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.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
We now have an unedifying situation where the chief legal advsor to the Crown has gone to Parliament and lied.ReplyDelete
Not only did he lie but he has prevented a proper inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly and based his reasons on obvious lies.
Mr Grieve has shown contempt for the Crown, for Parliament and Justice.
Perhaps the "best" response open to Dominic Grieve is to emphasise the dishonesty of the report given to him by Thames Valley Police.
See, for example, The Death of David Kelly - Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June.
However, it's not really an acceptable position for an Attorney General to take that he has been a dupe rather than being duplicitous.
Not when he has told Parliament that his (erroneous) conclusion was arrived at after "the most careful consideration" of "all the material".
See Dr David Kelly.
Every MP, excluding the most stupid, (and I don't doubt that there might be a few of them) must feel extremely uncomfortable.
They now know that a large proportion of the public (and getting larger) are aware that the Attorney General has corruptly used his position to pervert justice.
But not one of them has spoken out. The Tories too afraid to bring down the Tory led coalition, Labour relieved that their corruption has remained un-investigated and the Lib Dems too cowardly (or stupid)to care. As far as I can see the others have no excuses.
If Grieve's mendacity goes unchallenged by MP's they are then all as guilty as each other in propping up a corrupt Parliament.
If no MP comes forward to challenge this despicable travesty of Democracy and Justice then our society doomed.
It would be lovely to think that most MPs are up to speed on the inaccuracy and dishonesty of Dominic Grieve's statement.
At the moment, I doubt if more than a few realise the seriousness of what Dominic Grieve did on 9th June.
But the facts won't go away.
There are a few independent minded MPs but not many - see this tiny list who didn't vote for regime change by military intervention in Libya:ReplyDelete
ohn Baron (Basildon & Billericay);
MPs Graham Allen (Nottingham North),
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley),
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North),
Barry Gardiner (Brent North),
Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green),
John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington),
Linda Riordan (Halifax),
Dennis Skinner (Bolsover),
Mike Wood (Batley & Spen);
Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion)
Mark Durkan (Foyle)
Margaret Ritchie (Down South).
notice the absence of Diane Abbot MP: she has a shadow ministerial job now with the newly married Ed Milliband. That's how it works.
Prof Dr Shepherd was asked in his role as Consultant Forensic Pathologist to comment on the suggestion that the body was moved after it had been discovered by the search team.ReplyDelete
He stated in his report "In my opinion there is no evidence to support the theory that the body had been moved after discovery"
He based this entirely on his observation that there were no drag marks from the tree to the where the body lay and on the witness statements of the ambulance crew which described the body in the same position as photos that Prof Shepherd had been allowed to see.
If Prof Shepherd had asked to see all photos from the scene he would have come to a very different conclusion, as he would if he had considered that Dr Kelly may have been lifted from where he was sat / slumped before being placed in the new position not dragged.
But Prof Shepherd doesn't appear to have eye for detail which is odd given his profession. He has Dr Hunt taking the rectal temperature at 19.15pm on the 18th March 2007 using this to estimate death at between 16.15 on 17 March 2007 and 1.15 18 March 2007.
Prof Shepherd is at least consistent in reporting that the post mortem commenced at 21.20 on 18 March 2007 and ended just after midnight on the 19th March 2007.
Now I'm not sure here but I am starting to think that the Attorney General might, now, want to consider again how much reliance he places on this report.
Dr Shepherds reportReplyDelete
Page 4 - Dr Kelly found dead 18th July 2007
Page 6 - Post Mortem 18 - 19th March 2007
Page 10 - Time of death 17 - 18th March 2007