tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post405422472049948192..comments2023-10-02T15:01:43.213+01:00Comments on Chilcot's Cheating Us: The Death of David Kelly - The 29 co-proxamol tablets and less than 500ml of waterAndrew Watthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03829322263100808179noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-58169247130650770752010-11-08T09:26:08.400+00:002010-11-08T09:26:08.400+00:00Felix,
See my new post about the possible misinte...Felix,<br /><br />See my new post about the possible misinterpretation by DC Eldridge.<br /><br />He may not have matched "batch numbers" at all!Andrew Watthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829322263100808179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-90993439139395704632010-11-07T00:08:15.367+00:002010-11-07T00:08:15.367+00:00PS to the above
I find the November 2003 report a...PS to the above<br /><br />I find the November 2003 report about the batch numbering,on second thought, rather strange. In a normal police investigation, the coinciding batch numbers of co-proxamol taken from each location would have been noticed and noted almost <b>immediately.</b><br />I suspect that before the Hutton Inquiry it became apparent that the batch numbers were of no use in determining the 3 blister packs' origin as being from Mrs Kelly's medicine cabinet (aside from the fact that this prescription drug could be proven to be missing)because of the huge batch-1.6 million. Otherwise the fact of the identical batch numbers would have been raised I am sure at the Inquiry, tending to support the suicide verdict.<br />So why the subsequent "chance observation" at Long Hanborough, reported on November 11th but apparently noticed on August 7? Was this to allay suspicion that in the Inquiry the matter had not been explored? In the end,the numbers proved nothing, so they could have come from Mrs Kelly or from another source. Norman Baker just notes that these were police investigations, but apparently retrospective ones. Interestingly, Lord Hutton in Chapter 5 of his report, para 147,twists this equivocal letter from Long Hanborough into the phrase "<b>It also appears probable that the Coproxamol tablets which Dr Kelly took just before his death came from a store of those tablets which Mrs Kelly, who suffered from arthritis, kept in their home.</b>"<br />Lord Hutton fails to note that the statement from Long Hanborough was about a month and a half after the witnesses could have been questioned on the batch numbers.<br />This seems to me to be stretching probability to say it was <b>probable</b>.<br />One more point which Norman Baker makes. He is not a toxicologist but I suspect he researched the matter. He says that Co-proxamol poisoning is associated early on with convulsions. Might one expect a certain type of body configuration with co-proxamol poisoning ? It doesn't seem to me,as a non-expert, that it might produce a peaceful kind of death.felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-4418567679917469182010-11-06T22:41:27.713+00:002010-11-06T22:41:27.713+00:00Andrew
You highlighted the retrospective statemen...Andrew<br /><br />You highlighted the retrospective statement about Dr Kelly's handedness. A similar retrospective report,made between the Hutton Inquiry and the publicatin of the report, which you have obviously noticed, related to the <a href="http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_17_0001.pdf" rel="nofollow">batch numbering of Co-proxamol</a> taken from Harrowdown Hill and from Mrs Kelly's house. The DC at Long Hanborough noticed that the numbers on the foil side were identical (but not significant).<br />One thought - was the matching foil serial number from Harrowdown Hill from the one remaining tablet? I am speculating, of course.felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.com