Hutton's Dr Kelly death conclusion 'reasonable'
Updated on 19 August 2010
As the Attorney General signals he will step in to end the controversy surrounding the death of former government scientist Dr David Kelly, one of Britain’s top pathologists tells Channel 4 News "three factors together" led to his death and Lord Hutton’s medical conclusion that he died from haemorrhage is "reasonable".
Attorney General Dominic Grieve has vowed today to intervene in the controversy over the former government weapons inspector’s death to "give the public reassurance".
Speaking in the Daily Telegraph he said: "We would like to resolve this in a way that can give the public reassurance. People who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose ends may have a valid point."
One of those people is former assistant deputy coroner Dr Michael Powers QC who told Channel 4 News on Monday that Lord Hutton "insufficiently scrutinised" the medical evidence during the Hutton Inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death and called for a full inquest.
But Home Office Forensic Pathologist and Clinical Senior Lecturer at Cardiff University, Dr Andrew Davison told Channel 4 News the amount of time spent looking at the evidence by Lord Hutton "beats most inquests".
He said: "The scrutiny of the medical evidence by Lord Hutton, although somewhat led by him rather than letting the pathologist tell the story without interruption, seems to have been what would have occurred in a routine inquest.
"Sometimes the pathology evidence at an inquest is concluded in a matter of minutes.
"I hold no particular view on whether there should have been an inquest in the first place, but a 24 day inquiry by a senior judge beats most inquests for time and (presumably) thoroughness."
This contradicts Dr Powers’ claim that more medical evidence should have been scrutinised than the "less than half a day" spent by Lord Hutton before deciding Dr Kelly had taken his own life.
Primary cause of death 'reasonable'?
Dr Kelly, who was 59, was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003, after he was revealed as the source behind a BBC report claiming that the government had "sexed up" its dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Dr Kelly had been questioned by the Foreign Affairs select committee three days before he died.
Tony Blair, the then prime minister, appointed Lord Hutton to head a public inquiry into the death. Unusually the then lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, ruled that it should also act as an inquest.
Lord Hutton concluded that Dr Kelly took his own life and the principle cause of death was "bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which Dr Kelly had inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body".
Dr Powers told Channel 4 News more medical evidence needed to be scrutinised because of the rare nature of this primary cause of death.
Last week an open letter was published by a group of prominent experts, including Dr Powers, describing the official explanation for the scientist's death seven years ago as "extremely unlikely".
They claim haemorrhage of the ulnar artery would not result in enough blood being lost to kill somebody.
Indeed one former detective, Graham Coe, who attended the scene of Dr Kelly's death, recently claimed that there was very little blood found at the scene.
But Dr Davison disagrees with this thesis, telling Channel 4 News that he has seen details of "such a case".
He said: "Yes injury to the ulnar artery could have been the primary cause of death.
"The other factors would not necessarily have to have contributed, but they were probably relevant.
"The medical conclusion is reasonable, although I may have lumped all three factors together i.e. 1a) Incised wounds to wrist, co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis.
"I of course have not seen the post mortem report or spoken about it to Dr Hunt (original pathologist), but it would be helpful to see more detail of the extent of the coronary artery disease.
"Dr Hunt offered 1a) as 'haemorrhage', which strictly is a mode or mechanism of death rather than a cause. The cause is the physical problem i.e. the cut to the ulnar artery.
"One could take the view that Dr Kelly would not need to have lost 'a lot' of blood. He was apparently under stress, the cuts to the wrist would probably have been painful (despite the co-proxamol) and the dextropropoxyphene component of the painkiller is associated with abnormal heart rhythms. All make him susceptible to a cardiac arrest."
A former Intelligence officer dismissed speculation that Dr Kelly may have been murdered telling Channel 4 news: "I can't imagine any scenario where this guy was assassinated by the security services or some part of the special forces.
"The UK just doesn't do covert assassination in the way the Russians or the Israelis would. No way could I imagine any operation to kill anyone on British soil when they posed no imminent danger to the public'.
Calls for inquest
Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, said that "if new evidence is put to me I can consider if an application should be made to the High Court that a fresh inquest goes ahead."
As the most senior legal officer in England and Wales, under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners’ Act, Mr Grieve could apply to the High Court for an inquest to be held. However, this is usually done on behalf of the deceased’s family.
Mr Grieve would also have to prove to the court that an inquest was in the interests of justice and wait for Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke to decide whether or not to release Dr Kelly's medical files, which were due to be kept secret for at least 70 years on the recommendation of Lord Hutton.
The nine experts who wrote the open letter demanding an inquest last week also want these papers released and they are backed by Lord Howard, the former Conservative leader, who said earlier this week "I believe it would now be appropriate for a full inquest to be held".
Dr Powers told Channel 4 News on Monday "it doesn't matter what's in the box. If what's in the box contains evidence that supports the conclusion of suicide it should be made public. If the box contains evidence that suicide wasn't the cause of death that should also come out. Either way whatever is in that 'box', as I put it, should now come out into the open."
But taking a different view Dr Davison told Channel 4 News "Should there be one (inquest) now?
"Well there may be legal and political reasons to hold one, that is not a judgement I can make, but I do not see a need based on questioning of the pathology evidence.
"I have no doubt it would be an expensive circus which would cause further distress to Dr Kelly's family. Nor, I suspect would it silence forever the conspiracy theorists."
"I think it would help to put an end to the issue"
Dr Kelly’s close family have so far kept quiet on the issue of an inquest and according to Andrew Gilligan, the former BBC journalist who was at the centre of the "sexed up" Iraq dossier story, the family "didn’t want it".
He told Channel 4 News on Monday that he thinks an inquest should take place in order to put the issue to bed once and for all.
He said: "I think there should be an inquest into Dr Kelly's death, because I think it would help like the Diana inquest, to put an end to the issue.
"I think that what Lord Hutton concluded was pretty much what happened. Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting his wrists. That and the combination of taking the co-proxamol tablets and suffering a heart attack.
"There were factors that made his death appear suspicious, like the pathologist who pronounced the cause of death later having a change of heart, but even this wasn't a significant change in his conclusion and he still ruled out that foul play had been involved.
"I think there should have been an inquest right at the beginning, but I think it wasn't done because the family didn't want it. Lord Hutton was genuinely quite concerned about the family's feelings.
"As for the papers into Dr Kelly's death being kept secret for 70 years, which is what the family requested, I think it would be better for them if they were made public. The thing is this nonsense going on is causing the family distress. This story comes up every six months. It's extraordinary how it refuses to go away."
