The Death of David Kelly - How can one distinguish true suicide from the body having been "suicided"?

This post addresses a fundamental question that, so far as I'm aware, neither Thames Valley Police nor the Attorney General's Office has meaningfully addressed.

How does one distinguish a true suicide from a murder made to look as if it were a suicide?

This post represents a first attempt to state systematically how those two possibilities may reliably be distinguished in the context of the body found at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003.

Did David Kelly walk to the scene?

The "suicide hypothesis" adopted by Lord Hutton assumes that David Kelly walked to Harrowdown Hill.

What evidence exists to demonstrate that?

None.

What evidence exists to show he was transported to the scene?

Again, the answer is None.

But we need to be aware that Thames Valley Police officers acted on 18th July 2003 in such as way so as to destroy such evidence, if it existed. (I'll return to the specifics in a later post.)


Was David Kelly's right arm weak?

If David Kelly's right arm was significantly weakened by the elbow fracture and operation in 1991 then serious questions arise about whether he could have made the observed wounds.

The issue was not addressed by the Hutton Inquiry.

In fact, ACC Page seems to have lied in his evidence, in order to conceal the existence of the right elbow problem.

And Janice Kelly, Rachel Kelly and Dr. Malcolm Warner were silent on the issue.

If your husband or father had supposedly committed suicide using his right arm with a known history of fracture and operation and evidence of recent pain and disability in that arm, wouldn't you have publicly and loudly been asking questions?

Yet, Janice Kelly was silent on the issue.

Rachel Kelly was silent on the issue.

Dr. Malcolm Warner was silent on the issue.

Collective amnesia, perhaps?

Was the knife held by David Kelly?

The absence of fingerprints on the knife means that we don't know if the knife found at the scene had been held by David Kelly or not.

Was the knife sharp enough to make the observed cuts?

The answer is that we don't know.

The relevant tests were never carried out.

Were all cuts made by the same knife?

Again the answer is that we don't know.

The relevant detailed examination of the wounds was never carried out.

Is it possible to make the described wounds?

The arterial rain observed by Mr. Green is only on the nettles to the left of the body. If that "arterial rain" is genuine then the left arm must have been pointing in that direction when the ulnar artery was incised.

In a woodland setting is it possible for a person to cut their own left wrist in such a way?

I strongly suspect that it isn't.

Try it.

Lie on a flat surface, put your left arm out to the side and then try to "cut your wrist" (with a blunt object, of course) and see how unnatural and difficult it is to cut the ulnar artery.

The natural way to make the cut when the body is in such an awkward position is to cut the radial artery (thumb side of the wrist).

Conclusion

There are serious questions which remain to be answered.

The certainty of Dominic Grieve in his statement to the House of Commons is false. His statement was dishonest and fraudulent.

What could be so important to conceal that an Attorney General puts his career on the line and lies?