Riddle of missing fingerprints on Dr David Kelly's 'overdose' pill packs

[snagglepuss]

Source: Daily Mail

Fresh doubts have been raised over how Dr David Kelly died after police admitted no fingerprints were found on the packs of pills he supposedly overdosed on.

snip

The development is doubly significant because police have already said the knife which Dr Kelly is said to have used to cut his wrist did not have fingerprints on – nor did an open bottle of water found beside his body.

snip

The lack of fingerprints on these items is particularly difficult to explain given that Dr Kelly was not wearing gloves when his body was recovered on July 18, 2003. No gloves were found at the scene.

snip

Attorney General Dominic Grieve is currently considering whether there is sufficient new evidence to apply to the High Court for an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death.





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335961/Dr-David-Kelly-No-fingerprints-pack-pills-supposedly-overdosed-on.html#ixzz17IAlHCtt

---

I had thought this matter got settled but there hasn't yet been an inquest. Some interesting facts such Kelly having 'unexplained dysphagia’ – a syndrome that makes swallowing pills very difficult.

[aquart]

1. My only question is did we do it or did they do it?

To me this smells of Cheney's black ops.

[get the red out]

5. +1

Yep

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. both

[SaveOurDemocracy]

70. Whichever did the deed, I'm sure it was with full knowledge...

and approval of the other. "Termination with extreme prejudice"

[PassingFair]

2. Britain should be ASHAMED of the way this murder has been handled!

Why isn't his FAMILY screaming at the top of their lungs?

[Sonoman]

3. Because they probably wanted to keep using those lungs.

When the choice is stay quiet or die, the decision is usually easily made.

Sonoman

[rtassi]

41. Yep! N/T

[catrose]

6. They did.

The result was the first investigation, which came to the conclusion of "Yep. Suicide. Nothing to see here..."

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

4. They also said he died of over dose of vicodeine

And were quite insistent on this matter.

It is not even possible to overdose on vicodeine. The body throws the material up.

[kag]

67. Not true.

Most people's stomachs can easily tolerate an overdose of Vicodin, especially if there is no--or very little--tolerance to hydrocodone (the narcotic in Vicodin). In that case it wouldn't take a huge amount for the drug to cause respiratory failure. Rarely, if there is an allergy involved or if it's taken on an empty stomach, people will throw it up.

[ArcticFox]

71. You can od on vicodin

They intentionally put tylenol in it to dissuade abuse. Tylenol causes liver failure.

[ArcticFox]

72. You can od on vicodin

They intentionally put tylenol in it to dissuade abuse. Tylenol causes liver failure.

[defendandprotect]

8. Seems clear what happened to Dr. David Kelly -- and it wasn't suicide...!!

Of course any prior review of this which suggests it is suicide is suspect --

and they need to reinvestigate the entire thing.

[bluedigger]

9. At first I thought this was just crazy conspiracy talk.

Now I want justice.

[aquart]

11. I never bought suicide.

Not from the second they said it was before his daughter's wedding.

[bluedigger]

12. I hadn't heard that.

:wow:

[Alameda]

14. a case of barely plausible deniability...so you are warned

[flyarm]

43. I never from the first second it was reported believed suicide and the Wedding was one of the main

Factors.

Dr Kelly wrote to Judith Miller an email right before he left the house and said he wanted to go back to Iraq, but it would have to wait until after his First born daughters wedding in August.

I only saw that reported once, and it quoted his wife, and family members..then it went down the memory hole and was scrubbed from the Newspaper archives.
But I had a copy of it for years.

[tomp]

36. i hope you will be careful in the future about not jumping to "conspiracy" conclusions. nt

[loudsue]

63. There are 3 "crazy conspiracies" concerning death that you'd best believe:

1) David Kelly DID NOT commit suicide. He was murdered.

2) 9/11 was NOT a surprise to the bush administration. They knew about it well in advance.

3) Senator Wellstone's airplane did not go down in "an accident".

Those were all on purpose. Conspiracies to the max.

[KoKo]

10. Keep the TRUTH GETTING OUT! ...n/t

[SoapBox]

13. We saw how the Israel folks killed that guy...

...they just got caught on camera.

This thing smells to high heavens.

[BlackHoleSon]

16. What was that?

Sounds interesting - must have missed it.

[Festivito]

15. But, but, but, the Lord Hutton report!!!111!1!

Farce and death do not mix kindly.

[molly77]

44. Princess Di's inquest had the same smelly quality

A lot of British people thing there was a cover up there. Glad the truth is coming out.Judith Miller should be questioned.

[HardWorkingDem]

17. The myth of the lack of fingerprints and what it means...nothing.

When I read stuff like this it really shows how little information people know about forensic science. To anybody who practices in forensic science, especially those who deal with fingerprint evidence, when they read things like this their reply is, "so what?" There is nothing unusual about not finding identifiable fingerprints on a lot of things and this includes things just handled by people.

Not only that, not any forensic scientist I know worth their salt would ever make a subjective judgment or claim without knowing all aspects about a forensic science examination.

[snagglepuss]

18. The knife, pills and water all had no fingerprints and no gloves The fingerprinting

expert quoted in the article said that is unusal and indepedent testing should be done. Come again as to your credentials.

[HardWorkingDem]

19. For many years...

I have fingerprinted thousands of items and each item is unique in what can and can't happen to it.

I have not seen the items in this case, nor have any idea what they are composed of, but fingerprints and the existence of fingerprints reply upon many factors.

While sitting here I can think of a number of questions that would be need to be examined regarding fingerprints in ANY case. And after reading the article, it does not surprise me fingerprints were not found.

What does surprise me is the comment by Swann. I don't know many fingerprint examiners that would make such a comment.

But to build theories on the lack of fingerprints is pretty negligible to those who know about fingerprints.

[Matilda]

20. I still think he was done in.

Governments don't like people who start thinking for themselves.

[HardWorkingDem]

23. That's fine, but....

for those who work in this field, to use spurious points or arguments doesn't do the field any good at all and too often only perpetuates myths and fallacies.

I'm just pointing this out because using these things like a lack of fingerprints, that actually happen more often than not, to make assertions is troublesome.

Take the Vince Foster suicide for example. Look at all the grief that was raised over that because a crank reporter for a partisan publication (Byron York of The American Spectator) spread some inaccuracies that were later debunked by actual forensic scientists, but still lingered on because of people and their lack of forensic science knowledge.

[Matilda]

33. Too many unanswered questions.

Most pertinently, why was there no coroner's inquest into his death? An
inquest in normal in any case where death is unexpected or unexplained.

Add to that the fact the knife wound was unlikely to have caused enough
blood loss to cause death, nor was the amount of painkiller he took enough to do the same.

And his death was most convenient to the UK and US governments.

He was murdered.

[Enthusiast]

64. Please explain to us

in what unusual set of circumstances these objects could be handled without leaving fingerprint evidence.

[HardWorkingDem]

66. The wise ones in this field have learned to go by...

a couple of mantras...one is, "never say never" and the other is, "nothing surprises me anymore."

What you ask is not easily answered because too many variables exist, along with I have not even seen the items being discussed.

For example, the knife is said to be paring knife, but I do not know the condition of a the paring knife, the same with the water bottle. I don't even know if it rained or what the environmental conditions of the scene were.

What I am merely trying to point out is that the existence of identifiable fingerprints is not unusual.

Now here is about as far as I will go - if someone told me that it was dry conditions and the knife and water bottle were developed with "super glue" and absolutely NO latent evidence, both identifiable and unidentifiable, was not developed, then I might be surprised, but then again, one would have to ask, was there ever condensation on the water bottle because of the difference of the temperature (lower) of the water inside and the environmental temperature.

There are just too many factors, which really make's Swann's comment even more baffling.

[snagglepuss]

21. Thanks for your reply . What do you think of the following fact?

snip

Mr Baker (a LibDem MP) is also suspicious about the cut to Dr Kelly's wrist.

It completely severed a tiny blood vessel called the ulnar artery, which is deep in the wrist and protected by nerves and tendons. It is highly unlikely anyone without a blood-clotting defect would bleed to death from a single cut to this artery.

It would have required unusual force to cut through the tendons, particularly with a blunt gardening knife, and it would have been very painful.

To ascertain just how unusual the injury was, Mr Baker asked the Office of National Statistics how many people in the UK died in 2003 from a cut to the ulnar artery. He was told that Dr Kelly was the only one.


http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2635

[HardWorkingDem]

25. I'm not a forensic pathologist....

Frankly, I think this is going to be one of those cases that will always have its believers on both sides no matter what. Also, I do not "know" enough of the particulars at all to make any sort of reasoned judgment - nor do I think a lot of people do. I would love to see the scene pictures and a photograph of the knife and injury and read the forensic pathologists' report.

Still, on one account I have read, is that he did not die from the cut to his wrist but of a weak heart that was further weakened by the medication he ingested.

But to be honest, I don't know enough about the entire case to make a reasoned judgment, but what I do know is, to make a blanket statement regarding the fingerprints is not something most reasoned fingerprint examiners would do without a broad base of knowledge about a particular case. And then, possibly not even then.

[JackRiddler]

26. You are misrepresenting Swann.

From the article:

Fingerprint expert Peter Swann, said: ‘Fingerprint testing is a complex area. It is surprising no prints were found on any of these items.

‘It is possible there were no prints but it would be advisable to have the exhibits re-examined by an independent expert.’

Clearly, Swann agrees it's possible for there to be no prints even if Kelly did kill himself. He merely expresses his opinion that "it is surprising." Is it possible he knows more about this case than you do? Swann leaves no doubt that he, like you, can "think of a number of questions that would need to be examined regarding fingerprints," as you say. Clearly, he'd like to have those questions examined in the Kelly case. Don't you?

I'm surprised that you as a self-reported forensics specialist are speaking with much more certainty than he is, in a case where you cannot possibly know more than him. The UK government wants to seal all records of the case for the next seventy years. Perhaps he sees a lot more wrong here than just the fingerprints, and is willing to be courageous and speak up for a truly independent investigation?

[HardWorkingDem]

28. I have no idea of the context of Swann's interview or his statements..

for all I know, he might have been told there was absolutely NO latent evidence, which caused him to make such a statement (there is a difference between latent evidence that is identifiable and not identifiable and often times the term "latent" evidence is used to mean just identifiable).


Fingerprints ARE complex when it comes to the development of them and the discussion of them.

And I can tell you this for a fact - ask ANY fingerprint developer who has testified in court, that if he or she would be surprised if he or she were to fingerprint the witness desk before them in a court of law and then if it would not surprise them if they could not develop an identifiable fingerprint on that same desk. Most likely all of them would say "no" - even after sitting there and watching witness after witness place their hands upon the top of desk. You know why? Because too many factors involve the leaving of fingerprints and the successful development of fingerprints.

And I can also suggest that I could show Mr. Swann's press reported statement to many fingerprint examiners and the largest majority of them would have an issue with parts of what he said (one reason would include so as not to box them self in with very broad statements).

Am I claiming absolutely that nothing unusual is going on? Absolutely not. My point is that the lack of fingerprints means nothing - absolutely nothing.

Now, it would be very interesting if in the development of the water bottle some sort of swipe/wipe pattern was developed.

[Peace Patriot]

49. WHO is "building theories on the lack of fingerprints"? YOU are the one making false assumptions.

The lack of fingerprints on ALL items that DOCTOR Kelly supposedly killed himself with comes at the END of a long list of implausibilities and impossibilities that have already been mentioned by numerous EXPERT investigators, including forensic pathologists, coroners and first responders. You admit below that you don't know anything about this investigation. So why are you casting aspersions on those who do and who furthermore may be speaking out at potential risk of their lives or careers?

I stress that David Kelly was a DOCTOR in chemistry/biology, highly regarded in his field, because THAT, too, adds to the LONG LIST of things that are not right about a conclusion of suicide, and point to murder instead. Each item that he supposedly chose to kill himself with was the choice of an AMATEUR who didn't know how kill to himself! Slicing the ulnar artery with a dull knife. This is an artery that quickly closes itself up. People almost never die from such a wound. Taking pills that are normally not lethal except in very big dose, and NOT taking enough of them to kill yourself. Choosing pills as a self-murder weapon when you know that you have a disorder as to swallowing. Doing all this under a tree outside in the rain, just about the least likely place other than a food freezer, to make blood flow.

And that's just the bare facts of method as to this alleged suicide. The first responders found almost no blood at the scene, on, under or around his body. How could he have bled to death? (The Hutton report--which did NOT conduct a coroner's inquest--cited rain, but there was only one tiny spot of blood on his clothes. Water does not remove bloodstains on clothes, as any housekeeper knows.) The type of wound and quantity of blood were insufficient for death by exsanguination. And the number of pills was not sufficient to kill him, according to many experts.

And what is the likelihood that a brilliant scientist in how chemical/biological WMDs kill the human body would have tried to kill himself this way? The likelihood is near zero.

There was no suicide note. On the contrary, his last emails were almost uniformly upbeat, looking forward to his return to Iraq (as a weapons inspector--he had been a UN weapons inspector in Russia and Iraq) and looking forward to his daughter's wedding a few months away in the fall! And even on the issue of the controversy over his remarks to the BBC--concerning which he wrote to the NYT's war promoter, Judith Miller, that there were "many dark actors playing games" --he seemed confident that it would blow over. (Miller, who had colluded with Rumsfeld to cock up false WMD evidence on Iraq, was an old colleague of David Kelly's. They wrote a book together called "Germs" in which she used him as her chief quoted expert.)

Then there are other circumstances that literally scream murder. Kelly was suspected of violating or intending to violate the Official Secrets Act. He had started whistleblowing about the "Dodgy Dossier" in May (two months after the invasion of Iraq). The Blairites had been harassing the BBC to give over his name, and had been hunting for the anonymous whistleblower throughout government--all with a lot of publicity. He turned himself in and they interrogated him at a "safe house," and then forced him to partially recant what he had said, before a parliamentary defense committee. His name and face were all over the media. They then sent him (their TOP weapons expert) home without protection and apparently without surveillance--which, to me, is the most incredible thing of all. WHERE WERE HIS WATCHERS as he supposedly BLED TO DEATH ALL NIGHT, OUTDOORS, NEAR HIS HOME, UNDER A TREEE? If they didn't want to reveal themselves, one 9/11 phone call would have saved his life because the wound he supposedly inflicted and the pills found in his stomach surely would NOT have caused death! And even if he had done something serious to his body, immediate help would likely have saved him!

Where were his watchers? They weren't watching David Kelly? That is simply NOT believable.

Now add the following into the story of this alleged suicide: July 6, 2003: Joe Wilson published his op-ed debunking the Bush/Blair bullshit about WMDs in Iraq. July 7, 2003, the next day: Tony Blair was informed that David Kelly "could say" some "uncomfortable things" (if he was forced to testify to the parliamentary committee)--not "had said," "COULD SAY" (Hutton report). July 14, 2003, a week later: The CIA's top WMD expert, head of their counter-proliferation team--Valerie Plame--is outed by the Bush Junta. July 18, 2003, four days later: Kelly is found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, his office and computers are searched and no inquest into this death is done. July 22, 2003: The CIA's entire Brewster-Jennings network of WMD agents/contacts around the world, headed by Plame, is additionally outed in the newspaper (also by Novak).

The motive to kill Kelly is right there, among these KNOWN facts--something he knew--something that he "could say" that was at risk of being disclosed if they forced him to testify. As it was--and clearly under stress in that hearing--he said nothing. But he was already a known whistleblower. Further, Kelly had said to a friend, during this ordeal, that he had promised them, during his "safe house" interrogation, that he would "not to reveal any government secrets." Clearly he knew something beyond what he had already said (--which wasn't that earthshaking; he'd merely told the BBC that they'd exaggerated the WMD threat--something almost everybody knew at that point). What ELSE did he know?

Motive (big motive). Means (we don't know the means). Opportunity (his watchers withdrawn or collusive; no protection given to the most famous man in England at the time--a top government employee, their top WMD expert, fully loyal and brilliant at his work for many decades). They sent him home on a train without a single police officer or attendant of any kind accompanying him, and no one to guard his home and his family against intrusions, and no one to accompany him on his daily walk in the countryside near his home.

David Kelly sensed something but did not fully credit it. He told Judith Miller that there were "many dark actors playing games"--in the controversy that he had been the center of for several months (--an email, by the way, that she did NOT disclose in her obituary article for the NYT on July 24, 2003--his family later disclosed it). That was his last emailed thought on the day he died. But he thought it would all blow over.

Given these circumstances, are you still willing to say that the lack of fingerprints on all three items that he supposedly killed himself with, is not an additional fact--on top of everything else--that points to murder, not suicide?

Nobody cited in this article tries to "build a case" on lack of fingerprint evidence. They say that it's "odd" and needs further investigation. And they wouldn't say that in public if they didn't already know--from the raging controversy in England about this matter--that this is just the latest "oddity" in a case about which there is virtually nothing that is NOT odd!

And what, pray, do you make of the fact that the Blairites, instead of doing an inquest, put on this three-ring circus by Lord Hutton, where most of these many pointers to murder were suppressed, ignored or "explained away" with ridiculous assertions such as "rain" explaining the almost total lack of blood at a scene where the victim supposedly bled to death?

I first thought that, when you identified yourself as a fingerprint expert, you might provide us with some illumination about this case. Turns out you know absolutely nothing about it, as you admit below. Yet you jump in, right off the bat, with the conclusion that somebody else--who does know the case--is being rash. I thank you for the information that fingerprints are sometimes absent for innocent reasons--although I think that most of us have seen enough CSI's or read enough murder mysteries, or have enough direct professional experience, to have figured that out. My objection is to you casting aspersions on someone else, just because you consider yourself an "expert," not because you know anything about the case.

People need to know about this case. It is a very, very important one. And it is not helpful to ignorantly cast aspersions on those who are investigating it or are being consulted about it--especially on the basis of ONE article. You don't know what else these experts said, that wasn't included. You don't know how accurate the article is, as to quotes or facts. There are thousands of articles and other documents about this case that provide the CONTEXT for this latest bit, and very little of that information can make it into any article.

So, PLEASE, with expertise like yours, you COULD be very helpful to all of us, on this kind of case, with vast political implications and government foul play suspected, but you need to think more, research things like this before you make rash judgments and deepen your understanding of what our government, in collusion with the British government, has been up to, over the last decade.

[HardWorkingDem]

61. I'm not going to play the game....my point...

was to point out that the not finding of fingerprints is not unusual. Not at all. And when lay people pounce on it as a fact of life, then we get the OJ Simpson's, Vince Foster's and Kurt Cobain's of the world going on.

As for Swann, as I posted a bit further down, I would bet a lot of money that his quote was printed out of context. Swann is well known in this area and has played a very, very large role in this field, so I am assuming his quotes are incomplete and that there may have been some sort of statement or question to him that led to his one broad statement.

[kanrok]

73. You are correct

The absence of fingerprint evidence is not unusual.

As a prosecutor I had many cases where the defense attorney argued that there were no fingerprints tying his/her client to the scene, the weapon etc.

It was up to me in those circumstances to provide admissible evidence to counter those arguments (it only takes one time getting burned by the argument to learn to preempt it in the future!).

There are many environmental factors that come into play.

Fingerprint evidence is not all that it's cracked up to be.

[Nihil]

77. Thank you for an excellent post.

Factual, coherent, low on emotional baggage ... an excellent response
to the people who are desperate to muddy the waters on this murder.

:applause:

[western mass]

24. all we need to know

is that the British government initially sealed all records of the death for 70 years.

Whatever the forensic evidence, that fact says it all.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23798597-70-year-gag-on-kelly-death-evidence.do

Evidence relating to the death of Government weapons inspector David Kelly is to be kept secret for 70 years, it has been reported.

[JackRiddler]

27. "None of the exhibits was presented as evidence to the Hutton Inquiry."

"It is not known if any of the exhibits have been destroyed."

What. A. Farce.

[StarsInHerHair]

76. VERY FISHY something is definitely wrong else they wouldn't seal it til most

people involved are dead.

off topic: what does it mean when I tried to post and it said "discrepancy found in your post" and I couldn't post a comment?

[elias49]

34. Not to dispute your forensic experience, but

there were 29 blisterpacks. Blisterpacks, not coffee mugs or gun stocks. Blisterpacks, if the British blisterpacks are similar to what we use here in the US, would seem to be the near-perfect vehicle for prints. You need your FINGERTIPS to open them.
Am I off-base here?

[HardWorkingDem]

62. Show me a picture of what you are talking of because...

what I see in my mind's eye is pill packaging that possibly has tiny domes of plastic formed over pills. If they are small pills, then the domes would be smaller.

Now, I have seen a wide variety of these types of packaging - some used different manufacturing products as well, both on the front and back. Different plastics are also used (hard vs soft). Also, were they in a single sheet or a number of them.

Not only that, remember, the article says these were in his clothing pocket. The moving of a person could cause clothing to come into contact with the surface areas.

Don't get me wrong - I don't know enough of all the intricate details of this case or all the processing methods used - what I am suggesting is the lack of fingerprints really doesn't mean much at all and there are many, many reasons why fingerprints are not developed - from the abilities to the developer to the environment to the item handled to the person handling the item.

(And, generally, I'd be more hopeful for a coffee mug than a blister pack).

[tclambert]

35. My first reaction was, "The curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

But your caveat reminded me of another crime scene story. On CSI, on of the techs, I think it was Willow, said the postman found the body, but they didn't need to worry about eliminating his fingerprints. "He handles paper all day. He wouldn't have left any fingerprints."

Therefore, THE POSTMAN DID IT! Just kidding. If Dr. Kelley handled a lot of paper, or had just washed his hands, his fingertips might have been too dry to leave prints.

The evidence, or lack of it, is suggestive, but not conclusive.

[Rex]

22. Sounds like a quickie murder done without the usual evidence normally

in play. What horrible things the man must have known, before 'they' assassinated him.

[avaistheone1]

29. I too believe Dr Kelly was murdered.

[BlueMTexpat]

30. The mere fact that there was an all-out frontal attack to discredit

Channel 4 - which broke the story of the "sexed-up" WMD dossier and was chided for its so-called "single source" reporting (that source was Dr Kelly, although there were corroborating sources) from the outset makes this whole episode stink to high heaven. The investigative reporter who broke the story, Andrew Gilligan, was also hounded mercilessly at the time. As we know now, and most of us suspected then, the report was right on the mark.

For a refresher course in what happened, check out Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gilligan

Channel 4 is among those still sceptical of the "official" version.

http://www.channel4.com/news/secret-files-david-kellys-death-self-inflicted

As am I - fingerprints or not.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

31. Nothing will deter the MIC. It's got everyone by the balls.

[Citizen Worker]

32. Reminiscent of the alleged suicide of one of the founders of the Nugan Hand Bank of Australia.

Allegedly died by his own hand using a lever action rifle. When the body was found there was a live round in the chamber of the rifle. Then there's the death of Danny Cassalero who is said to have slit his wrists. Cassalero was left handed and it was his left wrist that was slit. Strange these "suicides."

[axollot]

37. Pretty much confirms our fears about what happened to him.

We knew way back when here at DU that this was shady and suspicious and that we wouldnt put it past certain parts of the government.

Sad and f'ed up.

Cheers
Sandy

[mstinamotorcity]

38. To know our Leaders

as we do, it should be of no surprise that all Governments have an authoritarian rule is some fashion, which explains all the rioting we hear and see going on across the world!! Won't be long now for the U.S.

[indimuse]

39. well well well...imagine that! n/t

[DeeDeeNY]

40. No question that an inquest should be done

Unlike in the U.S. where mysterious deaths are swept under the RUG

[myrna minx]

42. K&R - n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

45. Conspiracy Theory!!! Why isn't this in the Dungeon?!

:sarcasm:

[howaboutme]

52. Every conspiracy is tinfoil hogwash and if you don't believe it

ask the "Powers That Be" and those who serve as puppets for them. Contrary to the opinions of those who would prefer to marginalize, there are real conspiracies and the only way to differentiate between those that are real from those that aren't, is not by decree, but by discussing and investigating.

[butterfly77]

46. Kicked&Recommended..

[Deep13]

48. That's no riddle. He simply didn't leave prints.

We don't leave prints on everything we touch. Some materials just don't print easily. Maybe he just washed his hands removing most of the skin oil from his fingers.

Frankly, if someone else's prints had been left, THAT would be a mystery. A lack of any prints often means nothing.

[Peace Patriot]

51. Please see my comment above. The lack of fingerprints on ALL three items that he allegedly

used to kill himself, after a long walk in the countryside (sweat, no?), is just the latest in a LONG LIST of oddities, implausibilities and impossibilities that have already been pointed out by many experts, who have collectively called for an inquest--something that was never done (!), in the case of the most high profile death in England since Ann Boleyn.

Why on earth are people who evidently know nothing about this case jumping in to cast aspersions on those who are investigating or being consulted about the case? Why are you INVENTING yet another excuse for the lack of an inquest and the Hutton coverup? "Maybe he just washed his hands...". Give me a break! That is not even plausible. He didn't have a bar of soup in his pocket! No washstand around out there in the countryside that, um, we know about. No creek nearby that he might just have walked close to, and dipped his hands into the water, to wash off all sweat with no soap.

Yes, fingerprints can be absent for innocent reasons. However, fingerprints missing from all three items IS odd--as the experts quoted in this article say. And every other circumstance of this death is ALSO odd--from the lack of blood at the scene to British intelligence NOT watching Kelly after they sent home their most notorious whistleblower and top WMD expert--to the Hutton farce and coverup. Odd, odd and more odd.

But, hey, "maybe he washed his hands." And, hey, maybe he wiped all his own fingerprints off his dull pocketknife, the blisterpacks of co-proximol AND the water bottle because, hey, he must have been irrational in his final moments on this earth, him being a suicide and all, and did this for no reason. That's possible, too--anything is possible--but it's NOT plausible.

"A lack of fingerprints often means nothing." But does a lack of fingerprints on all three items mean nothing in this case, which was written off as a suicide without an inquest, with all sorts of oddities ignored, in the midst of a political controversy about the justification for the war on Iraq? "...often means nothing" means that sometimes it means something. In a rare case, say, with vast political implications, where every other piece of evidence has been called into question by experts.

You, like the "fingerprint' poster above, are completely ignoring both the factual and political context of this case, and you are airily dismissing the latest bit of evidence that points away from suicide, and toward murder, on your absurd speculation of what YOU think might be the reason for NO fingerprints on the last three items that David Kelly touched. You imply that "it means nothing." But you can't say that--you instead say "it often means nothing," because you know that it sometimes does--in just this sort of case.

[Deep13]

53. Well, fortunately, I'm not on the jury.

Out of the hundreds of criminal prosecutions I have done, hardly any where identity was an issue involved fingerprints. I've had defendants fail to leave prints on cash machines, store counters, guns, drug items etc. etc. even with video evidence of the defendants touching those items with bare hands. A lot of surfaces just don't print well. If they do, it is common to get unusable smudges. It reminds me of TV crime dramas where people leave neat prints on a paper cup or finding usable DNA everywhere a suspect went. It just doesn't happen.

So, sorry if I am dismissive without knowing anything about this case, but I hear conspiracy theories all the time and it is easy to fall into the habit of dismissing them out of hand.

[Peace Patriot]

69. Thank you! That is useful information--that there are often no fingerprints.

The knife was his personal knife, that he carried in his pocket for years. Maybe he had just cleaned it (but didn't sharpen it) or casually wiped it off with a handkerchief, removing all old fingerprints, and then brushed it on his clothes after slitting his ulnar artery (no blood smears, though), or maybe just didn't grip it the right way, to leave fingerprints. Possible. The co-proximol tablets belonged to his wife. Where were her fingerprints? He would have had to finger the package to break the blisters holding the tablets. Maybe he was nervous, his hands shaking and he smeared his fingerprints off of that as well. Possible. And maybe he did the same thing to the water bottle. Possible. And maybe he overcame his difficulty in swallowing, in his desperation to die, and swallowed all those pills (still not enough to kill him, though, according to many experts), and did so without leaving fingerprints. Possible. But how implausible is this getting?

The word "odd" is appropriate, when you add this up. And the lack of fingerprints still might not warrant suspicion if it stood alone as evidence. But it does not stand alone, and nobody who is investigating or consulting on this case is saying that it stands alone.

I frankly think that it is also odd that the perps--if there were perps (and I'm about 99% that there were)--didn't come up with a better 'scene' for a topnotch biology/chemical expert's self-murder. He surely knew how to kill himself better than this! This still feeds my 1% that it was suicide. However, even if he actually did himself in, I would want an investigation about that "safe house" interrogation and all the crap that the British government was doing to hound and threaten this man. Were they effectively guilty of his death, by driving him to do it?

However, I can't really get past the lack of surveillance. That does it for me, on top of all the other pointers to murder (and cover up). They simply would NOT have released David Kelly without putting a surveillance team on him. The lack of protection was possibly just rude and cruel. The lack of surveillance is NOT believable. And what was that team doing while he "killed himself"--and, indeed, made such a botch of it, that he would have laid dying for hours outdoors?

They either watched him die and did nothing, or were part of it. One anonymous phone call would have saved his life.

There is one other possibility: An INNOCENT government (innocent of his murder) would have put a surveillance team on him, as a matter of course. (He was clearly "off the reservation"--privy to top secret information, a known whistleblower). But a government that knew that he was going to be murdered that night might not have bothered or might have called them off. In either case, what the surveillance orders were, with regard to Kelly, are possibly trackable. If they are "missing," well, that's kind of like "no fingerprints," isn't it? Proves nothing except in context. If there was a contrary order--no surveillance--the question is who gave that order and why? And if there is any trace of there having been a surveillance team, then we know more firmly that Kelly was murdered by the government, or with complicity of the government, because that team would have known that he was dying and did nothing about it.

This is why the point about surveillance is so convincing to me. There is almost no scenario in which the government is innocent of his murder. If they were watching him, they had to know that he was dying--by whoever's hand. And if they weren't, that is very odd, indeed, and would need a very convincing explanation--because the most likely explanation would be that they knew that he was no longer going to be a threat to the Blair government and its many dreadful secrets.

They just carelessly left this man to go wandering off on his own? In the very midst of the Plame/Brewster Jennings outings in the U.S.--that very week? They forgot about it, had a lapse of attention, didn't care about where he might go and who he might meet?

Talk about implausible. Suicide (1%), those watching him let him die. Murder (99%, in my view), his surveillance team was a hit team, or was there and told to stand down, or an order was given not to follow Kelly, to clear the field for his murderers. (And that is also why they gave him no protection when they released him--an otherwise inexplicable omission in those circumstances.) Even in the tiny chance that it was suicide, the government is still guilty--unless you believe that they weren't watching their top WMD expert, who had gone "off the reservation."

[HardWorkingDem]

59. No, it does not mean a thing....and what people like you are doing...

is what so often happens: lay people take snippets of information and use that to draw wild ass conjectures.

Recall Vince Foster? How about Kurt Cobain? Or the postal worker that hung himself here in the US a year or so ago?

Without even seeing the articles being discussed, I can come up with many plausible questions regarding the lack of fingerprints.

What people here are doing is bastardizing forensic science matters in furtherance of their own political point or perspective and that is something that really infuriates those who work in this field.

In fact, on further reflection, I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that Peter Swann's statement is wildly out of context and not even printed in full. I would even bet there was some sort of question put to him prior to his answer that may have even led to such a reply.


But for your edification regarding fingerprints on these items, here are some things that would factor in on them: how big was the knife? What was the handle made of? what is the condition of the handle? Is it finished, rough wood or textured? what is the condition of the blade (tarnish, rust or unblemished steel); what is the surface of the blister pack like? Did the knife have blood on it (this could have influenced not leaving identifiable prints - yes, sometimes prints in blood do happen, but not often); what is the back of the blister pack like? are the bubbles small or large? paper or foil on the back? also, since it appears these were in his pocket, there is the possibility the rubbing of the fabric rubbed of latent evidence on the packaging; again, what is the type of water bottle? textured? uneven surfaces? where was it found? in grass with dew? How long was it outside? (I'm not sure how long the doctor was out doors); did it rain? Is it a small bottle?

Also, what were the environmental conditions? did it rain? was it hot? cool?

On top of these, what development methods were used? And who did the development?

See, these conditions go on and on and on......


The point is....not finding identifiable latent evidence, to those knowledgeable and with experience is NOT unusual.

[Peace Patriot]

75. What you don't seem to understand is that there was NO INQUEST.

All of the evidence that you are asking questions about was buried for 70 years. And some very courageous people--people with public service and professional careers at risk, and many experts in forensics--are trying to get a new investigation. That decision is pending. And more bits and pieces have been coming out, as they have been all along. That's WHY all we have are bits and pieces to go on, in evaluating this death.

You want to see the knife? You want to see the pill package? Go ask Lord Hutton!

I KNOW that it must drive experts in various fields crazy when the public tries to understand something like this, but understand it we must, and part of understanding it is to understand HOW MUCH obfuscation and coverup--and how much outright lying--by very powerful people, is involved in government and corporate crimes. I am not saying we should ignore expertise. I'm saying we should pay attention to experts, when they are acting independently and crying foul. Thus, if a fingerprint expert says that something is "odd" and "needs investigation," in this case--one that I've been following closely--I pay attention, and add that to everything else I've read (including the entire Hutton Report and many other articles and documents), to evaluate both the suspected crime and coverup, and also what various critics and independent investigators are saying.

You have helped us evaluate what this fingerprint expert said in this article. Good! I thank you for it! But don't start making general accusations about the public being ignorant, when so much effort has gone into keeping us ignorant.

"What people here are doing is bastardizing forensic science matters in furtherance of their own political point or perspective and that is something that really infuriates those who work in this field."

This is really unfair. Nobody here is "bastardizing forensic science." And we all may have our political points of view, but please, how do you sort out a political point of view from what you (and many others) suspect has been a POLITICAL crime? I hated the Blair government and the Bush Junta. And I don't have a lot of love for the Obama government either, especially their complicity in covering up and urging us to forget Bush Junta war crimes. That does not mean that I can't sort out and assess available evidence and add my voice to the hue and cry in England for a new investigation. That doesn't mean that I want anybody wrongfully tried, convicted and punished for anything. And it doesn't mean that I think "no fingerprints" is sufficient evidence to warrant a murder investigation. I can think up a thousands reasons myself, why it doesn't--without expert advice. But nobody is asserting that this evidence--as described by an expert in this article--stands alone. It comes at the end of a long trail of OTHER suspicious circumstances and obvious efforts of the British government to hide facts about this event from the public.

Our knowledge of the evidence is necessarily limited--by circumstances and by deliberate action of the Blair government. So we must rely on independent voices in England--MP's and their investigators, various forensic and other experts who have spoken out, and other voices (such as friends of Kelly's), as well as careful reading of available government documents like the Hutton report (for what they're not saying, what they've left out, what they didn't do)--to get the best picture we can of why THEY--these critics--want a new investigation. Are THEY "bastardizing forensic science"? How?

We also have a right to evaluate what may have been a political crime connected to our own government, given the tightness of Blair and Bush governments. This was a very political event--everything that happened (Kelly's whistleblowing, the government's reaction, his death, the Hutton inquiry) and the Blair-Bush context in which it happened (falsified WMD evidence to justify invading Iraq, Joe Wilson's accusations, the Plame outings the same week that Kelly was found dead), all the way up to the present, and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq and Democratic Party leaders' complicity in there being no consequences for the war crimes of the rich and the powerful.

This context is UNAVOIDABLE. It is part of the story of this man's death. We may even bear some responsibility for his death, as we do for the 100,000 innocent people who were slaughtered in Iraq. People telling us to "move along, there's nothing to see here'--whether it's about fingerprints or anything else--and whether they claim to be experts or not--just doesn't wash, and makes people bristle. Are we supposed to be ignorant slaves about things like this--or are we going to try to understand things as well as we can and in their context--so that we can try to understand our situation overall--as a country and as a society--and do something about things that are wrong, such as the Hutton coverup.

I am not a member of a jury who has to judge anyone's guilt for real--to punish them for a crime. If I were, I would study all of the evidence and arguments, and make damn sure that I was making a non-political judgment of any individual's guilt. That is what forensic science is so important for--providing concrete evidence, where it can, to help determine if someone is guilty of something "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's a very hard judgement to make and in that case a very long lecture on forensic science would be most welcome. I would need to understand every detail and every possible interpretation of the evidence. I would never judge anyone, in that circumstance, on their politics, their appearance or anything else. I would require solid, concrete, incontestable proof, as objective as possible, such as a forensic scientist might be able to provide. And I completely respect the integrity with which such evidence must be developed and interpreted.

But that is not my position. I am just an ordinary citizen who must judge the behavior of two very secretive and malevolent governments, who killed and tortured a whole lot of people. Did they kill David Kelly, too? I think they did. I'm 99% about it. But that judgement does not rest on 'fingerprint evidence.' And I am NOT "bastardizing forensic science' by paying attention to this expert's opinion about it. It wouldn't matter to me if Kelly's fingerprints WERE all over all three items. I'm sure that assassins know how to do that, if they are of a mind to. (And I think it's kind of odd that they didn't--a counter-argument to assassination.) My judgement is a well-informed guess, based on all that I can know--including hundreds of items like this, of experts questioning the conclusion of the Hutton report. It is partly a political, and partly an evidentiary, judgment--and I think a reasonable one. And no one's going to prison because of it. THAT process--an investigation that utilizes forensic science and other evidence procedures, honestly--and that might end up concluding that Kelly's death was murder, and that might trigger prosecutions and more investigations and trials that might end up in convictions--has yet to be initiated, at all. The Hutton report foreclosed it without an inquest. Talk about "political"!

THEY can be political--the Blairites and the Bushites--and we can't, is that it? It was a political event, from start to tragic finish, and it's on-going. And whether there is a real investigation or not is also a matter that will be determined by politics. If you think our justice system, or England's, is a-political--especially on a matter like this--you are very naive. This is about secretiveness and accountability. It is not yet about convicting anyone of murder, if there are murderers in this case and they can be found out. Let the forensic science begin! That's what I say! Stop obstructing a real investigation! You got nothing to hide, Mr. Blair? Open the books! You want people to stop guessing and putting two and two together on their own? Let an independent investigation commence!

[Javaman]

50. Mr. Kelly suffered from a very very very rare disease...

no body oils.

:eyes:

Anyone who thinks he suicided himself, at this point, is a willing fool.

[valerief]

54. Everyone knows Dr. Kelly shot himself in the back of the head three times.

In a manner of speaking.

[ooglymoogly]

55. Inexplicable murders convenient to the state should have

Sanity's microscope examining the minutest detail. This had the markings of bogus all over it. Fascism on the march.

[ooglymoogly]

56. KR nt

[Enthusiast]

57. Is there any doubt he was assassinated?

It is very important to these people to maintain the illusion that Iraq was a noble endeavor. Of course anyone with half a brain knows better. But an accusation against Blair is essentially an accusation against Bush. Of course we can't have the chimpster accused of wrong as he is a member of the exalted Bush clan.

[goforit]

58. Tony Blair?.....Where are you hiding, sweetheart?

[Nothing Without Hope]

60. Judith Miller passed the word and he was disposed of

before he could upset the warmongers' plans. The "investigation" was a mockery, as was obvious from the first.

[Enthusiast]

65. Why would we believe anything? K&R

At this point in history, based on things we know for certain, why would we believe any official story by the U.S. or UK governments?

[Jack Rabbit]

68. Has anyone checked to see if Tony Blair has fingerprints?

Just wondering.

[ooglymoogly]

74. +1 nt

[GliderGuider]

80. Fingerprints? He doesn't even have a reflection! n/t

[Bo]

78. IM SHOCKED I TELL YOU SHOCKED THAT BUSHY BOY WOULD KILL

NO, HE IS REBORN REMEMBER

[wildbilln864]

79. kick! nt