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:
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.
Andrew (it's page 4 of Dr Shepherd's report, page 5 of the file)ReplyDelete
Dr Shepherd seems unaware of the third man, the mysterious "probationer attachment". An event which a "probationer attachment" would remember all his life. What an extraordinary and momentous day for Pc A,the "probationer attachment", although Dc Coe found Pc A's presence instantly forgettable.
Paras 11/12 of TVP1 report that in 2010 Dc Coe now states that Shields and the "probationer attachment" never saw the body and thinks they took the SEBEV search team to the Police station.
Unfortunately, Paul Chapman says this
".. we [Mr Chapman and Louise Holmes, the search team] went back with one of the police officers [presumably DC Shields] to Abingdon police station where we made our statements."
Puff! The "probationer attachment" Pc A disappears!
Its interesting that prof Shepherd uses Dave Bartlett's Mail interview description of the position of the body (great enough distance from a tree to be able to stand in the gap)to confirm the official record. Yet totaly ignore DC Coe's Mail revelation that the body was actually sat against a tree when he first saw it.ReplyDelete
LL, I'm not saying that I am right on this but as Shepherd was supplied with the written statements of the two ambulance crew it's possible that the "tree to head" gap was described in one or both of these. Unfortunately this didn't come out in the oral testimonies at Hutton.ReplyDelete
Felix, Dave Bartlett testifies that he and Vanessa Hunt were asked to check that Louise Holmes was OK so the searchers would have left for the police station at 10.30 at the earliest.ReplyDelete
There would I suggest be a strong motive for the police to keep the two volunteers "chaperoned" to stop any possible loose talk prior to their statements being made.
If both volunteers were taken by police car then I assume that they were also accompanied by Brock.
My feeling is that Louise and Brock would have followed the police car, with Mr Chapman in either vehicle, as they had arrived at the scene together in one vehicle. Otherwise Louise's car would have been left at Longworth. Certainly Mr Chapman's witness statement is dated 18 July.
My feeling also is that "PcA" is someone rather more important.