I suggest in the email that the pool of blood found below the knife at Harrowdown Hill is more indicative of a faked suicide than a real suicide.
The title of the email was:
David Kelly - The theatrical pool of blood under the knife
The text of the email was:
This communication is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with his consideration of whether or not an application should be made to the High Court for an order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
In this email I draw to the Attorney General's attention an issue which I believe to demonstrate "new evidence" and "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
In the postmortem report by Dr. Nicholas Hunt, mention is made of a "pool of blood" to the left of the body which is reported as having been found under the knife that was found at Harrowdown Hill. The relevant section of the postmortem report reads as follows:
"Lying adjacent to this was a white metal Sandvik pruning-type knife or gardener's knife, with its blade extended from the handle. There was bloodstaining over both the handles and the blade and a pool of blood beneath the knife which was approximately 8-10 by approximately 4-5 cms."
To the best of my knowledge Dr. Hunt at no point seriously examined the implications of this observation. Nor, so far as I'm aware, has it been subject to any detailed analysis by anyone else.
Definitive analysis of the issue would benefit from access to contemporary photographs taken of the scene at Harrowdown Hill.
For the "suicide hypothesis" to be true Dr. Kelly needs to have held the knife in his right hand while in a recumbent or semi-recumbent position.
Given that multiple incisions were made in the left wrist it is likely that between incisions (if he put the knife down at all) Dr. Kelly would put it down on the right side of the body, that being the natural position for an item held in the right hand to be put down for re-use. In a recumbent or semi-recumbent position it is awkward to put the knife down on the left side of the body.
Dr. Hunt comments on some bloodstaining of what I take to be the right hand:
"• There was bloodstaining visible over front of the right side of the shirt beneath the left hand, the palm of which was bloodstained."
Dr. Hunt indicates that the palm of the "left hand" is bloodstained. That has to be an error in the context since the left hand was to the left of the body. The hand in proximity to the shirt was the right hand.
He also comments:
"• Lighter bloodstaining over the back of the fingers and palm of the right hand."
Let us, therefore, assume that in those two extracts from the postmortem report Dr. Hunt refers to some light bloodstaining of the right palm.
The knife, so the "suicide hypothesis" would tell us, is held in the right hand. And the right hand is only "lightly bloodstained".
When the knife is put down (from the right hand) there is no basis for the right hand to have been covered in blood to such a degree as to create a "pool of blood" where the knife was laid down.
In addition, the pool of blood which Dr. Hunt describes below the knife is on the wrong side of the body, in my view.
I would suggest that a much more likely explanation of Dr. Hunt's obervation is that the pool of blood below the knife was created by a second party and the knife (whether or not it had been used to make any of the observed wounds) was placed into the pool of blood as part of a somewhat amateurish "scene setting" to create the illusion of a suicide. I assume that the thinking of the second party was that there ought to be lots of blood in association with the knife.
In other words, Dr. Hunt's observation is more indicative of a faked suicide than of a genuine suicide.
I suggest that this analysis further undermines the already very fragile and, literally, incredible "suicide hypothesis".
The failure of counsel to the Hutton Inquiry seriously to consider how Dr. Hunt's observation should be interpreted is, I suggest, a further occurrence of "insufficiency of inquiry" by counsel to the Hutton Inquiry.
I request, specifically, that this and other technical issues I have raised in relation to the knife and wounds are referred both to a forensic pathologist and a forensic scientist with relevant skills expertly to consider the issues raised.
It is, I suggest, self-evident that neither Dr. Hunt nor the Hutton Inquiry adequately explored these technical issues. It is my view that appropriate skilled advice should be sought on how appropriately to interpret the question of how, if at all, the knife found at the scene relates to the described wounds.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that it will be considered by the Attorney General.
(Dr) Andrew Watt