Monday, 30 May 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Dr. Malcolm Warner

This post consists largely of a communication sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office on 4th March 2011.

My interpretation of Dr. Warner's actions has changed a little since that communication was sent but the email is put in the public domain for the record.

The title of the email was:
David Kelly - Dr. Malcolm Warner (FAO Attorney General)

The content of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

This communication is for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court for an order to hold an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

In this email I summarise a number of issues relating to Dr. Malcolm Warner, the General Practitioner of Dr. David Kelly, which I consider, at a minimum, to evidence or have resulted in "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The possibility remains open that, on further inquiry, other Section 13 criteria are also met.

In this document I summarise my concerns regarding Dr. Warner under three headings:

1. Economy with the truth re his evidence

2. Dr. Warner's (allegedly) seeing the body of Dr. David Kelly

3. Dr. Warner's name in Dr. Kelly's notebook of July 2003

I will deal with each point in turn.

1. Economy of truth in evidence

The relevant transcript is at on the Hutton Inquiry web site. See Page 4.

Dr. Warner's economy with the truth in his evidence starts with his response to the first question, "Dr. Warner can you tell the inquiry your full name?".

Dr. Warner answered, "I am Dr. Malcolm Warner.".

Dr. Warner was asked for his full name. The correct answer is, so I understand, Dr. Malcolm David Warner.

If Dr. Warner's economy with the truth was confined to his name then it is not a matter for consideration by the Attorney General.

However, Dr. Warner's economy with the truth, on the face of the evidence, is much more serious.

Dr. Kelly, so the Hutton Report narrative goes, incised his left wrist. Assuming that Dr. Kelly did not do so holding a knife in his mouth, he must have held the knife in his right hand.

It is with the functional capacity of that right hand that Dr. Warner's much more serious economy with the truth appears to arise.

Evidence from Mai Pedersen, unfortunately not given at Hutton, is to the effect that Dr. Kelly had a previous injury of the right arm/elbow that in the months prior to his death caused such incapacity as to render it difficult for him to cut steak with a knife.

Human skin is typically surprisingly tough to incise. If David Kelly had difficulty cutting steak it is highly questionable whether he could have inflicted the wounds on his left wrist described by Dr. Nicholas Hunt.

It is with this potentially crucial matter of Dr. Kelly's past injury to the right arm that Dr. Warner's economy with the truth is concerned.

In the Hutton Inquiry evidence, document TVP/10/0136 - 0137 is labelled "Letter: J Kenwright / D Warner re Dr Kelly 21.01.92 - not for release - personal information".

I understand Professor John Kenwright to have been a Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at Oxford. It would appear that in 1992 Dr. David Kelly may have required Orthopaedic Surgery.

Document TVP/10/0135 on the Hutton Inquiry web site is labelled "Trauma Service John Radcliffe Hospital: Medical Summary for Dr Kelly 04.02.92 - not for release - personal information", thus confirming the existence of trauma to Dr. Kelly early in 1992.

Thus from the titles of the two preceding documents one can deduce that David Kelly sustained bone and/or joint trauma early in 1992.

At what location in the body did that seeming orthopaedic trauma occur?

A scar described as "An old, curving scar around the outer aspect of the right elbow." was noted by Dr. Hunt in his postmortem report.

It would appear that there was an old injury at or near the right elbow, the presence of the scar suggesting a previous operation in the elbow area.

That injury appears, at least for a time, to have caused significant functional limitation necessitating physiotherapy. See document TVP/10/0134 on the Hutton Inquiry web site labelled "Oxfordshire District Physiotherapy Service Report for Dr Kelly 24.04.92 - not for release - personal information".

Assuming that the preceding interpretation is well founded then there is evidence suggesting that Dr. David Kelly sustained an injury to or near the right elbow early in 1992. The old scar is consistent with that injury requiring operation in 1992.

In his oral evidence Dr. Malcolm Warner made no mention whatsoever of Dr. Kelly's injury to the right elbow. Professor Kenwright wrote to him so it's not easy to imagine that Dr. Warner was unaware of the trauma etc.

If Dr. Kelly did have an old injury to his right elbow, then this seems to me to be an extremely serious omission on the part of Dr. Warner.

If Dr. Kelly had an old injury to the right elbow then, at a minimum, Dr. Warner should have ensured that the Hutton Inquiry was informed of that injury. He failed to do so.

Had this economy with the truth taken place on oath I suggest it might reasonably be intepreted as perjury given the obligation to express "the whole truth" and the invitation at the end of Dr. Warner's evidence at the Hutton Inquiry to make any appropriate statement on any matter not previously covered.

I can trace no point in the Hutton Inquiry transcript or report of any investigation of Dr. Kelly's right elbow injury or its functional importance.

This is an omission of monumental seriousness by Lord Hutton.

If David Kelly had, on 17th July 2003, persisting or recently occurring (e.g. due to post-traumatic arthritis of the right elbow) functional limitations of using his right hand for cutting then the "suicide hypothesis" expressed in the Hutton Report is very seriously called into question.

Information regarding the documents referred to is located at on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

This omission of evidence (assuming my interpretation is correct) is of such fundamental seriousness that I consder that there are grounds for the Police to investigate whether the seeming withholding of evidence by Dr. Warner constitutes perversion of the course of justice. As the Attorney General is aware I consider that the medical and other evidence suggests that Dr. David Kelly was murdered (see, for example, ).

2. Dr. Warner's (allegedly) seeing the body of Dr. David Kelly

I understand that the Attorney General may be aware that the former MP Robert Jackson has stated that Dr. Malcolm Warner saw the body of Dr. David Kelly.

From personal inquiries I am satisfied that Mr. Jackson genuinely believes that Dr. Warner saw Dr. Kelly's body at the scene at Harrowdown Hill.

Mr. Jackson's belief arose from statements made to him by Dr. Warner himself.

Whether Mr. Jackson was correct or misunderstood Dr. Warner, the seeming seeing of the body by Dr. Warner (in person or, for example, via scene video) is a matter that Lord Hutton should have established, in my view.

The possible identification by Dr. Warner (assuming Mr. Jackson was not mistaken) may have occurred very early after discovery of the body. How else, one might ask, could Sarah Pape have been informed around 10.30 on 18th July 2003 that the body was David Kelly (see Sarah Pape's oral evidence here at page 93: ) and that it was suicide?

The reason why Dr. Warner may have seen the body is not disclosed. It may merely be unusual but the possibility remains open that it was improper.

The seeming failure by Dr. Warner to disclose this matter to the Hutton Inquiry is in favour more of something improper than something unusual having taken place.

Again, this is a matter that Lord Hutton failed to inquire into. Further evidence of insufficiency of inquiry, in my view.

3. Dr. Warner's name in Dr. Kelly's notebook of July 2003

This point is new and arises from something I noticed in the Hutton Inquiry evidence only this week.

It is thus new evidence; arguably very new evidence!

The Notebook in which Dr. Kelly made speaking notes for his appearance at the Intelligence and Security Committee on 16th July 2003 is document TVP/3/0116 - 0129 located at .

On page 1 of the notebook there are notes for the ISC meeting.

One can assume those speaking notes were made no earlier than 11th July 2003.

The mention of Dr. Warner is in a heavily redacted section on page 11 of the notebook. And is followed by 3 pages which are withheld from the public.

Thus, assuming that Dr. Kelly used the notebook sequentially, there was some matter of common interest between Dr. Kelly and Dr. Warner sometime around or after 11th July 2003.

Dr. Warner gave no evidence about this.

Lord Hutton made no inquiry into this.

I submit that this is further evidence of insufficiency of inquiry.

In the interests of transparency I am copying this email to Dr. Warner, who may be able to shed light on the concerns which I raise herein.

I would be grateful if you would confirm safe receipt of this email and that the Attorney General will consider this matter when deciding whether an application to the High Court is appropriate.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

No comments:

Post a Comment