Thursday 23 June 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Reform of the Office of Attorney General

Readers who are interested in the constitutional role and powers of the Attorney General may find the following 2008 report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution to be of interest: Reform of the Office of Attorney General.

The Death of David Kelly - Judicial Review in English Law

In a functioning democracy the decisions of the executive are, in principle, subject to judicial review.

Readers may be interested in the following Wikipedia article which broadly outlines the principles which apply to judicial review in English Law: Judicial review in English law.

Thursday 16 June 2011

The Death of David Kelly - The conflict in the photographic evidence

This post consists primarily of a slightly unorthodox Freedom of Information Request made to Thames Valley Police earlier today.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Conflict in the photographic evidence


The text of the email to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton and Mr. Malcolm Hopgood was as follows:


This email is addressed to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton and Mr. Malcolm Hopgood of Thames Valley Police.

Chief Constable Thornton and Mr. Hopgood,

The statement about the death of Dr. David Kelly made to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP was, in my view, dishonest.

One material dishonesty by Mr. Grieve relates to the photographic evidence indicating that the body of Dr. David Kelly was moved. Contrary to such evidence Mr. Grieve claimed that the body had not been moved.

Lord Hutton (paragraph 151 of his report) stated that he had seen a photograph with Dr. Kelly's head against the tree.

Dr. Richard Shepherd (page 5 of his report of 16th March 2011) stated that there was a significant gap between the head and the tree. That gap, as Thames Valley Police knows, was sufficient to allow ambulanceman Dave Bartlett to stand in that gap and make an assessment of whether Dr. Kelly was or was not dead and assist his colleague Vanessa Hunt with the ECG assessment of death.

It seems that there is photographic evidence showing the body in two different positions.

At least that is the position if both Lord Hutton and Dr. Shepherd are to be believed.

Despite the evidence that the body was photographed in two distinct positions, on 9th June 2011 the Attorney General perversely rejected the possibility that Dr. Kelly's body has been moved.

If photographs exist which show the body of Dr. Kelly in two positions then Mr. Grieve's statement to the House of Commons seems to me to be dishonest, perverse and contrary to the evidence.

In this email I wish to ask Thames Valley Police the following questions:

1. Does any photograph in the possession of Thames Valley Police show the head of Dr. David Kelly against a tree? If so, on what date and at what time(s) were any such photographs taken?

2. Does any photograph in the possession of Thames Valley Police show a gap between the head of Dr. David Kelly and the tree in question? If so, on what date and at what time(s) were any such photographs taken?

3. What estimate of the distance between Dr. Kelly's head and the tree has been made by Thames Valley Police in any and all photographs referred to in question 2?

4. Does Thames Valley Police accept that Dr. Kelly's body was photographed in two positions?

I ask Thames Valley Police to consider the evidence about which I ask questions in relation to my report to them (URN 514 of 28/10/10) that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered.

I have copied this email to Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball.

I have copied this email to the Attorney General in view of his dishonest statement to Parliament on 9th June 2011. See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html for background.

I have also copied this email to Craig Oliver and Steve Field at Number 10 in view of the political sensitivities of a dishonest statement to Parliament by the United Kingdom's Attorney General.

I would be grateful if, in the first instance, Mr. Hopgood would process this as a Freedom of Information request in the normal way.

Should Thames Valley Police choose to disclose the requested evidence fully, transparently and honestly by another route that would be welcome.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Monday 13 June 2011

The Death of David Kelly - What evidence is there that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough?

Was the knife found at Harrowdown Hill sharp enough to make the wounds described in Dr. David Kelly's left wrist?

We simply don't know, so far as I'm aware.

There is no forensic evidence that I'm aware of that demonstrates that the knife was sharp enough.

Yet the United Kingdom's bold Attorney General told the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 that there is "overwhelming evidence" that David Kelly took his own life.

If the sharpness of the knife hasn't been tested in a forensic laboratory then Mr. Grieve's statement is based on no more than a guess about the sharpness of the knife.

The following summarises my response to Mr. Grieves's statement:

Is it the official position of the United Kingdom's Attorney General that it is sufficient to guess whether or not the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds?

Guessing about the sharpness of the knife plays no legitimate part in what purported to have been "most careful consideration" of the matters in hand. The Attorney General ought to be ashamed of such sloppiness.


Below is an email sent earlier today to Dominic Grieve QC MP and Edward Garnier QC MP.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - What evidence is there that the knife was sharp enough?


The text of the email was:


[This email is for the urgent attention of Dominic Grieve QC MP, Attorney General and Edward Garnier QC MP, Solicitor General.]

Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier,

I write to enquire what forensic evidence exists that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to make the wounds described on Dr. David Kelly's left wrist.

In his statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 Mr. Grieve stated the following:

"Having given the most careful consideration to all the material that has been sent to me, I have concluded that the evidence that Dr Kelly took his own life is overwhelmingly strong.".

Such a conclusion of suicide depends on the knife found at the scene being sharp enough to make all the described wounds.

The Attorney General is aware that the sharpness of the knife found at the scene has been questioned.

I, for example, questioned whether David Kelly had, over a period of some years, had sufficient functional capacity in his right arm to sharpen what was, supposedly, a 40 or 50 year old knife.

See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-his-inability-to.html
for a copy of my email of 2nd May 2011.

The "suicide hypothesis" depends on the knife found at the scene being sufficiently sharp so as to be capable of making the wounds described.

If the knife found at the scene isn't sharp enough to make the wounds, then another knife must have done so. If that other knife is not present at the scene then another (second) party must have removed the knife which caused (some of) the wounds.

Dr. Richard Shepherd, in his report to the Attorney General, has stated that assessment of the sharpness of the knife does not lie in the domain of the forensic pathologist:

"It does not lie within the remit of the forensic pathologist to make a final assessment of the sharpness of an object at the scene. ... The pathologist must rely on assessments made by forensic expert scientists in controlled laboratory conditions."

Dr. Shepherd's report in online here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf

The quote is from page 14 of 21.

Dr. Shepherd states that it is not the job of the forensic pathologist formally to assess the sharpness of the knife.

On that point I believe that Dr. Shepherd is correct in his assessment.

It was simply insufficient for the forensic pathologist of the time, Dr. Nicholas Hunt, to have referred to the knife found at the scene as a "candidate". That conjecture needed to be tested.

In 2003 Thames Valley Police, in my view, had a duty to commission an expert forensic assessment of whether or not the knife found at the scene was sharp enough.

Did Thames Valley Police do so?

I write to request a copy of the report by a "forensic expert scientist" that demonstrates that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to create the wounds described in 2003 by Dr. Nicholas Hunt.

If, as I suspect, no such expert forensic assessment of the sharpness of the knife has ever been carried out then, it is unknown whether or not the knife found at the scene was used to create the wounds.

If there is no evidence that the knife found at the scene was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds then the supposed "overwhelming evidence" is fatally flawed at its foundation.

Is it the official position of the United Kingdom's Attorney General that it is sufficient to guess whether or not the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds?

Guessing about the sharpness of the knife plays no legitimate part in what purported to have been "most careful consideration" of the matters in hand. The Attorney General ought to be ashamed of such sloppiness.

If no forensic assessment has ever been carried out of the sharpness of the knife I ask the Attorney General to go to the House of Commons and apologise to the House for misleading it regarding the weight of evidence in relation to the death of Dr. Kelly.

In view of my expectation that Thames Valley Police ought formally to have had the sharpness of the knife assessed 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.

If a suitable report exists of an expert forensic science assessment of the sharpness of the knife, no doubt Thames Valley Police will wish to place it in the public domain.

I am also copying this email to Mr. Peter Jacobsen who I understand to be the Kelly family solicitor.

I am placing a copy of this email online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html


I look forward to your early reply.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June

[place holder][Edited 14/06/2011 07.10 approx to paste content into this post.]

The statement of the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 is false in material particulars.

In a recent post, The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign , I drew attention to the illogical and false position taken by Mr. Grieve in relation to photographs stated to have shown Dr. Kelly's body in two positions. Yet Mr. Grieve, wholly against the evidence, seeks to lead the public to believe that David Kelly's body hadn't been moved.

In this post I draw attention to a component of Mr. Grieve's statement that is untrue and misleading but where the blame for the dishonesty appears to lie elsewhere than at Mr. Grieve's door.

The following email was sent earlier today to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.

The title of the email was:

Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June


The text of the email was:


Chief Constable Thornton, DCC Habgood, ACC Ball,

I write to express my profound concern at what I believe to be deliberate deception and dishonesty by Thames Valley Police in the report placed in the House of Commons Library on 9th June 2011 by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP.

I ask you forthwith to suspend the officer responsible for the compilation of the dishonest report.

I also ask you to ensure that all documents relating to the preparation of the report are forthwith secured in order to assist a future investigation.

I also ask you to refer Thames Valley Police's consideration of the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly to the Independent Police Complaints Commission due to the multiple deficiencies in that investigation.

In this email I will focus on one example of dishonesty.

The document in question is Annex 6 to the TVP Report (the main report remaining secret, it seems).

See
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%206.pdf
for a copy of the Annex which is of concern.

The Annex reads well and, taken at face value by someone unfamiliar with the evidence, could be interpreted as indicating that there is no outstanding issue.

However, the Annex is dishonest.

It omits mention of what I consider to be the key discrepancy in that part of the evidence.

The Annex conceals that there are six unidentified fingerprints on the dental records.

See
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutus/aboutus-depts/aboutus-depts-infman/aboutus-depts-foi/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-investigate/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-item.htm?id=175657
for the Freedom of Information Response which indicates the presence of the six unidentified fingerprints.

The presence of unidentified fingerprints is obviously material to whether or not the dental records have been improperly accessed.

I suggest that it is inconceivable that any Police officer could "accidentally" omit mention of such fingerprint evidence in a report to the Attorney General.

If any Police officer was unaware of the potential importance of such fingerprint evidence then he or she should be suspended because of incompetence.

An honest report would have included a statement something like the following:

"There are six unidentified fingerprints on the dental records, indicating that the records were handled by someone other than the staff of the dental surgery. The identity of the person or persons who had unauthorised access to the dental records is unknown."

No statement to that effect appears in Annex 6.

An honest set of conclusions would have highlighted the likelihood of improper access to the records.

The balance of the conclusions expressed in paragraph 14 makes no mention of that and is, as a consequence, unsound and dishonest.

I conclude that the omission of that information about the unidentified fingerprints from Annex 6 of the Thames Valley Police Report is a deliberate act of dishonesty by a Thames Valley Police officer.

The drafting of the Annex is skilled and, in my view, is intended to convey an impression of a full investigation and consideration of the material questions having taken place when, in fact, the unidentified fingerprints are a continuing unresolved issue which was concealed by the person drafting the Annex.

I therefore conclude that Annex 6 is a premeditated attempt to deceive Parliament and the UK Public.

It seems to me that Annex 6 is, in part, designed to cover up dishonesty in 2003 by Thames Valley Police.

Former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page withheld that same information about the six unidentified fingerprints in his oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

In fact, in his evidence in 2003 ACC Page went further.

ACC Page lied to Lord Hutton stating that there were no "extraneous fingerprints".

It seems to me that Thames Valley Police has been party to a premeditated deception regarding this matter from 2003 to 2011.

I am copying this email to the Attorney General. I believe that the Attorney General lied to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 but I imagine he may wish to be aware that Thames Valley Police deceived him in the parts of his report that Thames Valley Police prepared.

I am also copying this email to David Carmeron MP and Nicola Blackwood MP since I imagine that dishonesty of Thames Valley Police officers will be of interest to them in their role as constituency MPs.

Given what appears to be a premeditated attempt by Thames Valley Police to deceive Parliament I am copying this email to Kevin Barron MP, Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Select Committee, and to John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons.

I am also copying this email to Norman Baker MP since he may recognise in this matter the past obstructive and dishonest behaviour of Thames Valley Police in the context of his investigations into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

You are aware, I believe, that I blog about the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. A copy of this email will be placed online at my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-dishonesty-of.html


I would be grateful for your early reply including whether or not you have suspended the officer concerned and whether you have asked the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the mishandling by Thames Valley Police of the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June 2011

The statement of the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 is false in material particulars.

In a recent post, The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign , I drew attention to the illogical and false position taken by Mr. Grieve in relation to photographs stated to have shown Dr. Kelly's body in two positions. Yet Mr. Grieve, wholly against the evidence, seeks to lead the public to believe that David Kelly's body hadn't been moved.

In this post I draw attention to a component of Mr. Grieve's statement that is untrue and misleading but where the blame for the dishonesty appears to lie elsewhere than at Mr. Grieve's door.

The following email was sent earlier today to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.

The title of the email was:

Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June


The text of the email was:


Chief Constable Thornton, DCC Habgood, ACC Ball,

I write to express my profound concern at what I believe to be deliberate deception and dishonesty by Thames Valley Police in the report placed in the House of Commons Library on 9th June 2011 by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP.

I ask you forthwith to suspend the officer responsible for the compilation of the dishonest report.

I also ask you to ensure that all documents relating to the preparation of the report are forthwith secured in order to assist a future investigation.

I also ask you to refer Thames Valley Police's consideration of the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly to the Independent Police Complaints Commission due to the multiple deficiencies in that investigation.

In this email I will focus on one example of dishonesty.

The document in question is Annex 6 to the TVP Report (the main report remaining secret, it seems).

See
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%206.pdf
for a copy of the Annex which is of concern.

The Annex reads well and, taken at face value by someone unfamiliar with the evidence, could be interpreted as indicating that there is no outstanding issue.

However, the Annex is dishonest.

It omits mention of what I consider to be the key discrepancy in that part of the evidence.

The Annex conceals that there are six unidentified fingerprints on the dental records.

See
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutus/aboutus-depts/aboutus-depts-infman/aboutus-depts-foi/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-investigate/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-item.htm?id=175657
for the Freedom of Information Response which indicates the presence of the six unidentified fingerprints.

The presence of unidentified fingerprints is obviously material to whether or not the dental records have been improperly accessed.

I suggest that it is inconceivable that any Police officer could "accidentally" omit mention of such fingerprint evidence in a report to the Attorney General.

If any Police officer was unaware of the potential importance of such fingerprint evidence then he or she should be suspended because of incompetence.

An honest report would have included a statement something like the following:

"There are six unidentified fingerprints on the dental records, indicating that the records were handled by someone other than the staff of the dental surgery. The identity of the person or persons who had unauthorised access to the dental records is unknown."

No statement to that effect appears in Annex 6.

An honest set of conclusions would have highlighted the likelihood of improper access to the records.

The balance of the conclusions expressed in paragraph 14 makes no mention of that and is, as a consequence, unsound and dishonest.

I conclude that the omission of that information about the unidentified fingerprints from Annex 6 of the Thames Valley Police Report is a deliberate act of dishonesty by a Thames Valley Police officer.

The drafting of the Annex is skilled and, in my view, is intended to convey an impression of a full investigation and consideration of the material questions having taken place when, in fact, the unidentified fingerprints are a continuing unresolved issue which was concealed by the person drafting the Annex.

I therefore conclude that Annex 6 is a premeditated attempt to deceive Parliament and the UK Public.

It seems to me that Annex 6 is, in part, designed to cover up dishonesty in 2003 by Thames Valley Police.

Former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page withheld that same information about the six unidentified fingerprints in his oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

In fact, in his evidence in 2003 ACC Page went further.

ACC Page lied to Lord Hutton stating that there were no "extraneous fingerprints".

It seems to me that Thames Valley Police has been party to a premeditated deception regarding this matter from 2003 to 2011.

I am copying this email to the Attorney General. I believe that the Attorney General lied to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 but I imagine he may wish to be aware that Thames Valley Police deceived him in the parts of his report that Thames Valley Police prepared.

I am also copying this email to David Carmeron MP and Nicola Blackwood MP since I imagine that dishonesty of Thames Valley Police officers will be of interest to them in their role as constituency MPs.

Given what appears to be a premeditated attempt by Thames Valley Police to deceive Parliament I am copying this email to Kevin Barron MP, Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Select Committee, and to John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons.

I am also copying this email to Norman Baker MP since he may recognise in this matter the past obstructive and dishonest behaviour of Thames Valley Police in the context of his investigations into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

You are aware, I believe, that I blog about the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. A copy of this email will be placed online at my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-dishonesty-of.html


I would be grateful for your early reply including whether or not you have suspended the officer concerned and whether you have asked the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the mishandling by Thames Valley Police of the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Sunday 12 June 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Does Dominic Grieve's conduct constitute the offence of "misconduct in public office"?

The House of Commons Library produces, on an ongoing basis, position papers on a range of interesting and arcane matters.

One such paper from 2009 considers the offence of Misconduct in public office.

It seems to me that there is at least an arguable case that Dominic Grieve may have committed the offence of "misconduct in public office".

Have a look at the elements of the offence and decide for yourself.

The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign

A short time ago I sent to the Attorney General an email inviting the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign.

I post the text of that email below.

If you accept my viewpoint that Dr. Kelly's body was moved and that Dominic Grieve lied to the House of Commons then copy and paste the email below and send it to your Member of Parliament.

Better still, phone up and speak to him or her.

Even better, make an appointment to meet him or her to express your concerns.

Ask your MP to write to David Cameron expressing your concerns on this matter.

Ask your MP to ask a question of Dominic Grieve or of the Prime Minister.

Share the email with your friends and relatives. Ask them to contact their MPs.

Dominic Grieve has, in my opinion, lied to Parliament. He ought not to be able to continue as the United Kingdom's Attorney General.

Perhaps David Cameron will back him. Only a short time ago David Cameron had full confidence in Andy Coulson. Coulson didn't last long in his post after that.

Perhaps David Cameron will show good political sense and require Dominic Grieve to resign.

If you read the email and believe it to be true yet don't pass it on to others then you help to sustain a dishonest Attorney General in his post.


Dear Attorney General and Solicitor General,

I write in response to the statement made by the Attorney General in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I invite the Attorney General to review the accuracy of his statement to the House of Commons and to consider whether he ought to tender his resignation to the Prime Minister.

I invite the Solicitor General also to consider his position.

It is not the purpose of this email to set out all the untruths put forward by the Attorney General in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011. I will communicate the evidence of those untruths to the Attorney General, to the Press and to others as time allows.

I focus in this email on a single issue. The evidence that Dr. Kelly's body was in two different positions.

1. Lord Hutton said that he saw a photograph showing David Kelly's head resting against the base of a tree at Harrowdown Hill.

2. Dr. Richard Shepherd said he had seen photographs showing the head of Dr. David Kelly at some distance from the base of the tree (Mr. Dave Bartlett had stood in the space between the base of the tree and Dr. Kelly's head).

3. You claim that Dr. Kelly's body was not moved.

If, as you indicated in your statement you rely on the Hutton Report and Dr. Shepherd's report then you must accept that there are photographs showing Dr. Kelly's body in two different positions.

Yet, falsely and illogically, you claim that the body hadn't been moved.

Attorney General, it seems to me that you premeditatedly misled the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

The effect of your dishonesty is to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

I recognise that you may wish to "tough this out". That, of course, is your choice.

However I believe that your dishonesty is incompatible with your continuing to hold the office of Attorney General.

The political problems of your continuing to hold the office of Attorney General can only increase with time. In that context I am copying this email to David Cameron MP, Desmond Swayne MP as well as to Craig Oliver and Steve Field at Number 10.

A copy of this email will be placed online in a post on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/ specifically at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html.

I will also invite interested citizens of the UK to forward the content of this email to their Members of Parliament, both with a view to your apologising to the House of Commons for misleading the House but also so that, following your resignation, a more honest Attorney General may arrange for the much needed inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Unreliability of Janice Kelly's evidence for 9th July 2003

In the preceding post, The Death of David Kelly - The Unreliability of Janice Kelly's evidence, I briefly summarised some longstanding concerns about the reliability of the evidence of Janice Kelly.

In this post I draw attention to new evidence showing that, at least with respect of the evening of 9th July 2003, the evidence of Janice Kelly is not to be believed.

The following quote relating to the evening of 9th July 2003 is from the oral evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003 (pages 21 to 27).

I've given a long quote to demonstrate that this was not some minor slip-up on Janice Kelly's part. In my view, the story for the evening of 9th July 2003 given in oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry by Janice Kelly is unreliable since in several material particulars it's untrue.


16 Q. Did you have any visitors that day?
17 A. Yes, we did in the evening.
18 Q. What time did you have a visitor?
19 A. Not absolutely certain. It was something like 7.30 or
20 something like that.
21 Q. Who was that visitor?
22 A. It turned out to be Nick Rufford.
23 Q. Where was Dr Kelly?
24 A. We had both been sitting out having our coffee in the
25 garden after dinner that evening. I was watering the

22
1 plants and David went to put some tools away he had been
2 using during the day which involved him going into the
3 yard which lay between our house and the main road
4 outside.
5 Q. And were you aware that anyone else was there?
6 A. I suddenly looked up and there was David talking to
7 somebody. I had not got my glasses on so I moved
8 a little bit closer with the hosepipe to see who it was
9 and I recognised it as Nick Rufford. Nick had been to
10 our house before but only by arrangement, he never just
11 turned up before this. No journalist just turned up
12 before this, so I was extremely alarmed about that.
13 Q. Do you know what was said between Mr Rufford and
14 Dr Kelly?
15 A. To be absolutely fair I am not sure now what I heard.
16 David confirmed what I thought I had heard afterwards.
17 I heard him say -- I heard Nick say, I think,
18 "Rupert Murdoch" and I heard David say, "Please leave
19 now". The conversation only took place over about four
20 or five minutes maximum.
21 Q. And did you speak with Dr Kelly after the conversation?
22 A. Yes, I did. He came over to me and said that Nick had
23 said that Murdoch had offered hotel accommodation for
24 both of us away from the media spotlight in return for
25 an article by David. He, David, was to be named that

23
1 night and that the press were on their way in droves.
2 That was the language David used, I am not sure Nick
3 used that. He also added -- he was very upset and his
4 voice had a break in it at this stage. He got the
5 impression from Nick that the gloves were off now, that
6 Nick would use David's name in any article that he wrote
7 and he was extremely upset.
8 Q. Had you spoken with Dr Kelly at all during the day about
9 his reaction to the news the night before?
10 A. Yes, I had. He said several times over coffee, over
11 lunch, over afternoon tea that he felt totally let down
12 and betrayed. It seemed to me that this was all part of
13 what might have happened anyway because it seemed to
14 have been a very loose arrangement with the MoD, they
15 did not seem to take a lot of account of his time.
16 There was a lot of wasting of his time.
17 I just felt that this must have been very
18 frustrating for him. David often said: they are not
19 using me properly. He felt that the MoD were not quite
20 sure how to use his expertise at times, although I have
21 later seen his manager's reports on his staff appraisals
22 where he obviously did warrant his or respect his
23 expertise. But that is not the impression that I got.
24 Q. You say, I think, that he had felt totally let down and
25 betrayed. Who did he say that of?

24
1 A. He did not say in so many terms but I believed he meant
2 the MoD because they were the ones that had effectively
3 let his name be known in the public domain.
4 Q. And did you get the impression that he was happy or
5 unhappy that this press statement had been made?
6 A. Well, he did not know about it until after it had
7 happened. So he was -- I think initially he had been
8 led to believe that it would not go into the public
9 domain. He had received assurances and that is why he
10 was so very upset about it.
11 Q. What, he did not know that the press statement saying an
12 unnamed source had come forward would be made?
13 A. Not until after the event.
14 LORD HUTTON: Did he say from whom he had received
15 assurances Mrs Kelly?
16 A. From his line manager, from all their seniors and from
17 the people he had been interviewed by.
18 MR DINGEMANS: And his reaction on hearing the news, you
19 said he had seemed slightly reluctant to watch the news
20 that night.
21 A. Yes, indeed.
22 Q. Was that because he had seen an earlier news, do you
23 think, or because he knew something might be coming up?
24 A. I think it was probably trepidation that this was the
25 moment. He was not quite sure when it would actually

25
1 happen but since Nick had come it was going to be a big
2 problem. He knew that.
3 Q. Right. You also said that he had the impression he was
4 not being used properly; by whom? Who was not using him
5 properly?
6 A. The MoD, yes. He never said that about the Foreign
7 Office when he worked there or for UNSCOM in those days
8 either.
9 Q. And in what sense did he feel he was not being used
10 properly?
11 A. Well, he often found that he was doing perhaps slightly
12 lower order jobs than he might be doing. He was filling
13 his time giving briefings, giving speeches, key note
14 speeches and others when perhaps he might have been more
15 involved in perhaps higher level policy making. There
16 was a letter I came up with where it was suggested that
17 David should be used in policy making rather more than
18 he was being.
19 Q. Going back to Mr Rufford, did David speak to you after
20 he had spoken to Mr Rufford?
21 A. Yes, he did. He came across and told me what Nick had
22 said.
23 Q. He mentioned this proposed deal; is that right?
24 A. That is right. That is right.
25 Q. And what had been Dr Kelly's reaction to that?

26
1 A. Extremely upset at two levels. One that he was being --
2 you know, the press were on their way in droves, as Nick
3 had put it, and also that his friendship with Nick --
4 because he always used to work so hard, because he was
5 a workaholic to all intents, most of his friendships, in
6 fact his close friendships were all with people he
7 worked with on a regular basis, so if he gave a regular
8 briefing to someone, very often it would become not
9 a close friendship but a friendship nevertheless. He
10 felt that friendship was now at an end.
11 Q. Having heard that the press were on their way in droves,
12 what did you do?
13 A. We hovered a bit. I said I knew a house that was
14 available to us, if we needed it, down in the south-west
15 of England, and he did not pick up on that initially.
16 Q. Did you remind him of that?
17 A. Yes, I did. The phone rang inside the house and he went
18 in to answer it, came out and he said: I think we will
19 be needing that house after all. The MoD press office
20 have just rung to say we ought to leave the house and
21 quickly so that we would not be followed by the press.
22 Q. So the phone call was from the Ministry of Defence?
23 A. It was the Ministry of Defence press office.
24 Q. And they said you ought to leave?
25 A. Yes. Whether he had offered anything else in the

27
1 interim I do not know, that was never mentioned.
2 Q. Right. But you decided to go down to this place that
3 you knew --
4 A. Indeed. We immediately went into the house and packed
5 and within about 10 minutes we had left the house.
6 Q. Had you done any prepacking?
7 A. No, no, no.
8 Q. Where did you drive to?
9 A. We headed along the road towards the M4 and got to --
10 about 9.30, 9.45 we got as far as Weston-Super-Mare and
11 decided to pull in at a hotel there for the night.


So, if Janice Kelly's evidence were true, David and Janice packed hurriedly and drove to Weston super Mare to escape hordes of press people.

All very dramatic, undoubtedly.

But true? That's a separate question.

On the Hutton Inquiry site, buried among the hundreds of documents, is this little gem: Email Ward/Jones 22/07/03 TVP/3/0100.

That document lists several people that David Kelly was, seemingly, playing cribbage with on the evening of 9th July 2003.

Which is true?

During the evening of 9th July 2003 was David Kelly "cutting and running" en route to Weston super Mare?

Or was he happily playing cribbage in the Hind's Head pub?

A document released by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011 clarifies the position.

In the Schedule of responses to issues raised released on 9th June 2011 by the Attorney General at Point 47 we read:


Dr Kelly was a member of the Hinds Head crib team. He last played
for them on the 9th July 2003. Every other member of that team was
interviewed by officers from the investigation team. Nigel Cox was
amongst these.


Could he have been playing cribbage during the day on 9th July 2003? Not according to Janice Kelly's evidence:


7 Q. On the 9th July, do you know where he was?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did he go to London?
10 A. Yes, he was supposed to be going to London so I was
11 quite surprised when he said he was going to work in the
12 garden all day. Again he got on to his vegetable patch
13 and was working in a rather lacklustre way that
14 particular day but he did receive and make some phone
15 calls as well.


So, Janice Kelly's evidence has David Kelly working in the garden all day on 9th July 2003.

The statements of several witnesses to the Police has David Kelly playing cribbage in a friendly match.

Notice that the cribbage match was a friendly yet, despite the drama created in Janice Kelly's imaginative account, David Kelly found time to relax with his friends at the Hind's Head and play cribbage.

Why is this important?

First, it demonstrates that Janice Kelly's evidence yet again is not to be taken at face value.

Second, given that her narrative continues seemingly seamlessly into supposed events in Cornwall from 10th to 13th July 2003, it raises questions about the supposed events that Janice Kelly describes on those days too.

And, perhaps most important of all, it demonstrates further reason for Professor Hawton to have treated Janice Kelly's evidence about David Kelly's supposed behaviour at lunchtime on 17th July 2003 with very great caution.

Professor Hawton's failure to exercise appropriate caution about Janice Kelly's evidence for 17th July 2003 is one reason that the "suicide hypothesis" gained public and, in my view, undeserved traction.

The Death of David Kelly - The Unreliability of Janice Kelly's evidence

I imagine for some readers questioning of the evidence of the widow will be an uncomfortable consideration.

However, if the truth about the death of David Kelly is to be established then the evidence has to be looked at critically. ALL the evidence has to be looked at critically.

In this post I briefly summarise some concerns I've had for some time about the reliability of the evidence given by Janice Kelly.

My concerns about the evidence given by Janice Kelly arose in the context of the bizarre silence of the Kelly family about the possibility that David Kelly was murdered. See The Death of David Kelly - The surprising behaviour of the Kelly family from 8th November 2010.

One issue where Janice Kelly's evidence to Hutton is questionable is with respect to the events of the morning of 10th July 2003.

According to Janice Kelly's evidence, she and David Kelly were driving from Weston super Mare to Cornwall.

According to "Mr. A", David Kelly was in his (Mr A's) garden in the vicinity of Swindon chatting and having coffee.

It's not possible for both accounts to be accurate.

Also, with respect to the morning of 10th July Janice Kelly mentions an article in the Times by Nick Rufford.

Nick Rufford doesn't write for the Times and, so far as I can trace, he didn't make an exception to that practice in the Times of 10th July 2003.

On these two points, where Janice Kelly's evidence can be cross-checked, her evidence is at least questionable.

Neither of the preceding points is new so I haven't provided links to the relevant parts of the Hutton Inquiry.

The question in my mind for some time now is whether there are other, perhaps more important issues, on which the reliability of Janice Kelly's evidence is in doubt.

Professor Hawton's suicide story depends crucially on Janice Kelly's evidence for 17th July 2003, after all.

The Death of David Kelly - The fatuous nature of the Hutton Inquiry is exposed

If Tom Mangold's article in today's Mail on Sunday is to be believed the fatuous nature of the Hutton Inquiry is exposed for all to see.

See 'I'm sure I know the truth about Dr Kelly’s death. But, thanks to Hutton, the world will never be told', his friend reveals.

Witnesses, according to Mangold, made statements to the Coroner but made different statements to Hutton and, in at least one case, gave "anodyne evidence" to Hutton despite, supposedly, having spoken intimately to David Kelly around 48 hours before his death.

Mangold writes:


I know from personal experience that the failure to hold an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death meant that crucial information on his state of mind, deliberately withheld from the Hutton Inquiry on a point of principle, never reached the public domain.

David Kelly was a friend of mine. We also had a close friend in common. Both our mutual friend and I gave statements to the coroner’s officer about
David’s last days. My friend was given the choice of whether his evidence should be referred to Lord Hutton.

Given the fevered state of political debate at the time – remember that BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan had been accused of lying on air about the ‘sexed-up’ dossier – my friend decided that an inquest was the proper forum for his evidence to be heard.

He was uneasy that the Hutton Inquiry did not take evidence on oath and feared it might become a political circus.

Both our testimonies languished, unread, in a dusty coroner’s file. Unwittingly, we had both played into the hands of the conspiracy theorists.

My friend later gave anodyne, uncontroversial evidence to Lord Hutton. We had a long conversation last week and although he insists he must not be named, I can now reveal what was going through Dr Kelly’s mind in the days before he took his own life.


Who was the witness who was a friend of David Kelly, who gave "anodyne evidence" to Lord Hutton yet withheld what, according to Mangold, constituted evidence about intimate discussions with David Kelly 48 hours or so before his death?

I suspect that "Mr. Anodyne" won't remain anonymous for long.

The Death of David Kelly - Information was "deliberately withheld from the Hutton Inquiry on a point of principle"

In an article in today's Mail on Sunday, veteran journalist Tom Mangold claims that information was "deliberately withheld from the Hutton Inquiry on a point of principle" by himself and an anonymous "friend".

See 'I'm sure I know the truth about Dr Kelly’s death. But, thanks to Hutton, the world will never be told', his friend reveals.

That, I suggest, might well make uncomfortable reading over the coffee and toast in the Grieve household this morning, after Dominic Grieve's absolutist statements to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011: Dr David Kelly.

Saturday 11 June 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Another new problem for the "suicide believers" - Did DC Shields see the body or not?

The bundle of documents from the Attorney General has thrown up another minor new contradiction.

One document states that DC Colin Shields didn't see the body.

Another report has DC Shields referring to seeing the body "laying on his back".

Which is it?

Point 42 of Schedule of responses to issues raised states this:


42.

Hutton failed to call DC Shields – one of two
detectives who attended Dr Kelly’s body.

DC Shields did not attend Dr Kelly’s body and had no relevant
information to assist the Inquiry.


On page 5 of his report Dr. Shepherd states the following:

The Police officers (DC Coe and DC Shields) who initially attended the scene commented that the body was "laying on his back", they did not describe sitting or slumping against a tree.


If the first statement is true then how can Dr. Shepherd report DC Shields as seeing the body "laying on his back"?

It may not matter too much whether or not DC Shields saw the body but surely the Attorney General and Thames Valley Police can be expected at least to tell a story that is internally consistent?

If they succeeded in achieving internal coherence then an intelligent member of the public might have more prospect of believing the cover-up.

The Death of David Kelly - A new problem for the "suicide believers"

The bundle of documents released by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011, Dr David Kelly , has thrown up a new problem for the "suicide believers".

The new evidence is that a photograph is said to show that the strap of the watch found at Harrowdown Hill is on top of the knife.

This evidence is mentioned at point 90 in the Schedule of responses to issues raised.


90.

Dr Hunt relied on the removal of the watch as
indicative of suicide. However, DC Coe’s
evidence was that the watch was on top of the
knife. If that is correct that knife was not used
to make the cuts. This discrepancy was not
examined.

Dc Coe reported that when he first attended the scene he witnessed
Dr Kelly's watch as being "on top" of the knife. Dr Hunt sets out that
the knife was actually "adjacent" to Dr Kelly's watch. Photographs
taken show that both descriptions could be considered accurate as a
short section of the strap appears to rest on the handle of the knife
whilst the bulk of the watch is adjacent.


The problem I see is that if, as Dr. Hunt speculated, the watch was taken off to allow better access for the knife then it follows that the knife was in use after the watch was taken off and, presumably, laid on the ground.

If Dr. Hunt's speculation was correct then the knife should be on top of the watch.

But we're told that it's the other way round. Part of the watch strap is on top of the knife.

And that makes me doubt if Dr. Hunt's speculation has any basis in fact.

The Death of David Kelly - Articles on elbow fractures and their longterm outcome

It is now established that David Kelly fractured his elbow in December 1991.

Broadly, there are two types of elbow fracture - those of the distal (lower) end of the humerus (the bone in the upper arm) and those of the bones of the lower arm (typically of the olecranon process of the ulna).

Interested readers may find these two links on the web site of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons to be informative reading: Elbow (Olecranon) Fractures and Distal Humerus Fractures.

In his report, on page 8 Dr. Shepherd refers to the physiotherapy report from April 1992 (TVP/10/0134), "The note records that there was full flexion of the elbow but that extension of the elbow was reduced by 15 [degrees].".

With regard to both olecranon process fractures and distal humeral fracture it is common that there is some less of extension (i.e. the arm cannot be fully straightened).

Each type of fracture is commonly associated with the later development of arthritis. For example, in the olecranon fracture article we read,


Elbow arthritis causes the elbow joint to become stiff and painful. It is an unfortunate, but relatively common, long-term outcome of olecranon fractures. Elbow arthritis can occur rapidly following an olecranon fracture, or it may take years to develop.


I'll return in a subsequent post to the inadequacy of Dr. Shepherd's report in its treatment of that aspect of the situation.

The Death of David Kelly - The silence of the Kelly family and Dr. Malcolm Warner about Dr. Kelly's right arm injury

A casual reader of the Hutton Inquiry transcripts could be forgiven for not realising that questions exist about Dr. Kelly having fractured his right elbow in the past, having had an operation on that elbow and possibly being significantly limited in how he could use his right arm.

There is no mention whatsoever of the issue.

Yet the question of the function of Dr. Kelly's right arm is, of course, of pivotal importance.

It is his right arm that the "suicide hypothesis" assumes to have made the cuts in his left wrist.

On 4th March 2011 I wrote to the Attorney General about the matter: The Death of David Kelly - Dr. Malcolm Warner.

In that email I examined the evidence suggesting an old right arm injury.

The material recently released by the Attorney General confirms that Dr. Kelly fractured his right elbow.

In addition to the longstanding statements of Dr. Kelly's friend Mai Pederson, another friend, Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth, wrote to the Attorney General about the functionality of Dr. Kelly's right arm.

Dr. Shuttleworth wrote to the Attorney General on 30th April 2010 (see page 8 of Dr. Shepherd's report).

Dr. Shuttleworth is quoted as saying that an injury to Dr. Kelly's right elbow "led to a severe fracture and residual weakness".

Dr. Shuttleworth's statement corroborates the evidence of Mai Pederson.

It's now confirmed that David Kelly fractured his right elbow in December 1991.

And two friends, Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth and Mai Pederson, have stated that he had residual weakness of the right arm as a result.

Was that weakness of Dr. Kelly's right arm of such a degree that his ability to cut his left wrist is rendered questionable or unlikely?

The Hutton Inquiry neither asked nor answered that pivotal question.

One reason underlying that failure is that nobody told Lord Hutton (at least in oral testimony).

Janice Kelly was silent on the issue.

Dr. Sarah Pape was silent on the issue.

Rachel Kelly was silent on the issue.

Dr. Malcolm Warner was silent on the issue.

None of those "witnesses" told Lord Hutton that David Kelly had fractured his right elbow. And none told Lord Hutton whether that fracture led or didn't lead to residual weakness.

Was there an inexplicable epidemic of amnesia in the Southmoor area of Oxfordshire?

Or did someone advise these witnesses not to talk about Dr. Kelly's possible right arm weakness?

Is there another explanation of this silence on the part of four supposedly credible witnesses?

The Death of David Kelly - The limitations of Professor Hawton's expertise and the limitations of its relevance

The Hutton Report relied heavily on the evidence of Professor Keith Hawton.

Hawton is assumed to be an "expert".

But, so far as I'm aware, nobody at the Hutton Inquiry or in Thames Valley Police or in the Attorney General's Office has seriously explored the scope and limitations of Professor Hawton's expertise.

Nor has any of those organisations recognised the limitations of the relevance of any expertise that Professor Hawton may be deemed to have.

The pivotal question regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly, in my view, is whether he took his own life or whether he was murdered and the murder was made to look like suicide.

And it is in distinguishing those two possibilities that the limitations of Professor Hawton's expertise become clear.

Does Professor Hawton have any expertise in distinguishing suicide from murder dressed up as suicide?

So far as I'm aware Professor Hawton has no such expertise.

On the contrary his longstanding expertise in suicide is likely to make him less able to recognise something that doesn't fit. As someone who has focussed on suicide for years, there is a bias likely to operate which recognises what seems to be a familiar pattern. See Cognitive bias for a general discussion of the kinds of biases that may have been operative in Professor Hawton's mind.

Suppose that Professor Hawton said that Dr. Kelly's death didn't look much like suicide. In that hypothetical scenario any murder that might have been committed hadn't been well concealed.

In reality Professor Hawton made the following ridiculously over the top statement to Hutton:


15 A. I think that taking all the evidence together, it is
16 well nigh certain that he committed suicide.


See page 107 of Professor Hawton's oral evidence given on the afternoon of Tuesday 2nd September 2003.

Does it definitively distinguish between suicide and murder dressed up as suicide?

It doesn't.

It simply tells us that if the death of Dr. Kelly was murder dressed up as suicide then, if Professor Hawton's opinion is reliable (which I doubt), then the murder was quite well dressed up as suicide.

It is of no help in distinguishing whether Dr. Kelly's death was suicide or murder.

If I'm correct in that conclusion, one wonders why the "great minds" (sic) of Thames Valley Police, the Hutton Inquiry and the Attorney General's Office didn't see that.

Perhaps it was a case of the old Scottish proverb. An anglicised version is, "There is nobody so blind as the one who chooses not to see.".

In an upcoming post I hope intelligently to consider what questions ought to be asked (and ought to have been asked) to enable suicide to be distinguished from murder dressed up as suicide.

The Death of David Kelly - The Hansard record of Dominic Grieve's statement on 9th June 2011 regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly

For reference, I'm posting a link to the official Hansard record of the statement made by Dominic Grieve QC MP to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

See Dr David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - When was Graham Coe's lie about "the third man" first recognised?

On the morning of Tuesday 16th September 2003 Detective Constable Graham Coe uttered an untruth at the Hutton Inquiry (pages 1 and 2):


20 A. On the route to Harrowdown Hill I met the two people
21 from the volunteer search team, a female and Mr Chapman.
22 Q. And what did they say to you?
23 A. Mr Chapman told me that they had found a body in the
24 woods.
25 Q. Who were you with at this time?

2
1 A. Detective Constable Shields.
2 Q. It is just the two of you?
3 A. Yes.


DC Coe makes the false statement that he was accompanied only by DC (Colin) Shields.

Yet the evidence of other witnesses was that two people accompanied DC Coe.

Who was the third man?

Thames Valley Police would like everyone to believe that it was an innocent mistake of no consequence.

If that were true why wasn't some brief corrective statement issued by Thames Valley Police years ago?

Did that ever happen?

I thought I should ask Thames Valley Police about their handling of the issue of DC Coe's false statement to the Hutton Inquiry.

I did so earlier today: FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re TVP handling of DC Coe's false statement to the Hutton Inquiry.

I'll be interested to learn what costs have been incurred by the public purse as a consequence of Thames Valley Police's failure promptly to be honest about this matter.

Friday 10 June 2011

The Death of David Kelly - The report to Thames Valley Police that DC Graham Coe may have perverted the course of justice

This post consists largely of a communication sent to Ms Sarah Thornton, Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police on 28th October 2010 in which I formally reported my concerns that Detective Constable Graham Coe may have perverted the course of justice.

Meantime I'm posting this just to put it in the public domain. I hope to return in a later post to discuss the continuing unresolved matters relating to DC Coe's evidence.

The email was copied to Deputy Chief Constable Francis Hapgood.

The text of the email to Ms Thornton is as follows:


Ms Thornton,

I write to you to report my suspicion that a Thames Valley Police officer may have committed the offence of perverting the course of justice.

Since there are also Professional Standards aspects to the matter, I am copying this email to the DCC and to the Professional Standards Department.

I request that you record this report in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standards and that it appear as a "crime" until such time as there might be found signficant credible evidence to the contrary.

Of the possible elements of the offence of perverting the course of justice outlined on the Crown Prosecution Service website here, http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/, it seems to me that the offence committed by a Thames Valley Police officer includes (but may not be limited to) concealing evidence.

The officer about whose conduct I have serious concerns is Detective Constable Graham Coe. I am afraid that I do not know his shoulder badge or equivalent number.

My specific concern is that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry and thereby concealed material evidence with respect to a suspicious death.

Two independent witnesses, Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman, stated to the Hutton Inquiry that they met "three" individuals after finding the body of Dr. David Kelly.

DC Coe testified to the Hutton Inquiry that he was accompanied only by a DC Shields. See Line 25 on Page 1 to Line 3 on Page 2 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans33.htm.

DC Coe apparently admitted subsequently to the existence of the "third man" to one or more journalists, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301210/Detective-Dr-David-Kellys-body-raises-questions-death.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-investigation-inadequate-Now-NINE-doctors-demand-inquest.html.

The evidence strongly suggests that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

The importance of this lie, at least in part, relates to what the action(s) of the "third man" might or might not have been.

The possibility exists that the "third man" introduced evidence to the scene, removed evidence from the scene or otherwise acted in a way which might undermine confidence in the forensic examination of the scene. Whether, and to what extent, the evidence which DC Coe concealed influenced the conclusion of Lord Hutton is presently unknown.

It is difficult to imagine that a senior judge could casually legitimately discount evidence that a police officer had lied to him.

The death of Dr. David Kelly remains a suspicious death.

You may wish to be aware that I have recently written both to the Attorney General (with respect to Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988) and to Nicholas Gardiner, Coroner (with respect to Section 17A of the Coroner's Act 1988) outlining various causes for concern regarding the evidence relating to Dr. Kelly's death and, specifically, drawing attention to new concerns about the evidence arising from the recent public release of the Post Mortem and Toxicology reports.

Ongoing analysis of the toxicology report recently released by the Ministry of Justice, see http://www.justice.gov.uk/kelly-pm-toxicology-reports.htm, raises serious technical questions about the interpretation attached to the toxicology data by Dr. Nicholas Hunt and Dr. Alexander Allan.

My concerns about the toxicology data are so serious that earlier today I reported to Thames Valley Police that I believe that the death of Dr. David Kelly may have been murder. Your Ref: URN514 of 28/10/10.

I would be grateful if Thames Valley Police record the reported crime specified in the present email in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standards and forward to me the relevant reference number.

I am content to provide a full statement to the Police regarding my concerns. My full contact details were given to Thames Valley Police in connection with URN514 of 28/10/10.

Sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Thursday 9 June 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Only a subset of issues has been considered by the Attorney General

This post is an interim impression as I work my way through the mountain of documents released today.

For the first time Mr. Green's forensic biology report is available. See Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003.

It fills in some gaps, answers some questions and appears to raise some new ones. I'll return to my interpretation of Mr. Green's report in a later post.

It strikes me that the Attorney General has conducted what one might call a half-baked review despite the absolutist claims he made in the House of Commons about the evidence favouring suicide.

He doesn't appear to have considered all the evidence presented to him, nor does he appear to have passed all the relevant correspondence to the relevant parties.

For example, Lord Hutton talks up Professor Hawton's evidence but appears never to have been shown my detailed criticism of that evidence from Professor Hawton. See The Death of David Kelly - The need for expert review of Professor Hawton's evidence which was sent to the Attorney General on 21st February 2011.

Similarly, I am currently unable to find any evidence that the Attorney General even sought expert opinion about forensic evidence concerns raised in recent correspondence to him.

See The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Important technical questions about the knife, wound etc of 12th April 2011 and The Death of David Kelly - The blood distribution indicates it was murder of 1st June 2011 for example. In those communications I raise technical concerns regarding which I can currently find no evidence that the Attorney General has considered them or sought appropriate expert advice on them.

If the Attorney General has failed to seek advice on these technical points it raises serious concerns about his unqualified statements to the House of Commons.

And did he even look at the introductory evidence of a possible cover-up? See The Death of David Kelly - The cover-up - Overview of 1st June 2011.

And why didn't he wait for the follow-up documents referred to in that email of 1st June?

If, as I suspect, the Attorney General hadn't fully examined the concerns raised with him how can he legitimately be so definite in the House of Commons?

Currently I think he appears to have gone beyond the evidence and has misled the House.

The Death of David Kelly - The documents that the Attorney General is relying on

In my previous post, The Death of David Kelly - A shameful and appalling cover-up by a dishonest Attorney General I expressed my severe criticism of the Attorney General's statement to the House of Commons earlier today.

The Attorney General has put online the documents on which he is relying for his statement.

An overview of the Attorney General's decision is here: Death of Dr David Kelly: Attorney General will not apply for fresh inquest.

The extensive supporting documents are here: Dr David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - A shameful and appalling cover-up by a dishonest Attorney General

When the Attorney General of the United Kingdom stands up in the House of Commons and issues a transparently inaccurate statement about the evidence relating to a suspicious death you can be sure that there is something very important indeed that has to be covered up.

Today in the House of Commons the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, lied with a fluency for which, in a sense, he must be commended.

Dominic Grieve is not so stupid as to believe the absolutist nonsense about the evidence that he uttered at the dispatch box.

He does, however, appear to be stupid enough to imagine that his flagrant dishonesty about the evidence relating to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly will carry the day.

What is so important to cover up that caused the Attorney General to be so flagrantly dishonest?

The murder of Dr. David Kelly.

What is so important about the murder of Dr. Kelly?

The reason(s) it was carried out. The persons and organisation which carried it out.

In a country where the most senior Law Officer of the Government seeks to conceal a murder what options are open to an honest citizen?

Passive acceptance is not a legitimate option.

The evidence is a powerful weapon that not even a dishonest Attorney General can keep at bay indefinitely.

The Death of David Kelly - Sky News is reporting that Dominic Grieve will deny an inquest

An announcement is expected from the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, in the House of Commons today at 12.15.

Sky News is reporting that Dominic Grieve is expected to deny an inquest: David Kelly Inquest Expected To Be Denied.

Whichever decision Domiinic Grieve makes I expect it to be a career-defining decision for him.

Wednesday 8 June 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Three policemen or five?

This post owes at least as much to the thinking of Brian Spencer, author of the blog Dr Kelly's Death - Suicide or Murder as to myself.

The unresolved question, "three policemen or five?", arises from the seemingly conflicting evidence given about the policemen present at Harrowdown Hill.

For example, Paul Chapman in his evidence given on the morning of Tuesday 2nd September 2003 (pages 27 and 28) says:


16 Q. Did the police attend?
17 A. Yes, they did.
18 Q. And did you help them when they had arrived?
19 A. Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police
20 officers coming the other way that were from CID. We
21 identified ourselves to them. They were not actually
22 aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out
23 searching this area. They I think had just come out on
24 their own initiative to look at the area. I informed
25 them we had found the body and they asked me to take

28
1 them back to indicate where it was.


Paul Chapman sees three police officers from CID, presumably in plain clothes (one of whom was Detective Constable Graham Coe).

From the evidence of PC Franklin we get a different perspective (see his evidence also given on the morning of Tuesday 2nd September 2003, page 32):


5 Q. After you get that information, where did you go?
6 A. PC Sawyer and I attended Harrowdown Hill and went to the
7 scene. We were unsure initially whereabouts we were
8 going, but we passed Paul from the South East Berks
9 Volunteers and he directed us to two uniformed police
10 officers and DC Coe.


In these two extracts from the testimony given to Hutton are three policemen being referred to or five?

Are both witnesses referring to the same two companions of DC Coe?

Or did Paul Chapman see DC Coe accompanied by two detectives and PC Franklin see, a short time later, DC Coe accompanied by two different policemen (who were in uniform)?

Needless to say the two possibilities were neither considered nor resolved at the Hutton Inquiry.

The Death of David Kelly - The anticipated meeting with Terence Taylor

Terence Taylor of the International Institute of Strategic Studies was the first to give oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry, on the morning of Monday 11th August 2003.

Mr. Taylor, like Dr. Kelly, had been involved in the UNSCOM inspection process in the 1990s.

Mr. Taylor spoke to David Kelly during the weekend of Friday 11th to Sunday 13th July 2003, arranging to meet him the following weekend.

From page 10 of Mr. Taylor's testimony:


7 Q. When was your last dealing with Dr Kelly, your last
8 contact with Dr Kelly?
9 A. My last contact was -- I think it was about four days
10 before his death, and I spoke to him by telephone and
11 from the United States because I was coming to the
12 United Kingdom and I was discussing plans in order to
13 meet him after -- at the weekend, the following weekend,
14 which would have been -- I am searching my memory --
15 would have been the weekend of 20th July. We were
16 planning to meet, as I was passing nearby his house on
17 my way to visit my younger daughter.


If David Kelly were meeting an old colleague two or three days later surely it is inconceivable that he would have committed suicide on 17th July 2003, when he was alleged to have done.

In any case, any pressure from Parliamentary questions which David Kelly saw on the morning of 17th July would have been slight since they didn't need to be answered until September.

Mr. Taylor and Dr. Kelly knew each other pretty well. Mr. Taylor had stayed at the Kelly home in June 2003 (perhaps the weekend of Friday 13th June to Sunday 15th June). From page 11 of his testimony:


6 previous contact, I actually stayed with him at his
7 house which was about three to four weeks before this
8 particular time.
9 Q. When you stayed with him, how was he then?
10 A. He seemed to me to be in what I would describe as
11 a normal state of mind as someone I had known for
12 16 years and I did not detect any discernible
13 difference. We spoke about the Iraq issues in very
14 general terms. He was speaking about his daughter's
15 forthcoming wedding in October. I have daughters too,
16 so we exchanged as friends on these kind of issues. He
17 seemed to be in a very normal state of mind, bearing in
18 mind this was about a month before this particular awful
19 incident.

The Death of David Kelly - Questions that should have been asked of Janice Kelly

One of the many unsatisfactory aspects of the Hutton Inquiry is that it was never established where the co-proxamol blister packs found in Dr. Kelly's Barbour jacket came from.

Counsel to the inquiry seemed to assume that they came from a store of similar tablets held by Janice Kelly but the relevant questions to clarify the situation were never asked.

The closest the Inquiry came to exploring the issue was in the oral testimony of Janice Kelly on the morning of 1st September 2003 (page 54):


6 Q. We have also heard that some co-proxamol was used.
7 A. Indeed.
8 Q. Do you take any medicine?
9 A. I do. I take co-proxamol for my arthritis.
10 Q. I think we are also going to hear that appears to be the
11 source of the co-proxamol that was used.
12 A. I had assumed that. I keep a small store in a kitchen
13 drawer and the rest in my bedside table.


Who did James Dingemans QC expect to hear from about the source of the co-proxamol?

If it was Janice Kelly, he asked a very odd question, if his clumsy words can be called a question.

Were any tablets belonging to Janice Kelly missing? We're not told. She was never asked the question directly.

Did Janice Kelly know how many co-proxamol tablets ought to have been in her "store"? We're not told. The question wasn't asked.

If tablets were missing when were they found to be missing? We're not told.

If tablets were missing how many were missing? We're not told. If less than three blister packs were missing then at least some of the co-proxamol found at Harrowdown Hill must have come from a source other than the Kelly house.

Suppose Janice Kelly was due a dose around 18.00 on 17th July and noticed that co-proxamol tablets were missing. Why, hypothetically, would the telephone call to the Police be delayed until 23.40?

If any tablets were missing were they first noticed to be missing after the bizarre Thames Valley Police search that took place around 04.40 on 18th July (when Mrs. Kelly was made to wait outside in the garden)?

We don't know. The question wasn't asked.

If tablets were noticed to be missing for the first time after the search when Mrs. Kelly was forced to wait outside it opens up clear possibilities that are rather disturbing.

The Death of David Kelly - Spinning a suicide tale too early on 18th July 2003

This post consists largely of the text of a communication sent earlier today to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

Important questions are raised in the email about the political motivation for a cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly. However, the email majors on the evidence that there was "spin" of a "suicide tale" from Thames Valley Police before the Police could legitimately have had the relevant information to hand.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Spinning a suicide tale too early on 18th July 2003


The text of the email was:


[Additional copies are being sent to the Correspondence Unit and Private Office, for forwarding, given the ongoing problems with Mr. McGinty's mailbox.]

Mr McGinty,

This email is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The matter described in this email indicates, I submit, "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. It may also satisfy other Section 13 criteria including "fraud" and "irregularity of proceedings".

In summary, it appears that Thames Valley Police were spreading a tale that David Kelly had committed suicide at a time on 18th July 2003 when they had no legitimate basis for doing so.

Towards the end of this communication I briefly consider why the Police might have done so.

I'll summarise four pieces of evidence that relate to this premature spinning of "suicide" and then briefly consider its effect and purpose:

1. Evidence given by Dr. Sarah Pape to the Hutton Inquiry
2. A contemporary statement of Janice Kelly
3. A contemporary statement of Derek Vawdrey, brother of Janice Kelly
4. The autobiography of Tony Blair
5. The effect and purpose of the spinning of the suicide story


1. Evidence given by Dr. Sarah Pape to the Hutton Inquiry

The following evidence was given by Dr. Sarah Pape (half-sister of David Kelly) at the Hutton Inquiry and relates to the morning of 18th July 2003:

23 Between operations I went back to my office and
24 checked to see whether there were messages on my mobile
25 phone and I picked up a message from Janice, my

93
1 sister-in-law, shortly before 10 o'clock and the message
2 that she left was to say that there was going to be
3 a press release and that I might hear something about my
4 brother having disappeared, but I knew that already so
5 I was not too concerned.
6 I returned to my office between the next two
7 operations, which would have been some time after
8 10 o'clock, and there was a message from my husband
9 asking me to ring home. I initially thought he was just
10 going to give me the same information, that the press
11 would by now know. In fact when I rang him he told me
12 that the police had found my brother's body and that it
13 looked as though he had committed suicide.
14 I decided that I was not going to be able to stay at
15 work, so I decided that I should come home at that
16 point.

See page pages 92 and 93 of Dr. Pape's evidence at
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm.

One has to estimate the precise time at which Sarah Pape received the telephone message from her husband and rang him back. I suggest that the most credible estimate is of the order of 10.30 to 11.00.

However, the timing is not critical to the cause for concern expressed in this communication. It was not until 14.00 that the pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt started to examine the body (other than to confirm death). Therefore, in my opinion, at no time in the morning of 18th July 2003 was there a legitimate basis to consider that David Kelly had committed suicide.

The body was found a little before 09.20, the latter being the time when Paul Chapman's 999 call was logged.

Death was confirmed by the ambulance staff at 10.07.

Officially, no identification had taken place.

And the only observations about possible cause of death made until 10.07 indicated some blood around the left wrist.

The body had neither been seen by the Home Office pathologist nor examined by him at the time Dr. Pape was informed that David Kelly was dead and that it looked as if he'd committed suicide.

It seems likely that it was Janice Kelly who told Mr. Pape that David Kelly's body had been found and that it looked as if it was suicide.

The question arises as to who told Janice Kelly that David Kelly had (or appeared to have) killed himself?

It seems likely that Janice Kelly left her message with Mr. Pape shortly after 10.00.

Given the estimated timing of the message from Janice Kelly to Mr Pape the only person who had contact with Janice Kelly and who knew that a body had been found was Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Webb. At least that is what the evidence to the Hutton Inquiry leads one to assume.

In all likelihood at the time DS Webb spoke to Janice Kelly he knew only that a body had been found. At least that's the case if one assumes that the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry about the discovery of the body is accurate. It is conceivable that DC Coe had in the interim radioed information to Thames Valley Police but, in any case, DC Coe had no expertise to allow him to draw a conclusion as to cause of death.

It seems to me that DS Webb had no legitimate basis at the time period in question either to state that the body was Dr. Kelly's or to state that he had (or appeared to have) committed suicide.

If DS Webb made such statements did he do so on his own authority or did someone in a more senior position cause him to do so? If the latter, what motivation might a more senior officer have had?

2. A contemporary statement of Janice Kelly

Confirmation that it was Thames Valley Police who told Janice Kelly that the body was David Kelly's and that he'd committed suicide is to be found in an article dated 18th July 2003 in the New York Times, co-authored by Judith Miller.

It appears that Judith Miller or her co-author rang Janice Kelly on the 18th July 2003.

The article has Janice Kelly communicate the following:

Mrs. Kelly said the police had confirmed that the body was her husband's, and that the cause of death was suicide. She declined to say what led the police to that conclusion, saying they had asked her not to discuss details of his death.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/international/worldspecial/19BRIT.html?pagewanted=all for the source of the quoted material.

The time on 18th July 2003 when Janice Kelly spoke to the New York Times journalists is undefined, so far as I'm aware.

However, given that the pathologist did not complete his postmortem examination until a little after midnight on 18th July 2003, one can conclude that the Police statements are not based on the postmortem examination.

Further, identification of the body did not take place until 19th July.

3. A contemporary statement of Derek Vawdrey, brother of Janice Kelly

On the morning of 18th July 2003 Janice Kelly is reported to have told her brother Derek Vawdrey that David Kelly had committed suicide.

The statement was made by Mr. Vawdrey to the Sunday Mirror and was published on 20th July 2003:

He told how his sister Janice Kelly rang him on Friday morning. "Her first words were 'Are you sitting down? She then just blurted it out. She could hardly speak for the shock of being told herself. She said he'd committed suicide."

The Friday referred to is 18th July 2003.

The article is no longer online on the Mirror site but can be found here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20030720/ai_n12870819/?tag=content;col1.

Just as Janice Kelly had told Mr Pape on the morning of 18th July 2003 that David Kelly had (or appeared to have) committed suicide so she told her brother, Derek Vawdrey, on the morning of 18th July 2003 that David Kelly had committed suicide.

As discussed earlier, the Police had no legitimate evidence during the morning of 18th July to give such information to Janice Kelly.

4. The autobiography of Tony Blair

Did the Police tell Janice Kelly that the body was David Kelly's and that he had (or appreared to have) committed suicide?

Or did she misunderstand or misinterpret something that the Police told her?

The evidence presented in points 1. to 3. leaves open the possibility of some misunderstanding on the part of Janice Kelly. However, I think one can safely exclude that possibility.

Tony Blair's autobiography contains these words:

In the middle of the night Sir David Manning woke me. 'Very bad news,' he said....'David Kelly has been found dead,' he said, 'suspected suicide.' It was a truly ghastly moment.

The words attributed by Mr. Blair to Sir David Manning are almost identical in their substance to those used by Mrs. Pape in her evidence to Lord Hutton.

At what time did Sir David Manning tell Mr. Blair?

It is not immediately clear what time zone "middle of the night" in the quoted material refers to since Mr. Blair was in flight from Washington to Tokyo.

ITV News at 12.30 (BST) on 18th July 2003 reported that Tony Blair had been informed. His flight was due to land in Tokyo at 15.00 BST.

Janice Kelly was not an intermediary in respect of the information communicated to Sir David Manning so one can conclude that no later than around lunchtime (UK time) on 18th July 2003 Thames Valley Police had informed the Prime Minister's staff (directly or indirectly) that the body was David Kelly's and that it appeared he had committed suicide.

Thames Valley Police could have had no sound basis for such a conclusion at that time on 18th July 2003.

Unless, that is, an unofficial identification of the body had taken place, a matter to which I will return in a future communication. Of course any unofficial identification of the body that may have taken place was not disclosed to the Hutton Inquiry. Additionally any secret, unofficial identification of the body is itself llegitimate.

5. The effect and purpose of the spinning of the suicide story

The effect of Thames Valley Police spinning a suicide story on the morning of 18th July 2003 when there was no legitimate basis to do so is to create in the media and in the public mind the assumption that David Kelly committed suicide.

That has the consequence that objective consideration of other possible causes of death, including murder, is inappropriately and illegitimately inhibited.

The effect of the too-early spinning of the suicide story by Thames Valley Police was to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly. A concealment that has been effective for almost 8 years.

It seems entirely reasonable to me, given the totality of the evidence about the death of Dr. Kelly, to draw the inference that the purpose of the spin was to conceal the murder of Dr. Kelly.

The supposed suicide of Dr. Kelly was a major embarrassment to Tony Blair's Government. Disclosure of the murder of Dr. Kelly would have been politically poisonous in the extreme.

The Blair Government had a powerful motive to seek to plant in the public mind the notion that David Kelly had committed suicide, whether or not they had specific knowledge that David Kelly had been murdered.

The Blair Government was not without skill in spinning. And had a track record e.g. the February 2003 "dodgy dossier" of doing so patently dishonestly to suit its own political purposes.

Conclusion

As discussed above the evidence indicates that Thames Valley Police, during the morning of 18th July 2003 were spinning "suicide" at a time when they had, in my opinion, no legitimate basis to do so.

The question therefore arises as to whether the spinning of "suicide" originated with Thames Valley Police or was spun from another, more political, source.

The effect of the "suicide" spin has been to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly for almost 8 years.

This email is copied, for information, to the Chief Officers of Thames Valley Police.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and that the information contained in it will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Transparency and the Attorney General's consideration of the need for an inquest

The release by the Ministry of Justice of the postmortem and toxicology reports relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly on 22nd October 2010 was, in my view, a major step forward in demonstrating that Dr. Kelly was murdered.

See Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports for links to the postmortem and toxicology reports.

For the first time the weaknesses in the evidence supposedly supporting the "suicide hypothesis" were open to public examination.

I have asked the Attorney General similarly to make available the report(s) produced by the expert(s), in for example forensic pathology and psychiatry, that he has consulted during his consideration of the application to him in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

The request to the Attorney General was sent yesterday via Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Transparency


The text of the email was:


[Additional copies are being sent due to a problem with Mr. McGinty's email address at present.]

Mr McGinty,

I write in connection with the ongoing consideration by the Attorney General of a possible application to the High Court to seek an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

On the Number 10 web site it states, "We want to be the most open and transparent government in the world." (See http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/ ).

I write to enquire how the Government's aspiration of transparency will be expressed in connection with the Attorney General's consideration of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

The Attorney General may recall that I have explicitly asked that he seek formal advice from a forensic pathologist, from a forensic biologist and from a forensic scientist with expertise in examination of wounds and the weapons which may have made them.

I made those requests on the basis of serious concerns regarding the reliability and integrity of the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.

Of course, each of those experts consulted should be visibly independent of Dr. Hunt, forensic pathologist, and Mr. Green, forensic biologist, who gave such unsatisfactory and/or misleading evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Will the Attorney General identify all the forensic pathology experts consulted and publish the report(s) of the forensic pathologist(s) that he has consulted? If not, given that a forensic pathologist should be providing solely technical opinion, what legitimate reason can there be for withholding the information from the public?

Similar questions apply to the requested expert reports on the forensic biology, forensic science and psychiatric assessments.

Those are technical documents. If the technical assessments are reliable then, I suggest, they ought to be put into the public domain to allow others to assess whether the experts have taken into consideration all the relevant facts and whether their assessment is reliable.

If the Attorney General chooses, or has chosen, not to seek expert assessments of the kind I have requested will he publicly state his reasons for such a basic failure to examine the technical evidence?

I would also point out that at the present time the original forensic biology report of Mr. Roy Green, the DNA report (carried out, I assume, by Dr. Eileen Hickey) and the postmortem report of 19th July 2003 continue to be concealed. As do all the photographs taken at or around the scene at Harrowdown Hill.

How can there be any prospect of public confidence in the outcome of the Hutton Inquiry while the evidence continues to be concealed by the Government?

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt