A casual reader of the Hutton Inquiry transcripts could be forgiven for not realising that questions exist about Dr. Kelly having fractured his right elbow in the past, having had an operation on that elbow and possibly being significantly limited in how he could use his right arm.
There is no mention whatsoever of the issue.
Yet the question of the function of Dr. Kelly's right arm is, of course, of pivotal importance.
It is his right arm that the "suicide hypothesis" assumes to have made the cuts in his left wrist.
On 4th March 2011 I wrote to the Attorney General about the matter: The Death of David Kelly - Dr. Malcolm Warner.
In that email I examined the evidence suggesting an old right arm injury.
The material recently released by the Attorney General confirms that Dr. Kelly fractured his right elbow.
In addition to the longstanding statements of Dr. Kelly's friend Mai Pederson, another friend, Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth, wrote to the Attorney General about the functionality of Dr. Kelly's right arm.
Dr. Shuttleworth wrote to the Attorney General on 30th April 2010 (see page 8 of Dr. Shepherd's report).
Dr. Shuttleworth is quoted as saying that an injury to Dr. Kelly's right elbow "led to a severe fracture and residual weakness".
Dr. Shuttleworth's statement corroborates the evidence of Mai Pederson.
It's now confirmed that David Kelly fractured his right elbow in December 1991.
And two friends, Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth and Mai Pederson, have stated that he had residual weakness of the right arm as a result.
Was that weakness of Dr. Kelly's right arm of such a degree that his ability to cut his left wrist is rendered questionable or unlikely?
The Hutton Inquiry neither asked nor answered that pivotal question.
One reason underlying that failure is that nobody told Lord Hutton (at least in oral testimony).
Janice Kelly was silent on the issue.
Dr. Sarah Pape was silent on the issue.
Rachel Kelly was silent on the issue.
Dr. Malcolm Warner was silent on the issue.
None of those "witnesses" told Lord Hutton that David Kelly had fractured his right elbow. And none told Lord Hutton whether that fracture led or didn't lead to residual weakness.
Was there an inexplicable epidemic of amnesia in the Southmoor area of Oxfordshire?
Or did someone advise these witnesses not to talk about Dr. Kelly's possible right arm weakness?
Is there another explanation of this silence on the part of four supposedly credible witnesses?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Plainly it was a stitch-up. Dr Kelly's death had to be covered up, and the only way was suicide. Nothing that contradicted that could be admitted before Hutton. Given that the powers that be decided on a slit wrist, there was no way they were going to allow anyone to tell the truth about the weakness in his right elbow. Mai Pederson gave details of Dr Kelly's difficulty in cutting steak nearly three years ago. She would have had little reason to lie, and now we know she was telling the truth. How long will it take Grieve to catch up?
ReplyDeleteGeoaunnes,
ReplyDeleteYes, a concerted cover-up seems to me to be the most likely explanation.
Can Grieve "catch up" in the sense of publicly admitting what he told the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 was untrue or unreliable?
I doubt he can ... at least not without resigning.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteGrieve's demeanour at the dispatch box does not give me the impression he is the kind of man who would admit to error. He was far too smug, and in any event, given the shoddy manner in which he has investigated Hutton, or at best caused it to be investigated, it is plain that he was not interested in the truth. It seems inconceivable that he would now come forward to admit the numerous errors contained in his speech and the written answers to the Memorial
Geoaunnes,
ReplyDeleteGrieve took the "cover-up or bust" approach.
In other words, if the cover-up is blown open then Grieve's career as a credible politician is likely to be at an end.
At least that's my view.
He won't willingly admit that he lied to the House of Commons on 9th June. To do so would, in my view, lead inevitably to his resignation given the absolutist way he put forward his statement.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThat is the fundamental problem. There are just too many "senior" figures who have a vested interest in claiming that Hutton did everything right, when plainly he did not. And the media worthies are supine in the face of the protracted cover-up. I think it's time for Norman Baker to say something in the House, and try to persuade at least one journalist to get interested enough to investigate properly. The trouble is, they've all had eight years already, and they've all largely done sweet FA.