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.

No comments:

Post a Comment