Forensic pathologist Dr Richard Shepherd was commissioned by the Attorney General to write a Forensic Medical Report regarding the death of Dr David Kelly. This Shepherd duly did, his report being completed on 16 March 2011. Written confirmation of his commission to prepare a report had been made on 12 November 2010.
As Dr Shepherd was expected to make a critical assessment of the work of Dr Hunt it was obviously essential that he be provided with the full range of documents that could have a bearing on the report he would present to the Attorney General. Appendix A to the report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf makes for fascinating reading regarding items not sent for Dr Shepherd to peruse.
Heading the list is the PM report of Dr Hunt dated 25 July 2003. This is the one that found its way on line on 22 October last year. A much cleaner looking version of it with the ridiculous redactions removed is now available to read here http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
I had identified the fact a long time ago that there was an earlier version of Dr Hunt's report. Lord Hutton, in his opening statement of 1 August 2003, stated on page 14 that he had been sent a post-mortem report dated 19 July by the coroner. Whilst it would seem that additional toxicology information became available between 19 and 25 July and the final post-mortem report was therefore updated rumours abound that other parts of Dr Hunt's report were revised. So why didn't Dr Shepherd demand that the earlier document be sent to him? There may not be differences of significant concern but Dr Shepherd was clearly grossly negligent in not obtaining the earlier report.
Further down the list in "Appendix A" we see:
8. Scene photographs (DTM/1)
9. Postmortem photographs (DTM/2)
We know from the evidence of the forensic biologist Mr Green that the police photographer at the afternoon examination is Mr McGee. It seems a reasonable assumption that Mr McGee would follow through with taking the photographs at the evening post-mortem back at Oxford. I would suggest that the initials appended to the two folders of photographs sent to Dr Shepherd are those of Mr McGee; as yet I've not found any other internet presence for Mr McGee to confirm the initials. He doesn't seem to be named as an attendee in Dr Hunt's report although as explained I would be confident it was him at the mortuary as well.
In section 1(c) of his report Dr Shepherd looks into the matter of whether the body had been moved between discovery and the pathologist's examination. There are plenty of references in the Hutton Inquiry to the fact that PC Sawyer took photographs of the body. Why didn't Thames Valley Police send these through with the other photos? Moreover why didn't Dr Shepherd demand sight of them?
Again I submit that Dr Shepherd was grossly negligent.
One further point worth noting is that out of the early observers of the body there were two absentees so far as witness statements lodged with Dr Shepherd were concerned. Whereas the statements of the two volunteer searchers, DC Coe and the two ambulance crew went forward those of PC Franklin and (photographer) PC Sawyer did not!
Referring now to Annex TVP3 submitted by Thames Valley Police http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf and it's seen in the comparison of police witness statements and Hutton testimonies that PCs Franklin and Sawyer don't mention the body position in their witness statements, the others do.
On the question of moving the body DC Coe has taken all the flak. I think that the net should be cast wider.