Today I added to that correspondence by drawing the Attorney General's attention to the possibility that Dr. Kelly was held in a "safe house" against his will at some time in July 2003.
I further asked the Attorney General to examine the possibility that Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold may have perverted the course of justice in light of possible deficiencies in the oral evidence that they, respectively, gave to the Hutton Inquiry.
As I pointed out to the Attorney General I am not in a position definitively to answer such questions. However, I very much hope that the Attorney General will act so as to uncover the truth relating to all aspects of what I believe to have been the murder of David Kelly and about the subsequent cover up of that murder.
The email was sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.
The title was:
David Kelly - Evidence that he may have been kidnapped
The text of the email was as follows:
I would be grateful if you would draw this communication to the attention of the Attorney General in the context of previous correspondence in which I draw the Attorney General's attention to the need, on the basis of multiple criteria in law (as expressed in Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988), for an inquest to be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.
I write to draw the Attorney General's attention to possibly new evidence suggesting that Dr. David Kelly may have been held against his will in a "safe house" at some time in July 2003, or thereby. Further, it seems to me that there may be prima facie evidence that there may have been "insufficiency of inquiry" and/or "irregularity of proceedings" with respect to inquiries by Lord Hutton and/or by Thames Valley Police relating to this matter.
Briefly, it appears that Janice Kelly stated on the morning of 18th July 2003 that David Kelly had been held in a "safe house" at some time shortly before his death.
I summarise the sources for the statement attributed to Janice Kelly here:
No oral evidence was, so far as I can trace, given to the Hutton Inquiry on this potentially very serious matter.
My understanding is that contemporary evidence is, unless compelling criteria indicate otherwise, accorded very high credibility.
So far as I can establish, the "safe house" statement attributed to Janice Kelly was propagated on 18th July 2003 within approximately six hours of her having, supposedly, made the statement. On the basis of timing it seems to me that the "safe house" statement should be accorded very high credibility.
Clearly, I cannot directly corroborate or disprove the "safe house" story. However, it seems to me that the Attorney General, either directly or via an appropriate Police force (or Police forces), is in a position to establish the facts regarding this new evidence and has a duty to do so.
It seems to me that both Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton each had a duty fully to examine this evidence, given that the "safe house" statement was in the public domain while their respective investigations were taking place.
I am unable to trace any evidence in the public domain that either Thames Valley Police or Lord Hutton adequately investigated this matter.
If Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton failed by reason of unawareness, incompetence or other reasons, to investigate this evidence it seems to me that this is further evidence of "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988. A competent and diligent coroner would have instructed Thames Valley Police to establish the facts on this matter. So far as I can trace, Lord Hutton failed to do so.
If Thames Valley Police and/or Lord Hutton were aware of the evidence but chose not to examine the issue in the way that would reasonably be required that seems to me to be serious "irregularity of proceedings" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988. A coroner of integrity would not have acted in such a way.
If Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton were genuinely unaware of this contemporary evidence of "kidnapping" of David Kelly then there seems to me to be "discovery of new facts or evidence", in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988.
Whichever of the options stated in the three preceding paragraphs is correct, it seems to me that there may be a further basis re the grounds expressed in Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988 that the Attorney General seek an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
It further seems to me that, if the "safe house" story is true, both Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold failed to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that is satisfactory in terms of accuracy and completeness.
If my conclusion (expressed in previous correspondence to the Attorney General) is correct that David Kelly was murdered (see http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-evidence-that-it.html in the public domain, for example) then it seems to me that there is a case for investigating whether the possible insufficiency of evidence of Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold given to the Hutton Inquiry is sufficiently deficient that it might constitute perverting the course of justice.
Given that there is prima facie evidence that David Kelly may have been held against his will, I would further suggest that there may be a duty attaching to the Attorney General to report this possible crime to the relevant Police force(s) in order to ensure that the matter is, possibly for the first time, fully investigated.
I would be grateful if you would confirm that the Attorney General will consider the content of this communication in the context of his consideration of the need for inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
I would be grateful if the Attorney General would inform me of the steps he has instituted to ensure that the possible crimes of kidnapping and perverting the course of justice to which I draw his attention in this email are fully and appropriately investigated by the relevant Police force(s) in order to establish the truth of the matter.
As the Attorney General is aware, I have reported to Thames Valley Police (URN514 of 28/10/10) my belief that Dr. David Kelly was murdered. I am copying this email to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.
(Dr) Andrew Watt