Anyone who comes fresh to examine the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry struggles to get some firm grasp on the evidence.
One reason is that there is such a huge quantity of information.
Another reason for that difficulty, I suggest, is that a number of witnesses lied to the Hutton Inquiry.
In the following list I propose to begin a process to consider witnesses regarding whom there may be prima facie evidence to suggest that the veracity of their evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry should be questioned.
Meantime I'll list only one person's evidence which I believe to be suspect.
I'm aware, I believe, of four more witnesses whose veracity is, at best, open to question.
1. DC Coe - He stated that he was accompanied only by DC Shields. The evidence of Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman is that DC Coe was accompanied by two others.
When adding comments, please use a Person - Reason to question evidence format before any more general comment.
Some discrepancies may be explicable on the basis of a simple mistake. Other "mistakes" may have a more sinister interpretation.
As a first step I think it would be useful to identify "discrepancies" perhaps as a prelude to attempting to identify discrepancies which can reasonably be considered to be lies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd like to get Dr Sarah Pape back to explain precisely just how she can consult a book (which book?) and divine that an (01726)STD phone number comes precisely from Mevagissey. A BT expert would also be helpful in this nexus,identifying how one might pinpoint Mevagissey, how long it might take and the area covered by the 01726 code.
ReplyDelete(See this page of the Hutton Inquiry, paras 72/3)
Felix,
ReplyDeleteShe might have had access to hard copy with information like there is here:
http://www.ukphoneinfo.com/search.php?GNG=01726&d=nl
Andrew
ReplyDeleteI only remember alphabetically arranged information in small books. She could have said internet but didn't. Perhaps someone can advise about numerically arranged published lists. Even phone books dropped alphabetical lists in their intros.
How about this....
Dr Pate "I tried to ring him that evening when I got home. I think I phoned once or twice. The house phone did not have an answer machine on it so I could not leave a message."
Or this exchange with Andrew Gilliigan...
LORD HUTTON: "You say you had not got through. Did you try his home number?
A. Yes.
LORD HUTTON: And what, there was no reply?
A. There was an answer machine.
And here Mr Dingemans examines Susan Watts
QC:"Did you in fact make contact with Dr Kelly after that?
A. Yes, I rang him on his home number; and I think I got his answer machine."
2-1 for an answering machine.
Oooh, No Answering Maching pulls back a late equaliser in extra time...making it 2 all.....
ReplyDeleteOlivia Bosch (work colleague): "Then I -- there was no answer machine. Then I tried his mobile and he picked up."
Q And he picked that up?"
Olivia Bosch (colleague, so perhaps part of the official narrative)! No answering machine! Also she says that phones were down in Southmoor on that day. (highly unlikely, unless perhaps MI5 dug up the road)
Mrs Kelly ought to know whether she had an answering machine in the house, but then I wouldn't believe what she said anyway.
My money is on Susan Watts for the right answer who can't be part of the plot, can she? She had her own legal representation at the Hutton Inquiry. In any case, it seems highly unlikely that Dr Kelly would not have had an answering machine. So what is being covered up here?
Whilst we are on it, Olivia Bosch's narrative around this point - i.e. flushing Dr Kelly and his wife out of their house on the evening of 9th July 2003 - deserves careful reading....
ReplyDeleteA. "Yes, I called him on that evening, yes.
Q. Can you recall what time you called him, roughly?
A. Around 7-ish or so, 7/8 -- 7-ish.
Q. What telephone did you call him on, his mobile phone or his home line?
A. I probably would have used -- started on --what did it say -- did it say mobile? I would normally have called, first instance, his land line. There were some problems in the village at some point; I think in one of the earlier e-mails where I said I tried to call him on the Sunday, the village had problems and everyone's phone line was down. So I would have tried anyway his home --sorry, the land line. Then I -- there was no answer machine. Then I tried his mobile and he picked up.
Q. And he picked that up?"
What on earth is this garbage:
"WHAT DID IT IT SAY? DID IT SAY MOBILE?" What DOES that mean??
What is IT??