We simply don't know, so far as I'm aware.
There is no forensic evidence that I'm aware of that demonstrates that the knife was sharp enough.
Yet the United Kingdom's bold Attorney General told the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 that there is "overwhelming evidence" that David Kelly took his own life.
If the sharpness of the knife hasn't been tested in a forensic laboratory then Mr. Grieve's statement is based on no more than a guess about the sharpness of the knife.
The following summarises my response to Mr. Grieves's statement:
Is it the official position of the United Kingdom's Attorney General that it is sufficient to guess whether or not the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds?
Guessing about the sharpness of the knife plays no legitimate part in what purported to have been "most careful consideration" of the matters in hand. The Attorney General ought to be ashamed of such sloppiness.
Below is an email sent earlier today to Dominic Grieve QC MP and Edward Garnier QC MP.
The title of the email was:
David Kelly - What evidence is there that the knife was sharp enough?
The text of the email was:
[This email is for the urgent attention of Dominic Grieve QC MP, Attorney General and Edward Garnier QC MP, Solicitor General.]
Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier,
I write to enquire what forensic evidence exists that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to make the wounds described on Dr. David Kelly's left wrist.
In his statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 Mr. Grieve stated the following:
"Having given the most careful consideration to all the material that has been sent to me, I have concluded that the evidence that Dr Kelly took his own life is overwhelmingly strong.".
Such a conclusion of suicide depends on the knife found at the scene being sharp enough to make all the described wounds.
The Attorney General is aware that the sharpness of the knife found at the scene has been questioned.
I, for example, questioned whether David Kelly had, over a period of some years, had sufficient functional capacity in his right arm to sharpen what was, supposedly, a 40 or 50 year old knife.
See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-his-inability-to.html
for a copy of my email of 2nd May 2011.
The "suicide hypothesis" depends on the knife found at the scene being sufficiently sharp so as to be capable of making the wounds described.
If the knife found at the scene isn't sharp enough to make the wounds, then another knife must have done so. If that other knife is not present at the scene then another (second) party must have removed the knife which caused (some of) the wounds.
Dr. Richard Shepherd, in his report to the Attorney General, has stated that assessment of the sharpness of the knife does not lie in the domain of the forensic pathologist:
"It does not lie within the remit of the forensic pathologist to make a final assessment of the sharpness of an object at the scene. ... The pathologist must rely on assessments made by forensic expert scientists in controlled laboratory conditions."
Dr. Shepherd's report in online here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf
The quote is from page 14 of 21.
Dr. Shepherd states that it is not the job of the forensic pathologist formally to assess the sharpness of the knife.
On that point I believe that Dr. Shepherd is correct in his assessment.
It was simply insufficient for the forensic pathologist of the time, Dr. Nicholas Hunt, to have referred to the knife found at the scene as a "candidate". That conjecture needed to be tested.
In 2003 Thames Valley Police, in my view, had a duty to commission an expert forensic assessment of whether or not the knife found at the scene was sharp enough.
Did Thames Valley Police do so?
I write to request a copy of the report by a "forensic expert scientist" that demonstrates that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to create the wounds described in 2003 by Dr. Nicholas Hunt.
If, as I suspect, no such expert forensic assessment of the sharpness of the knife has ever been carried out then, it is unknown whether or not the knife found at the scene was used to create the wounds.
If there is no evidence that the knife found at the scene was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds then the supposed "overwhelming evidence" is fatally flawed at its foundation.
Is it the official position of the United Kingdom's Attorney General that it is sufficient to guess whether or not the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds?
Guessing about the sharpness of the knife plays no legitimate part in what purported to have been "most careful consideration" of the matters in hand. The Attorney General ought to be ashamed of such sloppiness.
If no forensic assessment has ever been carried out of the sharpness of the knife I ask the Attorney General to go to the House of Commons and apologise to the House for misleading it regarding the weight of evidence in relation to the death of Dr. Kelly.
In view of my expectation that Thames Valley Police ought formally to have had the sharpness of the knife assessed I am copying this email to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.
If a suitable report exists of an expert forensic science assessment of the sharpness of the knife, no doubt Thames Valley Police will wish to place it in the public domain.
I am also copying this email to Mr. Peter Jacobsen who I understand to be the Kelly family solicitor.
I am placing a copy of this email online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html
I look forward to your early reply.
Thank you
(Dr) Andrew Watt
No comments:
Post a Comment