Meantime I'm posting this just to put it in the public domain. I hope to return in a later post to discuss the continuing unresolved matters relating to DC Coe's evidence.
The email was copied to Deputy Chief Constable Francis Hapgood.
The text of the email to Ms Thornton is as follows:
Ms Thornton,
I write to you to report my suspicion that a Thames Valley Police officer may have committed the offence of perverting the course of justice.
Since there are also Professional Standards aspects to the matter, I am copying this email to the DCC and to the Professional Standards Department.
I request that you record this report in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standards and that it appear as a "crime" until such time as there might be found signficant credible evidence to the contrary.
Of the possible elements of the offence of perverting the course of justice outlined on the Crown Prosecution Service website here, http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/, it seems to me that the offence committed by a Thames Valley Police officer includes (but may not be limited to) concealing evidence.
The officer about whose conduct I have serious concerns is Detective Constable Graham Coe. I am afraid that I do not know his shoulder badge or equivalent number.
My specific concern is that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry and thereby concealed material evidence with respect to a suspicious death.
Two independent witnesses, Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman, stated to the Hutton Inquiry that they met "three" individuals after finding the body of Dr. David Kelly.
DC Coe testified to the Hutton Inquiry that he was accompanied only by a DC Shields. See Line 25 on Page 1 to Line 3 on Page 2 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans33.htm.
DC Coe apparently admitted subsequently to the existence of the "third man" to one or more journalists, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301210/Detective-Dr-David-Kellys-body-raises-questions-death.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-investigation-inadequate-Now-NINE-doctors-demand-inquest.html.
The evidence strongly suggests that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry.
The importance of this lie, at least in part, relates to what the action(s) of the "third man" might or might not have been.
The possibility exists that the "third man" introduced evidence to the scene, removed evidence from the scene or otherwise acted in a way which might undermine confidence in the forensic examination of the scene. Whether, and to what extent, the evidence which DC Coe concealed influenced the conclusion of Lord Hutton is presently unknown.
It is difficult to imagine that a senior judge could casually legitimately discount evidence that a police officer had lied to him.
The death of Dr. David Kelly remains a suspicious death.
You may wish to be aware that I have recently written both to the Attorney General (with respect to Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988) and to Nicholas Gardiner, Coroner (with respect to Section 17A of the Coroner's Act 1988) outlining various causes for concern regarding the evidence relating to Dr. Kelly's death and, specifically, drawing attention to new concerns about the evidence arising from the recent public release of the Post Mortem and Toxicology reports.
Ongoing analysis of the toxicology report recently released by the Ministry of Justice, see http://www.justice.gov.uk/kelly-pm-toxicology-reports.htm, raises serious technical questions about the interpretation attached to the toxicology data by Dr. Nicholas Hunt and Dr. Alexander Allan.
My concerns about the toxicology data are so serious that earlier today I reported to Thames Valley Police that I believe that the death of Dr. David Kelly may have been murder. Your Ref: URN514 of 28/10/10.
I would be grateful if Thames Valley Police record the reported crime specified in the present email in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standards and forward to me the relevant reference number.
I am content to provide a full statement to the Police regarding my concerns. My full contact details were given to Thames Valley Police in connection with URN514 of 28/10/10.
Sincerely
(Dr) Andrew Watt
The "new" timing that DC Coe says he first saw the body (9.40am) raises more questions.
ReplyDeleteApparently Paul Chapman’s statement corroborates the 9.40 timing (if in peculiar police speak)
"I wish to further that I showed the body to DC 2368 Coe at 9.40"
Something isn’t right here Paul Chapman at the Hutton Inquiry said he met DC Coe 2 or 3 minutes after making the call to report finding the body (9.20)
The walk from the car park to the scene where the body was discovered is 10 – 12 minutes.
The outer cordon was set up at 9.28.
The only reason I can think of for this strange new 9.40 time to be thrown in the pot is to establish that IF the body was moved it may have been moved in the 20 minutes it was left alone before Coe got to the scene.
LL,
ReplyDeleteCurrently we don't know which individuals first created the outer cordon at 09.28 on 18th July 2003.
It might have been DC Shields and "Harry Lime".
It might have been someone else.
Nor do we know the initial location of the outer cordon, so far as I'm aware.
The new 9.40 time (when Coe first saw the body) would be consistant with Shields and Harry establishing the cordon at the botton of the hill if Coe's Aug 10 statement can be believed. (That he left Louise Holmes, Shields and Harry at the bottom of the track and went up to the woods with only Chapman.
ReplyDeleteHowever the evidence given to the Hutton inquiry by Holmes, Chapman, Franklin, Sawyer, V Hunt and Bartlett regarding where they met Coe and who was with him; puts Coe's new statement in the same league as his old ones...Unreliable
Something that Thames Valley Police, Hutton and now Grieve have failed to address is the possibility that the body was moved, the evidence clearly supports the body was moved.
ReplyDeleteThe photograph that Grieve refers to with the head of the body very close to a tree and the one Hutton refers to with the head and shoulders of the body slumped against the base of a tree proves the body was moved.
The reason the moving of the body has not been investigated is that it puts third party involvement at the scene.
It was the lack of third party involvement at the scene that led to ACC Page's conclusion that this must be suicide.
We now have clear proof that Coe and other police officers with Hutton and Grieve have conspired to pervert the course of Justice.
Grieve keeps talking about Professor Gudjonsson giving evidence to Hutton as a forensic psychologist. No such bloke is in the list of witnesses, nor apparently did he give any evidence. What is going on?
ReplyDeleteGeoaunnes,
ReplyDeleteAs Andrew noted some time ago, and you may have noticed yourself, Prof. Gudjonsson had security clearance.
Security clearance - Professor Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson - not for release - Police operational information TVP/7/0118 - 0120
Clearance for what?
Felix,
ReplyDeleteThanks. It's beginning to look as if Gudjonsson did some kind of assessment of people going to Iraq, and perhaps he had to have clearance so that they could talk to him about unpleasant experiences when working there. Perhaps he did an assessment of Dr Kelly for his return to the ISG. Whatever it was, he never said a single word to Hutton.
It's reassuring that Grieve was so thorough [sic] that he didn't manage to get something as simple as that right.
Geoaunnes,
ReplyDeleteProf Gudjonsson is associated with the MoD and ACPO here in these memory recall exercises for a scientific study being carried out at RAF Wethersfield. He is described as one of the world's leading experts on memory and the effects of trauma.
It seems plausible that he was associated with Dr Kelly's "training" at RAF Honington.
Interestingly his Wikipedia entry has the following passage:
He is an internationally renowned authority on suggestibility and false confessions whose expert testimony was the basis for the convictions of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four being overturned.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteThat just shows that Grieve has made an idiotic error. I wonder how long it will be before he admits it publicly?
Felix & Geoaunnes,
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that Professor Gudjonsson was the author of the supressed medical report from RAF Honnington.