Hunt
called the newsroom and told them he would, “feel
more comfortable with a full coroner’s inquest.” Dr.
Hunt would obviously be one of the main witnesses in
a resumed inquest and apparently has some
information he feels he was not allowed to give at
the inquiry.
While many have serious doubts
about the suicide verdict by Lord Hutton in the
death of microbiologist David Kelly, a close reading
of the testimony of the two key forensic experts, on
whose testimony Hutton based his verdict, reveals
they also had doubts.
The questioning of the forensic
witnesses was aimed at eliciting only that
information that would support a suicide verdict.
The “questioning was replete with leading questions
(suggesting the answer) and at times statement of
“fact” with which witnesses were asked to agree.
Indeed, at times it was not clear who was giving
testimony, the witnesses or Lord Hutton and his
Queen’s counsels. Statements and answers by
witnesses that begged for follow-up questions were
ignored or the subject was quickly changed.
For most of his time in the
witness stand, Dr. Nicholas Hunt, the Home Office
pathologist who performed the autopsy on David
Kelly’s body, dutifully supplied the expected
answers with two notable exceptions.
Evidently witnesses had been
directed to suspend common sense and logic and stay
within their fields of expertise in their testimony.
When Hunt and Alexander Allan, the toxicologist on
the case, were asked at the end of their stints on
the witness stand “is there anything else which you
know of which might have contributed to the
circumstances of Dr Kelly's death?” Allan answered,
“From a toxicological point of view, no.” To the
same question, Dr. Hunt replied, “Nothing I could
say as a pathologist, no.” Clearly both were
implying they had other information that was
“outside their expertise.”
Mr. Allan had testified that the
level of coproxamol components he found in Kelly’s
blood was only about one third of what he would
consider a fatal level. He also said it was not
possible to determine how many of the 29 tablets not
accounted for had been ingested by Kelly. However,
he said, “What I can say is that it is consistent
with say 29/30 tablets but it could be
consistent with other scenarios as well. Of
course he was not asked what other scenarios.
During his testimony, Dr. Hunt
refused to bail Lord Hutton out of a dilemma he
faced. The two volunteers who found the body had
described it as, “head and shoulders against a tree”
and “sitting up against a tree” respectively. Yet
all subsequent witnesses saw the body as flat on its
back away from the tree. In item 151 of his report,
Hutton said he had seen a photograph of the body
with its head against the tree but the rest of the
body on the ground. He reasoned there was no
conflict in the various testimonies.
Hunt was asked if any part of
Kelly’s body was in contact with the tree. He said
no. He probably knew that was what photographs taken
by Police Constable Sawyer a half hour after the
volunteers left would show the body away from the
tree. Thus Hutton had actually furnished proof that
Kelly’s body had been moved at least twice after he
died. Once to the tree and second to the position on
its back to conform to the livor mortis evidence
that showed Kelly was on his back when he died.
This may have been one of the
things to which Hunt was referring in his answer
when asked if he could rule out any third party
involvement in Kelly’s death. His reply to that
question was, “No, there was no pathological
evidence to indicate the involvement of a third
party in Dr Kelly's death. Rather, the features are
quite typical, I would say, of self-inflicted injury
if one ignores all the other features of the
case.”
The subject was quickly changed
and no mention of this startling reservation
appeared in the media and no one commented on the
lack of follow through. With a few exceptions, the
media, which has excoriated Hutton for his treatment
of BBC in his report (and exoneration of the
government from any wrong doing), has been strangely
silent about all of the inconsistencies and
contradictions in the testimony about the death.
That is, until two days ago. However, the print
media has yet to pick up on them or on Dr. Hunt’s
courageous call to resume the inquest.
Stay tuned.
* * *
This additional information on Dr. Kelly
may be updated currently:
http://www.dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/
Please also check out the "Dead Scientists"
blogspot:
http://www.deadscientists.blogspot.com/=
||
Part 1 |
Part 2 |
Part 3 |
Part 4 |
Part 5 |
Part 6 |
Part 7 |
Part 8 |
Part 9 |
Part 10 ||
