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).
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.
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
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.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
Post a Comment