The only evidence on these mysterious events given to Lord Hutton seems to have been that given by Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003 (see Pages 202 and 203 of the transcript).
For convenience, I reproduce ACC Page's full evidence here:
9 Q. Were you ever contacted by Dr Kelly's dentist?
10 A. Yes, we did receive a telephone call from Dr Kelly's
11 dentist, shortly -- I cannot recall whether it was on
12 the day that he died or the day after but we did receive
13 a call, yes.
14 Q. What was that about?
15 A. The doctor -- the dentist, rather, expressed some
16 concerns. Upon hearing of Dr Kelly's death on Friday
17 18th July, she was aware he was a patient and apparently
18 the practice has a process whereby patients are
19 contacted shortly before an appointment. She was aware
20 that he was due an appointment shortly and she did not
21 want to cause distress to Dr Kelly or his family, so she
22 went to the filing cabinet to find his notes of his
23 dental records and they were missing.
24 Q. So what did the police do?
25 A. We carried out a full examination of the surgery and, in
1 particular, one window which the dentist was concerned
2 may not have been secure. We found no trace of anything
3 untoward either in the surgery or on the window.
4 Q. Did you carry out any further investigations as a result
5 of this?
6 A. Yes, the dental records -- we had another call from the
7 dentist to say that the dental records had reappeared on
8 the Sunday in the place in the filing cabinet where they
9 should have been. We forensically examined those and
10 could find no evidence of extraneous fingerprints or
11 whatever on that file. However, upon hearing about
12 this, and again I stress because I am a police officer
13 and probably inherently suspicious, because dental
14 records are a means of identification it did prompt me
15 to take the extra precaution of having DNA checks
16 carried out to confirm that the body we had was the body
17 of Dr Kelly, notwithstanding the fact that that had been
18 identified by his family.
19 Q. Did you have those DNA checks carried out?
20 A. I did and they confirmed that it was the body of
21 Dr Kelly.
Several interesting issues occur to me:
1. Notice how casual the questioning of ACC Page is. He either doesn't know or chooses not to disclose when the call came from the dentist. Surely that's a basic piece of information in terms of how it relates to David Kelly's death. And the counsel to the Inquiry lets him off with that vagueness. ACC Page should have been made to disclose the timeline of events.
2. When on Friday 18th July did the dentist notice that David Kelly's dental records were missing?
3. Notice that Thames Valley Police investigated the disappearance of the records. One has to assume that they looked in the relevant filing cabinet and confirmed that the records were missing.
4. The dental records of David Kelly (or documents that purport to be the dental records of David Kelly) reappear.
5. The Police can't solve this mystery either. But the Hutton Inquiry seems uninterested. Truly bizarre.
It is not credible that the dentist simply couldn't find the records. Thames Valley Police, we are told, "carried out a full examination of the surgery".
Assuming that the examination was "full", then the conclusion is that David Kelly's dental records were missing from the surgery at the time.
Then David Kelly's dental records (or something purporting to be them) inexplicably reappear.
Two possible interpretations occur to me:
1. A member of staff of the dental surgery replaced the records but lied to cover that up. (That assumes that Thames Valley Police investigated thoroughly).
2. Someone entered the dental surgery premises (in all likelihood twice) and that person's entry (or entries) of the premises were undetected by Thames Valley Police.
If interpretation 2. is the correct one (and I tend to think it may be) then we learn that an individual exists whose movements Thames Valley Police cannot detect.
If Thames Vally Police were incapable of detecting the presence of an individual at the dentist's surgery it raises questions about whether the TVP were equally incapable of detecting the presence of a "third man" at the scene where the body of David Kelly was found.
Entirely in keeping with the sloppy questioning of witnesses at the Hutton Inquiry, nobody makes this basic connection.
Several question are of particular interest.
1. What motive could there be for a "third man" to remove David Kelly's dental records?
2. Was it simply to ascertain their contents?
3. Was it to alter their contents?
4. What could David Kelly's dental records contain that was of such importance as to risk a buglary (albeit, seemingly, a highly skilled burglary) so close to the time that David Kelly may have been killed?