For those following the case of David Kelly and the microbiologists,

[Minstrel Boy]

I just discovered http://www.deadscientists.blogspot.com/ . The blog's devoted to investigating the death of David Kelly, as well as the mysterious string of deaths of prominent scientists. Well researched and thought out, IMHO.

For instance, a piece by Rowena Thursby titled "The new alchemy: turning murder into suicide". Find it under November 30.

Abrasions to Kelly's scalp were dismissed by the Blair government's forensic pathologist Nicholas Hunt as having been caused by "undergowth" or "pebbles"(?), and multiple bruises the result of Kelly's "stumbling".

And

"What is striking in Nicholas Hunt's account of Dr Kelly's death is the impression he creates of blood everywhere: blood on Kelly's jacket, on his trousers, on his left wrist, on the palm of his right hand, on the right side of his neck, and on the right side of his face. But actually he is not talking of large amounts - only of small patches smeared on the body and clothing.

"Contrast this with the paramedics' assertion that, in their professional view, there was very little blood around for an arterial bleed. Normally an artery (which Hunt says was 'completely severed') would produce copious amounts of blood spurting from the wound.

...

"In his article: 'The Murder of David Kelly', Part 1, Jim Rarey points out that cutting the ulnar artery suggests not so much a right-handed Kelly slashing from left to right, missing the superficial radial and cutting deep into the ulnar, as someone other than Kelly standing in front of the body slashing deep into the inside of the wrist (the ulnar side) across to the outside (the radial side) of the wrist.

...

"Hunt's final assessment, his own personal interpretation - 'there was no pathological evidence to indicate the involvement of a third party in Dr Kelly's death.... the features are quite typical, I would say, of self-inflicted injury if one ignores all the other features of the case' - is the version of events the media reports. The pathologist has spoken - the silent inference being that he is best placed to know - so we must bow to his 'expertise'. But as we have seen in the introduction, such 'expertise' is sometimes questionable. In Hunt's qualifier - 'if one ignores all the other features of the case' - lies the rub. Ignore the fact that Kelly had become an embarrassment to the establishment through divulging inconvenient facts & suppositions to the media? Ignore the fact that he was about to return to Iraq, where his by- now public profile would have guaranteed publicity to the dearth of WMDs? The fact that this would highlight the mendacity employed in persuading the British and American public to support a war with Iraq? The fact that here was a man scrupulous about a truth they did not want told? The fact that Kelly had met and was discussing book projects with Victoria Roddam, a publisher in Oxford who in an e-mail to the scientist only a week before his death wrote: 'I think the time is ripe now more than ever for a title which addresses the relationship between government policy and war - I'm sure you would agree?'"

[Minstrel Boy]

1. an anaesthetist tells how Kelly could not have bled to death

"I agree with you about the cutting of the ulnar artery --- nothing about it makes any sense. In fact, as you mention, a completely transected artery retracts immediately and thus stops bleeding, even at a relatively high blood-pressure, as against a partially severed vessel which cannot retract. In fact, it is the cutting of the ulnar artery as an apparent act of suicide which arouses one's suspicion that the alleged suicide was not suicide at all. As I understand it, there is also "confusion" as regards the actual amount of blood lost. Some say there was a lot, others say a little and some say there was just a bit of dried blood. I would imagine for a man of the size of Dr Kelly to die from haemorrhage he would have to lose at least three litres of blood. At autopsy, it would also be clear that the subject had bled to death because there would be very little blood in the heart and the large vessels.

"And I might add to bleed to death from a cut blood vessel is not as simple as it sounds because as the blood is lost the blood pressure falls and this, in turn, slows the blood loss. In fact, it is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at a pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vaso-constricting (contracting the blood vessels) for the blood loss. And, although the subject may lose consciousness at this BP, he may not necessarily die. As you know, in order to successfully commit suicide in this way the subject has to cut both radial arteries and prevent vasoconstriction by lying in a warm bath, a truly messy business but, clearly, a situation where one could have no doubt about what was intended. In fact, I suggest that it would be impossible to lose a "lethal" amount of blood from an ulnar artery which had been cut in the manner described for Dr Kelly."

From December 3, 2003, http://www.deadscientists.blogspot.com/

[gandalf]

2. Thanks for posting

interesting.

Even if I did not follow the matter closely, I think there is at least the possibility that something very sinister might be going on here.

[seemslikeadream]

3. I'm following

thanks

[frank frankly]

4. good info

:kick: