On 1st August 10 Downing Street sent a holding reply to my MP.
On 2nd August Dominic Grieve sent to my MP a letter in response to my concerns.
The following is a brief extract from Dominic Grieve's letter.
As I made clear in my statement to the House, the evidence supported the fact that Dr. Kelly took his own life is overwhelming. In particular, the forensic evidence supports the conclusion that Dr. Kelly died in the position in which his body was found. It is not for me to explain what Lord Hutton intended in making the comment he did in paragraph 151 of his report but I have seen the photographs that were before Lord Hutton and I believe what he meant was that when seen from different angles, the body might have appeared to be slumped against a tree. Reading paragraph 151 in its entirety does not suggest that Lord Hutton believed the body had been moved."
Dominic Grieve indulges in delightful evasion.
An evasion which amounts to nonsense.
Dominic Grieve is also being disingenuous and dishonest.
The cause for concern is that Lord Hutton's paragraph 151 and Dr. Shepherd's report, as they relate to the position of Dr. Kelly's body, are mutually incompatible. Further, the evidence of Louise Holmes is conveniently being discounted by the Attorney General so as to remove the evidence that Dr. Kelly's body was moved.
My reading of Dominic Grieve's words is that there is NO photograph showing the head against the tree as claimed in Lord Hutton's paragraph 151.
And, in my perception, Lord Hutton invented that notion in order to discount the oral evidence given by Louise Holmes.
Dominic Grieve cannot say that Lord Hutton was lying but that's my conclusion from his words.
Do you read the totality of the evidence differently?
On the 9th June 2011 Dominic Grieve dug himself a hole, he has now made that hole a lot deeper!ReplyDelete
It is ridiculous for Grieve to say 'It is not for me to say what Lord Hutton intended ...' and then later in the very same sentence to give his own interpretation as to what Hutton meant.
Hutton is absolutely specific in paragraph 151: 'I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree'.
The witnesses at the Inquiry who stated that the body was flat on the ground didn't really make an effort to say just how far the body was from the tree. Disappointingly neither Dr Hunt nor Mr Green described the body position in their statements in relation to the tree. Oddly Mr Green says 'He was lying on his back in the undergrowth of nettles and brambles'. At the Inquiry he burbles on about the leaf litter absorbing blood.
In contrast this is what DC Coe says in the Mail on Sunday article of 8.8.10 'He was lying in the dirt near the base of the tree - in the area where there's no undergrowth. I went right up to the body and examined it'.
Coe also says 'I could see Dr Kelly's body sideways on, with his head and shoulders against a large tree'. This description matches that given by Louise Holmes in both her police statement and Hutton testimony. As with Coe Ms Holmes gets very close to the body - she states four feet.
It was the Daily Mail article of 12.9.10 that caused real problems about the body position when ambulance technician Dave Bartlett explained that the body was far enough from the tree for him to stand in the gap. This has clearly become too large a circle for Grieve to sensibly square.
It's interesting that one witness mentions the body lying in "nettles and brambles" and another refers to "the area where there's no undergrowth".
DC Coe's Daily Mail statement that he saw the body sideways on with the head and shoulders against a tree is dynamite.
From sideways on there is no possibility of mistake at the time about the position of the body. There is of course the possibility of faulty recall at a distance in time, but not of faulty observation.
Conveniently, Dominic Grieve and Thames Valley Police ignored DC Coe's recent evidence, and attempted to do the same with Louise Holmes's contemporary oral and written evidence.
It's enough to make one believe that Dominic Grieve and Thames Valley Police have a vested interest in concealing that David Kelly's body was moved.
Now why might they want to do that?
The body of Dr Kelly had the legs pointing down the common approach path, this was the route taken in and out by the search team and then taped off by Sawyer and Franklin (what's Dadd up to?)ReplyDelete
So if Coe says he approached the body from the side then 1) he's lying (we know he does that) 2) The body was moved (we know it kept moving) 3) Coe approached the scene by a route other than the common approach path (had Coe been at the scene prior to the search team finding the body?)
In his 8/8/10 interview Coe says "There is a good canopy on the wood but you can see fine if there is daylight. I had to pick my way through brambles and nettles but it wasn’t impassable."
This seems to suggest he did take a different path to the common approach one and had knowledge that visibility at the scene is not so good without daylight?
Coe misled the HI about who accompanied him, he misled the inquiry or the newspaper about the position of the body when he first saw it and he misled the inquiry about how long he remained at the scene, he said he left when the ambulance crew arrived (c10.00am) an FOI disclosure revealed he left the scene at 11.47am.
If Coe had given evidence at an inquest he would have been investigated and probably charged with perjury as it is his behaviour is perfectly acceptable under Hutton's rules.
Coe was interviewed on the 25th Aug 2010 by police in relation to his MoS interview, he was not questioned about his new account of the position of the body when he first saw it therefore this amounts to "new evidence"; certainly Dominic Grieve did not consider this new revelation. If Coe is telling the truth (for once) then this is proof that the body was moved.
The fact that TVP and Grieve failed to consider this new evidence is also proof of their part in a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
And Cameron is going to clean up our society........don't make me laugh!
In Lord Hutton's letter to Kevin McGinty, he writesReplyDelete
..paragraph 133 of my report makes it clear that PC Sawyer,a scene of crime officer,was called and said in evidence...."all the vegetation surrounding Dr Kelly's body was standing upright"...
Lord Hutton also describes PC Franklin as a scene of crime officer.
I was under the impression that they were Tactical Support search and protection officers, not SOCO.
Another senior moment?ReplyDelete
You're correct about PC Franklin.
He is not a SOCO.