In that email I asked Mr. Jacobsen to consider whether it would be best for the Kelly family to "come clean" about a deception to which I believed (and believe) that the family was party.
Given the absence of any indication from Mr. Jacobsen that he has acted in a way I would believe to be appropriate to the seriousness of the matters under consideration I am putting that communication into the public domain.
Both Professor Keith Hawton and Dr. Malcolm Warner were copy recipients. To the best of my knowledge neither has taken appropriate action to correct the situation.
The title of the email of 12th June 2011 to Mr Jacobsen was,
The death of David Kelly - It's time for the Kelly family to tell the truth
The content of the email was,
I write to you on the assumption that you continue to represent the Kelly family.
I write to ask you to consider how most appropriately to communicate to the Kelly family my concerns expressed in this email.
I write to invite you to discuss with the Kelly family the need for them, finally, to tell the truth regarding the events of July 2003.
I imagine that finally "coming clean" will not be an easy or painless process for the Kelly family.
I write not to create trouble for the Kelly family but to urge them to consider that "coming clean" now may be a much less traumatic way to put right what I believe to have included concealment of evidence by the Kelly family.
That, of course, is a choice for the Kelly family to make - individually and collectively.
The doubts about the evidence, including evidence given by the Kelly family, won't go away.
Nor will the doubts about the cover-up of the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly currently spearheaded by the Attorney General. See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html for more background.
It is my assessment that Janice Kelly gave misleading and, arguably, dishonest evidence to the Hutton Inquiry in 2003. Later in this email I will briefly summarise some of the basis for that opinion.
You will, I imagine, be aware of the statement made by the Attorney General to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.
I imagine that your clients may have, as a result, hoped that the truth would, for ever, be concealed.
However, lying (even out of the most personal of motives) is problematic in a situation as thoroughly and publicly documented as the circumstances surrounding the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.
You will be aware that the notion that Dr. Kelly committed suicide is founded primarily on statements made by Janice Kelly to Professor Keith Hawton.
In correspondence to the Attorney General I have been seriously critical of Professor Hawton's evidence.
for a copy of a communication to the Attorney General re Professor Hawton's evidence.
While I continue to be critical of Professor Hawton's evidence, one mitigating factor, I believe, is that Janice Kelly seriously misled him about the events of 17th July 2003.
I believe that there are good grounds to conclude that Janice Kelly was an unreliable witness.
The following are examples of the concerns which exist regarding Janice Kelly's evidence:
1. Janice Kelly gave evidence of a supposed "flight to Cornwall" on the evening of 9th July 2003. Thames Valley Police have now confirmed that David Kelly played cribbage on that evening.
2. Janice Kelly gave evidence that on the morning of 10th July 2003 she read an article in the Times by Nick Rufford. Nick Rufford does not write for the Times.
3. Janice Kelly gave evidence that on the morning of 10th July 2003 she and David Kelly travelled from Weston Super Mare to Cornwall. Mr. A (Rod Godfrey) stated that David Kelly was in his garden near Swindon drinking coffee.
4. Janice Kelly denied that any rows took place between herself and Dr. Kelly. I am led to believe that such a denial is untrue.
5. Janice Kelly supposedly could not remember what she and David Kelly did on the afternoon of Saturday 12th July 2003. She and David Kelly met with John and Pamela Dabbs. Mrs Kelly asked the Dabbs to keep secret confidences that David Kelly had disclosed. Mr Dabbs did as he was asked by Mrs, Kelly and concealed evidence from the Police and from the Hutton Inquiry.
I could go on but those examples are, perhaps, sufficient to evidence that there is a sound basis for my concerns.
My conclusion is that Janice Kelly misled Professor Hawton and misled Lord Hutton.
I believe I understand at least part of her motives for doing so.
You may also wish to discuss with Mrs. Kelly and other members of the Kelly family whether it is time honestly to give evidence about the after effects of Dr. Kelly's riding accident in December 1991.
for a discussion of that matter.
That, of course, is material to the consideration of whether or not Dr. Kelly had the functional capacity in his right arm to incise his left wrist.
I am copying this email to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office for information.
I am also copying this email to Professor Keith Hawton, in order to give him the opportunity to reappraise his evidence to Lord Hutton and to consider whether, as a result, he has a duty to inform Thames Valley Police that his evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry may have been untrue or unsoundly based.
Given that Dr. Malcolm Warner also failed to disclose in oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry medical evidence regarding the injury to Dr. Kelly's right arm. Dr. Warner may also wish to review his position.
Blind copies of this email are also being sent, in part to document that the preceding questions have been posed to you acting on behalf of the Kelly family.
I have no plans to write again on this matter to you.
If, individually and collectively, the Kelly family considers that the best course of action is to ignore the issues I raise herein then I have no intention to pursue those issues again with you or directly with them.
Given renewed media interest in the withholding of evidence from the Hutton Inquiry expressed in today's Mail on Sunday,
others, of course, may independently pursue the issue with the Kelly family.
It's not rocket science for readers of Mr. Mangold's article to figure out that the Kelly family may have influenced the withholding of evidence from the Hutton Inquiry.
It is my opinion that there is no painless way to correct years of what I believe to be deception.
I have, in good faith, suggested to you what I believe to be the least bad option.
The choice of what action to take, if any, belongs to you and the Kelly family.
Thank you for your attention.
(Dr) Andrew Watt