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

[Soily]

No, i'm suggesting that if the police did move the body, when asked about their actions at an official inquiry they might, you know, just mention this? They didn't. Indeed the senior copper who was first at the scene has explicitly denied moving the body.

And look i'm no fan of the mail but you're honestly clutching at straws if you are suggesting that they have completely fabricated an entire direct and unambiguous quote from someone who can then buy that newspaper and read that false quote from themselves. Has the paramedic sued? Has he complained to the press complaints commission? Has he contacted mailwatch?

 

[Horatius]

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?

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter05.htm#a28

130. Two of the volunteers taking part in the search were Ms Louise Holmes, with her trained search dog, and Mr Paul Chapman. They worked together as a team and began their search about 8am and after a time they went into the wood on Harrowdown Hill from the east side. The dog picked up a scent and Ms Holmes followed him. Ms Holmes saw the dog go to the bottom of a tree and he then ran back to her barking to indicate that he had found something. She then went in the direction from which the dog had come and she saw a body slumped against the bottom of a tree. She shouted to Mr Chapman, who was behind her, to ring control to tell them that something had been found and she went closer to see if there was any first aid which she could administer. She saw the body of a man at the base of the tree with his head and shoulders slumped back against it. His legs were straight in front of him, his right arm was at his side and his left arm had a lot of blood on it and was bent back in a strange position. It was apparent to her that the man was dead and there was nothing she could do to help him. The person matched the description of Dr Kelly which she had previously been given by the police. Ms Holmes then went back to Mr Chapman retracing the route by which she had come into the wood although there was no definite path or track by which she had approached the tree.

She went back to see what first aid could be administered. That would almost certainly involve checking the body in some fashion. I can't imagine anyone with any training in first aid being at all surprised that they might have moved the body during that procedure.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/First_Aid/Emergency_First_Aid_&_Initial_Action_Steps#Responsiveness

If a victim does not respond to your initial greeting and question, you will need to try and get a response from them by carefully delivering pain.

The word "pain" is a bit misleading - it refers to anything physical you do to elicit a response from your victim. The first, and most gentle stimulus to use is a tap/shake of the shoulder. There are other, more painful stimuli that can be employed should this be unsuccessful, but all of these have their downsides, especially if overused.

Of these, the three most commonly used ones are:

* Sternal rub - This is performed by grinding the knuckles of your clenched fist vertically up and down the victim's sternum (or breastbone).
* Nail bed squeeze - Using the flat edge of a pen or similar object, squeeze in to the bottom of the victim's fingernail or toenail.
* Ear lobe squeeze - using thumb and forefinger, squeeze or twist the victim's ear.

If any of these provoke a reaction (groaning, a movement, fluttering of the eyes), then they are responsive to pain. It is important to note that different trainers have different opinions on the efficacy of these, so ask your trainer before employing any of these on a first aid course.

Any of the responses A, V or P, mean that the victim has some level of consciousness. If they are not alert, you should always summon professional help - call an ambulance.

If they are only responsive to Voice or Pain, then consider using the Recovery position to help safeguard them if they need to vomit.

If they do not respond to voice or pain, then they are Unresponsive and you must urgently perform further checks on their key life critical systems of breathing and circulation (informally known as the ABCs). A victim who is unresponsive will often require special attention, both due to the injury or illness causing their unconsciousness, and the fact that they are unable to provide any reason for them being sick or injured.

 

[Soily]

Wow if you stretch that point any further it'll reach from here to Bejing!

So 'went to see if there was any first aid she could administer' has now become, 'drag the body away from the tree and engage in CPR'? Her testimony is quite detailed, yet she never mentions doing any of this? In fact, as you quoted, it was apparent to her there was nothing she could do. You're really having to twist this one out of all recognisable shape to get it to fit aren't you?

 

[grandmastershek]

Why is it that everyone and anyone has to be under oath? I swear CT's are worse than the Inquisition. They have no problem taking Gage and Jones at their word but when someone who was really there says something they have to put their hand on the Bible.

 

[Horatius]

In fact, as you quoted, it was apparent to her there was nothing she could do.

Do you imagine she determined that by doing nothing more than look at him? Have you ever in your life had any first aid training? There's a reason even professional paramedics do things like checking for pulses and breathing - it's because it's not always immediately apparent if the person is dead just from a visual inspection.

You're really having to twist this one out of all recognisable shape to get it to fit aren't you?

If you think expecting a person trained in first aid to take even the most basic steps is "twist[ing] .. out of all recognisable shape", I hope I never need first aid when you're the only one around.

So far, we have nothing that would be out of the ordinary for perfectly normal first aid procedures, and the only objection you have is that they did not explicitly state that they moved the body, even though anyone making an even rudimentary attempt to check that his airway was unobstructed would have moved him so that his head wasn't bent at the neck, as it was initially described to be.

Seriously - what exactly would you have expected them to do in this situation? What would you want them to do if they had found you, unresponsive but not yet dead, in the same situation?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Wow if you stretch that point any further it'll reach from here to Bejing!

So 'went to see if there was any first aid she could administer' has now become, 'drag the body away from the tree and engage in CPR'? Her testimony is quite detailed, yet she never mentions doing any of this? In fact, as you quoted, it was apparent to her there was nothing she could do. You're really having to twist this one out of all recognisable shape to get it to fit aren't you?

Um, who specifically mentioned CPR?

Do you know what the recovery position is? Do you know anything about First Aid?

She would almost certainly lie him down in order to administer first aid. She might well have not realised he was dead until afterwards, it's not like his head was sawed off.

 

[manxman]

Do you imagine she determined that by doing nothing more than look at him?

In this case she could clearly !!SEE!! he was dead, her words, are you claiming she went any further in her examinations and just kept the fact from the enquiry.

Theres also contamination of a possible crime scene.
Thats why she clearly states that she stepped away using the same footprints.

 

[Soily]

Do you imagine she determined that by doing nothing more than look at him? Have you ever in your life had any first aid training? There's a reason even professional paramedics do things like checking for pulses and breathing - it's because it's not always immediately apparent if the person is dead just from a visual inspection.






If you think expecting a person trained in first aid to take even the most basic steps is "twist[ing] .. out of all recognisable shape", I hope I never need first aid when you're the only one around.

So far, we have nothing that would be out of the ordinary for perfectly normal first aid procedures, and the only objection you have is that they did not explicitly state that they moved the body, even though anyone making an even rudimentary attempt to check that his airway was unobstructed would have moved him so that his head wasn't bent at the neck, as it was initially described to be.

Seriously - what exactly would you have expected them to do in this situation? What would you want them to do if they had found you, unresponsive but not yet dead, in the same situation?

You're ascribing a completely fictitious set of actions to this person. Show me the evidence that any of that ever happened. She described her actions in detail at hutton, and made no mention of doing any of that. And please don't tell me you think dragging the body away from the tree (far enough away for a man to get in behind it) is not worthy of mention.

 

[manxman]

Um, who specifically mentioned CPR?

Do you know what the recovery position is? Do you know anything about First Aid?

She would almost certainly lie him down in order to administer first aid. She might well have not realised he was dead until afterwards, it's not like his head was sawed off.

Your another just handwaving away her clear unambiguous statements with a fantasy scenario.

 

[Soily]

I'm not a medical professional so I'm not sure if it's required to drag a body away from its position slumped against a tree so its lying flat on the floor away from the tree in order to take a pulse. I would imagine not, but who knows eh? Still, since she was asked about what she did at hutton, and never mentioned doing that we have absolutely no reason to think it ever happened.

 

[manxman]

Why is it that everyone and anyone has to be under oath? I swear CT's are worse than the Inquisition. They have no problem taking Gage and Jones at their word but when someone who was really there says something they have to put their hand on the Bible.

Generalise alot do you.
who are jones and gage.

Sounds like hinge and bracket.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm not a medical professional so I'm not sure if it's required to drag a body away from its position slumped against a tree so its lying flat on the floor away from the tree in order to take a pulse. I would imagine not, but who knows eh? Still, since she was asked about what she did at hutton, and never mentioned doing that we have absolutely no reason to think it ever happened.

Whereas a totally pointless moving of the body by a Policeman for no apparent reason is a perfectly legitimate conclusion.

 

[Soily]

The body was either moved or it wasn't. Since there's zero evidence Louise holmes, who was just a dog trainer who was volunteering to help, moved it and concealed this fact, it's reasonable to conclude it was someone else.

 

[manxman]

Thats right soily, move on i am interested in what you have to say.

If anyone else refers to her again, just refer them to the post numbers where you have already answered the question for someone else.

 

[Soily]

By the way, if you watch the documentary anthrax wars, in segment 2 (on YouTube) louise holmes is interviewed, and seemingly aware of the controversy about the position of the body, makes it unambiguously crystal clear that when she discovered the body it was slumped with its head and shoulders against the tree, not laid flat out on the ground as it was seen later. The interview explictly asks her if it was flat out on the ground and she says no. This surely has to all but eliminate the possibility that she was the one resposinble for the movement of the body, but forgot to mention it or something.

 

[dudalb]

Everybody want to play CSI Investigator nowdays.....

 

[Darat]

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.

At this point I'm not disputing anything - I want to see your claims and speculations supported before I can form any view on them.

 

[Darat]

The body was either moved or it wasn't. Since there's zero evidence Louise holmes, who was just a dog trainer who was volunteering to help, moved it and concealed this fact, it's reasonable to conclude it was someone else.

Only IF the body was moved - you seem to have concluded it was moved on rather flimsy evidence.

 

[Soily]

Thats right soily, move on i am interested in what you have to say.

If anyone else refers to her again, just refer them to the post numbers where you have already answered the question for someone else.

OK, moving on, there is one thing about the case that has always bothered me but is very rarely mentioned. David Kelly was at the centre of one of the biggest international political and intelligence **** storms we've seen for years. So wouldn't he had been under surveillance on the day he died? It's unthinkable that he wouldn't have been bugged at the very least, if not under live surveillance. This man knew things and he was talking. This might tie in with 2 interesting other mysteries in this case.

Firstly kelly's wife allegedly told a researcher that after Kelly was reported missing, but before he was found, the police ordered her and her daughter out of the house, where try then stripped the wallpaper from the walls. Where they looking for bugs and if so, whose?

Secondly, although Hutton wasn't under oath, DCI Coe did 'perjer' himself when asked who he was with when the body was found. At Hutton he said he was with 1 collegue, yet witnesses remember seeing him with 2 men. In a recent interview, Coe has now admitted he was with 2 men, but refuses to name the other person. Why did he lie at hutton and who was that other man? Was he part of a survelence team that had already been there before Kelly disappeared?

Further support for that comes from a piece of evidence submitted to Hutton, detailing a classified police operation into kelly's dissapearence:

TVP Tactical Support Major Incident Policy Book: Operation 'Mason' Between 1430 17.07.03 and 0930 18.07.03, DCI Alan Young - not for release - Police operational information TVP/10/0099 - 0105

An operation that commenced 10 hours before Kelly was even reported missing. How did the police know he was missing before it had been reported?

 

[Soily]

Only IF the body was moved - you seem to have concluded it was moved on rather flimsy evidence.

If by flimsy, you mean the unequival statement of the person who found him which states the body was in a different position than it was desribed by later witnesses? (and not just the paramedic, if you look at hutton other witnesses describe the body laying flat next to the tree too)

Of course its not cast iron evidence, but in light of all the other doubts there really needs to be a proper inquest to clear these things up.