A. That was taken at quarter past 7 in the evening of the 18th.
140. In his evidence Dr Hunt summarised his conclusions as a result of his examinations as follows:
I found that Dr Kelly was an apparently adequately nourished man in whom there was no evidence of natural disease that could of itself have caused death directly at the macroscopic or naked eye level. He had evidence of a significant incised wound to his left wrist, in the depths of which his left ulnar artery had been completely severed. That wound was in the context of multiple incised wounds over the front of his left wrist of varying length and depth. The arterial injury had resulted in the loss of a significant volume of blood as noted at the scene. The complex of incised wounds over the left wrist is entirely consistent with having been inflicted by a bladed weapon, most likely candidate for which would have been a knife. Furthermore, the knife present at the scene would be a suitable candidate for causing such injuries. The orientation and arrangement of the wounds over the left wrist are typical of self-inflicted injury. Also typical of this was the presence of small so-called tentative or hesitation marks. The fact that his watch appeared to have been removed deliberately in order to facilitate access to the wrist. The removal of the watch in that way and indeed the removal of the spectacles are features pointing towards this being an act of self harm.
Other features at the scene which would tend to support this impression include the relatively passive distribution of the blood, the neat way in which the water bottle and its top were placed, the lack of obvious signs of trampling of the undergrowth or damage to the clothing. To my mind, the location of the death is also of interest in this respect because it was clearly a very pleasant and relatively private spot of the type that is sometimes chosen by people intent upon self harm.
Q. Is that something you have found from your past experience?
A. Yes, and knowledge of the literature. Many of the injuries over the left wrist show evidence of a well developed vital reaction which suggests that they had been inflicted over a reasonable period of time, minutes, though, rather than seconds or many hours before death.
LORD HUTTON: What do you mean by a “vital reaction”?
A. A vital reaction, my Lord, is the body’s response to an area of damage. It manifests itself chiefly in the form of reddening and swelling around the area.
LORD HUTTON: I interrupted you. You were at 9 and you are coming on to 10, I think.
A. Thank you, my Lord. There is a total lack of classical defence wounds against sharp weapon attack. Such wounds are typically seen in the palm aspects of the hands or over the outer aspects of the forearms. It was noted that he has a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but not the major part in the cause of death.
Given the finding of blister packs of Coproxamol tablets within the coat pocket and the vomitus around the ground, it is an entirely reasonable supposition that he may have consumed a quantity of these tablets either on the way to or at the scene itself.
Q. What did the toxicology report suggest?
A. That he had consumed a significant quantity of the tablets.
Q. I am not going to trouble you with the details of the toxicology report. Was there anything else in addition to the toxicology samples that you noticed?
A. (Pause). Really the only other thing in addition to that was the coronary artery disease that could have had a part in the rapidity of death in these circumstances.
Q. You have mentioned the minor injury to the inner aspect of the lip.
A. Yes.
Q. Moving on from that, you mentioned the abrasions to the head. Would you like to resume your summary at that point?
A. Yes. The minor injuries or abrasions over the head are entirely consistent with scraping against rough undergrowth such as small twigs, branches and stones which were present at the scene.
LORD HUTTON: Did you give any consideration or do anything in relation to the possibility of Dr Kelly having been overpowered by any substance?
A. Yes, indeed, my Lord. The substances which one thinks of, as a pathologist, in these terms are volatile chemicals. Perhaps chloroform is a classic example. So in order to investigate that—
LORD HUTTON: You need not go into the detail but if you state it in a general way.
A. I retained a lung and also blood samples until the toxicology was complete.
LORD HUTTON: And the purpose of that toxicology being?
A. To examine for any signs of a volatile chemical in the blood or, failing that, in the lungs.
LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see. Thank you.
Yes, Mr Knox.
MR KNOX: If you move on to conclusion 18.
A. Certainly. The minor reddened lesions on the lower limbs are typical of areas of minor hair follicle irritation or skin irritation, so they were not injuries in particular. They were not puncture wounds.
Q. Conclusion 19?
A. I had undertaken subcutaneous dissection of the arms and the legs and there is no positive evidence of restraint-type injury.
Q. Conclusion 20?
A. There is no positive pathological evidence that this man had been subjected to a sustained violent assault prior to his death.
LORD HUTTON: Just going back to your previous observation, a restraint-type injury of someone who has been held by the arms and the legs.
A. Yes, my Lord. Yes, particularly around the areas of the ankles and the wrists.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Yes. Thank you.
MR KNOX: Conclusion 21?
A. There was no positive pathological evidence to indicate that he has been subjected to compression of the neck, such as by manual strangulation, ligature strangulation or the use of an arm hold.
Q. And next?
A. There is no evidence from the post-mortem examination or my observations at the scene to indicate that the deceased had been dragged or otherwise transported to the location where his body was found.
141. Dr Hunt summarised his opinion as to the major factor involved in Dr Kelly’s death as follows:
Q. And in summary, what is your opinion as to the major factor involved in Dr Kelly’s death?
A. It is the haemorrhage as a result of the incised wounds to his left wrist.
Q. If that had not occurred, would Dr Kelly have died?
A. He may not have done at this time, with that level of dextropropoxyphene.
Q. What role, if any, did the coronary disease play?
A. As with the drug dextropropoxyphene, it would have hastened death rather than caused it, as such.
Q. So how would you summarise, in brief, your conclusions as to the cause of death?
A. In the formulation, the cause of death is given as 1(a) haemorrhage due to 1(b) incised wounds of the left wrist. Under part 2 of the formulation of the medical cause of death, Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis.
Q. You have already dealt with this, I think, but could you confirm whether, as far as you could tell on the examination, there was any sign of third party involvement in Dr Kelly’s death?
A. 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.
142. A forensic biologist, Mr Roy Green, arrived at the scene where the body was lying at 2.00 p.m. on 18 July. He examined the scene with particular reference to the bloodstaining in the area. The relevant parts of his evidence are as follows:
Q. Did you examine the vegetation around the body?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you form any conclusions from that examination?
A. Well, the bloodstaining that was highest from the ground was approximately 50 centimetres above the ground. This was above the position where Dr Kelly’s left wrist was, but most of the stainings were 33 centimetres,
