I have checked the Hutton Inquiry web site and can find not a single mention of closed-circuit television or other similar devices having been present at the home of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.
This strikes me as a startling omission.
Consider the position.
David Kelly, as I understand it, had several computers (assumed to store highly sensitive information) and voluminous paperwork (of similar nature) in his study/office at home.
David Kelly spent much of his time away from home.
Is it likely that an assortment of intelligence services or other such organisations would be happy for their information to be vulnerable to theft by a casual burglar?
I would suggest, firmly, that such an scenario is wholly unbelievable.
The question then becomes what security measures would such agencies insist on at David Kelly's home.
It seems to me that, at a minimum, CCTV would have been installed.
If CCTV was installed, why was there not a single mention at the Hutton Inquiry of the presence of CCTV or what it showed?
It could have, for example, shown exactly what time he left his home on the afternoon of 17th July 2003. And whether he was alone or accompanied. And whether he seemed to have left of his own free will or under duress.
And it would be very odd for Lord Hutton not to inquire about that.
Surely in his time as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland he had CCTV at home?
And, yet, he seems not to have even considered the possibility that CCTV evidence might be available.
The "see no evil" approach?
If CCTV was present at David Kelly's home, why would ACC Page and other Thames Valley Police officers fail to mention it at the Hutton Inquiry?
CCTV is such an obvious facility to expect at Dr. Kelly's house. So far as I can gather, nobody has asked about it up to now.
You have to wonder why not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What about a GPS device? Wouldn't Kelly have had one in his mobile phone, or in his watch, or in his belt? Or under his skin? Someone with access to top security intelligence would not be allowed to move around without a tracker. Especially with the immense political furore focusing on him. If so they'd have known he was on Harrowdown.
ReplyDeleteRowena
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting observation! One of the many things that has bothered me is how much police attention was focussed on HH. Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman are given that area to search. Same with PCs Franklin and Sawyer and team. And lo and behold DC Coe and company turn up there as well.
As usual, ACC Page has all the answers. Read -paras 21-24 of his evidence, Wed 3rd September. It is just too crazy to comprehend - vague advisors called in, Special Branch,DI Smith the area detective inspector and hey presto we're all off to Harrowdown Hill.
ReplyDeleteWho is DI Smith? I guess this is DI Kevin Smith , who is seen in this photo with Chief Constable Sara Thornton. No statement to the Hutton Inquiry is given by DI Smith, but he does appear in an unexpected place,TVP/10/0106 - 0110 relating to FCO material rather than Harrowdown Hill. And is the area commander the female Chief Superintendent mentioned earlier by ACC Page,Katherine Govier?
Wonder if the Divers and Horses ever arrived?
Sergeant Paul Woods , the search expert, did actually make a witness statement to the Hutton Inquiry, document TVP/7/0042 -0043, not for release. Sgt Woods appears as Wood in Mr Page's evidence:
ReplyDelete"I also asked for a qualified police search adviser Sergeant Paul Wood."
He is correctly identified as his Sergeant by
PC Dean Franklin in his evidence as Paul Woods. This fits in with the structure of the Tactical Support Specialist Search and Recovery Team, or SSST, currently 1 Sergeant and 7 PCs. A Superintendent currently oversees the nine disciplines of the TVP Tactical Support .
Why, though, would they be based in the Home of the late Queen Mother (and subsequently Prince Andrew), Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park?
Felix,
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating that Sergeant Woods seems to have been PC Franklin's superior officer (re the search) but he is not questioned by Hutton.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteGood spot re Katherine Govier.
Her career does seem to fit with the unnamed female officer who phoned ACC Page.
Other than phoning ACC Page, I'm not aware of her re-appearing in the public narrative.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteA propos of TVP/10/0106 - 0110, David Pearson was at the Treasury Solicitors (Head of Litigation?).
On 18th August 2003 David Pearson sent the Broucher evidence with a covering letter.
What was in the letter?
Broucher, by the way, gave his oral evidence on 21st August.
Rowena,
ReplyDeleteI suppose GPS may be possible.
I can't remember how good GPS was in 2003. How compact would the necessary postulated tracker be?
I tend to favour a lower tech explanation - that David Kelly on the afternoon of 17th July 2003 was followed by a human being (or team of human beings).
Intelligence agencies will have access to all kinds of technology we know nothing about. GPS might have been old technology for them, back in 2003. It would have been essential, wouldn't it, Kelly being out in Iraq so frequently, to ensure he was equipped with a tracker of some kind? He'd had a laser trained on his forehead by the Iraqis -- intel would have had to know where to locate him at all times. Plus, with his top security access, it would be remiss not to have been tracking him in the UK. I doubt they'd want to have him tracked on the ground by personnel on a constant basis - although after Gilligan, it might have been considered 'necessary'.
ReplyDeleteThere was no need for a lot of CCTV. I have given much thought to this issue. It’s actually not as complicated as you might imagine.
ReplyDelete1. Kelly’s movements would be known to the security services virtually 24/7. That’s obvious, he worked for them!
2. The House would be almost certainly be alarmed and may have been under some sort of surveillance. I have looked at the houses and other buildings opposite and I think the most likely place for a camera was on one of the telegraph poles in the street. There is one right outside his house. Google street view shows it quite well. I am not the slightest bit surprised none of this gets a mention at Hutton; it’s a security service issue, not something to be discussed in the open.
3. It is my belief that the people behind DK’s abduction and murder could have had access to the latest GPS technology, and I would agree with Rowena that he may have been being watched from the sky.
4. We need also to remember that the press had been hovering about in the area over the last few days…..another good cover for anybody to track his movements and familiarise themselves with the locality.
5. I have looked at the routes he used when he went walking. This was also dead easy, his wife Janice has published a series of booklets in the “Thematic Trails” series itemising the footpaths around Southmoor and Longworth. These booklets make interesting reading…….Harrowdown Hill gets a lot of publicity! Locals have also told me that he would never stray off the footpaths.
6. There are four such footpaths that cross the A420 and create a circular walk. Which ever way he went he would have to walk on at least two of them. Two are footpaths to the west of Southmoor which cross Paul Weavings land and come out in Longworth village, the third one is a path called Beggers Lane in Southmoor it crosses the A420 to become Harris’s Lane running just to the east of Cow Lane which then takes you into Longworth. (This is the one that Ruth Absalom used) The fourth footpath is a disused road called Draycott Road, this runs from a the Faringdon Road a few hundred yards east of DK’s house, through Southmoor and over the A420 to join the Appleton Road opposite the entrance to Draycott Moor Farm to the east of Longworth.
7. On the eastbound carriageway of the A420 there is a long lay-by. From this lay-by you can see the first three paths where they cross the A420. So a car or van parked there would see DK either coming or going. That’s all it takes, just a tip-off from the security services to say when he leaves the house and a couple of guys in a van parked in a lay-by.