Of course it wasn't suicideThe death of David Kelly was questioned by a number of doctors. The letters below list a number of senior doctors. One such rebel is John Scurr who recently had the guts to blast the NHS on the subject of vein surgery. Unknown to JS, I was around as one of his students at UCL. Actually, he was a really nice guy and one everyone should admire.
I like to think Michael Powers QC is a good friend of mine in a sort of patriarch way. He is the sort of man that really couldn't give a damn what is said about me. I actually have the greatest respect for him and he has always tried to help me out in the last 10 years or so. If Michael can do it, he will. Michael has a boat somewhere and he is infamous for being a medical doctor and then a top medicolegal barrister. Michael has always been amused by antics with the GMC plus whistleblowing. He has invited me down for coffee plus chat but I haven't yet taken him up on this yet. Michael like David Southall own boats. What is it with men and their yachts? Must be your average hobby when you reach a certain time of life.
Anyway, this is what Michael said about David Kelly [Times]
Sir, The Coroner for Oxfordshire is to hear representations from interested parties on March 16 as to whether or not there is an “exceptional reason” for resuming the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.
The evidence called before Lord Hutton’s inquiry focused only to a minor extent on the medical cause of Dr Kelly’s death. That evidence was neither given on oath nor challenged in cross-examination. No expert evidence of any opposing view was called or presented.
Since the transcripts of the inquiry have been in the public domain, concern has been expressed by a significant number of medical experts that it is unlikely that Dr Kelly died either of haemorrhage or a Coproxamol overdose, as the Hutton report concluded.
Suicide cannot be presumed. Even evidence pointing to the likelihood that Dr Kelly took his own life is not sufficient. Suicide has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Whilst conspiracy theorists may believe otherwise, a failure to prove suicide does not mean that Dr Kelly was murdered.
The coroner should resume the inquest to hear the divergent expert evidence which has come to light. If, in consequence, suicide cannot be strictly proved, there should be no reluctance to enter an open verdict.
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL POWERS,
Clerksroom and ADR Chambers,
Equity House,
Blackbrook Park Avenue,
Taunton TA1 2PX.
March 9.
Letter in the Guardian.
Dr David Kelly is the first British citizen whose sudden, unexpected and violent death has been denied an inquest. Three weeks after Dr Kelly's body was found, Lord Falconer ordered that the inquest into his death be adjourned indefinitely and subsumed into a public inquiry by invoking section 17a of the Coroner's Act 1988.
The section is designed to avoid duplication of inquiry in cases of multiple deaths where the cause of death can, to some extent, be assumed from the outset. But Dr Kelly's was a solitary death coming amid a political storm concerning doubts over the government's case for war with Iraq, and its cause required rigorous investigation. The Hutton inquiry had no power to call a jury, subpoena witnesses or cross-examine them under oath.
Disquiet expressed recently by paramedics over finding very little blood at the scene of Dr Kelly's death gives credence to our view that it is highly improbable Dr Kelly died of haemorrhage from a transected ulnar artery. From such a wound he would have lost only about a pint of blood, and for death to occur he would need to have lost some five pints. And Co-Proxamol levels in his blood were one-third of what is normally regarded as a fatal dose.
In his report, Lord Hutton confirmed that he had seen a photograph of Dr Kelly lying with his head against the base of a tree. Two volunteer searchers stated they found Dr Kelly's body slumped against a tree. Yet the paramedics who arrived later, and five other witnesses, including the forensic pathologist, reported that the body was flat on its back a foot from the tree. Police photographed the body in this position. Given that there is photographic evidence showing the body in two different positions, it must be determined who moved the body, and when and why.
The law requires a verdict of suicide to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Why should Dr Kelly's death receive less scrutiny than any other sudden, unexpected and violent death? As things stand, suicide has not been proved, and we still do not know how he died.
Dr Michael Powers QC
Martin Birnstingl
Specialist in vascular surgery
Chris Burns-Cox
Specialist in internal general medicine
C Stephen Frost
Specialist in diagnostic radiology
David Halpin
Specialist in orthopaedic and trauma surgery
William McQuillan
Specialist in orthopaedic and trauma surgery
Andrew Rouse
Consultant in public health
John Henry Scurr
Specialist in vascular surgery
Searle Sennett
Specialist in anaesthesiology
rowenathursby@onetel.com
1 comments:
Hi Rita
You entitle your post here "Of course it wasn't suicide" but this then begs the question as to what really did happen to Dr Kelly if this was not the case.
Certainly Norman Baker MP has published a book on the matter where he suggests that Dr Kelly was murdered by Iraqi opposition figures but does this idea really hold water?
The doctors who wrote to the Guardian do not believe in the version of events as expounded by Lord Hutton so where does this leave us?
Norman Baker says if it was not suicide then it must be murder and the doctors say that he couldn't have committed suicide in the way that he is claimed to have done so is there any other that we can square the circle?
So what if Dr Kelly really committed suicide by administering to himself a Porton Down toxin?
Just for the sake of argument let's suggest that he took saxitoxin.
Certainly he would have had knowledge of it and even access to it from his time as Head of Microbiology there. Saxitoxin came to be known about after US pilot Gary Powers failed to take it when his U2 spyplane was shot down. After this Nixon ordered all stock of such toxins destroyed but this didn't happen, instead it was distributed to 72 labs including Porton for safe keeping.
Ask yourself this. If the US were plotting to assassinate Saddam inside Iraq whilst UNSCOM was working there, what would Uday and Qusay have done with the inspectors they then held. What price would the WMD knowledge of Dr Kelly and others be worth to them? Would Dr Kelly hold a card, in the form of a way out, just in case such a scenario occurred?
Further to this, where would the British Government stand if such a card were played at the wrong time?
There's the question of the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which it signed on April 10th 1972 and ratified on March 26th 1975. It says:
"Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain..."
Then there's our own Biological Weapons Act (1974). This one says:
1. Restriction on development etc of certain biological agents and toxins and of biological weapons
(1) No person shall develop, produce, stockpile, acquire or retain-
(a) any biological agent or toxin of a type and in a quantity that has no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes; ...
(Hmmm. Where would that leave us when we're accusing (falsely) Saddam of doing the very same things?)
Beyond this there is the question of criminal liability for complicity in another's suicide. Section 2 of the Suicide Act of 1961 states that:
"A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt of another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."
Another thing to think about is the question of corporate or involuntary manslaughter. It's a bit complicated to go into it here, but no doubt you get my drift.
So the question I would have to ask is whether the above are (or - necessary caveat - could be) sufficient reasons to prevent a full and proper Coroners Inquest from taking place under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988?
I wonder...
Andrew Simon
http://musings-drkelly-wmd.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment