The report says:
"There was...a pool of blood beneath the knife which was approximately 8-10cms by 4-4cms..." "The arterial injury has resulted in the loss of a significant volume of blood as noted at the scene."
This image, on the Blog Page is near to the actual size of the blood stain:
How much blood loss was "noted at the scene"?". This was reported in the Butler Inquiry:
Paramedic's (MS VANESSA ELIZABETH HUNT) evidence:8
Q. And is there anything else that you know of about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?
A. Only that the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing.
16 Q. On the clothing?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. One of the police officers or someone this morning said there appeared to be some blood on the ground. Did you see that?
21 A. I could see some on -- there were some stinging nettles to the left of the body. As to on the ground, I do not remember seeing a sort of huge puddle or anything like that. There was dried blood on the left wrist. His jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from that area down towards the hand there was dried blood, but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just dried blood.
The other paramedic said:
9 Q. Is there anything else you would like to say about the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death?
11 A. Just the same as my colleague actually, we was surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterial bleed.
The interpretation by the "journalists" at the Independent (Cahal Milmo and Kim Sengupta) was:
What does it mean?
The pathologist found extensive bloodstains on Dr Kelly's clothing and a pool of blood beneath the knife he used to inflict his wounds. The finding indicates that the weapons scientist did indeed lose a large quantity of blood, contrary to suggestions from other witnesses that there was little evidence of blood at the scene. The report found that Dr Kelly's death was directly due to this blood loss.
The pathologist, Nicholas Hunt, said:
'In actual fact there were big, thick clots of blood inside the sleeve, which came down over the wrist, and a lot of blood soaked into the ground,'
It needs over 1-2 litres of blood loss to die of a cut, not a bit of dried blood on a sleeve and a tiny patch on the ground. I feel like the government is taking the mickey. Do they really think we are this stupid? Perhaps journalists are.. See Chilcott, Hutton and the death of Dr David Kelly, UN Weapons Inspector
The pathologist's report also shows that Kelly did not die of an oral overdose of painkillers and that he did not die of a heart attack. A Coroner would have been forced to bring in an "Open Verdict" in these circumstances (cause of death unknown - it is unknown), which is why Blair and his cronies suspended the Coroner's Inquest and instituted the Butler Inquiry. Butler brought in the required verdict of "Suicide".
So where does this "New Evidence" leave us? It shows that the new government is continuing the cover up. The new government could leave the Labour party in shreds if the Labour government had directly ordered Kelly's death so the continuing cover up suggests foreign involvement and the risk of damaging important diplomatic relations.
Incidentally, if you look at the following newspaper reports it is obvious that the lazy journalists just rehashed the Government's press release, even adopting the same question and answer format:
Independent Newspaper Report:'Secret' files tell tragic true story of David Kelly's lonely death
Daily Mail Newspaper Report: Kelly pathologist demands inquest: Law chief to act after doctor insists 'I've got nothing to hide'
0 comments:
Post a Comment