The First Application was made by Norman Baker MP to Baroness Scotland and was rejected.
The Second Application was made by Dr. Stephen Frost and others and was rejected by Dominic Grieve QC MP on 9th June 2011.
The email below begins a Third Application, on the basis of "new evidence" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
The email I am sending to the Attorney General's Office is entitled, "David Kelly: Third Section 13 application for an inquest to be held"
The body of the email is as follows:
I am writing to initiate a Third application to the Attorney General seeking an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
You are, I believe, aware that I consider Dominic Grieve's statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 to have been dishonest.
In time I hope that the Third Application for an inquest may be considered by an Attorney General less corrupt and dishonest than Dominic Grieve QC MP has proved to be.
Given the significant volume of new evidence that was disclosed in June, I anticipate that it may take many weeks (perhaps several months) for me to provide the Attorney General with information regarding the various Section 13 issues.
Of course, others may also wish to draw concerns to the attention of the current or successor Attorney General during that period.
Given Mr. Grieve's handling of the Memorial from Dr. Frost and others it is clear that it is not necessary for a Section 13 application to be expressed in the form of a Memorial.
In this email I wish to draw the Attorney General's attention to what I believe to be "new evidence" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
Briefly, two witnesses (DC Graham Coe and Mr. Roy Green) give conflicting statements about the location of the body found at Harrowdown Hill.
In The Mail on Sunday of 8th August 2010 the former DC Coe states the following (column 4 on page 12 of the printed copy), that the body was lying in an "area where there's no undergrowth".
DC Coe saw the body at around 10.00 on 18th July 2003.
However, Mr Green's report (page 8) includes the following statement, "He was lying on his back in the undergrowth of nettles and brambles."
Mr. Green saw the body no earlier than 14.00 on 18th July 2003.
This contradiction between two witnesses clearly raises the question of whether the Harrowdown Hill body was moved between around 10.00 on 18th July 2003 and 14.00 on 18th July 2003.
So far as I'm aware this discrepancy in the evidence is "new", at least to the public, since Mr. Green's report had been concealed from the public until June 2003.
Thames Valley Police made a cursory investigation of DC Coe's statement to the Mail on Sunday but, so far as I'm aware, failed to identify the potential significance of the preceding quote.
I am copying this email to Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Hapgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball.
I would expect an honest and diligent Police force to investigate this forthwith. Whether Thames Valley Police meets those criteria is very much open to question on the basis of their investigation in 2003 and subsequently into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly..
In the interests of transparency I am posting a copy of this email on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this communication and confirm that in sending this email I have begun the process of a Third Application to the Attorney General seeking an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
Please also confirm that you appeciate that it may take me (and possibly others) many weeks (and possibly some months) to draw together the totality of "new evidence" and or new evidence of, for example, "insufficiency of inquiry".
(Dr) Andrew Watt
If Dominic Grieve is as corrupt and dishonest as I believe him to be I do not expect to receive a positive response from Mr. Grieve.
However, Mr. Grieve will in time be replaced. I hope that as a consequence this important matter may be considered by an Attorney General less dishonest than Mr. Grieve has proved himself to be.