Chilcot's Cheating Us

The Death of David Kelly - Mr Justice Nicol refuses leave for Judicial Review of Attorney General's decision

2011-12-22T16:38:00.003Z

The BBC and other media are reporting that on Monday 19th December 2011, at the High Court in London, Mr "Justice" Nicol refused Mr. David Halpin leave to proceed to judicial review of Dominic Grieve's decision which was announced on 9th June 2011. See for example Dr David Kelly inquest ruling challenge fails.

The BBC report states,

The court said there was "no impropriety" or procedural flaw in the way Mr Grieve had considered the evidence and concluded a new inquest was unnecessary.

,

which is an interesting position for Mr. Justice Nicol to adopt.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the shameful nature of Dominic Grieve's decision in my view. See, for example, The Death of David Kelly - A shameful and appalling cover-up by a dishonest Attorney General.

According to the Matrix Law website David Halpin's case was deemed to be "unarguable" (Matrix Chambers):

19/12/11 High Court says that challenge to Attorney General's decision on Kelly Inquest is "unarguable"Mr Justice Nicol rejected a challenge by a retired surgeon who sought to challenge the Attorney General's decision not to apply for a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. Following a day's hearing, Mr Justice Nicol said that the claim against the Attorney General was "unarguable" and ordered the Claimant to pay the Attorney's costs. Jonathan Glasson acted for the Attorney General, led by Jonathan Swift QC, First Treasury Counsel. For more details, please see the BBC website.

Currently, I cannot locate any written judgement by Mr. Justice Nicol therefore cannot yet fairly assess whether or not Mr. Justice Nicol's contention of the case being "unarguable" is simply a reflection of his being a "safe pair of establishment hands".

Given that the establishment appointed Lord Hutton as a "safe pair of hands" with a track record of covering up murder by state agents (see, for example, The Death of David Kelly - Lord Hutton has "previous" in concealing murder which would be embarassing to the State ) it would not surprise me at all if Mr. "Justice" Nicol replaced Mr. Justice Parker for similar reasons.

The Death of David Kelly - Freedom of Information Requests about the Death of Dr. David Kelly

2011-09-24T13:16:00.000+01:00

One of the growing problems in attempting to keep on top of what new information is available about the death of Dr. Kelly is that there is no single place where the responses to Freedom of Information requests are available.

I'm intending to produce a document that tabulates all the information that is publicly available.

I imagine that this will take quite some time to put together.

If you have asked any FOI questions I'd appreciate it if you would forward to me a copy of your question(s) and the response(s).

I hope progressively to add such responses to a document which collates all the FOI questions asked and the answers given.

I know, for example, that Norman Baker MP asked a significant number of FOI questions but those questions and the answers are not publicly visible, so far as I know. Which seems a pity.

Please email information about any FOI requests that you've made about the death of David Kelly to AndrewWattChilcot@gmail.com

The Death of David Kelly - Inquiry of the Government by the people for the people

2011-09-23T07:40:00.003+01:00

I was browsing today some of my earliest posts on this blog.

On 9th February 2010, Chilcot's Cheating Us: Britain's First Genuinely Public Inquiry, I wondered if internet technologies might enable a new quality of questioning of governments:

Inquiry of the Government by the people for the people

I think that a beginning has been made.

Much less has been achieved so far, perhaps, than I'd hoped back in February 2010.

But, equally, more cages have been rattled than I'd feared might be the case.

Will inquiry of the Government with respect to an illegal war and the suspicious death of David Kelly be more than pin-pricks?

Time will tell.

I can't imagine that Dominic Grieve or Sara Thornton are entirely comfortable with how things are developing.

The Iraq Inquiry: Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir John Chilcot

2011-09-23T07:18:00.003+01:00

The stimulus to starting this blog was my being appalled at the psychopathic complacency of Tony Blair when he appeared before the Iraq Inquiry on 29th January 2010.

See Oral Evidence: 29 January 2010 for links to videos and a transcript of Tony Blair's evidence.

On 2nd February 2010 I wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry expressing my concerns that Tony Blair had committed criminal offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to Iraq.

In that letter to Sir John Chilcot, I mention a letter sent to Sir Paul Stephenson and the (then) Assistant Commissioner John Yates. I have posted the text of that letter on my The Police Are Cheating Us blog here: Terrorism Act 2000 Section 56 offences etc - Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates.

2nd February 2010

To:
Sir John Chilcot,
Chairman,
Iraq Inquiry

Iraq War: Multiple Serious Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000

Dear Sir John,

I write to draw to your attention an important issue relating to the legality of the Iraq War which, to the best of my knowledge, your Inquiry has failed to address.

The important issue to which I refer is whether or not individuals concerned in the planning and execution of the Iraq War committed criminal offences under UK law when carrying out the actions which are the subject of the Iraq Inquiry.

Briefly, the Inquiry seems to have concentrated when exploring the legality or otherwise of the Iraq War entirely on questions of international law. The Inquiry appears to have omitted to examine whether actions relating to the Iraq War involved criminal offences under UK law.

I suggest to you that this is a serious omission on the part of the Iraq Inquiry which you require to rectify.

I enclose a copy of a letter I am sending today to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service and the Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations informing them of my belief that serious offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000 were committed by a substantial number of UK citizens, a few of whom I list in my letter. The seriousness of some of these offences are such that Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 indicates that life imprisonment is the punishment on conviction.

Your Inquiry has interviewed a number of those individuals who can, I believe, be fairly termed “terrorists” following a careful reading of Sections 1 and 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who have, I believe, committed offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and, on conviction, would be liable to life imprisonment.

So far as I am aware your Inquiry has entirely failed to explore this matter of terrorism (as specified in the Terrorism Act 2000) carried out by those who planned and executed the Iraq War. It seems to me that this is a grave omission on the part of the Iraq Inquiry.

It seems to me that you require to re-interview Lord Goldsmith in his role as the Government’s “expert” on matters of law. As far as I can ascertain your Inquiry did not explore the issues of criminal actions under UK law in respect of the actions proposed in Iraq from March 2003. If Lord Goldsmith, in issuing his advice, gave no consideration to the matter of criminality under UK law that seems to me to have been gross negligence on the part of Lord Goldsmith. I believe that you should explore his seeming omission in detail.

Similarly, so far as I can gather, your Inquiry entirely omitted to explore this important issue when you recently had a conversation with Mr. Blair. Your Inquiry further omitted to explore with Mr. Blair whether he knew that the action he proposed in Iraq was “terrorism” as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 and whether or not he was aware that he might be committing an offence as specified in Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and causing others to commit the same criminal offence and a range of other offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.

You might also specifically wish to explore with Mr. Blair his level of awareness that for many years now the influencing by violence or overthrowing of the government of another state is an “act of terrorism” (see for example subsection 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993), a notion carried forward in the definition of terrorism in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In addition to the narrow (but extremely important) matters of law that I mention above I suggest that the Inquiry also has a duty to explore with Mr. Blair (and probably others including Lord Goldsmith) the effect of the reality that the generality of those participating in the Iraq War are “terrorists” as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That reality will, I surmise, be disturbing to the relatives of the dead terrorists from the British Armed Forces and the living terrorists from those forces who, perhaps unwittingly, committed criminal offences of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000.

In sending this letter I hereby give you permission to enter this letter and a copy of the letter to Sir Paul Stephenson into the public record of the Iraq War Enquiry. If possible, I would be grateful if you would obscure my home address in any copies made available for public viewing.

I note that in your Opening Statement a few weeks ago you claimed that the Iraq Inquiry would be “thorough” and “rigorous”. I look forward to learning of your Inquiry’s diligent public examination of these important issues.

Thank you.

Your sincerely

Andrew H Watt

cc. Sir Paul Stephenson

Addressee:

Sir John Chilcot,
Iraq Inquiry
35 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BG.

The Death of David Kelly - A coy Cabinet Office on COBRA

2011-09-23T07:00:00.003+01:00

On 16th May I posted briefly on this blog about the Government emergency procedures sometimes known as COBRA, wondering if COBRA was activated in relation to the disappearance and death of David Kelly: The Death of David Kelly - On 18th July 2003 were ministers and civil servants seeing something like this?.

In parallel I sent a Freedom of Information request on the same day to the Cabinet Office asking if the COBRA mechanisms had been activated on 17th and 18th July 2003. See FOI Request to the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

On 20th September 2011 I was sent an FOI Response which I viewed as being wholly inadequate and evasive. See FOI Response from the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

On 22nd September 2011 I sent a request to the Cabinet Office asking for internal review of the FOI Response. See FOI Review Request to the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

Given the "non-answer" of 20th September 2011 from the Cabinet Office one could be forgiven for thinking that there is something here that the Cabinet Office wishes to hide.

The Death of David Kelly - Limitations of Mr. Green's report

2011-09-12T09:09:00.002+01:00

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.

The Death of David Kelly - An award for Terry Williams

2011-09-04T09:16:00.003+01:00

Terry Williams was the Thames Valley Police IT specialist who examined David Kelly's computers on 18th July 2003.

The Hutton Inquiry site is currently down so I can't add a working link. The document reference I wanted to link to is TVP/3/0035.

Terry Williams now works for LGC Forensics.

On his bio page, Terry Williams we read the following:

During his time with Thames Valley Police Terry received three commendations: two were from the Chief Constable for his analysis work in convicting pedophiles and the other from the Assistant Chief Constable for his computer forensics work into the investigation of death of a high profile figure.

Was the "high profile figure" David Kelly?

Was the "assistant chief constable" ACC Michael Page, of doubtful fingerprint evidence fame? See The Death of David Kelly - Did ACC Page pervert the course of justice?.

What did Terry Williams do that deserved a commendation?

It's far from obvious to me. Mr. Williams' investigation left many questions in my mind.

Thanks to Felix, here, for a very good spot.

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 4 - Lord Hutton "has previous" in concealing murder embarrassing to the British State

2011-09-04T06:25:00.003+01:00

This morning I sent to the Attorney General and the Treasury Solicitors Module 4 of my Pre-Action Protocol with respect to possibly seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011.

I posted about this issue of Lord Hutton's integrity some time ago: The Death of David Kelly - Lord Hutton has "previous" in concealing murder which would be embarassing to the State.

The title of today's email is:

Module 4 - Lord Hutton "has previous" in concealing murder

The content of the email is:

Dear Mr. Grieve and Mr. Philips,

This email is one in a series of Modules in an unusually extensive Pre-Action Protocol with a view to avoiding the need for Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's decision, announced in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, refusing an application made by myself and other individuals in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 seeking that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Each module attempts to be a self-contained preliminary examination of a specific issue which arises in relation to your decision with respect to the Section 13 application.

Each issue is raised with you with a view to affording you the opportunity to re-consider the matter so, hopefully, avoiding the need to proceed to seek Judicial Review of your decision.

The issue discussed in an individual module relates to an issue which I provisionally consider displays one of what I term the "Diplock Triad": "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

If the matter proceeds to Judicial Review I anticipate that I will seek to argue that one or more of the "Diplock Triad" applies with respect to this matter.

As you are aware, the Attorney General's Office continues to conceal a substantial number of relevant documents. If those are not voluntarily disclosed I anticipate that I will seek disclosure of such documents by legal process.

For the moment, continued non-disclosure of documents seems to me to inhibit my ability fully to develop potential legal arguments on this issue.

The subject of this module is: Lord Hutton "has previous" in concealing murders embarrassing to the British State

On 1st June 2011, I wrote to the Attorney General. The email was entitled, "The David Kelly Cover-up - Overview". The email is online here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-cover-up-overview.html

In that email I informed the Attorney General that I anticipated sending him the following series of emails:

* The David Kelly Cover-up - Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Lord Falconer
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Lord Hutton
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Nicholas Gardiner QC
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Thames Valley Police in 2003
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Thames Valley Police in 2010/2011
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Dr. Nicholas Hunt
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Professor Keith Hawton
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Dr. Malcolm Warner

On 9th June, Mr. Grieve confidently told the House of Commons, "Further, nothing that I have seen supports any allegation that Dr Kelly was murdered or that his death was the subject of any kind of conspiracy or cover-up."

Strictly speaking, Mr. Grieve's statement is not a lie. He had not seen the listed anticipated emails since he had rushed ahead to an announcement, knowing that further possibly relevant information might shortly be on its way. But the Attorney General's Office had been told they would be coming.

This seems to me to be, at least arguably, "procedural impropriety" in the Diplock triad.

In the circumstances, where Mr. Grieve had no rational basis for deciding what the anticipated evidence of a cover-up might be, his decision to rush ahead in a precipitate manner to a judgement expressed in absolutist terms, "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned.", is at least arguably "irrational".

The Attorney General knew, or had occasion to know, that evidence relating to the cover-up of the suspicious death of David Kelly was soon to be sent to him. Instead of waiting to receive and give fair consideration to such evidence Mr. Grieve rushed to a dishonest decision and statement.

Let me briefly mention here one issue - the past conduct of Lord Hutton.

Expressed colloquially, Lord Hutton "has previous" in concealing murder embarrassing to the British State.
See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/04/death-of-david-kelly-lord-hutton-has.html

In 1971 Brian Hutton was counsel for the Ministry of Defence at the Widgery Tribunal.

Brian Hutton successfully (at least before a corrupt Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery) concealed the murder of more than a dozen unarmed civilians by members of the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment on "Bloody Sunday".

Of course, the Widgery conclusions have now been visibly discredited.

But Brian Hutton's role in that cover-up has received little public attention .... to date.

Not only did Brian Hutton show himself capable of concealing murder, he also showed himself to be antithetical to the honest assessment of those murders by the coroner in the case.

Brian Hutton said publicly to the coroner, "It is not for you or the jury to express such wide-ranging views, particularly when a most eminent judge has spent 20 days hearing evidence and come to a very different conclusion," See http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/21/newsid_2500000/2500321.stm

I would agree with the Attorney General that Lord Falconer may have chosen Lord Hutton because of his track record.

Where I would take a view contrary to the Attorney General is that, in my view, Lord Falconer chose Lord Hutton given his past record of concealing murder embarrassing to the state.

Adding concealment of another murder in 2003 to those concealed in 1971 would be a minor thing for Brian Hutton, I suggest.

Mr. Grieve failed utterly to consider such a fundamental question about the integrity of Lord Hutton.

His "irrational" decision and the associated "procedural impropriety" did not relate to minor considerations.

They related to the fundamental question of the integrity, or lack of it, of the Hutton Inquiry.

Mr. Grieve's impropriety of procedure is not merely a procedural nicety. It served to conceal questions of great public moment.

In my view, Mr. Grieve's procedural impropriety served to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is defective and that the only identifiable civil remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

In the interests of transparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/09/david-kelly-judicial-review-module-4.html

I ask you both to give this matter your URGENT attention, in view of the short time available to resolve this issue without lodging papers seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

I again urge the Attorney General to consider whether the least bad way forward is promptly publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision of 9th June 2011 and to consider whether he can, credibly, continue in the post of Attorney General.

I am again copying this email to David Cameron MP. He may wish to review Mr. Grieve's fitness for the post he currently occupies. Mr. Cameron was, some would say, loyal to Andy Coulson for too long. It seems entirely possible that Mr. Cameron has already repeated such misjudgement with respect to Mr. Grieve's occupying the post of Attorney General.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA

The Death of David Kelly - The secret helicopter flight - Who got on or off?

2011-09-03T17:30:00.003+01:00

This post relates to a new piece of information relating to the (formerly) secret helicopter landing at Harrowdown Hill at 10.55 on 18th July 2003.

If you look at the Thames Valley Police Freedom of Information Response, Investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly - RFI2011000421, it seems clear that four people were on board.

I've quoted the question and answer below:

Investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly

29 June 2011, 3:49 pm

Introduction

This request, reference RFI2011000421, was received on Tuesday 07 June 2011, 3:49pm.

Question

Who was on the helicopter that landed at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003?

Response

The following personnel were on board:

1 x Pilot

2 x Observers

1 x Thames Valley Police employee on day attachment.

So far, so banal.

But it becomes more interesting if you compare that "four" with another Freedom of Information Response to a question I asked in October 2010.

I'm pasting part of the helicopter log here:

Notice the three pieces of black redaction, each of which refers to s40 i.e. Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Section 40 relates to personal information. In other words, the redacted material relates to three names.

The PDF file comes from here: Investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly - RFI2010000727. Scroll to the bottom of the page to click on the PDF file. The relevant information is at the top of page 5.

However, how does one explain the discrepancy between "three" and "four"?

My hypothesis is that someone got on the helicopter when it landed at Harrowdown Hill at 10.55 on 18th July 2003 or someone got off the helicopter when it landed at Harrowdown Hill at 10.55 on 18th July 2003.

It's almost enough to make you imagine that Thames Valley Police didn't want us to know about it.

Who got on the helicopter?

Who got off the helicopter?

Perhaps one day Thames Valley Police will be honest enough to tell us.

David Kelly Judicial Review - Statement of Case Draft 1

2011-09-02T11:12:00.002+01:00

In this post I put in the public domain Draft 1 of my Statement of Case in the possible Judicial Review of Dominic Grieve's decision announced to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

The purpose of sending this document to the Attorney General and Treasury Solicitors is to ensure that I can demonstrate that I took reasonable steps in all the circumstances to allow Mr. Grieve to rescind his decision without having to lodge papers seeking leave for a Judicial Review of his decision.

Given Mr. Grieve's intransigence thus far I'm not optimistic that he will reverse his decision.

Perhaps Mr. Grieve should consider the wisdom of the phrase, "When you're in a hole, stop digging."?

The full text of Draft 1 of the Statement of Case follows below:

[temporary place-holder]

David Kelly Judicial Review - Treasury Solicitors to see papers

2011-09-02T07:14:00.002+01:00

Yesterday, 1st September, I received from Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office an email which informed me of the following:

The papers I requested on 21st August and then again on 31st August, David Kelly Judicial Review - Request for URGENT disclosure of documents are not to be released to me in response to my request of 31st August.

The Pre-Action Protocol papers are being passed to the Treasury Solicitors for their attention

So far as I can ascertain, the second eventuality is fairly routine in the legal jockeying for position in the preliminaries before a formal application for Judicial Review is begun.

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 3 - Conclusion contrary to logic and the evidence with respect to the supposed absence of third parties

2011-09-01T07:40:00.005+01:00

This post consists largely of Module 3 of the Pre-Action Protocol.

It's an important issue since careful consideration of the supposed "logic" of ACC Page and Lord Hutton shows it to be seriously flawed and, additionally, contrary to the facts.

The title of the email being sent to the Attorney General today is:

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 3 - Flawed logic/evidence re third parties

The content of the email to the Attorney General is:

Dear Mr. Grieve,

This email is one in a series of Modules in an unusually extensive Pre-Action Protocol with a view to avoiding the need for Judicial Review of your decision, announced in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, refusing an application made by myself and other individuals in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 seeking that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Each module attempts to be a self-contained preliminary examination of a specific issue which arises in relation to your decision with respect to the Section 13 application.

Each issue is raised with you with a view to affording you the opportunity to re-consider the matter so, hopefully, avoiding the need to proceed to seek Judicial Review of your decision.

The issue discussed in an individual module relates to an issue which I provisionally consider displays one of what I term the "Diplock Triad": "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

If the matter proceeds to Judicial Review I anticipate that I will seek to argue that one or more of the "Diplock Triad" applies with respect to this matter.

As you are aware, the Attorney General's Office continues to conceal a substantial number of relevant documents. If those are not voluntarily disclosed I anticipate that I will seek disclosure of such documents by legal process.

For the moment, continued non-disclosure of documents seems to me to inhibit my ability fully to develop potential legal arguments on this issue.

The subject of this module is: Flawed logic and evidence supposedly (but not actually) excluding the presence of third parties at Harrowdown Hill

Lord Hutton based his conclusion of suicide, in part, on the supposed exclusion of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

Lord Hutton's conclusion is seriously flawed on two grounds:

1. His logic is seriously flawed.

2. His conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented to him.

The Attorney General based his decision announced on 9th June 2011 on Lord Hutton's conclusion and in doing so acted irrationally.

The flaw in the logic

ACC Page made statements to Lord Hutton to the effect that Thames Valley Police had excluded the presence of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

Lord Hutton adopted that false understanding / logic in his conclusion.

ACC Page made an untrue statement (whether or not he "lied" is immaterial in the immediate context of this Module).

ACC Page's logic was seriously flawed.

ACC Page failed to distinguish two concepts:

1. A failure to find evidence of third parties

2. Finding sufficient evidence to exclude third parties

If ACC Page had genuinely found evidence to exclude third parties then his conclusion might reliably support the "suicide hypothesis".

However a more precise restatement of ACC Page's evidence is that he found no evidence of the presence of third parties, which is a different thing.

At no point did he or any of the forensic scientists conduct any tests or investigations with the capacity to exclude the presence of third parties.

As a result of that seriously flawed process of logic, ACC Page's conclusion was irrational.

Lord Hutton adopted ACC Page's flawed logic. As a result his concluson of sucide is irrational.

The Attorney General also adopted the flawed logic. As a result the Attorney General's absolutist exclusion of the possibility of a different verdict is irrational.

A conclusion contrary to the facts

ACC Page referred (without disclosing detail) to tests that supposedly excluded third parties at the scene.

However, his assertion was contrary to the facts.

The tests and investigations carried out can be demonsrated to be inadequate.

ACC Page and Lord Hutton had the evidence before them to realise this.

As, of course, did the Attorney General.

It is known (and Lord Hutton knew) that at least SEVEN "third parties" had been present at the scene before the relevant tests and investigations were carried out viz Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, DC Graham Coe, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett, PC Sawyer and PC Franklin.

Moreover at least two of those people (Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett) had HANDLED the body, according to their oral evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.

ACC Page's tests failed to detect those SEVEN third parties at the scene.

In other words, third parties were KNOWN to be present at the scene and the Thames Valley Police investigations and tests were insufficient to detect their recent presence.

Those tests can, therefore, be reasonably considered as being inadequate reliably to detect the presence of other possibly malevolent third parties hours before.

I conclude that Lord Hutton acted irrationally in concluding that the presence of "third parties" had been excluded.

The Attorney General acted irrationally in adopting an irrational conclusion.

Attorney General's actions

It seems to me that the Attorney General's failures in this regard arguably meet at least two of the criteria in the Diplock triad:

1. The Attorney General was aware (or ought to have been aware) that the Law at an inquest requires suicide to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In stating in the House of Commons, "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned." the Attorney General acted irrrationally.

2. The Attorney General failed adequately to inquire into the matter. Given the absolutist nature of his statement quoted in the preceding paragraph he had a duty to do so. The Attorney General failed to do something he ought to have done.

It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is materially defective and that the only identifiable remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

In the interests of transparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/09/david-kelly-judicial-review-module-3.html

I ask you to give this matter your URGENT attention, in view of the short time available to resolve this issue without lodging papers seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

I again urge the Attorney General to consider whether the least bad way forward is promptly publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision of 9th June 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 2 - ACC Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry

2011-08-31T21:13:00.004+01:00

This post consists largely of the text of Module 2 of the Pre-Action Protocol.

In Module 2 I raise the issue of Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page appearing to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to fingerprint evidence.

The title of my email to the Attorney General is:

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 2 - ACC Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry

The text of the email of Module 2 is:

Dear Mr. Grieve,

This email is one in a series of Modules in an unusually extensive Pre-Action Protocol with a view to avoiding the need for Judicial Review of your decision, announced in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, refusing an application made by myself and other individuals in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 seeking that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Each module attempts to be a self-contained preliminary examination of a specific issue which arises in relation to your decision with respect to the Section 13 application.

Each issue is raised with you with a view to affording you the opportunity to re-consider the matter so, hopefully, avoiding the need to proceed to seek Judicial Review of your decision.

The issue discussed in an individual module relates to an issue which I provisionally consider displays one of what I term the "Diplock Triad": "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

If the matter proceeds to Judicial Review I anticipate that I will seek to argue that one or more of the "Diplock Triad" applies with respect to this matter.

As you are aware, the Attorney General's Office continues to conceal a substantial number of relevant documents. If those are not voluntarily disclosed I anticipate that I will seek disclosure of such documents by legal process.

For the moment, continued non-disclosure of documents seems to me to inhibit my ability fully to develop potential legal arguments on this issue.

The subject of this module is: The false evidence of Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page to the Hutton Inquiry

On 13th May 2011 I wrote to the Attorney General informing him that it appeared that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page had lied to the Hutton Inquiry. See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html

ACC Page told the Hutton Inquiry that there were no "extraneous fingerprints" on Dr. Kelly's dental records.

The true position as revealed by a Freedom of Information Request in 2011 was that there were six unidentified fingerprints. The full text of the Thames Valley Police FOI Response is included towards of this link: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html and, for convenience, is repeated after my signature in this email.

ACC Page's false evidence misled the Hutton Inquiry since it appeared to exclude the presence of a third party (or parties) at the dental surgery (where the dental records had disappeared and myseriously re-appeared) when, in fact, the presence of unidentified fingerprints indicated the opposite. In other words, the presence of unidentified fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records indicated that an unknown person (or persons) had handled Dr. Kelly's dental records and had, potentially, had the opportunity to tamper with the dental records.

I intend to return to the issue of dental records in a later Module relating to the uncertainties of the identification of the body found at Harrowdown Hill.

The "suicide hypothesis" rests on a process of "logic" which excludes the presence of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

Given that ACC Page appears to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry with the effect of falsely excluding the presence of third parties at the dental surgery there is a very real possibility that he may also have lied with respect to the suppposed exclusion of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

At a minimum a careful evaluation of the previously assumed reliability of Assistant Chief Constable Page's evidence is required, I suggest.

In all the circumstances I provisionally conclude:

1. Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page appears to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry about forensic evidence as it relates to Dr. Kelly's dental records. Inevitably that calls into question all other aspects of the extensive body of evidence that ACC Page gave to the Hutton Inquiry. It seems to me, therefore, that the Attorney General's statement "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned." is irrational.

2. The Attorney General failed to investigate the false evidence of ACC Page and the implications for the totality of ACC Page's evidence despite the matter having been drawn to the Attorney General's attention on 13th May 2011. In my view the Attorney General failed to do something that he ought to have done before reaching a decision.

3. The Attorney General appears to have failed to draw to Lord Hutton's attention the information about the unreliability of ACC Page's evidence in my email of 13th May 2011. Given that Lord Hutton disclosed to the Attorney General several pre-meetings with ACC Page the potential for pervasive effect on the integrity of the Hutton Inquiry of dishonesty by ACC Page is obvious. The Attorney General failed to do something that I believe, in context, he ought to have done.

4. It appears to me that the Attorney General premeditatedly misled the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 since he failed to disclose that this serious issue had been raised with him about four weeks prior to his statement. I find the conclusion unavodable that the Attorney General acted dishonestly, lied to the House of Commons and committed a Contempt of Parliament.

[In the context of point 4. this email is copied to the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow and the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Kevin Barron.]

It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground (i.e. ACC Page's evidence) alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is defective and that the only identifiable remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

Arguably, when considered with other actions and failures to act, the Attorney General may have committed the criminal offences of Misconduct in Public Office and Perversion of the Course of Justice, given the evidence that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered. Viewed narrowly, that is not a matter to be decided by any Judicial Review.

In the interests of transparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-module-2.html

I ask you to give this matter your URGENT attention, in view of the short time available to resolve this issue without lodging papers seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

I again urge the Attorney General to consider whether the least bad way forward is promptly publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision of 9th June 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA

Reference No: RFI2011000301

I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th April 2011 which I have repeated below with our response to each point.

1. Were Dr David Kelly's dental records ever reported to Thames Valley Police as being missing and, if so, on what date?

Our records show that at 22.21hrs on Sunday 20th July 2003 the dental surgery reported that they had been unable to locate the notes on Friday (18/07/03) but that they were present that day (Sunday). The notes were therefore in the possession of the dentist before the Police were made aware.

2. On what date was it officially established by Thames Valley Police that Dr. David Kelly's dental records had been found?

As above

3. Were the folder containing Dr Kelly's records, and the records themselves, ever checked by Thames Valley Police (or, to your knowledge, any other organisation) for fingerprints and/or DNA?

The dental records of Dr Kelly were examined for fingerprints as were the covers for the records either side of his. DNA was an inappropriate method for this type of item.

4. If so, on what date did this happen, and were any fingerprints and/or DNA found on the folder or on the records?

This is a staged process spanning from 15th – 18th August 2003. A total of 15 marks were revealed for photography. Two marks were revealed on the outside cover of an adjacent set of patient records, neither of these marks was of a usable quality. No marks were revealed on the adjacent cover. The remaining thirteen marks all came from Dr Kelly’s record’s folder and contents. Five of these were unusable and two were eliminated to a member of staff.

The remaining six marks were of sufficient quality to be checked against elimination prints. These were all negative. None of the six marks were of sufficient quality to be permanently loaded on to the national database. All six marks were filed.

5. Was it possible positively to identify any of the fingerprints or DNA?

As above

6. If so, whose fingerprints or DNA was found?

As above

Please contact me quoting the above reference number if you would like to discuss this matter further.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Hopgood | Information Compliance Officer | Telephone 01865 846321 | Internal 700 6321 | Address Thames Valley Police HQ, Oxford Road, Kidlington, Oxon OX5 2NX

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 1 - The sharpness of the knife has never been tested

2011-08-31T20:39:00.004+01:00

In Module 1 of the Pre-Action Protocol I ask the Attorney General to consider whether it is rational to exclude the possibility of an inquest returning a different verdict when the sharpness of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill has never been tested.

If we don't know that the knife is sharp enough to inflict the wounds we cannot logically conclude that the knife did inflict the wounds. The possibility remains open that another knife inflicted at least some of the wounds.

In my view the Attorney General's stated view is irrational.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 1 - Sharpness of the knife

The content of the email is:

Dear Mr. Grieve,

This email is one in a series of Modules in an unusually extensive Pre-Action Protocol with a view to avoiding the need for Judicial Review of your decision, announced in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, refusing an application made by myself and other individuals in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 seeking that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Each module attempts to be a self-contained preliminary examination of a specific issue which arises in relation to your decision with respect to the Section 13 application.

Each issue is raised with you with a view to affording you the opportunity to re-consider the matter so, hopefully, avoiding the need to proceed to seek Judicial Review of your decision.

The issue discussed in an individual module relates to an issue which I provisionally consider displays one of what I term the "Diplock Triad": "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

If the matter proceeds to Judicial Review I anticipate that I will seek to argue that one or more of the "Diplock Triad" applies with respect to this matter.

As you are aware, the Attorney General's Office continues to conceal a substantial number of relevant documents. If those are not voluntarily disclosed I anticipate that I will seek disclosure of such documents by legal process.

For the moment, continued non-disclosure of documents seems to me to inhibit my ability fully to develop potential legal arguments on this issue.

The subject of this module is: The sharpness of the knife

I described the issue on 13th June 2011 here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html and drew it to the attention of the Attorney General on that date.

To the best of my knowledge, the sharpness of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill has never been tested.

The inability of a forensic pathologist to give an authoritative view on the issue, together with the need for specific laboratory testing is expressed to the Attorney General in Dr. Shepherd's report of 16th March 2011 on page 14:

""It does not lie within the remit of the forensic pathologist to make a final assessment of the sharpness of an object at the scene. ... The pathologist must rely on assessments made by forensic expert scientists in controlled laboratory conditions.""

In other words, neither Dr. Shepherd (nor his predecessor forensic pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt) can say whether or not the knife was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds.

This seems to me to raise at least the following important points:

1. In the absence of laboratory testing, it is unknown whether or not the knife is sufficiently sharp to inflict the observed wounds. It seems to me, therefore, that the Attorney General's statement "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned." is irrational, given that the sharpness of the knife has never been tested.

2. In failing to ensure that the sharpness of the knife has been tested it seems to me that the Attorney General has failed to take an action which, in context, he ought to have taken.

If we don't know that the knife is sharp enough to inflict the wounds we cannot logically conclude that the knife did inflict the wounds. The possibility remains open that another knife inflicted at least some of the wounds.

It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is defective and that the only identifiable remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

In the interests of tranparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html

I ask you to give this matter your URGENT attention, in view of the short time available to resolve this issue without lodging papers seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

I again urge the Attorney General to consider whether the least bad way forward is promptly publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision of June 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA

David Kelly Judicial Review - Pre-action Protocol - Preliminaries

2011-08-31T08:27:00.004+01:00

Today I am sending to Dominic Grieve a document formally asking him to consider whether he should withdraw the decision announced on 9th June 2011.

If Mr. Grieve withdraws his dishonest decision now it avoids unnecessary use of the time of the High Court in considering an application for Judicial Review.

I very much believe that, at a minimum, an inquest is required into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

A thorough and publicly-accessible inquest is an important step towards eliciting a truth that has been covered up for 8 years with considerable ingenuity and energy.

The email is hopefully self-explanatory but discussion in the Comments is welcome, particularly if some aspect of the document is unclear.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly Judicial Review: Pre-action protocol - Preliminaries

The content of the email is:

Mr. Grieve / Mr. McGinty,

I am writing to you to seek to determine whether or not it may be possible for the Attorney General to withdraw his decision announced on 9th June 2011 without my having to have recourse to seeking Judicial Review of the decision.

That decision relates to an application in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 with a view to seeking an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

Correspondence from myself and others in that context invited the Attorney General carefully to consider the grounds expressed in subsections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988:

(1)This section applies where, on an application by or under the authority of the Attorney-General, the High Court is satisfied as respects a coroner (“the coroner concerned”) either—(a)that he refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held; or(b)where an inquest has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should be held.

It is my considered view that the decision of the Attorney General is seriously defective and therefore potentially subject to Judicial Review.

I am unable to identify any mechanism that allows me, and potential co-appellants, to appeal the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 otherwise than by seeking Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's decision.

Given the applicable time limits I would be grateful if the Attorney General would give his URGENT attention to this matter, with a view to avoiding unnecessary use of the time of the High Court.

I understand that, broadly, the High Court prefers that the Appellant seeking Judicial Review of a decision should communicate in some manner with the decision maker indicating to the person or body whose decision may be judicially reviewed that the Appellant is sufficiently concerned by the decision in question so as to be contemplating Judicial Review.

It is the purpose of this email formally to do so.

Further, the decision maker should be invited to reconsider or withdraw his decision. In this email, I again invite Dominic Grieve to give careful consideration to the possibility that withdrawing now the decision announced on 9th June 2011 is the least damaging way forward.

Withdrawal of the decision will, no doubt, reflect negatively on Mr. Grieve personally.

However a willful persistence by Mr. Grieve in defending an irrational and dishonest decision can, in my view, only cause serious long-lasting harm to the credibility of the office of Attorney General.

In my view, the decision of the Attorney General announced on 9th June is materially defective. Such defects, in my assessment, are apparent in each of the three elements of what I term the "Diplock triad" - broadly those are "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

I would be grateful if you would consider this email together with other relevant correspondence from me since 9th June as constituting what I understand to be termed a Pre-action Protocol. My email of 12th June 2011 may be a useful starting point.

My email of 12th June is online here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html

As you may recall, I copied my email of 12th June to David Cameron (as well as Craig Oliver and Steve Field at Number 10). Mr. Cameron seems to have displayed inactivity in relation to this matter similar to his response to concerns about Andy Coulson.

However, the primary purpose of this email is not to highlight the deficencies of David Cameron's judgement. One might say, however, that an important purpose of this email is to begin to draw attention to serious errors of judgement by the Attorney General.

It seems to me that Dominic Grieve has taken the "never mind the quality feel the width" approach when considering the application made to him under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 by myself and others, not least Dr. Stephen Frost, Mr. David Halpin and other medical colleagues who I understand to have submitted a Memorial to the Attorney General via Leigh Day & Co, solicitors, in or around September 2010.

I do not repeat here the extensive correspondence in this context from myself to the Attorney General beginning with my Open Letter of 25th October 2010 which is online here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-letter-to-attorney-general.html

Unusually, given the time limitations, the Pre-Action Protocol to be sent to the Attorney General will be modular. Further modules are to be sent to the Attorney General for his consideration as soon as each component is expressed with what I hope to be sufficient clarity.

By doing so I think I can give the Attorney General the maximum opportunity in the circumstances to consider whether he ought publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision announced on 9th June 2011. This approach facilitates him forwarding a module specifically to, say, Dr. Richard Shepherd for his assessment of a specific issue relevant to his area of expertise.

Withdrawal of the decision will not, I imagine, be a congenial possibility. However, it may be the way to do least lasting harm to the office of Attorney General. That latter matter is, of course, for Mr. Grieve and Mr. Cameron to consider.

Mr. Grieve may recall that I expressed one of the many aspects of my concerns in an email on 12th June 2011 in somewhat forceful but, in my view, fully justified terms.

It remains my view that Mr. Grieve's decision is contrary to the totality of the evidence.

Of course, whether or not the Attorney General continues in his post depends primarily on the continuing confidence of the Prime Minister. Accordingly, I am copying this and associated emails to David Cameron MP.

I am also copying this email for information to my MP, Malcolm Bruce.

For the avoidance of doubt my part in this correspondence will be put, as time allows, into the public domain. Typically I plan to do so by posting copies of the modules of the Pre-Action Protocol on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/

Readers of my blog and recipients of blind copies of each email should feel free to distribute their content as they see fit. I view this correspondence as public.

The text of this email is being placed on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-pre-action.html

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

David Kelly Judicial Review - Request for URGENT disclosure of documents

2011-08-31T06:21:00.004+01:00

This morning I am writing to Dominic Grieve and Kevin McGinty seeking urgent disclosure of documents relating to Mr. Grieve's dishonest decision announced to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

Twenty four hours ago I fully expected not to be part of any process to seek Judicial Review of Dominic Grieve's decision.

Circumstances have changed.

The email is, I hope, self-explanatory.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly: Judicial Review - request for URGENT disclosure of documents

The text of the email is:

Mr. Grieve / Mr. McGinty,

When I wrote to you on 21st August I had no thought that I might, personally, seek Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's dishonest statement to the House of Commons of 9th June 2011 and the underlying dishonest decision. I had assumed that others might undertake the task of seeking Judicial Review.

Circumstances have changed. I now intend to lodge papers with the High Court seeking a Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's decision.

I now ask that the Attorney General URGENTLY release the documents I requested in my email of 21st August in order not visibly to obstruct me in the process of lodging papers seeking a Judicial Review.

Should the Attorney General refuse to disclose the requested documents I anticipate seeking full disclosure of these, and other, documents during the Judicial Review process.

The list of documents sought follows my signature in this email in the full text of my email of 21st August.

I therefore ask for full disclosure of the documents specified in my email of 21st August no later than 17.00 on Friday 2nd September 2011.

In response to my request of 21st August, Mr. McGinty informed me that my request would be treated as a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Given the 20 working days allowed for response to an FOI Request, the Attorney General's Office would be given until around 16th September to respond.

Conveniently, for Mr. Grieve, around a week too late to be used in papers seeking a Judicial Review.

I view Mr. McGinty's response as a shameful procedural manoeuvre intended to protect a shameful decision from legitimate Judicial Review.

That procedural manoeuve is part of a pattern of obstruction by the Attorney General's Office. I understand that other doctors have sought such documents from the Attorney General, without success.

I now repeat, as a matter of urgency, my request for full disclosure of the documents requested on 21st August.

I anticipate writing again in the very near future seeking disclosure of further documents, given my intention to seek Judicial Review.

In the interests of transparency I am placing a copy of this email on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-request-for.html

I look forward to your early reply. I reserve the right to include that reply in papers to be lodged with the High Court.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

********************************

Mr McGinty,

In the context of the Third Application to the Attorney General re the need for an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly I wish to request disclosure of the following documents.

1. A list of all photographs taken at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003, together with a brief description and the time that each photograph was taken. I should mention that I understand there were at least three sets of photographs (those by PC Sawyer, Mr McGee and Dr. Eileen Hickey).

2. A copy of all correspondence between the Attorney General's Office and Thames Valley Police with respect to the Annexes disclosed by the Attorney General on or around 9th June 2011 and to the report to which the annexes related. The Attorney General disclosed correspondence to Dr. Shepherd and Professor Flanagan. Why not comparably disclose correspondence with Thames Valley Police? Assuming, of course, that such correspondence would bear public scrutiny.

3. A copy of the report to the Attorney General by Thames Valley Police (six annexes of which were put in the public domain by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011 or thereby).

4. A copy of the complete version of Dr. Green's report. The version published on 9th June 2011 had had Appendix 2 removed. Can you please confirm whether Appendix 2 in that version of the report was removed by the Attorney General's Office or by Thames Valley Police? If so, why did the Attorney General's Office remove the Appendix? I would also point out that the version of the report on the Attorney General's website refers to matters in 2005 and therefore cannot have been a copy of the original report.

5. A copy of the report by Anne Franc. Dr. Green's report states that his report should be read with that of Anne Franc.

6. A copy of the report to Nicholas Gardiner QC by Alan Young of Thames Valley Police which, supposedly, was "excellent".

7. A copy of the written statement(s) made in 2003 to Thames Valley Police by Mai Pederson. It is my understanding that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page may have lied to Lord Hutton regarding the content of those statements. I understand that Mark Zaid (Ms Pederson's lawyer) wrote to Mr Grieve in or around June 2010 expressing his concern about related matters.

8. A copy of the report by Professor Gudjonsen.

9. A copy of the medical report on Dr. Kelly on or around 8th July 2003.

10. Copies of the medical reports from the 1990's on the fracture and operation on Dr. Kelly's right elbow.

11. A copy of the letter from Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth (of 30th October 2010) on the disability to Dr. Kelly's right arm consequent on the fracture/operation of the right elbow.

12. A copy of the laboratory report commissioned by the Attorney General in response to Dr. Shepherd's comment on page 14 of his report ( http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf ). Dr. Shepherd stated, "The pathologist must rely upon assessments made by expert forensic scientists in controlled laboratory conditions.". What did that examination under laboratory conditions show? If the Attorney General failed to have such a test carried out I ask for an explanation of that failure by Mr. Grieve and how he can have made his statement to the House of Commons when, as might be the case, it is unknown whether the knife found at the scene was or was not sharp enough to produce the wounds described by Dr. Hunt.

13. A copy of Professor Hawton's written report on Dr. Kelly's state of mind etc.

14. A copy of the report reviewing Professor Hawton's evidence. If, in response to my communication to the Attorney General ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-need-for-expert.html )raising concerns about Professor Hawton's evidence the Attorney General decided not to seek expert review of Professor Hawton's evidence I seek an explanation of that failure on the part of the Attorney General.

15. A copy of each of the photographs referred to in numbered item 1.

In the interests of transparency I am placing the text of this email online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-request-for.html

If it is the decision of the Attorney General's Office to continue to conceal these documents I would be grateful for an explanation of why they were concealed by the Attorney General with respect to the Second Application (by Dr. Frost et al) and why they continue to be concealed now.

If the Attorney General wishes to allay public and medical concerns regarding the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly I will say straightforwardly that full disclosure will be required in the light of lies told in 2003 and 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - On 18th July 2003 Lord Falconer had no powers as "Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs"

2011-08-30T06:35:00.006+01:00

In this post I draw attention to a fundamental flaw, in Law, in Dominic Grieve's decision and statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

I believe that the issue may be sufficiently important as to satisfy, at Judicial Review, the "illegality" test in what I'll the "Diplock triad". See http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf for what I understand to be the original expression of the "Diplock triad".

"Illegality" in that context is not the same as saying that Dominic Grieve committed a criminal offence in that respect.

He stated something that was incorrect in Law, and based his decision on a false understanding of the Law.

However, for the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that Dominic Grieve QC MP has committed the offences of Misconduct in Public Office and Perverting the Course of Justice. But that is not the immediate focus of this post.

Dominic Grieve knew on 9th June (or had opportunity to know) that what he was saying to the House of Commons was untrue.

The following quote comes from here: Attorney General Dr Kelly written statement 9 June 2011 and is from page 8.

The then Secretary of State (and Lord Chancellor), Lord Falconer, acted entirely reasonably in exercising his powers to set up an inquiry ...

What Dominic Grieve says is untrue.

On 18th July 2003, in Law, there was no Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and consequently Lord Falconer had no powers which he could exercise (reasonably or otherwise) as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

Lord Falconer did not acquire his powers as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs until about a month later, on 19th August 2003.

And Dominic Grieve had been informed of that (by me) on 6th June 2011.

Let me set out the basis for those assertions.

The following email was sent on 6th June 2011 to the Attorney General's Office:

Mr McGinty,

This email is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I do not pretend to be an expert in constitutional matters but a consideration has come to my attention which appears to me potentially to have foundational importance with regard to the consideration by the Attorney General of the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Expressed directly, and perhaps overly simplistically, it seems at least arguable that Lord Falconer was not, in Law, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 18th July 2003 when he verbally asked Lord Hutton to conduct an inquiry nor was he Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 24th July 2003 when he wrote formally to Lord Hutton to confirm that request.

I hope to be able to substantiate later in this communication what might, at first sight, appear to be a bizarre suggestion.

First I'll briefly outline that Lord Falconer made the request in his role as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and then I'll briefly consider the basis in Law for casting doubt on Lord Falconer's status in Law on the dates in question.

In his report, Lord Hutton states:

On 18 July 2003 I was requested by the Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, to conduct an Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly

See Paragraph 1 in Chapter 1 of the Hutton Report here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter01.htm.

Lord Hutton goes on to state:

My terms of reference were:
"urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly."

If Lord Falconer was not, on 18th July 2003, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and/or did not, in Law, have the capacity of a Secretary of State then it is, I suggest, questionable whether he had lawful authority to invite Lord Hutton to conduct a judicial inquiry or authority to define the terms of reference of such a supposed inquiry.

On 24th July 2003 Lord Falconer wrote to Lord Hutton on headed paper conveying the notion that he was "Secretary of State" (for Constitutional Affairs).

See http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/cf240703.pdf on the Hutton Inquiry web site for the letter of appointment of 24th July 2003.

If my concerns are sound in Law then Lord Falconer's letter of 24th July 2003 is fraudulent since he purports on that date to be one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State when the office of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs may not have existed in Law in the date in question at least in the sense that it appears to have lacked any functions or powers of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State.

To my mind, if that interpretation is correct, the question arises as to whether Lord Falconer as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs had the power, on 18th July 2003 or 24th July 2003, to ask Lord Hutton to conduct a judicial inquiry.

Consequentially, it seems to me that it comes into question whether, in Law, the Hutton Inquiry can properly be considered to be an "inquiry" in the meaning of Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988.

I will now explain the basis in Law on which my concerns found.

To the best of my knowledge the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional affairs did not exist prior to the announcement in June 2003 of the creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 appears to require that the creation of a new post of Secretary of State and the acquiring of functions, powers etc by such a new Secretary of State depend on an Order of Her Majesty in Council.

The text of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 is available online here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/26/contents

To create the new post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs it seems to me that the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 requires Her Majesty to create the new post and give to it any powers and functions that might be appropriate by an Order in Council.

It appears that the Government also recognised that requirement imposed by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 since by an Order in Council, expressed in The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Order 2003, the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs was created and given functions and powers.

The problem for Lord Falconer's actions of 18th July 2003 and 24th July 2003 arises from the following text in the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Order 2003:

Made - - - - 17th July 2003
Laid before Parliament 29th July 2003
Coming into force 19th August 2003

Taken at face value the Order in Council did not come into force until 19th August 2003.

It seems to me, therefore, to be at least arguable that Lord Falconer had no powers or functions of a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 18th July 2003 or 24th July 2003 to set up a judicial inquiry (or, in fact, to carry out any function of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State).

Arguably, I suggest, the setting up of a judicial inquiry by a "Secretary of State" with no powers or functions may render the inquiry void.

If the validity of the judicial inquiry is in question, the question also arises as to whether Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 was applied by Lord Falconer acting as Lord Chancellor in circumstances to which it did not apply.

If, on the grounds suggested, there was no Section 17A inquiry the actions and/or failures to act of Nicholas Gardiner QC in early 2004 also come into further question.

If, as may be the case, the Hutton Inquiry is void and the stump "inquest" failed to carry out basic requirements of the Coroners Act 1988 (and the associated Coroners' Rules) then it seems to me that the requirements of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 are met. In other words, an inquest is required into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

If it is already the view of the Attorney General that he should apply to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly, this matter need not detain him.

If however, it were the provisional view of the Attorney General that he need not apply to the High Court for an Order, I suggest that this is a further issue which will require detailed consideration, in view of the possibility of Judicial Review of a decision in the negative by the Attorney General.

As is my custom, blind copies of this communication have also been sent to potentially interested individuals.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and that the information contained in it will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Well-intentioned but futile e-petition

2011-08-29T15:50:00.003+01:00

Today I stumbled across an e-petition to the Attorney General: Make Dr. David Kelly's autopsy results public.

Regular readers of this blog will know that the postmortem results are already public.

One version was released by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011: Post mortem report by Dr Hunt 25 July 2003.

That is the official version for 25th July 2003.

The most easily searchable, but unofficial, version is here: David Kelly: pathologist's report to the coroner - text version.

Tim Wilkinson of the Surely Some Mistake blog created it from the official version released on 22nd October 2010 by the Ministry of Justice: See Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports.

Dr. Allan's toxicology report of 23rd July 2003 is also available for download from that link.

Simon James, the creator of the e-petition, and the signatories presumably are unaware of the release of the documents just mentioned.

Unfortunately, there is no way to communicate with the creator or signatories of the e-petition.

The Death of David Kelly - Scotsman article on possible Judicial Review

2011-08-29T13:57:00.001+01:00

The Scotsman has a brief article about the cover-up of the death of David Kelly and the need for Judicial Review.

See Doctors say David Kelly death 'a cover-up'.

The Death of David Kelly - Oxford Times article about the need for funds for a Judicial Review

2011-08-29T13:51:00.001+01:00

There is a short article on the Oxford Times website about the need for funds for Judicial Review regarding Dominic Grieve's decision announced on 9th June 2011.

See Race to fight David Kelly inquest ruling.

The Death of David Kelly - Letter to Keith Vaz MP

2011-08-29T11:25:00.002+01:00

Today I am sending a letter to Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressing my concerns regarding the conduct of a number of Police officers, including Sara Thornton.

I sent an advance copy of the letter to Mr. Vaz by email and that is online on my The Police Are Cheating Us blog here: Letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee re John Yates, Paul Stephenson, Sara Thornton and others.

The Death of David Kelly - Perverting the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others

2011-08-28T06:21:00.004+01:00

Today I am reporting to Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistent Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police my belief that Mrs. Janice Kelly and three other named individuals may have perverted the course of justice with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

On 28th October 2010 I reported to Thames Valley Police my suspicion that Dr. David Kelly had been murdered (Thames Valley Police Unique Reference Number 514 of 28/10/10 refers).

It reamins my considered view that Dr. Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The email to Thames Valley Police is, I think, self-explanatory.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly - Perversion of the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others

The content of the email is:

Chief Constable Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Ball,

I write formally to report to you as constables of Thames Valley Police what I believe to be the criminal offences of perverting the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

I believe that you individually and collectively have a duty as constables to record and investigate this matter promptly and in a competent and diligent manner.

I make this report of suspected crime on the basis of the elements of the crime of perverting the course of justice as published by the Crown Prosecution Service, as I consequently understand them.

I request and require you to record these suspected seroius crimes in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standard.

Thames Valley Police is aware that I believe the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly to have been murder. Thames Valley Police Unique Reference Number 514 of 28/10/10 refers.

Having subsequently carefully considered the many documents released by the Attorney General in June 2011 it remains my view that Dr. David Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The individuals who I believe to have perverted the course of justice and whose conduct I report herein as suspected crimes are as follows.

1. Janice Kelly
2. Rachel Kelly
3. Dr. Sarah Pape
4. Dr. Malcolm Warner

It is the conduct of Mrs. Janice Kelly which I believe to be the most extensive and serious.

First I will briefly summarise conduct that, broadly speaking, is common to the four named individuals

Then I will briefly outline what I believe to be the more serious conduct of Janice Kelly.

Concealment of Evidence

The "suicide hypothesis" as it applies to David Kelly, in its essentials, is that he held a knife in his right hand.and bled to death after cutting his left wrist.

Each of the four named individuals failed to disclose in their oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that Dr. Kelly had sustained a fracture of his right elbow in a riding accident late in 1991 that, if I understand the situation correctly, had required operation.

That injury is variously documented on the Hutton Inquiry site (but in a largely concealed way) here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence-lists/evidence-tvp.htm
and, more openly, in Dr. Richard Shepherd's report to the Attorney General of 16th March 2011 here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf

Consequent on that serious injury of the right elbow and the subsequent operation Dr. Kelly had pain and significant functional limitation of his right arm. See, for example, the information from Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth referred to in Dr. Shepherd's report.

According to evidence from Mai Pederson that is in the public domain Dr. Kelly, in early 2003, had significant difficulty using a knife to cut steak. I interpret Ms. Pederson's evidence to be highly suggestive of post-traumatic arthritis.

If in 2003 Dr. Kelly had difficulty cutting steak, the credibility of whether or not Dr. Kelly could cut his own left wrist with the results documented by Dr. Nicholas Hunt comes seriously into question.

Each of the four named individuals concealed from the Hutton Inquiry information that I believe must have been in their possession about Dr. Kelly's elbow fracture and the consequent pain and functional limitations.

The effect, I believe, of concealing such information about the injury and its effects is to pervert the course of justice.

Hence my writing to Thames Valley Police to report these suspected crimes.

Had the named individuals disclosed the information about Dr. Kelly's elbow injury it would have been possible for the Hutton Inquiry to make an honest, public assessment of the degree of Dr. Kelly's functional limitations and whether or not it was credible that he (supposedly) held a knife in his right hand and produced the injuries of the left wrist documented by Dr. Nicholas Hunt in his postmortem report of 25th July 2003.

In addition to the preceding matter Janice Kelly acted so as to conceal other matters which I mention briefly in the section which follows.

Untrue statements by Janice Kelly

On 12th June 2011 I wrote to Peter Jacobsen, lawyer for the Kelly family, asking the Kelly family to consider whether they ought to "come clean" about a deception to which I believe the family has been party since 2003.

The content of that communication of 12th June 2011 is online here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-peter-jacobsen.html

A sample list of what I believe to have been untrue statements by Janice Kelly in her oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry is to be seen in that communication to Mr. Jacobsen.

Mrs. Kelly has, to the best of my knowledge, failed publicly to remedy the situation which I expressed on 12th June hence my now writing to Thames Valley Police to report these serious concerns.

One might speculate about why Janice Kelly would wish to conceal certain information from the Hutton Inquiry. I believe I understand some of her reasons. However, if my assessment of the situation is correct, a wish for privacy is not a foundation that justifies perverting the course of justice.

Everything stated by me in this communication and in the communication of 12th June 2011 is correct to the best of my belief, having spent many tens of hours studying the publicly available information relating to what I believe to have been the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

I wish to make a formal statement to the Police on this matter. That would most conveniently be done, in the first instance, at Grampian Police HQ. Perhaps Thames Valley Police would be good enough to make contact with Grampian Police to the end that I may make a formal statement at a mutually convenient time. I gave my full contact information to Thames Valley Police in the context of URN 514 of 28/10/10.

In the interests of transparency I am copying this email to Dr. Malcolm Warner, Dr. Sarah Pape and to Mr. Peter Jacobsen who I understand to be the solicitor for the Kelly family.

If any of the four named individuals believes that my concerns are without foundation no doubt they will wish to communicate on the matter with Thames Valley Police.

I am also copying this email to the Attorney General's Office in light of the ongoing public interest in the cover-up of the murder of Dr. Kelly.

I again ask the Attorney General to consider whether he should, ex proprio motu, retract his dishonest statement of 9th June 2011 to the House of Commons before the High Court potentially quashes his dishonest decision.

This email is additionally copied to Professor Keith Hawton for information, given that the "suicide hypothesis" with respect to Dr. Kelly's death is based significantly on Professor Hawton's credulous acceptance of Janice Kelly's uncorroborated evidence of the period around lunchtime on 17th July 2003.

A copy of this email will be placed on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-perverting-course.html

I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter of great public interest.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Alerting the Attorney General to Mr. Green's evidence being unsafe

2011-08-27T06:23:00.007+01:00

As a follow-up to my post The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain I have now written to the Attorney General's Office asking for an urgent review of Mr. Green's written and oral evidence.

The title of today's email to the Attorney General's Office was,

David Kelly(3rd appln): Simulating "aterial rain" - need for urgent expert review

The text of the email was as follows:

Mr. McGinty,

I am writing to you as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General seeking, in the context of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

I write to draw to the attention of the Attorney General's Office important new evidence casting doubt on the credibility of the evidence of the forensic biologist Mr. Roy Green. This new evidence demonstrates, in my view, serious "insufficiency of inquiry" with respect to a pivotal part of the evidence supporting the "suicide hypothesis".

I ask you to draw this matter urgently to the attention of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in view of its fundamental implications for the safety of Lord Hutton's "suicide" conclusion of January 2004.

As you are aware the report of Mr. Green was kept secret, at the request of Lord Hutton, from 2003 until 9th June 2011. Thus it is only now that it is possible to subject Mr. Green's report to independent scrutiny.

Taken at face value (and Lord Hutton failed to looked deeper) Mr. Green's evidence seemed to create a seemingly indisputable scenario of bleeding at Harrowdown Hill.

Importantly, Mr. Green failed to disclose that simulation of arterial rain is possible and, moreover, failed to disclose that simulation of arterial rain is a fairly straightforward task.

In other words Mr. Green failed to disclose that it would be possible for a "Scene Setter" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-blood-distribution.html ) to fabricate a seemingly credible scenario of bleeding at Harrowdown Hill when no such bleeding had taken place.

Simulation of arterial rain is so straightforward that, in at least some centres, forensic science trainees routinely use simulation of arterial rain during their training. See the references in my blog post entitled, "The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain" located at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-simulating.html.

I do not attempt here to elucidate whether Mr. Green's failure to disclose the possibility of simulation is due to dishonesty, ignorance, oversight or some other factor. The most material issue is the implication of that failure with respect to the safety of Lord Hutton's conclusion.

The technically fairly straightforward task of simulating arterial rain casts fundamental doubt on the safety of Mr. Green's evidence with respect to the supposed bleeding taking place at Harrowdown Hill.

In turn that calls into question the safety of Lord Hutton's "suicide" conclusion.

I do not expect any member of the Attorney General's Office to have detailed technical knowledge of this matter. Having seen the visible inadequacies of the correspondence from the Attorney General's Office to, for example, Dr. Richard Shepherd I am taking the liberty to formulate some relevant questions - for Mr. Green, for an independent forensic expert and for Lord Hutton.

It seems to me that an honest Attorney General would wish to take steps similar to seeking such clarification.

In the interests of transparency I suggest that all such correspondence from the Attorney General's Office be disclosed publicly. The replies should similarly be publicly disclosed, I believe.

Questions for Mr. Green

1. Can you confirm that you did not disclose the possibility of simulation of "arterial rain" in your written and oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Prior to compiling your statement of 27th September 2003 did you consider the possibility of the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill having been simulated?

3. On 18th July 2003 and 27th July 2003 were you aware of the concept of simulation of arterial rain?

4. Did you disclose to or discuss with the forensic pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt the possibility that the supposed "arterial rain" had been simulated?

5. Do you accept, in principle, that it is possible to simulate arterial rain?

6. Do you believe that it was possible to differentiate the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill from simulated arterial rain?

7. What steps, if any, did you carry out to distinguish whether the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill was genuine or simulated?

8. On reflection, can you now state whether you believe that beyond reasonable doubt the blood on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill could only have been caused by bleeding at the scene? If you believe so, then please provide a detailed account of the evidence and logic which you consider to justify such an opinion.

Many other possible questions exist. The foregoing should be capable of casting useful light on the matter, assuming honest answers to the questions.

Questions for an independent forensic expert

The following questions assume that all relevant forensic evidence is disclosed to the chosen expert.

It may also be worth disclosing explicitly to the expert that the possibility of Judicial Review may be in prospect.

1. Are you able to identify any evidence to suggest that Mr. Green disclosed the possibility of simulation of "arterial rain" in his written or oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Do you accept, in principle, that it is possible to simulate arterial rain?

3. What is your assessment of the technical difficulty (or ease) of simulating arterial rain? Please answer with respect to the general case and the specific circumstances found at Harrowdown Hill.

4. Do you believe that it was possible to differentiate the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill from simulated arterial rain? If so, please provide a detailed account of how you believe that could reliably be done.

5. What steps, if any, could Mr. Green have carried out to distinguish whether the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill was genuine or simulated?

6. Did he carry out any such investigations? What is your assessment of the adequacy of any such investigations?

7. On the available evidence is it possible that the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill was simulated?

8. Can you state, beyond reasonable doubt, that the blood on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill could only have been caused by bleeding at the scene? If you believe so, then please provide a detailed account of the evidence and logic which you consider to justify such an opinion and thereby exclude the possibility of simulated arterial rain.

Questions for Lord Hutton

I suggest that Lord Hutton is best approached on this matter following receipt of answers from the independent forensic expert.

If the supposed "arterial rain" may have been simulated it seems to me that the "suicide hypothesis" is fatally holed below the waterline.

1. In light of the new information from Mr. Green and an independent forensic expert do you accept that your conclusion of January 2004 that Dr. David Kelly committed suicide is now unsafe?

2. If the answer to question 1. is in the negative, please provide a justification or explanation for that assessment.

Mr. McGinty, you may be aware that today's Daily Mail contains an article indicating the prospect of Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's (in my mind dishonest) decision of 9th June 2011. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030663/Doctors-unleash-legal-challenge-inquest-Dr-David-Kelly-had.html

It seems to me likely that matters such as this which further demonstrate "insufficiency of inquiry" on the part of Lord Hutton (and, indeed, on the part of the Attorney General) may be of interest to those contemplating Judicial Review.

The Duggan case seems to indicate that the Attorney General may ex proprio motu decide to review his own decision. I urge Mr. Grieve to consider whether now is the time to throw in the towel with respect to his dishonest decision and statement of 9th June 2011. It was nonsense on 9th June and increasing evidence is emerging to demonstrate that it was nonsense.

On 12th June 2011 I invited Dominic Grieve QC MP and Edward Garnier QC MP to resign in view of the dishonest decision and statement to the House of Commons. See "The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html )

I repeat here the invitation to Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier to resign in view of the demonstrably unsound decision announced on 9th June 2011.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this email is to be found on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-alerting-attorney.html

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this communication and confirm that it will be considered as part of a future assessment of this matter by the Attorney General of the time.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Acknowledgement of GMC complaint re Dr. Richard Shepherd

2011-08-27T06:19:00.002+01:00

I have now received a brief, automated acknowledgement from the GMC re my complaint to the General Medical Council regarding the possible serious professional misconduct of Dr. Richard Shepherd.

See my recent post, The Death of David Kelly - Serious Professional Misconduct by Dr. Richard Shepherd?, for the full text of the complaint to the General Medical Council.

Thank you for your enquiry.

We will respond to you as soon as possible. We aim to do this within five working days.

Please also note that at peak times of the year (January to February and July to September) our Registration Directorate is extremely busy. It can take us longer at these times to answer your enquiries.

Please do not reply to this email, replies to this email address are not monitored or actioned.

General Medical Council

I will post about this matter again when a more substantive response is received from the General Medical Council.

The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain

2011-08-27T04:58:00.002+01:00

In a post on 3rd November 2010, The Death of David Kelly - Is it possible to simulate "arterial rain", I asked the important question of whether it was possible to simulate "arterial rain".

The answer to the question is "Yes, it is possible to simulate arterial rain".

This question is very important in interpreting the evidence found at Harrowdown Hill.

Two possibilities exist for the cause of the supposed arterial rain found on the nettles to the left of the body:

Arterial bleeding from the left wrist of the body

Simulated arterial rain by the person I referred to as the "Scene Setter" here: The Death of David Kelly - The blood distribution indicates it was murder

It is not at all surprising that arterial rain can be simulated. After all, arterial bleeding is simply fluid being expelled from a tube under pulsatile pressure.

Not only is it possible to simulate arterial rain, it is so straightforward to do so that it is used in teaching forensic science.

One simulation technique is simply to use a syringe and tube. This is used at the Department of Forensic Science in Virginia. See Bloodstain Pattern Training Manual. Relevant material is in section 5.4.9 on page 19 of the PDF file.

The second simulation technique is to use a peristaltic pump (broadly a pump that produces pulses of pressure analogous to the pulses in the arteries, caused by pumping by the left ventricle of the heart). See Crime Scene to Court: The Essentials of Forensic Science - Google Books Result. The relevant section is Section 7.2.4.2 on page 179.

It is clear that simulation of arterial rain is sufficiently close in its characteristics to "genuine arterial rain" that the simulated arterial rain can be used for teaching purposes in the training of forensic science professionals.

Was Mr. Green aware that simulating arterial rain was straightforward?

If he was, he didn't disclose it to Lord Hutton in his oral evidence nor did he disclose that possibility in his report of 27th September 2003 (Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003).

Given that it is so straightforward to simulate arterial rain the safety of Mr. Green's conclusion the blood on the nettles arose from arterial bleeding from the left wrist of the body is obviously called into question.

I will be writing to the Attorney General's Office asking that an urgent expert review be carried out of Mr. Green's assessment of this aspect of the evidence at Harrowodown Hill

The Death of David Kelly - Letter to Lord Hutton re ACC Page's evidence

2011-08-26T14:41:00.002+01:00

Today I wrote to Lord Hutton with regard to the evidence suggesting that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to the fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records.

The text of the letter (which was copied to Dominic Grieve and Sara Thornton) is here:

26th August 2011

Lord (Brian) Hutton
House of Lords

Dear Lord Hutton,

False testimony to the Hutton Inquiry given by ACC Michael Page

You may recall that the Attorney General’s Office wrote to you last year in relation to questions being raised by myself and a number of other doctors regarding the safety of the conclusion that Dr. David Kelly supposedly committed suicide.

In this communication I wish to draw to your attention evidence that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page gave untrue testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

I ask you to consider the information which I summarise below and consider whether you have a duty to contact the Attorney General on this matter with regard to the safety of the conclusion which appeared in your Report of 28th January 2004 and his consideration of an application under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

Briefly, ACC Page falsely (but successfully) sought to lead the Hutton Inquiry to believe that no “extraneous fingerprints” were present on Dr. Kelly’s dental records.

However, it recently emerged as a result of a Freedom of Information request that six unidentified fingerprints were present on the dental records.

In my assessment it is an inescapable conclusion that ACC Page gave false testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

The effect of the false testimony was to provide the Inquiry with unfounded reassurance that no “third party” had handled Dr. Kelly’s dental records and that, consequently, the temporary disappearance of Dr. Kelly’s dental records could be disregarded.

I drew this matter to Mr. Grieve’s attention on 13th May 2011. See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html.

Given that ACC Page appears to have lied to the Inquiry it seems to me that all his evidence requires to be re-examined. Bizarrely, and in my assessment dishonestly, Mr. Grieve refuses to examine this potentially hugely important issue.

I again drew the matter to Mr. Grieve’s attention on 23rd August 2011, (see http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-did-acc-page.html ), and again he seeks to avoid an issue of self-evident potential importance.

Mr. Grieve is aware that I view him as a dishonest and corrupt Attorney General so he will not be at all surprised that I view his bizarre inaction in this matter as a further facet of his dishonesty in office.

ACC Page’s false evidence in the matter of dental records related to (supposedly) excluding the presence of third parties at the dental surgery (where Dr. Kelly’s dental records disappeared and mysteriously re-appeared).

ACC Page also gave (at the time) unsubstantiated evidence to the effect that no third parties were present at Harrowdown Hill. The Hutton Inquiry accepted that evidence.

I suspect, but cannot yet prove, that ACC Page also may have lied to the Hutton Inquiry about the weight of evidence regarding excluding the presence of “third parties” at Harrowdown Hill, a pivotal issue with respect to the “suicide hypothesis”.

Clearly, if I am correct that such an important Police witness lied to or otherwise misled the Hutton Inquiry about such important matters of evidence then I believe it is self-evident that the conclusion which you reached in January 2004 is unsafe.

As I indicated earlier I believe you have a duty carefully to consider this matter and communicate to Mr. Grieve that your January 2004 conclusion is unsafe.

If you do write to Mr. Grieve expressing concern appropriate to the seriousness of a senior Police officer lying I would appreciate receiving a copy of that letter or letters.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this letter will be placed on my “Chilcot’s Cheating Us” blog at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

To:
Lord (Brian) Hutton, House of Lords

cc:
Dominic Grieve QC MP
Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Thames Valley Police

The Death of David Kelly - Peter Jacobsen communication of 12th June 2011

2011-08-26T13:43:00.002+01:00

On 12th June 2011, following Dominic Grieve's dishonest statement to the House of Commons on 9th June, I wrote to Peter Jacobsen, solicitor for the Kelly family.

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,

Mr Jacobsen,

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.

See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-need-for-expert.html
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.

See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-silence-of-kelly.html
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,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2002640/Dr-David-Kelly-Friend-says-world-know-truth-thanks-Hutton-Inquiry.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
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

The Death of David Kelly - Serious Professional Misconduct by Dr. Richard Shepherd?

2011-08-25T13:47:00.003+01:00

Today I am writing to the General Medical Council to express my concerns regarding the Forensic medical report by Dr Shepherd 16 March 2011.

My concerns about the content of that report are so serious that I am asking the General Medical Council to carry out a formal assessment of whether Dr. Shepherd may be guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The title of the email is:

Concerns re possible serious professional misconduct by Dr. Richard Shepherd

The content of the (rather long) email is:

Dear Sirs,

I write to draw to the attention of the General Medical Council conduct by Dr. Richard Shepherd, forensic pathologist, which I believe may constitute serious professional misconduct.

I ask that the General Medical Council institute a formal inquiry into Dr. Shepherd's conduct in this matter.

The matters to which Dr. Shepherd's deficient conduct relate are of such seriousness and ongoing public interest that I ask the General Medical Council to consider whether a hearing of this matter be held entirely in public, in order to provide reassurance in the public mind regarding the conduct of forensic pathologists acting as supposed "experts".

Dimensions of Concern

My concern about Dr. Shepherd's conduct has three dimensions:

1. Dr. Shepherd failed in multiple ways to act in the unbiased and rigorous fashion that is to be expected of a supposed "expert" forensic pathologist, arguably sufficient to consitute serious professional misconduct. That aspect of Dr. Shepherd's conduct is the subject of this email and the request to the General Medical Council to investigate what seems to me to be serious professional misconduct by Dr. Shepherd.

2. Dr. Shepherd failed to act in the unbiased and rigorous manner to be expected of what is commonly referred to as a Home Office Pathologist. I intend to write to the Pathology Disciplinary Board with respect to my concerns regarding this aspect of Dr. Shepherd's conduct.

3. Dr. Shepherd, in my view, acted in such a manner as potentially to pervert the course of justice with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. I am giving serious consideration to contacting the Police with respect to this aspect of Dr. Shepherd's conduct.

Brief Background

On 12th November 2010 Dr. Richard Shepherd was asked by Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office to provide an expert forensic pathology opinion about the death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003. See http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/AGO%20to%20Shepherd%2012%20November%202010.pdf

The death of Dr. Kelly is the subject of ongoing serious concern in the minds both of doctors who have studied the available evidence and lay members of the public. One group of doctors made a formal legal application to the Attorney General in September 2010 in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

The question in Law to be addressed in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 is whether or not it is possible that a new inquest would arrive at a different verdict. In 2004 an inquiry by Lord Hutton had concluded that David Kelly had killed himself.

It was in this context of whether or not it was possible that a new inquest would reach a different verdict that the Attorney General's Office approached Dr. Shepherd.

Dr. Shepherd was supposed to provide unbiased expert assessment of the forensic pathology aspects of the case.

In his report Dr. Shepherd demonstrated his awareness of a duty to provide unbiased expert assessment.

On page 21 of his report of 16th March 2011 (which is available online here, http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf ) Dr. Shepherd shows his awareness of his duty to provide unbiased advice in these terms:

"I understand that I owe an overriding duty to provide independent assistance, by way of unbiased opinion in relation to the matters within my expertise and that such advice must be uninfluenced by the exigencies of the case. I have complied with, and will continue to comply with, that duty."

In my view this declaration by Dr. Shepherd is both dishonest and fraudulent.

I reach that conclusion based on these criteria:

1. Dr. Shepherd makes statements inconsistent with an unbiased assessment. Systematically, I believe that Dr. Shepherd's assessment is biased towards the "suicide hypothesis".

2. Dr. Shepherd fails fairly to express considerations which legitimately cast doubt on the "suicide hypothesis" and which ought to be expressed by a medical expert acting in an unbiased manner.

3. Dr. Shepherd makes statements which are outwith his area of expertise, yet fails appropriately to identify such comments and dishonestly allows these speculations falsely to appear to be "expert" assessment.

In the section which follows, Specific Serious Concerns, I list several of the issues where I believe that Dr. Shepherd's report departs in material respects from the conduct which the Public has the right to expect from an honest medical expert acting in an unbiased matter.

I conclude that Dr. Richard Shepherd departed seriously from the standards to be expected of an honest and diligent medical expert and that he may have demonstrated serious professional misconduct.

Specific Serious Concerns

In this section I list some points of serious concern to me that lead me to my conclusion that Dr. Shepherd may be guilty of dishonesty and serious professional misconduct.

The list which follows is illustrative rather than exhaustive.

For convenience, I list the illustrative issues in the order they appear in Dr. Shepherd's purported "expert" report of 16th March 2011.

1. The presence of "third parties" at the scene

On page 4 of the report, Dr. Shepherd states the following:

"In my opinion the length and detailed nature of the scene examination, the extent of the sampling for later scientific examination and the analyses to which those samples were subjected indicates that every effort was made to determine whether or not another individual or individuals had been present in, around or near the scene of death or had been in contact with Dr. Kelly before or after death."

This statement seems to provide sweeping reassurance that no "third party" was present at the scene. However, on more careful examination, it seems to me that such reassurance is spurious and unreliable.

First, making efforts is not the same as demonstrating something beyond reasonable doubt. Dr. Shepherd should have distinguished between those two concepts. Given his stated experience in the Coroners Court Dr. Shepherd knew, or ought to have known, about the relevance of fhe concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" for a suicide verdict properly to be sustained.

I can find no evidence in any report publicly available of "analyses" that directly informs the question of whether or not "another individual or individuals had been present in, around or near the scene of death (sic)". If such evidence exists it is very surprising that Dr. Shepherd does not express it, given the importance of the issue of possible presence of third parties at the scene at Harrowdown Hill.

In that context, Page 10 of the report of 27th September 2003 by the forensic biologist Mr Roy Green (See http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Roy%20Green%20forensic%20statement%2027%20September%202003.pdf ) states the following: "These tapes were retained at the laboratory in case further examination was required." implying that the tapes taken from the clothing had not been fully examined as of late September 2003.

That leads me to conclude that at least some of the evidence collected may never have been subject to laboratory testing.

If no such analyses were carried out (or if only partial testing was carried out) there is no secure scientific basis that I can identify to exclude the presence of third parties at the scene. If Dr. Shepherd were analysing this issue in an diligent, unbiased expert manner I feel he had a duty to identify this important conclusion and draw attention in his report to the implications of it.

Further, it is known (and Dr. Shepherd knew, see page 5 of his report) that two ambulance staff had been close to and handled the body (for example, attaching ECG electrodes).

The presence of those two individuals at the scene was undetected, so far as I'm aware. If the presence of known third parties was undetected there is no secure, logical basis to exclude the possible presence at the scene of unidentified persons.

Additionally, Louise Holmes and DC Graham Coe were close to the body but their presence at the scene was similarly undetected.

An honest and diligent expert would have identified and commented fairly on that important matter.

It seems to me that Dr. Shepherd's blanket reassurance on this matter is unreliable and biased, seeking to manufacture a certainty that no third party was present when, to the best of my knowledge, there is no adequate scientific evidence to support that as a safe conclusion.

2. Movement of the body

One of the issues generating ongoing suspicion is the evidence suggesting that the body found at Harrowdown Hill had been moved.

Dr. Shepherd attempted to address that issue on page 5 of his report.

Dr. Shepherd concludes, "In my opinion there is no evidence to support the theory that the body had been moved after discovery."

Dr. Shepherd had been provided with scene photographs. It is unknown whether or not Dr. Shepherd was provided with timing information for those photographs.

The body was found at approximately 09.15. The first photographs were taken at approximately 10.10.

It is evident, therefore, that the position of the body at "discovery" is not amenable to assesment using the photographs. The only evidence that relates to the 09.15 timepoint is that of Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman.

If Dr. Shepherd failed to inquire into the timing of the photographs he was negligent. If Dr. Shepherd knew that the photographs did not relate to the time of "discovery" then he has concealed that awareness by reason of either incompetence or dishonesty, in my view.

Dr. Shepherd knew (by virtue of the statement of Louise Holmes to which he had access, see page 20 of his report) that she found the body with head and shoulders against a tree.

Photographs (of undisclosed time) which Dr. Shepherd saw showed the body at some distance from the tree.

It is perverse, and contrary to logic, for Dr. Shepherd to conclude that the body was not moved since subsequent photographs show the body at some distance from the tree. I assume, in stating that, that Dr. Shepherd does not wish to postulate that a dead body moved itself.

Further, Dr. Shepherd visited Harrowdown Hill on 8th December 2010 (see page 3 of his report) in what I understand to have been wintry weather.

The initial examination of the scene was carried out on 18th July 2003.

What may have been "soft ground" in December 2011 might, given the clay-based nature of the soil, have been of a very different consistency in high summer in July 2003.

An honest expert would have expressed a note of caution about such potential seasonal differences. Dr. Shepherd failed to do so. I understand it is likely that he knew that no identifiable footprints were found in July 2003, indicating that at the time the characteristics of the ground were other than "soft ground".

Further, it does not require expertise in forensic pathology to realise that a body can be lifted or carried. The supposed absence of evidencing of dragging is not conclusive.

Again, in my view, Dr. Shepherd's consideration of this matter is at a minimum biased and may exhibit dishonesty and/or negligence.

Of course, if the body was in two different positions at 09.15 and after 10.10 one must conclude that it was moved, given the unlikelihood of a dead body moving itself.

That conclusion also impacts on the purported absence of third parties at the scene. If the body was moved some party other than the deceased must have moved the body.

3. Extent of bleeding at the scene

On page 5 Dr. Shepherd indulges in a bizarre attempt to assert the notion that guessing how much blood may have been lost is better than attempting to measure it.

Dr. Shepherd's consideration of this matter is risable and contrary to good science, in my view.

It is not the approach of a credible medical expert, in my view.

I accept Dr. Shepherd's assertion that in the prevailing circumstances accurate measurement of blood loss would in all likelihood be problematic. However, Dr. Shepherd's imagining that guessing how much blood was lost is an improvement on attempting measurement is something I find astonishing.

An honest expert would have stated that it is unknown how much (or how little) blood was lost at the scene. I suggest that an honest expert would also have commented that consequently it is uncertain whether or not haemorrhage was the primary cause of death.

4. Excluding of carrying of the body

On page 7 of his report Dr. Shepherd states the following, "The totality of the injuries identified were such that it is possible to exclude the use of physical restraint in any form or of holding or carrying before, during or after death.".

It seems to me that this statement is dishonest since Dr. Shepherd purports in absolute terms to exclude the possibility that the body was carried.

How, for example, can one exclude the possibility of carrying of an unconscious or dead body using, for example, a strong sheet or tarpaulin or something resembling a stretcher?

5. Supposed absence of injection marks

On page 7 of his report Dr. Shepherd states the following, "In addition there were no injection sites anywhere on the body and no marks on the skin that could be associated with an electrical stun device such as a Taser.".

An honest expert would, in my view, have qualifed the assertion about the supposed absence of injection sites by a remark such as "Given the nature of the injuries to the left wrist one cannot exclude injection in that region.".

The failure of Dr. Shepherd to insert such a qualifying remark further illustrates the bias in his report, in my view.

6. Strength of the right arm

The "suicide hypothesis" rests on the assumption of Dr. Kelly was capable of holding a knife in his right hand and incising his left wrist.

If the strength or function of the right arm is in question, the credibility of the "suicide hypothesis" is potentially seriously weakened.

On page 8 Dr. Shepherd provides what I believe to be a dishonest assessment of this important matter.

Dr. Shepherd first states, "It is self-evident that it is not possible to determine this (sic) strength of an individual's muscles after death.".

Dr. Shepherd purports to be providing a report as an expert forensic pathologist. An honest expert should have stopped there, possibly adding a comment to the effect, "This is a matter that is better investigated by questioning of those who knew the deceased in life.".

The matter is, quite simply, not one that a forensic pathologist can definitively assess.

In his continuation Dr. Shepherd, to my mind, exhibits a desire to substantiate the suicide hypothesis inconsistent with the actions of an unbiased expert.

Dr. Shepherd states, "no evidence of significant muscle wasting was recorded". However, nor was it recorded to be absent. We simply don't know if there was any muscle wasting or not. There is no documentation either way.

Dr. Shepherd attempts to undermine the evidence of Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth using tangentially relevant interpretations of the medical records. This, in my view, is risable and dishonest. Dr. Shuttleworth travelled regularly with Dr. Kelly for some two years in the period that I understand to be referred to.

Dr. Shepherd uses the silence in the GP notes from 1999 to 2003 to imply that no weakness or disability was present. This is speculation not the honest assessment of an expert. It is entirely possible that Dr. Kelly had problems with his right arm without having drawn those to the attention of his general practitioner.

Dr. Shepherd signally fails to mention the possibility of post-traumatic arthritis after a fracture of or around the elbow. If he was unaware of the condition he demonstrates his ignorance. If he was aware of the condition and didn't mention it he demonstrates his dishonesty, in my view. In any case, he is going beyond his "area of expertise". His comments on this are not, I suggest, those of an "expert".

Had he fairly considered the possibility of post-traumatic arthritis I would have expected him to comment that the elbow joint was not opened at the postmortem and therefore no opinion can be offered on the matter.

I conclude that Dr. Shepherd seeks to rubbish the concerns about functional limitation of the right arm in a manner wholly inconsistent with a dispassionate expert.

As a forensic pathologist he didn't know if the arm was weak or not. An honest forensic pathologist would, in my view, have stopped there.

7. Dr. Hunt's Postmortem Report of 25th July 2003

On page 10 Dr. Shepherd states the following with respect to Dr. Nicholas Hunt's postmortem report, "In my opinion this is a full, complete, expert pathological report on a death that was initially considered to be 'suspicious' and which had been dealt with by all members of the investigative team as a possible homicide.".

Dr. Hunt's report is online here:
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf

There are multiple deficiencies, in my view, in Dr. Hunt's report which Dr. Shepherd fails to identify.

I will limit myself to mention here of one serious deficiency.

On page 5 of Dr. Hunt's report mention is made of "An old, curving scar around the outer aspect of the right elbow.". But no assessment is made by Dr. Hunt of the significance of that observation.

Dr. Hunt is nonetheless content, elsewhere in his report, to postulate that Dr. Kelly used the right arm to incise his left wrist.

Dr. Shepherd fails to notice and/or comment on Dr. Hunt's failure in this visibly material consideration.

We have here, I suggest, a seriously deficient approach to forensic pathology. Neither Dr. Hunt nor Dr. Shepherd (each a Home Office Pathologist) attaches any significance to the scar nor makes mention of its possible significance.

It is difficult to know whether best to describe such glaring failures as risable, dishonest or worrying. Or all three.

8. Time of death

On page 11 (and following) Dr. Shepherd seems to me to seek to cover up or minimise Dr. Hunt's error in establshing body weight and his failure to apply corrective factors.

On page 12 Dr. Shepherd also seems to me to introduce an entirely spurious hypothesis involving the loss of heat energy in any blood lost.

9. Sharpness of the knife

On page 14 Dr. Shepherd correctly identifies the inability of the forensic pathologist to estimate the sharpness of a knife.

However, he fails adequately to alert the Attorney General to the need for the laboratory assessment to be carried out, if the assessment of the assumed sharpness of the knife is to move from guess to scientifically established fact.

10. Did the knife found cause the wounds

This is a serious issue. On page 14 Dr. Shepherd appears to find it adequate for the forensic pathologist effectively to guess that a knife is vaguely suitable to create the observed wounds.

Such guesswork is not, I suggest, the approach of a credible medical scientist or expert.

It is, I suggest, possible to carry out a much more rigorous and detailed assessment of whether the wounds were caused by the alleged knife. In my view both Dr. Hunt and Dr. Shepherd erred seriously in this context.

11. Volume of water ingested

On page 14 Dr. Shepherd dismisses the question of whether 300ml (actually 389ml) of water is sufficient to have allegedly swallowed 29 tablets as "entirely speculative".

I suggest that Dr. Shepherd's dismissal is comparably "speculative" and is inconsistent with an honest, expert assessment. Dr. Shepherd did not disclose the speculative nature of his comment.

If Dr. Shepherd has any scientific basis for his statement no doubt that will emerge at a hearing before the GMC.

12. The pattern of blood loss

On page 16 Dr. Shepherd states, "In my opinion the injuries to the left wrist of Dr. David Kelly have all the features of self-infliction and they would have resulted in the pattern of blood loss that was present at the scene.".

In a situation where it is not (as I have argued earlier) possible to exclude the presence of third parties the possibility exists that such a party had sought to create the appearance of suicide when the reality was murder.

Dr. Shepherd gives no hint that he even considered that possibility.

Further, there are significant questions about whether, if the seeming suicide was genuine, it is possible to have "arterial rain" only on the left of the body.

I have raised these technical questions in some detail with the Attorney General's Office.

I am unclear whether the Attorney General's Office forwarded the relevant documents to Dr. Shepherd. I therefore simply state here that I think Dr. Shepherd is wrong about the pattern of blood loss demonstrating that the death was suicide.

13. Thirst associated with blood loss

Dr. Shepherd states on page 18, "I have been unable to find any medical references that indicate an individual suffering from acute blood loss will also suffer from such accute thirst."

I entered the terms "blood loss thirst" in Google. The third result, http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u01/u01_006.htm. states in terms, "The patient feels thirsty", referring to patients with haemorrhagic shock.

Since Dr. Hunt asserts that haemorrhage is the primary cause of death and Dr. Shepherd approves of that assessement, a stage of haemorrhagic shock arguably seems inevitable.

Dr. Shepherd might have been wiser and more honest if he had stated that symptoms of living patients are not within the area of expertise of a forensic pathologist.

14. The glasses found in the pocket

On page 18, Dr. Shepherd states, "In my opinion it is not unreasonable to note and draw some inference from the presence of the glasses in the coat pocket.".

I suggest that the only legitimate inference that can be drawn from the finding of the glasses in the pocket is that the glasses were found in the pocket.

Any other inference is, I suggest, speculative.

In keeping with his perceived bias, Dr. Shepherd avoids criticising Dr. Hunt's unsubstantiated speculation on this matter.

15. Dr. Shepherd's "Overall Conclusions"

On page 19 Dr. Shepherd lists some "conclusions".

In my assessment these demonstrate failures of the kind described earlier.

In Conclusion 3. Dr. Shepherd states that the wounds are consistent with being self-inflicted but neglects to mention the possibility of infliction by a third party minded to make a murder look like suicide.

Conclusion 6. which excludes carrying of the body is unsafe in my view, as discussed earlier.

Conclusion 8 where it is asserted that there are no injection sites omits the necessary qualification in relation to the area of the left wrist consequent on the presence of the wound complex there.

In Conclusion 11 Dr. Shepherd asserts that the notion of measuring blood loss "owes more to fiction than reality". It can equally be said of Dr. Shepherd's reliance on guessing the blood loss relies more on speculation than on any sound scientific measurement or assessment.

Evidence of general sloppiness

There are multiple instances in Dr. Shepherd's report which demonstrate what might generally be termed a sloppiness of approach. In themselves they may not constitute misconduct. Taken together with the preceding issues, in my view they further serve to demonstrate the poor quality of Dr. Shepherd's report.

1. On page 2 of his report Dr. Shepherd states, "The sequence of events immediately before the death of Dr. David Kelly are well known and do not need to be repeated here.". It is my view that Dr. Shepherd was negligent in not inquiring into the "sequence of events" before Dr. Kelly's death. Those events have many gaps and are in dispute (in part due to the unreliability and dishonesty of key witnesses) and false evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry by Thames Valley Police officers, among others. A diligent and honest expert witness would have either given careful consideration to those events or have stated that his opinion was limited in its reliability due to his failure to inquire into those events.

2. On page 2 of his report Dr. Shepherd states that the body was found on 18th July 2007. This is incorrect. The body was found on 18th July 2003.

3. On page 5 Dr. Shepherd refers to a comment by DC Shields about the position of the body. Thames Valley Police currently contend that DC Shields did not go to the scene.

4. On page 7 Dr. Shepherd incorrectly states the date of the posmortem as 18th July 2007. The postmortem took place in 2003.

Conclusion

1. In my view the multiple deficiencies in Dr. Shepherd's report are such that the report falls far short of the standard reasonably to be expected of a medical practitioner acting as an "expert".

2. Dr. Shepherd's report demonstrates bias on multiple occasions, entirely inconsistent with his supposed role as an unbiased expert.

3. The effect of the deficiencies in Dr. Shepherd's report are such as potentially to pervert the course of justice with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly by creating an unsubstantiated appearance of certainty where major unresolved questions continue to exist.

4. The multiple deficiencies in Dr. Shepherd's report suggest to me that he may be guilty of serious professional misconduct, given the documented departures by him from the behaviour to be expected of a registered medical practitioner and the wording of the declaration quoted in the early part of this email.

This is a matter of great public concern. The effect, in my view, of what I believe to be Dr. Shepherd's serious professional misconduct is to conceal a possible murder - that of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in July 2003.

Administrative Matters

I am copying this email to the Attorney General's Office given that the Attorney General made an announcement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, based in significant measure on what I view as being a seriously defective and materially dishonest supposed "expert" report from Dr. Richard Shepherd.

In doing so, I ask Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office to forward to Dr. Richard Shepherd and to Dr. Nicholas Hunt a copy of this communication given the criticisms of their conduct that I express herein.

For the avoidance of doubt, since I consider Dr. Shepherd's conduct to be an issue of significant public concern I am sending blind copies of this email to potentially interested inviduals and reserve the right to disseminate further copies of this email at future dates.

Further, it is fair to inform the General Medical Council that there are multiple political dimensions to this case. It is my current intention to make available to Members of Parliament access to the information contained in this email.

I am also placing a copy of the full text of this email on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-serious.html

I would be grateful for written confirmation that the General Medical Council has received this communication and, in due time, a written indication as to how the General Medical Council proposes to proceed.

This email is the result of many hours studying the documentation from the Hutton Inquiry and the documentation released by the Attorney General in June 2011. The opinions expressed are my honest assessment of the available evidence.

If the GMC wishes any further background information that is in my possession relating to Dr. Shepherd's report I would be happy to provide that to the extent that applicable practical considerations allow.

It may be relevant to mention that the Attorney General's Office is currently continuing to conceal a substantial number of potentially relevant documents. A list of some of those documents may be found online here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-request-for.html

I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement from the General Medical Council in the near future.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol(Pathology) MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA

The Death of David Kelly - Did ACC Page pervert the course of justice?

2011-08-23T10:34:00.003+01:00

This post consists largely of an email to the Attorney General's office to be sent today.

On 13th May I drew the Attorney General's attention to evidence suggesting that ACC Page had lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

I can trace no consideration of that potentially important matter in Dominic Grieve's statement of 9th June 2011 or the supporting documentation.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly (3rd appln): Did ACC Page pervert the course of justice?

The content of the email is:

Mr. McGinty,

This email is intended to be considered by the Attorney General in the context of the Third Application to the Attorney General re a possible application to the High Court to order an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

On 13th May 2011 I wrote to the Attorney General informing him that it appeared that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page, formerly of Thames Valley Police, had lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html for a copy of that communication.

In that communication I sought to draw the Attorney General's attention to evidence that a senior Police officer had fabricated a sequence of events that did not, in fact, happen and also concealed from the Hutton Inquiry evidence that there were unidentified fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records. (The issues are explained in more detail in the communication of 13th May.)

I am unable to trace any indication in Mr. Grieve's statement to the House of Commons of 9th June 2011 that that hugely important issue was given any consideration whatever.

If I have overlooked mention in his statement or supporting documentation of Mr. Grieve's consideration of that important matter, could you please now draw my attention to the evidence of such consideration of the matter by Mr.Grieve?

In the absence of such consideration by Mr. Grieve prior to 9th June, I ask that it be considered as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General.

In passing I would mention that if I were one of the doctors who might seek to judicially review the Attorney General's decision announced in his statement of 9th June, I would look with interest at the seeming total failure of the Attorney General to examine evidence that a senior Police Officer lied to the Hutton Inquiry while dishonestly attempting to lead the House of Commons to believe that he had carried out a thorough inquiry of the relevant issues.

Given that this communication relates to the Contempt of Parliament by Dominic Grieve QC MP I am copying this email to John Bercow and Kevin Barron.

I am copying this email to chief officers of Thames Valley Police.

I ask those officers to log this matter as the potential crime of perverting the course of justice by former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page and provide me with a relevant URN.

I am willing to make a formal statement on this matter at my local Police HQ (Grampian). I gave my full contact information to Thames Valley Police in connection with URN 514 of 28/10/10.

Given the evidence that more than one officer in Thames Valley Police may have perverted the course of justice I ask that the statement not be made to Thames Valley Police officers. In that context I invite Chief Constable Thornton to refer this matter to another Police force for investigation.

If Chief Constable Thornton is of the view that the suspected reported crime took place in the area of the Metropolitan Police I specifically ask her to forward this report of suspected crime to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for action by him.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this communication.

I would also ask you to forward this information (and a copy of my communication to the Attorney General of 13th May 2011) to Lord Hutton to seek his view on whether the possibility that ACC Page lied to his Inquiry causes him to change his view as to the safety of his conclusion of suicide.

I also ask the Attorney General's Office to publish Lord Hutton's reply.

I would also ask Chief Constable Thornton to acknowledge receipt of this communication and inform of me what action she is taking in response to this report of what I believe to be a very serious crime by an officer of Thames Valley Police.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this email will be found on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-did-acc-page.html.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - The position of the body when found

2011-08-23T06:16:00.003+01:00

This post places on the public record an email I am sending today to the Attorney General's Office.

It seeks to summarise the evidence about the position of the body at Harrowdown Hill in the period before any photographs were taken.

No photographs were taken prior to 10.11 on 18th July 2003.

The evidence of Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman and Graham Coe about the position of the body relates to the situation before any photographs were taken.

There is, it seems, no other evidence about the position of the body when found.

Arguing from the evidence of later photographs is spurious with respect to the situation when the body was found. The body was left unattended for a significant period.

And it is the difference in the position of the body at the time it was found and the position of the body after 10.11 that forms the basis of the view that the body was moved.

As stated in the email I intend to follow up with an email summarising the evidence about the position of the body in the (still secret) photographs.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly (3rd Appln): The position of the body when it was found

The content of the email is:

Dear Mr McGinty,

I am writing to you in order systematically to demonstrate that Dominic Grieve QC MP acted dishonestly when he gave a statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

I view it as a matter of the utmost seriousness that the United Kingdom Attorney General demonstrated publicly that he is dishonest and corrupt.

Dominic Grieve lied to the House of Commons when he claimed that Dr. David Kelly's body was not moved.

I ask you to log this email as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General for an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

This email summarises the available information about the position in which Dr. David Kelly's body was found.

In a subsequent email to you I will summarise the information available from photographs as to the subsequent position of the body and demonstrate that the evidence, honestly considered, demonstrates that the body was moved.

According to the available evidence the body of David Kelly was found at around 09.15 on Friday 18th July 2003.

The first photographs were taken around 10.11 on 18th July 2003 by, so I understand, PC Sawyer.

According to the publicly available evidence, only three people saw the body in the period after the body was found and before any photographs were taken. Those people were:

1. Louise Holmes (searcher)
2. Paul Chapman (searcher)
3. DC Graham Coe

Striictly speaking, only Ms Holmes and Mr. Chapman saw the body "when it was found".

I understand that neither they nor DC Coe took photographs at the scene.

Ms Holmes Evidence

Ms Holmes approached to about four feet from the body. She has consistently given evidence that the head and shoulders of the body were against the trunk of a tree.

See, for example, pages 1 and 2 of "Annex TVP 3 The position of the body when found" located at http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf.

In her written statement and her evidence to the Hutton Inquiry Ms Holmes is clear and consistent in her evidence.

Given that she viewed the body from a distance of about four feet it is inconceivable that Ms. Holmes was mistaken.

To challenge her evidence I think it would be necessary to say she was lying. So far as I'm aware, nobody has made such a suggestion.

So far as I'm aware the evidence is that Ms. Holmes is a clear, consistent and honest witness.

There is no doubt that given her proximity to the body that it is Ms Holmes' evidence that is the most authoritative about the position of the body when found.

She stated consistently that the head and shoulders were against the trunk of the tree.

Mr Chapman's Evidence

Mr Chapman saw the body twice, as I understand the situation. When the body was found he saw the body from a distance of about 30 feet or thereby.

When with Ms. Holmes at 09.15 or thereby when the body was found, he stated to the Hutton Inquiry that the body was "sitting up against a tree".

See page 2 at http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf.

Thames Valley Police appear to have interpreted his written statement as indicating that the body was flat on the ground without his head and shoulders against the tree. However, the written statement is sparse and makes no mention of the position of the head and shoulders.

Thames Valley Police appear to have taken no steps to clarify the possible discrepancy in his evidence either in 2003 or in 2010/11.

DC Coe's Evidence

DC Coe first saw the body at around 09.40.

On page 2 of http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf Thames Valley Police present DC Coe's evidence to create the impression that the body was lying flat on his back.

However, Thames Valley Police ignore in that Annex the evidence of DC Coe given to The Mail on Sunday and published on 8th August 2010.

DC Coe is quoted as saying, "As I got closer, I could see Dr. Kelly's body sideways on with his head and shoulders against a large tree."

The quote is from column 4 of Page 12 of the article.

Thames Valley Police were aware of the article (having in recent months re-interviewed DC Coe about the "third man" issue) but, conveniently, chose to ignore DC Coe's evidence about the position of the head and shoulders.

It is currently an open question as to whether that failure was due to an insufficiency of competence or an insufficiency of honesty on the part of Thames Valley Police.

Synthesis of the Evidence

All three of the people who saw the body before photographs were taken have stated that the head and shoulders of the body were against the tree.

Ms Holmes viewed the body from a distance of about four feet. It is, I suggest, inconceivable from that distance that she was mistaken.

DC Coe saw the body "sideways on". Viewing the body from that position can leave no doubt as to whether or not the body had its head and shoulders against the tree.

Mr Chapman gave superficially conflicting evidence but his written Police statement is potentially consistent with his statement to the Hutton Inquiry. Thames Valley Police should, in my view, re-interview Mr. Chapman to resolve what may be merely a matter of wording rather than an inconsistency in his evidence.

I believe that Thames Valley Police should also re-interview the former DC Coe.

Thames Valley Police may then wish to provide to the Attorney General a more reliable interpretation of the position of the body when found than was contained in Annex 3, quoted above.

This email is being copied to John Bercow and Kevin Barron in the context of Dominic Grieve's Contempt of the House of Commons, in that he lied to the House in his statement of 9th June 2011 and its supporting documentation.

It is also being copied to Keith Vaz since the inadequacies of Thames Valley Police may be of interest to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

I am copying this email to David Cameron since he may wish to review whether he continues to consider that Dominic Grieve is a fit person to hold the office of Attorney General.

I am also copying this email to Norman Baker MP and Malcolm Bruce MP in view of their involvement with this matter.

In addition I am copying this email to Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball at Thames Valley Police with a view to Thames Valley Police re-investigating this evidence as a matter of urgency.

In the interests of transparency I am posting a copy of this email on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-position-of-body.html.

For the avoidance of doubt this is an open communication. Recipients of visible or blind copies of this email are free to distribute it as they see fit.

Assistant Commissioner John Yates had to resign following his "crap decision" in the matter of the phone hacking.

If examined honestly Dominic Grieve's decision regarding the death of David Kelly is a "crap decision" of monumental proportions. In time I believe Dominic Grieve will have to resign and should be investigated by the Police for Misconduct in Public Office and Perverting the Course of Justice.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

I plan to send a subsequent email to the Attorney General's Office summarising the evidence about the position of the body in photographs.

The Death of David Kelly - A reply from the Attorney General to another MP

2011-08-21T21:22:00.001+01:00

Today I became aware of another reply to an MP from Dominic Grieve seeking to cover up his dishonest statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

See here.

The Death of David Kelly - Asking the Attorney General to ask the key question in Law

2011-08-21T18:27:00.002+01:00

One of the things that has struck me about the Attorney General's approach to his consultation of experts such as Dr. Shepherd is his failure to ask the key question, "Is it possible for an inquest to return a conclusion other than suicide?".

Given that failure on the part of the Attorney General during the Second Application, I have now written to Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office to ask that the correct question be put to the experts consulted.

The title of the email I sent earlier today was, "David Kelly (3rd Appln): Asking the experts the correct question".

The content of the email was as follows:

Mr McGinty,

This communication relates to the Third Application for a request by the Attorney General that the High Court order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Having reviewed the correspondence to Dr. Shepherd and Professor Flanagan and others it seems to me that the Attorney General's Office visibly and consistently failed to ask the experts consulted the correct question.

The question in Law that the Attorney General is required to consider, as I understand the situation, is whether it is POSSIBLE that a new inquest might return a different conclusion from the Hutton Inquiry.

You asked the experts several questions but, so far as I can see, studiously avoided asking the experts and others that key question.

There are, for example, in the letter of 12th November 2010 to Dr. Shepherd ( http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/AGO%20to%20Shepherd%2012%20November%202010.pdf ) five questions expressed as bullet points. None of those questions is the key one - "Is it possible that a conclusion other than suicide might be drawn?". The other questions may be of general interest but none, so far as I can see, is THE question that the Attorney General is required by Law to answer.

In view of that failure on the part of the Attorney General I request that as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General that this key question is put in writing to the experts and with public disclosure of all correspondence to and from the experts consulted.

Specifically, I would also again request that an expert forensice psychiatrist (or similarly qualified expert) is consulted in order to review Professor Hawton's fragile speculations. See, for example, my communication to the Attorney General here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-need-for-expert.html

In passing, I might mention that if I were one of the doctors who, according to the Telegraph of Saturday 20th August 2011 (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8712302/Cherie-Blairs-learned-friend-called-in-over-Dr-David-Kelly-inquest.html ) was contemplating Judicial Review of the Attorney General's dishonest decision announced on 9th June 2011 I would be minded to include the Attorney General's failure to ask the KEY question of the experts he consulted as an issue in the possible Judicial Review.

It seems to me that the one key question that the Attorney General is required in Law to address he singularly fails to ask about.

In the interests of transparency a copy of the content of this email is being placed online here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-asking-attorney.html

I look forward to learning whether and when the Attorney General intends to ask the relevant experts (including a psychiatric expert) the key question.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

One has to ask why the Attorney General didn't ask this key question of Dr. Shepherd and others.

Could it be that honestly asking the question required by Law risked receiving an answer contrary to the dishonest answer that the Attorney General wished to announce to Parliament?

The Death of David Kelly - Request for disclosure of documents

2011-08-21T13:48:00.003+01:00

In the context of the Third Application to the Attorney General, The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Third Application to the Attorney General, I wrote to the Attorney General's Office earlier today to request disclosure of a number of documents and explanation with respect to a number of matters.

The title of my email to the Attorney General's Office was:

David Kelly (3rd Appln): Request for disclosure of documents

The content of the email was as follows:

Mr McGinty,

In the context of the Third Application to the Attorney General re the need for an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly I wish to request disclosure of the following documents.

1. A list of all photographs taken at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003, together with a brief description and the time that each photograph was taken. I should mention that I understand there were at least three sets of photographs (those by PC Sawyer, Mr McGee and Dr. Eileen Hickey).

2. A copy of all correspondence between the Attorney General's Office and Thames Valley Police with respect to the Annexes disclosed by the Attorney General on or around 9th June 2011 and to the report to which the annexes related. The Attorney General disclosed correspondence to Dr. Shepherd and Professor Flanagan. Why not comparably disclose correspondence with Thames Valley Police? Assuming, of course, that such correspondence would bear public scrutiny.

3. A copy of the report to the Attorney General by Thames Valley Police (six annexes of which were put in the public domain by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011 or thereby).

4. A copy of the complete version of Dr. Green's report. The version published on 9th June 2011 had had Appendix 2 removed. Can you please confirm whether Appendix 2 in that version of the report was removed by the Attorney General's Office or by Thames Valley Police? If so, why did the Attorney General's Office remove the Appendix? I would also point out that the version of the report on the Attorney General's website refers to matters in 2005 and therefore cannot have been a copy of the original report.

5. A copy of the report by Anne Franc. Dr. Green's report states that his report should be read with that of Anne Franc.

6. A copy of the report to Nicholas Gardiner QC by Alan Young of Thames Valley Police which, supposedly, was "excellent".

7. A copy of the written statement(s) made in 2003 to Thames Valley Police by Mai Pederson. It is my understanding that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page may have lied to Lord Hutton regarding the content of those statements. I understand that Mark Zaid (Ms Pederson's lawyer) wrote to Mr Grieve in or around June 2010 expressing his concern about related matters.

8. A copy of the report by Professor Gudjonsen.

9. A copy of the medical report on Dr. Kelly on or around 8th July 2003.

10. Copies of the medical reports from the 1990's on the fracture and operation on Dr. Kelly's right elbow.

11. A copy of the letter from Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth (of 30th October 2010) on the disability to Dr. Kelly's right arm consequent on the fracture/operation of the right elbow.

12. A copy of the laboratory report commissioned by the Attorney General in response to Dr. Shepherd's comment on page 14 of his report ( http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf ). Dr. Shepherd stated, "The pathologist must rely upon assessments made by expert forensic scientists in controlled laboratory conditions.". What did that examination under laboratory conditions show? If the Attorney General failed to have such a test carried out I ask for an explanation of that failure by Mr. Grieve and how he can have made his statement to the House of Commons when, as might be the case, it is unknown whether the knife found at the scene was or was not sharp enough to produce the wounds described by Dr. Hunt.

13. A copy of Professor Hawton's written report on Dr. Kelly's state of mind etc.

14. A copy of the report reviewing Professor Hawton's evidence. If, in response to my communication to the Attorney General ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-need-for-expert.html )raising concerns about Professor Hawton's evidence the Attorney General decided not to seek expert review of Professor Hawton's evidence I seek an explanation of that failure on the part of the Attorney General.

15. A copy of each of the photographs referred to in numbered item 1.

In the interests of transparency I am placing the text of this email online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-request-for.html.

If it is the decision of the Attorney General's Office to continue to conceal these documents I would be grateful for an explanation of why they were concealed by the Attorney General with respect to the Second Application (by Dr. Frost et al) and why they continue to be concealed now.

If the Attorney General wishes to allay public and medical concerns regarding the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly I will say straightforwardly that full disclosure will be required in the light of lies told in 2003 and 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

If you can think of any other documents that it would be helpful for the Attorney General to disclose then either post a comment here or write directly to the Attorney General's Office.

The Death of David Kelly - March 2004 Channel 4 video

2011-08-21T12:51:00.002+01:00

On the The Dr David Kelly Inquest Fund site there is an interesting video about the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. Kelly from Channel 4 news from March 2004 (or thereby).

See Interesting Links.

The Death of David Kelly - Is there to be a Judicial Review of Dominic Grieve's shameful decision?

2011-08-21T12:43:00.002+01:00

Yesterday, the Daily Telegraph reported that Aidan O'Neill QC had been approached to provide a legal opinion about whether or not it is possible to judicially review Dominic Grieve's refusal of an application to the High Court, expressed in his statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

See Cherie Blair's learned friend called in over Dr David Kelly inquest.

Reference is made in that article to the need to raise funds to support a judicial review.

I assume that the following is the location to which funds should be sent: The Dr David Kelly Inquest Fund.

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Third Application to the Attorney General

2011-08-21T10:55:00.001+01:00

Today I am beginning a Third Application to the Attorney General seeking that an application be made to the High Court for an order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

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:

Mr. McGinty,

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
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-dr-david-kelly-third.html.

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".

Thank you

(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.

The Death of David Kelly - How can one distinguish true suicide from the body having been "suicided"?

2011-08-21T08:47:00.002+01:00

This post addresses a fundamental question that, so far as I'm aware, neither Thames Valley Police nor the Attorney General's Office has meaningfully addressed.

How does one distinguish a true suicide from a murder made to look as if it were a suicide?

This post represents a first attempt to state systematically how those two possibilities may reliably be distinguished in the context of the body found at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003.

Did David Kelly walk to the scene?

The "suicide hypothesis" adopted by Lord Hutton assumes that David Kelly walked to Harrowdown Hill.

What evidence exists to demonstrate that?

None.

What evidence exists to show he was transported to the scene?

Again, the answer is None.

But we need to be aware that Thames Valley Police officers acted on 18th July 2003 in such as way so as to destroy such evidence, if it existed. (I'll return to the specifics in a later post.)

Was David Kelly's right arm weak?

If David Kelly's right arm was significantly weakened by the elbow fracture and operation in 1991 then serious questions arise about whether he could have made the observed wounds.

The issue was not addressed by the Hutton Inquiry.

In fact, ACC Page seems to have lied in his evidence, in order to conceal the existence of the right elbow problem.

And Janice Kelly, Rachel Kelly and Dr. Malcolm Warner were silent on the issue.

If your husband or father had supposedly committed suicide using his right arm with a known history of fracture and operation and evidence of recent pain and disability in that arm, wouldn't you have publicly and loudly been asking questions?

Yet, Janice Kelly was silent on the issue.

Rachel Kelly was silent on the issue.

Dr. Malcolm Warner was silent on the issue.

Collective amnesia, perhaps?

Was the knife held by David Kelly?

The absence of fingerprints on the knife means that we don't know if the knife found at the scene had been held by David Kelly or not.

Was the knife sharp enough to make the observed cuts?

The answer is that we don't know.

The relevant tests were never carried out.

Were all cuts made by the same knife?

Again the answer is that we don't know.

The relevant detailed examination of the wounds was never carried out.

Is it possible to make the described wounds?

The arterial rain observed by Mr. Green is only on the nettles to the left of the body. If that "arterial rain" is genuine then the left arm must have been pointing in that direction when the ulnar artery was incised.

In a woodland setting is it possible for a person to cut their own left wrist in such a way?

I strongly suspect that it isn't.

Try it.

Lie on a flat surface, put your left arm out to the side and then try to "cut your wrist" (with a blunt object, of course) and see how unnatural and difficult it is to cut the ulnar artery.

The natural way to make the cut when the body is in such an awkward position is to cut the radial artery (thumb side of the wrist).

Conclusion

There are serious questions which remain to be answered.

The certainty of Dominic Grieve in his statement to the House of Commons is false. His statement was dishonest and fraudulent.

What could be so important to conceal that an Attorney General puts his career on the line and lies?

The Death of David Kelly - Visual identification of the body

2011-08-21T08:12:00.003+01:00

A new question has arisen about the visual identification of the Harrowdown Hill body. First, I'll summarise the situation.

One of the questions that was not, so far as I'm aware, resolved at either the Hutton Inquiry or at the preliminary inquest session on 21st July 2003 is that of visual identification of the body.

There was no evidence given in either forum about visual identification by anyone who had, supposedly, identified the body.

At the Hutton Inquiry, ACC Page gives what amounts to hearsay evidence about visual identification. See page 203 of ACC Page's evidence given on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003:

12 this, and again I stress because I am a police officer
13 and probably inherently suspicious, because dental
14 records are a means of identification it did prompt me
15 to take the extra precaution of having DNA checks
16 carried out to confirm that the body we had was the body
17 of Dr Kelly, notwithstanding the fact that that had been
18 identified by his family.

Hearsay evidence is, at best, unsatisfactory.

Hearsay evidence given by a Police officer who can be demonstrated to have lied about the fingerprints on the dental records is of no value whatsoever, in my opinion. See The Death of David Kelly - Unreliability of the evidence of ACC Page regarding the dental records.

In reality, there has been no satisfactory identification evidence given either to the Hutton Inquiry or to the "inquest" (I use the term loosely) conducted by Nicholas Gardiner.

The new question that arises relates to the following part of Dr. Hunt's postmortem report:

FACE: The facial soft tissues were dissected to the level of the bone and there was no evidence of soft tissue or bony injury.

Put simply, Dr. Hunt was burrowing around under the skin of the face during his postmortem. See page 7 of the version put online by Dominic Grieve: Post mortem report by Dr Hunt 25 July 2003. The quoted text appears immediately after the text "(Page 7 Ends)".

The appearance of the face would, obviously, be altered by that dissection.

The question in my mind is the degree to which the appearance of the face would have been altered.

Could it have been altered so significantly that the face couldn't reliably be identified?

It's a question that needs to be answered, in my view.

Another question that needs to be answered is "Why was the facial tissue dissected?".

Dissecting the facial tissues had the potential to change the appearance of the face, thereby potentially reducing the reliability of any visual identification.

Was that the intention of the dissection?

The Death of David Kelly - An experiment with nettles and brambles

2011-08-20T10:10:00.002+01:00

In Mr. Green's report, Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003, which was recently made public by the Attorney General's Office mention was made of the body at Harrowdown Hill lying in nettles and brambles.

In my preceding post, The Death of David Kelly - Were "third parties" present?, the question of evidence regarding the presence or otherwise of so-called third parties was discussed.

I've carried out a small experiment to explore how "obvious" any previous stepping on nettles and brambles in a woodland setting might be.

The short answer is that it is possible to walk across nettles and brambles and leave essentially no trace at all.

Why is that?

With respect to brambles the stems are often sloping at an angle. If you stand on such a stem then it lowers to ground level while it is being stood on. However, almost instantly it springs back to a position similar to that in which it was before it was stepped on.

Yes, the stem may be 10cm above the ground immediately after it had been stood on when it had been, say, 15cm above the ground before it was stood on. But within a couple of seconds it is generally impossible in my view to detect that a bramble stem or stems has been stepped on.

In the woodland setting that I experimented with, nettle stems were also frequently at an angle rather than standing vertically. I assume that this is because the nettles were etiolated (being shaded by nearby or overhanging trees).

The behaviour of nettles is similar to brambles. Step on a sloping stem and it springs back almost instantly - with the exception that if you stand on the bottom, say, 5cm of the stem it may snap and lie horizontal to the ground.

In my experiment it is much tougher to detect that brambles and nettles had been stood on, even seconds before, than Dr. Hunt and the Attorney General appear to assume.

I conclude that statements to the effect that was on "obvious trampling" are essentially valueless.

The Death of David Kelly - Were "third parties" present?

2011-08-20T07:55:00.002+01:00

One of the lines of so-called "logic" followed by Thames Valley Police, Lord Hutton and Dominic Grieve is that the death of David Kelly can't be murder because the presence of "third parties" can be excluded.

How sound is the evidence supporting that contention?

In my view it is fragile in the extreme (at least in terms of any evidence that has been publicly disclosed).

I have spent many hours reading the Hutton Inquiry transcripts and documents and the documents released more recently by Dominic Grieve. The "evidence" that no third parties were present is appallingly thin.

So far as I can trace the "conclusion" that no third party was present rests significantly on assertions by Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page on pages 195 and 196 of his evidence given on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003:

16 A. Yes, certainly. Very early on in the inquiry one sets
17 up a series of hypotheses which one tries then to knock
18 down. For the sake of completeness the first of these
19 would be: was the death natural or accidental? In this
20 case it is fairly obvious that was not the case. The
21 next question is: was it murder? I think as I pointed
22 out in my last evidence, the examination of the scene
23 and the supporting forensic evidence made me confident
24 that actually there was no third party involved at the
25 scene of the crime and therefore, to all intents and

196
1 purposes, murder can be ruled out.
2 One is then left with the option that Dr Kelly
3 killed himself.

For the moment let's put aside that we know that ACC Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry about the matter of fingerprints on the dental records, The Death of David Kelly - Unreliability of the evidence of ACC Page regarding the dental records, and assume that ACC Page wasn't lying about this matter.

There are two pieces of supposed "evidence" that led ACC Page to his conclusion.

The examination of the scene

The supporting forensic evidence

The examination of the scene

In his evidence given on the morning of Tuesday 16th September 2003 (page 24), Dr Nicholas Hunt refers to "the lack of obvious signs of trampling of the undergrowth".

So we learn that there was nothing "obvious". At least nothing "obvious" to Nicholas Hunt.

However, as I demonstrated in small experiment, The Death of David Kelly - A tiny experiment in the woods the signs in vegetation of the presence of a person can be fleeting in the extreme.

The lack of "obvious" signs of trampling, at least when on grass, are of minimal or no significance.

Is there firmer evidence on this matter that slips my mind?

Of course, one should not overlook the fact that any trampling at or close to the scene by Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, Graham Coe, Dave Bartlett, Vanessa Hunt, PC Franklin, PC Sawyer and SOCO Andrew Hodgson wasn't "obvious" to Dr. Hunt.

Any trampling by those eight individuals would have been much more recent than trampling by any "third party" at the crime scene.

The supporting forensic evidence

Is there any?

I'm not aware of any systematic analysis.

There is, implicitly, no obvious DNA evidence of a third party handling the body.

Yet, we know that Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt handled the body at the scene.

But their DNA wasn't detected.

So how can we be confident that the absence of any other DNA "proves" the absence of a third party at the scene?

Answer - we can't. The "logic" of Grieve and his cover-up cronies is deeply flawed. And is, in my view, wholly unreliable.

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

2011-08-18T18:33:00.003+01:00

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?

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - DC Coe agrees with Louise Holmes that the head and shoulders were against the tree

2011-08-18T17:47:00.003+01:00

In an article in The Mail on Sunday of 8th August 2010 the former DC Coe is quoted as saying the following: "As I got closer, I could see Dr. Kelly's body sideways on, with his head and shoulders against a large tree. He wasn't dead flat along the ground.".

This accords with the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry by Louise Holmes and her written statement to Thames Valley Police. See page 1 of Annex TVP 3 The position of the body when found.

Other witnesses have the body flat on the ground.

Yet, Dominic Grieve QC seeks to maintain his illogical and dishonest opinion that the body wasn't moved.

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Was the body moved between 09.40 and 14.00 on 18th July 2003?

2011-08-18T17:43:00.002+01:00

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?

The Death of David Kelly - Who classified Mr Green's report as "Restricted"?

2011-08-18T16:17:00.002+01:00

One of the documents made public for the first time by the Attorney general is the report by the forensic biologist Mr. Roy Green: Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003.

The document is classified as "Restricted".

Who classified it?

When was it classified?

If you right click on the document and choose Document Properties you will see that the document was modified on 8th June 2011.

Who modified the document on 8th June?

What modifications were made?

One thing we can be sure of the document that was made public by the Attorney General is not the original document.

Maybe the change(s) made were innocent.

The opposite possibility also exists.

The Death of David Kelly - What Thames Valley Police report is Dominic Grieve concealing?

2011-08-17T11:42:00.003+01:00

The web site for the Attorney General's Office presents a range of documents relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly here: Dr David Kelly.

Six Annexes from Thames Valley Police are listed.

However, the report to which those documents are Annexes is concealed.

What information did Dominic Grieve wish to conceal?

And what was his motive for concealing it?

Was the concealed Thames Valley Police report any less unreliable and dishonest than Annexes 3 and 6?

The Death of David Kelly - To whom is Dominic Grieve accountable?

2011-08-17T09:45:00.003+01:00

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I and several of those who comment on the blog believe that the UK Attorney General lied to the UK House of Commons in his statement made on 9th June 2011.

Additionally, I believe that Dominic Grieve has perverted the course of justice in his actions and failures to act in this matter.

That, if substantiated, would mean that the UK Attorney General has committed a serious criminal offence.

In his letter of 2nd August 2011 to my Member of Parliament it is clear that Dominic Grieve is determined to "tough it out".

He has little choice.

If he admits that he lied to Parliament about a matter as serious as the suspected murder of Dr. David Kelly then Dominic Grieve's career is over.

Both his political career and legal career.

Would you vote for a parliamentary candidate who had perverted the course of justice with regard to a suspected murder?

Would you employ a lawyer who had perverted the course of justice with regard to a suspected murder?

To whom, if anyone, is Dominic Grieve accountable?

In his letter of 2nd August 2011 Mr. Grieve hints at how he may potentially be held to account for his actions and failures.

He writes:

Like all Ministers I am appointed, and can be dismissed, by the Prime Minister. However, when exercising functions in the public interest I act independently of Government and am answerable to Parliament and to the Courts for my decisions."

It seems to me that there are three possible mechanisms hinted at whereby Dominic Grieve can, potentially, be held to account:

In Parliament. As far as I can ascertain lying to the House of Commons is a "contempt of Parliament". The most appropriate mechanism to secure scrutiny of Mr. Grieve's lies to the House of Commons is unclear. Three possible routes appear to exist - the Speaker of the House of Commons, the chairman of the Standards and Privileges and Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

The civil Courts - I hope that those who lodged the formal "Memorial" are seriously considering seeking Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's scandalous statement to the House of Commons and the decision which underlies it.

The criminal Courts - It seems to me, and others, that Dominic Grieve may have committed the serious criminal offences of Misconduct in Public Office and Perverting the Course of Justice. Those are offences which can be reported to the Police, as I understand the situation.

There is a fourth "court" where Dominic Grieve may be held accountable for his lies - the court of public opinion. It is unlikely that he had that in mind in his letter. But as James Murdoch and others are discovering the court of public opinion has its own, if rather unpredictable, powers.

It seems to me that it would be an appalling outcome if Dominic Grieve gets away with lying to the House of Commons with the effect of perverting the course of justice with respect to the suspected murder of Dr. David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - The phase of the moon on 17th July 2003?

2011-08-17T02:16:00.001+01:00

I was wondering if anyone happened to know the phase of the moon on the night of 17th to 18th July 2003.

Or knew where I could find that out.

Knowing the phase of the moon on that night would help understand whether any hypothetical actors in delivering David Kelly's body to Harrowdown Hill might have needed night-vision goggles or similar equipment.

The Death of David Kelly - Sara Thornton seemingly not to apply for Commissioner's post

2011-08-16T20:24:00.003+01:00

When I last posted about the future of Sara Thornton on 18th July, The Death of David Kelly - The future of Chief Constable Sara Thornton , the media were reporting that she was favourite to replace Sir Paul Stephenson as Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Today, the Evening Standard, Leading woman candidate drops out of race for Met's top job, reports that "Sara Thornton, the chief constable of Thames Valley and previously seen as one of the most likely contenders, is now said to be unwilling to run" for the post of Commissioner.

The Evening Standard doesn't make the connection that Sara Thornton's reluctance to apply for the Commissioner's job may relate to the concerns expressed by myself and others that she has taken part in a process of perverting the course of justice with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Perhaps the recent labelling by an MP of a former senior Metropolitan Police officer as a "dodgy geezer" showed to Ms Thornton that skeletons can exit cupboards unpredictably and without warning.

If it were to be demonstrated that Sara Thornton had participated in perverting the course of justice that would make her a very dodgy geezer-ess indeed!

The Death of David Kelly - Lord Hutton's Paragraph 151 interpreted by the Attorney General

2011-08-16T19:51:00.004+01:00

On 15th July 2011 my Member of Parliament wrote to David Cameron on my behalf communicating my concerns regarding Dominic Grieve's consideration of the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly, as expressed in his statement of 9th June 2011 to the House of Commons.

On 1st August 10 Downing Street sent a holding reply to my MP.

On 2nd August Dominic Grieve sent to my MP a letter in response to my concerns.

The following is a brief extract from Dominic Grieve's letter.

As I made clear in my statement to the House, the evidence supported the fact that Dr. Kelly took his own life is overwhelming. In particular, the forensic evidence supports the conclusion that Dr. Kelly died in the position in which his body was found. It is not for me to explain what Lord Hutton intended in making the comment he did in paragraph 151 of his report but I have seen the photographs that were before Lord Hutton and I believe what he meant was that when seen from different angles, the body might have appeared to be slumped against a tree. Reading paragraph 151 in its entirety does not suggest that Lord Hutton believed the body had been moved."

Dominic Grieve indulges in delightful evasion.

An evasion which amounts to nonsense.

Dominic Grieve is also being disingenuous and dishonest.

The cause for concern is that Lord Hutton's paragraph 151 and Dr. Shepherd's report, as they relate to the position of Dr. Kelly's body, are mutually incompatible. Further, the evidence of Louise Holmes is conveniently being discounted by the Attorney General so as to remove the evidence that Dr. Kelly's body was moved.

My reading of Dominic Grieve's words is that there is NO photograph showing the head against the tree as claimed in Lord Hutton's paragraph 151.

And, in my perception, Lord Hutton invented that notion in order to discount the oral evidence given by Louise Holmes.

Dominic Grieve cannot say that Lord Hutton was lying but that's my conclusion from his words.

Do you read the totality of the evidence differently?

The Iraq Inquiry - MI6 had doubts about the "intelligence" from the outset

2011-07-20T10:53:00.002+01:00

Andrew Gilligan blogged recently about an interesting release of documents from the Chilcot Inquiry, Iraq dossier: MI6 concerned about its claims 'from the outset'.

This newly released documentation seems to raise further doubts about the truthfulness of the evidence of Sir Richard Dearlove and John Scarlett to the Hutton Inquiry.

The death of Sean Hoare - "He would talk about someone from Government coming to get him"

2011-07-20T09:04:00.002+01:00

Sean Hoare, it appears, was in fear for his life from some unspecified Government agency.

See Police say 'no-one else involved' in death of phone-hacking whistleblower who 'feared someone was out to get him'.

According to a neighbour, "He would talk about someone from the Government coming to get him".

Were those fears the unfounded paranoia of someone known to have had alcohol and drug problems?

Or could those fears have been well-founded?

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

The Death of Sean Hoare - Article in the Independent

2011-07-20T08:41:00.002+01:00

I have made no decision about whether, on an ongoing basis, to start blogging about the death of Sean Hoare the "whistleblower" about the alleged phone hacking by News of the World and possibly other News International staff.

However, I am struck by the similarities in this article in the Independent, Martin Hickman: Was Sean Hoare killed by the Murdoch empire? The short answer is no, to some of the early press coverage of the supposed "suicide" of David Kelly.

As Mr Hickman correctly points out in his article about the death of Sean Hoare, "we do not yet have all the facts".

Yet there are, in close parallel with the David Kelly "suicide", stories planted in the press that imply or hint that Sean Hoare committed suicide even before a postmortem examination was carried out.

It's almost as if the press and Hertfordshire Police are working together in a manner similar to how Thames Valley Police appear to have planted the "suicide" of David Kelly in the media at a time on 18th July 2003 when it wasn't possible legitimately to have done so.

Was Sean Hoare murdered?

It's too early to tell.

Will the full truth ever come out?

I'm not holding my breath.

The Death of David Kelly - Could his phone have been hacked?

2011-07-18T21:19:00.002+01:00

It's a question I hadn't asked myself until today: Could David Kelly's phone have been hacked?

Milly Dowler disappeared in March 2002 and her body was found in September 2002.

So the News International phone hacking activity appears to have been ongoing around the period of interest as it applies to David Kelly.

If David Kelly was, hypothetically, the person who tipped off Judith Miller that the supposed "mobile weapons labs" were bogus could someone at News International have hacked those messages?

Currently, I've no idea.

The Death of David Kelly - Another convenient "suicide"?

2011-07-18T19:32:00.004+01:00

The BBC and other media outlets are reporting the death earlier today of a man in Watford, reportedly Sean Hoare, the former News International reporter who alleged that Andy Coulson knew of the phone hacking at the News of the World. See for example, NoW 'whistleblower' Sean Hoare is found dead.

The death is being reported as "unexplained" but with no suspicious circumstances.

We are being led, I suspect, towards a conclusion of "suicide".

It's remarkable that another convenient "suicide" happens eight years to the day after the discovery of the body of Dr. David Kelly after his supposed "suicide".

Perhaps it's merely one of those strange coincidences that life throws up.

Perhaps it's not.

With the seeming death of Sean Hoare one source of evidence relating to alleged criminality by Andy Coulson and, potentially, others is seemingly removed.

Could anyone be so ruthless as to remove Sean Hoare from the scene?

The Death of David Kelly - The future of Chief Constable Sara Thornton

2011-07-18T15:19:00.003+01:00

On the surface, the future looks bright for Chief Constable Sara Thornton of Thames Valley Police.

The last time that the post of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was vacant it seems that Ms. Thornton threw her hat in the ring. See First female tipped to land Britain's biggest police job.

Following the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson yesterday, Ms Thornton has been installed by one firm of bookmakers as favourite to succeed him. See Who might be next Met Police commissioner?.

One wonders, however, whether the Mayor of London will wish to consider as a candidate for Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police someone regarding whom there are serious questions about her integrity.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I hold the opinion that Thames Valley Police in 2010 and 2011 have been covering up the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

Chief Constable Thornton has, in my view, been directly involved in that cover-up.

In fact, it is my view that Chief Constable Thornton may have committed the offence of perverting the course of justice.

If you were in charge of appointing a new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police would you appoint Sara Thornton with such unresolved issues hanging over her?

The Death of David Kelly - Eight years on and still the truth is concealed

2011-07-18T09:45:00.002+01:00

Eight years ago today, a body was found at Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire.

The truth of what happened prior to the discovery of that body remains concealed.

The concealment of the truth has, in part, founded on the actions (and failures to act) by a number of figures including the following:

Lord Hutton - the Hutton Inquiry was visibly inadequate in establishing the truth.

Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page - who, so far as I can judge, lied to the Hutton Inquiry about at least two material issues.

Detective Constable Graham Coe - who concealed from the Hutton Inquiry the presence of the "third man" at Harrowdown Hill.

Chief Constable Sarah Thornton - whose force in 2010 and 2011 have continued to conceal and obfuscate the truth, including giving dishonest evidence to the Attorney General's examination of the relevant issues in the context of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP - who gave a dishonest and irrational statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011

I remain optimistic that the truth will, in time, be established.

Like the phone hacking scandal, the murder of Dr. David Kelly casts unwanted light on the murky world where politics, illegality and the Police overlap.

It seems to me that the criminality in relation to the conspiracy to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly includes crimes far more serious than the misdeeds which led to the resignation yesterday of Sir Paul Stephenson.

The Death of David Kelly - Reform of the Office of Attorney General

2011-06-23T06:49:00.002+01:00

Readers who are interested in the constitutional role and powers of the Attorney General may find the following 2008 report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution to be of interest: Reform of the Office of Attorney General.

The Death of David Kelly - Judicial Review in English Law

2011-06-23T06:41:00.002+01:00

In a functioning democracy the decisions of the executive are, in principle, subject to judicial review.

Readers may be interested in the following Wikipedia article which broadly outlines the principles which apply to judicial review in English Law: Judicial review in English law.

The Death of David Kelly - The conflict in the photographic evidence

2011-06-16T09:07:00.002+01:00

This post consists primarily of a slightly unorthodox Freedom of Information Request made to Thames Valley Police earlier today.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Conflict in the photographic evidence

The text of the email to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton and Mr. Malcolm Hopgood was as follows:

This email is addressed to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton and Mr. Malcolm Hopgood of Thames Valley Police.

Chief Constable Thornton and Mr. Hopgood,

The statement about the death of Dr. David Kelly made to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP was, in my view, dishonest.

One material dishonesty by Mr. Grieve relates to the photographic evidence indicating that the body of Dr. David Kelly was moved. Contrary to such evidence Mr. Grieve claimed that the body had not been moved.

Lord Hutton (paragraph 151 of his report) stated that he had seen a photograph with Dr. Kelly's head against the tree.

Dr. Richard Shepherd (page 5 of his report of 16th March 2011) stated that there was a significant gap between the head and the tree. That gap, as Thames Valley Police knows, was sufficient to allow ambulanceman Dave Bartlett to stand in that gap and make an assessment of whether Dr. Kelly was or was not dead and assist his colleague Vanessa Hunt with the ECG assessment of death.

It seems that there is photographic evidence showing the body in two different positions.

At least that is the position if both Lord Hutton and Dr. Shepherd are to be believed.

Despite the evidence that the body was photographed in two distinct positions, on 9th June 2011 the Attorney General perversely rejected the possibility that Dr. Kelly's body has been moved.

If photographs exist which show the body of Dr. Kelly in two positions then Mr. Grieve's statement to the House of Commons seems to me to be dishonest, perverse and contrary to the evidence.

In this email I wish to ask Thames Valley Police the following questions:

1. Does any photograph in the possession of Thames Valley Police show the head of Dr. David Kelly against a tree? If so, on what date and at what time(s) were any such photographs taken?

2. Does any photograph in the possession of Thames Valley Police show a gap between the head of Dr. David Kelly and the tree in question? If so, on what date and at what time(s) were any such photographs taken?

3. What estimate of the distance between Dr. Kelly's head and the tree has been made by Thames Valley Police in any and all photographs referred to in question 2?

4. Does Thames Valley Police accept that Dr. Kelly's body was photographed in two positions?

I ask Thames Valley Police to consider the evidence about which I ask questions in relation to my report to them (URN 514 of 28/10/10) that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered.

I have copied this email to Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball.

I have copied this email to the Attorney General in view of his dishonest statement to Parliament on 9th June 2011. See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html for background.

I have also copied this email to Craig Oliver and Steve Field at Number 10 in view of the political sensitivities of a dishonest statement to Parliament by the United Kingdom's Attorney General.

I would be grateful if, in the first instance, Mr. Hopgood would process this as a Freedom of Information request in the normal way.

Should Thames Valley Police choose to disclose the requested evidence fully, transparently and honestly by another route that would be welcome.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - What evidence is there that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough?

2011-06-13T10:05:00.004+01:00

Was the knife found at Harrowdown Hill sharp enough to make the wounds described in Dr. David Kelly's left wrist?

We simply don't know, so far as I'm aware.

There is no forensic evidence that I'm aware of that demonstrates that the knife was sharp enough.

Yet the United Kingdom's bold Attorney General told the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 that there is "overwhelming evidence" that David Kelly took his own life.

If the sharpness of the knife hasn't been tested in a forensic laboratory then Mr. Grieve's statement is based on no more than a guess about the sharpness of the knife.

The following summarises my response to Mr. Grieves's statement:

Is it the official position of the United Kingdom's Attorney General that it is sufficient to guess whether or not the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds?

Guessing about the sharpness of the knife plays no legitimate part in what purported to have been "most careful consideration" of the matters in hand. The Attorney General ought to be ashamed of such sloppiness.

Below is an email sent earlier today to Dominic Grieve QC MP and Edward Garnier QC MP.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - What evidence is there that the knife was sharp enough?

The text of the email was:

[This email is for the urgent attention of Dominic Grieve QC MP, Attorney General and Edward Garnier QC MP, Solicitor General.]

Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier,

I write to enquire what forensic evidence exists that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to make the wounds described on Dr. David Kelly's left wrist.

In his statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 Mr. Grieve stated the following:

"Having given the most careful consideration to all the material that has been sent to me, I have concluded that the evidence that Dr Kelly took his own life is overwhelmingly strong.".

Such a conclusion of suicide depends on the knife found at the scene being sharp enough to make all the described wounds.

The Attorney General is aware that the sharpness of the knife found at the scene has been questioned.

I, for example, questioned whether David Kelly had, over a period of some years, had sufficient functional capacity in his right arm to sharpen what was, supposedly, a 40 or 50 year old knife.

See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-his-inability-to.html
for a copy of my email of 2nd May 2011.

The "suicide hypothesis" depends on the knife found at the scene being sufficiently sharp so as to be capable of making the wounds described.

If the knife found at the scene isn't sharp enough to make the wounds, then another knife must have done so. If that other knife is not present at the scene then another (second) party must have removed the knife which caused (some of) the wounds.

Dr. Richard Shepherd, in his report to the Attorney General, has stated that assessment of the sharpness of the knife does not lie in the domain of the forensic pathologist:

"It does not lie within the remit of the forensic pathologist to make a final assessment of the sharpness of an object at the scene. ... The pathologist must rely on assessments made by forensic expert scientists in controlled laboratory conditions."

Dr. Shepherd's report in online here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf

The quote is from page 14 of 21.

Dr. Shepherd states that it is not the job of the forensic pathologist formally to assess the sharpness of the knife.

On that point I believe that Dr. Shepherd is correct in his assessment.

It was simply insufficient for the forensic pathologist of the time, Dr. Nicholas Hunt, to have referred to the knife found at the scene as a "candidate". That conjecture needed to be tested.

In 2003 Thames Valley Police, in my view, had a duty to commission an expert forensic assessment of whether or not the knife found at the scene was sharp enough.

Did Thames Valley Police do so?

I write to request a copy of the report by a "forensic expert scientist" that demonstrates that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to create the wounds described in 2003 by Dr. Nicholas Hunt.

If, as I suspect, no such expert forensic assessment of the sharpness of the knife has ever been carried out then, it is unknown whether or not the knife found at the scene was used to create the wounds.

If there is no evidence that the knife found at the scene was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds then the supposed "overwhelming evidence" is fatally flawed at its foundation.

Is it the official position of the United Kingdom's Attorney General that it is sufficient to guess whether or not the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds?

Guessing about the sharpness of the knife plays no legitimate part in what purported to have been "most careful consideration" of the matters in hand. The Attorney General ought to be ashamed of such sloppiness.

If no forensic assessment has ever been carried out of the sharpness of the knife I ask the Attorney General to go to the House of Commons and apologise to the House for misleading it regarding the weight of evidence in relation to the death of Dr. Kelly.

In view of my expectation that Thames Valley Police ought formally to have had the sharpness of the knife assessed I am copying this email to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.

If a suitable report exists of an expert forensic science assessment of the sharpness of the knife, no doubt Thames Valley Police will wish to place it in the public domain.

I am also copying this email to Mr. Peter Jacobsen who I understand to be the Kelly family solicitor.

I am placing a copy of this email online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html

I look forward to your early reply.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June

2011-06-13T07:57:00.005+01:00

[place holder][Edited 14/06/2011 07.10 approx to paste content into this post.]

The statement of the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 is false in material particulars.

In a recent post, The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign , I drew attention to the illogical and false position taken by Mr. Grieve in relation to photographs stated to have shown Dr. Kelly's body in two positions. Yet Mr. Grieve, wholly against the evidence, seeks to lead the public to believe that David Kelly's body hadn't been moved.

In this post I draw attention to a component of Mr. Grieve's statement that is untrue and misleading but where the blame for the dishonesty appears to lie elsewhere than at Mr. Grieve's door.

The following email was sent earlier today to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.

The title of the email was:

Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June

The text of the email was:

Chief Constable Thornton, DCC Habgood, ACC Ball,

I write to express my profound concern at what I believe to be deliberate deception and dishonesty by Thames Valley Police in the report placed in the House of Commons Library on 9th June 2011 by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP.

I ask you forthwith to suspend the officer responsible for the compilation of the dishonest report.

I also ask you to ensure that all documents relating to the preparation of the report are forthwith secured in order to assist a future investigation.

I also ask you to refer Thames Valley Police's consideration of the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly to the Independent Police Complaints Commission due to the multiple deficiencies in that investigation.

In this email I will focus on one example of dishonesty.

The document in question is Annex 6 to the TVP Report (the main report remaining secret, it seems).

See
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%206.pdf for a copy of the Annex which is of concern.

The Annex reads well and, taken at face value by someone unfamiliar with the evidence, could be interpreted as indicating that there is no outstanding issue.

However, the Annex is dishonest.

It omits mention of what I consider to be the key discrepancy in that part of the evidence.

The Annex conceals that there are six unidentified fingerprints on the dental records.

See
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutus/aboutus-depts/aboutus-depts-infman/aboutus-depts-foi/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-investigate/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-item.htm?id=175657
for the Freedom of Information Response which indicates the presence of the six unidentified fingerprints.

The presence of unidentified fingerprints is obviously material to whether or not the dental records have been improperly accessed.

I suggest that it is inconceivable that any Police officer could "accidentally" omit mention of such fingerprint evidence in a report to the Attorney General.

If any Police officer was unaware of the potential importance of such fingerprint evidence then he or she should be suspended because of incompetence.

An honest report would have included a statement something like the following:

"There are six unidentified fingerprints on the dental records, indicating that the records were handled by someone other than the staff of the dental surgery. The identity of the person or persons who had unauthorised access to the dental records is unknown."

No statement to that effect appears in Annex 6.

An honest set of conclusions would have highlighted the likelihood of improper access to the records.

The balance of the conclusions expressed in paragraph 14 makes no mention of that and is, as a consequence, unsound and dishonest.

I conclude that the omission of that information about the unidentified fingerprints from Annex 6 of the Thames Valley Police Report is a deliberate act of dishonesty by a Thames Valley Police officer.

The drafting of the Annex is skilled and, in my view, is intended to convey an impression of a full investigation and consideration of the material questions having taken place when, in fact, the unidentified fingerprints are a continuing unresolved issue which was concealed by the person drafting the Annex.

I therefore conclude that Annex 6 is a premeditated attempt to deceive Parliament and the UK Public.

It seems to me that Annex 6 is, in part, designed to cover up dishonesty in 2003 by Thames Valley Police.

Former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page withheld that same information about the six unidentified fingerprints in his oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

In fact, in his evidence in 2003 ACC Page went further.

ACC Page lied to Lord Hutton stating that there were no "extraneous fingerprints".

It seems to me that Thames Valley Police has been party to a premeditated deception regarding this matter from 2003 to 2011.

I am copying this email to the Attorney General. I believe that the Attorney General lied to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 but I imagine he may wish to be aware that Thames Valley Police deceived him in the parts of his report that Thames Valley Police prepared.

I am also copying this email to David Carmeron MP and Nicola Blackwood MP since I imagine that dishonesty of Thames Valley Police officers will be of interest to them in their role as constituency MPs.

Given what appears to be a premeditated attempt by Thames Valley Police to deceive Parliament I am copying this email to Kevin Barron MP, Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Select Committee, and to John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons.

I am also copying this email to Norman Baker MP since he may recognise in this matter the past obstructive and dishonest behaviour of Thames Valley Police in the context of his investigations into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

You are aware, I believe, that I blog about the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. A copy of this email will be placed online at my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-dishonesty-of.html

I would be grateful for your early reply including whether or not you have suspended the officer concerned and whether you have asked the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the mishandling by Thames Valley Police of the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June 2011

2011-06-13T07:57:00.004+01:00

The statement of the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 is false in material particulars.

In a recent post, The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign , I drew attention to the illogical and false position taken by Mr. Grieve in relation to photographs stated to have shown Dr. Kelly's body in two positions. Yet Mr. Grieve, wholly against the evidence, seeks to lead the public to believe that David Kelly's body hadn't been moved.

In this post I draw attention to a component of Mr. Grieve's statement that is untrue and misleading but where the blame for the dishonesty appears to lie elsewhere than at Mr. Grieve's door.

The following email was sent earlier today to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.

The title of the email was:

Dishonesty of Thames Valley Police in the Attorney General's Report of 9th June

The text of the email was:

Chief Constable Thornton, DCC Habgood, ACC Ball,

I write to express my profound concern at what I believe to be deliberate deception and dishonesty by Thames Valley Police in the report placed in the House of Commons Library on 9th June 2011 by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP.

I ask you forthwith to suspend the officer responsible for the compilation of the dishonest report.

I also ask you to ensure that all documents relating to the preparation of the report are forthwith secured in order to assist a future investigation.

I also ask you to refer Thames Valley Police's consideration of the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly to the Independent Police Complaints Commission due to the multiple deficiencies in that investigation.

In this email I will focus on one example of dishonesty.

The document in question is Annex 6 to the TVP Report (the main report remaining secret, it seems).

See
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%206.pdf for a copy of the Annex which is of concern.

The Annex reads well and, taken at face value by someone unfamiliar with the evidence, could be interpreted as indicating that there is no outstanding issue.

However, the Annex is dishonest.

It omits mention of what I consider to be the key discrepancy in that part of the evidence.

The Annex conceals that there are six unidentified fingerprints on the dental records.

See
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutus/aboutus-depts/aboutus-depts-infman/aboutus-depts-foi/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-investigate/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-item.htm?id=175657
for the Freedom of Information Response which indicates the presence of the six unidentified fingerprints.

The presence of unidentified fingerprints is obviously material to whether or not the dental records have been improperly accessed.

I suggest that it is inconceivable that any Police officer could "accidentally" omit mention of such fingerprint evidence in a report to the Attorney General.

If any Police officer was unaware of the potential importance of such fingerprint evidence then he or she should be suspended because of incompetence.

An honest report would have included a statement something like the following:

"There are six unidentified fingerprints on the dental records, indicating that the records were handled by someone other than the staff of the dental surgery. The identity of the person or persons who had unauthorised access to the dental records is unknown."

No statement to that effect appears in Annex 6.

An honest set of conclusions would have highlighted the likelihood of improper access to the records.

The balance of the conclusions expressed in paragraph 14 makes no mention of that and is, as a consequence, unsound and dishonest.

I conclude that the omission of that information about the unidentified fingerprints from Annex 6 of the Thames Valley Police Report is a deliberate act of dishonesty by a Thames Valley Police officer.

The drafting of the Annex is skilled and, in my view, is intended to convey an impression of a full investigation and consideration of the material questions having taken place when, in fact, the unidentified fingerprints are a continuing unresolved issue which was concealed by the person drafting the Annex.

I therefore conclude that Annex 6 is a premeditated attempt to deceive Parliament and the UK Public.

It seems to me that Annex 6 is, in part, designed to cover up dishonesty in 2003 by Thames Valley Police.

Former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page withheld that same information about the six unidentified fingerprints in his oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

In fact, in his evidence in 2003 ACC Page went further.

ACC Page lied to Lord Hutton stating that there were no "extraneous fingerprints".

It seems to me that Thames Valley Police has been party to a premeditated deception regarding this matter from 2003 to 2011.

I am copying this email to the Attorney General. I believe that the Attorney General lied to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 but I imagine he may wish to be aware that Thames Valley Police deceived him in the parts of his report that Thames Valley Police prepared.

I am also copying this email to David Carmeron MP and Nicola Blackwood MP since I imagine that dishonesty of Thames Valley Police officers will be of interest to them in their role as constituency MPs.

Given what appears to be a premeditated attempt by Thames Valley Police to deceive Parliament I am copying this email to Kevin Barron MP, Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Select Committee, and to John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons.

I am also copying this email to Norman Baker MP since he may recognise in this matter the past obstructive and dishonest behaviour of Thames Valley Police in the context of his investigations into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

You are aware, I believe, that I blog about the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. A copy of this email will be placed online at my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-dishonesty-of.html

I would be grateful for your early reply including whether or not you have suspended the officer concerned and whether you have asked the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the mishandling by Thames Valley Police of the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Does Dominic Grieve's conduct constitute the offence of "misconduct in public office"?

2011-06-12T21:57:00.003+01:00

The House of Commons Library produces, on an ongoing basis, position papers on a range of interesting and arcane matters.

One such paper from 2009 considers the offence of Misconduct in public office.

It seems to me that there is at least an arguable case that Dominic Grieve may have committed the offence of "misconduct in public office".

Have a look at the elements of the offence and decide for yourself.

The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign

2011-06-12T18:52:00.004+01:00

A short time ago I sent to the Attorney General an email inviting the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign.

I post the text of that email below.

If you accept my viewpoint that Dr. Kelly's body was moved and that Dominic Grieve lied to the House of Commons then copy and paste the email below and send it to your Member of Parliament.

Better still, phone up and speak to him or her.

Even better, make an appointment to meet him or her to express your concerns.

Ask your MP to write to David Cameron expressing your concerns on this matter.

Ask your MP to ask a question of Dominic Grieve or of the Prime Minister.

Share the email with your friends and relatives. Ask them to contact their MPs.

Dominic Grieve has, in my opinion, lied to Parliament. He ought not to be able to continue as the United Kingdom's Attorney General.

Perhaps David Cameron will back him. Only a short time ago David Cameron had full confidence in Andy Coulson. Coulson didn't last long in his post after that.

Perhaps David Cameron will show good political sense and require Dominic Grieve to resign.

If you read the email and believe it to be true yet don't pass it on to others then you help to sustain a dishonest Attorney General in his post.

Dear Attorney General and Solicitor General,

I write in response to the statement made by the Attorney General in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I invite the Attorney General to review the accuracy of his statement to the House of Commons and to consider whether he ought to tender his resignation to the Prime Minister.

I invite the Solicitor General also to consider his position.

It is not the purpose of this email to set out all the untruths put forward by the Attorney General in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011. I will communicate the evidence of those untruths to the Attorney General, to the Press and to others as time allows.

I focus in this email on a single issue. The evidence that Dr. Kelly's body was in two different positions.

1. Lord Hutton said that he saw a photograph showing David Kelly's head resting against the base of a tree at Harrowdown Hill.

2. Dr. Richard Shepherd said he had seen photographs showing the head of Dr. David Kelly at some distance from the base of the tree (Mr. Dave Bartlett had stood in the space between the base of the tree and Dr. Kelly's head).

3. You claim that Dr. Kelly's body was not moved.

If, as you indicated in your statement you rely on the Hutton Report and Dr. Shepherd's report then you must accept that there are photographs showing Dr. Kelly's body in two different positions.

Yet, falsely and illogically, you claim that the body hadn't been moved.

Attorney General, it seems to me that you premeditatedly misled the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

The effect of your dishonesty is to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

I recognise that you may wish to "tough this out". That, of course, is your choice.

However I believe that your dishonesty is incompatible with your continuing to hold the office of Attorney General.

The political problems of your continuing to hold the office of Attorney General can only increase with time. In that context I am copying this email to David Cameron MP, Desmond Swayne MP as well as to Craig Oliver and Steve Field at Number 10.

A copy of this email will be placed online in a post on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/ specifically at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html.

I will also invite interested citizens of the UK to forward the content of this email to their Members of Parliament, both with a view to your apologising to the House of Commons for misleading the House but also so that, following your resignation, a more honest Attorney General may arrange for the much needed inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Unreliability of Janice Kelly's evidence for 9th July 2003

2011-06-12T10:55:00.003+01:00

In the preceding post, The Death of David Kelly - The Unreliability of Janice Kelly's evidence, I briefly summarised some longstanding concerns about the reliability of the evidence of Janice Kelly.

In this post I draw attention to new evidence showing that, at least with respect of the evening of 9th July 2003, the evidence of Janice Kelly is not to be believed.

The following quote relating to the evening of 9th July 2003 is from the oral evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003 (pages 21 to 27).

I've given a long quote to demonstrate that this was not some minor slip-up on Janice Kelly's part. In my view, the story for the evening of 9th July 2003 given in oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry by Janice Kelly is unreliable since in several material particulars it's untrue.

16 Q. Did you have any visitors that day?
17 A. Yes, we did in the evening.
18 Q. What time did you have a visitor?
19 A. Not absolutely certain. It was something like 7.30 or
20 something like that.
21 Q. Who was that visitor?
22 A. It turned out to be Nick Rufford.
23 Q. Where was Dr Kelly?
24 A. We had both been sitting out having our coffee in the
25 garden after dinner that evening. I was watering the

22
1 plants and David went to put some tools away he had been
2 using during the day which involved him going into the
3 yard which lay between our house and the main road
4 outside.
5 Q. And were you aware that anyone else was there?
6 A. I suddenly looked up and there was David talking to
7 somebody. I had not got my glasses on so I moved
8 a little bit closer with the hosepipe to see who it was
9 and I recognised it as Nick Rufford. Nick had been to
10 our house before but only by arrangement, he never just
11 turned up before this. No journalist just turned up
12 before this, so I was extremely alarmed about that.
13 Q. Do you know what was said between Mr Rufford and
14 Dr Kelly?
15 A. To be absolutely fair I am not sure now what I heard.
16 David confirmed what I thought I had heard afterwards.
17 I heard him say -- I heard Nick say, I think,
18 "Rupert Murdoch" and I heard David say, "Please leave
19 now". The conversation only took place over about four
20 or five minutes maximum.
21 Q. And did you speak with Dr Kelly after the conversation?
22 A. Yes, I did. He came over to me and said that Nick had
23 said that Murdoch had offered hotel accommodation for
24 both of us away from the media spotlight in return for
25 an article by David. He, David, was to be named that

23
1 night and that the press were on their way in droves.
2 That was the language David used, I am not sure Nick
3 used that. He also added -- he was very upset and his
4 voice had a break in it at this stage. He got the
5 impression from Nick that the gloves were off now, that
6 Nick would use David's name in any article that he wrote
7 and he was extremely upset.
8 Q. Had you spoken with Dr Kelly at all during the day about
9 his reaction to the news the night before?
10 A. Yes, I had. He said several times over coffee, over
11 lunch, over afternoon tea that he felt totally let down
12 and betrayed. It seemed to me that this was all part of
13 what might have happened anyway because it seemed to
14 have been a very loose arrangement with the MoD, they
15 did not seem to take a lot of account of his time.
16 There was a lot of wasting of his time.
17 I just felt that this must have been very
18 frustrating for him. David often said: they are not
19 using me properly. He felt that the MoD were not quite
20 sure how to use his expertise at times, although I have
21 later seen his manager's reports on his staff appraisals
22 where he obviously did warrant his or respect his
23 expertise. But that is not the impression that I got.
24 Q. You say, I think, that he had felt totally let down and
25 betrayed. Who did he say that of?

24
1 A. He did not say in so many terms but I believed he meant
2 the MoD because they were the ones that had effectively
3 let his name be known in the public domain.
4 Q. And did you get the impression that he was happy or
5 unhappy that this press statement had been made?
6 A. Well, he did not know about it until after it had
7 happened. So he was -- I think initially he had been
8 led to believe that it would not go into the public
9 domain. He had received assurances and that is why he
10 was so very upset about it.
11 Q. What, he did not know that the press statement saying an
12 unnamed source had come forward would be made?
13 A. Not until after the event.
14 LORD HUTTON: Did he say from whom he had received
15 assurances Mrs Kelly?
16 A. From his line manager, from all their seniors and from
17 the people he had been interviewed by.
18 MR DINGEMANS: And his reaction on hearing the news, you
19 said he had seemed slightly reluctant to watch the news
20 that night.
21 A. Yes, indeed.
22 Q. Was that because he had seen an earlier news, do you
23 think, or because he knew something might be coming up?
24 A. I think it was probably trepidation that this was the
25 moment. He was not quite sure when it would actually

25
1 happen but since Nick had come it was going to be a big
2 problem. He knew that.
3 Q. Right. You also said that he had the impression he was
4 not being used properly; by whom? Who was not using him
5 properly?
6 A. The MoD, yes. He never said that about the Foreign
7 Office when he worked there or for UNSCOM in those days
8 either.
9 Q. And in what sense did he feel he was not being used
10 properly?
11 A. Well, he often found that he was doing perhaps slightly
12 lower order jobs than he might be doing. He was filling
13 his time giving briefings, giving speeches, key note
14 speeches and others when perhaps he might have been more
15 involved in perhaps higher level policy making. There
16 was a letter I came up with where it was suggested that
17 David should be used in policy making rather more than
18 he was being.
19 Q. Going back to Mr Rufford, did David speak to you after
20 he had spoken to Mr Rufford?
21 A. Yes, he did. He came across and told me what Nick had
22 said.
23 Q. He mentioned this proposed deal; is that right?
24 A. That is right. That is right.
25 Q. And what had been Dr Kelly's reaction to that?

26
1 A. Extremely upset at two levels. One that he was being --
2 you know, the press were on their way in droves, as Nick
3 had put it, and also that his friendship with Nick --
4 because he always used to work so hard, because he was
5 a workaholic to all intents, most of his friendships, in
6 fact his close friendships were all with people he
7 worked with on a regular basis, so if he gave a regular
8 briefing to someone, very often it would become not
9 a close friendship but a friendship nevertheless. He
10 felt that friendship was now at an end.
11 Q. Having heard that the press were on their way in droves,
12 what did you do?
13 A. We hovered a bit. I said I knew a house that was
14 available to us, if we needed it, down in the south-west
15 of England, and he did not pick up on that initially.
16 Q. Did you remind him of that?
17 A. Yes, I did. The phone rang inside the house and he went
18 in to answer it, came out and he said: I think we will
19 be needing that house after all. The MoD press office
20 have just rung to say we ought to leave the house and
21 quickly so that we would not be followed by the press.
22 Q. So the phone call was from the Ministry of Defence?
23 A. It was the Ministry of Defence press office.
24 Q. And they said you ought to leave?
25 A. Yes. Whether he had offered anything else in the

27
1 interim I do not know, that was never mentioned.
2 Q. Right. But you decided to go down to this place that
3 you knew --
4 A. Indeed. We immediately went into the house and packed
5 and within about 10 minutes we had left the house.
6 Q. Had you done any prepacking?
7 A. No, no, no.
8 Q. Where did you drive to?
9 A. We headed along the road towards the M4 and got to --
10 about 9.30, 9.45 we got as far as Weston-Super-Mare and
11 decided to pull in at a hotel there for the night.

So, if Janice Kelly's evidence were true, David and Janice packed hurriedly and drove to Weston super Mare to escape hordes of press people.

All very dramatic, undoubtedly.

But true? That's a separate question.

On the Hutton Inquiry site, buried among the hundreds of documents, is this little gem: Email Ward/Jones 22/07/03 TVP/3/0100.

That document lists several people that David Kelly was, seemingly, playing cribbage with on the evening of 9th July 2003.

Which is true?

During the evening of 9th July 2003 was David Kelly "cutting and running" en route to Weston super Mare?

Or was he happily playing cribbage in the Hind's Head pub?

A document released by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011 clarifies the position.

In the Schedule of responses to issues raised released on 9th June 2011 by the Attorney General at Point 47 we read:

Dr Kelly was a member of the Hinds Head crib team. He last played
for them on the 9th July 2003. Every other member of that team was
interviewed by officers from the investigation team. Nigel Cox was
amongst these.

Could he have been playing cribbage during the day on 9th July 2003? Not according to Janice Kelly's evidence:

7 Q. On the 9th July, do you know where he was?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did he go to London?
10 A. Yes, he was supposed to be going to London so I was
11 quite surprised when he said he was going to work in the
12 garden all day. Again he got on to his vegetable patch
13 and was working in a rather lacklustre way that
14 particular day but he did receive and make some phone
15 calls as well.

So, Janice Kelly's evidence has David Kelly working in the garden all day on 9th July 2003.

The statements of several witnesses to the Police has David Kelly playing cribbage in a friendly match.

Notice that the cribbage match was a friendly yet, despite the drama created in Janice Kelly's imaginative account, David Kelly found time to relax with his friends at the Hind's Head and play cribbage.

Why is this important?

First, it demonstrates that Janice Kelly's evidence yet again is not to be taken at face value.

Second, given that her narrative continues seemingly seamlessly into supposed events in Cornwall from 10th to 13th July 2003, it raises questions about the supposed events that Janice Kelly describes on those days too.

And, perhaps most important of all, it demonstrates further reason for Professor Hawton to have treated Janice Kelly's evidence about David Kelly's supposed behaviour at lunchtime on 17th July 2003 with very great caution.

Professor Hawton's failure to exercise appropriate caution about Janice Kelly's evidence for 17th July 2003 is one reason that the "suicide hypothesis" gained public and, in my view, undeserved traction.

The Death of David Kelly - The Unreliability of Janice Kelly's evidence

2011-06-12T10:35:00.002+01:00

I imagine for some readers questioning of the evidence of the widow will be an uncomfortable consideration.

However, if the truth about the death of David Kelly is to be established then the evidence has to be looked at critically. ALL the evidence has to be looked at critically.

In this post I briefly summarise some concerns I've had for some time about the reliability of the evidence given by Janice Kelly.

My concerns about the evidence given by Janice Kelly arose in the context of the bizarre silence of the Kelly family about the possibility that David Kelly was murdered. See The Death of David Kelly - The surprising behaviour of the Kelly family from 8th November 2010.

One issue where Janice Kelly's evidence to Hutton is questionable is with respect to the events of the morning of 10th July 2003.

According to Janice Kelly's evidence, she and David Kelly were driving from Weston super Mare to Cornwall.

According to "Mr. A", David Kelly was in his (Mr A's) garden in the vicinity of Swindon chatting and having coffee.

It's not possible for both accounts to be accurate.

Also, with respect to the morning of 10th July Janice Kelly mentions an article in the Times by Nick Rufford.

Nick Rufford doesn't write for the Times and, so far as I can trace, he didn't make an exception to that practice in the Times of 10th July 2003.

On these two points, where Janice Kelly's evidence can be cross-checked, her evidence is at least questionable.

Neither of the preceding points is new so I haven't provided links to the relevant parts of the Hutton Inquiry.

The question in my mind for some time now is whether there are other, perhaps more important issues, on which the reliability of Janice Kelly's evidence is in doubt.

Professor Hawton's suicide story depends crucially on Janice Kelly's evidence for 17th July 2003, after all.

The Death of David Kelly - The fatuous nature of the Hutton Inquiry is exposed

2011-06-12T06:39:00.002+01:00

If Tom Mangold's article in today's Mail on Sunday is to be believed the fatuous nature of the Hutton Inquiry is exposed for all to see.

See 'I'm sure I know the truth about Dr Kelly’s death. But, thanks to Hutton, the world will never be told', his friend reveals.

Witnesses, according to Mangold, made statements to the Coroner but made different statements to Hutton and, in at least one case, gave "anodyne evidence" to Hutton despite, supposedly, having spoken intimately to David Kelly around 48 hours before his death.

Mangold writes:

I know from personal experience that the failure to hold an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death meant that crucial information on his state of mind, deliberately withheld from the Hutton Inquiry on a point of principle, never reached the public domain.

David Kelly was a friend of mine. We also had a close friend in common. Both our mutual friend and I gave statements to the coroner’s officer about
David’s last days. My friend was given the choice of whether his evidence should be referred to Lord Hutton.

Given the fevered state of political debate at the time – remember that BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan had been accused of lying on air about the ‘sexed-up’ dossier – my friend decided that an inquest was the proper forum for his evidence to be heard.

He was uneasy that the Hutton Inquiry did not take evidence on oath and feared it might become a political circus.

Both our testimonies languished, unread, in a dusty coroner’s file. Unwittingly, we had both played into the hands of the conspiracy theorists.

My friend later gave anodyne, uncontroversial evidence to Lord Hutton. We had a long conversation last week and although he insists he must not be named, I can now reveal what was going through Dr Kelly’s mind in the days before he took his own life.

Who was the witness who was a friend of David Kelly, who gave "anodyne evidence" to Lord Hutton yet withheld what, according to Mangold, constituted evidence about intimate discussions with David Kelly 48 hours or so before his death?

I suspect that "Mr. Anodyne" won't remain anonymous for long.

The Death of David Kelly - Information was "deliberately withheld from the Hutton Inquiry on a point of principle"

2011-06-12T06:13:00.002+01:00

In an article in today's Mail on Sunday, veteran journalist Tom Mangold claims that information was "deliberately withheld from the Hutton Inquiry on a point of principle" by himself and an anonymous "friend".

See 'I'm sure I know the truth about Dr Kelly’s death. But, thanks to Hutton, the world will never be told', his friend reveals.

That, I suggest, might well make uncomfortable reading over the coffee and toast in the Grieve household this morning, after Dominic Grieve's absolutist statements to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011: Dr David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - Another new problem for the "suicide believers" - Did DC Shields see the body or not?

2011-06-11T22:15:00.002+01:00

The bundle of documents from the Attorney General has thrown up another minor new contradiction.

One document states that DC Colin Shields didn't see the body.

Another report has DC Shields referring to seeing the body "laying on his back".

Which is it?

Point 42 of Schedule of responses to issues raised states this:

42.

Hutton failed to call DC Shields – one of two
detectives who attended Dr Kelly’s body.

DC Shields did not attend Dr Kelly’s body and had no relevant
information to assist the Inquiry.

On page 5 of his report Dr. Shepherd states the following:

The Police officers (DC Coe and DC Shields) who initially attended the scene commented that the body was "laying on his back", they did not describe sitting or slumping against a tree.

If the first statement is true then how can Dr. Shepherd report DC Shields as seeing the body "laying on his back"?

It may not matter too much whether or not DC Shields saw the body but surely the Attorney General and Thames Valley Police can be expected at least to tell a story that is internally consistent?

If they succeeded in achieving internal coherence then an intelligent member of the public might have more prospect of believing the cover-up.

The Death of David Kelly - A new problem for the "suicide believers"

2011-06-11T21:55:00.002+01:00

The bundle of documents released by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011, Dr David Kelly , has thrown up a new problem for the "suicide believers".

The new evidence is that a photograph is said to show that the strap of the watch found at Harrowdown Hill is on top of the knife.

This evidence is mentioned at point 90 in the Schedule of responses to issues raised.

90.

Dr Hunt relied on the removal of the watch as
indicative of suicide. However, DC Coe’s
evidence was that the watch was on top of the
knife. If that is correct that knife was not used
to make the cuts. This discrepancy was not
examined.

Dc Coe reported that when he first attended the scene he witnessed
Dr Kelly's watch as being "on top" of the knife. Dr Hunt sets out that
the knife was actually "adjacent" to Dr Kelly's watch. Photographs
taken show that both descriptions could be considered accurate as a
short section of the strap appears to rest on the handle of the knife
whilst the bulk of the watch is adjacent.

The problem I see is that if, as Dr. Hunt speculated, the watch was taken off to allow better access for the knife then it follows that the knife was in use after the watch was taken off and, presumably, laid on the ground.

If Dr. Hunt's speculation was correct then the knife should be on top of the watch.

But we're told that it's the other way round. Part of the watch strap is on top of the knife.

And that makes me doubt if Dr. Hunt's speculation has any basis in fact.

The Death of David Kelly - Articles on elbow fractures and their longterm outcome

2011-06-11T11:19:00.003+01:00

It is now established that David Kelly fractured his elbow in December 1991.

Broadly, there are two types of elbow fracture - those of the distal (lower) end of the humerus (the bone in the upper arm) and those of the bones of the lower arm (typically of the olecranon process of the ulna).

Interested readers may find these two links on the web site of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons to be informative reading: Elbow (Olecranon) Fractures and Distal Humerus Fractures.

In his report, on page 8 Dr. Shepherd refers to the physiotherapy report from April 1992 (TVP/10/0134), "The note records that there was full flexion of the elbow but that extension of the elbow was reduced by 15 [degrees].".

With regard to both olecranon process fractures and distal humeral fracture it is common that there is some less of extension (i.e. the arm cannot be fully straightened).

Each type of fracture is commonly associated with the later development of arthritis. For example, in the olecranon fracture article we read,

Elbow arthritis causes the elbow joint to become stiff and painful. It is an unfortunate, but relatively common, long-term outcome of olecranon fractures. Elbow arthritis can occur rapidly following an olecranon fracture, or it may take years to develop.

I'll return in a subsequent post to the inadequacy of Dr. Shepherd's report in its treatment of that aspect of the situation.

The Death of David Kelly - The silence of the Kelly family and Dr. Malcolm Warner about Dr. Kelly's right arm injury

2011-06-11T09:10:00.003+01:00

A casual reader of the Hutton Inquiry transcripts could be forgiven for not realising that questions exist about Dr. Kelly having fractured his right elbow in the past, having had an operation on that elbow and possibly being significantly limited in how he could use his right arm.

There is no mention whatsoever of the issue.

Yet the question of the function of Dr. Kelly's right arm is, of course, of pivotal importance.

It is his right arm that the "suicide hypothesis" assumes to have made the cuts in his left wrist.

On 4th March 2011 I wrote to the Attorney General about the matter: The Death of David Kelly - Dr. Malcolm Warner.

In that email I examined the evidence suggesting an old right arm injury.

The material recently released by the Attorney General confirms that Dr. Kelly fractured his right elbow.

In addition to the longstanding statements of Dr. Kelly's friend Mai Pederson, another friend, Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth, wrote to the Attorney General about the functionality of Dr. Kelly's right arm.

Dr. Shuttleworth wrote to the Attorney General on 30th April 2010 (see page 8 of Dr. Shepherd's report).

Dr. Shuttleworth is quoted as saying that an injury to Dr. Kelly's right elbow "led to a severe fracture and residual weakness".

Dr. Shuttleworth's statement corroborates the evidence of Mai Pederson.

It's now confirmed that David Kelly fractured his right elbow in December 1991.

And two friends, Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth and Mai Pederson, have stated that he had residual weakness of the right arm as a result.

Was that weakness of Dr. Kelly's right arm of such a degree that his ability to cut his left wrist is rendered questionable or unlikely?

The Hutton Inquiry neither asked nor answered that pivotal question.

One reason underlying that failure is that nobody told Lord Hutton (at least in oral testimony).

Janice Kelly was silent on the issue.

Dr. Sarah Pape was silent on the issue.

Rachel Kelly was silent on the issue.

Dr. Malcolm Warner was silent on the issue.

None of those "witnesses" told Lord Hutton that David Kelly had fractured his right elbow. And none told Lord Hutton whether that fracture led or didn't lead to residual weakness.

Was there an inexplicable epidemic of amnesia in the Southmoor area of Oxfordshire?

Or did someone advise these witnesses not to talk about Dr. Kelly's possible right arm weakness?

Is there another explanation of this silence on the part of four supposedly credible witnesses?

The Death of David Kelly - The limitations of Professor Hawton's expertise and the limitations of its relevance

2011-06-11T07:48:00.004+01:00

The Hutton Report relied heavily on the evidence of Professor Keith Hawton.

Hawton is assumed to be an "expert".

But, so far as I'm aware, nobody at the Hutton Inquiry or in Thames Valley Police or in the Attorney General's Office has seriously explored the scope and limitations of Professor Hawton's expertise.

Nor has any of those organisations recognised the limitations of the relevance of any expertise that Professor Hawton may be deemed to have.

The pivotal question regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly, in my view, is whether he took his own life or whether he was murdered and the murder was made to look like suicide.

And it is in distinguishing those two possibilities that the limitations of Professor Hawton's expertise become clear.

Does Professor Hawton have any expertise in distinguishing suicide from murder dressed up as suicide?

So far as I'm aware Professor Hawton has no such expertise.

On the contrary his longstanding expertise in suicide is likely to make him less able to recognise something that doesn't fit. As someone who has focussed on suicide for years, there is a bias likely to operate which recognises what seems to be a familiar pattern. See Cognitive bias for a general discussion of the kinds of biases that may have been operative in Professor Hawton's mind.

Suppose that Professor Hawton said that Dr. Kelly's death didn't look much like suicide. In that hypothetical scenario any murder that might have been committed hadn't been well concealed.

In reality Professor Hawton made the following ridiculously over the top statement to Hutton:

15 A. I think that taking all the evidence together, it is
16 well nigh certain that he committed suicide.

See page 107 of Professor Hawton's oral evidence given on the afternoon of Tuesday 2nd September 2003.

Does it definitively distinguish between suicide and murder dressed up as suicide?

It doesn't.

It simply tells us that if the death of Dr. Kelly was murder dressed up as suicide then, if Professor Hawton's opinion is reliable (which I doubt), then the murder was quite well dressed up as suicide.

It is of no help in distinguishing whether Dr. Kelly's death was suicide or murder.

If I'm correct in that conclusion, one wonders why the "great minds" (sic) of Thames Valley Police, the Hutton Inquiry and the Attorney General's Office didn't see that.

Perhaps it was a case of the old Scottish proverb. An anglicised version is, "There is nobody so blind as the one who chooses not to see.".

In an upcoming post I hope intelligently to consider what questions ought to be asked (and ought to have been asked) to enable suicide to be distinguished from murder dressed up as suicide.

The Death of David Kelly - The Hansard record of Dominic Grieve's statement on 9th June 2011 regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly

2011-06-11T07:06:00.003+01:00

For reference, I'm posting a link to the official Hansard record of the statement made by Dominic Grieve QC MP to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

See Dr David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - When was Graham Coe's lie about "the third man" first recognised?

2011-06-11T06:00:00.002+01:00

On the morning of Tuesday 16th September 2003 Detective Constable Graham Coe uttered an untruth at the Hutton Inquiry (pages 1 and 2):

20 A. On the route to Harrowdown Hill I met the two people
21 from the volunteer search team, a female and Mr Chapman.
22 Q. And what did they say to you?
23 A. Mr Chapman told me that they had found a body in the
24 woods.
25 Q. Who were you with at this time?

2
1 A. Detective Constable Shields.
2 Q. It is just the two of you?
3 A. Yes.

DC Coe makes the false statement that he was accompanied only by DC (Colin) Shields.

Yet the evidence of other witnesses was that two people accompanied DC Coe.

Who was the third man?

Thames Valley Police would like everyone to believe that it was an innocent mistake of no consequence.

If that were true why wasn't some brief corrective statement issued by Thames Valley Police years ago?

Did that ever happen?

I thought I should ask Thames Valley Police about their handling of the issue of DC Coe's false statement to the Hutton Inquiry.

I did so earlier today: FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re TVP handling of DC Coe's false statement to the Hutton Inquiry.

I'll be interested to learn what costs have been incurred by the public purse as a consequence of Thames Valley Police's failure promptly to be honest about this matter.

The Death of David Kelly - The report to Thames Valley Police that DC Graham Coe may have perverted the course of justice

2011-06-10T04:30:00.003+01:00

This post consists largely of a communication sent to Ms Sarah Thornton, Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police on 28th October 2010 in which I formally reported my concerns that Detective Constable Graham Coe may have perverted the course of justice.

Meantime I'm posting this just to put it in the public domain. I hope to return in a later post to discuss the continuing unresolved matters relating to DC Coe's evidence.

The email was copied to Deputy Chief Constable Francis Hapgood.

The text of the email to Ms Thornton is as follows:

Ms Thornton,

I write to you to report my suspicion that a Thames Valley Police officer may have committed the offence of perverting the course of justice.

Since there are also Professional Standards aspects to the matter, I am copying this email to the DCC and to the Professional Standards Department.

I request that you record this report in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standards and that it appear as a "crime" until such time as there might be found signficant credible evidence to the contrary.

Of the possible elements of the offence of perverting the course of justice outlined on the Crown Prosecution Service website here, http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/, it seems to me that the offence committed by a Thames Valley Police officer includes (but may not be limited to) concealing evidence.

The officer about whose conduct I have serious concerns is Detective Constable Graham Coe. I am afraid that I do not know his shoulder badge or equivalent number.

My specific concern is that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry and thereby concealed material evidence with respect to a suspicious death.

Two independent witnesses, Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman, stated to the Hutton Inquiry that they met "three" individuals after finding the body of Dr. David Kelly.

DC Coe testified to the Hutton Inquiry that he was accompanied only by a DC Shields. See Line 25 on Page 1 to Line 3 on Page 2 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans33.htm.

DC Coe apparently admitted subsequently to the existence of the "third man" to one or more journalists, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301210/Detective-Dr-David-Kellys-body-raises-questions-death.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-investigation-inadequate-Now-NINE-doctors-demand-inquest.html.

The evidence strongly suggests that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

The importance of this lie, at least in part, relates to what the action(s) of the "third man" might or might not have been.

The possibility exists that the "third man" introduced evidence to the scene, removed evidence from the scene or otherwise acted in a way which might undermine confidence in the forensic examination of the scene. Whether, and to what extent, the evidence which DC Coe concealed influenced the conclusion of Lord Hutton is presently unknown.

It is difficult to imagine that a senior judge could casually legitimately discount evidence that a police officer had lied to him.

The death of Dr. David Kelly remains a suspicious death.

You may wish to be aware that I have recently written both to the Attorney General (with respect to Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988) and to Nicholas Gardiner, Coroner (with respect to Section 17A of the Coroner's Act 1988) outlining various causes for concern regarding the evidence relating to Dr. Kelly's death and, specifically, drawing attention to new concerns about the evidence arising from the recent public release of the Post Mortem and Toxicology reports.

Ongoing analysis of the toxicology report recently released by the Ministry of Justice, see http://www.justice.gov.uk/kelly-pm-toxicology-reports.htm, raises serious technical questions about the interpretation attached to the toxicology data by Dr. Nicholas Hunt and Dr. Alexander Allan.

My concerns about the toxicology data are so serious that earlier today I reported to Thames Valley Police that I believe that the death of Dr. David Kelly may have been murder. Your Ref: URN514 of 28/10/10.

I would be grateful if Thames Valley Police record the reported crime specified in the present email in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standards and forward to me the relevant reference number.

I am content to provide a full statement to the Police regarding my concerns. My full contact details were given to Thames Valley Police in connection with URN514 of 28/10/10.

Sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Only a subset of issues has been considered by the Attorney General

2011-06-09T18:24:00.004+01:00

This post is an interim impression as I work my way through the mountain of documents released today.

For the first time Mr. Green's forensic biology report is available. See Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003.

It fills in some gaps, answers some questions and appears to raise some new ones. I'll return to my interpretation of Mr. Green's report in a later post.

It strikes me that the Attorney General has conducted what one might call a half-baked review despite the absolutist claims he made in the House of Commons about the evidence favouring suicide.

He doesn't appear to have considered all the evidence presented to him, nor does he appear to have passed all the relevant correspondence to the relevant parties.

For example, Lord Hutton talks up Professor Hawton's evidence but appears never to have been shown my detailed criticism of that evidence from Professor Hawton. See The Death of David Kelly - The need for expert review of Professor Hawton's evidence which was sent to the Attorney General on 21st February 2011.

Similarly, I am currently unable to find any evidence that the Attorney General even sought expert opinion about forensic evidence concerns raised in recent correspondence to him.

See The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Important technical questions about the knife, wound etc of 12th April 2011 and The Death of David Kelly - The blood distribution indicates it was murder of 1st June 2011 for example. In those communications I raise technical concerns regarding which I can currently find no evidence that the Attorney General has considered them or sought appropriate expert advice on them.

If the Attorney General has failed to seek advice on these technical points it raises serious concerns about his unqualified statements to the House of Commons.

And did he even look at the introductory evidence of a possible cover-up? See The Death of David Kelly - The cover-up - Overview of 1st June 2011.

And why didn't he wait for the follow-up documents referred to in that email of 1st June?

If, as I suspect, the Attorney General hadn't fully examined the concerns raised with him how can he legitimately be so definite in the House of Commons?

Currently I think he appears to have gone beyond the evidence and has misled the House.

The Death of David Kelly - The documents that the Attorney General is relying on

2011-06-09T15:37:00.002+01:00

In my previous post, The Death of David Kelly - A shameful and appalling cover-up by a dishonest Attorney General I expressed my severe criticism of the Attorney General's statement to the House of Commons earlier today.

The Attorney General has put online the documents on which he is relying for his statement.

An overview of the Attorney General's decision is here: Death of Dr David Kelly: Attorney General will not apply for fresh inquest.

The extensive supporting documents are here: Dr David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - A shameful and appalling cover-up by a dishonest Attorney General

2011-06-09T14:59:00.003+01:00

When the Attorney General of the United Kingdom stands up in the House of Commons and issues a transparently inaccurate statement about the evidence relating to a suspicious death you can be sure that there is something very important indeed that has to be covered up.

Today in the House of Commons the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, lied with a fluency for which, in a sense, he must be commended.

Dominic Grieve is not so stupid as to believe the absolutist nonsense about the evidence that he uttered at the dispatch box.

He does, however, appear to be stupid enough to imagine that his flagrant dishonesty about the evidence relating to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly will carry the day.

What is so important to cover up that caused the Attorney General to be so flagrantly dishonest?

The murder of Dr. David Kelly.

What is so important about the murder of Dr. Kelly?

The reason(s) it was carried out. The persons and organisation which carried it out.

In a country where the most senior Law Officer of the Government seeks to conceal a murder what options are open to an honest citizen?

Passive acceptance is not a legitimate option.

The evidence is a powerful weapon that not even a dishonest Attorney General can keep at bay indefinitely.

The Death of David Kelly - Sky News is reporting that Dominic Grieve will deny an inquest

2011-06-09T05:37:00.002+01:00

An announcement is expected from the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, in the House of Commons today at 12.15.

Sky News is reporting that Dominic Grieve is expected to deny an inquest: David Kelly Inquest Expected To Be Denied.

Whichever decision Domiinic Grieve makes I expect it to be a career-defining decision for him.

The Death of David Kelly - Three policemen or five?

2011-06-08T18:08:00.003+01:00

This post owes at least as much to the thinking of Brian Spencer, author of the blog Dr Kelly's Death - Suicide or Murder as to myself.

The unresolved question, "three policemen or five?", arises from the seemingly conflicting evidence given about the policemen present at Harrowdown Hill.

For example, Paul Chapman in his evidence given on the morning of Tuesday 2nd September 2003 (pages 27 and 28) says:

16 Q. Did the police attend?
17 A. Yes, they did.
18 Q. And did you help them when they had arrived?
19 A. Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police
20 officers coming the other way that were from CID. We
21 identified ourselves to them. They were not actually
22 aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out
23 searching this area. They I think had just come out on
24 their own initiative to look at the area. I informed
25 them we had found the body and they asked me to take

28
1 them back to indicate where it was.

Paul Chapman sees three police officers from CID, presumably in plain clothes (one of whom was Detective Constable Graham Coe).

From the evidence of PC Franklin we get a different perspective (see his evidence also given on the morning of Tuesday 2nd September 2003, page 32):

5 Q. After you get that information, where did you go?
6 A. PC Sawyer and I attended Harrowdown Hill and went to the
7 scene. We were unsure initially whereabouts we were
8 going, but we passed Paul from the South East Berks
9 Volunteers and he directed us to two uniformed police
10 officers and DC Coe.

In these two extracts from the testimony given to Hutton are three policemen being referred to or five?

Are both witnesses referring to the same two companions of DC Coe?

Or did Paul Chapman see DC Coe accompanied by two detectives and PC Franklin see, a short time later, DC Coe accompanied by two different policemen (who were in uniform)?

Needless to say the two possibilities were neither considered nor resolved at the Hutton Inquiry.

The Death of David Kelly - The anticipated meeting with Terence Taylor

2011-06-08T17:50:00.004+01:00

Terence Taylor of the International Institute of Strategic Studies was the first to give oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry, on the morning of Monday 11th August 2003.

Mr. Taylor, like Dr. Kelly, had been involved in the UNSCOM inspection process in the 1990s.

Mr. Taylor spoke to David Kelly during the weekend of Friday 11th to Sunday 13th July 2003, arranging to meet him the following weekend.

From page 10 of Mr. Taylor's testimony:

7 Q. When was your last dealing with Dr Kelly, your last
8 contact with Dr Kelly?
9 A. My last contact was -- I think it was about four days
10 before his death, and I spoke to him by telephone and
11 from the United States because I was coming to the
12 United Kingdom and I was discussing plans in order to
13 meet him after -- at the weekend, the following weekend,
14 which would have been -- I am searching my memory --
15 would have been the weekend of 20th July. We were
16 planning to meet, as I was passing nearby his house on
17 my way to visit my younger daughter.

If David Kelly were meeting an old colleague two or three days later surely it is inconceivable that he would have committed suicide on 17th July 2003, when he was alleged to have done.

In any case, any pressure from Parliamentary questions which David Kelly saw on the morning of 17th July would have been slight since they didn't need to be answered until September.

Mr. Taylor and Dr. Kelly knew each other pretty well. Mr. Taylor had stayed at the Kelly home in June 2003 (perhaps the weekend of Friday 13th June to Sunday 15th June). From page 11 of his testimony:

6 previous contact, I actually stayed with him at his
7 house which was about three to four weeks before this
8 particular time.
9 Q. When you stayed with him, how was he then?
10 A. He seemed to me to be in what I would describe as
11 a normal state of mind as someone I had known for
12 16 years and I did not detect any discernible
13 difference. We spoke about the Iraq issues in very
14 general terms. He was speaking about his daughter's
15 forthcoming wedding in October. I have daughters too,
16 so we exchanged as friends on these kind of issues. He
17 seemed to be in a very normal state of mind, bearing in
18 mind this was about a month before this particular awful
19 incident.

The Death of David Kelly - Questions that should have been asked of Janice Kelly

2011-06-08T17:02:00.003+01:00

One of the many unsatisfactory aspects of the Hutton Inquiry is that it was never established where the co-proxamol blister packs found in Dr. Kelly's Barbour jacket came from.

Counsel to the inquiry seemed to assume that they came from a store of similar tablets held by Janice Kelly but the relevant questions to clarify the situation were never asked.

The closest the Inquiry came to exploring the issue was in the oral testimony of Janice Kelly on the morning of 1st September 2003 (page 54):

6 Q. We have also heard that some co-proxamol was used.
7 A. Indeed.
8 Q. Do you take any medicine?
9 A. I do. I take co-proxamol for my arthritis.
10 Q. I think we are also going to hear that appears to be the
11 source of the co-proxamol that was used.
12 A. I had assumed that. I keep a small store in a kitchen
13 drawer and the rest in my bedside table.

Who did James Dingemans QC expect to hear from about the source of the co-proxamol?

If it was Janice Kelly, he asked a very odd question, if his clumsy words can be called a question.

Were any tablets belonging to Janice Kelly missing? We're not told. She was never asked the question directly.

Did Janice Kelly know how many co-proxamol tablets ought to have been in her "store"? We're not told. The question wasn't asked.

If tablets were missing when were they found to be missing? We're not told.

If tablets were missing how many were missing? We're not told. If less than three blister packs were missing then at least some of the co-proxamol found at Harrowdown Hill must have come from a source other than the Kelly house.

Suppose Janice Kelly was due a dose around 18.00 on 17th July and noticed that co-proxamol tablets were missing. Why, hypothetically, would the telephone call to the Police be delayed until 23.40?

If any tablets were missing were they first noticed to be missing after the bizarre Thames Valley Police search that took place around 04.40 on 18th July (when Mrs. Kelly was made to wait outside in the garden)?

We don't know. The question wasn't asked.

If tablets were noticed to be missing for the first time after the search when Mrs. Kelly was forced to wait outside it opens up clear possibilities that are rather disturbing.

The Death of David Kelly - Spinning a suicide tale too early on 18th July 2003

2011-06-08T09:54:00.003+01:00

This post consists largely of the text of a communication sent earlier today to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

Important questions are raised in the email about the political motivation for a cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly. However, the email majors on the evidence that there was "spin" of a "suicide tale" from Thames Valley Police before the Police could legitimately have had the relevant information to hand.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Spinning a suicide tale too early on 18th July 2003

The text of the email was:

[Additional copies are being sent to the Correspondence Unit and Private Office, for forwarding, given the ongoing problems with Mr. McGinty's mailbox.]

Mr McGinty,

This email is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The matter described in this email indicates, I submit, "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. It may also satisfy other Section 13 criteria including "fraud" and "irregularity of proceedings".

In summary, it appears that Thames Valley Police were spreading a tale that David Kelly had committed suicide at a time on 18th July 2003 when they had no legitimate basis for doing so.

Towards the end of this communication I briefly consider why the Police might have done so.

I'll summarise four pieces of evidence that relate to this premature spinning of "suicide" and then briefly consider its effect and purpose:

1. Evidence given by Dr. Sarah Pape to the Hutton Inquiry
2. A contemporary statement of Janice Kelly
3. A contemporary statement of Derek Vawdrey, brother of Janice Kelly
4. The autobiography of Tony Blair
5. The effect and purpose of the spinning of the suicide story

1. Evidence given by Dr. Sarah Pape to the Hutton Inquiry

The following evidence was given by Dr. Sarah Pape (half-sister of David Kelly) at the Hutton Inquiry and relates to the morning of 18th July 2003:

23 Between operations I went back to my office and
24 checked to see whether there were messages on my mobile
25 phone and I picked up a message from Janice, my

93
1 sister-in-law, shortly before 10 o'clock and the message
2 that she left was to say that there was going to be
3 a press release and that I might hear something about my
4 brother having disappeared, but I knew that already so
5 I was not too concerned.
6 I returned to my office between the next two
7 operations, which would have been some time after
8 10 o'clock, and there was a message from my husband
9 asking me to ring home. I initially thought he was just
10 going to give me the same information, that the press
11 would by now know. In fact when I rang him he told me
12 that the police had found my brother's body and that it
13 looked as though he had committed suicide.
14 I decided that I was not going to be able to stay at
15 work, so I decided that I should come home at that
16 point.

See page pages 92 and 93 of Dr. Pape's evidence at
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm.

One has to estimate the precise time at which Sarah Pape received the telephone message from her husband and rang him back. I suggest that the most credible estimate is of the order of 10.30 to 11.00.

However, the timing is not critical to the cause for concern expressed in this communication. It was not until 14.00 that the pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt started to examine the body (other than to confirm death). Therefore, in my opinion, at no time in the morning of 18th July 2003 was there a legitimate basis to consider that David Kelly had committed suicide.

The body was found a little before 09.20, the latter being the time when Paul Chapman's 999 call was logged.

Death was confirmed by the ambulance staff at 10.07.

Officially, no identification had taken place.

And the only observations about possible cause of death made until 10.07 indicated some blood around the left wrist.

The body had neither been seen by the Home Office pathologist nor examined by him at the time Dr. Pape was informed that David Kelly was dead and that it looked as if he'd committed suicide.

It seems likely that it was Janice Kelly who told Mr. Pape that David Kelly's body had been found and that it looked as if it was suicide.

The question arises as to who told Janice Kelly that David Kelly had (or appeared to have) killed himself?

It seems likely that Janice Kelly left her message with Mr. Pape shortly after 10.00.

Given the estimated timing of the message from Janice Kelly to Mr Pape the only person who had contact with Janice Kelly and who knew that a body had been found was Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Webb. At least that is what the evidence to the Hutton Inquiry leads one to assume.

In all likelihood at the time DS Webb spoke to Janice Kelly he knew only that a body had been found. At least that's the case if one assumes that the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry about the discovery of the body is accurate. It is conceivable that DC Coe had in the interim radioed information to Thames Valley Police but, in any case, DC Coe had no expertise to allow him to draw a conclusion as to cause of death.

It seems to me that DS Webb had no legitimate basis at the time period in question either to state that the body was Dr. Kelly's or to state that he had (or appeared to have) committed suicide.

If DS Webb made such statements did he do so on his own authority or did someone in a more senior position cause him to do so? If the latter, what motivation might a more senior officer have had?

2. A contemporary statement of Janice Kelly

Confirmation that it was Thames Valley Police who told Janice Kelly that the body was David Kelly's and that he'd committed suicide is to be found in an article dated 18th July 2003 in the New York Times, co-authored by Judith Miller.

It appears that Judith Miller or her co-author rang Janice Kelly on the 18th July 2003.

The article has Janice Kelly communicate the following:

Mrs. Kelly said the police had confirmed that the body was her husband's, and that the cause of death was suicide. She declined to say what led the police to that conclusion, saying they had asked her not to discuss details of his death.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/international/worldspecial/19BRIT.html?pagewanted=all for the source of the quoted material.

The time on 18th July 2003 when Janice Kelly spoke to the New York Times journalists is undefined, so far as I'm aware.

However, given that the pathologist did not complete his postmortem examination until a little after midnight on 18th July 2003, one can conclude that the Police statements are not based on the postmortem examination.

Further, identification of the body did not take place until 19th July.

3. A contemporary statement of Derek Vawdrey, brother of Janice Kelly

On the morning of 18th July 2003 Janice Kelly is reported to have told her brother Derek Vawdrey that David Kelly had committed suicide.

The statement was made by Mr. Vawdrey to the Sunday Mirror and was published on 20th July 2003:

He told how his sister Janice Kelly rang him on Friday morning. "Her first words were 'Are you sitting down? She then just blurted it out. She could hardly speak for the shock of being told herself. She said he'd committed suicide."

The Friday referred to is 18th July 2003.

The article is no longer online on the Mirror site but can be found here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20030720/ai_n12870819/?tag=content;col1.

Just as Janice Kelly had told Mr Pape on the morning of 18th July 2003 that David Kelly had (or appeared to have) committed suicide so she told her brother, Derek Vawdrey, on the morning of 18th July 2003 that David Kelly had committed suicide.

As discussed earlier, the Police had no legitimate evidence during the morning of 18th July to give such information to Janice Kelly.

4. The autobiography of Tony Blair

Did the Police tell Janice Kelly that the body was David Kelly's and that he had (or appreared to have) committed suicide?

Or did she misunderstand or misinterpret something that the Police told her?

The evidence presented in points 1. to 3. leaves open the possibility of some misunderstanding on the part of Janice Kelly. However, I think one can safely exclude that possibility.

Tony Blair's autobiography contains these words:

In the middle of the night Sir David Manning woke me. 'Very bad news,' he said....'David Kelly has been found dead,' he said, 'suspected suicide.' It was a truly ghastly moment.

The words attributed by Mr. Blair to Sir David Manning are almost identical in their substance to those used by Mrs. Pape in her evidence to Lord Hutton.

At what time did Sir David Manning tell Mr. Blair?

It is not immediately clear what time zone "middle of the night" in the quoted material refers to since Mr. Blair was in flight from Washington to Tokyo.

ITV News at 12.30 (BST) on 18th July 2003 reported that Tony Blair had been informed. His flight was due to land in Tokyo at 15.00 BST.

Janice Kelly was not an intermediary in respect of the information communicated to Sir David Manning so one can conclude that no later than around lunchtime (UK time) on 18th July 2003 Thames Valley Police had informed the Prime Minister's staff (directly or indirectly) that the body was David Kelly's and that it appeared he had committed suicide.

Thames Valley Police could have had no sound basis for such a conclusion at that time on 18th July 2003.

Unless, that is, an unofficial identification of the body had taken place, a matter to which I will return in a future communication. Of course any unofficial identification of the body that may have taken place was not disclosed to the Hutton Inquiry. Additionally any secret, unofficial identification of the body is itself llegitimate.

5. The effect and purpose of the spinning of the suicide story

The effect of Thames Valley Police spinning a suicide story on the morning of 18th July 2003 when there was no legitimate basis to do so is to create in the media and in the public mind the assumption that David Kelly committed suicide.

That has the consequence that objective consideration of other possible causes of death, including murder, is inappropriately and illegitimately inhibited.

The effect of the too-early spinning of the suicide story by Thames Valley Police was to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly. A concealment that has been effective for almost 8 years.

It seems entirely reasonable to me, given the totality of the evidence about the death of Dr. Kelly, to draw the inference that the purpose of the spin was to conceal the murder of Dr. Kelly.

The supposed suicide of Dr. Kelly was a major embarrassment to Tony Blair's Government. Disclosure of the murder of Dr. Kelly would have been politically poisonous in the extreme.

The Blair Government had a powerful motive to seek to plant in the public mind the notion that David Kelly had committed suicide, whether or not they had specific knowledge that David Kelly had been murdered.

The Blair Government was not without skill in spinning. And had a track record e.g. the February 2003 "dodgy dossier" of doing so patently dishonestly to suit its own political purposes.

Conclusion

As discussed above the evidence indicates that Thames Valley Police, during the morning of 18th July 2003 were spinning "suicide" at a time when they had, in my opinion, no legitimate basis to do so.

The question therefore arises as to whether the spinning of "suicide" originated with Thames Valley Police or was spun from another, more political, source.

The effect of the "suicide" spin has been to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly for almost 8 years.

This email is copied, for information, to the Chief Officers of Thames Valley Police.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and that the information contained in it will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Transparency and the Attorney General's consideration of the need for an inquest

2011-06-08T06:50:00.002+01:00

The release by the Ministry of Justice of the postmortem and toxicology reports relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly on 22nd October 2010 was, in my view, a major step forward in demonstrating that Dr. Kelly was murdered.

See Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports for links to the postmortem and toxicology reports.

For the first time the weaknesses in the evidence supposedly supporting the "suicide hypothesis" were open to public examination.

I have asked the Attorney General similarly to make available the report(s) produced by the expert(s), in for example forensic pathology and psychiatry, that he has consulted during his consideration of the application to him in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

The request to the Attorney General was sent yesterday via Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Transparency

The text of the email was:

[Additional copies are being sent due to a problem with Mr. McGinty's email address at present.]

Mr McGinty,

I write in connection with the ongoing consideration by the Attorney General of a possible application to the High Court to seek an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

On the Number 10 web site it states, "We want to be the most open and transparent government in the world." (See http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/ ).

I write to enquire how the Government's aspiration of transparency will be expressed in connection with the Attorney General's consideration of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

The Attorney General may recall that I have explicitly asked that he seek formal advice from a forensic pathologist, from a forensic biologist and from a forensic scientist with expertise in examination of wounds and the weapons which may have made them.

I made those requests on the basis of serious concerns regarding the reliability and integrity of the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.

Of course, each of those experts consulted should be visibly independent of Dr. Hunt, forensic pathologist, and Mr. Green, forensic biologist, who gave such unsatisfactory and/or misleading evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Will the Attorney General identify all the forensic pathology experts consulted and publish the report(s) of the forensic pathologist(s) that he has consulted? If not, given that a forensic pathologist should be providing solely technical opinion, what legitimate reason can there be for withholding the information from the public?

Similar questions apply to the requested expert reports on the forensic biology, forensic science and psychiatric assessments.

Those are technical documents. If the technical assessments are reliable then, I suggest, they ought to be put into the public domain to allow others to assess whether the experts have taken into consideration all the relevant facts and whether their assessment is reliable.

If the Attorney General chooses, or has chosen, not to seek expert assessments of the kind I have requested will he publicly state his reasons for such a basic failure to examine the technical evidence?

I would also point out that at the present time the original forensic biology report of Mr. Roy Green, the DNA report (carried out, I assume, by Dr. Eileen Hickey) and the postmortem report of 19th July 2003 continue to be concealed. As do all the photographs taken at or around the scene at Harrowdown Hill.

How can there be any prospect of public confidence in the outcome of the Hutton Inquiry while the evidence continues to be concealed by the Government?

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - David Cameron misleading Parliament and concealing a murder

2011-06-08T06:28:00.003+01:00

This post consists mostly of a communication sent yesterday to Number 10 Downing Street.

On 18th May 2011 David Cameron indicated that the "inquest" into the death of Dr. David Kelly was "fairly clear" and it was not "necessary to take that case forward". See The Death of David Kelly - House of Commons Hansard on PMQs of 18th May 2011 for the question from Sir Peter Tapsell and David Cameron's response.

Since no proper inquest has ever taken place into the death of Dr. David Kelly it is my view that the Prime Minister misled the House of Commons on 18th May 2011 at Prime Ministers Questions.

The effect of the Prime Minister misleading the House of Commons was to assist in the concealment of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

Prime Ministers Questions today (8th June) is the first opportunity that David Cameron has had to correct his false statement made on 18th May.

And that is why I wrote to him and to his advisers Craig Oliver and Steve Field to draw the attention of the Prime Minister's team to his false statement.

Here is the text of yesterday's email:

[This email is an advance copy of a letter to be delivered by hand today to 10 Downing Street. It is being sent to Craig Oliver and Steve Field by email, as well as to other interested Number 10 staff and other potentially interested parties.]

Dear Mr. Cameron,

Misleading of Parliament and concealment of murder of Dr. David Kelly

I write, as a doctor familiar with the forensic and other evidence indicating that Dr. David Kelly was murdered, to express my profound concern at your having misled the House of Commons on 18th May 2011 in your answer to Sir Peter Tapsell at Prime Ministers Questions.

There has been no proper inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly, contrary to the answer you gave to Sir Peter Tapsell.

Nor is it “fairly clear” that the findings of the Hutton Report are reliable and that it is “not necessary to take that case forward”.

In my view you misled the House of Commons on 18th May.

A primary question is whether you did so wittingly or unwittingly.

The effect of your misleading the House was to pre-empt the Attorney General’s formal consideration of an application under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, to request that a new inquest be required.

It occurs to me that you were perhaps not fully briefed or otherwise prepared to respond to Sir Peter’s important question.

If such is the case I would urge you to take advantage of Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesday 8th June to apologise to the House for unwittingly misleading Parliament.

Should you fail to do so it would be my view that you thereby indicate that you wish there to be no inquest into the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

Such a course of action on your part is likely, in my view, to be a festering sore throughout your premiership.

Tony Blair’s Government covered up the murder of Dr. Kelly by means of the charade that was the Hutton Inquiry. Almost eight years later the controversy rumbles on.

The forensic evidence that I have presented recently to the Attorney General convinces me, as a doctor, that David Kelly was murdered.

It is now over 7 months since I reported my suspicions that Dr. Kelly was murdered to Thames Valley Police (URN 514 of 28/10/10). Thames Valley Police have failed to investigate.

The inactivity by Thames Valley Police is something I interpret as being participation by that organisation in the cover-up of Dr. Kelly’s murder.

Together with new evidence indicating that now-retired Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry about fingerprint evidence the role of Thames Valley Police in the cover-up, both in 2003 and in 2010-11, is a matter of great concern.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the evidence is that the Police force in your constituency is covering-up a murder.

My concerns are serious and the result of many hours of study of the evidence. In addition to correspondence with the Attorney General and Chief Constable Sarah Thornton of Thames Valley Police, I have progressively been putting the medical, forensic and other evidence in the public domain on my “Chilcot’s Cheating Us” blog.

I am, of course, willing to forward relevant evidence directly to you, should you indicate that you wish to receive it.

If you persist in attempting to cover-up the murder of Dr. Kelly it is my expectation that this matter will haunt you throughout your premiership.

I therefore publicly urge you not to join the cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt BA, BMedBiol(Pathology), MBChB, MD(Hons), DipPharmMed, FRCP(Ed)

[This letter is also being sent by email to you, to Number 10 staff and other potentially interested parties.]

I don't expect Mr. Cameron to apologise to the House of Commons today, although I'm clear that he ought to. I simply don't have a high enough opinion of David Cameron's integrity to have such an expectation.

The Death of David Kelly - The Attorney General's decision may be imminent

2011-06-07T08:53:00.002+01:00

For some time now rumours have been circulating that the Attorney General may shortly announce his decision regarding the application made by Dr. Stephen Frost and his colleagues that a new inquest is needed into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The current rumour is firmer than some previous ones (which all proved to be wrong) and has surfaced in today's Daily Mail: Doctors will launch court fight if Dr David Kelly inquest demand is turned down.

In a couple of day's time we will find out if the current rumour, that an announcement is to be made on Thursday (9th June), is accurate.

The Death of David Kelly - The cover-up - Overview

2011-06-01T13:46:00.005+01:00

In this post I put into the public domain a communication sent earlier today to the Attorney General summarising the cover-up which I believe to have taken place in relation to the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

The email was sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

As indicated in the email to the Attorney General I believe that there are several relevant strands to that cover-up and I expect to send further communications to the Attorney General laying out the relevant summary evidence of cover-up.

The title of the email was:

The David Kelly Cover-up - Overview

The text of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

This email is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court that an inquest be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

In this email I express outline concerns that the murder of Dr. David Kelly in 2003 has been covered up. I anticipate providing detailed supporting evidence in subsequent communications.

In an interview in August 2010 the Attorney General expressed the following directly relevant comments:

"I have no reason to think, absolutely no reason to think, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest, that there has been some cover-up in respect of the circumstances of Dr. Kelly's death."

I hope, in this and succeeding emails, to persuade the Attorney General that his former view was incorrect.

The Attorney General went on to say in the same interview:

"If there is evidence [of a cover up] then my office is the place to send it to."

The interview with the Attorney General to which I refer is available online here:
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2010/08/19/R19081001/?s=Dominic+Grieve+Kelly&st=0&pn=1
.

In sending to the Attorney General this email and others in the "David Kelly Cover-up" series, I'm taking the Attorney General at his word and sending to him what I believe to be evidence of the cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

I ask the Attorney General to review the evidence of a cover-up in 2003 and 2010/11 that I submit here and in accompanying emails with a view to a formal investigation or investigations which may include consideration of criminal proceedings against a number of individuals (some of whom I can name on the basis of available evidence and some of whom are currently not readily identifiable) for perversion of the course of justice and/or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

In addition, a thorough fresh Police investigation into the murder of Dr. David Kelly is, in my view, essential.

I have previously sent a significant number of communications to the Attorney General laying out detailed evidence indicating defects in the Hutton Inquiry which may designated as "insufficiency of inquiry" and "rejection of evidence".

In those communications I have also expressed how, on the basis of detailed consideration of the totality of the evidence, I have reached the conclusion that Dr. David Kelly was murdered.

See, for example my communication to the Attorney General of 22nd November 2010 entitled "Death of Dr. David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder" (online at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-evidence-that-it.html ) and "David Kelly - Blood distribution indicates it was murder" of today's date (online at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-blood-distribution.html ).

As a result of the care that I have taken to examine that evidence and to compose those communications I hope I do not have to persuade the Attorney General that the concerns that I express in the series of emails in the "The David Kelly Cover-up" series arise from a serious, detailed and, I hope, logical examination of the publicly available evidence relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Equally, given the seriousness and potential criminality of the cover-up which I believe to have taken place I understand that the Attorney General will wish carefully to consider the totality of evidence before arriving at a view as to whether or not a cover-up has taken place (and is still taking place) and what action, if any, the Attorney General has a duty to take.

I do not attempt definitively in this email or related emails in the "The David Kelly Cover-up" series to differentiate the following possibilities (or examine whether some other possibility is true):

1. A cover-up was carried out to avoid the risk of public disclosure of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

2. A cover-up was carried out to avoid the risk of an open verdict.

The political imperatives for each have broad similarities. Either an open verdict or an unlawful killing verdict at an inquest might have brought down Tony Blair in the Autumn of 2003 (the likely timescale of an inquest), given, for example, the mounting evidence that there were no WMD in Iraq.

It seems to me that actions which cover up what the evidence suggests to be the murder of Dr. David Kelly may constitute, at a minimum, "irregularity of proceedings" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. And, in the sense that a cover-up suppresses examination of some evidence, then the cover-up also arguably resulted in "rejection of evidence" and "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13.

Additionally, it seems to me that some of the acts of omission and/or commission in the cover up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly are such as to constitute the criminal offence of perversion of the course of justice, at least in the definition that the Crown Prosecution Service publicly indicates that they use.

Contrary to the assertion of the Attorney General that "There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that there has been a cover-up of the circumstances surrounding Dr. Kelly's death", there is, in fact, a significant body of evidence indicating that there has been such a cover up.

Provisionally, I anticipate sending to the Attorney General several documents by email covering topics including the following:

* The David Kelly Cover-up - Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Lord Falconer
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Lord Hutton
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Nicholas Gardiner QC
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Thames Valley Police in 2003
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Thames Valley Police in 2010/2011
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Dr. Nicholas Hunt
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Professor Keith Hawton
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Dr. Malcolm Warner

In the emails in the preceding list I anticipate putting forward what I believe to be a significant body of evidence of a cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly and indicate several possible instances of prima facie evidence of what seems to me to be perversion of the course of justice.

Following Prime Ministers Questions in the House of Commons on 18th May 2011 I do not exclude the possibility that a further name will require to be considered as having, wittingly or unwittingly, contributed to the continuing cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

Similarly, I do not exclude the possibility that some individuals may have unwittingly carried out actions (or omitted to act as required by circumstances) with the effect of assisting the cover-up. Where I can provisionally differentiate between witting and unwitting actions or omissions I will endeavour to do so.

At the risk of stating the obvious my concerns are personal to me, however soundly founded they may seem to be on the evidence.

I ask the Attorney General to consider the evidence of a cover-up in the context of a possible application to the High Court.

In addition, I ask the Attorney General to use any investigatory powers that he may have diligently to inquire further into the evidence of cover-up.

The definitive assessment of the validity of my concerns regarding perversion of the course of justice should be established by a thorough, diligent and honest Police inquiry as a first step.

If the Attorney General does not have relevant investigatory powers, I ask him to request a Police force, other than Thames Valley Police, to carry out a thorough investigation into these matters and to produce a fully documented report to be placed in the public domain, consistent with any limitations temporarily required in relation to any potential prosecutions.

Without a publicly demonstrated thorough investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly and the subsequent cover-up of that murder the concerns about Dr. Kelly's death and its cover-up will most certainly not go away.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and that the information contained in it will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General. I would, of course, welcome being kept informed should the Attorney General ask for a Police investigation to be carried out into these matters.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - The blood distribution indicates it was murder

2011-06-01T09:50:00.004+01:00

Most of this post consists of a communication sent earlier today to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

The substance of the email was a somewhat more formal statement of the evidence underlying The Harrowdown Hill Challenge (Level 1) - that the distribution of blood on David Kelly's clothing indicates that he was murdered.

The email was also sent for action to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Hapgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police in connection with my report of 28th October 2010 (URN 514 - Unique Reference Number - of 28/10/10) indicating that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered.

With the compelling evidence casting doubt on Lord Hutton's "suicide hypothesis" and indicating that Dr. David Kelly was murdered it remains to be seen how much longer the Attorney General and Thames Valley Police continue their inactivity.

There has been a murder and it needs to be investigated, in my view.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Blood distribution indicates it was murder

The text of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

This email is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I believe that the issue which I describe in this communication is "new evidence" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

In brief, I believe that the distribution of blood on Dr. Kelly's body and clothing demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that he was murdered.

To understand that conclusion it is necessary to think about the forensic evidence in much greater detail and with more care than was done at the Hutton Inquiry.

I lay out some essentials of that evidence here.

I assume (and the "suicide hypothesis" adopted by Lord Hutton demands) that David Kelly was alone in the woods at Harrowdown Hill with the only weapon at hand being a pruning knife which was some 40 or 50 years old.

The arterial rain to the left of the body (if genuine) demonstrates that significant blood flow took place only inches from the ground. In the absence of evidence of arterial rain from a height I discount the possibility that Dr. Kelly used a tree trunk as a prop to make the incisions. (In any case if he had used a tree trunk as a prop similar considerations apply as discussed below with respect to bracing position 2.)

If Dr. Kelly made the incisions himself then he had to brace his left wrist in some way. After spending some hours thinking about the possibilities I view these as credible / possible bracing positions while sitting against a tree trunk.

The following are the bracing positions of the left wrist:

1. Adjacent to the left thigh
1(a) - To the left of the left thigh
1(b) - Resting on the left thigh
2. Braced against the left upper chest close to the left side of the chin
3. Resting across the right thigh just above the knee

(I discount the possibility of the left wrist resting in the lap. Access to the ulnar artery is next to impossible in that position and there is no blood staining and/or arterial rain in the relevant places.)

If the "suicide hypothesis" is correct then the wound which transected the ulnar artery surely is the final wound made. Therefore the other wounds would have blood flowing or seeping from them during the process of making the "final wound".

But there is an absence of arterial rain and blood seeping/staining in the relevant places.

For no bracing position is there the expected blood staining and/or arterial rain.

1(a) - There ought to be blood stains and/or arterial rain on the left side of the left thigh of the jeans. There is none.
1(b) - There ought to be blood stains and/or arterial rain on the upper surface of the left thigh of the jeans and probably arterial rain extending over at least parts of both lower legs. There is none.
2. There ought to be arterial rain on the left side of the face and/or the left side of the neck and/or the upper part of the left side of the Barbour jacket. There is none.
3. There ought to be blood stains and/or arterial rain on the upper surface of the right thigh of the jeans above the right knee. There is none.

Assuming, as the "suicide hypothesis" demands, that David Kelly was alive when he went to Harrowdown Hill and the only available weapon was the pruning knife I conclude that the "suicide hypothesis" does not fit with the forensic evidence. In other words, David Kelly did not himself make the wounds described by Dr. Hunt on Dr. Kelly's left wrist.

I further conclude from the above and other technical considerations that a "Scene Setter" manufactured the superficial appearance of suicide at Harrowdown Hill.

The motive for the "Scene Setter"? To conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and that the information contained in it will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General in the context of the application that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I would also ask that you confirm that the issue has been forwarded for detailed technical assessment to a forensic pathologist and a forensic biologist, each being independent of any organisation with which Dr. Hunt and Mr. Green are associated.

Those forensics professionals, and/or the Attorney General, may wish to be familiar with this: The Death of David Kelly - "The Harrowdown Hill Challenge (Level 1)" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-harrowdown-hill.html ) which attempts to communicate the above in a more informal way. It may help the forensics professionals better understand what I am attempting to communicate.

If my communication to the Attorney General of 12th April 2011 about technical issues relating to the knife and wounds has not yet been forwarded for technical assessment to the relevant forensics experts (see http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/04/death-of-dr-david-kelly-important.html ) I again request that that be done.

This email is copied for action to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police in connection with URN 514 of 28/10/10 in which I informed Thames Valley Police of my view that Dr. David Kelly was murdered.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt