Tuesday, 30 November 2010

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.

Sunday, 28 November 2010

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.


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.

Friday, 26 November 2010

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

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.

The death of David Kelly - Was David Kelly a blood donor?

I ask the question in the title of this post in light of the possibility that David Kelly was murdered.

If, hypothetically, David Kelly committed suicide and no second party was present at the assumed suicide scene at Harrowdown Hill then any blood at the scene has to come from the incisions on the left wrist (if one assumes that nobody interfered with the scene).

However, if one postulates murder the number of possible sources for blood observed at the scene becomes, at least theoretically, greater:

1. Some animal blood could be smeared and/or sprayed around. DNA and other testing could readily demonstrate that such blood didn't belong to David Kelly.

2. Some human blood (but not David Kelly's) could be smeared and/or sprayed around. Again DNA and, possibly, other testing could readily demonstrate that such blood didn't belong to David Kelly.

3. The blood was from the wrist wounds, as per the "suicide hypothesis". All would check out "correctly" on DNA and other testing.

4. The blood could have been David Kelly's but not necessarily from the wrist wounds. The only credible possibility that I can think of to explain that scenario would be if David Kelly were a blood donor.

Hence the question in the title of the post.

Was David Kelly a blood donor?

I'm not saying that the "murder hypothesis" depends on David Kelly having been a blood donor. I'm simply pointing out that if David Kelly were a blood donor then an additional possible source of blood at the scene may come into consideration.

Thursday, 25 November 2010

The death of David Kelly - Dr. Kelly "quite jovial" at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 15th July 2003

The tiny extracts shown on UK television of David Kelly at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 15th July 2003 portray it, essentially, as unremitting stress.

One of the details I noticed in the video Dr. Kelly's Last Interview was that David Kelly was smiling and/or joking at times, in the extracts shown in that video.

That observation accords with a comment by David Chidgey MP:

Mr Chidgey says he did not get the impression that Dr Kelly was under duress.

"I've looked very carefully of course, as I'm sure everybody involved in this process has, at the way that I spoke with Dr Kelly and I just hope that there was nothing that I said could have triggered any terribly adverse reaction," Mr Chidgey said.

"I certainly didn't get that impression when I recall that at certain stages he was quite jovial."

As far as I can trace not even one UK media outlet identified that aspect of events at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 15th July 2003.

Were facts being ignored by the UK media to fit an already determined narrative?

The death of David Kelly - Dr. Kelly's "Last Interview"

Thanks to Brian Spencer, Dr. David Kelly's Last Interview , I've spent an interesting time watching what is billed as "Dr. Kelly's Last Interview".

Only a small proportion of the video is actual video footage of David Kelly being interviewed. Nonetheless I found watching the video very interesting in terms of adding to my feel for the personality and mind of the man.

Like Brian, I noticed that for much of the interview David Kelly wasn't wearing glasses.

Those familiar with the report of Dr. Nicholas Hunt will recall that he interpreted Dr. Kelly not wearing his glasses when found dead as evidence of suicide.

As the video shows, sometimes Dr. Kelly wore his bifocal glasses and sometimes he didn't. It's as simple as that.

Monday, 22 November 2010

The death of David Kelly - The missing names in the postmortem report

One of many oddities in the documentation of the death of David Kelly is that several names are blanked out in the postmortem report published by the Ministry of Justice: Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports.

In this post I list the places where names are (or seem to be) missing and, where possible, I attempt to identify the individual whose name has been obliterated.

On Page 2 the name of the Police Constable who logged Dr. Hunt into the inner cordon is obliterated.

On Page 2 the name of the Scenes of Crime Officer who showed the video to Dr. Hunt is obliterated.

On Page 3 the name of a Detective Constable is obliterated. It seems plausible that the Detective Constable is from Special Branch. Why else would he/she need to be present at the scene where the body was found. Why didn't that Detective Constable give evidence to Hutton since, arguably, he may have been the only police officer to observe what Dr. Hunt did at the scene?

On the following line a name has been deleted. I assume it is the name of Eileen Hickey, forensic biologist.

On Page 5 the name of the Detective Constable who logged Dr. Hunt out of the inner cordon is obliterated.

The name of the SOCO to whom exhibits were handed is obliterated.

On Page 6 the names of two CID officers, two SOCOs and the Coroner's Officer who observed the postmortem examination are obliterated.

I find the routine need for secrecy revealing. The underlying assumption that the British public has no "right to know" is intriguing.

Sunday, 21 November 2010

The death of David Kelly - A transcription of the postmortem report

There is a transcription of the postmortem report on David Kelly here: David Kelly: pathologist's report to the coroner - text version.

I haven't done a detailed check on the accuracy of the transcription but the limited checking that I've done so far is reassuring.

The death of David Kelly - the November 2003 Pemberton case

I appreciate that I'm risking moving tangentially with this post but it seems to me that the operational competence of Thames Valley Police in 2003 is potentially highly relevant to the David Kelly case. Not least, since there is evidence that TVP's handling of the David Kelly case is questionable in many respects.

Felix drew my attention to this report about the double murder and suicide in the Pemberton family which occurred in November 2003: Top cop’s apology for ‘failing’ Pemberton family.

Does anyone know the basis for the "independent review" mentioned in the article?

Might there be a basis for requesting or insisting on an "independent review" of the Thames Valley Police handling of the David Kelly case?

Saturday, 20 November 2010

The death of David Kelly - Was ACC Page formerly in Special Branch?

The following quote makes me wonder if Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page was formerly in Special Branch.

The quote also confirms the presence of members (plural) of Thames Valley Police Special Branch at the Kelly house.

The quote is from Page 32 of Assistant Chief Constable Page's evidence given on the morning of Wednesday 3rd September 2003:

3 Q. That is the scene. We have also heard about Dr Kelly's
4 offices. What searches were carried out at the house?
5 A. The house was subject to a full search by search trained
6 officers and by members of Thames Valley Special Branch.
7 Their presence I felt necessary again because of
8 Dr Kelly's background. Should we come across any
9 documents of a secret nature, those officers are cleared
10 to handle those documents. That is why they were there.
11 Q. You are not cleared to handle those sort of documents?
12 A. Not at present, I have been in the past.

Friday, 19 November 2010

The death of David Kelly - Guidance for examinations at scenes of crimes

I was previously unaware of the guidance documents mentioned in the following written answer to a Parliamentary Question. Others may find the documents an interesting read, assuming they are publicly available.

The following is from the House of Commons Hansard for 5th June 2006:

Forensic Science

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last reviewed the code of practice for scene of crime officers. [49166]

Joan Ryan: The Home Office has not issued a code of practice for scene of crime officers and, as far as we are aware, there is no national code of practice as such. However, both the Forensic Science Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers have issued some good practice guidance for scenes of crime staff. This
5 Jun 2006 : Column 277W
includes: The Scenes of Crime Handbook, the National Operational Standards for Scenes of Crime and a draft National Crime Scene Investigation Manual.

The death of David Kelly - Special Branch were present at the search of the house

I don't expect this to be a surprise to anyone who has followed the Kelly investigation closely, but I thought it might be interesting to show that Special Branch were directly involved in the search of the Kelly home.

The following extract is from the evidence of PC Sawyer given on the afternoon of Tuesday 2nd September 2003:

13 MR KNOX: Mr Sawyer, you will recall that this morning you
14 said that amongst Dr Kelly's things that had been found
15 on the search of the premises was a photograph which
16 I think you said might have aroused some interest.
17 I wonder if you could tell us something about the
18 photograph that was found.
19 A. Certainly. It was found in the study of Dr Kelly at
20 11.45 by one of my searchers, PC Slyfield. It was
21 seized because, at the time, it showed Dr Kelly and
22 another person standing outside the Parliament building
23 in Moscow. It was after the coup in Moscow and the
24 Parliament building showed a certain amount of damage.
25 The photograph was in fact dated 11th of the 8th 1993.

1 PC Slyfield showed it to DC Burton who was the Special
2 Branch officer with him and they both agreed the second
3 person in the photograph bore a very striking
4 resemblance to Andrew Gilligan. The photograph was then
5 seized and produced as an exhibit. That is what I was
6 referring to in my statement.

We can conclude that at least one Special Branch officer, DC Burton, was present during the search of the Kelly home.

We know from other evidence that the Metropolitan Police Special Branch visited Dr. Kelly's office at the Ministry of Defence.

The death of David Kelly - What evidence exists about third party involvement?

As with so much related to the Hutton Inquiry, detailed examination of the evidence demonstrates worrying gaps relating to the supposed evidence about the presence or otherwise of a "third party" at the scene on Harrowdown Hill.

Professor Hawton gives evidence here:

22 Q. Yes.
23 A. When considering something like this, one obviously has
24 to think about whether there could have been some other
25 person or persons involved in the act, and the

1 circumstances suggest that was not the case.
2 Q. What, whether some third parties were involved in
3 Dr Kelly's death?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what circumstances do you consider show that there
6 were not?
7 A. Well, there were no signs of violence on his body other
8 than the obvious injury to his wrist that would be in
9 keeping with his having been involved in some sort of
10 struggle or a violent act. There was no sign
11 I understand of trampling down of vegetation and
12 undergrowth in the area around his body. So that makes
13 it highly unlikely that others could have been or were
14 involved.

Why was Professor Hawton asked to give evidence on the question of third party involvement? He had no first hand observations to contribute. His answers are, essentially, hearsay with respect to evidence given by others.

Dr. Nicholas Hunt was asked about third party involvement here:

25 Q. -- did you do anything to the body?

1 A. Yes. The procedure we adopted was to retrieve as much
2 what I would call trace evidence as possible, potential
3 trace evidence, any -- looking for fibres, looking for
4 DNA contamination by a third party. That sort of
5 evidence was obtained at that stage.

Ah! So there is evidence. But, just so we know that it is the Hutton Inquiry, we aren't told what the evidence is!

Later in Dr. Hunt's testimony we read this:

22 Q. You have already dealt with this, I think, but could you
23 confirm whether, as far as you could tell on the
24 examination, there was any sign of third party
25 involvement in Dr Kelly's death?

1 A. No, there was no pathological evidence to indicate the
2 involvement of a third party in Dr Kelly's death.
3 Rather, the features are quite typical, I would say, of
4 self inflicted injury if one ignores all the other
5 features of the case.

Interesting. But whay would any intelligent observer choose to "ignore all the other features of the case"?

And in the evidence of Dr. Allan, the forensic toxicologist, here, we read:

17 LORD HUTTON: Mr Allan, if a third party had wanted
18 paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene to be found in
19 Dr Kelly's blood is there any way that the third party
20 could have brought that about by either persuading or
21 forcing Dr Kelly to take tablets containing those two
22 substances?
23 A. It is possible, but I think it would be --
24 LORD HUTTON: That is the only way that those substances
25 could be found in the blood, by taking tablets

1 containing them?
2 A. Yes, he has to ingest those tablets.

Dr. Allan was trying to tell Lord Hutton that it was possible that David Kelly could have been forced to take tablets. But Lord Hutton overrode what Dr. Allan was about to say and led Dr. Allan into making what I consider to be a potentially untrue statement.

The death of David Kelly - Another irregularity relating to the knife

The closer you look into the Hutton Inquiry, the more bizarre it is.

Lord Hutton concludes that the knife found at the scene is one from Dr. Kelly's desk.

But the evidence for that conclusion is tenuous at best.

It seems from the first part of the following quote (which comes from Chapter 5 of the Hutton Report) that Janice Kelly was never, personally, shown even a photocopy of the knife.

Additionally, the identification of the knife (such as it is) is by hearsay in effect, with one of the supposed witnesses to identifying the knife, Ellen Kelly (or Wilson), having no witness statement on the Hutton Inquiry site that I can trace.

[1 September, page 53, line 22]

Q. We have heard about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death and the fact that a knife was used. Were you shown the knife at all?

A. We were not shown the knife; we were shown a photocopy of I presume the knife which we recognised as a knife he had had for many years and kept in his drawer.

Q. It was a knife he had had what, from childhood?

A. From childhood I believe. I think probably from the Boy Scouts.

And in a statement furnished to the Inquiry Police Constable Roberts stated:

The knife found in possession of Dr David Kelly is a knife the twins, Rachel and Ellen recognise (from pictures shown by Family Liaison Officers). It would not be unusual to be in his possession as a walker. They have seen it on their walks with him. He would have kept it in his study drawer with a collection of small pocket knives (he did like gadgets) and the space in the study drawer where a knife was clearly missing from the neat row of knives is where they believe it would [have] lived and been removed from.

In addition, so far as I can trace, there is no oral evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry that the knife was used to incise the wrist, nor that it was sharp enough to inflict the injuries that Dr. Nicholas Hunt describes.

And there is, as far as I can see, no forensic science assessment of whether the shape and other characteristics of the blade were such as to cause the observed wounds on Dr. Kelly's left wrist.

The chain of evidence is astonishingly weak.

Thursday, 18 November 2010

The death of David Kelly - 52% of Britons support an inquest

A majority of Britons support the holding of an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

An opinion poll published on 17th November 2010, Britons Want to Launch a Full Inquest into David Kelly’s Death, indicates that 52% of Britons favour an inquest, with 27% against and 21% undecided.

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

The death of Dr. David Kelly - Motion in the Scottish Parliament

Readers might be interested to be aware of the following motion S3M-6819 in the Scottish Parliament.

The following is the most recent text of the motion that I can locate. It seems to differ from the original motion in that Jamie Hepburn MSP has given his support to the motion.

S3M-6819 Christina McKelvie: Inquest into the Circumstances of the Death of Dr David Kelly—That the Parliament supports the call from a group of prominent medical experts and a cross party group of politicians for a full inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly; notes the calls come from a former coroner, Michael Powers, and Julian Bion a professor of intensive care medicine, and that there is political support from Labour leadership contender Diane Abbot MP, Conservative peer Michael Howard, two former Labour defence ministers and a number of Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs; further supports calls that the proposed inquest includes disclosure of all documents sealed for 70 years in respect of evidence to the Hutton inquiry, and further notes that recent evidence by the first police officer on the scene, together with new statements by doctors, raises serious questions which should be considered by the inquest.

Supported by: Bill Wilson, Robin Harper, Rob Gibson, Bill Kidd, Stuart McMillan, Aileen Campbell, Gil Paterson, Sandra White, Christopher Harvie, Jamie Hepburn

Currently it is available here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GC9qZxZBybkJ:www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/motionsandamendments/motions.htm+%22David+Kelly%22+%2B2010+site:scottish.parliament.uk&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

The motion was originally set down on 23rd August 2010, Business Bulletin No. 122/2010: Monday 23 August 2010.

Monday, 15 November 2010

The death of David Kelly - Were there fingerprints on the co-proxamol blister packs?

I've been asked a question to which I don't know the answer.

Were fingerprints found (or tested for) on the blister packs of co-proxamol said to have been found in the pocket of Dr. Kelly's coat?

I'm not aware of the question having been asked before. Nor answered.

Can anyone help on this point of detail?

The death of Dr. David Kelly - Is this Mr. Green's report?

When browsing the Hutton Inquiry web site again today I spotted the following undisclosed document.

Copy forensic submission - not for release - Police operational information TVP/7/0093 - 0096

That's located here: Thames Valley Police Evidence.

Is that document the undisclosed report of Mr. Roy Green, forensic biologist?

It seems likely that it may be.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - The BBC statements of 20th July 2003

On 20th July 2003 the BBC issued a statement about Dr. David Kelly: BBC statements: Full text.

For convenience I reproduce the full text of the BBC statement(s) below:

BBC statements: Full text
Director of BBC News Richard Sambrook made the following statement confirming that Dr David Kelly was the source for the BBC's controversial report over the Iraq weapons dossier.

The BBC deeply regrets the death of Dr David Kelly. We had the greatest respect for his achievements in Iraq and elsewhere over many years and wish once again to express our condolences to his family.

There has been much speculation about whether Dr Kelly was the source for the Today programme report by Andrew Gilligan on 29 May.

Having now informed Dr Kelly's family, we can confirm that Dr Kelly was the principal source for both Andrew Gilligan's report and for Susan Watts' reports on Newsnight on 2 and 4 June.

The BBC believes we accurately interpreted and reported the factual information obtained by us during interviews with Dr Kelly.

Over the past few weeks we have been at pains to protect Dr Kelly from being identified as the source of these reports.

We clearly owed him a duty of confidentiality. Following his death we now believe, in order to end the continuing speculation, it is important to release this information as swiftly as possible.

We did not release it until this morning, at the request of Dr Kelly's family.

The BBC will fully co-operate with the government's inquiry. We will make a full and frank submission to Lord Hutton and will provide full details of all the contacts between Dr Kelly and the two BBC journalists including contemporaneous notes and other materials made by both journalists, independently.

We continue to believe we were right to place Dr Kelly's views in the public domain.

However, the BBC is profoundly sorry that his involvement as our source has had such a tragic end.

A further statement was later issued on behalf of BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan.

I want to make it clear that I did not misquote or misrepresent Dr David Kelly.

Entirely separately from my meeting with him, Dr Kelly expressed very similar concerns about Downing Street interpretation of intelligence in the dossier and the unreliability of the 45-minute point to Newsnight.

These reports have never been questioned by Downing Street.

Although Dr Kelly had close connections with the intelligence community none of our reports ever described him as a member of the intelligence services, but as a senior official closely involved in the preparation of the dossier.

Those who have spent considerable time delving into the Hutton Inquiry transcripts might wish to contemplate their view of the BBC statements.

Particularly relevant, so it seems to me, is consideration of what the BBC statement(s) make clear and which aspect(s) they obfuscate.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - The Daily Mail article of 13th November 2010

Some readers of this blog will likely be aware of the publication of a short article in the Daily Mail on 13th November 2010: Drug expert claims David Kelly was murdered as he could not have taken overdose.

It might be helpful if I fill in a little of the factual background.

On the morning of 28th October 2010 I telephoned Thames Valley Police to ask them to reopen the David Kelly case since I believed that the available evidence including the toxicology data suggested that David Kelly may have been murdered.

The Unique Reference Number allocated was URN514 of 28/10/10.

I subsequently received an acknowledgement sent on behalf of Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball.

The acknowledgement was sent on 1st November 2010.

I have heard nothing further from Thames Valley Police in the intervening two weeks.

Their silence is consistent with the statement in the Daily Mail article:

Police confirmed they had received Dr Watt’s allegation that the scientist was murdered.

‘This will be considered by senior officers at the next meeting we have on David Kelly. We have not yet decided what to do about Dr Watt’s information,’ said a spokesman.

One of the more perceptive comments on the Daily Mail web site came from someone indentifying herself as Ethel from London:

"We have not yet decided what to do about Dr Watt's information,' said a spokesman...."

Well I'll tell you what to do: Investigate!

The death of Dr. David Kelly - The lying witnesses

Anyone who comes fresh to examine the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry struggles to get some firm grasp on the evidence.

One reason is that there is such a huge quantity of information.

Another reason for that difficulty, I suggest, is that a number of witnesses lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

In the following list I propose to begin a process to consider witnesses regarding whom there may be prima facie evidence to suggest that the veracity of their evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry should be questioned.

Meantime I'll list only one person's evidence which I believe to be suspect.

I'm aware, I believe, of four more witnesses whose veracity is, at best, open to question.

1. DC Coe - He stated that he was accompanied only by DC Shields. The evidence of Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman is that DC Coe was accompanied by two others.

When adding comments, please use a Person - Reason to question evidence format before any more general comment.

Some discrepancies may be explicable on the basis of a simple mistake. Other "mistakes" may have a more sinister interpretation.

As a first step I think it would be useful to identify "discrepancies" perhaps as a prelude to attempting to identify discrepancies which can reasonably be considered to be lies.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - The unasked questions

In this post I wish briefly to list some questions that, in my view, ought to have been asked of witnesses who gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry, but which, so far as I can trace, were not asked.

Please feel free to add, in comments on this post, other significant questions that you consider ought to have been asked by Hutton but weren't.

I think it could be useful in time to bring together a single list of questions that should have been asked.

1. Dr. Nicholas Hunt - Did you consider the possibility of a murder made to look like suicide? If not, why not?

2. Mr. Roy Green - What was your view of the distribution of "arterial rain" at the scene at Harrowdown Hill where the body was found? What is your explanation for the seeming absence of "arterial rain" on the clothing of Dr. David Kelly?

3. Assistant Chief Constable Page - What was the identity of the three men seen in the vicinity of Harrowdown Hill whose identity you indicated you believed you knew?

4. Assistant Chief Constable Page - What was the purpose of erecting a 110 feet high communications mast at the home of Dr. David Kelly some four hours or so after he was reported missing?

5. Dr. Alexander Allan - Where was the blood sample taken from in which you measured the concentration of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene? Why did you fail to measure dextropropoxyphene in the stomach?

When commenting, please try to add a question in the Person - Question format then add any explanatory comment after that.

In time I'll try to pull all the unasked or unanswered questions into a single list.

I haven't seen anything that attempted to be a "complete" list of unasked questions. It strikes me that it could be very illuminating to see in one place just how many questions weren't even asked by Hutton!

The death of Dr. David Kelly - The missing witnesses

I thought it might be useful, as a way to document the huge gaps in the evidence given to Brian Hutton, briefly to list potential witnesses who weren't called (for whatever reason) to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

After the name of each witness I give an illustrative area of interest that might legitimately, or necessarily, have been inquired into by Hutton.

I haven't attempted to make the list exhaustive so, if another name occurs to you, please feel free to add that name (or names) in a comment on this post.

1. Sergeant Morris - to explain why a Police helicopter was used in a missing person inquiry as quickly as it was.

2. Detective Constable Shields - to give evidence regarding the scene where the body was found and to resolve the discrepancy between the evidence of DC Coe and that of the volunteer searchers.

3. Dr. Eileen Hickey - to give evidence regarding her findings re those aspects of the forensic biology in her area of expertise (DNA, I understand).

4. DCI Alan Young - to explain the nature of Operation Mason and to account for his actions in directing the inquiry into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

5. "Harry Lime" - The so-far unidentified "third man" who accompanied DC Coe and DC Shields - to identify himself and to give evidence regarding the actions of DC Coe and DC Shields.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm hoping we can build up a list of those who gave no evidence to Hutton.

The matter of those who gave incomplete, inconsistent or inaccurate evidence to Hutton I see as belonging to a separate category.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - The competence or otherwise of Dr. Nicholas Hunt

Readers of this blog may be unaware that unrelated concerns have been raised about the competence or otherwise of Dr. Nicholas Hunt: New questions over Dr Kelly's post-mortem after pathologist 'mixed up' two servicemen's remains.

Presently, I know no more than is in the Daily Mail report.

In the context of the death of David Kelly I find it interesting that the weight was wrong in the Sheffield case. One reason that that is potentially important in the David Kelly case is that the estimate of time of death depends on the weight.

I notice, too, that in the Sheffield case Dr. Hunt is said to have issued multiple reports before the information was "correct".

Does anyone know if the assertion in the article that Dr. Hunt is responsible for carrying out the postmortems on servicemen from Iraq and Afghanistan is factually accurate or not? It seems to me to be inherently unlikely but it would be interesting to know if Dr. Hunt has had "exclusive" responsibility for that and for what period(s) of time.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - "Put up or shut up!"

An article by Martin Robbins, the supposed "lay scientist", in the Guardian in August 2010 challenged those who question the public narrative about the death of David Kelly in the following terms: "David Kelly conspiracy theorists should put up or shut up".

I'm for putting up.

I've challenged Martin Robbins and his seeming source Dr. Andrew Davison of Cardiff University to do likewise.

First my email to Martin Robbins:

The title:

The murder of Dr. David Kelly

Now the text:

Hi Martin,

I've recently stumbled across your Guardian piece from August 2010 ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/24/david-kelly-conspiracy-suicide-inquest ).

I notice that none of your forensic pathologists have gone on the record stating that David Kelly committed suicide. Their comments, quoted by you and others, are merely banal generalities.

You reference Andrew Davison here:

The letter writers claim with great certainty that slashing the ulnar artery couldn't cause death, but yet again genuine experts like Davison point out that they have worked on cases where precisely this sort of thing happens.

Did Dr. Davison make the claim you indicate? If so please substantiate your comment.

Please list the cases where "precisely" slashing the ulnar artery caused death.

You might want to be aware that I've written to a number of the forensic pathologists to challenge their publicly quoted comments.


There are genuine unanswered questions about the "public narrative" surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly.

As a "lay scientist" I wonder whether you are open to seriously examining those questions or whether you are more energetically applying your mind to avoiding them.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Now the email to Dr. Andrew Davison:

First the title:

The death of Dr. David Kelly - evidence of other cases of ulnar artery deaths?

Now the text:

Dr. Davison,

You are a recipient of my email to Professor Pounder and others dated 10th November 2010 ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-of-dr-david-kelly-open-letter-to.html ).

As expressed in that email it occurs to me that you, and others, may (wittingly or unwittingly) be parties to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In the earlier email I drew to your attention the potentially serious implications for the credibility of forensic pathology and, consequently, of the perceptions of the integrity and credibility of the criminal justice system of such an approach.

In an article in the Guardian in August 2010, you are referenced as follows:

The letter writers claim with great certainty that slashing the ulnar artery couldn't cause death, but yet again genuine experts like Davison point out that they have worked on cases where precisely this sort of thing happens.

I would be grateful if you would list the cases which "precisely" show that "this sort of thing happens" i.e. that "slashing" the ulnar artery causes death.

Additionally, I invite you to provide sufficient detail for each case to allow some form of meaningful assessment of the assertion referenced by Martin Robbins.

Of course, if Martin Robbins has, wittingly or unwittingly, misrepresented what you said to him I'd be grateful for such a clarification.

In his article in the Guardian Martin Robbins invited critics of the suicide verdict to "put up or shut up". As you will have observed I'm "putting up". Are you comparably willing publicly to support your seeming statement to Martin Robbins?

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Thursday, 11 November 2010

The death of David Kelly - Images of The Knife?

I was wondering if there are any images of The Knife (the one supposed to have been used to incise the left wrist) in the public domain.

I seem to recall seeing an image of "a knife like the one" found at Harrowdown Hill.

But don't recall seeing an image of The Knife.

We know that Janice Kelly wasn't shown the knife, so maybe nobody has seen The Knife other than, presumably, Thames Valley Police.

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Multiple versions exist of the postmortem report

One of the loose ends yet to be tied up is how many versions of the postmortem report(s) prepared by Dr. Nicholas Hunt exist and what may be the significance of any changes made between the versions.

In his opening statement for the Hutton Inquiry on 1st August 2003, on Page 14, Lord Hutton said the following:

11 37. A post-mortem examination was carried out by
12 Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited forensic
13 pathologist and his post-mortem report dated 19th July
14 has been sent to me by the coroner. A toxicology report
15 has also been sent to me by the coroner.

However, the version released by the Ministry of Justice, Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports, is dated 25th July 2003.

What changes were made between the versions?

We're not told.

I believe that the Ministry of Justice needs to publish all available versions of the postmortem report in order to allow independent verification of what changes were made and their possible significance.

The death of Dr. David Kelly - An open letter to Professor Derrick Pounder and other forensic pathologists

In a recent article in the Guardian, The experts are clear on how David Kelly died, several forensic pathologists are quoted by Vikram Dodd as casting doubt over concerns relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I have today written to the UK-based forensic pathologists that Vikram Dodd quotes, drawing to their attention the potential serious implications of what they are doing.

The text of my email to Professor Derrick Pounder and other forensic colleagues is below.

It will be interesting to see if they venture serious answers to the questions posed to them.

The email was entitled,
The Death of David Kelly - Possible conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

Here is the text:

Professor Pounder (and other visible recipients),

My working hypothesis is that Dr. David Kelly was murdered.

I write to draw to your attention my serious concerns that the public comments attributed to yourself (and other forensic pathologists) may, wittingly or unwittingly, be tending to conceal (or participate in) a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The concerns I express are my own. I imagine that you'll be aware from the press that I am not alone in expressing concerns about the death of Dr. David Kelly.

If, at a later date, it can be demonstrated that a signficant number of forensic pathologists have contributed to concealing the existence of a sloppy and ill-thought out investigation into the murder of Dr. David Kelly, it seems to me that recent activity raises fundamental questions about the integrity of forensic science in the United Kingdom.

In other words, if senior forensic pathologists and other forensic scientists are willing, wittingly or unwittingly, to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly are they similarly willing to pervert the course of justice in the evidence they give in court? Are all convictions based on the evidence of the participating forensic pathologists "safe"? I am sure that you realise at least of some of the implications of such a perception growing in the public or legal mind.

The choice, and it is unlikely to be a palatable one to you, is between you raising serious questions about the integrity of the forensic investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly or, at a later date, risking far more global serious questions arising about the integrity of forensic investigation in the United kingdom.

I urge you, collectively, to think very carefully before jeopardising the public perception of the integrity of an entire profession. A profession on whose integrity the very credibility of the criminal justice system often depends.

If your primary concern is for the truth regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly to be established then I think your course of action is clear. You should write to the Attorney General asking him to open an inquest into Dr. Kelly's death. The currently unaswered questions are too fundamental to allow any other course of action to be pursued with integrity, in my view.

The single most important failing in Dr. Hunt's approach, in my opinion, is that he failed (properly or at all) to consider the possibility of the death of Dr. David Kelly as being murder being dressed up as suicide. Whether that failure was as a result of incompetence or premeditation on his part or some other factor is currently not certain. It had hugely detrimental effects on the quality of the postmortem report and the validity of Dr. Hunt's conclusions.

It seems to me that the appalling deficiencies of Dr. Hunt's investigation of Dr. Kelly's death contributed in a material way to the Hutton Inquiry arriving at an erroneous conclusion.

On the morning of 18th July 2003, the death of Dr. David Kelly was a "suspicious death".

A competent, intelligent and diligent forensic pathologist should, in all the circumstances, have appreciated that if murder was possible, then murder dressed up as suicide was a possible scenario in the circumstances surrounding Dr. Kelly.

He should have shown that he had asked such a question at the beginning and it should have stayed in his thinking throughout his investigation until he could safely exclude such a possibility..In particular, he should have couched his conclusions in suitable terms to express areas where his findings were consistent both with suicide or murder dressed up as suicide. If he considered that he could exclude one of those possibilities he should have expressed his logic in arriving at such a conclusion in meticulous detail.

In my opinion, Dr. Hunt failed abjectly to consider the possibility of murder dressed up as suicide.

On that criterion alone his postmortem report (recently made publicly available) and his oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry are, essentially, worthless. At least with respect to distinguishing between the two competing hyphotheses that I mentioned earlier.

You may also wish to consider the following specific questions which, I think, Dr. Hunt ought to have investigated more fully or have described in more detail. The list is illustrative of unanswered questions, rather than attempting to be exhaustive.

1. Could Dr. Kelly have had the strength in his right hand to make the incisions in the left wrist? Dr. Hunt observed the old operation scar near the right elbow of the body but made no assessment of its potential functional significance. This seems to me to be gross negligence on Dr. Hunt's part. It is possible that Dr. Hunt was unaware at the time of the evidence of Mai Pederson on this matter. However, at a minimum, the scar at the right elbow (and written medical reports on the Hutton Inquiry web site) should have raised this fundamental question in Dr. Hunt's mind. He should have documented his consideration of the question in his postmortem report.

2. Was the knife found at the site sharp or blunt? I can trace no evidence that either Dr. Hunt or any forensic colleague made any assessment of this basic question. If the knife was blunt then it, in all likelihood, wasn't the weapon which incised Dr. Kelly's left wrist. If the weapon which inflicted the injuries at the left wrist wasn't with the body, then the suicide hypothesis is wholly discredited, in my view. What can be the explanation of Dr. Hunt's seeming failure to ask this question. Lack of competence or lack of integrity? And, of course, Dr. Hunt presents not a shred of evidence that the knife found at the site was, in fact, used. So much for any credible chain of evidence!

3. Dr. Hunt was aware that the only supply of water available to Dr. Kelly was a 500ml bottle of Evian water (which wasn't empty). Dr. Hunt failed to consider if it was realistic to postulate that David Kelly swallowed some 29 co-proxamol tablets using of the order of 350ml of water. Had he asked the question, he might well have found an answer which, equally, was difficult to swallow! If Dr. Kelly couldn't have swellowed the postulated 29 co-proxamol tablets with the water available, then other possible scenarios for introduction of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene into Dr. Kelly's body should have been considered. Dr. Hunt again failed to address sufficiency of critical thought to what he observed .

4. The water remaining in the bottle also raises doubts about the haemorrhage hypothesis. To die of haemorrhage Dr. Kelly would, in all likelihood, have had haemorrhagic shock for a considerable period (given the likely slow rate of blood loss from a severed ulnar artery). He would become increasingly thirsty. Dr. Hunt fails to ask if it is credible that someone experiencing the thirst of haemorrhagic shock would casually ignore the available water in the bottle of Evian water. When a question is not asked, it cannot have been answered.

5. Dr. Hunt asks us to believe that Dr. Kelly died from haemorrhage from an ulnar artery. He neither comments on the absence of arterial rain on the clothing, nor considers the questions that the absence of arterial rain raises for the suicide hypothesis. Again, I can find no legitimate explanation for Dr. Hunt's failures in this regard.

6. Dr. Hunt speculates that Dr. Kelly having his bifocals in his pockets is evidence of self-harm. That is entirely speculative. A major practical problem with bifocals is that the arc of transition between what are effectively two corrective lenses is a significant nuisance at distances other than when reading or, say, driving. Dr. Kelly was walking along a woodland path. Much of what he would have been looking at would have been at mid distance where bifocals could have been more a hindrance than a help. It is entirely unsurprising that in a woodland or rural walk he was not wearing his bifocals.

7. Dr. Hunt fails to consider forensic pathology evidence in its wider context. The lines of vomit from the corners of Dr. Kelly's mouth to the mastoid area occurred while Dr. Kelly was on his back. Dr. Hunt either didn't know (or chose not to know) that Dr. Kelly was slumped or sitting against a tree when first found. One has to postulate a "Lazarus hypothesis" or a "suspension of the laws of gravity" for Dr. Kelly to get from an agonal supine position (when the vomit occurred) to the body position found by Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman. Dr. Hunt, yet again, fails to think as I would expect a competent and diligent forensic pathologist to do in all the prevailing circumstances.

8. The primary cause of death is given as haemorrhage. Dr. Hunt made no attempt to quantify the amount of blood loss, nor to document the uncertainties that resulted from the absence of any worthwhile measurement of how much blood was lost. The inevitable result of Dr. Hunt's failure is to render his conclusions little more than speculative.

These questions are illustrative of how the credibility of the "suicide hypothesis" falls apart under more than cursory scrutiny.

They suffice for the present purpose.

I suggest that it would be much more in keeping with the scientific process if forensic pathologists and other forensic scientists who make public comment regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly would address each of the questions in the preceding list.

It is easy for commentators to the media to score cheap points.

A credible response from the forensic science professions demands more serious scientific consideration than has been evident hitherto.

We know, for example, that there were incisions in the left wrist. Crucially what we don't know is who put them there, where and when.

If the forensic pathologist commentators believe they can authoritatively resolve questions such as the preceding then, as a first step, they need to address the specific questions posed in this email. Evasion is no substitute for critical thinking.

As you are probably aware there is ongoing consideration by Dominic Grieve QC, the Attorney General as to whether an inquest is needed into the death of Dr. David Kelly. Accordingly, I am copying this email to Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office for information.

It is my hope that you and fellow recipients will, going forward, act in this matter as forensic scientists of integrity and write to the Attorney General acknowledging that there are legitimate scientific questions to be answered.

I have earlier made public my concerns expressed to the Attorney General (see, for example, http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-letter-to-attorney-general.html ). I invite you, Professor Pounder, and colleagues to send a formal submission to Dominic Grieve and to make your submission available for public scrutiny,assessment and comment.

Without the opportunity for scrutiny by peers and the public the concerns regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly simply won't go away.

It is neither sufficient nor honourable for forensic pathologists to bury their head in the sand and pretend there aren't serious problems.

Professor Pounder, I am willing to meet with you to discuss this matter in detail. If my concerns are ill founded I will publicly acknowledge them to be so. Can you demonstrate comparable seriousness in establishing whether or not the death of Dr. David Kelly was murder?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

P.S. For the avoidance of doubt, this email is an "open letter". I intend to post a copy of it (with list of visible recipients) on my blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/

Intended addressees:
Professor Derrick Pounder, University of Dundee
Professor Peter Vanezis, London
Dr. Andrew Davison, Cardiff
Professor Guy Rutty, Leicester
cc Vikram Dodd (who quoted each of the above recently in the Guardian)
bcc Various - to keep recipients "honest"

Tuesday, 9 November 2010

The Death of David Kelly - The nettles and arterial rain

One of the strange aspects of the scene at Harrowdown Hill is that arterial rain was observed only on nettles at the scene.

I'm going to quote the only two pieces of evidence that I can find given in oral testimony about the nettles first, then comment and pose questions towards the end of the post.

The first witness (in timeline order at the scene) was paramedic Vanessa Hunt. She was at the scene around 10.00 on 18th July 2003.

The second witness (in timeline order at the scene) was forensic biologist Roy Green. He arrived at the scene around four hours later, a little after 14.00 on 18th July 2003.

Here is what Vanessa Hunt said, see the transcript of her evidence given on the afternoon of Tuesday 2nd September 2003 at Pages 76 and 77:

18 Q. One of the police officers or someone this morning said
19 there appeared to be some blood on the ground. Did you
20 see that?
21 A. I could see some on -- there were some stinging nettles
22 to the left of the body. As to on the ground, I do not
23 remember seeing a sort of huge puddle or anything like
24 that. There was dried blood on the left wrist. His
25 jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from

1 that area down towards the hand there was dried blood,
2 but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just
3 dried blood.

Here is what Roy Green said, see the transcript of his evidence given on the afternoon of Wednesday 3rd September 2003 at Page

15 Q. Right. I think we have heard from an extract that
16 Mr Page has read out to us that the ulnar artery was
17 severed. Did you understand that to be the case at the
18 time?
19 A. Obviously injuries are a pathologist's domain. However,
20 the blood distribution was what I would expect to see if
21 an artery had been severed. There was bloodstaining
22 typical of that sort of injury.
23 Q. What do you expect to see in such circumstances?
24 A. Well, when veins are severed the blood comes out under a
25 low pressure, but when arteries are severed it comes out

1 on a much higher pressure and you get spurting of blood,
2 you get a phenomenon known as arterial rain, where you
3 have a great deal of smallish stains all of about the
4 same size over the area.
5 Q. Did you find that arterial rain?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. On what?
8 A. On the nettles -- there were nettles alongside the body
9 of Dr Kelly.
10 Q. And did you look for the distribution of blood?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. We have heard from some ambulance personnel, and they
13 said they were not specifically looking, for obvious
14 reasons, at the distribution of blood but they noted,
15 just on their brief glance, not very much blood. What
16 were your detailed findings?
17 A. Well, there was a fair bit of blood.

My first question is, Does anyone know how far the nettles were from where the body was found?

Isn't it bizarre that the counsel for the inquiry asks Roy Green if he looked for the distribution of the blood and yet fails to ask the obvious follow on question as to what he observed and whether it was or was not consistent with self-injury and/or injury at the site?

And, with Roy Green being a forensic biologist, he isn't asked about David Kelly's clothes and whether there is arterial rain there.

There are just so many gaps in the evidence.

Monday, 8 November 2010

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - The absent CCTV evidence!

I have checked the Hutton Inquiry web site and can find not a single mention of closed-circuit television or other similar devices having been present at the home of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.

This strikes me as a startling omission.

Consider the position.

David Kelly, as I understand it, had several computers (assumed to store highly sensitive information) and voluminous paperwork (of similar nature) in his study/office at home.

David Kelly spent much of his time away from home.

Is it likely that an assortment of intelligence services or other such organisations would be happy for their information to be vulnerable to theft by a casual burglar?

I would suggest, firmly, that such an scenario is wholly unbelievable.

The question then becomes what security measures would such agencies insist on at David Kelly's home.

It seems to me that, at a minimum, CCTV would have been installed.

If CCTV was installed, why was there not a single mention at the Hutton Inquiry of the presence of CCTV or what it showed?

It could have, for example, shown exactly what time he left his home on the afternoon of 17th July 2003. And whether he was alone or accompanied. And whether he seemed to have left of his own free will or under duress.

And it would be very odd for Lord Hutton not to inquire about that.

Surely in his time as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland he had CCTV at home?

And, yet, he seems not to have even considered the possibility that CCTV evidence might be available.

The "see no evil" approach?

If CCTV was present at David Kelly's home, why would ACC Page and other Thames Valley Police officers fail to mention it at the Hutton Inquiry?

CCTV is such an obvious facility to expect at Dr. Kelly's house. So far as I can gather, nobody has asked about it up to now.

You have to wonder why not.

The Death of David Kelly - Possible important misinterpretation of the Witness Statement of DC Eldridge

One of the late requests from Lord Hutton for clarification of evidence relates to the supposed batch numbers of co-proxamol taken from the Kelly home and from Dr. Kelly's Barbour jacket.

It seems, at a minimum, possible that DC Eldridge misinterpreted what he matched.

The Witness statement is here:

I am Detective Constable 196 Colin Roy ELDRIDGE I am a principal exhibits officer employed by Thames Valley Police. I am at present attached to the Major Crime Unit based at Aylesbury Police Station.

At 1000hrs on Thursday 7th AUGUST 2003 I was on duty at Long Hanborough Incident Room when I removed from secure storage the following items for examination:-

Janice KELLY

2. Exhibit NCH/17/2 CO-PROXAMOL BLISTER PACKETS FRONT BOTTOM BELLOWS POCKET these had been removed from Dr KELLY’S coat pocket by the Pathologist

On examining both items I saw that they were identical. They were marked M & A Pharmacy Ltd and had the wording CO-PROXAMOL PL/4077/0174 written on the foil side of each of the blister type packs.

I can say that enquiries have been made with M & A PHARMACHEM who are the manufacturers of CO-PROXAMOL. The batch number shown on the tablets in our possession was checked with a view to tracing the chemist that these tablets had been purchased from. I can say that this batch number relates to approximately 1.6 million packets of tablets that will have been distributed to various chemists throughout the country.

DC Eldridge implies that he has checked the batch numbers from the two exhibits.

His description of what he did raises the potentially troubling possibility that he did no such thing.

The possibility exists that he did not match batch numbers but merely matched Product Licence Numbers.

The number "PL/4077/0174" is not a batch number; it's a Product Licence Number.

If the match was on "PL/4077/0174" then DC Eldridge has misunderstood what he has matched.

The Product Licence number is a number assigned by medicines regulators. Each product has a unique number.

The number "PL/4077/0174" would, I expect, simply mean M&A Pharmaceuticals' formulation of co-proxamol.

Whether and to what degree this seeming misinterpretation may be important depends on how much co-proxamol M&A Pharmaceuticals manufactures.

If the numbers matched by DC Eldridge were "PL/4077/0174" the possibility exists that the pills from Mrs. Kelly and from Dr. Kelly are from different batches.

The Death of David Kelly - PQ about the helicopter

Doubts have been raised in comments on earlier posts about the evidence given to Hutton about the helicopter used in the search for Dr. David Kelly.

I reproduce below a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question in 2006 by Norman Baker MP. The original is here:

Helicopter Searches

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions a helicopter from RAF Benson was used to assist a police search for a missing person in each of the last five years; [74199]

(2) if he will identify the helicopter from RAF Benson used to search for Dr. David Kelly on 18 July 2003; whether the helicopter in question was equipped with (a) an infra-red camera and (b) heat-seeking equipment; how long the helicopter was in the air; what areas it covered in its search; and if he will make a statement; [74200]

(3) how many (a) military, (b) civilian and (c) other personnel from (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the United States and (iii) other nations were based at RAF Benson on 17 July 2003. [74201]

Mr. Ingram: No RAF helicopters from RAF Benson have been used to assist police searches for missing persons in the last five years.

No RAF helicopters from RAF Benson were used in the search for Dr. David Kelly on 18 July 2003. However, I understand that a Chiltern Air Support Unit police helicopter which is based at RAF Benson was on standby but not used. I am informed that a police helicopter from the Chiltern Air Support Unit based at Luton was used in the search.

Details of the personnel based at RAF Benson on the 17 July 2003 were as follows:
Number of personnel

RAF personnel


Army personnel


Navy personnel


MOD civilian personnel


Non-MOD (contractors)



2 (exchange aircrew from Canada and the United States)

Notice that the answer cleverly sidesteps the questions about what times the helicopter was in the air, what area(s) it searched and whether or not it carried heat-seeking equipment.

Answers to Parliamentary Questions are, all too frequently, slippery!

And, it seems, ACC Page was not telling the truth when he stated that it came from RAF Benson, in his oral testimony to Hutton on the morning of Wednesday 3rd September 2003 on Page 20:

1 Q. So who had been responsible for calling out the police
2 helicopter?
3 A. Sergeant Morris.
4 Q. Where is that helicopter based? We have heard it came
5 from RAF Benson, is that right?
6 A. That is correct, that is where it is based.
7 Q. How many police officers were involved in the search?
8 A. At that particular time half a dozen.
9 LORD HUTTON: Just so that it is clear, I think what you
10 said, Mr Page, this was a police helicopter?
11 A. It was a police helicopter, my Lord, yes.

ACC Page echoes an error in Janice Kelly's testimony on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003, see Page 52:

13 A. Yes, it is referred up and the search begins. The
14 Thames Valley helicopter had gone off duty by that time
15 so they had to wait for the Benson helicopter to come
16 across.
17 Q. That is RAF Benson, is it?

Yet, further evidence that the testimony given to Hutton was unreliable, it seems.

When testimony is littered with numerous errors of fact, of which this is a minor example, it becomes increasingly clear that the Hutton Inquiry was, at best, substandard.

The Death of David Kelly - The surprising behaviour of the Kelly family

During the period when I was observing the David Kelly affair, for want of a better term, from a distance I found the continued silence of the family puzzling.

That puzzlement has increased further since I've spent considerable time looking at the evidence that relates to how Dr. David Kelly died.

If a relative of mine had died in suspicious circumstances, a conclusion of suicide had been pronounced by a substandard inquiry and increasing doubts were being raised about the "suicide hypothesis" I think I'd be pushing very hard indeed for an inquest to discover the truth.

Yet, despite a range of substantive doubts being raised about how David Kelly died, nobody in the Kelly family is publicly seeking an inquest.


I find that extremely odd behaviour.

As a human being I find it extremely odd. As a doctor, I find it extremely odd.

And, as with all "odd" things relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly i've tried to make some sense of it by examining all the possibilities that occur to me, whether those possibilities initially seem "likely" or "unlikely".

The possibilities that occur to me are listed below with brief comments about how I currently view them.

1. The Kelly family are "very private" - I don't find this credible as an explanation for the continued monolithic silence of the Kelly family. A desire for privacy can be the habitual behaviour of many human beings, but I find it very difficult to conceive of a scenario where a desire for privacy carries more weight than a desire to know if a relative has been murdered or not.

2. The Kelly family don't care - This would explain the silence. After all if you don't care, then why seek the hassle of an inquest? But the "don't care" hypothesis seems improbable. Even if, hypothetically, some in the Kelly family didn't care it's not credible, I suggest, to hypothesise that nobody in the Kelly family cares about the truth of how David Kelly died.

3. The Kelly family have been bought off - This, too, could explain the silence, but doesn't seem credible to explain the monolithic silence. Some could be "bought off" but surely not everyone?

4. The Kelly family has something to conceal - If the Kelly family has something to conceal then an inquest would be a highly undesirable next step. After all, those members of the family who gave evidence to Hutton will be questioned under oath. Additionally, those members of the family not questioned by Hutton may also be publicly questioned.

There is a definite possibility that issues which were avoided or were skated over at the Hutton Inquiry would be examined in forensic detail, under oath in a Coroner's Court.

For whom would that be an undesired possibility?

What might there be to hide?

What might there be to hide that is more important than finding out the truth about how Dr. David Kelly died?