The Death of David Kelly - Insufficiency of Inquiry into the Evidence of David Broucher

This post consists largely of the text of an email sent today to Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

The title of the email was,

Dr. David Kelly - Insufficient inquiry into David Broucher's evidence

The body of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

I write further to previous correspondence to the Attorney General regarding the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

In this email I wish to draw to your attention the "insufficiency of inquiry" by Lord Hutton into the evidence of the diplomat Mr. David Broucher.

Mr. Broucher gave the startling evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that David Kelly had told him that, in certain circumstances, he (David Kelly) expected to be found dead in the woods. See the evidence of David Broucher here: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans17.htm.

The quote from David Broucher about David Kelly probably being found dead in the woods is on Page 145 of the transcript.

Rachel Kelly who appeared before Lord Hutton a few days later cast doubt on the recollected date of the meeting between David Broucher and David Kelly.

Without taking the opportunity to clarify with Mr. Broucher whether any seeming discrepancy about dates was substantive or not, Lord Hutton concluded in his report that David Broucher met David Kelly only in February 2002 (which was a nonsensical conclusion given David Broucher's evidence).

Some time subsequent to the Hutton Report, Mr Broucher clarified in a letter to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he had met David Kelly in both February 2002 and February 2003.

I submit that it is gross insufficiency of inquiry on this matter and irregularity of process for Lord Hutton to use conjecture about dates by Rachel Kelly to dismiss Mr. Broucher's potentially important evidence without cross-examining him about the seeming discrepancies.

David Kelly's expectation of being "found dead in the woods" might mean he expected to be murdered. Or it might mean that he expected to commit suicide. A more serious attempt ought, I submit, be made to attempt to clarify if any light might be shed on which of those two possibilities was intended.

I would be grateful if the Attorney General would add consideration of this matter to the matters previously drawn to his attention suggesting the need for an application to the High Court to order an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

(Dr) Andrew Watt