That view was publically supported by a second group of doctors in their letter to The Times in August 2010.
I have met no doctor who takes a contrary view.
Is it possible that Dr Hunt also was of this opinion by the time he had finished his examination at the scene and the post mortem on 18th/19th July 2003 might that be why at the opening of the Inquest by the Oxford Coroner, Mr Gardiner, on 21st July 2010, Dr Hunt gave another cause of death (perhaps overdose in the light of the empty packets of coproxamol)?
We do not know what “evidence” was given at the opening of the Inquest but we do know from Mr Gardiner that Dr Hunt subsequently wished to change his opinion. In a letter to the Department of Constitutional Affairs in August, Mr Gardiner wrote:
“The preliminary cause of death given at the opening of the inquest no longer represents the view of the Pathologist and evidence from him would need to be given to correct and update the evidence already received.
As you will know, a coroner has power to compel the attendance of witnesses. There are no such powers attached to a Public Inquiry. If I do adjourn under Section 17(1), I would be unable to resume, if at all, until after the Public Inquiry has been concluded and thus would not be in position to assist Lord Hutton, should any assistance be needed in that respect.
In matters of this sort, I need to be scrupulous in following the provisions of the Coroner's Rules, and I have in mind in particular Rule 16 (Adjournements in a Formal Manner) and Rule 19 (Obligation to Notify Family).''
In my opinion Dr Hunt was probably awaiting the toxicology to confirm his initial conclusion of overdose or at least a non-haemorrhagic cause of death. However the toxicology did not explain the death. There was no support then for his initial conclusion. He would have been obliged to find an alternative cause of death and, at the resumed inquest hearing on 14th August 2003 about which the public was unaware Dr Hunt gave haemorrhage as his primary cause of death. Meanwhile on the same day media attention was focused on the evidence Lord Hutton was hearing in London.
Dr Hunt, against his inclination, gave haemorrhage as the primary cause of death. The coproxamol “ingestion” and coronary atherosclerosis were merely ancillary.
When challenged on his opinion last year, Dr Hunt sought to support his conclusion by telling The Sunday Times about “big thick clots of blood inside the sleeve which came down over the wrist”. This new “evidence” emerged 7 years after his involvement. It was not part of his account to Lord Hutton. Moreover, despite Dr Hunt saying to The Sunday Times “I noted it in my report”, when the report was subsequently disclosed by the Ministry of Justice, there was no such note to be found.
Lord Hutton was effectively obliged to accept the evidence on the cause of death from Dr Hunt because it had been determined by the coroner in private and registered by the Registrar of Deaths 5 months earlier:
If I am correct, the change from his first opinion as to the cause of death (which in the circumstances could not be maintained) and more particularly the delayed “beefing up” of the evidence of blood loss, throws further into doubt on the cause of death.
Dr Michael J Powers QC
31st May 2011