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.