Or, at least, they haven't begun to ask some pivotal questions as Brian's observation relates to the conclusion of suicide reached at the Hutton Inquiry.
Brian's post is here: The Evian Water Bottle.
Why do I think it's so important?
It's important because it casts serious doubt on the two most important "causes of death" in the suicide conclusion of the Hutton Inquiry.
It casts serious doubt on the supposed serious haemorrhage from the ulnar artery and it also casts serious doubt about the supposed ingestion of 29 co-proxamol tablets.
How can such a simple observation about the size of a bottle of water have such far reaching implications?
Quite simple, really. If you are to swallow 29 fairly big tablets you'll need a substantial volume of water to swallow them. Equally, if you're bleeding to death over a number of hours, you're going to get thirstier and thirstier. You'll have a very strong drive to replace the fluid you're losing.
The bottle is variously described in the oral evidence to Hutton as 300ml or 500ml or "half a litre".
To be kind to the suicide hypothesis let's assume, for the moment, that the capacity of the bottle is 500ml.
Let's also be kind to the suicide hypothesis and assume that Dr. Kelly hadn't drunk at all from the bottle before he reached the scene where his body was found.
We know, from the evidence of Dr. Allan (transcript of oral evidence on the morning of Wednesday 3rd September 2003, that there was still water left in the bottle. On pages 15 and 16 we read:
14 A. In the period up to the end of July there were
15 additional analyses carried out.
16 Q. Was there anything significant you found in those
18 A. Those analyses confirmed my original findings, the
19 Coproxamol overdose, and they entirely support my
20 original conclusions.
21 Q. Was there anything which shed further light on your
22 conclusions or was it simply confirmatory?
23 A. It was confirmatory. What I also did was I looked at
24 the water which was found at the scene, or the contents
25 of the water bottle that was found at the scene.
1 Q. What did you find in that?
2 A. I found traces of dextropropoxyphene in that.
3 Presumably that would come from someone contacting the
4 bottle with saliva in the bottle. We did not find
5 anything else of note in there. It may be that
6 paracetamol was in there as well but the tests are not
7 sensitive enough to detect the traces of paracetamol
8 that may have been present.
9 Q. Was there anything else you examined apart from the
10 water bottle and the items you have so far mentioned?
11 A. I did not, as far as I am aware. I am just checking.
12 I did not analyse any other exhibits, no.
Typical of the slapdash approach at the Hutton Inquiry, nobody asks or states what the volume of the water was which was left in the bottle.
It isn't hard for you to find a 500ml bottle of water. They are suprisingly small, if you're contemplating taking 29 tablets, even if you're not averse to taking tablets.
To put it simply, I don't believe that I nor David Kelly could swallow 29 co-proxamol tablets using less than 500ml of water.
How many could he swallow? ... I would like to avoid being drawn into speculation - there is already too much speculation in Dr. Nicholas Hunt's postmortem for my taste.
But you want a number of how many co-proxamol tablets David Kelly is likely to have swallowed using that amount of water. I'd guess 8 co-proxamol tablets. Maybe a maximum of 10.
If, as I believe, it's not possible for David Kelly to have swallowed the postulated overdose of 29 co-proxamol tablets using the available supply of water, serious doubt is raised about the suicide hypothesis.
In addition, if (as we are asked to believe) he was bleeding from an ulnar artery incision or incisions to the point where death resulted, that must have arisen from a lengthy period of slow blood loss.
During that period he would have become thirsty.
I find it inexplicable that he, in those circumstances, would have failed to drink any water left in the tiny bottle available to him.
In my view, with a maximum of 500ml of water available to him, it is not credible to find remaining water in a situation where it is assumed he bled extensively over a long period.
I conclude that suicide as expressed in the Hutton Report did not happen.