Doubts about Hutton Inquiry's reliability in role as Coroner's Inquest

In the Letters page of the Guardiannewspaper (International Edition) on 27 January 2004 the following letter by David Halpin (Specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery), C Stephen Frost (Specialist in diagnostic radiology) and Searle Sennet (Specialist in anaesthesiology) appeared:

“As specialist medical professionals we do not consider the evidence given at the Hutton inquiry has demonstrated that Dr David Kelly committed suicide.

“Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist at the Hutton inquiry, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound to his left wrist. We view this as highly improbable. Arteries in the wrist are of mathstick thickness and severing them does not lead to life-threatening blood loss. Dr Hunt stated that the only artery that had been cut – the ulnar artery – had been completely transected. Complete transection causes the artery to quickly retract and close down, and this promotes clotting of the blood.

“The ambulance team reported that the quantity of blood at the scene was minimal [and] surprisingly small. It is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at a pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vasoconstricting. To have died from haemorrhage, Dr Kelly would have had to lose about 5 pints of blood – it is unlikely that he would have lost more than a pint.

“Alexander Allan, the forensic toxicologist at the inquiry, considered the amount ingested of Co-Proxamol insufficient to have caused death. Allan could not show that Dr Kelly had ingested the 29 tablets said to be missing from the packets found. Only a fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach. Although levels of Co-Proxamol in the blood were higher than therapeutic levels, Allan conceded that the blood level of each of the drug's two components was less than a third of what would normally be found in a fatal overdose.

“We dispute that Dr Kelly could have died from haemorrhage or from Co-Proxamol ingestion or from both. The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, has spoken recently of resuming the inquest into his death. If it reopens, as in our opinion it should, a clear need exists to scrutinise more closely Dr Hunt's conclusions as to the cause of death.”

The following is a long quote from the article “Britain’s Hutton Inquiry: Still no account of how Dr. Kelly died” written by Chris Marsden and published on the internet 'World Socialist Web Site' by the International Committee of the Fourth International on 29 August 2003:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/kell-a29.shtml

“The Hutton Inquiry, though ostensibly set up to investigate Kelly’s death, has done no such thing. It has discussed the events leading up to Kelly being found dead, but not how he died.

“Yet on August 14 the Coroners Inquest into Kelly’s death, which had met for just a few hours on July 19, was closed down after the most superficial investigation imaginable. It consisted almost exclusively of hearing evidence from an amended medical report by Home Office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt.

“This is all that is known of Kelly’s death from that inquest:

“Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner said that the report showed the main cause of death was the number of incisions into Kelly’s left wrist.

“Hunt had concluded the main cause of death was haemorrhage and there were two wounds which would have been fatal. The secondary cause of death was ingestion of the prescription painkiller Co-Proxamol, though toxicology reports showed the amount present in Kelly’s blood would not alone have been enough to kill him.

“Gardiner said that the four cardio-electrode pads found on Kelly’s chest at the time of his death were placed there by paramedics on the scene to detect heart action.

“He then explained that because of the ongoing independent judicial review being conducted by Lord Hutton, it was “highly unlikely” that any more evidence would need to be heard by him and he was handing the main investigation into Kelly’s death over to Lord Hutton’s inquiry.

“He did so because the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, had ordered him to under Section 17a of the Coroner’s Act of 1988 allowing a public inquiry chaired or conducted by a judge to “fulfil the function of an inquest”.

“The Hutton Inquiry has now been ongoing for three weeks and it must be clear to all that it cannot be trusted to make a serious investigation of how Kelly died. It has certainly shown no inclination in this direction. If it had, then someone reporting that Kelly believed he would be found dead in the woods would not have been passed over in such a cavalier fashion. It would have spurred on those concerned to intensify their efforts to get at the truth and demand answers to questions that are being raised by many ordinary members of the public who do not accept the official version that Kelly committed suicide.

“* Kelly had been at home for just one day after his testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Yet there were apparently no police guards, MI5-MI6 spies or even any media outside his house. Why?

“* His behaviour on the morning of July 17 is hard to reconcile with that of a man who later supposedly committed suicide. He had worked on a report which he said he owed the Foreign Office and sent emails, including one to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in which he famously spoke of “many dark actors playing games” with him and another stating that he was determined to overcome the scandal surrounding him and was enthusiastic about the possibility of returning to Iraq as a weapons inspector. No suicide note was left by Kelly.

“* Why did a scientist choose such a difficult means of killing himself as slashing his wrist and not even take enough painkillers to do the job more effectively and less painfully?

“* Special Branch officers from Scotland Yard sealed off Kelly’s offices in Whitehall and seized his computer, but we do not know what they found.

“On July 3, the New Scientist wrote an editorial anticipating the Hutton Inquiry and what questions it expected to be answered. It provides an indication of how many people will feel cheated by what has happened subsequently.

“The editorial asks, “First, why does Kelly’s testimony to the select committee differ from accounts given by BBC reporters of their discussions with him? By the time Kelly gave evidence, he had reportedly been questioned for five days by his employer (the Ministry of Defence), named in public by the MOD against his wishes, and kept in an MOD safe house. During all this time, had the MOD forced him into some kind of deal?

““Could it be that BBC reporters manipulated Kelly’s views for their own ends? For one journalist to do this is plausible. But it seems Kelly spoke to three and gave a similar account to all of them.

““Finally, in two of the BBC reports there is a sense that Kelly speaks not only for himself but for ‘people in intelligence’. This raises the question of whether he acted alone or with the approval of others.

““Answering these questions may go some way to explaining why a man who survived confrontations with the vicious, secretive regime in Baghdad was finally destroyed by a supposedly free and open society.”

“Material relating to these and many other questions hardly ever addressed by the press has emerged repeatedly during the Hutton Inquiry but never been probed. The issues must be fully investigated before a verdict can be pronounced on Kelly’s death.“

The article “More questions on Dr Kelly’s death as a confidante rejects suicide claim” written by Chris Marsden and published on the internet 'World Socialist Web Site' by the International Committee of the Fourth International on 30 January 2004, describing the case of Mai Pederson, a United States Air Force translator who worked alongside Dr David Kelly in Iraq, introduced him to the Baha'i faith and was a close friend, from which we quote, would also appear to be of interest in this context:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/kell-j30.shtml

“Suicide “doesn’t make any sense”

“Pederson’s interview with the Mail on Sunday raises many questions that throw doubt on the official explanation of his death as resulting from suicide. And it also leaves just as many questions unanswered.

She tells the Mail, “I told the police that the fact that he was found dead in the woods was not surprising. The fact that they said he committed suicide was. I am a logically-minded person and it doesn’t make any sense to me.”

“Dr Kelly had told her how his mother had committed suicide: “There is research to show that suicide runs in families and I asked him if he would ever do that and he said, ‘Good God no, I couldn’t imagine ever doing that ... I would never do it.”

“She added, “I also told the police about the time he said he had a headache. I suggested he take Tylenol. He said he had a problem swallowing pills. It seems a bit strange that someone who can’t take one pill for a splitting headache would be able to take 20.”

“Pederson also said that during his phone calls at the height of the controversy over the report on the “sexed up” intelligence dossier, “He didn’t sound depressed. He sounded totally normal.”

“She also explained again how Kelly’s “job was dangerous. He knew it could cost him his life.”

“Pederson’s evidence concealed at Hutton inquiry

“Pederson makes clear how extraordinary it was that she never gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry.“

The International Committee of the Fourth International's articles on the World Socialist Web Site
are Copyright 1998-2004 All rights reserved

The authors of the present document were involved in the following email exchange with an editorial department of the Guardiannewspaper on 1 September 2003:

[Authors:] According to the Lord Chancellor's Office, which cancelled the original Coroner's Inquest, this Inquiry is also supposed to serve as such an Inquest. Until this really happens, we cannot simply assume that Dr. Kelly's death was suicide.

It seems surprising to some that Dr. Kelly was not under some kind of covert surveillance at the time, while so much effort was being devoted to discovering his press contacts. Why, already feeling betrayed, and perhaps viewed as a loose cannon, he may even have walked into the woods that day thinking to reveal to another party who knows what further information challenging the Blair government line.

The technicalities of a thorough scientific Inquest must be carefully observed. The unusual death of a scientist of Dr. Kelly's calibre deserves no less.

[Gaurdian:] This is not an inquest. The Inquest will resume after the hutton inquiry has ended.

[Authors:] ...You will have referred at least to the document attached below. While I see that the original adjourned inquest may later be resumed, I nevertheless understand that the adjournment is "in accordance with Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 which allows a public inquiry chaired or conducted by a judge to fulfil the function of an inquest."

I have yet to see clearly whether this inquiry has been instructed to fulfil that function or not. Neither has one so far been made aware of "any essential further evidence as to the cause of Dr Kelly's death."

Your report of August 14th stated that Mr. Gardiner was "handing the main investigation into Dr Kelly's death over to Lord Hutton's inquiry".

In any case, it seems inadmissible at this stage of proceedings for the media to continue to preempt the inquest by insinuating (spinning?) that it has somehow been decided extrajudicially that there could be no explanation for the event on which the Hutton Inquiry has to focus other than suicide. At least stick to the phrase "apparent suicide", please.

For a Coroner to later reconvene for another five minutes to declare that "that's all, folks" would appear doubtful, to say the least - unless as I have said, justice can objectively be seen to have been served...

Attach:

Reference CO78285
Level Of Importance 4
Word Count 0000
Keywords LEGAL

Organisation Code CF
Region Code G
External URL:
External URL Mapping: Map to New Window

330/03

13 August 2003

CORONER'S INQUEST INTO DEATH OF DR KELLY ADJOURNED

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has directed that the coroner's
inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly should be adjourned since
his death is being investigated by the public inquiry chaired by Lord
Hutton.

The Oxfordshire coroner's inquest into Dr Kelly's death will now be
adjourned in accordance with Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988
which allows a public inquiry chaired or conducted by a judge to
fulfil the function of an inquest. The adjournment will take place as
soon as the coroner has taken any essential further evidence as to
the cause of Dr Kelly's death.

Lord Hutton's Inquiry has been set up to investigate the
circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death.

The purpose of Section 17A is to prevent duplication of proceedings
which can cause unnecessary distress to the bereaved. Lord Falconer
has checked that the Kelly Family would prefer that the Inquest be
adjourned. He will be writing to Mrs Kelly to confirm he has directed
that the inquest should be adjourned.

Similar adjournments were made in the cases of the judicial Inquiries
into the Ladbroke Grove rail crash and the case of Harold Shipman.

Notes for Editors

1. Section 71 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 added a new provision
to the Coroners Act 1988 - section 17A - which requires the coroner
to adjourn an inquest where a public inquiry can be expected to
fulfil the function of the inquest.

2. Section 17A only applies where: (a) a public inquiry is being
conducted or chaired by a judge, and (b) the Lord Chancellor is
satisfied that the cause of death is likely to be adequately
investigated by the public inquiry. The provision came into effect on
1 January 2000.

3. The provision was used in Lord Cullen's Public Inquiry into the
Ladbroke Grove railway disaster and in Dame Janet's Smith's Inquiry
into Harold Shipman.

4. When an inquest is adjourned under Section 17A, the coroner may
not resume the inquest during the inquiry, but must pass on to the
Registrar of Deaths a certificate stating any findings of the inquiry
in respect of the death.

Department for Constitutional Affairs
Selborne House, 54 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QW
www.dca.gov.uk

[Gaurdian:] [No reply. The following day, the 'forensic' evidence was presented to the Hutton inquiry and the Guardian along with most of the mainstream press was at pains to point out that the said inquiry was to 'fulfil the function of an inquest'.]