- Oxfordshire Coroner Nicholas Gardiner has a problem.
On March 16th 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.
-
- 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.
-
- (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.)
-
- Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its
entirety.
-
- Past Medium Rare articles back to October 2001 are archived
at:
-
- http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/Archives.htm
-
-
-
- The author is a freelance writer based in Romulus, Michigan.
He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs
administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.
-
- If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly,
please contact the author at jimrarey@comcast.net.
|