The full statement made by Lord Hutton is easily accessed online here: Dr Kelly evidence: Lord Hutton statement in full.
The important element of that statement about which I have concluded that Lord Hutton is lying is as follows:
The inquiry which I conducted was open and public. It was very widely reported in the media and all the evidence appeared on the inquiry website which is still available to view.
Note that Lord Hutton asserts that "all the evidence" appears on the Hutton Inquiry web site.
It's not true, so fas as I can ascertain, and I have spent quite some time looking for it on the Hutton Inquiry web site.
The following documents that relate to oral evidence given by Mr Roy Green, Forensic Biologist, are missing:
1. Any signed statement or report by the Forensic Biologist, Roy Green, who gave oral evidence of his findings at the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found.
2. The spreadsheet of 50 or so test results to which he referred in his oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
3. The final report on the 50 or so laboratory tests that he carried out.
Why is Mr Green's evidence important?
Mr Green's evidence, if complete and competently carried out, should shed light on basic questions which relate to whether Dr. Kelly was killed at the scene where his body was found or whether there was evidence that he may have been killed elsewhere.
It should also, I would anticipate, provide clarification as to whether stains and other marks are indeed blood, whether they are human blood and whether all of the blood is Dr. Kelly's blood.
Without such evidence one is left with conjecture.
I do not view conjecture as an appropriate basis for Lord Hutton, or anyone else, to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to how Dr. David Kelly died.
I have written to the Ministry of Justice asking that the Hutton Inquiry web site be updated with the missing report(s) and have suggested that Lord Hutton be asked to issue a corrected statement.
Andrew -
ReplyDeleteIt is entirely right to spotlight the incomplete reports at paragraph 149 of Mr Green's short notice witness statements at the Hutton Inquiry.
At the end of Mr Green's incomplete evidence Mr Dingemans QC says:
"I think when all that is concluded Assistant Chief
Constable Page is going to come back and tell us the
results." (which seemed to include DNA profiling!)
(Mr Page had appeared already earlier in the day)
However, Mr Page has already stated on 3rd September:
" We determined from the outset because of the attendant
circumstances that we would apply the highest standards
of investigation to this particular set of circumstances
as was possible. I would not say I launched a murder
investigation but the investigation was of that
standard."
It is not clear to me how a murder investigation was ruled out so early when no information had yet been obtained, allowing possible murderers to escape and clues and witnesses lost.
Now to para 196 of ACC Page's 2nd witness appeance, 23 Sept 2003
Mr Page "Yes, my Lord; and I think, again, upon examination of
the pathologist's evidence and of the biologist's
evidence, it is pretty clear to me that Dr Kelly died at
the scene."
Mr Page gives the correct result he predicted at the outset of the investigation, Lord Hutton thanks him. Mr Page had already three weeks previously ruled out the involvement of a third party and seemingly had already done so the morning Dr Kelly was found. The extra,unseen forensic biological evidence, whether or not it has surfaced in the past 20 days, is perhaps adduced by Mr Page. But Mr Page makes no mention at all of the fact that forensic biology tests are complete or are possibly still ongoing as he spoke the second time.
Andrew, perhaps you can also comment, from your qualifications, on the non- examination of the lung, "considered not necessary"?
(para 201)
Might you also be able to elucidate on the exchange at Paras 27/28 of Mr Page's evidence, 3/9/03?
Is keeping a body for 7 hrs at a scene normal ? Just asking.
One last point - we know Mrs Kelly formally identified the body on Saturday morning (information acceessed by Norman Baker MP as it did not emerge at the Inquiry). Owing to the dentist's break in, DNA tests were performed. I wondered if it would have been unique to have had those done after a formal identification?
Thanks. Felix
Felix,
ReplyDeleteHowever, Mr Page has already stated on 3rd September:
" We determined from the outset because of the attendant circumstances that we would apply the highest standards of investigation to this particular set of circumstances
as was possible. I would not say I launched a murder investigation but the investigation was of that standard."
It is not clear to me how a murder investigation was ruled out so early when no information had yet been obtained, allowing possible murderers to escape and clues and witnesses lost.
When Assistant Chief Constable Page asserted that the investigation was of the highest standard, I think he was displaying a rather warped sense of humour.
There was, indeed, a lot of activity.
However, in my opinion, a major deficiency of the Thames Valley Police investigation was the lack of insightful thinking in the crucial early hours of the investigation.
I see the deficiencies in critical thinking, including the posing of the right questions, in those early hours as potentially letting a murderer (or murderers) escape and ensured the loss of potentially crucial evidence.
An article or two on topics related to your question are in the pipeline. As they say, "Watch this space".
Felix,
ReplyDeleteMr Page "Yes, my Lord; and I think, again, upon examination of the pathologist's evidence and of the biologist's evidence, it is pretty clear to me that Dr Kelly died at the scene."
Several points:
1. It is bizarre (and improper) that someone with no relevant technical expertise is called to present the results of technical data (of Mr. Green, Forensic Biologist).
2. ACC Page's testimony is a conclusion. He conceals the underlying data.
3. Mr. Page has no idea where Dr. Kelly died. His testimony is, essentially, speculation.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteAndrew, perhaps you can also comment, from your qualifications, on the non- examination of the lung, "considered not necessary"? (para 201)
As I currently understand it, the rationale for not examining the lung (for volatile chemicals) was the lack of such chemicals in the blood in Dr. Allan's toxicology report.
On the face of it, the absence of relevant chemicals in the blood means that no significant amount of such chemicals had reached the brain. In other words, it seems highly unlikely that David Kelly was knocked out using chloroform or similar compounds.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteMight you also be able to elucidate on the exchange at Paras 27/28 of Mr Page's evidence, 3/9/03? Is keeping a body for 7 hrs at a scene normal ? Just asking.
A few comments on those two pages of transcript:
1. ACC Page asserts that "the most thorough examination possible of the scene" was carried out. The sequence of events suggests otherwise. (Article in the pipeline on that.)
2. The fingertip search could destroy evidence as well as possibly find it.
3. The use of ACC Page to give Dr. Hunt's evidence is, in my opinion, highly irregular.
With regard to your question about the length of time the body was at the scene. An advantage is that it means that there is time to take a comprehensive range of swabs etc (see, for example, the postmortem report). The downside, as I understand it, is that taking the rectal temperature "late" means that the confidence limits for the time of death widen.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteOne last point - we know Mrs Kelly formally identified the body on Saturday morning (information acceessed by Norman Baker MP as it did not emerge at the Inquiry). Owing to the dentist's break in, DNA tests were performed. I wondered if it would have been unique to have had those done after a formal identification?
A lot of ifs and buts in there.
I had noticed the absence of anything in the Hutton transcripts about who formally identified the body or when.
There are rumours that the body had been informally "formally identified" at the scene. It's not clear if there is any sound foundation for that - at least not at present.
Currently, I don't have any worthwhile information about the break-in at Kelly's dentist.
Do you have any online sources re the break-in? For example, when did it occur?
Thanks
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI am still perplexed by the fact that Dr Hunt seems to have made taking the rectal temperature virtually his last job at Harrowdown Hill. No doubt TVP would have been under a lot of pressure to come out with a conclusion as to suicide or murder as soon as possible. I think they made it clear that they had decided on suicide on the Saturday afternoon (19th July) which at least would have been after Mrs Kelly had identified the body, the fingertip search completed and Dr Hunt's work on site and at the mortuary done. I suspect though that the police had more or less decided on suicide some time on the previous day. However it should have been considered as an unexplained death at that time (based on what we currently know).
So with the possibility that should have been in their minds that it might have been murder I would have expected the police to have been hounding Dr Hunt to give them an estimate of the time of death. According to his report it was about 17.30 before Dr Hunt was observing rigor mortis, I'm no expert but again that seems rather late. In his defence it seems that Dr Hunt was being very thorough in the number of swabs taken but I would have thought that r/m would have been commented on as the body was undressed.
At HH I'm fascinated about the question of which should take time priority - the fingertip search or the forensic pathologist's examination. In favour of the latter I would mention that Dr Hunt was fully kitted out so as to not to contaminate the scene which may already have been contaminated prior by the searchers, Coe, ambulance crew, or other early police.
Brian
Thank you Andrew for answering my concerns.
ReplyDeleteThe best reference to the missing dental records is found in an "exclusive interview" between Dr P. Fletcher and the Daily Express here which implies that they had already vanished on the Friday when Dr Kelly's body was found and reappeared on the Sunday (I would have thought Monday?) immediately following, if I read the article correctly. If the records had gone walkabout before Friday , that is indeed even more extraordinary.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link.
The "missing dental records" story is fascinating.
I've added a new post on it today.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Police should have continued to treat David Kelly's death as a "suspicious death" for far longer than they appear to have done.
In fact, in my view, it remains at a minimum a suspicious death.
Your comments about the prioritisation of investigations are interesting. I've a couple of questions/ideas in the pipeline so I would prefer not to comment further until I'm more sure of how sound the ideas that I'm pondering may prove to be.