The death of David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder

I sent the following communication to Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office on 22nd November 2010.

The substance of my conclusion is founded partly on the postmortem report released by the Ministry of Justice on 22nd October 2010.

The email was entitled,

Death of Dr. David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder

.

Here is the text.

FAO Dominic Grieve QC, Attorney General

Mr McGinty,

I would be grateful if you would ensure that this email is collated with previous correspondence to the Attorney General from me relating to the need for the Attorney General to seek an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

To the best of my knowledge and belief the content of this email is credible, positive evidence of second party involvement in the death of Dr. David Kelly.

In my view, the evidence in this email constitutes "new evidence" in the context of a potential application by the Attorney General to the High Court to seek an order that an inquest be carried out into the death of Dr. David Kelly in 2003.

Given the technical nature of the argument I imagine that the Attorney General (and Thames Valley Police) will require to get independent, expert assessment of the credibility of the argument I put forward in this email.

Briefly, on the basis of a piece of evidence in the recently published postmortem report I conclude that a second party was involved in relation to Dr. Kelly's death and, since I can identify no "innocent explanation" for second party involvement I conclude, therefore, that the death of Dr. Kelly was murder.

I further conclude that Dr. Kelly's body was moved twice rather than the once that has previously publicly been discussed.

The basis for that first bolded statement is a combination of evidence in the postmortem report by Dr. Nicholas Hunt of 25th July 2003 which was made available publicly by the Ministry of Justice on 22nd October 2010 together with evidence from some simple experiments I have conducted since reading the postmortem report.

The following is the relevant part of Dr. Hunt's postmortem report:

• There was a band of what appeared to be vomitus running from the right corner of the mouth, slightly upwards over the right earlobe tip and then onto the right mastoid area. This appeared to have relatively uniform and parallel sides. Such material was noted around the mouth over both upper and lower lips. Vomitus could also be seen running from the left corner of the mouth and there was a possible patch of vomit staining in proximity to the left shoulder on the ground. There was some vomit staining on the back of the left shoulder area of the waxed jacket and also on the outer aspect of the upper sleeve of that side of the jacket.

It is not directly made clear in the postmortem report what direction the vomit from the left corner of the mouth took. However, given that there is vomit staining close to the left shoulder it can reasonably be inferred that on the left side, too, the vomit tracked towards the region of the mastoid.

The existence of the band of vomit from the right corner of the mouth to the right mastoid area is documented at the scene on Page 4 of the postmortem report of 25th July 2003. One can therefore exclude the possibility that the vomit trail was created long after death, for example, during transport of the body to the mortuary in a body bag.

The existence of a track of vomit from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid is evidence that the vomiting occurred while the body was supine i.e. with its back on the ground.

Vomiting in that position and the documented vomit track(s) is strongly suggestive that it was an agonal event, occurring while Dr. Kelly was deeply unconscious or at the point of death.

If Dr. Kelly were conscious at the time of vomiting then quasi-reflexly he would have sat forward (at least to some degree) and/or rolled to the side (to maintain a clear airway) causing the vomit tracks to have been present some distance forward of the mastoid process.

If, as I suggest, the vomiting was agonal occurring while Dr. Kelly was on his back, serious problems arise for the "suicide hypothesis".

There is clear evidence from Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman that the body they saw was "slumped" or "sitting" against a tree. They were the only two individuals who saw the body prior to the arrival of DC Coe on the scene, according to the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.

The problem for the "suicide hypothesis" is how the body gets from a supine position to a "slumped" or "sitting" position, given that Dr. Kelly was either unconscious or dead when the vomiting occurred in the supine position.

A further problem for the suicide hypothesis is that vomit does not track from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid area given a slumped or sitting position. It tends to run down from the lower lip (rather than down from the corner of the mouth) far forward of the mastoid area. So the observed vomit tracks on the body are inconsistent with the position of the body when found. (I tested the flow of water from the lax mouth in a variety of body, neck and head positions. It runs from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid area only when the occiput is orientated posteriorly. That is not surprising given the effect of gravity.)

To acknowledge that, in all likelihood, Dr. Kelly died on his back and reconcile that with the first observed position of the body one has to postulate either a "Lazarus hypothesis", the suspension of the Laws of Gravity or the involvement of a second party prior to the body being found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman.

The suspension of the Laws of Gravity can safely be discounted. What of the "Lazarus hypothesis"? Could Dr. Kelly have roused sufficiently to sit himself up? Given the likelihood of his being unconscious or dying at the time of the vomiting, I think the possibility of him sitting himself up is far-fetched and need not be considered credible.

Accordingly, I conclude that a second party was present prior to the body being found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman. The second party, at a minimum, moved the body from a supine to a slumped or sitting position.

This, in my view, is the first time that the body was moved.

It also appears from the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry that the body was moved a second time.

Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman gave evidence of a body slumped or sitting against a tree.

The paramedic, Dave Bartlett, gave evidence subsequent to Hutton that he could get between the tree and the head of the body and that he stood there. Since he is the only person who has (so far as I know) directly addressed that point, I take it as true (until such time as the question is examined in more detail at an inquest).

Notice the substantive change of body position from "slumped" or "sitting" against a tree to there being space between the head and the tree.

The body appears to have been moved a second time!

Can either moving of the body be "innocent" and consistent with the "suicide hypothesis".

If the "suicide hypothesis" is correct then, so far as I can identify, no second party (or third party) would have a motive to interfere with the position of the body. It is only necessary to move the body if some purpose is being served by moving it.

I conclude that there is no innocent explanation for the body having been moved on either occasion.

If the body was moved before it was found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman then a second party, hitherto unidentified, was present at the scene whose presence was not made known to the Hutton Inquiry.

I can identify no "innocent" explanation for any second party being present at the scene, moving the body and failing to report the presence of the body to, for example, the Police.

I conclude, therefore, that the second party (or parties) had malign intent and that the death of Dr. David Kelly was murder.

The person with greatest opportunity to move the body on the second occasion was DC Coe who, according to the evidence given to Hutton, was the only person with the body while it seemingly moved from the sitting position seen by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman to the supine position seen by Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt.

For completeness, I will briefly consider the possibility that the vomit trails were created by the movement of the body from its observed initial "sitting" position to a supine position. The experiments I tried with water in my mouth in a "slumped" or "sitting" position then moving to a supine position the water retreated back into the mouth rather than spilling over at the corners of the mouth. Accordingly, I conclude that moving from a slumped / sitting position to a supine position does not account for the existence of the vomit trails.

In this email I have presented the evidence "in isolation". It should, of course, more properly be considered in the context of the totality of the evidence, for example, in the context of the evidence that I presented to you recently that Dr. Kelly had no motive to commit suicide on 17th July 2003.

Given that it is acknowledged by Thames Valley Police that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry regarding the presence of a third individual at the scene, it seems to me that DC Coe should formally be interviewed regarding the identity of the "third man" and about the conduct of all parties present at or close to the scene between the departure of Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman and the arrival of Dave Bartlett and Vaness Hunt. Similarly "DC Shields" and the "third man" also ought formally to be interviewed by Thames Valley Police, in my view.

In my opinion, the evidence of the need for an inquest is overwhelming.

Similarly, I think there is a very strong case that Thames Valley Police should actively investigate new evidence such as I present here and review the credibility (or otherwise) of assumptions made by them and others in 2003 and the evidence which was based on such questionable assumptions.

I plan to forward a copy of this email to Thames Valley Police, asking them to re-open (if such is necessary) the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The death of David Kelly - The Guardian promotes the "suicide hypothesis" once more

In an audio piece, Strange Quarks Episode 6: David Aaronovitch, Martin Robbins of the Guardian and David Aaronovitch throw cold water on all sorts of conspiracy theories, including the possibility that the death of David Kelly could be anything other than suicide.

For some reasons terms such as smugness, arrogance and pseudo-science popped into my mind while I was listening.

The death of David Kelly - A contemporary discussion

I thought it might be interesting for some readers of this blog to be aware of a contemporary discussion of the disappearance and death of David Kelly here:
Dr David Kelly.

It might help some who are interested in the death of David Kelly to reconstruct the sequence of events and crosscheck possible timelines.

The death of David Kelly - The Daily Mail publishes legal submission to the Attorney General by a group of doctors

Today the Daily Mail published online the text of the legal submission to the UK's Attorney General.

In legal jargon the legal submission is termed a "memorial".

The text of the memorial is presented as a group of images.

The introductory article is here: Published for the first time, the papers which could finally force full inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

The text of the "memorial" is here: Full report into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Unfortunately, as far as I can gather, there is no information in the printed version of today's Daily Mail about the existence of the "memorial" online or how to access it.

For the avoidance of ambiguity, I have no direct association with the group of doctors who submitted the "memorial", although I do agree with the bulk of the content of the memorial.

The death of David Kelly - Nicholas Hunt's evidence doesn't add up

Have you noticed how Nicholas Hunt's evidence doesn't add up?

In his postmortem report of 25th July 2003, Post mortem examination report, Nicholas Hunt gives the following causes of death:

la. Haemorrhage
lb. Incised Wounds to the Left Wrist
2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis

It is well known that a number of doctors have disputed whether or not it is possible to bleed to death from transection of the ulnar artery.

But if you are to believe Dr. Hunt, you have to conclude that David Kelly bled to death in "minutes" from transection of the ulnar artery and surrounding tissue.

Point 9 of his conclusions (on page 14 of the postmortem report) reads:

9 Many of the injuries over the left wrist show evidence of a well-developed vital reaction suggesting that they have been inflicted over a reasonable period of time (minutes rather than seconds or hours) before death.

Take a moment to consider the implications of that assertion.

"Minutes" before death Dr. Hunt asks us to believe that David Kelly was still cutting his wrist!

If David Kelly was doing that there is only one plausible explanation - that the wrist wasn't bleeding enough.

But if the wrist wasn't bleeding enough when those cuts were made "minutes" before death, Dr. Hunt asks us to believe that David Kelly died of haemorrhage over "minutes".

I'm sorry, I just don't believe what Dr. Hunt is asking us to accept.

The death of David Kelly - A minor misinterpretation by Norman Baker

Earlier this week I finally obtained a copy of Norman Baker's book, The Strange Death of David Kelly.

There is one point I wish to comment on at this point in time.

On page 201 Norman Baker refers to an email to David Kelly from Judith Miller on 16th July 2003 and interprets it as referring to the Intelligence and Security Committee hearing on 16th July 2003.

However, a closer look at the email, COM/4/0023, shows it to have been sent at 00.30 on 16th July 2003.

Whether the sent time is UK or US time (the former is more likely) Judith Miller's email was sent before the meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee on 16th July 2003.

It must, therefore, refer to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee meeting on 15th July 2003.

If a journalist in New York can work out that "things went well" for David Kelly at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (which they did), how is it that the UK media so consistently missed that outcome?

The death of David Kelly - "I'll be found dead in the woods"

In my reading about the death of David Kelly, I'd been under the impression that the statement along the lines of "I'll be found dead in the woods" was single-sourced.

In fact, there appears to be two, seemingly independent, sources for the statement.

The better known is the evidence of David Broucher given to the Hutton Inquiry on the afternoon of Thursday 21st August 2003 at Page 145.

145
1 A. As Dr Kelly was leaving I said to him: what will happen
2 if Iraq is invaded? And his reply was, which I took at
3 the time to be a throw away remark -- he said: I will
4 probably be found dead in the woods.
5 Q. You understood it to be a throw away remark. Did you
6 report that remark at the time to anyone?
7 A. I did not report it at the time to anyone because I did
8 not attribute any particular significance to it.
9 I thought he might have meant that he was at risk of
10 being attacked by the Iraqis in some way.

The less well known is the statement made by Mai Pederson here: David Kelly's closest female confidante on why he COULDN'T have killed himself.

Mai Pederson comments on this, saying, "He also told me that if we invaded Iraq, he would be found dead in the woods.".

Of course, the question remains open as to whether David Kelly was referring to suicide or murder.

However, the existence of evidence suggesting that David Kelly said this to at least two people seriously undermines Lord Hutton's convenient discounting of the evidence of David Broucher.

Importantly, if one accepts that David Kelly told David Broucher in February 2003 that he would be found "dead in the woods" if Iraq was invaded it means that whatever the motive for David Kelly's death, it was apparent to him as far back as February 2003.

If that's correct, then looking for a Tom Mangold-type melodramatic telephone call on 17th July 2003 is overtly a red herring.

The death of David Kelly - The evasiveness of Thames Valley Police

This post focusses on an evasive reply from Thames Valley Police about the current state of the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I reproduce below the response from Thames Valley Police to a Freedom of Information request. My questions are in italics.

Dear Dr Watt

Reference No: RFI2010000758

Thank you for your request for information dated 07/11/2010 which for clarity I have repeated below followed by our response.

1. Have Thames Valley Police closed the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly?

2. On what date was the investigation closed, what were the reasons that it was closed and who made the decision to close it?

There are no ongoing Police enquiries into the death of Dr. Kelly. Our enquiries were substantially complete by the time ACC Page gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry on the 23rd September 2003. Mr Page’s evidence can be found at 195.1 at:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans42.htm

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

Yours sincerely,

Can you tell from that answer when or whether the investigation was closed?

No, neither can I?

Why are Thames Valley Police being so evasive about it?

Remember that when David Jones MP asked similar questions in Parliament, he too got an evasive answer which I discussed here: The death of Dr. David Kelly - When did the Police investigation close?.

Clearly Thames Valley Police are very nervous about honestly stating when the investigation into the death of David Kelly closed (if indeed it has closed).

Why might that be?

The following are some possibilities that occur to me.

1. The investigation is still "open", although Thames Valley Police are currently doing nothing about it.

2. Thames Valley Police closed the investigation before the Hutton Inquiry reported.

3. Thames Valley Police closed the investigation before the Coroner declined to reconvene the inquest in March 2004.

The death of David Kelly - Security clearance for Professor Gudjonsson

On the page of evidence from Thames Valley Police is the following document:

Security clearance - Professor Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson - not for release - Police operational information TVP/7/0118 - 0120

Professor Gudjonsson seems to be a forensic psychologist.

What relevance is his security clearance to the Hutton Inquiry?

The death of David Kelly - David Kelly's computers

Today I stumbled across an email which appears to list David Kelly's computers - at least those computers which were seized by Thames Valley Police from the Kelly home in Southmoor.

See TVP/3/0035 for the information.

The timing of the email suggest that Thames Valley Police had seized the computers from the Kelly home by around 18.00 on 18th July 2003.

The total computer hardware appears to be two tower computers, three laptops and one PDA.

In addition, I seem to recall that a further computer was seized from one of David Kelly's work locations. From memory either the FCO or the Defence Intelligence Services location.

The death of David Kelly - The missing exhibits

A substantial number of exhibits made available to the Hutton Inquiry are at least mentioned in oral evidence.

However an unknown number of exhibits are hidden from the public.

For example, on this page, Evidence submitted to the Inquiry by Thames Valley Police, we get a glimpse into a world of hidden exhbits in the following document: TVP_3_0002.

To the best of my knowledge the seven exhibits associated with Alan Clark are entirely hidden from the public.

Six of those seven exhibits are labelled "sensitive" and it is not clear whether or not they were immediately made available to the Hutton Inquiry, or indeed if they were ever made available to the Hutton Inquiry.

How many other exhibits were hidden from the public?

Currently we don't know.

I believe we ought to be told.

It seems to me that the concealment of these exhibits from Alan Clark (and, in all likelihood, other exhibits) is further evidence that Lord Hutton lied when he stated that all evidence is available on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

The death of David Kelly - Who is Alan Clark?

Who is Alan Clark?

He is mentioned here, Evidence submitted to the Inquiry by Thames Valley Police, by way of a witness statement labelled thus:

Witness statement: Alan Clark - not for release - personal witness statement TVP/1/0046 - 0047

Alan Clark wasn't a witness at the Hutton Inquiry, yet he clearly had some interesting information potentially to impart.

For example, in this document, TVP_3_0002, we learn that Mr. Clark had provided seven exhibits six of which were labelled as "sensitive".

I intepret the preceding page as being part of the following document from Kevin McGuire:

Covering note from Kevin McGuire 08/08/03 - not for release - Police operational information TVP/3/0001 - 0003

One might also ask "Who is Keven McGuire?".

In 2010 it would seem that Kevin McGuire was/is a Detective Inspector with Thames Valley Police: Men sentenced to over 10 years imprisonment for game machine theft - AMENDED.

The Iraq Inquiry - Tony Blair and others to be required to give further public evidence

The Iraq Inquiry has announced that Tony Blair and a number of others are to be required to give further public oral evidence to Sir John Chilcot and colleagues.

The announcement is here: Iraq Inquiry will take further public evidence.

The oral hearings will take place between 18th January 2011 and 4th February 2011.

In addition, the Iraq Inquiry has requested further written evidence from a number of individuals, including the former Attorney General, Peter Goldsmith.

In recent weeks, I have focussed this blog largely on issues relating the death of David Kelly.

In coming weeks I will post a signfiicant volume of information relating to the offences contrary to UK law that Tony Blair, Peter Goldsmith and others committed in relation to the UK military action in Iraq.

That will, inevitably, raise issues relating to the Iraq War that are not currently widely appreciated. I will attempt to write future posts to facilitate understanding by an audience which is probably unfamiliar with at least some of the material I intend to post.

The death of David Kelly - Further Hutton Inquiry documents may be disclosed

This post largely consists of a reply to a Freedom of Information request from me to the Ministry of Justice.

The most interesting aspect of the reply from my point of view is the indication that the Ministry of Justice is examining what further Hutton Inquiry documents can be put into the public domain.

It is, in passing, good news that the documents relating to the Hutton Inquiry are stated to be securely archived.

[I had extensively to edit the reply because some aspect of the reply document prevented it copying and pasting straighforwardly. To the best of my knowledge the reply quoted below is an accurate representation of the original document.]

Our Ref: 68227 07 December 2010

Dear Dr Watt,

Hutton Inquiry Papers

Thank you for your email of 6 November in which you asked

1. What is the legal basis for the documents being secret for 30 years?
2. Where are the documents referred to currently stored and what steps are being taken to ensure that they are secure and safe from tampering?

Your request has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I am pleased to inform you that in respect of part one of your request some of this information is already in the public domain. As some of the information you are seeking is already available, it is exempt from disclosure under Section 21 (Information accessible to the applicant by other means) of the FOIA. I can confirm that the Department holds the information in relation to part two of your request and I have included this in my response.

Contrary to reports in the media since January 2010, neither Lord Hutton nor anyone else has declared that the information supplied to the Hutton Inquiry should be declared secret.

Lord Hutton said in his statement on Tuesday 26 January 2010 that he had requested that the post mortem examination report and other sensitive medical information relating to Dr Kelly not be disclosed for 70 years in view of the distress that could be caused to Dr Kelly s wife and daughters".

Furthermore, in his statement on 22 October, Lord Hutton explained that he had.

requested (not ordered) that the post mortem report should not be disclosed for 70 years. I made this request solely in order to protect Dr Kelly’s widow and daughters for the remainder of their lives (the daughters being in their twenties at that time) from the distress which they would suffer from further discussion of the details of Dr Kelly’s death in the media

In answering your first question it may be helpful to provide some background information on the records management of government information The phrase "30
year rule" is commonly used to describe the point at which records created by government departments are transferred to The National Archives (TNA) and at which most of these records are released to the public. In fact there is no single “rule” but two pieces of legislation that work together:

1 The Public Records Act, which requires government departments to transfer
records to TNA by the time they are 30 years old;
2. The Freedom of Information Act, which sets out what exemptions apply to those
records up to and beyond the 30 year mark.

At the end of the Hutton Inquiry the papers supplied to Lord Hutton were transferred to TNA, The Hutton Inquiry website [http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/faq.htm]
states that the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) was the sponsor department for the Hutton Inquiry. As a result of a machinery of government changes the Ministry of Justice is the successor to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and so is deciding what further information is being marked for disclosure beyond that which is already on the Inquiry’s website,

The decision on what information will be placed in the public domain and what should
be withheld, including for how long, is taken by the Ministry of Justice subject to the process set out in part 18 of Section 2 of the Section 46 Code of Practice. The Code of Practice can be found at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/foi-section-46-code-of-practice.pdf.

If information is marked as not for disclosure for a specified period of time, it would be withheld citing exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, though requests could still be made for those documents under the Act.

You may also like to know that many of the Hutton Inquiry’s papers are still available to the public via the Hutton Inquiry website:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk

Security is strict throughout the TNA site; only authorised personnel are allowed into the repository areas where records are stored. Special secure provision is made for the storage of documents of high intrinsic value or closed records. The Inquiry records are stored in such an area until their transfer is completed.

As part of our obligations under the FOIA, the Ministry of Justice has an independent
review process. If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may write to request an internal review. The internal review will be carried out by someone who did not make the original decision, and they will re-assess how the Department handled the original request.

If you wish to request an internal review, please write or send an email to the Data
Access and Compliance Unit within two months of the date of this letter, at the
following address:
Data Access and Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
6th Floor
Post point 625
102 Petty France
London
SWIH 9AJ
e:maii:

If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office under Section 50 of the FOIA. You can
contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Internet: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx

Yours sincerely

Richard Bishop
Information Policy Division

The death of David Kelly - Communication of 26th October 2010 to the Attorney General

This post is largely for information and records a communication sent to the Attorney General's Office on 26th October 2010 about the evidence suggesting that DC Graham Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

I initially wrote to the Attorney General about the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly on 25th October 2010, Open Letter to the Attorney General regarding the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

In the light of further exploration of the available evidence I concluded there was prima facie evidence that Detective Constable Graham Coe may have lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

The text of my email of 26th October 2010 to the Attorney General is set out below.

FAO Attorney General

[This email is an addendum to the Recorded Delivery letter to the Attorney General of 25th October 2010, entitled, "The Death of Dr. David Kelly – information indicating that a Coroner-led inquest, taking evidence on oath, is needed. Please collate with the previous correspondence.]

In that letter I raised questions about the evidence that DC Graham Coe gave to the Hutton Inquiry.

I have subsequently located a recent newspaper article which provides prima facie evidence that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

The article in question is located here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301210/Detective-Dr-David-Kellys-body-raises-questions-death.html

I quote the relevant text (which appears immediately below a photograph of Dr. Kelly's home):

"Mr Coe also confirmed the disputed existence of a 'third man' with him and his partner DC Colin Shields that day.
Critics who believe Dr Kelly was murdered have claimed that the suited figure mentioned in the accounts of volunteer searchers could have been from the security services.

At the Hutton inquiry Mr Coe denied anyone else had been present, but the former Thames Valley Police detective now says there had been a trainee police officer, whom he refused to name and said had left the force."

Given the evidence of the two volunteer searchers, Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman, that they met three individuals it is now clear that there is a high likelihood that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry!

An unidentified person was present in close proximity to Dr. Kelly's body before it was examined by Scenes of Crime Officers, the forensic pathologist or the forensic biologist. I view this as a matter of the utmost seriousness. As a matter of urgency, it requires further investigation.

The "third man" was present at the scene before the Common Approach Path to Dr. Kelly's body was established by PC Franklin. The opportunity for this unidentified individual to contaminate the scene or otherwise act improperly is evident.

Further, a policeman has, so it seems, lied to the Hutton Inquiry with the effect of concealing that individual's presence at the scene. The reasons for that dishonesty require to be inquired into.

Additionally, the actions of that "third" individual at the scene require to be established.

This new information adds, in my view, to an already strong case that an inquest is needed with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly with all evidence taken on oath.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The death of David Kelly - Availability of DVD of Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on 15th July 2003

For anyone who is interested, it's possible to obtain a DVD of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee hearing of 15th July 2003, at which David Kelly gave evidence.

The Parliamentary Recording Unit can be contacted at the following email address: pru@parliament.uk

The price of the DVD for personal use is £20 plus VAT i.e. £23.50.

The death of David Kelly - Evidence from the postmortem report that it was murder

This post consists largely of a communication to the Attorney General's Office indicating that new evidence, at least "new" with respect to the Hutton Inquiry, suggests that the death of David Kelly was murder.

In addition to being sent to the Attorney General's Office, the email was also forwarded to Thames Valley Police in relation to URN514 of 28/10/10.

The email to the Attorney General's Office has been acknowledged.

As yet, some 14 days later, no acknowledgement has been received by me from Thames Valley Police.

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 04:17:45 EST
Subject: Death of Dr. David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder
To: kevin.mcginty@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
CC: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



FAO Dominic Grieve QC, Attorney General

Mr McGinty,

I would be grateful if you would ensure that this email is collated with previous correspondence to the Attorney General from me relating to the need for the Attorney General to seek an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

To the best of my knowledge and belief the content of this email is credible, positive evidence of second party involvement in the death of Dr. David Kelly.

In my view, the evidence in this email constitutes "new evidence" in the context of a potential application by the Attorney General to the High Court to seek an order that an inquest be carried out into the death of Dr. David Kelly in 2003.

Given the technical nature of the argument I imagine that the Attorney General (and Thames Valley Police) will require to get independent, expert assessment of the credibility of the argument I put forward in this email.

Briefly, on the basis of a piece of evidence in the recently published postmortem report I conclude that a second party was involved in relation to Dr. Kelly's death and, since I can identify no "innocent explanation" for second party involvement I conclude, therefore, that the death of Dr. Kelly was murder.

I further conclude that Dr. Kelly's body was moved twice rather than the once that has previously publicly been discussed.

The basis for that first bolded statement is a combination of evidence in the postmortem report by Dr. Nicholas Hunt of 25th July 2003 which was made available publicly by the Ministry of Justice on 22nd October 2010 together with evidence from some simple experiments I have conducted since reading the postmortem report.

The following is the relevant part of Dr. Hunt's postmortem report:

• There was a band of what appeared to be vomitus running from the right corner of the mouth, slightly upwards over the right earlobe tip and then onto the right mastoid area. This appeared to have relatively uniform and parallel sides. Such material was noted around the mouth over both upper and lower lips. Vomitus could also be seen running from the left corner of the mouth and there was a possible patch of vomit staining in proximity to the left shoulder on the ground. There was some vomit staining on the back of the left shoulder area of the waxed jacket and also on the outer aspect of the upper sleeve of that side of the jacket.

It is not directly made clear in the postmortem report what direction the vomit from the left corner of the mouth took. However, given that there is vomit staining close to the left shoulder it can reasonably be inferred that on the left side, too, the vomit tracked towards the region of the mastoid.

The existence of the band of vomit from the right corner of the mouth to the right mastoid area is documented at the scene on Page 4 of the postmortem report of 25th July 2003. One can therefore exclude the possibility that the vomit trail was created long after death, for example, during transport of the body to the mortuary in a body bag.

The existence of a track of vomit from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid is evidence that the vomiting occurred while the body was supine i.e. with its back on the ground.

Vomiting in that position and the documented vomit track(s) is strongly suggestive that it was an agonal event, occurring while Dr. Kelly was deeply unconscious or at the point of death.

If Dr. Kelly were conscious at the time of vomiting then quasi-reflexly he would have sat forward (at least to some degree) and/or rolled to the side (to maintain a clear airway) causing the vomit tracks to have been present some distance forward of the mastoid process.

If, as I suggest, the vomiting was agonal occurring while Dr. Kelly was on his back, serious problems arise for the "suicide hypothesis".

There is clear evidence from Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman that the body they saw was "slumped" or "sitting" against a tree. They were the only two individuals who saw the body prior to the arrival of DC Coe on the scene, according to the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.

The problem for the "suicide hypothesis" is how the body gets from a supine position to a "slumped" or "sitting" position, given that Dr. Kelly was either unconscious or dead when the vomiting occurred in the supine position.

A further problem for the suicide hypothesis is that vomit does not track from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid area given a slumped or sitting position. It tends to run down from the lower lip (rather than down from the corner of the mouth) far forward of the mastoid area. So the observed vomit tracks on the body are inconsistent with the position of the body when found. (I tested the flow of water from the lax mouth in a variety of body, neck and head positions. It runs from the corner of the mouth to the mastoid area only when the occiput is orientated posteriorly. That is not surprising given the effect of gravity.)

To acknowledge that, in all likelihood, Dr. Kelly died on his back and reconcile that with the first observed position of the body one has to postulate either a "Lazarus hypothesis", the suspension of the Laws of Gravity or the involvement of a second party prior to the body being found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman.

The suspension of the Laws of Gravity can safely be discounted. What of the "Lazarus hypothesis"? Could Dr. Kelly have roused sufficiently to sit himself up? Given the likelihood of his being unconscious or dying at the time of the vomiting, I think the possibility of him sitting himself up is far-fetched and need not be considered credible.

Accordingly, I conclude that a second party was present prior to the body being found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman. The second party, at a minimum, moved the body from a supine to a slumped or sitting position.

This, in my view, is the first time that the body was moved.

It also appears from the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry that the body was moved a second time.

Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman gave evidence of a body slumped or sitting against a tree.

The paramedic, Dave Bartlett, gave evidence subsequent to Hutton that he could get between the tree and the head of the body and that he stood there. Since he is the only person who has (so far as I know) directly addressed that point, I take it as true (until such time as the question is examined in more detail at an inquest).

Notice the substantive change of body position from "slumped" or "sitting" against a tree to there being space between the head and the tree.

The body appears to have been moved a second time!

Can either moving of the body be "innocent" and consistent with the "suicide hypothesis".

If the "suicide hypothesis" is correct then, so far as I can identify, no second party (or third party) would have a motive to interfere with the position of the body. It is only necessary to move the body if some purpose is being served by moving it.

I conclude that there is no innocent explanation for the body having been moved on either occasion.

If the body was moved before it was found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman then a second party, hitherto unidentified, was present at the scene whose presence was not made known to the Hutton Inquiry.

I can identify no "innocent" explanation for any second party being present at the scene, moving the body and failing to report the presence of the body to, for example, the Police.

I conclude, therefore, that the second party (or parties) had malign intent and that the death of Dr. David Kelly was murder.

The person with greatest opportunity to move the body on the second occasion was DC Coe who, according to the evidence given to Hutton, was the only person with the body while it seemingly moved from the sitting position seen by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman to the supine position seen by Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt.

For completeness, I will briefly consider the possibility that the vomit trails were created by the movement of the body from its observed initial "sitting" position to a supine position. The experiments I tried with water in my mouth in a "slumped" or "sitting" position then moving to a supine position the water retreated back into the mouth rather than spilling over at the corners of the mouth. Accordingly, I conclude that moving from a slumped / sitting position to a supine position does not account for the existence of the vomit trails.

In this email I have presented the evidence "in isolation". It should, of course, more properly be considered in the context of the totality of the evidence, for example, in the context of the evidence that I presented to you recently that Dr. Kelly had no motive to commit suicide on 17th July 2003.

Given that it is acknowledged by Thames Valley Police that DC Coe lied to the Hutton Inquiry regarding the presence of a third individual at the scene, it seems to me that DC Coe should formally be interviewed regarding the identity of the "third man" and about the conduct of all parties present at or close to the scene between the departure of Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman and the arrival of Dave Bartlett and Vaness Hunt. Similarly "DC Shields" and the "third man" also ought formally to be interviewed by Thames Valley Police, in my view.

In my opinion, the evidence of the need for an inquest is overwhelming.

Similarly, I think there is a very strong case that Thames Valley Police should actively investigate new evidence such as I present here and review the credibility (or otherwise) of assumptions made by them and others in 2003 and the evidence which was based on such questionable assumptions.

I plan to forward a copy of this email to Thames Valley Police, asking them to re-open (if such is necessary) the investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The death of David Kelly - Lazy and deceptive journalism by Vikram Dodd of the Guardian

One of the notable aspects of recent coverage of the death of David Kelly by the Guardian is the uniformity of view that David Kelly killed himself.

It is an interesting question why a supposedly reputable newspaper publishes only one side of a story.

Followers of this blog and other sources of discussion and information about the death of David Kelly will be aware that there is a significant amount of evidence that calls into question the officially accepted "suicide hypothesis".

Why, then, does the Guardian fail to report this?

The approach of the Guardian merits close scrutiny.

Some of the Guardian coverage is lazy and deceptive, in my view.

One Guardian journalist, Vikram Dodd, wrote in August 2010 this article, David Kelly: forensic experts say Hutton inquiry scientifically sound, and in October 2010 wrote this article: The experts are clear on how David Kelly died.

Vikram Dodd's October 2010 article purports to be a response to the release on 22nd October 2010 of the postmortem and toxicology reports on David Kelly.

But it's not that at all.

On closer examination, the supposed "expert" comments seemingly from October are simply regurgitated quotes from August 2010 at a time when the "experts" ought not to have had access to the reports released in October 2010.

Vikram Dodd is, in my view, deceiving his readers into believing that the "experts" have responded to the newly released documents.

It is interesting to compare the supposedly contemporary quotes in August 2010 and October 2010.

In August 2010 Dr. Andrew Falzon said this:

You are going to succumb to a smaller volume of blood loss than if you were a 20-year-old with a healthy heart.

The heart vessel is already deprived of oxygen because of the blockage of the vessels. With the loss of blood [caused by cutting the ulnar artery], there is less oxygen to the heart. Throw in the toxic level of drug, that makes the heart more sensitive to cardiac arrhythmia [an electrical disturbance] which causes sudden death.

I'm sure bleeding from the ulnar artery can kill you.

Amazingly, Dr. Falzon supposedly used exactly the same words in October 2010 when talking to Mr. Dodd, including the essentially meaningless term "the heart vessel".

In August 2010 and October 2010 Professor Peter Vanezis is quoted as saying this:

"These people are more clinicians and are obviously surprised that a person can kill themselves like that." Vanezis also said the lack of large amounts of blood in the wood where Kelly was discovered could also be easily explained: "It was outside, it could have gone into the soil."

In August 2010 and October 2010 Dr. Andrew Davison is quoted as saying this:

You only have so much blood going around. If you have a heart condition you can't afford to lose as much blood as a healthy person.

In August 2010 and October 2010 Professor Derrick Pounder is quoted as saying this:

It may be that there are several factors in a death. In this case, we know he had taken more than a therapeutic dose of drugs, and that he had some pre-existing heart disease. We have three factors in the death that are known to the public. The cause of death is likely an interplay between the three.

Of course, none of the quoted "experts" actually say how David Kelly died. How could they since they hadn't in August 2010 seen the postmortem and toxicology reports?

Banal generalities simply don't cut the mustard first time round.

Regurgitating them simply demonstrates how shallow is Vikram Dodd's coverage of the death of David Kelly.

The death of David Kelly - Reply from Tom Mangold

Here is the reply received from Tom Mangold re my question about where he got the story about the gaffer tape being on the knife found at Harrowdown Hill.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Ever since the recent publication of the pathologists report and further details confirming beyond all doubt the suicide of David Kelly, I have decided to decline all further involvements of any sort from those who continue to believe in any other theory.

Tom Mangold

The death of David Kelly - Daily Mail article about the missing fingerprints on the blister packs

The Daily Mail has an article about the missing fingerprints on the blister packs found in the pocket of David Kelly's Barbour jacket: Riddle of missing fingerprints on Dr David Kelly's 'overdose' pill packs.

[Edit: Originally I attributed the article to the Mail on Sunday because of the date of 5th December 2010. However, that attribution is incorrect. It was indeed posted online late on 5th December 2010 but it relates to an article in the Daily Mail of Monday 6th December.]

The death of David Kelly - Open letter to Tom Mangold

Following up from my post yesterday, The death of David Kelly - Where did the gaffer tape story originate?, about Tom Mangold possibly being the original source for the assertion that the knife was covered in gaffer tape, I've today written to Tom Mangold in the following terms:

Mr Mangold,

I am trying to track down the source of the story that the knife found beside the body of David Kelly was covered in gaffer tape.

The earliest online reference I can currently locate to the story is your comment here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-kelly-murdered-yes-and-i-bet-you-believe-in-the-tooth-fairy-too-2017805.html#comment-60548168.

What was your source and evidence for that claim?

There is no mention of gaffer tape on the knife in the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry. How, then, did you come by this information?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Mangold has evidence to back up the assertion about the gaffer tape.

The death of David Kelly - Meeting at the IISS with Andrew Gilligan

I'm posting this primarily as a brief note about the possible meeting(s) of David Kelly with Andrew Gilligan in 2002.

In his oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry Andrew Gilligan stated that he hadn't met David Kelly at an IISS meeting in September 2002. See evidence for the morning of Wednesday 17th September 2003 at Pages 1 and 2:

13 The first matter is your meetings with Dr Kelly.
14 You have already given evidence of your first meeting in
15 early 2001 of which you have manuscript notes, your
16 second meeting on 11th April 2002, of which you have
17 a diary entry and some manuscript notes; and then there
18 is a matter which arose from what Dr David Kelly had
19 said, relating to a meeting which he believed had taken
20 place in September 2002 and it emerged he thought he had
21 met you at an IISS event.
22 Have you carried out any further checks since you
23 last gave evidence on that matter?
24 A. Yes. I have confirmed with the IISS that I was not in
25 fact at that event. They produced an attendance list

2
1 showing that Dr Kelly was there but I was not, and if
2 I had not been on the list I would not have been allowed
3 to attend. I have also confirmed that I was on holiday
4 during the time of that event.
5 Q. I think the dates of that event are thought to be 12th
6 to 14th September.
7 A. That is right; and I was, in fact, on holiday over that
8 weekend. I think we have some documentation, boat hire
9 documentation to support that.
10 Q. You are right about that. That, we believe, is on the
11 system at ANG/2/20.

Notice that the IISS meeting is said by the QC to be 12th to 14th September 2002.

However, there was an IISS/CEPS Eurosec meeting on 9th September 2002. See, for example, United States Policy Toward Iraq for the date mentioned.

And there was also an IISS meeting focussing on Iraq disarmament, 9 Jun 02 - The Continuing Threat of Iraq’s WMD Programs, on 9th - 11th June 2002.

I mention these two additional IISS meetings which included Iraq topics as possible places where David Kelly and Andrew Gilligan could have met in the relevant period in mid to late 2002.

The death of David Kelly - Where did the gaffer tape story originate?

The knife found beside David Kelly's body reportedly had no recoverable fingerprints.

One story that is doing the rounds is that the knife was covered with gaffer tape and (so the story goes) it is difficult or impossible to recover fingerprints from gaffer tape.

One question that occurred to me is where did the gaffer tape story originate?

I could find no mention of gaffer tape on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

The earliest mention of gaffer tape supposedly on the knife that I can find is from 4th July 2010 in a comment here from Tom Mangold.

Mangold wrote:

The pruning knife used by David to cut his wrist was covered in gaffer-tape, as are many knives, to prevent the fingers slipping on to the blade and provide a firmer grip. It is almost impossible to retrieve finger prints from this kind of material. For what its worth, I believe that had the government allowed a normal inquest to take place then the fruit-cake theories would never have gained traction.

Shortly thereafter other journalists, Andrew Gilligan being one example, pick up the story, David Kelly was not murdered:

The absence of fingerprints on the knife may be explained by the fact that the knife handle was reportedly covered in gaffer tape, which does not easily hold fingerprints, or by the fact that it spent the night in the open. Importantly, the knife itself was one that David kept in his study and which had belonged to him from boyhood.

And, inevitably, the gaffer tape story echoes on round the Internet.

Is this 4th July 2010 mention of gaffer tape by Tom Mangold the first mention of the supposed story?

And is it true that gaffer tape doesn't hold fingerprints?

The death of David Kelly - No more than 389ml of water to swallow 29 co-proxamol tablets

A new piece of information is available following a Freedom of Information Act request to Thames Valley Police by Brian Spencer.

There was 111ml of water left in the 500 ml Evian bottle of water found at the scene on Harrowdown Hill.

In other words, even if one assumes that the bottle was full when he started on the walk, the "suicide hypothesis" requires you to believe that David Kelly swallowed 29 co-proxamol tablets using no more than 389ml of water.

And that, despite major blood loss and developing thirst, David Kelly didn't drink the water remaining in the bottle of water.

I don't believe it. And, I suggest, you shouldn't believe it either.

Brian's post is here: The water left in the Evian bottle.

The death of David Kelly - No fingerprints on the co-proxamol blister packs

A new piece of information is available following a Freedom of Information Act request to Thames Valley Police by Brian Spencer.

No fingerpints were found on the co-proxamol blister packs which Dr. Hunt stated that he found in the front right pocket of David Kelly's Barbour jacket.

See Brian's post: No fingerprints on the co-proxamol blister packs.

We now know:

1. There were no fingerprints on the (supposed) knife.

2. There were no fingerprints on the water bottle.

3. There were no fingerprints on the co-proxamol blister packs.

4. There were no gloves at the scene.

The "suicide hypothesis" requires us to believe that David Kelly took his own life and took the trouble to wipe the knife, the water bottle and co-proxamol blister packs clean of fingerprints.

The absence of fingerprints is another nail in the coffin of the "suicide hypothesis" as far as I'm concerned.

The death of David Kelly - Dr. Kelly had no motive to commit suicide on 17th July 2003

This post largely consists of the text of a communication sent to the Attorney General's Office on 17th November 2010.

If, as I contend in the quoted document, David Kelly had no motive to commit suicide on 17th July 2003 then the whole "suicide hypothesis" is opened up as the fragile speculation that it has always been!

FAO Dominic Grieve, Attorney General

Mr McGinty,

I would be grateful if you would add this email to the correspondence beginning on 25th October 2010 from myself to the Attorney General regarding the need for an inquest re the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I believe I can demonstrate that Dr. David Kelly had no motive to commit suicide on 17th July 2003. The detail of why I reach that conclusion follows later in this document.

Clearly, if David Kelly had no motive for suicide on 17th July 2003 then the Hutton conclusion of suicide is catastrophically undermined.

The evidence I present below is, I believe, "new evidence" in the sense that it has never been brought together in this way to demonstrate the absence of motive for suicide at the relevant time period.

I do not here directly attempt to dismantle the evidence presented to Lord Hutton favouring a conclusion of suicide. In this document I simply state that such evidence is largely conjectural and, with respect to Professor Hawton's evidence, is founded (so I understand) on a lack of awareness of key evidence some of which I present later in this document.

If it would assist the Attorney General to receive a document dismantling in detail the evidence presented to Hutton that seems to favour suicide, I'd be happy to prepare such a document on request.

The widely accepted, but erroneous, motive for suicide is that Dr. Kelly's reputation had been ruined since he, supposedly, was the prime source for Andrew Gilligan's controversial broadcasts of 29th May 2003 and the soon-following article by Gilligan in the Mail on Sunday.

However, that interpretation is largely based on a dubious interpretation of a statement issued by the BBC on 20th July 2003. Dr. Kelly was dead before that statement was issued so we must, logically, discount it in an analysis of what might have been in Dr. Kelly's mind on 17th July 2003 (whether or not one assumes that the BBC statement of 20th July 2003 can be trusted or not).

It seems to me that the behaviour of Professor Hawton, Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton (among others) have founded on that anachronism, and they have, consequently, failed correctly to consider the information available to David Kelly on 17th July 2003 alone as being of relevance.

The Sequence of Events

In late May 2003 Patrick Lamb was informed by David Kelly that he had met with Andrew Gilligan and had spoken with Susan Watts (see evidence on Page 64 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans43.htm ).

Dr. Kelly prepared a letter on 30th June 2003, addressed to his line manager, Dr. Bryan Wells, in which he acknowledged that he had met with Andrew Gilligan but stating "I am convinced that I am not [Andrew Gilligan's] primary source of information". The quote is from the final paragraph on Page 3 of http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_3_0103to0106.pdf.

David Kelly met with more senior managers in the Ministry of Defence on 4th July 2003 and 7th July 2003.

On 9th July 2003 some journalists were able, with some assistance from the Ministry of Defence, to identify David Kelly as the individual who had identified himself to the Ministry of Defence as having spoken to Andrew Gilligan.

On 15th July 2003 David Kelly appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. At the end of that session, the Minutes record that the view of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was that "Dr. Kelly was unlikely to be the prime source of Mr. Gilligan's allegations". See Paragraph 5 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/fac/fac_1_0055to0057.pdf .

In a subsequent letter on 15th July 2003 to Jack Straw, Donald Anderson (chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee) wrote that it seemed "most unlikely that Dr. Kelly was Andrew Gilligan's prime source for his allegations about the September dossier on Iraq.". See http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/fac/fac_1_0012.pdf .

As far as the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was concerned David Kelly was in the clear.

The question is whether or not David Kelly knew that he was in the clear.

At the meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee on 16th July 2003 the following exchange takes place:

JOYCE QUIN: Can I ask you how you respond to the letter that the Chairman of
Foreign Affairs Committee has apparently written to the Foreign Secretary expressing the
view that it seems most unlikely that you were Andrew Gilligan's prime source for his
allegations about the September dossier on Iraq.
DR KELLY: Well that's what I believe myself, I mean I do not believe that I'm the
prime source,

Source of the quote: Page 14 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/isc/isc_1_0003to0035.pdf .

Not only was David Kelly "in the clear" as far as the Foreign Affairs Select Committee were concerned but, importantly, he knew he was "in the clear".

I have looked for any evidence given to Hutton that something of momentous significance happened on 17th July 2003 to suggest a dramatic reversal of Dr. Kelly's position. In other words I looked for some piece of information that could explain a sudden transition from being tired but relaxed to being suicidal.

I could identify no such event.

On 17th July 2003 there could be no reasonable expectation that further revelations would be forthcoming. David Kelly had admitted to Patrick Lamb in May to having met Andrew Gilligan and having spoken to Susan Watts. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee had concluded that David Kelly was not Andrew Gilligan's prime source.

He was in the clear. He knew it.

He had a busy morning on 17th July 2003 composing and sending emails. He wrote, for example, about his upcoming trip to Iraq the following week. These are the actions of a man focussing on the future, rather than the actions of a man who had decided that he, at his own hand, would have no future!

David Kelly was not suicidal on 17th July 2003. Professor Hawton correctly states that Dr. Kelly was not depressed. Neither had he on 17th July 2003 any reason to commit suicide.

I conclude that the absence of a motive for suicide on 17th July 2003 seriously undermines the "suicide hypothesis" to the degree that I consider the "suicide hypothesis" to be untenable.

I have written separately to Professor Hawton asking him to review the reliability of the evidence he gave to the Hutton Inquiry. In the interests of transparency I am copying this email to him and his PA.

I will also forward a copy of this email to Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball and other senior officers at Thames Valley Police in connection with my report to them (URN514 of 28/10/10) in which I ask them to investigate the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly, given that my view is that the death is more likely to have been murder than suicide.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email. If you require clarification on any point of detail please do not hesitate to get in touch.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The death of David Kelly - The Parliamentary Questions which were "live" on 17th July 2003

One of the supposed explanations of David Kelly's hypothesised "suicide" on 17th July 2003 is that the Parliamentary Questions due for reply on 17th July 2003 or sent to him on that day in some way made him "realise" that his life was in tatters.

I thought, therefore, it might be useful to look at the Parliamentary Questions that were "live" on 17th July 2003 and consider whether they posed any particular difficulty for David Kelly.

I can trace two Parliamentary Questions due for written answer on 17th July 2003. Both were from Andrew MacKinlay.

The text of the first question (Ref. 126330) is as follows (See Ministry of Defence Parliamentary Question: Andrew MacKinlay Esq MP to Geoffrey Hoon MP 17.07.03):

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when over the past two years Mr David Kelly has met Andrew Gilligan of the BBC. 126330

The drafted answer was as follows:

Andrew Gilligan has had meetings on Iraq with Dr Kelly twice over the past two years : February 2003 and 22 May 2003 . In addition, Dr Kelly spoke to Andrew Gilligan about Iraq during a seminar at the International Institute of Strategic Studies on 12-14 September 2002 .

I don't see anything particularly threatening with respect to the question or the proposed answer.

The text of the second question (Ref. 126331) is as follows (See Ministry of Defence Parliamentary Question: Andrew MacKinlay Esq MP to Geoffrey Hoon MP 17.07.03)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, which journalists Mr David Kelly has met over the past two years ; other than Andrew Gilligan of the BBC. (a) for what purpose each meeting was held, and (b) when each meeting took place. 126331

The draft answer was as follows:

Dr Kelly has records of having held meetings with the following journalists .

Name Date Purpose
Nick Rufford (Sunday Times) 14 March 2002 Discussing Al-Manal
Alex Nicoll (Financial Times) 15 May 2002 Iraqi WMD in general
Phillip Sen (The Engineer) 3 October 2002 Inspection teclmology

Dr Kelly has also had meetings with Jane Corbin (BBC) and Tom Mangold (BBC) but has no record of the dates .

In addition, Dr Kelly will have spoken with journalists about Iraq at a range of seminars and similar events, and on the telephone. Dr Kelly has also discussed non-Iraq WMD matters on which he is an acknowledged expert.

Not a comprehensive answer, perhaps, but no obvious threats there.

Given Dr. Kelly's death the planned answers were not given.

One of the questions from Andrew MacKinlay was answered on 9th September 2003: David Kelly.

In addition to the two questions from Andrew MacKinlay there was another five-part question from Mr. Jenkin.

First let's recognise that David Kelly had lots of time to answer any new Parliamentary Questions. That's confirmed in James Harrison's email of 17th July 2003, e-mail to Dr Kelly 17 July 2003 re: Parliamentary questions.

I believe that the anticipated deadline for answering this new five-part question was around 3rd September 2003.

In the event the written answer to Mr. Jenkin was given on 9th September 2003.

David Kelly

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) whether his Department has complied with Dr. David Kelly's terms and conditions of employment in handling the matter of his discussions with Mr. Andrew Gilligan; [127159]

(2) on how many occasions Dr. David Kelly spoke to Mr. Andrew Gilligan; and whether his line managers knew this; [127156]

(3) how many of his Department's personnel have been interviewed in connection with the dossier story reported by Mr. Andrew Gilligan; [127157]

(4) what inquiries are being conducted by his Department into unauthorised briefings of the BBC in connection with Iraq; [127158]

(5) what (a) civil service and (b) MOD rules and regulations may have been infringed by Dr. David Kelly in talking to Mr. Andrew Gilligan. [127155]

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that these are all matters that are being addressed by Lord Hutton's Inquiry. Lord Hutton will publish his report in

9 Sept 2003 : Column 351W

due course. I am therefore withholding the information requested under Exemption 4a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

Geoff Hoon, after David Kelly's death, could use Exemption 4a to avoid answering Mr. Jenkins questions. However, if David Kelly had not died then the multipart question would have had to be answered by early September.

Notice that Geoff Hoon's answer includes five separate reference numbers. So, it would appear that five separate written questions are being answered together. The questions could potentially have been answered singly or grouped according to the Ministry of Defence's preference.

A composite answer to Mr. Jenkin's question might have looked something like the following:

(1) The Ministry of Defence has fully complied with the terms and conditions of Dr. David Kelly's employment in respect of its handling of contacts that Dr. Kelly had with Andrew Gilligan.

(2) With respect to Dr. Kelly's meetings with Mr. Gilligan I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave to the Honourable Member for Thurrock (Mr. MacKinlay) at [Hansard Reference].

(3) The Ministry of Defence has conducted a thorough inquiry into contacts by its staff with Andrew Gilligan and has decided that, in the light of the evidence, no further action is appropriate.

I am sure that a skilled parliamentary draftsman could produce something yet more bland and reassuring.

There is nothing truly threatening in Mr. Jenkin's questions.

By early September 2003 the interest in the matter would, in all likelihood, have at least begun to die down.

The death of David Kelly - Seemingly trivial discrepancies in emails on 17th July 2003

This post concerns seemingly trivial discrepancies in the documentary evidence for the events of 17th July 2003.

At 09.22 David Kelly sent an email to Wing Commander John Clark, Email: David Kelly / John Clark 17.07.03, giving answers to earlier Parliamentary Questions about meetings with journalists.

However, there is a time discrepancy since the version on Dr. Kelly's computer, E Mail from Dr Kelly 17 July 03, indicates it was sent at 10.22.

Perhaps Dr. Kelly's computer was on British Summer Time and the MoD's computer on Greenwich Mean Time?

But that doesn't explain all the discrepancies.

The 09.22 version provided by the MoD has a stated attachment, PQs.doc, whereas the 10.22 version from Dr. Kelly's computer does not.

The 09.22 version provided by the MoD has a redacted copy recipient (or recipients), whereas on the 10.22 version from Dr. Kelly's computer the name "Bryan Wells" is written in manuscript (there is no typed name of any copy recipient).

A number of questions seem to me to arise:

1. How is it that an email supposedly among Files retrieved from Dr Kelly's home computer includes a copy recipient's name in manuscript?

2. How are the discrepancies between the MoD version and the version among Files retrieved from Dr Kelly's home computer to be explained?

3. Could the computer clock on Dr. Kelly's computer be inaccurate? Or have been tampered with? In other words, is the timing of other emails supposedly sent by David Kelly on 17th July 2003 also to be called into question?

The death of David Kelly - Lord Hutton is lying: Not all the evidence is on the Hutton Inquiry web site

Last month in this post, Lord Hutton is lying: Not all the evidence is on the Hutton Inquiry web site, I drew attention to the absence of the report(s) of the forensic biologist Roy Green from the Hutton Inquiry website.

Today I draw attention to another missing piece of evidence - the report by computer investigator Edward Wilding about the personal digital assistant belonging to journalist Andrew Gilligan.

I looked carefully for it on the Hutton Inquiry web site and cannot find it.

Mr Wilding's oral evidence was given on the afternoon of Thursday 18th September 2003.

Mr Wilding had some residual questions about how to interpret his findings on Andrew Gilligan's PDA and was in consultation with another computer expert, Professor Sammes, until the very last moment.

On the morning of Wednesday 17th September 2003 James Dingemans QC made the following statement (see Page 1 on that date's transcript):

5 MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, can I just announce a few changes in
6 the timetable? Mr Wilding and Mr Sammes, computer
7 experts who were going to give evidence this morning
8 before Mr Gilligan gave his evidence, are in the course
9 still of meetings and they will not be available to give
10 evidence until tomorrow afternoon.

Why might Mr. Wilding's report be important?

One reason is that the first version of the supposed record of Andrew Gilligan's meeting with David Kelly is dated 21st May 2003 - the day BEFORE Gilligan and Kelly met!!

If Andrew Gilligan made notes of a meeting supposedly with David Kelly on the day BEFORE they met something very fishy is potentially going on.

Mr. Wilding's report, if we could access it, would allow a sensible assessment to be made of the preceding discrpancy, among other matters.

The Death of David Kelly - Lies by Tony Blair to Parliament regarding the dossiers

It's not directly relevant to the cause of death of David Kelly but readers might find it of interest to have direct evidence that Tony Blair lied to the UK Parliament about the validity of the content of the September 2002 dossier.

The following extracts are from House of Commons Hansard for 25th June 2003.

Mr. Kennedy: On a related topic on Iraq, the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that, when the February dossier was approved for publication by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister himself had assumed that its contents had come through the normal channels. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the point at which he authorised the publication of that dossier, he was not aware that sections of it had been lifted from a student thesis on the internet?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is important, amid all this coverage, to realise that the contents of that dossier—and, indeed, of the first dossier which I presented to the House—are accurate.

and

Q4. [121375] Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): Yesterday the Foreign Secretary described the dodgy dossier as "a complete Horlicks", so is it time to say "night, night" to Alastair Campbell?

25 Jun 2003 : Column 1046

The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, that part of the dossier was entirely accurate and the mistake of not attributing it was accepted at the time. I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in respect of that dossier and the first dossier, not a single fact in them is actually disputed.

Notice that Tony Blair was continuing in late June 2003 to claim that the contents of the September 2002 dossier were accurate and were not disputed.

However, in House of Commons Hansard for 12th October 2004 we read the following interesting statement by Jack Straw (then Foreign Secretary):

The House will recall that the Butler committee concluded, among many other things, that the validity of the line of reporting that included the 45-minute intelligence had come into question. It further concluded that reporting received from a liaison service on Iraqi production of biological agent was "seriously flawed". The House will now wish to be aware that the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service has written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, formally withdrawing those two lines of reporting.

Withdrawing that "intelligence" came much too late for David Kelly, sadly.

The death of David Kelly - Hutton Inquiry costs

This may already be well known but I'm posting the link to the Hutton Inquiry Costs page in case anyone is interested.

"External advice" (which includes lawyers fees)is by a long way the highest cost item, totalling of the order of £990,000!!

The death of David Kelly - Tom Mangold's silly hypothesis on video

I know that some readers of this blog are familiar with Tom Mangold's silly hypothesis about how David Kelly could have been murdered.

The following video, Norman Baker MP on the Death of Dr David Kelly, includes an interview with Tom Mangold where he expounds his nonsense.

Seemingly unaware, from the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry, that Ruth Absalom met David Kelly sometime around (or a little after) 15.00 on 17th July 2003, Tom Mangold postulates a kidnap of David Kelly from his home.

It's a nonsensical suggestion, if the evidence given by Ruth Absalom is truthful.

Having started with nonsense, Tom Mangold continues with more nonsense.

Mangold postulates that David Kelly is then carried physically to Harrowdown Hill.

Hasn't Mangold heard of vehicles? Transporting David Kelly in a vehicle is a much more credible mode of transport.

And, as a tour de force, Mangold then asserts that the "suicide" has been investigated by "seven" agencies: the local police, the county police, Scotland Yard, Special Branch, MI5, MI6 and the CIA.

How, for example, is the "local police" to be distinguished from the "county police"?

Mangold's assertion is bizarre and literally incredible.

The death of David Kelly - Formal identification FOI response

This post largely consists of the text of a response from Thames Valley Police to a Freedom of Information request that I sent on 28th October 2010.

The text of my questions is in italics.

Dear Dr Watt

Reference No: RFI2010000737

Thank you for your request for information dated 28/10/2010 which I have repeated below with our response to each point.

1. Who formally identified the body of Dr. David Kelly (on or around 18th July 2003)?

Dr Kelly’s body was formally identified by his widow, Janice Kelly.

2. On what date and time was formal identification carried out?

11:25am on Saturday 19th July 2003

3. At what location was the body identified?

Chapel of Rest – John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford

4. On whose authority and on what grounds was the person making formal identification of the body chosen?

It is normal practice to use a close family member to provide the formal identification.

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

The death of David Kelly - The "abduction" phase

If the death of David Kelly corresponds to the "murder hypothesis" and the murder wasn't carried out at Harrowdown Hill, then some form of "abduction" needs to have happened, in my view.

One possibility to be considered is that David Kelly was abducted by individuals posing as Police officers.

There was a similar case in Scotland in 2006, Police reconstruct city abduction, where a witness in a trial was supposedly arrested by two supposed plain-clothes police officers. His skull was dragged up in a fishing net some considerable time later.

Returning to the David Kelly case, if a car had driven up beside him during his walk and two seeming Police officers were to have asked him to accompany them, then it's likely that he would not have resisted entering the vehicle.

Once in the vehicle the opportunities for escape would have been greatly reduced.

At the moment I offer this as a purely hypothetical scenario.

But it would provide an explanation of how David Kelly could disappear with no sign of a violent struggle.

If, hypothetically, David Kelly was handcuffed via the left wrist then friction there might explain the "vital reaction" observed by Dr. Nicholas Hunt in his postmortem report.

Many other "abduction" possibilities exist. I simply offer this one as an explanation which would be consistent with the evidence I'm aware of.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - Footprints and vehicle tracks FOI response

For information, I post below the response from Thames Valley Police to a Freedom of Information request which I sent to Thames Valley Police on 26th October 2010.

Notice the wording of the second answer. It evades the question of whether or not the Thames Valley Police searched the bridleway before or after PC Franklin drove a Police Land Rover up the track.

My reading of the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry by PC Franklin is that the Thames Valley Police had driven at least one vehicle up the bridleway / track before any SOCO arrived at the scene.

Thus, potentially, destroying important evidence of the presence of a second party near the scene where David Kelly's body was found.

Presumably the Detective Inspector referred to in the second answer is DI Ashley Smith.

My questions are in italics within the quoted text.

Dear Dr Watt


Reference No: RFI2010000731

Thank you for your request for information dated 26/10/2010 which for clarity I have repeated below with our response to each point.

What steps the Police took to identify and secure forensic evidence of footprints on the Common Access Path prior to the Pathologist seeing Dr. David Kelly's body on 18th July 2003?

The common approach path was searched as were other routes to the scene. Footprints on the bridleway were photographed and casts were made of their impressions.

What steps the Police took to look for and secure forensic evidence of vehicle tracks on the bridleway close to the scene where Dr. David Kelly's body was found, prior to any Police vehicles accessing the track?

The bridleway was checked by the Senior Scenes of Crime Officer and a Detective Inspector.

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

The death of David Kelly - DI Ashley Smith

Just a short note about "DI Ashleigh Smith" mentioned in Dr. Nicholas Hunt's postmortem report.

As far as I can trace no "Ashleigh" Smith was ever a member of Thames Valley Police.

I suspect that the individual concerned was, in July 2003, DI Ashley Smith.

DI Smith was later promoted to Superintendent, being a senior officer in Thames Valley Police's Professional Standards department in 2008. See here.

Other than his presence close to the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found on 18th July 2003, I think we know nothing publicly of DI Smith's actions.

For completeness, I'll mention that Thames Valley Police also have a Police Constable Ashley Smith. At the risk of stating the obvious, PC Smith and Superintendent Smith are two different individuals.

The death of David Kelly - Talk by David Halpin in Bournemouth

David Halpin, a retired surgeon, who is one of the doctors seeking leave to go to the High Court to ask for an order that an inquest be held into the death of David Kelly, last night was due to give a public talk about his death: In a talk on Dr David Kelly’s death, ex-trauma surgeon Dr David Halpin will argue that the weapons inspector didn’t take his own life.

In an interview before the talk David Halpin said,

I couldn’t accept this man had died from haemorrhage from the small ulnar artery. I couldn’t accept that a man with his scientific knowledge had chosen such an uncertain method of which to kill himself.

David Halpin also stated,

I’m not saying that he was assassinated. I think it seems very likely.

What we want is an inquest to find the truth. I am saying for several very good reasons it appears like he was assassinated.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - David Kelly could count to two

This may have been discussed in extenso somewhere else but I don't recall any serious discussion of it.

Dr. Kelly was a highly intelligent man.

The "suicide hypothesis" asks us to believe he incised his left wrist with the intention of killing himself.

It doesn't take too much intelligence to work out that cutting two wrists is likely to cause more blood loss than cutting one wrist.

So, given David Kelly's intelligence, why according to the "suicide hypothesis" didn't he cut his right wrist?

Many genuine attempted suicides cut both wrists.

Why didn't David Kelly?

I don't think it's explained by any cut tendons on the left side. The greater part of the grip on a knife comes from the thumb and middle and index fingers. So David Kelly ought to have been capable of cutting his right wrist to the same degree as any other supposed suicide.

So why didn't he do so?

According to the postmortem report, seemingly no tendons were severed:

This wound penetrated through to the level of the tendons in the flexor compartment and there was some damage to the tendons themselves, although none appear to be completely severed.

So, mechnically speaking, David Kelly ought to have been able to incise his right wrist too.

But he didn't.

For an intelligent man supposedly intent on killing himself (so the "suicide hypothesis" would have us believe) that failure to incise his right wrist is a bizarre and unintelligent omission.

It, quite simply, doesn't make sense.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - Creating a false impression of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003

One of the interesting aspects of studying the death of Dr. David Kelly is examining whether the "obvious" is true or untrue, supported by a detailed examination of the evidence or unsupported by a detailed examination of the evidence.

One small aspect of the "untrue" is the characterisation in the media of the nature of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee meeting on 15th July 2003.

This post briefly examines the impression created by the questioning shown in the video entitled "Dr. Kelly's Last Interview" from 3:12 onwards.

I have compared the seeming sequence of questions in the video to the actual sequence in the transcript of the Oral Evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003.

The first question shown on the video is the second part of Question 167 (from Andrew MacKinlay MP): "Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up, have you not?".

The video then jumps backwards to Question 159 (from Sir John Stanley MP): "You had been before them to rubbish Mr Gilligan and his source, quite clearly?".

The video then cuts to the first part of Question 167 (from Andrew MacKinlay MP): "I reckon you are chaff; you have been thrown up to divert our probing.".

Finally, the video clip cuts to the middle of a long question cum comment, Question 160 (from Sir John Stanley MP): "why did you feel it was incumbent upon you to go along with the request that clearly had been made to you to be thrown to the wolves".

And the video then shows David Kelly seemingly stumped by the question.

However, the transcript records that, in reality, he gave a sensible and diplomatic answer to a difficult question.

By rearranging the questions and, falsely, showing David Kelly seemingly stumped by a question, a false impression is created, wittingly or unwittingly.

That false impression is part of a supposed "basis" for suicide.

The death of David Kelly - The FOI response about the helicopter flight

For completeness, I post the full text of the Thames Valley Police FOI response regarding the helicopter flights on 18th July 2003.

My questions are in italics.

I have emphasised in bold two paragraphs that I think merit careful thought.

Subject: RFI2010000727 - FOI Request: Response
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:13:25 -0000
From: "FOI"
To: <[redacted]>



Dear Dr Watt



Reference No: RFI2010000727



Thank you for your request for information dated 26/10/2010 which for clarity I have repeated below with our response to each point.



1) I wish to make a Freedom of Information request regarding the log of the Police Helicopter with respect to the search for Dr. David Kelly after the report that he was missing (approx. 23.40 on 17th July 2003, I understand). I ask for a copy of the Police helicopter log for the relevant search and for the following specific information.



Please find attached to this email copy of two helicopter logs. You will find that within the documents provided information has been redacted. Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 200 requires Thames Valley Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which: (a) states the fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.



The exemptions applicable to the redacted information are:

Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by a public authority.

Section 40(2) – Personal Data.



Section 40 is a class based absolute exemption and as such the legislators have identified that there would be harm in disclosure and there is not need to evidence this.



Section 30 is prejudiced based qualified exemption which requires the prejudice (harm) to be evidenced.



Several types of harm may be generated by the disclosure of the redacted information within the helicopter logs. Future police operations may be prejudiced if operational information is inappropriately disclosed into the public domain. This may ultimately result in safety implications for the general public and police officers, placing the well being of citizens at risk and compromise the ability of the force to prevent and detect crime and protect life and/or property.



2) At what time did the helicopter begin to search for heat sources?



Please see attached helicopter logs which details deployment times.



3) Further, I wish to ask if the helicopter surveyed Harrowdown Hill, if so at what time Harrowdown Hill was surveyed and if any heat source was identified there.



The helicopter crew were asked to survey an area which included Harrowdown Hill. There were no relevant heat sources identified.



The thermal imagers fitted to police helicopters in 2003 were not penetrative. In the case of woods or copses, unless it is winter or the woods are sparsely populated with trees, the leaf canopies and branches very often preclude any meaningful thermal imager search as the thermal imager cannot penetrate the leaf canopy.



4) Finally, I ask for identification of the make and model of the heat seeking equipment in the helicopter and the date/time on which it was last tested prior to the search of interest.



The camera used was a FLIR Leo 2. The camera is subject to routine maintenance in line with aircraft maintenance schedules. It was working correctly at the time of the incident. It was last serviced on 27th June 2003.



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

It seems to me that the Thames Valley Police response raises at least a couple of interesting questions.

Did the helicopter use the heat-seeking equipment to survey the woodland on Harrowdown Hill? Or did it simply survey the bridle path that runs, so I understand, along the edge of the woodland?

If the heat-seeking equipment had been directed at the woodland area on Harrowdown Hill would it have been capable of detecting the presence of a (possibly) still warm body?

The death of David Kelly - Information about the helicopter flight

Earlier this week I was given by Thames Valley Police a couple of printouts which relate to the two Chiltern Air Support Unit flights during the early morning of 18th July 2003. This was in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

If anyone would like to be sent a copy of the printouts please email me using the email address described in this post: A contact email address for Chilcot's Cheating Us.

Summary information is as follows:

02.50 The helicopter is called from its previous task (unspecified).

03.20 to 04.05 - The helicopter searches an area which "included bridle paths from Longworth north to the River Thames, east to Newbridge and back south to Kingston Bagpuize". [I made minor edits for clarity.]

04.05 - "Aircraft forced to go to [redacted] for fuel then intending to return to continue search."

04.30 - Helicpter takes off (presumably after refuelling).

04.35 - Helicopter again "on scene".

04.45 - Helicopter leaves scene.

05.10 - Landed (location not specified).

The timings at the end strongly suggest that the helicopter didn't fly to RAF Benson. More credible as a destination is Luton, given the flight time. [RAF Henlow may not have been operating in this context in the relevant part of 2003.]

As Ffrank pointed out in a comment here, a really interesting question is why the helicopter was stood down as it was becoming light.

Surely, in daylight the helicopter crew could see more than at night? So what logical reason could there be for standing the helicopter down at the time stated?

Remember, ACC Page gave the following testimony on the morning of Wednesday 3rd September 2003 on Page 23 and 24:

22 Q. And while they were forming that assessment how many men
23 did you have on the ground searching outwards?
24 A. Ultimately by about 7.30 I had 30 police officers drawn
25 in from other police areas. I had the resources on duty

24
1 within that police area, which would have been another
2 10.
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. I had the mounted branch on the way from Milton Keynes
5 but they had not yet arrived.
6 Q. You had?
7 A. The mounted branch. Because they obviously give you the
8 ability to cover ground very quickly.

It's bizarre that ACC Page is asking for mounted support "to cover the ground very quickly" while at the same time the helicopter which covers the ground very much faster is stood down.

As part of a rigorous and vigorous Police search, standing the helicopter down at 05.10 makes no sense.