snip
During Thomson’s how, Dr. Hunt called the newsroom and told them he would, “feel more comfortable with a full coroner’s inquest.” Dr. Hunt would obviously be one of the main witnesses in a resumed inquest and apparently has some information he feels he was not allowed to give at the inquiry.
snip
The questioning of the forensic witnesses was aimed at eliciting only that information that would support a suicide verdict. The “questioning was replete with leading questions (suggesting the answer) and at times statement of “fact” with which witnesses were asked to agree. Indeed, at times it was not clear who was giving testimony, the witnesses or Lord Hutton and his Queen’s counsels. Statements and answers by witnesses that begged for follow-up questions were ignored or the subject was quickly changed.
Mr. Allan had testified that the level of coproxamol components he found in Kelly’s blood was only about one third of what he would consider a fatal level. He also said it was not possible to determine how many of the 29 tablets not accounted for had been ingested by Kelly. However, he said, “What I can say is that it is consistent with say 29/30 tablets but it could be consistent with other scenarios as well. Of course he was not asked what other scenarios.
snip
This may have been one of the things to which Hunt was referring in his answer when asked if he could rule out any third party involvement in Kelly’s death. His reply to that question was, “No, there was no pathological evidence to indicate the involvement of a third party in Dr Kelly's death. Rather, the features are quite typical, I would say, of self-inflicted injury if one ignores all the other features of the case.”
http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=1527&blz=1Looks like they are trying to find someone who will admit the elephant is in the room. Too bad we don't have elephant hunters in the US.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
