Monday, 6 December 2010

The death of David Kelly - Evidence from the postmortem report that it was murder

This post consists largely of a communication to the Attorney General's Office indicating that new evidence, at least "new" with respect to the Hutton Inquiry, suggests that the death of David Kelly was murder.

In addition to being sent to the Attorney General's Office, the email was also forwarded to Thames Valley Police in relation to URN514 of 28/10/10.

The email to the Attorney General's Office has been acknowledged.

As yet, some 14 days later, no acknowledgement has been received by me from Thames Valley Police.

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 04:17:45 EST
Subject: Death of Dr. David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder
CC: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FAO Dominic Grieve QC, Attorney General

Mr McGinty,

I would be grateful if you would ensure that this email is collated with previous correspondence to the Attorney General from me relating to the need for the Attorney General to seek an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

To the best of my knowledge and belief the content of this email is credible, positive evidence of second party involvement in the death of Dr. David Kelly.

In my view, the evidence in this email constitutes "new evidence" in the context of a potential application by the Attorney General to the High Court to seek an order that an inquest be carried out into the death of Dr. David Kelly in 2003.

Given the technical nature of the argument I imagine that the Attorney General (and Thames Valley Police) will require to get independent, expert assessment of the credibility of the argument I put forward in this email.

Briefly, on the basis of a piece of evidence in the recently published postmortem report I conclude that a second party was involved in relation to Dr. Kelly's death and, since I can identify no "innocent explanation" for second party involvement I conclude, therefore, that the death of Dr. Kelly was murder.

I further conclude that Dr. Kelly's body was moved twice rather than the once that has previously publicly been discussed.

The basis for that first bolded statement is a combination of evidence in the postmortem report by Dr. Nicholas Hunt of 25th July 2003 which was made available publicly by the Ministry of Justice on 22nd October 2010 together with evidence from some simple experiments I have conducted since reading the postmortem report.

The following is the relevant part of Dr. Hunt's postmortem report:

• There was a band of what appeared to be vomitus running from the right corner of the mouth, slightly upwards over the right earlobe tip and then onto the right mastoid area. This appeared to have relatively uniform and parallel sides. Such material was noted around the mouth over both upper and lower lips. Vomitus could also be seen running from the left corner of the mouth and there was a possible patch of vomit staining in proximity to the left shoulder on the ground. There was some vomit staining on the back of the left shoulder area of the waxed jacket and also on the outer aspect of the upper sleeve of that side of the jacket.

It is not directly made clear in the postmortem report what direction the vomit from the left corner of the mouth took. However, given that there is vomit staining close to the left shoulder it can reasonably be inferred that on the left side, too, the vomit tracked towards the region of the mastoid.

The existence of the band of vomit from the right corner of the mouth to the right mastoid area is documented at the scene on Page 4 of the postmortem report of 25th July 2003. One can therefore exclude the possibility that the vomit trail was created long after death, for example, during transport of the body to the mortuary in a body bag.

The existence of a track of vomit from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid is evidence that the vomiting occurred while the body was supine i.e. with its back on the ground.

Vomiting in that position and the documented vomit track(s) is strongly suggestive that it was an agonal event, occurring while Dr. Kelly was deeply unconscious or at the point of death.

If Dr. Kelly were conscious at the time of vomiting then quasi-reflexly he would have sat forward (at least to some degree) and/or rolled to the side (to maintain a clear airway) causing the vomit tracks to have been present some distance forward of the mastoid process.

If, as I suggest, the vomiting was agonal occurring while Dr. Kelly was on his back, serious problems arise for the "suicide hypothesis".

There is clear evidence from Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman that the body they saw was "slumped" or "sitting" against a tree. They were the only two individuals who saw the body prior to the arrival of DC Coe on the scene, according to the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.

The problem for the "suicide hypothesis" is how the body gets from a supine position to a "slumped" or "sitting" position, given that Dr. Kelly was either unconscious or dead when the vomiting occurred in the supine position.

A further problem for the suicide hypothesis is that vomit does not track from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid area given a slumped or sitting position. It tends to run down from the lower lip (rather than down from the corner of the mouth) far forward of the mastoid area. So the observed vomit tracks on the body are inconsistent with the position of the body when found. (I tested the flow of water from the lax mouth in a variety of body, neck and head positions. It runs from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid area only when the occiput is orientated posteriorly. That is not surprising given the effect of gravity.)

To acknowledge that, in all likelihood, Dr. Kelly died on his back and reconcile that with the first observed position of the body one has to postulate either a "Lazarus hypothesis", the suspension of the Laws of Gravity or the involvement of a second party prior to the body being found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman.

The suspension of the Laws of Gravity can safely be discounted. What of the "Lazarus hypothesis"? Could Dr. Kelly have roused sufficiently to sit himself up? Given the likelihood of his being unconscious or dying at the time of the vomiting, I think the possibility of him sitting himself up is far-fetched and need not be considered credible.

Accordingly, I conclude that a second party was present prior to the body being found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman. The second party, at a minimum, moved the body from a supine to a slumped or sitting position.

This, in my view, is the first time that the body was moved.

It also appears from the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry that the body was moved a second time.

Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman gave evidence of a body slumped or sitting against a tree.

The paramedic, Dave Bartlett, gave evidence subsequent to Hutton that he could get between the tree and the head of the body and that he stood there. Since he is the only person who has (so far as I know) directly addressed that point, I take it as true (until such time as the question is examined in more detail at an inquest).

Notice the substantive change of body position from "slumped" or "sitting" against a tree to there being space between the head and the tree.

The body appears to have been moved a second time!

Can either moving of the body be "innocent" and consistent with the "suicide hypothesis".

If the "suicide hypothesis" is correct then, so far as I can identify, no second party (or third party) would have a motive to interfere with the position of the body. It is only necessary to move the body if some purpose is being served by moving it.

I conclude that there is no innocent explanation for the body having been moved on either occasion.

If the body was moved before it was found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman then a second party, hitherto unidentified, was present at the scene whose presence was not made known to the Hutton Inquiry.

I can identify no "innocent" explanation for any second party being present at the scene, moving the body and failing to report the presence of the body to, for example, the Police.

I conclude, therefore, that the second party (or parties) had malign intent and that the death of Dr. David Kelly was murder.

The person with greatest opportunity to move the body on the second occasion was DC Coe who, according to the evidence given to Hutton, was the only person with the body while it seemingly moved from the sitting position seen by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman to the supine position seen by Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt.

For completeness, I will briefly consider the possibility that the vomit trails were created by the movement of the body from its observed initial "sitting" position to a supine position. The experiments I tried with water in my mouth in a "slumped" or "sitting" position then moving to a supine position the water retreated back into the mouth rather than spilling over at the corners of the mouth. Accordingly, I conclude that moving from a slumped / sitting position to a supine position does not account for the existence of the vomit trails.

In this email I have presented the evidence "in isolation". It should, of course, more properly be considered in the context of the totality of the evidence, for example, in the context of the evidence that I presented to you recently that Dr. Kelly had no motive to commit suicide on 17th July 2003.

Given that it is acknowledged by Thames Valley Police that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry regarding the presence of a third individual at the scene, it seems to me that DC Coe should formally be interviewed regarding the identity of the "third man" and about the conduct of all parties present at or close to the scene between the departure of Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman and the arrival of Dave Bartlett and Vaness Hunt. Similarly "DC Shields" and the "third man" also ought formally to be interviewed by Thames Valley Police, in my view.

In my opinion, the evidence of the need for an inquest is overwhelming.

Similarly, I think there is a very strong case that Thames Valley Police should actively investigate new evidence such as I present here and review the credibility (or otherwise) of assumptions made by them and others in 2003 and the evidence which was based on such questionable assumptions.

I plan to forward a copy of this email to Thames Valley Police, asking them to re-open (if such is necessary) the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

No comments:

Post a Comment