Friday, 3 December 2010

The death of David Kelly - No fingerprints on the co-proxamol blister packs

A new piece of information is available following a Freedom of Information Act request to Thames Valley Police by Brian Spencer.

No fingerpints were found on the co-proxamol blister packs which Dr. Hunt stated that he found in the front right pocket of David Kelly's Barbour jacket.

See Brian's post: No fingerprints on the co-proxamol blister packs.

We now know:

1. There were no fingerprints on the (supposed) knife.

2. There were no fingerprints on the water bottle.

3. There were no fingerprints on the co-proxamol blister packs.

4. There were no gloves at the scene.

The "suicide hypothesis" requires us to believe that David Kelly took his own life and took the trouble to wipe the knife, the water bottle and co-proxamol blister packs clean of fingerprints.

The absence of fingerprints is another nail in the coffin of the "suicide hypothesis" as far as I'm concerned.


  1. One has to be clear about what "none recovered" means. Fingerprints left on an object are often partial or defaced, and none recovered may not mean there were no fingerprints per se, only that there were no full prints.

    Blood on the bottle/knife etc may have defaced the prints.

  2. Rowena,

    As I understand the process it isn't necessary to obtain a "full print" in order to attribute a print to an individual.

  3. Rowena,

    I think it's also worthwhile mentioning the practicality of using a blister pack.

    Most people, I think, would push a tablet forwards by applying thumb pressure to the plastic side of the pack, thereby piercing the foil side of a blister pack.

    This would, I think, leave a partial thumb print on each individual blister.

    Given that the "suicide hypothesis" asks us to believe that David Kelly ingested up to 29 co-proxamol, surely it's very surprising that neither of the blister packs tested (a minimum of 19 empty tablet blisters) has an identifiable print of David Kelly.

  4. There's a lot that might surprise us, but to drill down and make this into a convincing argument, we need to be as clear as possible on whether is it necessary nowadays to have a full print to ID a person and whether or not the failure to obtain a print, partial or otherwise, in a case such as this case is unusual.

    Objects likely to have prints on them were actually quite numerous - watch, bottle, knife, key fob, glasses, blister packs, possibly even his belt.

    But exactly which objects were tested
    and do we have known results for more than the knife and the blister packs?

    What exactly is meant by "none recovered"? That could mean that no attempt was made to recover a print from an object, it could mean that no full print was obtained, or maybe it's esoteric scientific code with some other connotation -- one needs to be sure.

  5. A couple of thougths here. Firstly the question, how many coproxamol tablets did DK actually take with him to Harrowdown Wood?
    As we know from toxicology and the amount of water available at the scene, it is highly unlikely that he ingested all 29 of the missing tablets.
    However, we have been told that DK picked up 3 blister packs from his home, but apparently failed to bring along the outer packet.
    DK could therefore see how many tablets he had picked up and so unless he knowingly picked up some empty blister packs he must have consumed, or at least removed over 20 tablets from the blister packs.
    Secondly, it is also hard to imagine that his hands had not become sweaty by the time he had 'popped' enough blisters to remove over 20 tablets from the blister packs and placed the empty packs back into his pocket.
    Sweaty hands make fingerprints so if we are to believe this suicide story there really should have been some fingerprints recovered.
    I think someone was wearing gloves.