In this post I want to highlight one implication of the limitations of the forensic biology report of 27th September 2003 from Mr. Roy Green, Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003.
Of course, given that the report wasn't produced until 27th September 2003 counsel to the Hutton Inquiry (and other counsel) had no opportunity to consider the written report during the period when oral evidence was being taken.
On page 5 of Mr. Green's report is a list of the laboratory tests that Mr. Green was asked to carry out.
I can identify no mention of Mr. Green having been asked to examine the clothing of Dr. Kelly for evidence of contact with a second party or parties.
Unless there is some other report which is not yet in the public domain it seems to me that there is no evidence that any forensic testing was done to look for recent contact between Dr. Kelly and another person or persons.
How then is it possible supposedly to "exclude" the presence of other people at Harrowdown Hill?
The simple answer is that it isn't possible to do that. The relevant tests were, so far as I can establish, never carried out.
So much for ACC Page supposedly excluding the presence of "third parties" at Harrowdown Hill.