Friday, 26 August 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Letter to Lord Hutton re ACC Page's evidence

Today I wrote to Lord Hutton with regard to the evidence suggesting that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to the fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records.

The text of the letter (which was copied to Dominic Grieve and Sara Thornton) is here:

26th August 2011

Lord (Brian) Hutton
House of Lords

Dear Lord Hutton,

False testimony to the Hutton Inquiry given by ACC Michael Page

You may recall that the Attorney General’s Office wrote to you last year in relation to questions being raised by myself and a number of other doctors regarding the safety of the conclusion that Dr. David Kelly supposedly committed suicide.

In this communication I wish to draw to your attention evidence that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page gave untrue testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

I ask you to consider the information which I summarise below and consider whether you have a duty to contact the Attorney General on this matter with regard to the safety of the conclusion which appeared in your Report of 28th January 2004 and his consideration of an application under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

Briefly, ACC Page falsely (but successfully) sought to lead the Hutton Inquiry to believe that no “extraneous fingerprints” were present on Dr. Kelly’s dental records.

However, it recently emerged as a result of a Freedom of Information request that six unidentified fingerprints were present on the dental records.

In my assessment it is an inescapable conclusion that ACC Page gave false testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

The effect of the false testimony was to provide the Inquiry with unfounded reassurance that no “third party” had handled Dr. Kelly’s dental records and that, consequently, the temporary disappearance of Dr. Kelly’s dental records could be disregarded.

I drew this matter to Mr. Grieve’s attention on 13th May 2011. See

Given that ACC Page appears to have lied to the Inquiry it seems to me that all his evidence requires to be re-examined. Bizarrely, and in my assessment dishonestly, Mr. Grieve refuses to examine this potentially hugely important issue.

I again drew the matter to Mr. Grieve’s attention on 23rd August 2011, (see ), and again he seeks to avoid an issue of self-evident potential importance.

Mr. Grieve is aware that I view him as a dishonest and corrupt Attorney General so he will not be at all surprised that I view his bizarre inaction in this matter as a further facet of his dishonesty in office.

ACC Page’s false evidence in the matter of dental records related to (supposedly) excluding the presence of third parties at the dental surgery (where Dr. Kelly’s dental records disappeared and mysteriously re-appeared).

ACC Page also gave (at the time) unsubstantiated evidence to the effect that no third parties were present at Harrowdown Hill. The Hutton Inquiry accepted that evidence.

I suspect, but cannot yet prove, that ACC Page also may have lied to the Hutton Inquiry about the weight of evidence regarding excluding the presence of “third parties” at Harrowdown Hill, a pivotal issue with respect to the “suicide hypothesis”.

Clearly, if I am correct that such an important Police witness lied to or otherwise misled the Hutton Inquiry about such important matters of evidence then I believe it is self-evident that the conclusion which you reached in January 2004 is unsafe.

As I indicated earlier I believe you have a duty carefully to consider this matter and communicate to Mr. Grieve that your January 2004 conclusion is unsafe.

If you do write to Mr. Grieve expressing concern appropriate to the seriousness of a senior Police officer lying I would appreciate receiving a copy of that letter or letters.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this letter will be placed on my “Chilcot’s Cheating Us” blog at

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Lord (Brian) Hutton, House of Lords

Dominic Grieve QC MP
Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Thames Valley Police

No comments:

Post a Comment