I have been continuing to read transcripts of some of the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry, focussing on those transcripts most likely to be relevant to the cause of Dr. Kelly's death.
The transcripts can be read here: Hutton Inquiry Web Site - Hearing Transcripts.
I have identified further material concerns about the supposed evidence that David Kelly committed suicide, as concluded by Lord Hutton.
1. Mrs Kelly was never shown the knife found beside Dr. Kelly's body.
2. The evidence from the forensic biologist, Roy Green, was taken at a time when he testified that his tests were incomplete. Further, although Mr Green made available a spreadsheet of his interim test results to the Hutton Inquiry these appear to be absent from the written evidence on the Hutton Inquiry web site.
3. No evidence was taken from Dr. Eileen Hickey who attended the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found with the forensic biologist Mr. Roy Green.
4. No evidence was taken from any of the Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs) that were present at the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found.
Mrs Kelly was never shown the knife
I was astonished to find out that Mrs. Kelly (Dr. Kelly's widow) had at no time been shown the knife found beside Dr. Kelly's body.
How then can anyone confidently conclude that the knife found beside Dr. Kelly's body was the knife supposedly in his possession since childhood?
Mrs Kelly gave her evidence on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003.
On Page 53 at Line 25, Mrs Kelly states "We were not shown the knife; we were shown a photocopy".
So, the basis for tbe widely circulated belief that Dr. Kelly committed suicide using his own knife is showing a photocopy to a witness!
At no time was Dr. Kelly's widow shown the knife that supposedly inflicted the fatal wound!
However, this is not the only concern about Mrs Kelly's evidence.
The widely circulated story is that Dr. Kelly killed himself using his wife's co-proxamol.
Mrs. Kelly was not asked the basic question of whether she knew how much co-proxamol she had in her store (for her arthritis) nor if any of her store of co-proxamol was missing.
If it is unknown whether or not any co-proxamol was missing how can it be a safe conclusion by Lord Hutton that Dr. Kelly took some of his wife's co-proxamol?
The evidence of the forensic biologist Roy Green was interim and incomplete
The oral evidence from the forensic biologist, Mr. Roy Green, was given on the afternoon of Wednesday 3rd September 2003.
On Page 148 at Line 19 states that "at a guess 50 items [were] sent to the laboratory".
On Page 149 at Line 1 Mr. Green states, "my examinations are still ongoing".
I can find no record that Mr. Green was asked to give further evidence after the tests were completed.
It appears that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page gave cursory evidence on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003 without giving (or being asked about) any points of detail
No written evidence is present for Assistant Chief Constable Page's evidence supposedly regarding Mr. Green's findings in the Evidence referred to on 23rd September.
To treat as conclusive evidence that is stated by the technical expert, Mr. Green, to be based on ongoing tests is a bizarre way for Lord Hutton to proceed.
The deficiencies of Lord Hutton's approach leave open such fundamental questions as to which "blood" was in fact blood? Was all the "blood" referred to human blood? Was all or any of the "blood" Dr. Kelly's blood?
Without such basic technical information how can suicide be distinguished from murder designed to simulate suicide?
No evidence was sought from Dr. Eileen Hickey
The oral evidence from the forensic biologist, Mr. Roy Green, was given on the afternoon of Wednesday 3rd September 2003.
On Page 140 at Lines 10 to 13, Mr. Green states that he was accompanied by his colleague Dr. Eileen Hickey.
In terms of qualifications, Dr. Hickey (having a doctorate) is the better qualified of the two colleagues. Why was it not she who was asked to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?
It is possible that Dr. Hickey observed nothing other than the observations made by Mr. Green. But we cannot safely conclude that since neither we nor Lord Hutton know what Dr. Hickey may or may not have observed, nor what her area(s) of expertise may be.
Assuming that Dr. Hickey arrived and left with Mr. Green (which seems likely) it seems unlikely that she observed nothing during that period of five hours.
It seems bizarre that Lord Hutton again is made aware of a technical expert present at the scene but he chooses not to take evidence from that expert.
No evidence taken from Scenes of Crime Officers
A number of Scenes of Crime Officers were present at the location where Dr. Kelly's body was found.
Mr. Green named three SOCOs in his evidence: Senior SOCO John Sharpley, Principal SOCO Mark Scholar and Senior SOCO Katie Langford.
So far as I can ascertain none of those Scenes of Crime Officers was questioned by Lord Hutton.
It seems bizarre that Lord Hutton again is made aware of a number of technical experts present at the scene but he chooses not to take evidence from any of those experts.
Conclusion
At best, there are material concerns about the evidence given to Lord Hutton.
These concerns taken together with the conflicting evidence about the position of the body and the number of non-uniformed individuals assumed to be detectives, The Death of David Kelly - Who moved the body? Who was the missing policeman?, render Lord Hutton's conclusion of suicide unsafe.
I believe that the Attorney General has a duty to request an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment