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.