The title of the email was:
David Kelly - The evidence regarding the presence or otherwise of third parties
The text of the email was:
This email is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
One of the pillars on which the "suicide hypothesis" adopted by Lord Hutton is based is the notion that the presence of third parties at the scene at Harrowdown Hill can safely be excluded.
If you cannot exclude the presence of third parties, you cannot exclude murder.
The matter of third parties is expressed, for example, in the Hutton Report at paragraph 151 here: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter05.htm .
151. Those who try cases relating to a death or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard from those who saw Dr Kelly's body in the wood there were differences as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr Kelly's death.
It seems to me that, in considering the sufficiency of the evidence about the presence or otherwise of third parties, Lord Hutton demonstrates insufficiency of inquiry on two grounds:
1. Were Thames Valley Police able to detect the presence of individuals we know to have been close to or in contact with the body?
2. Lord Hutton failed adequately to consider the fact that a dead body is not capable of sitting itself up.
3. Did Lord Hutton make inquiries to exclude moving of the body by a third party?
Was the presence of known individuals detected?
If the presence of people we know to have been close to the body or to have had contact with the body cannot be detected by Thames Valley Police then there is no safe basis to exclude the presence of other parties of malevolent intent.
We know that several individuals attended the scene of the body before the pathologist examined it or the forensic scientists attended.
No evidence is presented about whether the presence of those individuals at the scene (Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, DC Coe, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett, PC Franklin, PC Sawyer) was detected.
If these seven individuals can attend the scene without evidence of their presence being detected it seems to me that there is no sound basis to exclude the presence of additional individuals of malevolent intent.
This seems to be a matter about which Thames Valley Police are reluctant to be open.
Currently, Thames Valley Police are refusing to answer Freedom of Information questions about this matter. An appeal has been lodged against Thames Valley Police's obstructive attitude.
I imagine that an appeal to the Information Commissioner will be the result of the obstructive approach currently being applied by Thames Valley Police.
Here is the text of the Freedom of Information request that Thames Valley Police are currently refusing to answer (sent 11th December 2010):
This is a Freedom of Information Act request.
The following individuals were documented, in evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry, to be close to or in contact with the body of Dr. David Kelly at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003 before the creation and search of the Common Approach Path.
For each of those individuals I wish to ask what forensic or other evidence was found during the search of the Common Approach Path, or otherwise, that demonstrated that they had been in proximity to the body found at Harrowdown Hill?
1. Louise Holmes
2. Paul Chapman
3. DC Graham Coe
4. Vanessa Hunt
5. Dave Bartlett
6. PC Dean Andrew Franklin
7. PC Jonathan Martyn Sawyer
It would, I suggest, be best should any such evidence have been found if the answer is formulated in a list with, for example, "No evidence" beside each name to which that accurately applies.And a description of the evidence for any individual for which evidence of presence was found.
Alternatively, if no forensic or other relevant evidence was found for the presence of any of the named individuals then a blanket "No evidence" would suffice.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
I view this refusal by Thames Valley Police to be one component of a cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly. As the Attorney General is aware I view the conduct of some Thames Valley Police officers as being prima facie evidence of perversion of the course of justice.
I would also point out that Thames Valley Police have a demonstrable weakness is identifying the presence of third parties in other aspects of the David Kelly case.
The premises of Dr. Kelly's dentist were broken into and records seemingly removed and replaced.
Did Thames Valley Police successfully identify the parties who did that?
Given that, I believe there is no sound basis to exclude the involvement of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.
A dead body cannot sit itself up
The direction of the vomit trails from the corners of the body's mouth demonstrate that it was likely that the body died on its back.
Lord Hutton did not seem to be aware of such a line of argument.
Given the direction of the vomit trails found at postmortem I find it very difficult to identify a way in which the body could sit itself up without the involvement of another party.
Lord Hutton refers to seeing a photograph of the body. If the body vomited and died while in that position then the vomit trails would not be as described in Dr. Nicholas Hunt's postmortem report.
Lord Hutton, in my view, seriously failed to inquire adequately into this aspect of the discrepant evidence to which he refers.
I conclude that there is insufficiency of inquiry with regard to the presence or otherwise of third parties (other than the seven individuals named earlier in this email).
Did Lord Hutton inquire into moving of the body?
If different witnesses describe different positions of the body then the possibility exists that someone has moved the body.
Did Lord Hutton cross-examine witnesses to address this fundamental question?
The answer is "No" and it ought not to have been.
I conclude that this is further evidence of "insufficiency of inquiry" by Lord Hutton.
I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and that the information contained in it will be considered by the Attorney General.
(Dr) Andrew Watt