Pathologist Describes ‘Very Unusual’ Novichok Examination

A forensic pathologist informed an inquiry that he was observed by defence and Army officials during his examination of Novichok victim Dawn Sturgess. Testifying at the hearing in central London, Professor Guy Rutty affirmed that he had “no other reason” than the nerve agent to account for Ms Sturgess’ death. He conveyed to the inquiry panel that he had conducted the examination in full protective gear due to the personal risk of exposure to the substance. Characterizing the situation as “very unusual,” Professor Rutty further mentioned that he had prepared two distinct reports because the coroner lacked the necessary security clearance to review the complete details. Professor Rutty told the inquiry that he was as confident as he could be that Ms Sturgess’ death had been caused by exposure to Novichok, adding that she had suffered a “death of the brain” after her heart stopped. He further stated, “I am not aware that there is any indication to suggest that the deceased’s collapse was a direct result of the action of either a therapeutic or illicit drug.” The panel learned that 36 samples had been collected from Ms Sturgess’ body to enable pathologists to conduct further investigation. When asked about the extensive number of samples, Professor Rutty replied: “Exposing ourselves to an agent that could kill us, we decided to ensure that we only did this once.” Mark Faulkner, an expert in pre-hospital care, provided evidence on Tuesday concerning the response of paramedics to Yulia and Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in March 2018, as well as Ms Sturgess and her partner Charlie Rowley in Amesbury in June 2018. He stated he had “no criticism” of paramedics attending to Mr and Ms Skripal, explaining there was no realistic prospect at the time of them realising it was a nerve agent instead of a drug overdose. Mr Faulkner also said there was no criticism of ambulance clinicians initially treating Ms Sturgess as a patient who had suffered a cardiac arrest linked to opioid use, adding it would have been “incredibly challenging” to diagnose organophosphate – the group of chemicals including nerve agents like Novichok – involvement at that point. Mr Faulkner said, “I asked 20 colleagues with combined experience of 254 years and none had ever seen an organophosphate case.” Ms Sturgess fell ill on 30 June 2018, with paramedics returning to the same address later that afternoon to treat Mr Rowley. The inquiry has previously heard how paramedics attending to Mr Rowley had recognised his symptoms as possible nerve agent poisoning, but police had disagreed, citing his background as a known drug user. Mr Faulkner praised the paramedics for their approach, telling the inquiry: “I think it would have been all to easy for those paramedics to revert to what the police were telling them, lose confidence in their clinical convictions and go ‘well this is probably just an opioid overdose, the police have got intelligence on this’.” He concluded, “These are clinicians who I cannot commend highly enough, so despite having counter views put to them, continued with a course of treatment that ultimately was correct.” His comments followed evidence given on Monday by intensive care consultant Dr Stephen Jukes about the care Ms Sturgess received in hospital. Asked whether, in hindsight, the signs of nerve agent poisoning could have been spotted sooner, Dr Jukes said: “It is a phrase we sometimes say about finding hoof prints on a beach, you should think of horses not zebras. “And we had already seen what we jokingly called a unicorn in Salisbury, something unbelievable. “The chance of it happening again was very remote but it wasn’t something that we would completely ignore, but at that time I was trying to look at this in a very open way and not trying to immediately look into clouds and see faces, just because I had been involved with the Skripals.” The inquiry continues.