In this post I want to draw attention to a discrepancy between the evidence of DC Graham Coe and the report of Mr. Roy Green.
In an article in The Mail on Sunday of 8th August 2010 the former DC Coe is quoted as saying the following: "He was lying in the dirt near the base of the tree - in the area where there's no undergrowth.".
The quote is from page 12 column 4 of the printed version of the article.
However, in his report, Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003, the forensic biologist Mr. Roy Green states on page 8, "He was lying on his back in the undergrowth of nettles and brambles.".
DC Coe says the body was in an area where there's no undergrowth.
Mr. Green says the body was in "undergrowth of nettles and brambles".
How do we reconcile this glaring discrepancy?
One point to remember is that DC Coe saw the body around 09.40 on 18th July.
Mr. Green first saw the body a little after 14.00 on 18th July.
If, at 09.40 the body was lying where there was no undergrowth and at 14.00 of thereby the body was lying in nettles and brambles it looks as if someone moved the body.
One way to resolve the issue would be to compare the photographs taken in the morning of 18th July by PC Sawyer and those taken in the afternoon by Mr. McGee.
Interestingly, Dr. Shepherd was shown only the photographs taken by Mr. McGee. See Page 20 of Dr. Shepherd's report here: Forensic medical report by Dr Shepherd 16 March 2011.
Why wasn't Dr. Shepherd shown PC Sawyer's photographs?
Did Dominic Grieve withhold the morning photographs from Dr. Shepherd in order to conceal that there was photographic evidence that the body was moved?
Thursday, 18 August 2011
The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Was the body moved between 09.40 and 14.00 on 18th July 2003?
Posted by Andrew Watt at 17:43
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I suspect that the photographs seen by Dr Shepherd were taken by Sawyer but labelled in a bundle named DTM (McGee's initials). The reason why is that Sawyer took photos when Bartlett was present (gap big enough to stand in) but when N Hunt is asked if any part of the body was touching was touching the tree he replies "I recall that his head was quite close to branches and so forth, but not actually over the tree."ReplyDelete
Grieve said in his statement “as the photographs show, his head very close to the trunk of a tree,”
But certainly this puzzle could be solved very simply by allowing independent observers to see all photos of the scene taken by Sawyer, Hickey and McGee along with the scene video, that would put an end to the contraversy.
I wonder why Grieve doesn't want to do that? Nicholas Gardiner estimated that Dr Kelly's inquest would take half a day but Mr Grieve spent the best part of a year conducting an investigation into whether or not to have an inquest.
Grieve is going to a great deal of expense, time and personal risk to prevent the truth regarding the death of Dr Kelly coming out.
The credible conclusion about why Grieve should put his career at risk is that something VERY important has to be concealed.
Of course, it's important whether or not David Kelly was murdered.
But, in itself, that's not important enough for an Attorney General to risk his career re something that happened under a previous Government.
I suspect that the REALLY important thing that has to be concealed is by what agency David Kelly was murdered.
Lord Hutton, in his letter to Kevin McGinty, p.12, says this:ReplyDelete
"..it is clear from Mr Green's evidence about the arterial rain that Dr Kelly's death had already occurred before the body was discovered by the volunteer searchers and that Dr Kelly could not have been murdered elsewhere..."
Perhaps there was a heavy arterial shower of rain between 9.40 and 14.00 hrs?
The assumed "arterial rain" is a very interesting topic.
I'm hoping to post more substantively about that in the near future.
I just noticed another little gem in the leter of Lord Hutton to Kevin McGinty, 3 September 2010.ReplyDelete
...when a man is found dead in a wood lying on blood soaked ground with his ulnar artery severed...
and that it [the blood]
..would have been soaked up into the twigs and vegetation under and around the body...
Indeed Lord Hutton adds an annex A concerning Hutton transcripts describing arterial rain.
More nonsense. Soaked into twigs?? Under the body???