Mr Roy Green, forensic biologist, gave the following testimony on the afternoon of Wednesday 3rd September 2003 on Page 148.
8 MR DINGEMANS: Were you present while any other relevant
9 discoveries were made?
10 A. I do not believe so. I was there from the time that
11 Dr Kelly was in the blue tent till the time just before
12 the body was about to be removed. As I left, the hearse
13 was approaching. So it was my understanding that the
14 body was then going to be taken for the post-mortem.
15 Q. That concluded your investigations on the day, did it?
16 A. On that day, yes.
We learn that Dr. Kelly's body was to be removed in a hearse. At approximately 19.00 on Friday 18th July 2003.
My interpretation of Mr. Green's words is that the hearse reached a point on the track from which it was some 50 to 70 yards to the scene where the body had been found.
We learn from the forensic pathologist's postmortem report, Page 6,
Received in a white signature-sealed bodybag and wrapped in a black plastic sheet was the body I recognised from the scene. Head and hand bags were in place.
It is not explicitly stated that Dr. Kelly's body was caried out from the scene inside the bodybag, but that appears the only credible explanation.
To the best of my knowledge nobody at the Hutton Inquiry asked this basic question:
If the body of David Kelly could be carried from the scene to the track, couldn't it earlier have equally been carried from the track to the scene?
I'm not aware of any evidence either in the written documents or in the oral transcripts which excludes that possibility that Dr. Kelly's body was carried to the scene where it was found.
Does such evidence exist?
Similarly, if the hearse could be driven up the track to collect the body of David Kelly, what evidence exists to demonstrate that another vehicle couldn't have been driven up the track to a similar spot prior to David Kelly's body being then carried from the track to the scene where it was found?
The truly worrying aspect is that Thames Valley Police seem to have acted in ways which, predictably, would destroy the evidence of any vehicle having been at that scene. See my earlier post, The Death of David Kelly - How much evidence did Thames Valley Police destroy?, for further discussion of part of that issue.
In other words, the actions of Thames Valley Police could readily be predicted to destroy evidence of the presence of the vehicle of a third party at or close to the point where David Kelly's body might have been carried to where it had been found.
Is it any surprise in that context that no evidence of third party involvement had, so we're told, been found?