Monday, 15 November 2010

The death of Dr. David Kelly - "Put up or shut up!"

An article by Martin Robbins, the supposed "lay scientist", in the Guardian in August 2010 challenged those who question the public narrative about the death of David Kelly in the following terms: "David Kelly conspiracy theorists should put up or shut up".

I'm for putting up.

I've challenged Martin Robbins and his seeming source Dr. Andrew Davison of Cardiff University to do likewise.

First my email to Martin Robbins:

The title:

The murder of Dr. David Kelly


Now the text:

Hi Martin,

I've recently stumbled across your Guardian piece from August 2010 ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/24/david-kelly-conspiracy-suicide-inquest ).

I notice that none of your forensic pathologists have gone on the record stating that David Kelly committed suicide. Their comments, quoted by you and others, are merely banal generalities.

You reference Andrew Davison here:

The letter writers claim with great certainty that slashing the ulnar artery couldn't cause death, but yet again genuine experts like Davison point out that they have worked on cases where precisely this sort of thing happens.

Did Dr. Davison make the claim you indicate? If so please substantiate your comment.

Please list the cases where "precisely" slashing the ulnar artery caused death.

You might want to be aware that I've written to a number of the forensic pathologists to challenge their publicly quoted comments.

See:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-of-dr-david-kelly-open-letter-to.html

There are genuine unanswered questions about the "public narrative" surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly.

As a "lay scientist" I wonder whether you are open to seriously examining those questions or whether you are more energetically applying your mind to avoiding them.

(Dr) Andrew Watt



Now the email to Dr. Andrew Davison:

First the title:

The death of Dr. David Kelly - evidence of other cases of ulnar artery deaths?


Now the text:

Dr. Davison,

You are a recipient of my email to Professor Pounder and others dated 10th November 2010 ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-of-dr-david-kelly-open-letter-to.html ).

As expressed in that email it occurs to me that you, and others, may (wittingly or unwittingly) be parties to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In the earlier email I drew to your attention the potentially serious implications for the credibility of forensic pathology and, consequently, of the perceptions of the integrity and credibility of the criminal justice system of such an approach.

In an article in the Guardian in August 2010, you are referenced as follows:

The letter writers claim with great certainty that slashing the ulnar artery couldn't cause death, but yet again genuine experts like Davison point out that they have worked on cases where precisely this sort of thing happens.

I would be grateful if you would list the cases which "precisely" show that "this sort of thing happens" i.e. that "slashing" the ulnar artery causes death.

Additionally, I invite you to provide sufficient detail for each case to allow some form of meaningful assessment of the assertion referenced by Martin Robbins.

Of course, if Martin Robbins has, wittingly or unwittingly, misrepresented what you said to him I'd be grateful for such a clarification.

In his article in the Guardian Martin Robbins invited critics of the suicide verdict to "put up or shut up". As you will have observed I'm "putting up". Are you comparably willing publicly to support your seeming statement to Martin Robbins?


(Dr) Andrew Watt

2 comments:

  1. I am quite interested in the genesis of Mr Robbins' article. Whose idea was it? As far as I can see, Martin Robbins is a man of many talents - his twitter icon shows him speaking on Penis Panics and his main hobby seems to be attacking religion. ButI am not quite sure where (not) finding out the truth about David Kelly comes into his scheme of things.

    Of course, Dr Andrew M Davison is another of the 43 Home Office Forensic Pathologists so it might be expected that he comes to the aid of Nicholas Hunt when he is on the ropes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Felix,

    Martin Robbins, as I understand it, purports to comment incisively on scientific matters.

    One would hope that he is interested in evidence-based analysis.

    I find it interesting that in the context of the death of David Kelly that he seeks to suppress evidence by opposing an inquest.

    Surely the scientific approach would be to favour an inquest where, for the first time, the evidence about the death of David Kelly could be properly examined.

    ReplyDelete