New Years Eve and my special wish for 2011 is that justice will be done in determining the real cause of the death of Dr David Kelly. As it is the day it is I'm not writing a long post but I thought it might be a pleasant diversion to supply a couple of links for videos of Louise Holmes and search dog Brock who it will be recalled, along with Paul Chapman, discovered the body of Dr Kelly on 18th July 2003.
These "youtube" videos result from Ms Holmes and Brock entering the Crufts "Friends for Life" competition in 2009 and, as will be seen in the second video, they went on to win it. These are the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnvcJU0WUzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_zWOXvsDbg&feature=related
Brock is a lively chap isn't he!
Brock works by "air scenting". There is a useful article about how this works:
http://www.suite101.com/content/search-and-rescue-dog-training-air-scenting-a106740
To followers of this blog (excluding any readers who have been lying about the death of Dr Kelly) I wish you a Happy New Year!
Friday 31 December 2010
Wednesday 29 December 2010
Dominic Grieve - now it's over to you
Sometime in the near future we expect the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, to make one of his most significant decisions: whether to set in train the events that will lead to an inquest into the death in July 2003 of Dr David Kelly.
The group of doctors who had presented a legal document, a "memorial" as it's known to Mr Grieve some months ago subsequently made it available for viewing on the internet. The Memorial can be read here. In the Memorial they robustly present their case as to why the Hutton Inquiry process was woefully inadequate and hence why an inquest is now necessary. They also, and this is important, point out that another coroner should be used not the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner. Mr Gardiner it will be remembered had the opportunity to reopen the adjourned inquest into Dr Kelly's death but declined to do so and cannot now be considered in any way a suitable candidate to oversee a new inquest. Furthermore whilst the Hutton Inquiry was under way a final death certificate was issued, a certificate that was deficient and was not signed by a coroner or doctor as it has to be. In my opinion by not being signed it was not a legal document and the Registrar of Deaths had absolutely no business to accept it onto the register. Another thing: as flagged up in the Memorial Mr Gardiner gave an interview to a newspaper after the Hutton Report was published but before he announced that he would not reopen the adjourned inquest in which he stated he was seeking closure. Without doubt this is a gross abuse of his position and for that reason alone is not a fit person to oversee a new inquest.
To perhaps stiffen Mr Grieve's resolve the doctors pointed out yesterday that the case for a new inquest is unanswerable. It should be mentioned that although the arguments in the Memorial are more than enough to trigger a new inquest others have also made their depositions to the Attorney General. It is worth going over to http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/ where Dr Andrew Watt has produced well reasoned letters to the Attorney General which clearly show why a further investigative process is now essential. I too have written to Mr Grieve as can be read here.
I've read comments on various internet sites that the immediate family of the late Dr David Kelly don't want an inquest and therefore there shouldn't be one. They are 100% wrong about this, it is not for the family to decide, it is a legal matter - the Hutton inquiry subverted the law as to the procedure to be followed after an unusual and unexplained death.
Should Mr Grieve shy away from a new inquest under a new coroner then I can see all hell being let loose. The politicians must never again be allowed to overrule the judicial system to pursue their own agenda.
The group of doctors who had presented a legal document, a "memorial" as it's known to Mr Grieve some months ago subsequently made it available for viewing on the internet. The Memorial can be read here. In the Memorial they robustly present their case as to why the Hutton Inquiry process was woefully inadequate and hence why an inquest is now necessary. They also, and this is important, point out that another coroner should be used not the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner. Mr Gardiner it will be remembered had the opportunity to reopen the adjourned inquest into Dr Kelly's death but declined to do so and cannot now be considered in any way a suitable candidate to oversee a new inquest. Furthermore whilst the Hutton Inquiry was under way a final death certificate was issued, a certificate that was deficient and was not signed by a coroner or doctor as it has to be. In my opinion by not being signed it was not a legal document and the Registrar of Deaths had absolutely no business to accept it onto the register. Another thing: as flagged up in the Memorial Mr Gardiner gave an interview to a newspaper after the Hutton Report was published but before he announced that he would not reopen the adjourned inquest in which he stated he was seeking closure. Without doubt this is a gross abuse of his position and for that reason alone is not a fit person to oversee a new inquest.
To perhaps stiffen Mr Grieve's resolve the doctors pointed out yesterday that the case for a new inquest is unanswerable. It should be mentioned that although the arguments in the Memorial are more than enough to trigger a new inquest others have also made their depositions to the Attorney General. It is worth going over to http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/ where Dr Andrew Watt has produced well reasoned letters to the Attorney General which clearly show why a further investigative process is now essential. I too have written to Mr Grieve as can be read here.
I've read comments on various internet sites that the immediate family of the late Dr David Kelly don't want an inquest and therefore there shouldn't be one. They are 100% wrong about this, it is not for the family to decide, it is a legal matter - the Hutton inquiry subverted the law as to the procedure to be followed after an unusual and unexplained death.
Should Mr Grieve shy away from a new inquest under a new coroner then I can see all hell being let loose. The politicians must never again be allowed to overrule the judicial system to pursue their own agenda.
Monday 27 December 2010
No power to subpoena witnesses
Much has been made of the fact that witnesses at the Hutton Inquiry weren't examined under oath. An exception to this seems to be that of the evidence of Professor Hawton: at the start of his transcript is the word (sworn). Presumably he elected to give evidence under oath but was not compelled to. For a person whose testimony was always likely to be more opinion based than fact based he would not be particularly liable to a charge of perjury from what he said.
Another gross failure of the Hutton Inquiry of course was the fact that his Lordship couldn't compel witnesses to attend. I'm flagging this up now because it is easy to say Hutton should have called certain people (for example DCI Alan Young). But it has to be said that it is possible that Hutton did want DCI Young in our example but he, or his bosses said 'no'. In reality I rather suspect that Lord Hutton had a convivial chat with say the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and came to a very amicable agreement about who should attend the Inquiry from the police side.
I've just read an interesting fact in Norman Baker's book (page 266) that those making statements in connection with Dr Kelly's death had an opt out at the end of their statement allowing them to decide whether or not they would accept their statement being forwarded to the Inquiry. So looking at the list of witness statements on the Inquiry website and wondering why a statement from an individual hasn't been lodged by Thames Valley Police might be purely because that person didn't want their statement to go forward for whatever reason.
Another gross failure of the Hutton Inquiry of course was the fact that his Lordship couldn't compel witnesses to attend. I'm flagging this up now because it is easy to say Hutton should have called certain people (for example DCI Alan Young). But it has to be said that it is possible that Hutton did want DCI Young in our example but he, or his bosses said 'no'. In reality I rather suspect that Lord Hutton had a convivial chat with say the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and came to a very amicable agreement about who should attend the Inquiry from the police side.
I've just read an interesting fact in Norman Baker's book (page 266) that those making statements in connection with Dr Kelly's death had an opt out at the end of their statement allowing them to decide whether or not they would accept their statement being forwarded to the Inquiry. So looking at the list of witness statements on the Inquiry website and wondering why a statement from an individual hasn't been lodged by Thames Valley Police might be purely because that person didn't want their statement to go forward for whatever reason.
Lord Hutton speculates in his Opening Statement
On the 1st of August 2003 Lord Hutton made his Opening Statement to the Inquiry. In the course of his statement he relates a chronological sequence of events leading up to Dr David Kelly's death and makes mention of Dr Hunt's post-mortem report of 19th July. This is an extract:
A post-mortem examination was carried out by Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist and his post-mortem report dated 19th July has been sent to me by the coroner. A toxicology report has also been sent to me by the coroner. The post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist. Dr Hunt also states: "The fact that the watch appears to have been removed whilst blood was already flowing suggests that it has been removed deliberately in order to facilitate access to the wrist. The removal of the watch in this way and indeed the removal of the spectacles are features pointing towards this being an act of self harm."
I am quite clear in my own mind that Lord Hutton was completely out of order in making the direct quote of Dr Hunt (the last four lines above). This is for two reasons: firstly what Dr Hunt is saying here is purely speculative and secondly by mentioning the words 'self harm' in the context shown in his Opening Statement Lord Hutton has planted the seed of a conclusion that Dr Kelly committed suicide before evidence is heard from the witnesses. For these two reasons this part of Lord Hutton's statement is unacceptable.
Regarding the quote made by Dr Hunt this is a good moment I think to elaborate on why I consider it speculation, and hence why it should have had no place in the Opening Statement. Dr Hunt has produced no evidence to show that removal of watch and spectacles are indicative of intent to cause self harm, none whatsoever. The removal of the watch might just as easily have been carried out by another party whist the blood was flowing as by Dr Kelly. Because of blood on the watch Dr Hunt opines that Dr Kelly removed it after he had started cutting his wrist, yet there is good evidence that Dr Kelly was very meticulous in what he did, so logically one might say that he would remove the watch before the start of cutting and then leave it on the right side of his body. The positioning of the watch to his left and with blood on it is to me more suggestive of action by another person or persons.
As to the removal of his spectacles Dr Hunt is once again speculating. I would refer the reader back to this entry I made http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2010/11/dr-david-kellys-last-interview.html . It is quite clear from the video that Dr Kelly didn't necessarily have cause to wear his spectacles for every waking minute of the day. Although spectacles were found in his jacket pocket Dr Hunt has no idea at all in my opinion whether he was wearing them on his walk. Let me present this scenario: let us suppose that he sets out for his walk wearing them (Ms Absalom could have been usefully questioned on this). Dr Kelly is abducted and rendered unconscious if not immediately killed. The intention is to bring him to Harrowdown Hill much later on. To ensure that his spectacles don't fall off in the transportation process, and become evidence of body transfer, the perpetrators take them off and stuff them in his pocket.
I notice too that Dr Kelly's mobile phone was found in the same pocket not in the special pouch where you would expect Dr Kelly to keep it. It suggests to me that after abduction his kidnappers switched the phone off and seemed to have put everything into the same pocket. I would have imagined that David Kelly was the sort of person where everything had its particular place rather than mobile, key fob, spectacles and blister packs being crammed into the same pocket.
Speculation on my part? I don't deny it but every bit as credible as the opinions expressed by Dr Hunt, opinions that Lord Hutton decided to insert into what should have been a purely factual summary.
A post-mortem examination was carried out by Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist and his post-mortem report dated 19th July has been sent to me by the coroner. A toxicology report has also been sent to me by the coroner. The post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist. Dr Hunt also states: "The fact that the watch appears to have been removed whilst blood was already flowing suggests that it has been removed deliberately in order to facilitate access to the wrist. The removal of the watch in this way and indeed the removal of the spectacles are features pointing towards this being an act of self harm."
I am quite clear in my own mind that Lord Hutton was completely out of order in making the direct quote of Dr Hunt (the last four lines above). This is for two reasons: firstly what Dr Hunt is saying here is purely speculative and secondly by mentioning the words 'self harm' in the context shown in his Opening Statement Lord Hutton has planted the seed of a conclusion that Dr Kelly committed suicide before evidence is heard from the witnesses. For these two reasons this part of Lord Hutton's statement is unacceptable.
Regarding the quote made by Dr Hunt this is a good moment I think to elaborate on why I consider it speculation, and hence why it should have had no place in the Opening Statement. Dr Hunt has produced no evidence to show that removal of watch and spectacles are indicative of intent to cause self harm, none whatsoever. The removal of the watch might just as easily have been carried out by another party whist the blood was flowing as by Dr Kelly. Because of blood on the watch Dr Hunt opines that Dr Kelly removed it after he had started cutting his wrist, yet there is good evidence that Dr Kelly was very meticulous in what he did, so logically one might say that he would remove the watch before the start of cutting and then leave it on the right side of his body. The positioning of the watch to his left and with blood on it is to me more suggestive of action by another person or persons.
As to the removal of his spectacles Dr Hunt is once again speculating. I would refer the reader back to this entry I made http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2010/11/dr-david-kellys-last-interview.html . It is quite clear from the video that Dr Kelly didn't necessarily have cause to wear his spectacles for every waking minute of the day. Although spectacles were found in his jacket pocket Dr Hunt has no idea at all in my opinion whether he was wearing them on his walk. Let me present this scenario: let us suppose that he sets out for his walk wearing them (Ms Absalom could have been usefully questioned on this). Dr Kelly is abducted and rendered unconscious if not immediately killed. The intention is to bring him to Harrowdown Hill much later on. To ensure that his spectacles don't fall off in the transportation process, and become evidence of body transfer, the perpetrators take them off and stuff them in his pocket.
I notice too that Dr Kelly's mobile phone was found in the same pocket not in the special pouch where you would expect Dr Kelly to keep it. It suggests to me that after abduction his kidnappers switched the phone off and seemed to have put everything into the same pocket. I would have imagined that David Kelly was the sort of person where everything had its particular place rather than mobile, key fob, spectacles and blister packs being crammed into the same pocket.
Speculation on my part? I don't deny it but every bit as credible as the opinions expressed by Dr Hunt, opinions that Lord Hutton decided to insert into what should have been a purely factual summary.
Sunday 26 December 2010
Lord Hutton - a liar or an incompetent?
Lord Hutton, in writing his Report following the completion of the Inquiry, attempts to deal with the inconsistencies between different witness testimonies about events at Harrowdown Hill on the 18th July 2003. Just to repeat again part of 151 in Chapter 5:
I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree.
Unfortunately Lord Hutton didn't know who took this photo 'but it is likely to be a police photographer'. At least this is what he says in reply to a question from Norman Baker as recorded in Mr Baker's book. Well one would expect that as I assume that all the police photos taken on the 18th would be submitted to the Inquiry. We know that PC Sawyer took a number of photos on his arrival at the scene at about 10 o'clock and that later that morning Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs) appeared and in the "forensic" phase doubtless more pictures were taken prior to the necessary but limited movement of Dr Kelly when Dr Hunt examined him.
At this point it's worth reading an entry by Andrew Watt on his Chilcot's Cheating Us blog of 16 December http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-evidence-that-it.html and to read the comments following it, particularly from "Lancashire Lad". You will see that LL has itemised some of the evidence from the Inquiry from PC Sawyer and from DC Coe and contrasted them. DC Coe's position is that once PCs Franklin and Sawyer appear on scene the former of these two PCs takes over responsibility and that he, Coe, has nothing further to do with the investigation that day. PC Sawyer's take is somewhat different suggesting that he and PC Franklin went back down the track to bring their Land Rover up whilst leaving DC Coe and colleagues guarding the body.
As an aside here why was it necessary for both the PCs to return to their vehicle to drive it up closer (I'm not clear from the evidence as to whether they just brought the Land Rover further up the track at this stage or started using the field immediately to the east of the wood - the field with the white tent that was to become familiar in media reports). If I had been PC Franklin my natural desire in taking things over would be to stay with the body and detail PC Sawyer to drive up the lane.
Now Lancashire Lad makes the very valid point that perhaps here was an opportunity for DC Coe to pull the body back toward the tree if he was so minded and that new position is what the forensic photographer recorded and the same photo that Lord Hutton subsequently saw and commented on. The problem here for me is that such an act by DC Coe would be fraught with peril - he would know that the photographic record would prove that the body had been moved and that PCs Franklin and Sawyer would be aware of this and then become part of a conspiracy (assuming that they weren't before of course). Another movement of the body after the ambulance crew leave the site is possible in my opinion rather than probable. I can't remember where I saw it but think I read somewhere about Mr Coe now recalling that yes Dr Kelly's head was against the bottom of the tree, rather like Lord Hutton's description by the sound of it!
Subsequent to the Inquiry the ambulance crew of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett have thankfully expanded our knowledge of the situation at Harrowdown Hill and we now know that there was space between Dr Kelly's head in which Mr Bartlett could stand. If Lord Hutton was looking at one of PC Sawyer's photos and used this sighting as the basis of his remark in Chapter 5 of the Report then I believe that he is clearly guilty of lying. If we give him the benefit of the doubt and admit there were photos of Dr Kelly in different positions then it is possible that he saw a photo as he described. But if he was doing his job competently then surely he would have had a look at all the photos lodged and picked up on the fact that there was a discrepancy between the photos taken at the "discovery" stage and those taken later at the "forensic" stage.
I think what may have surprised Hutton is firstly that the ambulance crew had the honesty and integrity to go public over their concerns when they saw conclusions not making sense and secondly that there are some of us out here who just don't meekly accept what other people say when we see things that are just plain wrong.
I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree.
Unfortunately Lord Hutton didn't know who took this photo 'but it is likely to be a police photographer'. At least this is what he says in reply to a question from Norman Baker as recorded in Mr Baker's book. Well one would expect that as I assume that all the police photos taken on the 18th would be submitted to the Inquiry. We know that PC Sawyer took a number of photos on his arrival at the scene at about 10 o'clock and that later that morning Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs) appeared and in the "forensic" phase doubtless more pictures were taken prior to the necessary but limited movement of Dr Kelly when Dr Hunt examined him.
At this point it's worth reading an entry by Andrew Watt on his Chilcot's Cheating Us blog of 16 December http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-evidence-that-it.html and to read the comments following it, particularly from "Lancashire Lad". You will see that LL has itemised some of the evidence from the Inquiry from PC Sawyer and from DC Coe and contrasted them. DC Coe's position is that once PCs Franklin and Sawyer appear on scene the former of these two PCs takes over responsibility and that he, Coe, has nothing further to do with the investigation that day. PC Sawyer's take is somewhat different suggesting that he and PC Franklin went back down the track to bring their Land Rover up whilst leaving DC Coe and colleagues guarding the body.
As an aside here why was it necessary for both the PCs to return to their vehicle to drive it up closer (I'm not clear from the evidence as to whether they just brought the Land Rover further up the track at this stage or started using the field immediately to the east of the wood - the field with the white tent that was to become familiar in media reports). If I had been PC Franklin my natural desire in taking things over would be to stay with the body and detail PC Sawyer to drive up the lane.
Now Lancashire Lad makes the very valid point that perhaps here was an opportunity for DC Coe to pull the body back toward the tree if he was so minded and that new position is what the forensic photographer recorded and the same photo that Lord Hutton subsequently saw and commented on. The problem here for me is that such an act by DC Coe would be fraught with peril - he would know that the photographic record would prove that the body had been moved and that PCs Franklin and Sawyer would be aware of this and then become part of a conspiracy (assuming that they weren't before of course). Another movement of the body after the ambulance crew leave the site is possible in my opinion rather than probable. I can't remember where I saw it but think I read somewhere about Mr Coe now recalling that yes Dr Kelly's head was against the bottom of the tree, rather like Lord Hutton's description by the sound of it!
Subsequent to the Inquiry the ambulance crew of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett have thankfully expanded our knowledge of the situation at Harrowdown Hill and we now know that there was space between Dr Kelly's head in which Mr Bartlett could stand. If Lord Hutton was looking at one of PC Sawyer's photos and used this sighting as the basis of his remark in Chapter 5 of the Report then I believe that he is clearly guilty of lying. If we give him the benefit of the doubt and admit there were photos of Dr Kelly in different positions then it is possible that he saw a photo as he described. But if he was doing his job competently then surely he would have had a look at all the photos lodged and picked up on the fact that there was a discrepancy between the photos taken at the "discovery" stage and those taken later at the "forensic" stage.
I think what may have surprised Hutton is firstly that the ambulance crew had the honesty and integrity to go public over their concerns when they saw conclusions not making sense and secondly that there are some of us out here who just don't meekly accept what other people say when we see things that are just plain wrong.
Sunday 12 December 2010
Lord Hutton, the number of policemen and the body position
Although there are plenty of discrepancies and oddities thrown up by the Hutton Inquiry two in particular have become familiar to those who are trying to make sense of the mystery of Dr David Kelly's death. In summary these deal with the testimony of several witnesses that DC Coe was accompanied by two other people at Harrowdown Hill, and that the position of Dr Kelly's body as observed by the two volunteer searchers differed from that reported by all the subsequent witnesses.
These variations were so significant that Lord Hutton felt obliged to address them in his Report. It might be asked why neither Hutton nor his counsel at the Inquiry pressed the witnesses concerned at the time of their examination about the obvious discrepancies rather than leave it to one all embracing paragraph buried in his Report.
One needs to go to Chapter 5 of the Report 'The search for Dr Kelly and the finding of his body'. Scroll down to paragraph 151 and you read this from Lord Hutton:
Those who try cases relating to a death or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard from those who saw Dr Kelly's body in the wood there were differences as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr Kelly's death.
I am prepared to accept that in certain circumstances honest witnesses can give differing evidence as to detail; for instance it might be an event that happens almost in the blink of an eye such as a gang making a getaway from a bank raid. In such a scenario too a lot of the observers would be people not particularly trained to accurately take in detail of a scene. The situation at Harrowdown Hill on the 18th July 2003 would have been vastly different I maintain and in my opinion the remarks made by Hutton in paragraph 151 are deliberately misleading.
We now know as fact that DC Coe was lying regarding the number of people accompanying him. All witnesses making statements about the number of people in his party were saying there were three altogether. Three is 50% more than two. If it had been say half a dozen police then a witness might make a small mistake on number. The searchers for instance met DC Coe and his companions face to face evidently, if people approached from the side it might just be possible to have made a mistake here but if those you are meeting are directly facing you and that meeting is more than a glance of a few seconds then I contend that it would be impossible to get the number wrong as between two and three. In the case of the searchers they say that DC Coe and companions identified themselves to them and obviously there was then some conversation. Moving on to PCs Franklin and Sawyer and the ambulance crew these are people whose professions direct them to be observant and again they had ample time to absorb the detail of how many people were accompanying DC Coe.
In dealing with the position of the body Hutton says:
I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree.
Although it is possible that searcher Paul Chapman had a camera facility on his mobile and took a picture I can't really believe that such a photo would have been the one seen by Lord Hutton and commented on. We know that PC Sawyer and subsequently others took photographs of the body, these being official would have had a time stamp on them. Lodged at the Inquiry there is no doubt that Hutton would have been able to see exactly where Dr Kelly's head was in relation to the tree.
These are the words of ambulance technician Dave Bartlett from the Daily Mail earlier this year:
These variations were so significant that Lord Hutton felt obliged to address them in his Report. It might be asked why neither Hutton nor his counsel at the Inquiry pressed the witnesses concerned at the time of their examination about the obvious discrepancies rather than leave it to one all embracing paragraph buried in his Report.
One needs to go to Chapter 5 of the Report 'The search for Dr Kelly and the finding of his body'. Scroll down to paragraph 151 and you read this from Lord Hutton:
Those who try cases relating to a death or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard from those who saw Dr Kelly's body in the wood there were differences as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr Kelly's death.
I am prepared to accept that in certain circumstances honest witnesses can give differing evidence as to detail; for instance it might be an event that happens almost in the blink of an eye such as a gang making a getaway from a bank raid. In such a scenario too a lot of the observers would be people not particularly trained to accurately take in detail of a scene. The situation at Harrowdown Hill on the 18th July 2003 would have been vastly different I maintain and in my opinion the remarks made by Hutton in paragraph 151 are deliberately misleading.
We now know as fact that DC Coe was lying regarding the number of people accompanying him. All witnesses making statements about the number of people in his party were saying there were three altogether. Three is 50% more than two. If it had been say half a dozen police then a witness might make a small mistake on number. The searchers for instance met DC Coe and his companions face to face evidently, if people approached from the side it might just be possible to have made a mistake here but if those you are meeting are directly facing you and that meeting is more than a glance of a few seconds then I contend that it would be impossible to get the number wrong as between two and three. In the case of the searchers they say that DC Coe and companions identified themselves to them and obviously there was then some conversation. Moving on to PCs Franklin and Sawyer and the ambulance crew these are people whose professions direct them to be observant and again they had ample time to absorb the detail of how many people were accompanying DC Coe.
In dealing with the position of the body Hutton says:
I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree.
Although it is possible that searcher Paul Chapman had a camera facility on his mobile and took a picture I can't really believe that such a photo would have been the one seen by Lord Hutton and commented on. We know that PC Sawyer and subsequently others took photographs of the body, these being official would have had a time stamp on them. Lodged at the Inquiry there is no doubt that Hutton would have been able to see exactly where Dr Kelly's head was in relation to the tree.
These are the words of ambulance technician Dave Bartlett from the Daily Mail earlier this year:
Friday 10 December 2010
An open letter to the Attorney General - the death of Dr David Kelly
I have today sent a letter to the Attorney General by Recorded Delivery. The text is below:
Dominic Grieve QC
Attorney General
Attorney General’s Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF
Attorney General
Attorney General’s Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF
Open letter
10 December 2010
Dear Mr Grieve
The death of Dr David Kelly
In considering whether there should be a reconvened inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly you had asked that anybody with new evidence concerning Dr Kelly's death should send it to you. The purpose of this letter is to appraise you of new evidence that has entered the public domain in the last few days. This is evidence that has been obtained from Freedom of Information requests.
In his report Lord Hutton states that the causes of Dr Kelly's death were as follows
1a Haemorrhage
1b Incised wounds to the left wrist
2 Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis
Although there is clear evidence demonstrating that reasons 1a and 1b above are unsafe the content of this letter is more specifically dealing with the first part of “2” above: Coproxamol ingestion.
As you may be aware three blister packs of coproxamol tablets were found by the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt in a pocket of the Barbour jacket Dr Kelly was wearing when his body was discovered. One tablet remained in one of the blister packs, potentially there were a total of 30 tablets available originally from the three packs.
A fingertip search in and around the area of the body was conducted by police on the 18th July 2003, the day Dr Kelly's body was discovered. No evidence was found of any spilled tablets and it is commonly assumed that the missing 29 tablets were swallowed by Dr Kelly.
Close to Dr Kelly's body a part full Evian bottle of water was found. The bottle had a capacity of 500 ml and a FOI request has yielded the fact that 111 ml of water remained in the bottle. Thus assuming that Dr Kelly set out with a full bottle a maximum of 389 ml could have been drunk. Even if Dr Kelly had used all the available water I do not consider it possible that he would have found the amount anywhere near sufficient for his purpose. Obviously the fact that he only used a maximum of 389 ml makes the scenario of swallowing 29 tablets even more preposterous.
In his evidence to the Hutton Inquiry the forensic biologist Mr Green proffered an explanation about the presence of blood smearing on the bottle and its top: he explained that 'when people are injured and losing blood they will become thirsty'. Hence Dr Kelly as he was losing blood would have drunk some water and that would be the explanation of the presence of blood on bottle and cap. It is of course perfectly possible for the bottle and its cap to have been smeared with blood by another party wanting to make a murder look like suicide.
If we accept what Mr Green suggests as fact in this case then we have the situation that Dr Kelly used even less than 389 ml of water to swallow the tablets. Dr Kelly, being both intelligent and intellectual, would have understood that he would have had a far greater chance of success with the coproxamol tablets if he bought some alcohol, say a bottle of spirits, to swallow the tablets. Dr Kelly had the opportunity to purchase alcohol at Southmoor. He failed to take advantage of that opportunity.
Although about 22% of the potentially maximum available water was unused Dr Hunt, in his now published report of 25 July 2003, makes no estimate of the residual water in the bottle. He cannot recall at the Inquiry how much water was still in it. Questions do not appear to have been asked at the Inquiry regarding the sufficiency of the quantity of water Dr Kelly had with him to both swallow the tablets and replace the fluid lost by the bleeding.
A FOI request was made concerning the checking of the blister packs for fingerprints. One of the packs was retained for DNA checking; unsurprisingly with the packets being in Dr Kelly's coat pocket his DNA was found on the pack. The other two blister packs were checked for fingerprints, none were recovered. Considering that some pressure would have been required in order to remove the tablets from the packs I don't consider it tenable that in removing 19 or 20 tablets he wouldn't have left some fingerprints. There is no evidence that Dr Kelly wore gloves, in fact in the middle of July in what was a warm summer he would have had absolutely no reason to do so. The fact that all three blister packs were in Dr Kelly's pocket demonstrates that they were not left exposed to the elements. There had been a previous FOI request I understand that determined that there were no fingerprints on the knife found next to the body either.
This new evidence further demonstrates that the conclusion drawn by Lord Hutton as to the cause of Dr Kelly's death was incorrect. Clearly an inquest into Dr Kelly's death with witnesses under oath and subject to cross examination is now needed.
Yours faithfully
Brian Spencer
In
Friday 3 December 2010
No fingerprints on the co-proxamol blister packs
On the 16th November I made a FOI request to Thames Valley Police. The questions and their responses are shown below:
On the 18th July 2003 the dead body of Dr David Kelly was found at Harrowdown Hill Oxfordshire. Three blister packs of the drug co-proxamol were found in a pocket of his jacket at the scene. My FoI request is as follows:
(a) Were any of the three packs checked for fingerprints?
Yes.
(b) Were all of the blister packs checked for fingerprints?
No – 1 packet was reserved for DNA (full profile of Dr Kelly obtained).
(c) If a "yes" answer to (a) or (b) were any fingerprints found?
None recovered.
(d) If a "yes" answer to (c) were the fingerprints identified as belonging to Dr Kelly?
N/A.
The water left in the Evian bottle
I made a Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police on 8 November. I am attaching my request and their response to it:
Thank you for your request for information dated 08/11/2010 which for clarity I have repeated below.
On the 18th July 2003 the dead body of Dr David Kelly was found at Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire. Close to his body we are told that there was an open bottle of Evian water with an unspecified amount of water in it. This FoI request is to be informed about the exact quantity of water that was still in the bottle.
Your request for information has now been considered and I am able to inform you there was 111 millilitres of water remaining in the bottle.
Wednesday 1 December 2010
Dr Kelly, Mrs Kelly and journalist Nick Rufford
Wednesday 9th July was a particularly significant day in the lead up to the death of Dr David Kelly, it was the day that Mrs Kelly states that she and her husband fled from their home in Southmoor to escape the attention of the Press. I shall write about that in more detail in a subsequent post but now I want to concentrate on earlier events that day.
This is the relevant part of an exchange between Mr Dingemans and Mrs Kelly concerning her husband's activities on 9th July:
Q. On the 9th July, do you know where he was?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he go to London?
A. Yes, he was supposed to be going to London so I was quite surprised when he said he was going to work in the garden all day. Again he got on to his vegetable patch and was working in a rather lacklustre way that particular day but he did receive and make some phone calls as well.
Now we can look at part of the testimony of Sunday Times journalist Nick Rufford given to Mr Knox on 21 August ie prior to that given by Mrs Kelly (the first question in this piece relates to an article written by one of Mr Rufford's colleagues Tom Baldwin. The MOD had adopted a policy of confirming the name of Andrew Gilligan's alleged source to the first journalist who guessed it correctly)
Q. That was the article printed on Saturday 5th July?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you then try to call Dr Kelly?
A. The next morning I did, yes.
Q. So that would be on Wednesday 9th July?
A. Correct.
Q. And what happened?
A. He was not there but I spoke to Janice Kelly.
Q. What was said in that conversation?
A. I asked Janice Kelly whether Dr Kelly had gone to Iraq and she said that he had not, that he had postponed his departure and that in fact he had gone to London
Q. Did you decide to do anything after this conversation?
A. In the afternoon, I decided to drive down and see Dr Kelly.
Q. And at what time did you start driving down -- I should ask you from where were you going to be driving down?
A. From London.
Q. At what time did you begin driving down?
A. Late afternoon, I believe.
Q. Would you be able to put a time to it, an approximate time to it?
A. Probably about 4-ish, 4 or 5.
Q. The reason I am asking is this: it appears that Dr Kelly's name was confirmed certainly to a Financial Times journalist late in the afternoon. I was wondering whether at the point you began driving down you yourself were aware that Dr Kelly had been named or his name had been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence?
A. I was not aware that his name had been confirmed and I did not know at that stage that Dr Kelly was or was the person that had spoken to Andrew Gilligan.
LORD HUTTON: Why were you going down then on that afternoon, Mr Rufford?
A. Because I thought the accumulation of clues pointed to Dr Kelly quite strongly and I thought that I would go down and see if I could persuade him to talk to me about it.
MR KNOX: You did not yourself try to talk to the Ministry of Defence press office that day, that is to say 9th July?
A. Not at that stage. I spoke to the Ministry of Defence in the evening of 9th July after I had spoken to Dr Kelly.
Knox doesn't seem to be on the ball here, not querying how 9th July happens to be the day after the 5th! Mr Rufford gives his story again when called back to the inquiry on 24 September - I haven't done a line by line check as yet but his two testimonies seem to tie together pretty well from a cursory look. On his second visit to the inquiry Mr Rufford again says he unsuccessfully tried to contact Dr Kelly on that day but doesn't mention Mrs Kelly this time.
There is agreement that Mr Rufford arrived at about 7.30 pm that evening and that Mr Rufford spoke to Dr Kelly at the garden gate. As to how long they talked Mrs Kelly stated: 'The conversation only took place over about four or five minutes maximum.' This is somewhat at variance with Mr Rufford's recollection that he was with Dr Kelly for about a quarter of an hour.
'The press were on their way in droves' is how Mr Rufford put it according to Mrs Kelly yet according to The Sunday Times man it was Dr Kelly who informed him about his (Dr Kelly's) name being in the public domain. Dr Bryan Wells, Dr Kelly's line manager says he got the information about Dr Kelly's name being outed to David Kelly via two mobile phone calls while he was on the train the times of these calls being 19.03 and 19.09. Although he was on a train Dr Wells was convinced that he had been able to adequately get the message across to Dr Kelly. This then was about 20 to 25 minutes before Mr Rufford turned up. Oddly Mrs Kelly doesn't seem to make any reference to these important phone calls.
There is more to blog about following the departure of Mr Rufford from the gate of the Kelly home but I'm stopping at this point otherwise this post will become unwieldy. Certainly there are peculiarities in the subsequent events which I shall attempt to address in the next post or two.
This is the relevant part of an exchange between Mr Dingemans and Mrs Kelly concerning her husband's activities on 9th July:
Q. On the 9th July, do you know where he was?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he go to London?
A. Yes, he was supposed to be going to London so I was quite surprised when he said he was going to work in the garden all day. Again he got on to his vegetable patch and was working in a rather lacklustre way that particular day but he did receive and make some phone calls as well.
Now we can look at part of the testimony of Sunday Times journalist Nick Rufford given to Mr Knox on 21 August ie prior to that given by Mrs Kelly (the first question in this piece relates to an article written by one of Mr Rufford's colleagues Tom Baldwin. The MOD had adopted a policy of confirming the name of Andrew Gilligan's alleged source to the first journalist who guessed it correctly)
Q. That was the article printed on Saturday 5th July?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you then try to call Dr Kelly?
A. The next morning I did, yes.
Q. So that would be on Wednesday 9th July?
A. Correct.
Q. And what happened?
A. He was not there but I spoke to Janice Kelly.
Q. What was said in that conversation?
A. I asked Janice Kelly whether Dr Kelly had gone to Iraq and she said that he had not, that he had postponed his departure and that in fact he had gone to London
Q. Did you decide to do anything after this conversation?
A. In the afternoon, I decided to drive down and see Dr Kelly.
Q. And at what time did you start driving down -- I should ask you from where were you going to be driving down?
A. From London.
Q. At what time did you begin driving down?
A. Late afternoon, I believe.
Q. Would you be able to put a time to it, an approximate time to it?
A. Probably about 4-ish, 4 or 5.
Q. The reason I am asking is this: it appears that Dr Kelly's name was confirmed certainly to a Financial Times journalist late in the afternoon. I was wondering whether at the point you began driving down you yourself were aware that Dr Kelly had been named or his name had been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence?
A. I was not aware that his name had been confirmed and I did not know at that stage that Dr Kelly was or was the person that had spoken to Andrew Gilligan.
LORD HUTTON: Why were you going down then on that afternoon, Mr Rufford?
A. Because I thought the accumulation of clues pointed to Dr Kelly quite strongly and I thought that I would go down and see if I could persuade him to talk to me about it.
MR KNOX: You did not yourself try to talk to the Ministry of Defence press office that day, that is to say 9th July?
A. Not at that stage. I spoke to the Ministry of Defence in the evening of 9th July after I had spoken to Dr Kelly.
Knox doesn't seem to be on the ball here, not querying how 9th July happens to be the day after the 5th! Mr Rufford gives his story again when called back to the inquiry on 24 September - I haven't done a line by line check as yet but his two testimonies seem to tie together pretty well from a cursory look. On his second visit to the inquiry Mr Rufford again says he unsuccessfully tried to contact Dr Kelly on that day but doesn't mention Mrs Kelly this time.
There is agreement that Mr Rufford arrived at about 7.30 pm that evening and that Mr Rufford spoke to Dr Kelly at the garden gate. As to how long they talked Mrs Kelly stated: 'The conversation only took place over about four or five minutes maximum.' This is somewhat at variance with Mr Rufford's recollection that he was with Dr Kelly for about a quarter of an hour.
'The press were on their way in droves' is how Mr Rufford put it according to Mrs Kelly yet according to The Sunday Times man it was Dr Kelly who informed him about his (Dr Kelly's) name being in the public domain. Dr Bryan Wells, Dr Kelly's line manager says he got the information about Dr Kelly's name being outed to David Kelly via two mobile phone calls while he was on the train the times of these calls being 19.03 and 19.09. Although he was on a train Dr Wells was convinced that he had been able to adequately get the message across to Dr Kelly. This then was about 20 to 25 minutes before Mr Rufford turned up. Oddly Mrs Kelly doesn't seem to make any reference to these important phone calls.
There is more to blog about following the departure of Mr Rufford from the gate of the Kelly home but I'm stopping at this point otherwise this post will become unwieldy. Certainly there are peculiarities in the subsequent events which I shall attempt to address in the next post or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)