See the transcript of oral evidence given on the afternoon of Wednesday 3rd September 2003, where on Pages 142 and 143 we read:
10 Q. Did you find anything around the body area of interest?
11 A. Yes. There was blood distribution.
12 Q. Where had the blood come from?
13 A. It appeared that the blood had originated from
14 Dr Kelly's injured left wrist.
15 Q. Right. I think we have heard from an extract that
16 Mr Page has read out to us that the ulnar artery was
17 severed. Did you understand that to be the case at the
19 A. Obviously injuries are a pathologist's domain. However,
20 the blood distribution was what I would expect to see if
21 an artery had been severed. There was bloodstaining
22 typical of that sort of injury.
23 Q. What do you expect to see in such circumstances?
24 A. Well, when veins are severed the blood comes out under a
25 low pressure, but when arteries are severed it comes out
1 on a much higher pressure and you get spurting of blood,
2 you get a phenomenon known as arterial rain, where you
3 have a great deal of smallish stains all of about the
4 same size over the area.
5 Q. Did you find that arterial rain?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. On what?
8 A. On the nettles -- there were nettles alongside the body
9 of Dr Kelly.
Putting aside all the other questions that have yet to be answered about Mr. Green's evidence, I wonder whether or not it is possible to simulate "arterial rain".
We don't know exactly what Mr. Green saw. But it's pretty clear that he saw what he expected to see.
Was he looking only for evidence to support what he had already assumed? Or was he applying critical thinking to what he saw? Did he, for example, carry out any blood pattern analysis, in any formal sense?
Would he have asked questions in such a way as to allow him to exclude simulated "arterial rain"?
Given the evidence of the paramedic Vanessa Hunt recorded in the transcript for the afternoon of Tuesday 2nd September 2003 on Pages 76 and 77 we read:
8 Q. And is there anything else that you know of about the
9 circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist
10 his Lordship with?
11 A. Only that the amount of blood that was around the scene
12 seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on
13 his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There
14 was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any
15 obvious loss on the clothing.
16 Q. On the clothing?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. One of the police officers or someone this morning said
19 there appeared to be some blood on the ground. Did you
20 see that?
21 A. I could see some on -- there were some stinging nettles
22 to the left of the body. As to on the ground, I do not
23 remember seeing a sort of huge puddle or anything like
24 that. There was dried blood on the left wrist. His
25 jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from
1 that area down towards the hand there was dried blood,
2 but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just
3 dried blood.
The paramedic saw some blood on the nettles, but there can't have been much.
Dr. Nicholas Hunt's postmortem report asks us to believe that the major factor in Dr. Kelly's death was blood loss.
And the evidence suggests there was surprisingly little at the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found.