The Death of David Kelly - "The Harrowdown Hill Challenge"

Brown Bomber

ANYONE FEEL LIKE TAKING THIS ON?

The Harrowdown Hill Challenge

The purpose of this document is to ask a very serious question, "Is it possible that Dr. David Kelly killed himself with a pruning knife at Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire on 17th July 2003 to produce the publicly documented wounds and other forensic evidence?".

If it's not "possible in principle" for David Kelly to have killed himself in such a way then, it seems to me, that the inescapable conclusion is that he was murdered.

That serious question is posed in an unusual way - as an open challenge to the forensic pathology professionals of the United Kingdom. Interested amateurs, whether they are individuals concerned that David Kelly was murdered or afficianados of detective fiction, are also invited to look for a solution.

The remarkably inactive detectives of Thames Valley Police are also invited to participate. Eight years late is better than nothing!

The Parameters of the Challenge

The Harrowdown Hill Challenge assumes the following scenario to be the case:

1. A middle-aged man with suicidal intent is in the middle of woodland in Oxfordshire.
2. No tables or other props are available to stabilise the left wrist.
3. The only weapon available is a pruning knive (somewhat curved blade) assumed to be around 40-50 years old.

So far, so simple. Seemingly.

The Demanded Results

In his report of the Hutton Inquiry, Lord Hutton concluded that David Kelly had killed himself in woodland using the pruning knife by incising his left wrist.

The Hutton Report is online here: Hutton Inquiry - Report by Lord Hutton.

Lord Hutton summarised the "facts" here: The Facts. See numbered paragraph 14.

Lord Hutton's more detailed account of the supposed suicide is here: The cause of the death of Dr Kelly. See numbered paragraph 157.

Lord Hutton had available the forensic evidence that I'll list in the next section.

To achieve a "solution" to the Harrowdown Hill Challenge you need to be able to demonstrate how a middle-aged man could incise his own left wrist in the circumstances which applied and produce the forensic evidence documented at the Hutton Inquiry and, subsequently, in the postmortem report released on 22nd October 2010.

The Forensic Evidence

There are, I believe, two important elements to the forensic evidence:

1. The wounds described in his postmortem report by Dr. Nicholas Hunt
2. The distribution of blood on Dr. Kelly's clothing and skin

With regard to the wounds I see the following as key.

1. The ulnar artery was transected.
2. No wound extended on to the ulnar (little finger) side of the wrist.
3. There was no "arterial rain" or bloodstains on the lateral side (outside) of the thigh of Dr. Kelly's jeans.
4. There was no "arterial rain" or bloodstains on the upper surface of the thigh of Dr. Kelly's jeans.
5. There was no "arterial rain" on Dr. Kelly's face or neck.
6. There was no "arterial rain" or large bloodstains on the right thigh of Dr. Kelly's jeans.

The relevance of points 3. to 6. will be explained shortly.

However, the full evidence can be accessed online.

Dr. Hunt's postmortem report was released by the UK's Ministry of Justice on 22nd October 2010. The announcement of the release, Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports,includes a link to the postmortem report, Post mortem of Dr David Christopher Kelly.

An OCR-derived text version of Dr. Hunt's report is easier to navigate. It's here: David Kelly: pathologist's report to the coroner - text version.

Dr. Hunt also gave oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry on 16th September 2003. You have to scroll down the page linked to in order to find Dr. Hunt's testimony.

Other individuals who visited the scene and who gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry were Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett, DC Coe, PC Franklin and PC Sawyer. Their oral tesimony can be accessed from this page: Hutton Inquiry Web Site - Hearing Transcripts.

The Mechanics of Making the Incisions

There is no mention of any convenient waist-high table or tree stump in the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry. The Challenge assumes that no such prop is available.

Without such a prop I suggest it's necessary to think about how the left wrist could have been braced to make it possible for deep wounds to have been made.

The solutions I've considered assume sitting with his back against a tree. I can identify three basic "bracing positions":

1. Left wrist either adjacent to the left thigh or resting on the left thigh.
2. Left wrist braced against the left side of the chest, with the left wrist close to the chin.
3. Left wrist laid across the lower part of the right thigh

The Distribution of Blood on clothes and skin

The difficulty that I perceive is that if Dr. Kelly cut his own wrist then "arterial rain" and/or bloodstaining should be present at one or more of the locations listed in 3. to 6. above.

But there is no evidence of such arterial rain or bloodstaining.

So, it seems to me that there is an absence of forensic evidence where it ought to have been found.

The Nature of the Wounds

Having spent a considerable time thinking about the wounds, I can't see a way in which, in the circumstances which applied, Dr. Kelly could have cut his own wrist and produced those wounds.

I could explain that in detail but until such time as the absence of "arterial rain" and bloodstaining is explained there is, I think, no need to explore the lack of correspondence between the knife and the wounds.

My "solution"

My "solution", after several hours careful thinking about the problem, is that it has no solution, at least it has no solution in the sense of David Kelly having used the pruning knife to have killed himself.

My "solution" is that the knife was different from that found at the scene and that it was used by a third party.

The knife needed a sharp point to go deep enough to cut the ulnar artery without extending the wound on to the medial side of the left wrist.

A credible knife is a Stanley knife or similar sharp-pointed very sharp blade. No such knife was found at Harrowdown Hill.

The direction of cutting is from the ulnar (little finger) to the radial (thumb) side of the wrist. A direction of cutting very natural for someone to the left of Dr. Kelly (whether at Harrowdown Hill or at some other location).

In other words, having carefully looked at the scenario which Lord Hutton casually interpreted I conclude that David Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown and that the murder weapon was either removed from the scene (or that the murder weapon had never been at the scene).
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-harrowdown-hill.html

leddpipe

oh this is a doozie
TV off for the night!!!

Brown Bomber

leddpipe wrote: »

oh this is a doozie
TV off for the night!!!

Ha, Good Luck!

studiorat

I think the Hutton enquiry was insufficient, hence all the conspiracy theories. The propositions for an alternative are even more improbable though. One line goes that no finger prints were found on anything. And I'd say it's even more probable that they couldn't be got or they were lost rather than the killer went to the trouble of wiping everything down. Particularly since the 'alternative' view is that an actual "murder weapon" was never found in the first place.

What's particularly insidious though is that ghoulish blog in which its author uses Kelly's death as a rant because he doesn't like Tony Blair. If he want's to have the evidence re-examined that's one thing, I reckon there will be an inquest. However setting a challenge to speculate on the mans death and using that speculation to entertain prejudiced internet opinion and bash Tony Blair et. al with is pure muppetry.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

ghoulish blog

What are you basing this on? I've read your blog. It's whole purpose is anti-(someone who shall remain nameless). So it's a bit cheeky coming from you,

prejudiced internet opinion

and again with the digs. This was just a friendly challenge to see what people could come up with there is no need for the handbags.

studiorat

4. What you agree to when joining Boards.ie

You agree NOT to use Boards.ie to:

no.3 - identify or speculate as to the identity of any anonymous or pseudonymous user

http://www.boards.ie/terms/

:pac:


It is prejudiced opinion, speculation. It uses what Kelly knew as a motive and fantasizes on how the "ptb" (:rolleyes:) could have killed him.

Perhaps Kelly killed himself in protest and I'm not suggesting he made it look like murder. The government could look at an event like this as something that could spark off serious civil unrest. Therefore decided to shove it through as quickly as possible hoping as few people as possible noticed. Sh1t like that would topple a whole government as we've seen.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

:pac:

Well your blog is also under a pseudonym so it links to your identity no more than "studiorat" does. Previously you also linked to it yourself in your sig. Nevertheless, fear not. I have no intention of exposing your secrets, mostly because I'm not a kunt, if I wanted to I could've just linked to it in the youtube comments when you had your spat with JBYeats. Regardless, you and I both know the site we are talking about and it does exactly what you accuse the blog in the OP of doing, namely agenda-driven ranting. I only brought it up to highlight your hypocrisy and will say no more about it.

studiorat wrote: »

It is prejudiced opinion, speculation. It uses what Kelly knew as a motive and fantasizes on how the "ptb" (:rolleyes:) could have killed him.

Ey?..............

OP's Blog wrote:

My "solution" is that the knife was different from that found at the scene and that it was used by a third party.

OP's Blog wrote:

I conclude that David Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown

studiorat

no.3 - identify or speculate as to the identity of any anonymous or pseudonymous user

Why don't you explain to me what you think this means.

humanji

Studiorat, if you've a problem with a post then report it.

Brown Bomber, don't reference users activity outside of this site. It's just rude.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well your blog is also under a pseudonym so it links to your identity no more than "studiorat" does.

Ey?..............

Bomber you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

The blog you've linked to accuses the british prime minister of concealing a murder. Yet you have the neck to feign pretendy indignation when I suggest it's prejudiced. As usual with your posts, one sided and hypocritical.

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

Bomber you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

It's not like we dont know who you are Paul.. I mean Dave :pac: Just kiding John
?

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

It's not like we dont know who you are Paul.. I mean Dave :pac: Just kiding John
?

looks like I am the only person with an opinion on the thread. bomber has a little hissy fit as usual and talkie who never has an original word to say plays lacky .

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

looks like I am the only person with an opinion on the thread. bomber has a little hissy fit as usual and talkie who never has an original word to say plays lacky .

You're a wind up Dave :pac:

I already know what happened Mr Kelly and why it happened. Bomber knows too. I'm not gonna waste my time explaining it to the studio rat.

studiorat

It's a discussion forum why don't you tell us then, I'm sure there's other people worth telling apart from myself. Maybe Bomber will tell us too since he also knows what happened to Kelly.

Instead you'd try and hide the facts and not even attempt to enter discussion by outing my identity. Thing is, unlike yourself I don't have anything to hide.

Which leads me to ask why don't you or bomber give your opinion rather than try and keep people from hearing the truth by threatening to reveal my identity.

Now obviously bomber told you my name since you clearly wouldn't have the nonce to work it out for yourself apart from you not being on the forum at the time, (or were you!)

The least you could do is continue to cut and paste someone else's ideas and try to look like you know something.

Talk E

Bomber told me nothing, he's not a "kunt", remember?. You signed off on your posts several times using the name Dave. I didn't think it was a secret.

There are some folk around who are worth discussing things with, you are not one of them. The nail in the coffin was when you stated "America are combating terrorism and spreading democracy". I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe that and if you did, that you would actually think it was a good thing or a good way to go about it. You are insulting, you talk down to people on this forum because you think you are somehow superior even though you call yourself a "rat". Youre not the most inspiring person I have ever come across either, I find I just cant be arsed replying to you most of the time. Your more into petty childish remarking than discussing things and then you whinge like a baby when you get that attitude in return yet you look at least 50 years old in your photo's or maybe is the balled head which makes you look older. :pac:

Get stuffed studiorat, get a life.

humanji

The lot of you, cop the f*ck on! If you don't want to discuss the topic, don't post on the thread.

nyarlothothep

There was a debate last evening between a former state? coroner and david aaronovitch who has written a book on debunking conspiracy theories/the conspiratorial mindset. Note he was a strong proponent for the Iraq war. Anyway he was a very vocal debater (ie interupted while the coroner raised issues regarding unanswered questions surrounding Kelly's death, the lack of methodological consistency in investigating the cause(s) of death etc etc. While Aaronovitch worked in ad hominens and made frequent interruptions and pointless self congratulatory remarks along the lines of "oh well if """ wants to take this case to the high court, good for me because more people will read my book." Eh yeah David, exactly what has this to do with what your opponent is saying about the circumstances surrounding Kelly's death or are you just going off one with your ego? Hmm let me think...yeah its the latter. Needless to Aaronovitch got his ass handed to him in the debate. Repeatedly. Lesson NO.1 for Ideological Proselytizers: NEVER GET INTO A DEBATE WITH A SCIENTIST AND EXPECT TO WIN!

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

Bomber told me nothing, he's not a "kunt", remember?. You signed off on your posts several times using the name Dave. I didn't think it was a secret.

More lies. I really think you are having trouble deciphering fact from the fictions you make up in your head. And you think I need to see a psychiatrist?

Talk E wrote: »

There are some folk around who are worth discussing things with, you are not one of them.

Why are you posting in this thread at all then? You've had nothing to say regarding the OP, all you have done is personally abuse me. Your posts on this forum are weak and when they aren't directly copies from somewhere else they are as we've seen, bare faced lies. Yet you are completely indignant when this is pointed out to you. Well get over it, post something intelligent and it might not happen.

Talk E wrote: »

The nail in the coffin was when you stated "America are combating terrorism and spreading democracy". I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe that and if you did, that you would actually think it was a good thing or a good way to go about it.

More fabrications, I never commented on whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, I did say I thought it not as bad as China. But your opinion is so biased that you are completely blind to that. That's another thread though, which I will eventually get back to...

Talk E wrote: »

You are insulting, you talk down to people on this forum because you think you are somehow superior even though you call yourself a "rat". Youre not the most inspiring person I have ever come across either, I find I just cant be arsed replying to you most of the time.

Inspiring? You actually think there are inspiring posters on Boards? You really should get out more.

Talk E wrote: »

Your more into petty childish remarking than discussing things and then you whinge like a baby when you get that attitude in return yet you look at least 50 years old in your photo's or maybe is the balled head which makes you look older. :pac:

Get stuffed studiorat, get a life.

I made a comment saying I thought the OP was from a ghoulish blog and it was prejudiced. Yet no one has shown otherwise, instead all there's been is speculation about my identity and personal attacks. So much for discussion and freedom of speech.

BTW, I don't have any photos of myself on the site. Still didn't stop you from making that up either did it?

studiorat

Here's the debate : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13504865

Watch it for yourself.

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

More lies. I really think you are having trouble deciphering fact from the fictions you make up in your head.

Ok, I'll bite..

I seen you two talking about some blog. It was fairly easy from there. I wont go into it else everyone be doing it.

Pm if you wanna know, I dont wanna implicate BB in anything.

studiorat wrote: »

Why are you posting in this thread at all then? You've had nothing to say regarding the OP, all you have done is personally abuse me. Your posts on this forum are weak and when they aren't directly copies from somewhere else they are as we've seen, bare faced lies. Yet you are completely indignant when this is pointed out to you. Well get over it, post something intelligent and it might not happen.

Well coz you attacked me on the Dinar thread. Had some facts mixed up and you didnt let me forget it. You went straight in with smartass, holier than thou attitude as usual.

studiorat wrote: »

More fabrications, I never commented on whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, I did say I thought it not as bad as China. But your opinion is so biased that you are completely blind to that.

I said.. "I cant believe you would think it's a good thing". Not that you said it.

studiorat wrote: »

Inspiring? You actually think there are inspiring posters on Boards? You really should get out more.

I didn't suggest I was. I simply suggested you weren't.

studiorat wrote: »

I made a comment saying I thought the OP was from a ghoulish blog and it was prejudiced. Yet no one has shown otherwise, instead all there's been is speculation about my identity and personal attacks. So much for discussion and freedom of speech.

It's not speculation. You cant be a prick all over the threads then expect a decent discussion on this one.

studiorat wrote: »

BTW, I don't have any photos of myself on the site. Still didn't stop you from making that up either did it?

The photo's of Morocco are not on this site. no.

Now I dont want a ban over this crap so can we drop it ? Next time we talk lets share a modicum of mutual respect despite our personal feelings towards eachother.

Penn

Talk E banned for one week for personal abuse. 33 banned for 3 days for trolling.

Discuss the topic in a civil manner.

studiorat

People are welcome to come and look at my Morocco photos.
I'm not in any of them though.

Now I received this today from 33 : [Mod Note: PM removed]

Which one of you pesky CT'ers is after going to the trouble of making up a myspace account for me. Aw guys, you really shouldn't have. Thank you soooo much.

Anyway, back on topic.

With Talkie now on holidays it seems Bomber is now the only person who knows what really happened to David Kelly. Hopefully he can tell us what happened, I'm dying to know.

Penn

studiorat banned for 3 days for Breach of Peace.

Lads, this is beyond ridiculous at this stage. Seriously, cop on and post with some respect. Trust me, nobody is winning this argument.

Now discuss the topic at hand.