tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post193072742583818404..comments2023-10-02T15:01:43.213+01:00Comments on Chilcot's Cheating Us: Open Letter to the Attorney General regarding the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David KellyAndrew Watthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03829322263100808179noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-13599016177268656252010-10-29T04:58:19.732+01:002010-10-29T04:58:19.732+01:00From my limited reading, it seems that since 2003 ...From my limited reading, it seems that since 2003 the law has changed to make it easier to suspend a Coroner's Inquest as happened in the Kelly case.<br />In the <a href="http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1415582" rel="nofollow">2005 Inquiries Act,Ch.12 Sect 1</a>, we read <br />(1)A Minister may cause an inquiry to be held under this Act in relation to a case where it appears to him that—<br />(a)particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern, or<br />(b)there is public concern that particular events may have occurred.<br /><br />And in the <a href="http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=3637639" rel="nofollow">2009 Coroners and Justice Act c.25 Schedule 1 Part 1 Ch 3 Para 1 (a) (b) </a> A Senior Coroner may suspend an investigation if...<br />the Lord Chancellor requests the coroner to do so on the ground that the cause of death is likely to be adequately investigated by an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 (c. 12) that is being or is to be held...<br /><br />Schedule 1 Part 2 refers to resumptions of Suspended Investigations.<br /><br />So it seems we might be in line for a few more of these kind of events.felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-70405651367256631552010-10-28T20:35:37.451+01:002010-10-28T20:35:37.451+01:00Andrew,
The wording of Section 17(A)2 of the Coro...Andrew,<br /><br />The wording of Section 17(A)2 of the Coroners Act 1988 is very interesting (and thank you for quoting it by the way). I think that the key phrase is "so far as they have been ascertained at the date of the certificate". <br /><br />Thinking about an example where Section (17) has been acceptably used: the Ladbroke Grove Rail Crash. I believe that 31 people sadly lost their lives as a result. Presumably they all had accidental death as the reason for their demise on their death certificates and it wouldn't have been necessary to wait for the findings of the Inquiry to do this.<br /><br />My contention in the unique case of Dr Kelly would be that the reason for death hadn't at all been ascertained when the full death certificate had been issued. As I understand things Forensic Pathologist Dr Hunt and Toxicologist Mr Allan did come back (while Hutton was sitting) and give evidence to Mr Gardiner so that the latter could get the death fully registered. On a legal point some might say then that evidence as to cause of death had been supplied by these two witnesses to give Mr Gardiner a clear run. Because their evidence was to be tested at Hutton (well sort of)it seems logical that their evidence as to cause of death in front of Mr Gardiner would be inadmissible at that time.<br /><br />Of course the question can be asked "when did logic ever come into it?"brian in the tamar valleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-32400141294775294802010-10-28T09:06:43.673+01:002010-10-28T09:06:43.673+01:00Felix,
Your point about the relative half-lifes o...Felix,<br /><br />Your point about the relative half-lifes of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene is a good one.<br /><br />The ratio of paracetamol to dextropropoxyphene in the blood in the toxicology report is 97:1.<br /><br />If it starts at approximately 10:1 and reduces (because of the relative half-lifes) how, with the assumptions that Nicholas Hunt made, does it get to 97:1?Andrew Watthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829322263100808179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-19455438532929327742010-10-28T02:19:14.223+01:002010-10-28T02:19:14.223+01:00If the verdict relies on co-proxamol being vomited...If the verdict relies on co-proxamol being vomited up as evidence for a significant (29 tablets) orally taken dose of it and since there was ,presumably dried, vomit present on the face and ground, this ought to have been analysed for Co-proxamol and Paracetamol. The ratios would be 1:10 or as close as, though quantitative analysis would be problematic.(but no greater than assessing blood loss perhaps, which Mr Hunt said was the cause of death although it was not measured)<br /><br />I have seen evidence elsewhere that Dextropropxyphene has between 3 and 6 times the half-life of Paracetamol , such that the standard ratio of Paracetamol: Dextropropoxyphere in Co-proxamol will reduce from 10:1 with time in the blood.felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-62419138682115083522010-10-27T21:20:48.698+01:002010-10-27T21:20:48.698+01:00Felix,
Well spotted.
I had noticed how deeply de...Felix,<br /><br />Well spotted.<br /><br />I had noticed how deeply dependent Professor Hawton's evidence is no Dr. Hunt's. But hadn't made all the connections that you point out.<br /><br />Thank you for those.<br /><br />The interaction between the evidence of Dr. Hunt (forensic pathologist), Dr. Allan (toxicologist) and Professor Hawton (psychiatrist) shows cooperation / collusion that I would hope a Coroner would not have allowed.Andrew Watthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829322263100808179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-79551855636550410632010-10-27T21:17:56.779+01:002010-10-27T21:17:56.779+01:00Brian,
Nicholas Gardiner had no choice in what he...Brian,<br /><br />Nicholas Gardiner had no choice in what he did, so far as I read the Coroner's Act 1988.<br /><br />In Section 17A(2) we read:<br /><i>Where a coroner adjourns an inquest in compliance with subsection (1) above, he shall send to the registrar of deaths a certificate under his hand stating, so far as they have been ascertained at the date of the certificate, the particulars which under the 1953 Act are required to be registered concerning the death.</i><br /><br />I think that what he did is far from ideal, but he had, so far as I can see, no choice because of the subsection quoted above.Andrew Watthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829322263100808179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-11848773907227471052010-10-27T13:23:54.171+01:002010-10-27T13:23:54.171+01:00I too was struck by the speculative, heresay natur...I too was struck by the speculative, heresay nature of much of Professor Hawton's answers. He also seemed to have had access to large amounts of police evidence to the Hutton Inquiry and I fail to see why that should have been since he was just one witness, whose purpose was to answer questions about suicide in general. Can we find out which other witnesses were also privy to information submitted to the Inquiry by Thames Valley Poliice much of which was not made available for release?<br />A list is <a href="http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence-lists/evidence-tvp.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br />In fact from his closing statement, it seems that Prof. Hawton has assumed control of the whole police investigation, and delivered his verdict of suicide ("it is well nigh certain that he committed suicide")<br />"Yes. I would just like to thank all the people who have helped me do my investigation into this case"<br /> "the nature of the injuries to his wrist are very consistent with suicide."<br /> But look what happens how Prof Hawton gets confused when the toxic subject of Co-proxamol comes up...<br /><br />"What do you understand the position to be in relation to that Coproxamol?" <br /> "Well, I understand that the evidence found from blood levels and from the contents of Dr Kelly's -- in Dr Kelly's stomach suggests that he had absorbed -- he had taken approximately 30 tablets -- I am sorry, the number of tablets is based on the number that were missing from the sheets he had with him." <br />Mr Dingemans " Right." <br />Prof Hawton "But that he had consumed well in access of a therapeutic dose of Coproxamol and given the blood levels and the relatively small amounts in his stomach, although he had vomited, I believe you have heard evidence he has vomited, but this would suggest he had consumed Coproxamol some time before death."<br />Whoops!felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-23223479748991525112010-10-27T07:06:00.097+01:002010-10-27T07:06:00.097+01:00The points you have raised in the letter to the At...The points you have raised in the letter to the Attorney General are very well argued. What we hear now though from Mr Grieve is that he is in no hurry to make a decision about a new inquest. <br /><br />I'm not sure how old Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner is but it would be nice to think he would have retired by the time an inquest takes place. He of course arranged for a FULL death certificate to be issued long before Lord Hutton had concluded his Inquiry. This was totally unacceptable. I would certainly like to see any inquest held under a new coroner.brian in the tamar valleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.com