Thursday, 18 August 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Why did Dominic Grieve conceal Appendix 2 of Mr. Green's report?

In a recent post, The Death of David Kelly - Who classified Mr Green's report as "Restricted"? , I drew attention to modification of Mr. Green's report on 8th June 2011.

One likely change made by the Attorney General's Office was the removal of Appendix 2 of Mr. Green's report.

Appendix 2 relates to the DNA evidence as to whether or not the body found at Harrowdown Hill was genetically related to Ellen Wilson (nee Kelly) and Sian Kelly.

See Page 8 of Dr. Green's report here: Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003 for the reference to the content of Appendix 2.

Why, or so it seems, did the Attorney General's Office remove the appendix which might demonstrate or refute the body found at Harrowdown Hill as being David Kelly?

What did the Attorney General's Office seek to conceal?


  1. Andrew.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but there very little evidence as far as I can see connecting the body at Harrowdown Hill with Dr Kelly.

    The key samples which were taken by Dr Hunt at Harrowdown Hill were labelled NCH1,NCH2 and NCH3. NCH13/14/15/19/20 would also have supplied confirmatory DNA evidence.

    The blood analysed by Mr Green, NCH45 was taken at the Post Mortem on the evening of 18 July 2003.

    NCH36 , cheek swab, was also taken at the Post Mortem.

    Key samples NCH1/2 (nostril swabs) never made it to Mr Green's laboratory. (why??)

    Samples NCH3/14/15/19/20/21 arrived on the 25th July.

    Strangely, NCH36 arrived 6 days after the other Post Mortem samples.

    NCH3 (2x mouth swabs) was tested for blood (found, but apparently not STR profiled) and semen (not found)

    NCH19/20/21 were analysed for semen (not found) and again no STR profiling was carried out.

    Sample NCH11 did not, as Mr Green freqently said, give a full STR profile, but from STR profiling it "could have originated from Dr Kelly"

    However NCH14/15 gave a "full STR profile matching that of Dr Kelly" which again "could have come from Dr Kelly.

    So only NCH14/15 provide a link between Harrowdown Hill and Dr Kelly, couched in the word could.

    Finally, why one earth would out of a house full of stuff, would Mr Green be analysing a digital camera and its memory card from Westfield, Southmoor,for DNA?? What was on the memory card, one wonders?

  2. Andrew,
    Before we get too wrapped up in the details of Mr Green’s witness statement I think we should look very carefully at exactly what this document is.
    Firstly there are two pages missing and secondly although it is dated 27th September 2003 this document is clearly circa 2006 (the date is stamped on the bottom left hand corner) and in its header it contains a reference to The Criminal Procedure Rules of 2005.
    What is going on? This is not the first time documents have disclosed that under close scrutiny are not the documents they are purported to be.
    Perhaps we should we write to Mr Green and ask him?