I imagine for some readers questioning of the evidence of the widow will be an uncomfortable consideration.
However, if the truth about the death of David Kelly is to be established then the evidence has to be looked at critically. ALL the evidence has to be looked at critically.
In this post I briefly summarise some concerns I've had for some time about the reliability of the evidence given by Janice Kelly.
My concerns about the evidence given by Janice Kelly arose in the context of the bizarre silence of the Kelly family about the possibility that David Kelly was murdered. See The Death of David Kelly - The surprising behaviour of the Kelly family from 8th November 2010.
One issue where Janice Kelly's evidence to Hutton is questionable is with respect to the events of the morning of 10th July 2003.
According to Janice Kelly's evidence, she and David Kelly were driving from Weston super Mare to Cornwall.
According to "Mr. A", David Kelly was in his (Mr A's) garden in the vicinity of Swindon chatting and having coffee.
It's not possible for both accounts to be accurate.
Also, with respect to the morning of 10th July Janice Kelly mentions an article in the Times by Nick Rufford.
Nick Rufford doesn't write for the Times and, so far as I can trace, he didn't make an exception to that practice in the Times of 10th July 2003.
On these two points, where Janice Kelly's evidence can be cross-checked, her evidence is at least questionable.
Neither of the preceding points is new so I haven't provided links to the relevant parts of the Hutton Inquiry.
The question in my mind for some time now is whether there are other, perhaps more important issues, on which the reliability of Janice Kelly's evidence is in doubt.
Professor Hawton's suicide story depends crucially on Janice Kelly's evidence for 17th July 2003, after all.