The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi-analysis] casi-news digest, Vol 1 #28 - 2 msgs

[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ]

This is an automated compilation of submissions to

Articles for inclusion in this daily news mailing should be sent to 
Please include a full reference to the source of the article.

Today's Topics:

   1. Medical evidence does not support suicide by Kelly (bluepilgrim)
   2. UK to lobby Bush for more Iraq work (Rania Masri)


Message: 1
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:03:21 -0600
From: bluepilgrim <>
Subject: Medical evidence does not support suicide by Kelly,3858,4856799-103683,00.html


Medical evidence does not support suicide by Kelly

Thursday February 12, 2004
The Guardian

Since three of us wrote our letter to the Guardian on January 27,
questioning whether Dr Kelly's death was suicide, we have received
professional support for our view from vascular surgeon Martin Birnstingl,
pathologist Dr Peter Fletcher, and consultant in public health Dr Andrew
Rouse. We all agree that it is highly improbable that the primary cause of
Dr Kelly's death was haemorrhage from transection of a single ulnar artery,
as stated by Brian Hutton in his report.

On February 10, Dr Rouse wrote to the BMJ explaining that he and his
colleague, Yaser Adi, had spent 100 hours preparing a report, Hutton, Kelly
and the Missing Epidemiology. They concluded that "the identified evidence
does not support the view that wrist-slash deaths are common (or indeed
possible)". While Professor Chris Milroy, in a letter to the BMJ,
responded, "unlikely does not make it impossible", Dr Rouse replied:
"Before most of us will be prepared to accept wristslashing ... as a
satisfactory and credible explanation for a death, we will also require
evidence that such aetiologies are likely; not merely 'possible'. "

Our criticism of the Hutton report is that its verdict of "suicide" is an
inappropriate finding. To bleed to death from a transected artery goes
against classical medical teaching, which is that a transected artery
retracts, narrows, clots and stops bleeding within minutes. Even if a
person continues to bleed, the body compensates for the loss of blood
through vasoconstriction (closing down of non-essential arteries). This
allows a partially exsanguinated individual to live for many hours, even da=

Professor Milroy expands on the finding of Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic
pathologist at the Hutton inquiry - that haemorrhage was the main cause of
death (possibly finding it inadequate) - and falls back on the toxicology:
"The toxicology showed a significant overdose of co-proxamol. The standard
text, Baselt, records deaths with concentrations at 1 mg/l, the
concentration found in Kelly." But Dr Allan, the toxicogist in the case,
considered this nowhere near toxic. Each of the two components was a third
of what is normally considered a fatal level. Professor Milroy then talks
of "ischaemic heart disease". But Dr Hunt is explicit that Dr Kelly did not
suffer a heart attack. Thus, one must assume that no changes attributable
to myocardial ischaemia were actually found at autopsy.

We believe the verdict given is in contradiction to medical teaching; is at
variance with documented cases of wrist-slash suicides; and does not align
itself with the evidence presented at the inquiry. We call for the
reopening of the inquest by the coroner, where a jury may be called and
evidence taken on oath.
Andrew Rouse
Public health consultant
Searle Sennett
Specialist in anaesthesiology
David Halpin
Specialist in trauma
Stephen Frost
Specialist in radiology
Dr Peter Fletcher
Specialist in pathology
Martin Birnstingl
Specialist in vascular surgery

Guardian Unlimited =A9 Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004


Message: 2
From: "Rania Masri" <>
To: <>
Subject: UK to lobby Bush for more Iraq work
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:53:18 -0500

UK to lobby Bush for more Iraq work

Friday 13 February 2004, 21:28 Makka Time, 18:28 GMT

O'Brien (R) will press the case for UK firms

Britain's Trade Minister Mike O'Brien is to lobby=A0the Bush administration
over Iraqi reconstruction work for UK companies, amid reports British
companies are being passed over.
O'Brien will be accompanied by former minister Brian Wilson, who now acts a=
Prime Minister Tony Blair's special representative for trade and
reconstruction in Iraq.

"They will be pressing the case for British firms in the reconstruction wor=
in Iraq," a government official said, referring to their visit to the US
next week.

The Guardian newspaper on Friday published what it said were leaked
documents indicating frustration within Blair's government about the way
contracts have been handed out.

UK firms had hoped Britain's role as the United States' main ally in the wa=
would ensure them work. But few have won high-profile primary contracts so
Political importance

"All ministers in the government who are in frequent touch with their US
opposite numbers (need) to ensure that the US administration are in no doub=
about the political importance we attach to UK firms being seen to
contribute actively to the
reconstruction process," the paper quoted O'Brien as saying in one document=

Last month, Britain's largest engineering services firm Amec failed, in a
joint venture with Fluor of the United States, to win a US contract worth u=
to $1.2 billion to refurbish Iraq's oil industry.

"Everybody understands the rules of engagement"

Brian Wilson,
special representative, trade and
reconstruction in Iraq
Two contracts to rebuild Iraqi oilfields worth a total of $2 billion went t=
a unit of US Vice President Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton, and US
construction giant Parsons which teamed up with Worley Group of Australia.

Then, Wilson said the decision was not entirely surprising but there was
more work to compete for.=A0"Everybody understands the rules of engagement =
it is not easy for non-US companies to succeed at that level of contract,"
he said.

The United States is spending far more than any other country on rebuilding
Iraq's infrastructure and is racing to allocate $18.6 billion worth of
construction and rebuilding projects before a planned 1 July handover of
power to the Iraqis.

End of casi-news Digest

Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit
All postings are archived on CASI's website at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]