Saturday, 27 August 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Alerting the Attorney General to Mr. Green's evidence being unsafe

As a follow-up to my post The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain I have now written to the Attorney General's Office asking for an urgent review of Mr. Green's written and oral evidence.

The title of today's email to the Attorney General's Office was,
David Kelly(3rd appln): Simulating "aterial rain" - need for urgent expert review


The text of the email was as follows:


Mr. McGinty,

I am writing to you as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General seeking, in the context of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

I write to draw to the attention of the Attorney General's Office important new evidence casting doubt on the credibility of the evidence of the forensic biologist Mr. Roy Green. This new evidence demonstrates, in my view, serious "insufficiency of inquiry" with respect to a pivotal part of the evidence supporting the "suicide hypothesis".

I ask you to draw this matter urgently to the attention of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in view of its fundamental implications for the safety of Lord Hutton's "suicide" conclusion of January 2004.

As you are aware the report of Mr. Green was kept secret, at the request of Lord Hutton, from 2003 until 9th June 2011. Thus it is only now that it is possible to subject Mr. Green's report to independent scrutiny.

Taken at face value (and Lord Hutton failed to looked deeper) Mr. Green's evidence seemed to create a seemingly indisputable scenario of bleeding at Harrowdown Hill.

Importantly, Mr. Green failed to disclose that simulation of arterial rain is possible and, moreover, failed to disclose that simulation of arterial rain is a fairly straightforward task.

In other words Mr. Green failed to disclose that it would be possible for a "Scene Setter" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-blood-distribution.html ) to fabricate a seemingly credible scenario of bleeding at Harrowdown Hill when no such bleeding had taken place.

Simulation of arterial rain is so straightforward that, in at least some centres, forensic science trainees routinely use simulation of arterial rain during their training. See the references in my blog post entitled, "The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain" located at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-simulating.html.

I do not attempt here to elucidate whether Mr. Green's failure to disclose the possibility of simulation is due to dishonesty, ignorance, oversight or some other factor. The most material issue is the implication of that failure with respect to the safety of Lord Hutton's conclusion.

The technically fairly straightforward task of simulating arterial rain casts fundamental doubt on the safety of Mr. Green's evidence with respect to the supposed bleeding taking place at Harrowdown Hill.

In turn that calls into question the safety of Lord Hutton's "suicide" conclusion.

I do not expect any member of the Attorney General's Office to have detailed technical knowledge of this matter. Having seen the visible inadequacies of the correspondence from the Attorney General's Office to, for example, Dr. Richard Shepherd I am taking the liberty to formulate some relevant questions - for Mr. Green, for an independent forensic expert and for Lord Hutton.

It seems to me that an honest Attorney General would wish to take steps similar to seeking such clarification.

In the interests of transparency I suggest that all such correspondence from the Attorney General's Office be disclosed publicly. The replies should similarly be publicly disclosed, I believe.

Questions for Mr. Green

1. Can you confirm that you did not disclose the possibility of simulation of "arterial rain" in your written and oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Prior to compiling your statement of 27th September 2003 did you consider the possibility of the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill having been simulated?

3. On 18th July 2003 and 27th July 2003 were you aware of the concept of simulation of arterial rain?

4. Did you disclose to or discuss with the forensic pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt the possibility that the supposed "arterial rain" had been simulated?

5. Do you accept, in principle, that it is possible to simulate arterial rain?

6. Do you believe that it was possible to differentiate the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill from simulated arterial rain?

7. What steps, if any, did you carry out to distinguish whether the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill was genuine or simulated?

8. On reflection, can you now state whether you believe that beyond reasonable doubt the blood on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill could only have been caused by bleeding at the scene? If you believe so, then please provide a detailed account of the evidence and logic which you consider to justify such an opinion.

Many other possible questions exist. The foregoing should be capable of casting useful light on the matter, assuming honest answers to the questions.

Questions for an independent forensic expert

The following questions assume that all relevant forensic evidence is disclosed to the chosen expert.

It may also be worth disclosing explicitly to the expert that the possibility of Judicial Review may be in prospect.

1. Are you able to identify any evidence to suggest that Mr. Green disclosed the possibility of simulation of "arterial rain" in his written or oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Do you accept, in principle, that it is possible to simulate arterial rain?

3. What is your assessment of the technical difficulty (or ease) of simulating arterial rain? Please answer with respect to the general case and the specific circumstances found at Harrowdown Hill.

4. Do you believe that it was possible to differentiate the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill from simulated arterial rain? If so, please provide a detailed account of how you believe that could reliably be done.

5. What steps, if any, could Mr. Green have carried out to distinguish whether the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill was genuine or simulated?

6. Did he carry out any such investigations? What is your assessment of the adequacy of any such investigations?

7. On the available evidence is it possible that the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill was simulated?

8. Can you state, beyond reasonable doubt, that the blood on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill could only have been caused by bleeding at the scene? If you believe so, then please provide a detailed account of the evidence and logic which you consider to justify such an opinion and thereby exclude the possibility of simulated arterial rain.


Questions for Lord Hutton

I suggest that Lord Hutton is best approached on this matter following receipt of answers from the independent forensic expert.

If the supposed "arterial rain" may have been simulated it seems to me that the "suicide hypothesis" is fatally holed below the waterline.

1. In light of the new information from Mr. Green and an independent forensic expert do you accept that your conclusion of January 2004 that Dr. David Kelly committed suicide is now unsafe?

2. If the answer to question 1. is in the negative, please provide a justification or explanation for that assessment.



Mr. McGinty, you may be aware that today's Daily Mail contains an article indicating the prospect of Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's (in my mind dishonest) decision of 9th June 2011. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030663/Doctors-unleash-legal-challenge-inquest-Dr-David-Kelly-had.html

It seems to me likely that matters such as this which further demonstrate "insufficiency of inquiry" on the part of Lord Hutton (and, indeed, on the part of the Attorney General) may be of interest to those contemplating Judicial Review.

The Duggan case seems to indicate that the Attorney General may ex proprio motu decide to review his own decision. I urge Mr. Grieve to consider whether now is the time to throw in the towel with respect to his dishonest decision and statement of 9th June 2011. It was nonsense on 9th June and increasing evidence is emerging to demonstrate that it was nonsense.

On 12th June 2011 I invited Dominic Grieve QC MP and Edward Garnier QC MP to resign in view of the dishonest decision and statement to the House of Commons. See "The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html )

I repeat here the invitation to Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier to resign in view of the demonstrably unsound decision announced on 9th June 2011.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this email is to be found on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-alerting-attorney.html


I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this communication and confirm that it will be considered as part of a future assessment of this matter by the Attorney General of the time.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

7 comments:

  1. Andrew,
    Am I correct in stating that the blood found on the nettles was never analysed by Roy Green's laboratory?
    Unless of course it is buried in the samples handed to Anne Franc and which are not identified by Mr Green.
    As Mr Green writes, his report is to be read in conjuction with Anne Franc's and the Attorney General has deliberately concealed Anne Franc's report from the public gaze along with Mr Green's Appendix 2. This is all highly unsatisfactory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Felix,

    Yesterday I carefully re-read Mr. Green's report. I could find no evidence that the blood on the nettles had been tested re whether or not it was Dr. Kelly's blood. I am unaware of any oral or written evidence in the public domain which shows the blood on the nettles to have been tested.

    As I interpret the bigger picture it doesn't remove the problem if the blood on the nettles is shown to be from Dr. Kelly.

    If, however, the blood on the nettles were tested and found not to be Dr. Kelly's blood then the "suicide hypothesis" is fatally undermined, I think.

    As I think you know I recently asked the Attorney General's Office to release Appendix 2, Anne Franc's report and multiple other documents which continue to be concealed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Green's report raises many oddities that might explain why the report was kept secret for so many years, two for example have never be explained;

    1) The ambulance crew reported a blood stain on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans (pretty much the only blood staining they saw apart from the wound, which they saw but Sawyer and Franklin didn't because the wrist was pointing down when they were there) Any way the blood stain on the right knee was described as 25mm across and the size of a fifty pence by the ambulance crew but when Green got there the stain had grown ten times in area to 80mm across. Not just that, Green reported a similar size stain on the left leg but that had been "diluted"

    2) On top of the heel of Dr Kelly's right boot was a directional bloodstain that originated from the right of the shoe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. LL,

    You're right. There are several other oddities in Mr. Green's report which I'm working on.

    You've identified three from a larger number that exist in his September 2003 report.

    I thought that pulling out the single issue of the possibility of simulating "arterial rain" would make communication easier.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the same issue of the Daily Mail, another story relating to an alleged cover-up in the Met concerning senior police officers allegedly perverting the course of justice in the De Menezes killing.
    Usual locker room chat here which seems conveniently not to connect it with other recent events of senior Met officers falling on their swords.

    Perhaps there are serving officers in the Thames Valley Police whose promotion prospects have stalled over voicing concerns in the Kelly "investigation" and whose moral compass is still functioning?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Felix,

    For some reason I have some difficulty in associating the terms "Thames Valley Police" and "moral compass".

    The failings of Thames Valley Police with respect to the suspicious death of David Kelly have much to do with that difficulty.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Felix,

    Thanks for the De Menezes link.

    I've posted it on my The Police Are Cheating Us blog here: De Menezes Killing - Officer seemingly sues Metropolitan Police re "cover-up".

    To nobody's surprise the Impotent Pathetic Cover-up Commission found no wrongdoing.

    I guess it's just the IPCC doing its job.

    ReplyDelete