Dr David Kelly's body 'had obviously been moved'

[Soily]

He talked to journalist voicing his concerns that the intellegence was been exxagerated or misrepresented. He actually stated that he felt iraqs threat was very minor, and whilst he wearily felt that military action was 'inevitable', he thought that it had to be proportionate. So contrary to what people like David aaronovitch have said, I don't think there is evidence to state that Kelly was for the invasion and war we actually got.

 

[Rolfe]

I think he probably killed himself, though I think it was probably the coproxamol that did it, and the wrist wound was incidental.

However, there has never been an inquest, and the inquiry decided the cause of death was in fact the wrist wound, which was implausible. Also, I don't know the full details about the coproxamol. How much did he actually take, and how fast does that stuff kill you at that sort of dose anyway? Because I'm aware of other cases where suicides have lingered on for a long time, sometimes compos mentis, before dying of liver failure.

So I'm just curious. Official explanations which don't fit the facts, and failure to follow due process, does that to me.

Rolfe.

 

[Soily]

Rolfe, here is a letter to the telegraph from a doctor which sums up my feelings on the unlikeliness of the co-proximal been the culprit:

Sir

If David Kelly (Letters, August 23) did not die from ulnar artery blood loss, then can we be sure that death was even due to cardio-respiratory depression after ingesting co-proxamol?

The drug contains dextropropoxyphene (Dp) and paracetemol. Paracetemol overdose can cause death but only in excess of three days after ingestion. Dp can cause death within one hour but usually within a mean of five hours.

As a retired anaesthetist with training in pharmacology, I noted that the stomach was empty of capsules, which indicates the Dp was totally absorbed. But the fact that the blood level of Dp was so low as to be below that necessary for cardio-respiratory depression suggests that not many tablets ever arrived in the stomach. An empty blister pack is not proof of ingestion.

Wrting as a citizen of this country, I feel that there are enough untidy ends in this sad saga to justify a coroner's inquest in which scene-of-crime officers and specialists in pharmacokinetics, forensic pathology, toxicology and vascular surgery can explain inconsistencies.

Dr David Rutter
Romsey, Hampshire

I believe the only evidence they ever presented that he'd ingested that many tablets was the empty blister packs, as if you only ever take tablets from pristine new blister packs, then throw the rest away.

 

[Horatius]

I would have thought it unproffesional for the police to move a body at a crime scene prior to the medical professionals and pathologist arriving and coe said he didn't move it anyway. And I can't see why the paramedic would say somebody moved the body if that somebody was himself.

The fact that they called paramedics suggests that whoever found the body thought there was a chance that he might still be alive. Is it inconceivable that one of them might have moved the body while attempting to check his status?

If he was sitting with his head propped up on a tree, I'd have been concerned about his airways being choked off, and probably would have moved him at least a little to try to check that they were open. "ABC" is what I was taught in first aid - Airways, Breathing, Circulation, as the three things to check first when you come upon an injured or unconscious person.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm pretty sure they always send an ambulance when a "fresh" body is found.

 

[Soily]

If that happened why not just say so?

 

[Darat]

I think he probably killed himself, though I think it was probably the coproxamol that did it, and the wrist wound was incidental.
However, there has never been an inquest, and the inquiry decided the cause of death was in fact the wrist wound, which was implausible. Also, I don't know the full details about the coproxamol. How much did he actually take, and how fast does that stuff kill you at that sort of dose anyway? Because I'm aware of other cases where suicides have lingered on for a long time, sometimes compos mentis, before dying of liver failure.

So I'm just curious. Official explanations which don't fit the facts, and failure to follow due process, does that to me.

Rolfe.

Why do you hold that view given the pathologist's statements?

I felt very, very sorry for David Kelly and the way he had been treated by the government... I had every reason to look for something untoward and would dearly love to have found something.

"It was an absolute classic case of self-inflicted injury. You could illustrate a textbook with it.
"If it were anyone else and you were to suggest there's something foul about it, you would be referred for additional training. I would welcome an inquest, I've nothing to hide."

"With David Kelly, there were three factors that contributed to his death. If you have narrower arteries, your ability to withstand blood loss falls dramatically," he said.

"Your heart also becomes more vulnerable to anything that could cause it to become unstable, such as stress - which I have no doubt he was under massively - and the overdose."

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, here is a letter to the telegraph from a doctor which sums up my feelings on the unlikeliness of the co-proximal been the culprit:

the fact that the blood level of Dp was so low as to be below that necessary for cardio-respiratory depression

I believe the only evidence they ever presented that he'd ingested that many tablets was the empty blister packs, as if you only ever take tablets from pristine new blister packs, then throw the rest away.

Yes, I recall that part as well. There was more to it though, going back over the prescriptions to see how many tablets his wife had taken herself and how many appeared to be missing.

It's the low blood level that's the weird bit. And the relatively trivial nature of the wrist wound, and the absence of gallons of blood. So what did he actually die of?

I don't have any particular reason to believe he didn't commit suicide, even though it was apparently strictly forbidden by his religion - people don't always stick to their religious principles when they're extremely stressed. I'd just like to know what the actual cause of death was.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Why do you hold that view given the pathologist's statements?

Uh, because I'm a pathologist and I know CYA happens.

If it's as simple as only a small amount of blood loss being necessary in the context of coronary artery disease and a low dose of dextropropoxyphene, then I'd welcome an inquest simply setting that out.

Rolfe.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Didn't the coroner say that there were large thick clots of blood on the inside of the sleeve?

ETA:

But Mr Hunt said: "There were big, thick clots of blood inside the sleeve, which came down over the wrist, and a lot of blood soaked into the ground.
"It was there and I noted it in my report."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11050587

He did say he would welcome an inquest too.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, if it really does all add up, then I'm not averse to being convinced. I wish they wouldn't be so damn evasive about it though. Keep everything secret for 70 years and refuse to hold an inquest and so on.

Rolfe.

 

[Soily]

Nicholas hunt's intervention is a bit odd. Firstly, since its his verdict that's been questioned, he's hardly likely to come out now and admit professional career ending incompetence. Secondly, it's incredibly unsatisfactory that he's revealing uncorrobarated stuff to the press now that he never bothered to mention at hutton, the stuff about the multiple slashes to the wrists is new information, information that was not presented to hutton. Thirdly, the phrase 'textbook' suicide is a strange choice of words. Even by his own admission there were multiple contributary factors to kelly's death, so its hardly textbook, especially when so many qualified medical professionals have questioned his verdict. So i'm not sure what textbook he's referring to, presumably the textbook of dubious autopsies.

There's also question marks about his competence, apparently he didn't even take kelly's temperature until several hours after he first arrived on the scene.

 

[Darat]

Uh, because I'm a pathologist and I know CYA happens.
If it's as simple as only a small amount of blood loss being necessary in the context of coronary artery disease and a low dose of dextropropoxyphene, then I'd welcome an inquest simply setting that out.

Rolfe.

That's just human behaviour.

Do you have any evidence that means we should consider this pathologist's views to be wrong? For example the idea that there wasn't "a lot" of blood - where does that come from? Well from a statement of a detective from the scene and that is hardly a scientific assessment is it?

The pathologist states that:

"There were big, thick clots of blood inside the sleeve, which came down over the wrist, and a lot of blood soaked into the ground.

"It was there and I noted it in my report."

Always happy to accept that a conspiracy may happen however it does take some evidence to start me on that route.

 

[Darat]

Nicholas hunt's intervention is a bit odd. Firstly, since its his verdict that's been questioned, he's hardly likely to come out now and admit professional career ending incompetence. Secondly, it's incredibly unsatisfactory that he's revealing uncorrobarated stuff to the press now that he never bothered to mention at hutton, the stuff about the multiple slashes to the wrists is new information, information that was not presented to hutton. Thirdly, the phrase 'textbook' suicide is a strange choice of words. Even by his own admission there were multiple contributary factors to kelly's death, so its hardly textbook, especially when so many qualified medical professionals have questioned his verdict. So i'm not sure what textbook he's referring to, presumably the textbook of dubious autopsies.

There's also question marks about his competence, apparently he didn't even take kelly's temperature until several hours after he first arrived on the scene.

Any evidence for your many claims above (and subsequent speculations)?

 

[Horatius]

I'm pretty sure they always send an ambulance when a "fresh" body is found.

Which is part of my point - the people who taught me first aid made the point that you never just assume they're dead, unless they're really obviously completely dead - like totally decapitated, or visibly decaying. So some sort of attempt at checking vitals, and clearing airways would be expected.

If that happened why not just say so?

Well, you keep making the point that no one even asked the original discoverers if they moved the body. They may not have considered it important enough to mention, as it was a typical thing to do.

 

[Soily]

Which part do you dispute Darat?

According to Hutton Dr Hunt first sees the body at 12.10pm but does not take the temperature until 19.15, which seems odd to say the least. Hunt's also recently been reprimanded by the GMC for breaking their rules. I'm not saying he's a freddie patel, but I think we're entitled to be skeptical about his claims.

 

[Soily]

Which is part of my point - the people who taught me first aid made the point that you never just assume they're dead, unless they're really obviously completely dead - like totally decapitated, or visibly decaying. So some sort of attempt at checking vitals, and clearing airways would be expected.





Well, you keep making the point that no one even asked the original discoverers if they moved the body. They may not have considered it important enough to mention, as it was a typical thing to do.

Why would a dog handler drag a corpse slumped against a tree, onto the ground next to the tree, then not mention it? That doesn't make any sense. Coe, his collegue and the mysterious 3rd man he commited perjury about at hutton where then the next on the scene. Coe has stated explicitly he did not move the body. If one of his colleague had don't you think he might have bothered to mention this? I mean, what sort of treatment are these non medical people going to give an apparently dead man that involves dragging his from his position against a tree, to flat out away from the tree?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Why would a dog handler drag a corpse slumped against a tree, onto the ground next to the tree, then not mention it? That doesn't make any sense. Coe, his collegue and the mysterious 3rd man he commited perjury about at hutton where then the next on the scene. Coe has stated explicitly he did not move the body. If one of his colleague had don't you think he might have bothered to mention this? I mean, what sort of treatment are these non medical people going to give an apparently dead man that involves dragging his from his position against a tree, to flat out away from the tree?

CPR? To check that he could breathe correctly if he had been wounded? To make sure he hadn't got any wounds that might have been missed from a slumped seated position? The list is endless, and to take a leaf out of your book, just because you can't think of anything doesn't mean there wasn't a reason.

Look, the problem here is that I'm not a "professional debunker" whatever the hell that is and in actual fact have only a passing interest in CT's, but you seem to be postulating that from one person's comment in the Daily Fail coupled with some fairly ambiguous statements from the other witnesses (did Coe ever state where the body was? If not then the handler might well have moved it and Coe would have been totally correct about having not) to create some wild idea that there may be more to this than we're being told. Granted, it's possible there was a conspiracy to hide....something that could be hidden by moving the body a few feet away and laying it down flat, but that isn't exactly proven by the very small possible discrepancy created by the statement of one Paramedic.

As to your previous post in full.

Your speculation, and you inducing others into speculation is completely irrelevant. If the body was moved it was moved and there is a reason for it. I don't know what that reason is and neither do you.

I can think of a few different reasons (see above) that don't involve anyone hiding anything, and zero reasons that involve someone hiding something. The fact is, if they moved the body to cover something up as you imply, what could they possibly cover up by moving him a few feet?

That's one of the many reasons a proper inquest needs to be conducted to help properly establish the facts, something that has not adequately been done.

According to you. The Pathologist seemed pretty much certain and I think he might know more about the situation than you. On the other hand, as has been stated, he welcomed one. Surely if there was something remotely sinister going on, one man who would have to have something to do with it would run screaming from an inquest wouldn't he?

The idea that you have to provide a detailed alternative theory in order to question an official account of something is one of the professional debunkers most tiresome debating tricks.

Not really. See below. What IS a professional debunker anyway?

It's a bit like saying at a trial that even if the defendant can prove he didn't do it, that he'll still be convicted unless he can prove who did do it.

Except that this isn't anything like that situation. First of all, you haven't proved anything at all. If all you have are a few random scraps that don't fully gel for whatever reason, you need to provide some form of narrative that fully encapsulates all the evidence, including that used in the official account so that there is some reason that we should take this little bits and pieces seriously. Take the 9/11 truth movement. A few fairly ambiguous statements and some poetic language do not make any kind of case that the official story, which has been poured over by experts, is in any way flawed. Similarly the testimony that it's kosher provided by a large number of the police, a respected pathologist and so on seems to be a fairly solid narrative that fits all the known facts. Any small anomaly like this one is far easier to explain as being a mistake (or lying) by the Paramedic or more likely The Daily Wail rather than something being covered up by the moving of his body a tiny amount, and I'm sorry but you ARE implying a large cover-up.

In order for it to make sense that something was hidden by the moving of the body you would not only have to postulate that the police in the area were in on it (otherwise one or more of them could just come forward) but also that the pathologist and any assistants he had were also in on it, or were criminally incompetent. This is of course without even taking into account the fact that someone would have had to want the cover-up put in place, adding at least one more person to the list, although likely many more given the ease at which any potential outsider could have instigated a full inquest.

And it's very unlikely the body was moved by a person unconnected. From the moment of discovery the body was surrounded by 'official' people, be it Coe, other police, medical people and so forth. And the area was cordonend off when the police arrived, so for an unconnected person to have moved it would appear to be difficult if not impossible.

Ok, it likely wasn't moved by someone random stumbling across it. That rules out one possible benign narrative.

I would have thought it unprofessional for the police to move a body at a crime scene prior to the medical professionals and pathologist arriving and Coe said he didn't move it anyway.

So people don't do stuff like that? Policemen and women don't move a body to check if the person is dead or not? They don't maybe try to give the person who they may or may not believe is dead some air, or check him to see if he's actually dead?

And I can't see why the paramedic would say somebody moved the body if that somebody was himself.

You have a point here. One more benign option removed.

So we're back to the initial problem, the person who found the body said it was slumped against the tree, and the paramedic arriving later said it was far enough away from the tree for him to get in behind it to apply the heart monitor. I can't reconcile those two statements.

That you are unwilling to entertain the idea that maybe the body was moved by the handlers, or maybe it was moved by another officer, or maybe the Paramedic is lying, or maybe he was mistaken, or maybe the Mail is lying, or any of a host of other options is nobody's fault but your own.

 

[Soily]

The problem with all those explanations mark, is that nobody involved, despite describing their actions in pretty good detail, ever mention moving the body. It's stretching credulity to breaking point that a responsible official person would drag a body away from a tree to do some mysterious procedure to see if he's still alive, yet not bother to mention it to anyone. It's hardly a passing detail that's easily forgotten.

And the daily mail completely fabricating a quote or a paramedic flat out lying are both baseless allegations.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The problem with all those explanations mark, is that nobody involved, despite describing their actions in pretty good detail, ever mention moving the body. It's stretching credulity to breaking point that a responsible official person would drag a body away from a tree to do some mysterious procedure to see if he's still alive, yet not bother to mention it to anyone. It's hardly a passing detail that's easily forgotten.

Are you kidding? Seriously? You don't think a police officer would, you know, try to put someone in a better position to test if they are still alive? You think that the police just refuse to touch anything at all when they don't even know what it is they are dealing with and whether the man is alive or not? Wow.

And the daily mail completely fabricating a quote or a paramedic flat out lying are both baseless allegations.

Firstly, the Mail regularly fabricates, obfuscates and lies by omission. To say that it is somehow a baseless allegation to assume the Mail is continuing on the exact same course it always takes when it's to do with our previous government (or someone else they don't like) is at best stupid.