Friday, 29 October 2010

Lord Hutton is lying: Not all the evidence is on the Hutton Inquiry web site

After carefully looking for the written evidence from a key forensic biology expert on the Hutton Inquiry web site, I have concluded that Lord Hutton was lying in his public statement of 22nd October 2010 when he stated that "all the evidence" is on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

The full statement made by Lord Hutton is easily accessed online here: Dr Kelly evidence: Lord Hutton statement in full.

The important element of that statement about which I have concluded that Lord Hutton is lying is as follows:

The inquiry which I conducted was open and public. It was very widely reported in the media and all the evidence appeared on the inquiry website which is still available to view.

Note that Lord Hutton asserts that "all the evidence" appears on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

It's not true, so fas as I can ascertain, and I have spent quite some time looking for it on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

The following documents that relate to oral evidence given by Mr Roy Green, Forensic Biologist, are missing:

1. Any signed statement or report by the Forensic Biologist, Roy Green, who gave oral evidence of his findings at the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found.

2. The spreadsheet of 50 or so test results to which he referred in his oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

3. The final report on the 50 or so laboratory tests that he carried out.

Why is Mr Green's evidence important?

Mr Green's evidence, if complete and competently carried out, should shed light on basic questions which relate to whether Dr. Kelly was killed at the scene where his body was found or whether there was evidence that he may have been killed elsewhere.

It should also, I would anticipate, provide clarification as to whether stains and other marks are indeed blood, whether they are human blood and whether all of the blood is Dr. Kelly's blood.

Without such evidence one is left with conjecture.

I do not view conjecture as an appropriate basis for Lord Hutton, or anyone else, to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to how Dr. David Kelly died.

I have written to the Ministry of Justice asking that the Hutton Inquiry web site be updated with the missing report(s) and have suggested that Lord Hutton be asked to issue a corrected statement.

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Open Letter to the Attorney General regarding the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly

Yesterday, I sent by Recorded Delivery a letter to Dominic Grieve QC, requesting that he apply to the High Court for an order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The text of that letter follows below, for reference.

25th October 2010

Dominic Grieve QC,
Attorney General

Open Letter
The Death of Dr. David Kelly – information indicating that a Coroner-led inquest, taking evidence on oath, is needed

Dear Attorney General,

I write to you to request that you apply to the High Court for an order that a Coroner-led inquest be conducted with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly in 2003, as provided for on the grounds enumerated in Subsection 13(1)(b) of the Coroner’s Act 1988.

Of the grounds mentioned in Subsection 13(1)(b) I consider the following grounds potentially to be of relevance in an application to the High Court with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly.

1. Rejection of evidence
2. Irregularity of proceedings
3. Insufficiency of inquiry
4. Discovery of new facts or evidence

As I read Subsection 13(1)(b) any one of these deficiencies is sufficient grounds on which to apply for an order from the High Court. Given persistent public concerns about how Dr. Kelly met his death I find it difficult to conceive how the High Court could conclude otherwise than such an inquest is in the interests of justice.

I will list some causes for concern under each of the four headings previously mentioned. In some situations it is not immediately clear whether a particular point of concern should most appropriately be considered under a single heading or multiple headings. To avoid unnecessary repetition I will attempt to list a cause for concern under the single heading that appears to me to be most relevant.

The following lists do not purport to be exhaustive. They simply represent causes for concern that I observed after only a few hours reading the Hutton Inquiry transcripts, the Report and other potentially relevant material, as they refer to matters relating to the cause of death of Dr. David Kelly.

Rejection of Evidence

Lord Hutton made it clear in his introductory statement that decisions about who to call to give evidence rested with him. It seems to me that a number of individuals who could potentially have given useful evidence regarding Dr. Kelly’s death were excluded from giving evidence. I can only assume that Lord Hutton rejected them as witnesses, hence my including them under the “Rejection of Evidence” heading. Lord Hutton’s approach to the evidence of these individuals might equally be classified under the “Insufficiency of Inquiry” heading.

1. A Detective Constable Shields was stated (by DC Graham Coe) to have been present when DC Coe first saw Dr. Kelly’s body. DC Shields was not asked to give evidence.

2. Dr. Eileen Hickey accompanied her colleague, the forensic biologist Mr Roy Green, and spent some 5 hours at the scene where Dr. Kelly’s body was found. Dr. Hickey was not asked to give evidence, nor so far as I can ascertain was her area(s) of expertise explored by Hutton.

3. Mr. Green testified that at least three Scenes of Crimes Officers were present at the scene. None was asked to give evidence about what they might have found or seen.

Irregularity of Proceedings

1. When evidence was taken from Mr Roy Green, forensic biologist, he stated in his testimony that his tests were ongoing. He was not asked to give further oral evidence and the results of his tests, so far as I am aware, are not known (at least I can find no public record of the results having been made available to the Hutton Inquiry or, alternatively, made publicly available by the Inquiry).

2. Supposedly, Assistant Chief Constable Page was to give evidence at his second appearance before Lord Hutton about the results of Mr. Green’s tests. He did not do so in any meaningful way and the absence of information about completed tests conducted by Mr. Green was ignored by both Assistant Chief Constable Page and by the Hutton Inquiry. In any case, it was in my view highly irregular that someone who is not a technical expert should be asked to give evidence on a technical subject about which he has negligible or no expertise. In addition, the technical detail of Mr. Green’s tests was not investigated in oral questioning which seems to me to be grossly irregular and insufficient.

Insufficiency of Inquiry

There are numerous individual points where, so it seems to me, Lord Hutton was negligent in terms of conducting a credible and diligent inquiry, equivalent to an inquest.

Each of the listed points which follow indicates, in my view, “insufficiency of inquiry” by Lord Hutton. Taken together they are more consistent with Lord Hutton jumping to a politically convenient conclusion of “suicide” rather than conducting a comprehensive and diligent inquiry as to how Dr. David Kelly died.

1. No evidence was taken on oath. This raises questions about the validity of some evidence and leaves open questions about discrepancies between the evidence given by different individuals. Evidence to the Hutton Inquiry is, in its entirety, of less evidential credibility than had it been taken on oath.

2. It appears that someone may have moved Dr. Kelly’s body between it being found by the volunteer searchers and it being seen (some hours later) by Dr. Hunt, the forensic pathologist. The body was stated by Paul Chapman to be sitting against a tree. The body was stated later to be lying flat on its back. If someone moved the body in the interim it needs to be established how that came about and an assessment made of its significance. The following is apparently a statement made subsequent to the Hutton Inquiry by one of the paramedics (who was at the scene some two hours before Dr. Hunt arrived at the scene) to the Daily Mail:

‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there. If the earlier witnesses are saying that, then the body has obviously been moved.’

3. Only one of the “three” plain-clothes individuals seen by the volunteer searchers was questioned by Hutton, DC Coe. So far as I can ascertain he wasn’t asked if the other officer(s) present had touched or moved the body. He stated that he hadn’t personally approached the body.

4. Each of the two searchers state that they met “three” individuals, presumably not in uniform, shortly after they found Dr. Kelly’s body. DC Coe said that only he and the mysterious DC Shields were present. Counting to two or three is not complex. Someone is either mistaken or someone is not telling the truth. Lord Hutton failed either to identify the discrepancy in evidence or to take steps to resolve the discrepancy by further questioning of witnesses.

5. The possibility exists that the mysterious “third man”, if he existed, moved the body. Lord Hutton, so far as I can ascertain, made no attempt to identify or question the “third man”. Given that Assistant Chief Constable Page indicated that Special Branch had been informed at an early stage about Dr. Kelly’s disappearance, the possibility exists that the “third man” was a Special Branch individual.

6. The Police created a “common approach path” several feet wide. So far as I can ascertain no witness was asked if the creation of the “common approach path” could have obliterated evidence of Dr. Kelly having been carried to the scene where his body was found. Since Assistant Chief Constable Page asserts that an inquiry of the highest quality was carried out, this seems a fundamental omission in the Police inquiry, paralleled by a subsequent insufficiency by Hutton.

7. It seems to be widely assumed that Dr. Kelly used his own knife to kill himself. In testimony it became clear that Mrs Kelly was never shown the knife found beside Dr. Kelly’s body. How then can any reliable identification of the knife have supposedly been made?

8. It seems to be widely assumed that Dr. Kelly used his wife’s co-proxamol tablets to kill himself. At no point was it established that any of his wife’s tablets were missing. The Hutton Inquiry did not ask her and she did not volunteer any information on the subject.

9. As a result of the irregularities previously mentioned with respect to Mr. Green’s evidence there is no assurance that “blood” mentioned in the evidence of others is indeed blood. Nor that it is human blood. Nor that it is Dr. Kelly’s blood. At best this is a “loose end”, not identified or clarified with sufficient diligence by the Hutton Inquiry.

10. Dr. Hunt speculated that the observation that Dr. Kelly’s watch was not on his wrist indicated that Dr. Kelly had removed the watch in order more effectively to cut his wrist. However, the evidence of DC Coe is that the watch was “on top of” the knife when he first saw the body. If the watch was “on top of” the knife, it wasn’t removed to allow better access to cut the wrist, at least not with the knife that was underneath the watch. So far as I can see, Lord Hutton failed to observe the discrepancy or to take steps to inquire into how it might definitively be resolved.

11. On page 4 of the Pathologist’s report (final paragraph) mention is made of “broken branches” close to Dr. Kelly’s body. Were those branches freshly broken (consistent with disturbance of the area by a third party)? So far as I can ascertain from the Hutton Inquiry documents this question was not explored. In my view, in order to adequately consider the possibility of a third party being involved, this question should have been thoroughly explored.

12. On page 5 of the Pathologist’s report (first new paragraph) Dr. Hunt states that there was a “pool of blood” extending for “2’ – 3’” i.e. for 2 to 3 feet! from the left arm of Dr. Kelly. The testimony of others is that the paramedics stood (and presumably knelt to apply the ECG electrodes) in this area (and laid what I assume to be a portable defibrillator on the ground) yet, if Dr. Hunt’s observations are correct, failed to observe a “pool of blood” some 2 to 3 feet long! I find it inexplicable that this discrepancy in the evidence was not explored in detail at the Hutton Inquiry. Having on many occasions applied ECG electrodes to the chest I cannot easily conceive of how the paramedics would have carried out the necessary actions of unbuttoning Dr. Kelly’s shirt etc and applying the electrodes without either seeing, kneeling in or standing in a “pool of blood” some 2 to 3 feet long.

13. In numbered paragraph 7 on page 13 of the Pathologist’s report Dr. Hunt uses the fact that Dr. Kelly’s spectacles were in his Barbour pocket to speculate that this was a supporting indicator that Dr. Kelly committed suicide. So far as I can ascertain Dr. Hunt did not inquire (or record) what sight defect(s) caused Dr. Kelly to possess spectacles. Nor did Lord Hutton, so far as I can ascertain. If Dr. Kelly’s spectacles were reading glasses and he wasn’t reading, is there any reason to assume that he would be wearing them? If Dr. Kelly had reading glasses and wasn’t reading (no reading material was recorded at the scene, so far as I can ascertain) it seems bizarre to use the finding as supposed evidence of suicide.

14. In numbered paragraph 8 on page 14 of the Pathologist’s report, Dr. Hunt asserts a “lack of obvious signs of trampling of the undergrowth” and speculates on that basis that this suggests self-harm. We know from testimony to Hutton that several people (the volunteer searchers, the paramedics, DC Coe and possibly others) had walked, stood or kneeled in or close to the area. But Dr. Hunt missed the signs of the recent presence of those individuals. I suggest that it can be assumed that Dr. Hunt would also have missed evidence of the hypothetical presence of a malevolently-minded third party (or parties) several hours earlier. Dr. Hunt’s assertion is, at best, of limited value and this should have been identified by Hutton, in my view and further targeted questioning have taken place.

15. The attribution in paragraph 11 on page 14 of clinical significance to anatomical coronary artery lesions is largely speculative. Lord Hutton should have explored with Dr. Hunt to what degree his assertion is speculative.

16. In numbered paragraph 13 on page 14 of the Pathologist’s report Dr. Hunt attributes cardiac toxicity to dextropropoxyphene (of which the concentration was measured) but did not consider the likely greater importance of the metabolite propoxyphene (whose concentration was not measured, I understand). The absence of information about the concentration of propoxyphene renders Dr. Hunt’s speculation significantly more uncertain than it purports to be.

17. The abrasions to the head mentioned in numbered paragraph 17 on page 15 of the Pathologist’s report might be consistent with the body having been moved by a third party. Dr. Hunt appears not to have considered that possible interpretation nor does Lord Hutton seem to have inquired about that possibility.
18. Dr. Hunt attributes death to blood loss. He, so far as I can ascertain, did not attempt to measure or estimate how much blood was lost. This renders his primary conclusion speculative, to a potentially significant degree. Lord Hutton failed to identify or explore the limitations of Dr. Hunt’s primary conclusion.

19. Professor Hawton repeated in his oral evidence, as if fact, the points about which I raise concern with respect to Dr. Kelly’s glasses, his watch and the evidence (or otherwise) of trampling at the scene. Essentially, in these matters Professor Hawton’s “evidence” amounts to little more than hearsay echoing Dr. Hunt’s evidence and amplifying the potentially erroneous observations and interpretation of Dr. Hunt. Lord Hutton failed to identify and inquire into such points of concern regarding Professor Hawton’s evidence.

20. There is a puzzling piece of toxicology evidence regarding the concentrations measured by Dr. Allen of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene. Assuming the likely formulation of co-proxamol the ratio of the two substances ingested is 10:1. In the serum concentrations measured the ratio was 97:1. Given the metabolism of the two substances I cannot immediately identify how such a ratio could have come about, given the underlying assumption that only co-proxamol was ingested. This may be no more than a pharmacokinetic curiosity but I do consider that the Hutton Inquiry should have explored whether the somewhat surprising ratio found in serum concentrations might have any significance.

New facts or evidence

1. One of the paramedics who attended the scene indicated to a national newspaper that that the body was moved. He was not informed about the position of the body as seen by the searchers so at the time of the Hutton Inquiry was in no position to indicate that it was different when he saw it.

2. On page 4 of the Pathologist’s report recently released by the Ministry of Justice, Dr. Hunt states that the “left hand” was over the right side of Dr. Kelly’s shirt. Elsewhere in his report he states the “left hand” was to the left of the body. The discrepancy may be no more than a simple error but should be resolved.

3. On page 4 of the Pathologist’s report (third and second last paragraphs) Dr. Hunt indicates that the knife was “adjacent” to the watch. He seems entirely unaware of the evidence of DC Coe (who saw Dr. Kelly’s body some 3 hours earlier) that the watch was “on top of” the knife when he first saw the body (before the scene was potentially disturbed by the paramedics and others). This point is potentially of crucial importance. If the watch was initially “on top of” the knife Dr. Hunt’s speculation that the removal of the watch was for the purpose of inflicting a deeper wound with the knife is seriously undermined.

4. The matters discussed in the preceding numbered paragraph raise doubts about Dr. Hunt’s findings at numbered paragraph 7 on page 13 of the Pathologist’s report. Specifically, he was (so far as I can ascertain) unaware that the watch was initially “on top of” the knife. His conjecture that the watch was removed to allow better access to the wrist is seriously undermined, in my view, if DC Coe’s evidence is correct.

In light of my having commented on several technical aspects of the Pathologist’s finding and speculations I have noted my qualifications beside my name below.

In my opinion the conclusion that Dr. David Kelly killed himself is unsafe on the basis of the currently incomplete and/or contradictory evidence presented to the Hutton Inquiry, as discussed earlier in this letter. It is my view that in the interests of justice it is necessary that an inquest be held taking evidence on oath from all those who may have relevant information.

Thank you.

Your sincerely

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


Dominic Grieve QC
Attorney General
Attorney General’s Office
20 Victoria Street

The Death of David Kelly - The Missing Forensic Biologist's Report

One of the overtly irregular aspects of how Lord Hutton inquired into the death of David Kelly is that the evidence of the forensic biologist, Mr. Roy Green, was taken when his tests were incomplete!

The transcript of Mr. Green's evidence, taken on the afternoon of Wednesday 3rd September 2003 includes the following statement (at Page 149 Line 1):

Well, my examinations are still ongoing.

Lord Hutton was told, in terms, that Mr. Green's tests were ongoing.

Did Lord Hutton later recall Mr. Green to give further evidence?

No, he did not.

Did Mr. Green produce a written statement to Lord Hutton?

On Page 149, Lines 7 and 8 he stated:

I have not put my evidence down in a statement form as yet

So far as I can trace, Mr. Green's statement is absent from the Hutton Inquiry documentation.

Did Lord Hutton put in the public domain the results of Mr. Green's examination of the scene (he spent almost 5 hours at the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found) and the subsequent approximately 50 laboratory tests he carried out?

So far as I can trace, he did not.

The result is that the public is kept in the dark about the results of Mr. Green's tests.

On these ground alone, Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly falls far short of a competent and diligent inquiry.

An inquest that does not conceal what might be crucial evidence is required, with all evidence taken on oath.

Friday, 22 October 2010

Is the verdict of the Hutton Inquiry unsafe? - Further concerns about the evidence on which Lord Hutton drew his conclusion of suicide

I have been continuing to read transcripts of some of the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry, focussing on those transcripts most likely to be relevant to the cause of Dr. Kelly's death.

The transcripts can be read here: Hutton Inquiry Web Site - Hearing Transcripts.

I have identified further material concerns about the supposed evidence that David Kelly committed suicide, as concluded by Lord Hutton.

1. Mrs Kelly was never shown the knife found beside Dr. Kelly's body.

2. The evidence from the forensic biologist, Roy Green, was taken at a time when he testified that his tests were incomplete. Further, although Mr Green made available a spreadsheet of his interim test results to the Hutton Inquiry these appear to be absent from the written evidence on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

3. No evidence was taken from Dr. Eileen Hickey who attended the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found with the forensic biologist Mr. Roy Green.

4. No evidence was taken from any of the Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs) that were present at the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found.

Mrs Kelly was never shown the knife

I was astonished to find out that Mrs. Kelly (Dr. Kelly's widow) had at no time been shown the knife found beside Dr. Kelly's body.

How then can anyone confidently conclude that the knife found beside Dr. Kelly's body was the knife supposedly in his possession since childhood?

Mrs Kelly gave her evidence on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003.

On Page 53 at Line 25, Mrs Kelly states "We were not shown the knife; we were shown a photocopy".

So, the basis for tbe widely circulated belief that Dr. Kelly committed suicide using his own knife is showing a photocopy to a witness!

At no time was Dr. Kelly's widow shown the knife that supposedly inflicted the fatal wound!

However, this is not the only concern about Mrs Kelly's evidence.

The widely circulated story is that Dr. Kelly killed himself using his wife's co-proxamol.

Mrs. Kelly was not asked the basic question of whether she knew how much co-proxamol she had in her store (for her arthritis) nor if any of her store of co-proxamol was missing.

If it is unknown whether or not any co-proxamol was missing how can it be a safe conclusion by Lord Hutton that Dr. Kelly took some of his wife's co-proxamol?

The evidence of the forensic biologist Roy Green was interim and incomplete

The oral evidence from the forensic biologist, Mr. Roy Green, was given on the afternoon of Wednesday 3rd September 2003.

On Page 148 at Line 19 states that "at a guess 50 items [were] sent to the laboratory".

On Page 149 at Line 1 Mr. Green states, "my examinations are still ongoing".

I can find no record that Mr. Green was asked to give further evidence after the tests were completed.

It appears that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page gave cursory evidence on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003 without giving (or being asked about) any points of detail

No written evidence is present for Assistant Chief Constable Page's evidence supposedly regarding Mr. Green's findings in the Evidence referred to on 23rd September.

To treat as conclusive evidence that is stated by the technical expert, Mr. Green, to be based on ongoing tests is a bizarre way for Lord Hutton to proceed.

The deficiencies of Lord Hutton's approach leave open such fundamental questions as to which "blood" was in fact blood? Was all the "blood" referred to human blood? Was all or any of the "blood" Dr. Kelly's blood?

Without such basic technical information how can suicide be distinguished from murder designed to simulate suicide?

No evidence was sought from Dr. Eileen Hickey

The oral evidence from the forensic biologist, Mr. Roy Green, was given on the afternoon of Wednesday 3rd September 2003.

On Page 140 at Lines 10 to 13, Mr. Green states that he was accompanied by his colleague Dr. Eileen Hickey.

In terms of qualifications, Dr. Hickey (having a doctorate) is the better qualified of the two colleagues. Why was it not she who was asked to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

It is possible that Dr. Hickey observed nothing other than the observations made by Mr. Green. But we cannot safely conclude that since neither we nor Lord Hutton know what Dr. Hickey may or may not have observed, nor what her area(s) of expertise may be.

Assuming that Dr. Hickey arrived and left with Mr. Green (which seems likely) it seems unlikely that she observed nothing during that period of five hours.

It seems bizarre that Lord Hutton again is made aware of a technical expert present at the scene but he chooses not to take evidence from that expert.

No evidence taken from Scenes of Crime Officers

A number of Scenes of Crime Officers were present at the location where Dr. Kelly's body was found.

Mr. Green named three SOCOs in his evidence: Senior SOCO John Sharpley, Principal SOCO Mark Scholar and Senior SOCO Katie Langford.

So far as I can ascertain none of those Scenes of Crime Officers was questioned by Lord Hutton.

It seems bizarre that Lord Hutton again is made aware of a number of technical experts present at the scene but he chooses not to take evidence from any of those experts.


At best, there are material concerns about the evidence given to Lord Hutton.

These concerns taken together with the conflicting evidence about the position of the body and the number of non-uniformed individuals assumed to be detectives, The Death of David Kelly - Who moved the body? Who was the missing policeman?, render Lord Hutton's conclusion of suicide unsafe.

I believe that the Attorney General has a duty to request an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - Who moved the body? Who was the missing policeman?

This post focusses on two seeming discrepancies in the evidence given to Lord Hutton which relate to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of David Kelly's body.

The first discrepancy is between the evidence given to Lord Hutton about the position of David Kelly's body by the searchers who found David Kelly's body and that given by those who saw the body later (the paramedics and the pathologist).

Additionally, I attempt briefly to explore a seeming discrepancy regarding the number of "policemen" who were at or close to the scene at which David Kelly's body was found shortly after the searchers found David Kelly's body.

I'll deal with the issues in more detail later in this post under the headings "Who moved the body?" and "Who was the missing policeman?"

Who moved the body?

The two people who, with the assistance of a search dog, found David Kelly's body were Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman.

They gave evidence to Lord Hutton on the morning of Tuesday 2nd September 2003.

On page 12 Line 18 Louise Holmes states, "I could see a body slumped against the bottom of a tree,".

On page 13 Line 2 and 3 Louise Holmes states, "He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree."

On Page 26 Line 25, in response to a question asking what he had seen Paul Chapman states, "The body of a gentleman sitting up against a tree."

The two searchers concur. David Kelly's body was lying or sitting against a tree.

Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett, paramedics, who saw the body later gave evidence on the afternoon of Tuesday 2nd September 2003.

On Page 71 Line 2 Vanessa Hunt describes what she saw, "There was a male on his back".

On Page 80 Lines 15 and 16 David Bartlett states, "They led us up to where the body was laid, feet facing us, laid on its back".

David Bartlett was not told at the Hutton Inquiry about the position of the body as described by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman but stated to the Daily Mail subsequently, Dr David Kelly's body 'had obviously been moved': Paramedic at death scene reveals concerns over Hutton Inquiry, "He was lying flat out in the clearing with his bottle of water, knife and watch in line right next to his left arm".

Dr. Hunt, the forensic pathologist gave his evidence on the morning of Tuesday 16th September 2003.

At Page 6 Lines 18 and 19 Dr. Hunt states (referring to a Scene of Crimes video), "It showed a deceased man lying on his back".

At Page 8 Line 23 Dr. Hunt states, "He was laying on his back near a tree."

When the searchers found David Kelly's body it was lying "against" a tree. When Vanessa Hunt and David Bartleet, paramedics, and the forensic pathologist see the body it was on its back "near" a tree.

Who moved the body?

Who was the missing policeman?

Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman gave their evidence on the morning of Tuesday 2nd September 2003.

On Page 15 Lines 9 and 10 Louise Holmes states, "We walked back towards the car. On the way to the car we met three police officers".

On Page 27 Lines 19 and 20 Paul Chapman states, "As we were going down the path we met three police officers coming the other way that were from CID.".

So each of the two searchers testified that they saw "three" supposed "police officers", presumably not in uniform.

Detective Constable Coe gave his evidence on the morning of Tuesday 16th September 2003.

At Page 1 Line 25 he was asked "Who were you with at this time?". Notice the "were" in the question implying that counsel expected an answer in the plural (in accordance with the evidence previously given by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman).

At Page 2 Row 1 DC Coe states, "Detective Constable Shields.".

DC Coe was asked to confirm that there were only two police officers. He did so.

Who was the "missing policeman"?


There are apparent discrepancies in the evidence given to Lord Hutton, as summarised with references above.

Lord Hutton either didn't observe the discrepancies or chose not to investigate further. Either eventuality raises potential questions aabout the validity of his conclusion.

If someone moved the body what else did that someone do?

If the evidence of DC Coe is correct that he and "Detective Constable Shields" were the first police officers on the scene. It is puzzling that DC Shields wasn't interviewed by Hutton. Failing to do so transparently risked missing relevant evidence.

Whose decision was it to keep "Detective Constable Shields" under wraps?

If the evidence of Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman is correct there were "three" police officers, who was the third? A member of the Security Service? Or someone else? Why did DC Coe deny that the "third man" existed?

Evidence to the Hutton Inquiry was not given on oath. So anyone lying to Hutton wasn't, as understand it, technically committing perjury.

At a minimum the discrepancies suggest that there are "loose ends" in the non-medical evidence given to Lord Hutton.

How are the discrepancies to be explained?

In my view these non-medical discrepancies alone require to be explained by more thorough formal investigation.

I believe that an inquest with evidence given under oath is required definitively to resolve these seeming discrepancies in the evidence given to Hutton.

Information sources about the death of Dr. David Kelly

Today the Ministry of Justice released information about the postmortem and toxicology examinations performed following the death of Dr. David Kelly in 2003.

The postmortem report is located here: Post mortem examination report.

The toxicology report is located here: Toxicology report.

The Hutton Inquiry investigated Dr. Kelly's death, among other matters.

A number of newspapers have attempted to interpret the documents released today, for example David Kelly files: live coverage is part of the coverage in the Guardian.

What is the correct interpretation of Dr. David Kelly's death?

Three possibilities occur to me:

1. Natural causes

2. Suicide

3. Murder by person or persons unknown

I hope to have time to provide a detailed analysis of which of those options best fits the available information at some future date and to examine the question of whether there is "new evidence" that would justify the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, seeking a proper inquest on Dr. Kelly. I do not say "seeking a new inquest" because, at the time of writing, no inquest has been held regarding Dr. Kelly's death.

Updates to the Westminster's Cheating Us blog

Today I've written a few new posts for my Westminster's Cheating Us! blog.

Given the fact that UK terrorism continues to take place in Afghanistan my time is meantime focussed more on issues relating to UK terrorism in Afghanistan than the former UK terrorism in Iraq.

The post, George Osborne's secret choice: Spending public money unlawfully on terrorism in Afghanistan or spending on hospitals and schools in the UK, is particularly topical.

If the British public knew that George Osborne proposes unlawfully to spend £20-25 billion in 2010-2015 on terrorism in Afghanistan, what would its view of him be?

Monday, 4 October 2010

Submissions on UK terrorism in Afghanistan to UK Parliament Select Committees

This blog and its associated blogs have been quiescent for some time.

Today I sent submissions to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Defence Select Committee of the UK Parliament regarding the UK's terrorism in Afghanistan.

See Submissions to UK Parliament Select Committees regarding the UK's terrorism in Afghanistan for further information.

The basis for my believing that the UK is (and has been since October 2001) carrying out terrorism in Afghanistan is the same as the basis for my view regarding British terrorism in Iraq - the definition of "terrorism" in UK Law contained in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.