I was wondering if there are any images of The Knife (the one supposed to have been used to incise the left wrist) in the public domain.
I seem to recall seeing an image of "a knife like the one" found at Harrowdown Hill.
But don't recall seeing an image of The Knife.
We know that Janice Kelly wasn't shown the knife, so maybe nobody has seen The Knife other than, presumably, Thames Valley Police.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is a funny old knife, because it too seems to have a will of its own.
ReplyDeleteDC Coe is asked by Mr Knox(16 Sept 2003):
"Q. Where was the watch?
A. If I remember rightly, just on top of the knife."
Evidence of Mr Nicholas Hunt, immediately following DC Coe's, again Mr Knox interrogating:
"Q. What about next to the watch?
A. Lying next to that was a pruning knife or gardener's knife.
Q. Can you describe what type of pruning knife it was?
A. The make was a Sandvig knife. It was one with a little hook or lip towards the tip of the blade. It is a fairly standard gardeners' type knife."
Oddly, Mr Hunt was not asked about the relative position of the knife with respect to the body. DC Coe says both knife and watch were on the left side. Neither did he say whether it had a fixed blade or a lockable one.
DC Franklin is asked about the knife.
He reads from notes.
"The wrist watch was lying away from the body, next to a knife. The wrist watch was just to the left of the left arm, with the knife next to it,"
He identifies it as some kind of lock knife, his colleague PC Sawyer as a pruning knife.
The ambulance personnel add nothing, other than there was a silver bladed knife.
Enter Professor Hawton, examined by Mr Dingemans
"Well, the instrument that was used, which I have seen a photograph of, and the family, as you know, I think, have been shown a copy of a similar instrument, a large penknife - will call it a penknife, but it is a rather primitive style of penknife -- is very similar to one that he had in his drawer in his study, and it was one I think you heard yesterday he had had since his childhood.
LORD HUTTON himself steps in to clarify with Professor Hawton
"LORD HUTTON: Just going back to the knife,Professor Hawton, you said it was very similar to one in his drawer. Now, we have been told, for very understandable reasons, that Mrs Kelly was not shown the knife. But when you say "very similar", are you drawing the inference that in fact it was probably a knife that had been in his drawer, is that what why you say "very similar"?
A. Yes, I am my Lord."
I am not sure why a psychiatrist is being asked about a possible weapon found at the scene. That would seem to be to me firmly a police matter.
Here is Mrs Kelly's response to Mr Dingemans' questioning
Q." Were you shown the knife at all?
A. We were not shown the knife; we were shown a photocopy of I presume the knife which we recognised as a knife he had had for many years and kept in his drawer.
Q.It was a knife he had had what, from childhood?
A. From childhood I believe. I think probably from the Boy Scouts.
Mr Green is also asked about the knife, this time by Mr Dingemans
"A. There was a bloodstained watch and a knife to --
Q. Was the knife bloodstained?
Mr Green seems to be cut off when he is about to describe the position of the knife.....
If Dr Kelly, was right handed,allegedly, would it be expected that he would drop the knife on the left or right side?
Would a knife be carried open? Was it a folding knife? Was it carried open in the barbour jacket (not my choice for carrying a knife about)? Might there have been fibres from the pocket on the blade, transferred to the wrist wounds? Were Sandvig knives like this imported from Dr Kelly's childhood, (the 1950s) as intimated by Prof Hawton? Is it a standard Boy Scout issue Sandvig pruning knife?
Does all this satisfy? Where is the knife now?
Has anybody seen in after Mr Green?
Moving bodies, moving knives...
Only a photocopy of the knife was shown at the Hutton Inquiry. No one, other than the police, forensics and body witnesses saw the actual knife. As far as we know, Mrs Kelly was not shown it, only the photocopy.
ReplyDeleteNeither of the volunteer searchers noticed the knife -- were they unobservant, or was the knife not there when they arrived on the scene? Louise Holmes told me they were not trained to observe the scene - but how could she not have noticed all those objects - cap, knife, watch, glasses, bottle. Dave Bartlett, the ambulance technician, told me he was suspicious when he saw them, all lined up to the left of the body.
There are no images of the knife in the public domain.
Notice how the knife is never described fully, i.e the handle.
ReplyDeleteI think Prof Hawton must have extra terrestrial powers. He sees a photocopy of a knife and he is sure that the knife on the page had at some stage been in Dr David Kelly's drawer. I must assume that Prof Hawton had never had cause to rummage through Dr Kelly's drawer when he was alive.
I think Mr Dingemans' guess that it was a childhood knife was inspired. Bullseye.
Mrs Kelly says that the police came to visit her on the morning of Friday 18th July to inform her of her husband's death. (that would be between about 10.30 and Midday I suppose. Is that when they brought a photocopy of (a similar, but NOT IDENTICAL) knife to show her? That would seem improbable because it was still at the scene of the suspicious death. So why wasn't she asked when she was shown a photocopy. Did the police check to see that the knife was now missing from the drawer(assuming it had been there the previous morning)? A valid question for the Inquiry?
Can someone please deconstruct all this?
Felix,
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Professor Hawton's evidence has elements of a comedy turn.
It's one of several elements that need to be deconstructed from the charade that was the Hutton Inquiry.
PS sorry, Prof Hawton sees a photograph of the actual knife. And he and Mrs Kelly are looking at images of different and probably non-identical knives of course.
ReplyDeleteFelix,
ReplyDeleteThe psychiatrist being asked about the knife is from the same comedic approach to questioning as asking Janice Kelly about the communications mast!
The Hutton Inquiry was a joke. A charade.
And we're asked to believe that Hutton didn't know it was a charade! Sheesh!
Felix,
ReplyDeleteIt was Sergeant Webb who informed Janice Kelly that a body had been found (see his evidence at Page 62 of the relevant transcript).
But Sergeant Webb's subsequent search is very odd.
Almost the first thing he does is to go into David Kelly's briefcase and open a sealed letter.
Why?
VERY odd, I think.
I am surprised that Lord Hutton did not comment on how distressing this might have been - rummaging through briefcases, opening correspondence.(c.f. photocopies of knives, adjourning the Inquest into Dr Kelly's death by Lord Falconer because said he wanted to minimise the distress caused to the Kelly family etc etc)
ReplyDeleteI was led to believe that both Mrs Kelly and her daughter were 'required' to wait outside in the garden whilst a search was made of the house. (which, in my opinion, was when certain items were 'taken').
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, was there any truth in the story that wall-paper was ripped from the walls by the search team?
Felix,
ReplyDeleteI suggest that taking anything Lord Falconer said about the Kelly affair might tend to lead to misapprehension!
It's more credible, I suggest, that Lord Falconer wished to minimise the short-term distress caused to one Anthony Charles Linton Blair.
Sylvia,
ReplyDeleteSee Page 53 here http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm for Janice Kelly's account of the early monring escapade of the family being forced out of the house.
If one posttulates malign activity by Thames Valley Police (or others who may have conducted the search) there was opportunity to purloin objects while the house was empty of the family.