The Death of David Kelly - The need for expert review of Professor Hawton's evidence

This email largely consists of the content of an email I sent to the Attorney General on 21st February 2011.

Professor Hawton was the psychiatrist who gave evidence at the Hutton Inquiry that David Kelly (allegedly) committed suicide.

The title of the email to the Attorney General was:

David Kelly - The need for expert review of Prof Hawton's evidence

The text of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

This email is for the attention of the Attorney General in relation to a possible application to the High Court for an order that an inquest be conducted into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

A few weeks ago you informed me that the Attorney General was seeking the assistance of a forensic pathologist. Such seems entirely reasonable in the circumstances.

You made no mention at that time of the Attorney General seeking the assistance of an expert in psychiatry regarding the evidence of Professor Hawton.

I would firmly suggest that such expert review of the psychiatric evidence given to Hutton by Professor Hawton is necessary. I will attempt briefly to explain why below.

I am afraid that the least impolite term I can come up with regarding Professor Hawton's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry (or at least parts of it) is "nonsense".

Let me explain.

In his oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry Professor Hawton relates in detail a conversation (or conversations) with Janice Kelly. His conclusion is that David Kelly was under huge pressure on the morning of 17th July 2003.

However, so far as I can see, Professor Hawton entirely fails to consider and/or give evidence about the mental state of Janice Kelly. In my view that failure on the part of Professor Hawton applies both to his consideration of events on 17th July 2003 and at the time of the interview(s).

In his oral evidence Professor Hawton ignores the possibility that what we are hearing about regarding 17th July 2003 is, to a material extent, anxiety on the part of Janice Kelly and/or a migraine attack (possibly precipitated by the just mentioned anxiety).

To ignore such a factor, I suggest, makes Professor Hawton's evidence on this crucial point of the events of 17th July 2003 to be of little value, at best.

If Professor Hawton had expressed a careful consideration of the colour that Janice Kelly's mental state on 17th July 2003 gave to her statements I believe his opinion would have been of more value.

Professor Hawton also failed, so far as I can establish, to give due weight to Janice Kelly's mental state at the time of interview.

I understand that Janice Kelly blamed herself (and, perhaps, continues to blame herself) in significant measure for David Kelly's "suicide" at least in part because of the possibility that it was her pills that he had allegedly ingested.

If the information I have been given is correct, then Janice Kelly's statements to Professor Hawton require meticulous reappraisal in light of this seeming burden of guilt carried by Janice Kelly.

Further, Professor and Hawton and Dr. Hunt, interestingly, seem to share conjectures. I would state, straightforwardly, that sharing and combining unsubstantiated conjectures does not make a sound logical case. I hope to sent a detailed critique to the Attorney General later this week regarding Dr. Hunt's written and oral evidence. I plan to examine the validity or otherwise of those conjectures in that document.

One very specific issue that a psychiatric expert would need to be informed of relates to whether or not Dr. Kelly had a motive on 17th July 2003 to commit suicide. The expert would need access to the letter of 15th July 2003 from Donald Anderson to Jack Straw and the transcript of the Intelligence and Security Committee hearing on 16th July 2003 (see page 14). The latter shows, in my view, that David Kelly was "in the clear" and knew it.

The supposed motive on 17th July 2003 for suicide put forward at the Hutton Inquiry, in my view, evaporates in light of those documents.

The documents just mentioned considered together with the questions relating to Janice Kelly's statements to Professor Hawton renders an expert re-appraisal of Professor Hawton's evidence a requirement, in my view.

In passing I would just mention that the statement from the BBC on 20th July 2003 cannot have been in David Kelly's mind on 17th July 2003. It is important that an expert reviewer avoids the potential anachronism in his/her thinking potentially created by the BBC statement (whatever one may think about its credibility or otherwise).

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.

In due course, I would be grateful if you could inform me of whether or not the Attorney General has decided to seek re-appraisal of Professor Hawton's evidence by a suitably qualified and experienced expert in psychiatry.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly -

The Death of David Kelly - On 17th July 2003 he was planning a future

This post largely consists of an email sent yesterday, 27th February 2011, to the Attorney General.

On 17th July 2003 David Kelly was still doing all the normal things. Such as making diary entries for what he was going to be doing the next week.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly- New evidence of him on 17th July 2003 planning a future

The text of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

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

In this email I draw the Attorney General's attention to new evidence of actions by David Kelly on 17th July 2003 that demonstrate he was planning for a future He took these actions no earlier than late morning 17th July 2003.

In addition, I consider that there has been insufficiency of inquiry, as explained later in this document.

Following the Intelligence and Security Meeting on 16th July 2003, David Kelly was out of the woods with respect to the investigation by Parliamentary Committees.

On 15th July 2003 Donald Anderson, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, had written to Jack Straw to convey to him that the Foreign Affairs Committee had concluded that David Kelly was not what I term "The Real Source" for Andrew Gilligan.

Accordingly, on the morning of 17th July 2003 David Kelly and John Clark at the Ministry of Defence held telephone discussions to decide when David Kelly would travel to Iraq (his original travel date of 11th July having been postponed because of the Gilligan source furore).

The discussion between David Kelly and John Clark (page 139 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans21.htm ) is reproduced here with particularly relevant parts in bold:

14 On the 17th, when I asked him how he was going, he
15 basically said he was holding up all right but it had
16 all come to a head and his wife had taken it really very
17 badly. Whether that was in association with the
18 additional pressure of having to get back the day before
19 under her own steam, I do not know, but he did say that
20 his wife had been very upset on the morning of the 17th.
21 Q. Did you discuss going back to Iraq at all?
22 A. Yes, it was something we discussed regularly because
23 Dr Kelly was very keen to get back to Iraq to support
24 the ISG and on that morning, because we thought that
25 really we were clearing the workload associated with PQs
139

1 and with the Select Committees, we looked at
2 a reasonable date for him going back. Having discussed
3 it with Dr Wells, we came up with the date of the 25th
4 which basically gave him just slightly over a week to
5 get his personal effects sorted out and then he would
6 fly out. So that -- I spoke to him on the Thursday and
7 it was going to be a week the following Friday that he
8 would fly out.
9 Q. Did you book a flight for him?
10 A. Yes, I did. Having agreed that then he was booked on
11 a flight.
12 LORD HUTTON: So that was a definite plan, Wing Commander,
13 was it, that he would go out on the 25th?
14 A. It was my Lord.
15 LORD HUTTON: He knew that?
16 A. Provided basically we would seek authority from the
17 Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence that he was happy
18 we had received it, it was a definite plan. He had
19 agreed that Dr Kelly himself could easily make that
20 date.

The information quoted is also at paragraph 121 of the Hutton Report, see http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter04.htm .

Notice that this discussion between David Kelly and John Clark took place on 17th July 2003.

Notice too that John Clark says that Janice Kelly had been very upset on the 17th.

Janice Kelly indicated in her evidence that it was from around 12.30 that she began to feel ill, which I take to refer to the same time as her being "upset" in John Clark's terms. See page 46 on http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm for Janice Kelly's evidence.

Therefore it seems likely that the conversation between John Clark and David Kelly may have taken place after 12.30 on 17th July 2003.

One cannot exclude the possibility that the telephone call took place significantly later on 17th July.

If David Kelly was, as John Clark stated, looking forward to going to Iraq then he would enter the information about the flight to Iraq on 25th July 2003.

And this is what he did!

David Kelly's manuscript diary is here on the Hutton web site:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_3_0131to0142.pdf

The diary page for July 2003 is page 8 of 12.

Notice that for Friday 25th July 2003 David Kelly has entered an entry as a result of his conversation with John Clark no earlier than late morning on 17th July 2003. Notice, too, that he adds a question mark. That, in my interpretation, reflects the need for approval by the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence discussed between them as stated in John Clark's evidence.

Not only does David Kelly enter the date of his outward flight to Iraq but he also adds a return date of 10th August 2003 (See page 9 of 12 of the same document).

Dr. Kelly is behaving as a professional who hopes to travel to Iraq of the following week, expecting to return on 10th August 2003.

He is not behaving with the disregard of a future which would be characteristic of someone intending to commit suicide.

These diary entries made later morning or around lunchtime on 17th July 2003 are wholly inconsistent in my view with the notion put forward by Professor Hawton that David Kelly had formed an intention in his mind to commit suicide.

The timing further renders non-credible suggestions in the press and elsewhere that some aspect of dealing with the new Parliamentary Questions was more than Dr. Kelly could cope with. The new PQs were sent to him at 09.28. Yet a couple of hours or so later on 17th July 2003 David Kelly continues diarising future commitments in the expected way.

I would, in passing, point out that Lord Hutton had access to all this evidence but as a result of insufficiency of inquiry failed to notice David Kelly's actions around lunchtime on 17th July 2003 in diarising these future commitments and consequently failed correctly to conclude that David Kelly had no intention to end his life. David Kelly was looking forward to returning to Iraq on 25th July 2003.

I conclude that this new evidence is a powerful additional piece of evidence showing that David Kelly had no intention on 17th July 2003 to commit suicide.

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

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Error by Hutton regarding dextropropoxyphene in the stomach

This post largely consists of the text of an email sent earlier today to the Attorney General.

Lord Hutton thought the toxicologist had measured dextropropoxyphene in stomach contents but he hadn't.

That's important because Dr. Hunt, the pathologist, gave "coproxamol ingestion" as one of the causes of death.

Dextropropoxyphene is one of the two components of co-proxamol. The failure to look for it in stomach contents means that there is no direct evidence that David Kelly ingested co-proxamol.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Error re toxicology by Lord Hutton

The text of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

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

In this email I draw to the Attorney General's attention an important error made by Lord Hutton with respect to the toxicology investigations.

In Chapter 5 of the Hutton Report we read:
138. In his evidence Dr Hunt stated that he had sent a sample of the stomach contents to a forensic toxicologist, Dr Alexander Allan, and he received a toxicology report back from Dr Allan. He described what this report showed as follows:

[16 September, page 21, line 13]

Q. In summary what did it show?

A. It showed the presence of two compounds in particular. One of them is a drug called dextropropoxyphene. That is an opiate-type drug, it is a mild painkiller, and that was present at a concentration of one microgramme per millilitre in the blood.

See paragraph 138 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter05.htm .

Lord Hutton has misinterpreted the evidence presented to him.

Notice that the early part of paragraph 138 relates to the stomach but the answer quoted refers to blood.

The toxicology tests carried out on blood and stomach contents were different.

In paragraph 143 of Chapter 5 of Lord Hutton's Report we read:

143. Dr Alexander Allan, a forensic toxicologist, was sent blood and urine samples and stomach contents taken from the body of Dr Kelly in the course of Dr Hunt's post mortem examination which he then analysed. Dr Allan found paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene in the samples and stomach contents.

Contrary to Lord Hutton's statement, no measurement of dextropropoxyphene was made in stomach contents by Dr. Allan.

See http://www.justice.gov.uk/toxicologist-report-dpa.pdf (page 3 or 6):

"The stomach contents was examined and analysed for paracetamol."

It's not stated explicitly but it is the case that the stomach contents were NOT examined for dextropropoxyphene, the second component of co-proxamol.

Dr. Allan confirmed this in his oral evidence here: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans28.htm

22 Q. What about the stomach contents?
23 A. I examined it for the presence of paracetamols as well
24 as measuring the contents and visually inspecting the
25 contents.

The consequence of this failure of measurement of dextropropoxyphene in the stomach is that we cannot be sure that ANY co-proxamol was ever in the stomach of the Harrowdown Hill body.

Given that Dr. Hunt gives "coproxamol ingestion" as the secondary cause of death, the omission of any direct evidence of co-proxamol in the stomach is a serious omission indeed.

And a fundamental misinterpretation by Lord Hutton.

The error in interpretation of the toxicology by Lord Hutton may have contributed to his erroneous overall conclusion of suicide.

It seems to me that Lord Hutton's failure to take sufficient care correctly to interpret the facts presented to him are ipso facto evidence of insufficiency of inquiry.

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

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Were third parties present or not?

This post largely consists of an email I sent earlier today to the Attorney General.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - The evidence regarding the presence or otherwise of third parties

The text of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

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

One of the pillars on which the "suicide hypothesis" adopted by Lord Hutton is based is the notion that the presence of third parties at the scene at Harrowdown Hill can safely be excluded.

If you cannot exclude the presence of third parties, you cannot exclude murder.

The matter of third parties is expressed, for example, in the Hutton Report at paragraph 151 here: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter05.htm .

151. Those who try cases relating to a death or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard from those who saw Dr Kelly's body in the wood there were differences as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr Kelly's death.

It seems to me that, in considering the sufficiency of the evidence about the presence or otherwise of third parties, Lord Hutton demonstrates insufficiency of inquiry on two grounds:

1. Were Thames Valley Police able to detect the presence of individuals we know to have been close to or in contact with the body?

2. Lord Hutton failed adequately to consider the fact that a dead body is not capable of sitting itself up.

3. Did Lord Hutton make inquiries to exclude moving of the body by a third party?


Was the presence of known individuals detected?

If the presence of people we know to have been close to the body or to have had contact with the body cannot be detected by Thames Valley Police then there is no safe basis to exclude the presence of other parties of malevolent intent.

We know that several individuals attended the scene of the body before the pathologist examined it or the forensic scientists attended.

No evidence is presented about whether the presence of those individuals at the scene (Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, DC Coe, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett, PC Franklin, PC Sawyer) was detected.

If these seven individuals can attend the scene without evidence of their presence being detected it seems to me that there is no sound basis to exclude the presence of additional individuals of malevolent intent.

This seems to be a matter about which Thames Valley Police are reluctant to be open.

Currently, Thames Valley Police are refusing to answer Freedom of Information questions about this matter. An appeal has been lodged against Thames Valley Police's obstructive attitude.

I imagine that an appeal to the Information Commissioner will be the result of the obstructive approach currently being applied by Thames Valley Police.

Here is the text of the Freedom of Information request that Thames Valley Police are currently refusing to answer (sent 11th December 2010):


This is a Freedom of Information Act request.

The following individuals were documented, in evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry, to be close to or in contact with the body of Dr. David Kelly at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003 before the creation and search of the Common Approach Path.

For each of those individuals I wish to ask what forensic or other evidence was found during the search of the Common Approach Path, or otherwise, that demonstrated that they had been in proximity to the body found at Harrowdown Hill?

1. Louise Holmes
2. Paul Chapman
3. DC Graham Coe
4. Vanessa Hunt
5. Dave Bartlett
6. PC Dean Andrew Franklin
7. PC Jonathan Martyn Sawyer

It would, I suggest, be best should any such evidence have been found if the answer is formulated in a list with, for example, "No evidence" beside each name to which that accurately applies.And a description of the evidence for any individual for which evidence of presence was found.

Alternatively, if no forensic or other relevant evidence was found for the presence of any of the named individuals then a blanket "No evidence" would suffice.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

I view this refusal by Thames Valley Police to be one component of a cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly. As the Attorney General is aware I view the conduct of some Thames Valley Police officers as being prima facie evidence of perversion of the course of justice.

I would also point out that Thames Valley Police have a demonstrable weakness is identifying the presence of third parties in other aspects of the David Kelly case.

The premises of Dr. Kelly's dentist were broken into and records seemingly removed and replaced.

Did Thames Valley Police successfully identify the parties who did that?

No.

Given that, I believe there is no sound basis to exclude the involvement of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

A dead body cannot sit itself up

The direction of the vomit trails from the corners of the body's mouth demonstrate that it was likely that the body died on its back.

Lord Hutton did not seem to be aware of such a line of argument.

Given the direction of the vomit trails found at postmortem I find it very difficult to identify a way in which the body could sit itself up without the involvement of another party.

Lord Hutton refers to seeing a photograph of the body. If the body vomited and died while in that position then the vomit trails would not be as described in Dr. Nicholas Hunt's postmortem report.

Lord Hutton, in my view, seriously failed to inquire adequately into this aspect of the discrepant evidence to which he refers.

I conclude that there is insufficiency of inquiry with regard to the presence or otherwise of third parties (other than the seven individuals named earlier in this email).

Did Lord Hutton inquire into moving of the body?

If different witnesses describe different positions of the body then the possibility exists that someone has moved the body.

Did Lord Hutton cross-examine witnesses to address this fundamental question?

The answer is "No" and it ought not to have been.

I conclude that this is further evidence of "insufficiency of inquiry" by Lord Hutton.

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

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Unresolved questions about "the knife"

This post consists largely of the text of an email sent earlier today to the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court for an order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

There are foundational questions about the relevance or otherwise of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill that remain unanswered.

The title of the email is as follows:

David Kelly - Major gaps in the chain of evidence regarding "the knife"

The text of the email is as follows:

Mr McGinty,

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

The information referred to in this email relates to conduct which seems to me to constitute both "insufficiency of inquiry" and "irregularity of proceedings" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

The purpose of this email is to draw attention to a worrying number of significant gaps in the "chain of evidence" regarding the knife found beside the body at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003.

In fact, a closer scrutiny of the evidence relating to the knife found at Harrowdown Hill demonstrates there is, in fact, no demonstrable chain of evidence.

The knife was never shown to the family

At no point was the knife itself shown to any member of the Kelly family (according to their evidence given at the Hutton Inquiry). The only "identification" (if such a casual process can be termed an "identification") was based on the showing of a photograph or photocopy to two of Dr. Kelly's daughters.

One result of this irregularity is that there can be no certainty that the photograph/photocopy was of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill.

Had the process not been so irregular there would have been a chain of documentation linking a knife in an evidence bag shown to one or more individuals in the Kelly family to the knife that had been found at the scene at Harrowdown Hill.

That chain of documentation is absent.

The result of this casual and deficient approach to the identification of the knife is that we do not know if the knife found at Harrowdown Hill belonged to David Kelly.

No distinguishing features on the knife

No evidence is presented to the Hutton Inquiry, so far as I can trace, that there are any distinguishing features on the knife found at Harrowdown Hill.

Nor does anyone in the Kelly family state that the (assumed) knife belonging to Dr. Kelly had any distinguishing features.

This leaves open the possibility that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was merely similar to a knife belonging to Dr. Kelly.

No evidence that the knife was used

No forensic evidence is presented on the Hutton Inquiry web site that the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was used to inflict the wounds on the left wrist of the body. A study of the shape of the knife blade and the wound geometry might well have been illuminating.

Like so much of the Thames Valley Police investigation it appears that a conclusion that was "obvious" was jumped to and that any serious thought of any alternative explanation was considered to be unnecessary.

It seems to me that this seeming failure on the part of the Police and the failure of Lord Hutton to identify that failure constitute at a minimum "insufficiency of inquiry".

The absence of fingerprints was ignored

In response to a Freedom of Information request, Thames Valley Police have indicated that no fingerprints were found on the knife.

At a minimum the absence of fingerprints on the knife seriously calls into question a "suicide" verdict.

Absence of fingerprints may well mean that Dr. Kelly never held the knife. If he didn't hold the knife, then he didn't use it to inflict wounds on his left wrist.

At no point is the absence of fingerprints on the knife discussed in oral evidence at the Hutton Inquiry. Nor is the absence of fingerprints disclosed in the Hutton Report. To my mind this is gross "insufficiency of inquiry" on the part of Lord Hutton.

Any competent and honest judge should have asked about fingerprints on the knife. If Lord Hutton failed to do so then his competence seriously comes into question, in my view.

However, if Lord Hutton was informed by Thames Valley Police that there were no fingerprints on the knife and decided to ignore such potentially important information both in his questioning of witnesses and in his report it seems to me that there is prima facie evidence of "irregularity of proceedings". A diligent and honest judge would not ignore such pivotal forensic information.

A credible "suicide hypothesis" demands that David Kelly held the knife. The absence of fingerprints make such a scenario highly questionable, at best!

The absence of a credible chain of evidence regarding the knife indicates that a "suicide" verdict "beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be sustained.

On this aspect of the evidence alone, I suggest that it is not possible legitimately to reach a "suicide" verdict.

An "open" verdict is possible but, in light of evidence presented in other communications, I suggest that the only credible verdict is that David Kelly was murdered.

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

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Did Andrew Gilligan fabricate evidence?

This post largely consists of the text of an email sent earlier today to the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC.

Today, 28th February 2011, is a deadline for his receiving information relating to a possible application to the High Court for an order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Over the next few days I'll publicly post the text of other communications to the Attorney General on this matter.

The title of my email to the Attorney General is:

David Kelly - Did Andrew Gilligan fabricate evidence?

The text of the email is as follows:

Mr McGinty,

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

In terms of a possible application to the High Court the inquiry by Lord Hutton into the actions of Andrew Gilligan is, I suggest, further evidence of insufficiency of inquiry, in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988.

A specific point on which important questions remain outstanding relates to a document purported to be notes of a meeting with David Kelly on 22nd May 2003 which was automatically timestamped 21st May 2003.

There are two explanation of this finding which come to mind:

1. The clock on Andrew Gilligan's personal organiser was significantly in error.

2. Andrew Gilligan "set up" Dr. Kelly by making a "recording" of what Dr. Kelly allegedly said, a day before he had opportunity to say it. In other words, the evidence of Andrew Gilligan as to what David Kelly allegedly said on 22nd May 2003 is, at least in part, fabricated. If that were true, then "The Real Source" remains unidentified.

Andrew Gilligan, presumably in an attempt to rebut a charge of fabricating his notes, commissioned an inquiry by Edward Wilding. I imagine that a BBC technician identified the date discrepancy to which I referred above.

I am unsure whether Mr. Wilding ever completed his report. Certainly, I could not locate any final report on the Hutton Inquiry web site. Nor indeed any draft report by Mr. Wilding.

I suspect that Lord Hutton was, technically, way out of his depth in comprehending Mr. Wilding's evidence.

However, Mr. Wilding did indicate that to definitively resolve the question would require access to further backups.

Mr Wilding in his oral evidence said that access to backups made separately by Mr. Gilligan would be required to definitively resolve the question. Mr. Gilligan refused access to those backups on grounds of "confidentiality".

See pages 180-182 here http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans38.htm

19 Q. Did you find out whether or not Mr Gilligan had saved
20 this material to any other document at the time or any
21 other computer at the time?
22 A. Yes, on 27th August when I was instructed I asked
23 Mr Gilligan about the back up system that he used. And
24 he regularly used to back up the organiser, the data
25 from the organiser to a laptop computer. And it was my

181
1 concern on the 27th that it would be useful to look at
2 that data as well.
3 Q. Have you been given access to that by Mr Gilligan?
4 A. On the evening of the 27th, on grounds of the
5 confidentiality of the data, it was decided that I would
6 be only given access to the organiser itself.
7 Q. So you were not even able to do what you did with the
8 organiser on that computer material?
9 A. No.


Andrew Gilligan, in effect, refused the Hutton Inquiry access to those backups.

Lord Hutton failed to take any steps to resolve the matter.

Due to Lord Hutton's insufficiency of inquiry, the question remains open as to whether Andrew Gilligan may have fabricated evidence.

The Attorney General will recall David Broucher's evidence to Hutton that late in February 2003 that David Kelly expected, in certain circumstances, to be found "dead in the woods". Therefore events as early as May 2003 may be relevant to the murder of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.

We know that on another occasion Andrew Gilligan was willing to "set up" David Kelly by feeding information to the Foreign Affairs Committee for its meeting on 15th July 2003. See pages 2 and 3 here, http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/fac/fac_6_0001to0003.pdf , for the text of Andrew Gilligan's email to which I refer.

I understand that Mr. Gilligan later apologised for his actions in that respect.

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

In the interests of transparency I am copying this email to Andrew Gilligan. Separately, I have recently requested from Mr. Gilligan copies of the written report produced by Edward Wilding, so far without response. I also ask Mr. Gilligan to ensure that this important evidence is not somehow "accidentally" destroyed.

I am copying this email to chief officers at Thames Valley Police in the context of my report to them that David Kelly may have been murdered (Thames Valley Police URN 514 of 28/10/10 refers). I also ask that Thames Valley Police approach Mr. Gilligan to take all evidence relevant to this potentially important question into safe keeping.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Open Letter to Andrew Gilligan

Today I am writing to Andrew Gilligan requesting a copy of the Wilding Report.

Edward Wilding gave oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry but his written report is absent from the Hutton Inquiry web site.

An electronic copy of Andrew Gilligan's notes of the meeting with David Kelly on 22nd May 2003 was dated 21st May 2003!

I can identify only two possible explanations for this discrepancy:

1. That Andrew Gilligan made notes about what David Kelly (supposedly) said the day before he met Kelly. In other words that Andrew Gilligan fabricated notes in advance of the meeting.

2. That the clock on the electronic organiser used by Andrew Gilligan was seriously in error.

The written report produced by Edward Wilding is not on the Hutton Inquiry web site, hence I am asking Andrew Gilligan for a copy in order, hopefully, definitively to resolve this troubling uncertainty.

The title of the email is:

Death of David Kelly - Request for copy of the Wilding Report

The text of the email is as follows:

Mr Gilligan,

I am writing to request a copy of the report produced by Edward Wilding in which he attempted to elucidate why a copy of your supposed conversation with David Kelly seemingly was produced before you met Dr. Kelly in May 2003.

In the oral evidence that Edward Wilding gave to the Hutton Inquiry two possible interpretations remained, in my view:

1. That you produced a fabricated account on 21st May 2003 of a supposed meeting with David Kelly which did not take place until the following day. In other words that you set Dr. David Kelly up as a "fall guy" (to borrow the words of Andrew MacKinlay MP at the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on 15th July 2003) to conceal the identity of what one might term "The Real Source".

2. That the clock on your electronic organiser was significantly inaccurate and that such inaccuracy was the cause of the seeming fabricated data.

I am sure you can see how the failure of the Hutton Inquiry adequately to resolve this matter may be deemed "insufficiency of inquiry".

For the avoidance of doubt this email is an "open letter". I will post a copy on my blog which has an ongoing exmination of information about the death of Dr. David Kelly at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/.

The text of this email is posted here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-open-letter-to.html.

Additionally, I am copying this email to Mr. Kevin McGinty at the Attorney General's Office, since the matter about which I seek information from you is one aspect of "insufficiency of inquiry" with respect to a possible application to the High Court by the Attorney General.

Separately, in the interests of transparency, I will copy to you the email I am sending to the Attorney General explaining why further investigation of this matter is still required, in my opinion.

If you are an innocent party in this matter, it seems to me that it would be of assistance in finally laying this matter to rest if you made a full copy of the Wilding Report publicly available.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - What was David Kelly doing in April 2003?

There are a number of questions which arise from examination of the various versions of David Kelly's diaries available on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

One question I find particularly interesting is what David Kelly was spending his time on in April 2003.

There are two versions of his diary for April 2003 on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

The computer version is this document: COM/5/0040 - 0053.

The April 2003 diary is on page 14 of 14.

It shows that David Kelly spent 3 days on UNMOVIC work and noted two "privilege days" (which I assume to have been Good Friday and Easter Monday).

The rest of the month is blank.

What was he doing?

Similarly, the manuscript version of the diary, TVP/3/0131 - 0142, has huge gaps.

The April 2003 diary is on page 5 of 12.

The only entry of substance is an optician's appointment on 10th April.

Again we are left with the question of what David Kelly was doing in April 2003.

Something interesting?

Something secret?

For the moment it's not at all clear.

The Death of David Kelly - Creating a Summary of why an inquest is needed

Anyone who has spent time inquiring into the death of David Kelly soon realises that the volume of information is daunting.

I'm considering creating a Summary to help ease the casual reader into why there is a need for an inquest into the death of David Kelly.

Below is some draft text about questions that should have been asked and answered by the Hutton Inquiry and/or Thames Valley Police but weren't.

The document may go to the Attorney General (hence the terms in square brackets in the draft).

If you think there are further questions to add please feel free to make suggestions via a Comment on this post.

I'd like to make the document as clear and comprehensive as possible.

The draft is rough currently but hopefully you'll get the idea of what I want to produce as one section of a Summary document.

Following the discovery of a body at Harrowdown Hill an unbiased investigation would carefully examine each of the following possibilities in the light of the available evidence:

1. Natural causes
2. Accidental death
3. Suicide
4. Murder (including, in the circumstances pertaining to Dr. Kelly, the possibility of murder dressed up as suicide).

The conclusion of the Hutton Inquiry was that Dr. David Kelly killed himself as a result of ingesting co-proxamol tablets and inflicting wounds on his left wrist which resulted in fatal haemorrhage.

Following are some questions where I believe that investigation at the Hutton Inquiry and the subsequent cursory inquest was materially deficient since it failed to provide appropriately evidenced answers to questions such as the following:

* Did David Kelly ingest any co-proxamol tablets? The answer is that we don't know (Dr. Allan, toxicologist, failed to measure dextropropoxyphene concentrations in the stomach. [INSUFFICIENCY OF INQUIRY]) Lord Hutton states that Dr. Allan made such measurements but he is incorrect.

* Did David Kelly obtain the co-proxamol tablets from his home? We don't know. Janice Kelly wasn't asked, for example, if any tablets were missing from her store of co-proxamol. [INSUFFICIENCY OF INQUIRY]

* How many co-proxamol tablets were in the blister packs when Dr. Kelly obtained them? The answer is that we don't know. No evidence is presented to resolve the uncertainty.

* Was it possible for Dr. Kelly to swallow a hypothetical 29 co-proxamol tablets with a water supply of only ??? ml? We don't know. Lord Hutton didn't address the question nor did he nor Dr. Hunt identify the water supply available to Dr. Kelly as being inadequate to swallow such a large number of co-proxamol tablets. [INSUFFICIENCY OF INQUIRY] Lord Hutton did not establish that only a maximum of ??? ml had been taken from the 500ml water bottle. That was established by recent Freedom of Information requests. [NEW EVIDENCE]

* Did Dr. Kelly ever handle the blister packs of co-proxamol tablets found in the pocket of his jacket? The evidence suggests that he did not since no fingerprints were recovered from the blister packs tested for fingerprints.

* Was Dr. Kelly physically capable of using his right arm to inflict wounds on his left wrist? There is cause to doubt this (scar on right elbow, likely evidence of past injury / operation) and oral testimony (post-Hutton) that David Kelly couldn't cut steak with his right arm [NEW EVIDENCE]. This evidence was stated as having been given to Thames Valley Police and appears to have been concealed from Lord Hutton by ACC Michael Page [IRREGULARITY OF PROCESS].

* Did Dr. Kelly hold the knife found beside his body? It seems unlikely that he did since no fingerprints were found on the knife.

* Did the knife found beside the body belong to Dr. Kelly? There is no reliable evidence that it did. The knife was never shown to, for example, a member of his family.

* Did the knife found beside the body inflict the wounds on the left wrist? No evidence is presented that it did. No forensic evidence is presented to demonstrate that the knife found was the weapon which produced the wounds. [INSUFFICIENCY OF INQUIRY]

* How much blood did Dr. Kelly lose as a result of the wounds on the left wrist? We don't know. The amount of blood lost is not recorded by Dr. Hunt or any of the forensic scientists who attented the scene. Further, no attempt was made to measure the blood loss. [INSUFFICIENCY OF INQUIRY]

The Death of David Kelly - Corroboration of the communications mast

Hitherto, the only local mention that I'd been aware of regarding the presence of the 110' high communications mast at the then home of David Kelly was in the evidence of Janice Kelly to the Hutton Inquiry.

At least one contemporary media report, refers to a "giant police communications mast".

See Disbelief at the loss of 'honest, sensible and lovely fellow'.

Police guarded the entrance to the property, the well-tended gardens bounded by a high hedge and 10ft wall. A giant police communications mast, erected in the garden after Dr Kelly failed to return from his 3pm walk on Thursday, towered over the house which adjoins a converted stable block

Interestingly, Paul Peachey and other journalists who presumably saw the 110' high mast display a startling lack of curiosity about why it was there.

The Death of David Kelly - A timeline for the events of 18th July 2003

Brian Spencer has recently posted a detailed timeline for some of the events relating to 18th July 2003, A timeline for events relating to Harrowdown Hill, on his blog Dr Kelly's Death - Suicide or Murder.

Readers who are interested in getting a detailed grasp of the events of 18th July 2003 could do much worse than start with Brian's timeline.

There are, of course, gaps. Not least because Thames Valley Police have refused to answer Freedom of Information requests from myself and others.

The Death of David Kelly - The Fictitious Mobile Weapons Laboratories

In my preceding post, The Death of David Kelly - "The Man in the Middle" Podcast, I drew attention to Professor Stephen Kettell's analysis of Alastair Campbell's abrupt synthetic outrage regarding the Andrew Gilligan broadcasts.

In this post I want to take a brief look at what I believe to be a very credible possibility as to why Alastair Campbell needed to manufacture a synthetic media smokescreen in mid June 2003.

On 7th June 2003 Judith Miller (remember her from the David Kelly emails of 17th July 2003?) published this article: Some Analysts Of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use.

Judith Miller was said to be stationed in "Iraq and Kuwait".

On 5th June 2003, according to the 2003 Diary said to have been recovered from David Kelly's computer, David Kelly flew to Qatar.

Coincidence? Or not?

On 8th June 2003 the Observer published an article on the doubts about the supposed mobile weapons laboratories: Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs' Saddam's trucks were for balloons, not germs.

On 15th June 2003 the Observer published an article, Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds, stating that an official British investigation had concluded that the supposed mobile weapons laboratories did no more than produce hydrogen for weather balloons!

The first sentence of that article explains Alastair Campbell's abrupt need to create a media smokescreen:

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush

Oops! The only (fictional) evidence found to support the pretext for starting the Iraq War disappears.

Tony Blair's "basis" for war is shown to be lies.

Tony Blair's assertions about WMD are shown to be lies.

It's not suprising that Tony Blair's Goebbels, Alastair Campbell, needs to manufacture a smokescreen in mid June 2003.

Was David Kelly the Biological Weapons Expert who uttered the following words?

They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.

If so, he may thereby, directly or indirectly, have signed his own death warrant.

The Death of David Kelly - "The Man in the Middle" Podcast

Recently, my attention has been drawn to a very interesting podcast by Professor Stephen Kettell of Warwick University.

The podcast is entitled, Lecture 11 (Podcast): 'Man in the middle'.

Professor Kettell steps through the sequence of events surrounding the death of David Kelly.

He draws attention to the gap of a couple of weeks or so when Alastair Campbell wasn't too concerned about the Andrew Gilligan broadcast.

Around mid June, Alastair Campbell abruptly puts on a mask of outrage about the Gilligan broadcast of 29th May.

Why? Professor Kettell concludes that this is essentially a smokescreen (my term).

What's happening in mid June 2003 that might make Alastair Campbell (and Tony Blair) so worried that they need to manufacture a public furore?

What is the disaster from which the public attention's needs to be distracted?

In an upcoming post I'll attempt to answer that question.

I also intend to look at whether Alastair Campbell's publicity game might be, directly or indirectly, linked to the death of David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - Head of Thames Valley Special Branch in 2003

In his evidence to the Hutton Inquiry, Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page coyly refers to discussions with the head of Thames Valley Police Special Branch but omits naming him.

The identity of the Head of Thames Valley Police Special Branch in 2003 has been a minor mystery.

A recent article in the Mail on Sunday appears to have identified the individual concerned: Gilbert Houalla, currently a Superintendent with Thames Valley Police, it seems.

The Daily Mail article also alleges that there was a relationship between (now) Chief Constable Sara Thornton and Superintendent Houalla.

The online version of the Mail on Sunday article, as I think it is, is here: Woman chief constable's relationship with married officer she took to banquets at Windsor Castle.

The Death of David Kelly - Operation Antler

David Kelly was still employed by Porton Down at the time of his death, as I understand the convoluted restructurings of organisation in that sector. See, for example, mod_2_0009to0011.

In video 3 of the Anthrax Wars, YouTube - anthrax wars 3/7, brief mention is made of Operation Antler. The Wiltshire Police, it seems, passed papers to the Crown Prosecution Service with a view to prosecution of Porton Down scientists.

Operation Antler investigated experiments using biological agents (as well as chemical agents). See, for example, MoD 'can challenge Porton case'.

The information made public by Wilshire Police about Operation Antler, Wiltshire Police Operation Antler information, seemingly has been removed from the Wiltshire Police web site.

David Kelly was, according to the video, found dead in 2003 shortly after the Crown Prosecution Service decision.

I am unable to trace any mention of Operation Antler on the Hutton Inquiry website.

Is the failure of Lord Hutton to consider the possible relevance of Operation Antler to the death of Dr. David Kelly because it was irrelevant or because it was too important to mention?

The Death of David Kelly - Is Janice Kelly lying about the "Honours" letter?

In her evidence to the Hutton Inquiry, Janice Kelly is questioned about a document supposedly considering a possible recommendation of David Kelly for an honour.

The relevant oral testimony and questioning is from the morning of 1st September 2003:

11 Q. We have a document that you very kindly produced in May.
12 Can I show it to you? It is FAM/5/1. I think we are
13 going to lose your picture and see the document. Can
14 you tell me a bit about where you found this document?
15 A. I am still waiting to see it.
16 Q. Okay. So are we. We have now lost you. I think we are
17 going to get something on the screen. I hope you get
18 the same -- we are not going to get anything on the
19 screen so we will have your picture back, if we may.
20 It is a document that has been produced which is
21 dated 9th May. Can you tell us where you found that?
22 A. Can you give me a bit more information about it?
23 Q. It is from Eric Mattey, Honour's Secretary, dated
24 9th May 2003.
25 A. Is this the one where it was scribbled at the top

10
1 left-hand corner?
2 Q. Yes, there is some writing in the top right-hand corner
3 A. This is something we found in his filing cabinet
4 a couple of weeks ago or so. It was headed -- this was
5 a trawl for people to be on the New Year's Honours List.
6 Q. In 2004?
7 A. And scribbled in the top left-hand corner was:
8 "How about David Kelly? Iraq is topical."
9 Q. Iraq being topical in handwriting. The note appears to
10 be dated 14th May.
11 A. That is right.
12 Q. You found that, where do you say?
13 A. In his filing cabinet. There were a few files left
14 after the police had been and taken what they needed.
15 Q. And did he discuss that with you at all?
16 A. No, he had not mentioned that. It was headed
17 "confidential".
18 Q. Right.
19 LORD HUTTON: Mrs Kelly, what was the honour suggested?
20 A. I do not believe there was an honour suggested. He had
21 already got a CMG in 1996. So it might well have been
22 a knighthood, I really do not know.
23 LORD HUTTON: I see. Thank you very much.

The document referred to is FAM/5/0001 - 0005.

The document appears to be security classified as "Restricted".

Quite simply Thames Valley Police, if they were thorough and competent, should have removed the document during the search on Saturday 19th July 2003.

So how could it be that Janice Kelly found a classified document as she describes?

It seems to me either that Janice Kelly is lying or Thames Valley Police were incompetent.

The Death of David Kelly - A useful timeline

On the BBC web site there is a useful timeline for the Hutton Inquiry here: Timeline: Hutton report.

One of the interesting aspects is that there are links to a number of contemporary videos.

Some of these give useful detail.

For example, in the video for 17th July 2003 (some of whose content seems to date to the 18th July) there is an aerial view showing the location of the Police vehicles relative to Harrowdown Hill wood. That view suggests that the body was located close to the north side of the wood.

The Death of David Kelly - Informing the Attorney General of the possible kidnapping of Dr. Kelly

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

Today I added to that correspondence by drawing the Attorney General's attention to the possibility that Dr. Kelly was held in a "safe house" against his will at some time in July 2003.

I further asked the Attorney General to examine the possibility that Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold may have perverted the course of justice in light of possible deficiencies in the oral evidence that they, respectively, gave to the Hutton Inquiry.

As I pointed out to the Attorney General I am not in a position definitively to answer such questions. However, I very much hope that the Attorney General will act so as to uncover the truth relating to all aspects of what I believe to have been the murder of David Kelly and about the subsequent cover up of that murder.

The email was sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

The title was:

David Kelly - Evidence that he may have been kidnapped

The text of the email was as follows:

Mr McGinty,

I would be grateful if you would draw this communication to the attention of the Attorney General in the context of previous correspondence in which I draw the Attorney General's attention to the need, on the basis of multiple criteria in law (as expressed in Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988), for an inquest to be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.

I write to draw the Attorney General's attention to possibly new evidence suggesting that Dr. David Kelly may have been held against his will in a "safe house" at some time in July 2003, or thereby. Further, it seems to me that there may be prima facie evidence that there may have been "insufficiency of inquiry" and/or "irregularity of proceedings" with respect to inquiries by Lord Hutton and/or by Thames Valley Police relating to this matter.

Briefly, it appears that Janice Kelly stated on the morning of 18th July 2003 that David Kelly had been held in a "safe house" at some time shortly before his death.

I summarise the sources for the statement attributed to Janice Kelly here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-vanishing-safe.html

No oral evidence was, so far as I can trace, given to the Hutton Inquiry on this potentially very serious matter.

My understanding is that contemporary evidence is, unless compelling criteria indicate otherwise, accorded very high credibility.

So far as I can establish, the "safe house" statement attributed to Janice Kelly was propagated on 18th July 2003 within approximately six hours of her having, supposedly, made the statement. On the basis of timing it seems to me that the "safe house" statement should be accorded very high credibility.

Clearly, I cannot directly corroborate or disprove the "safe house" story. However, it seems to me that the Attorney General, either directly or via an appropriate Police force (or Police forces), is in a position to establish the facts regarding this new evidence and has a duty to do so.

It seems to me that both Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton each had a duty fully to examine this evidence, given that the "safe house" statement was in the public domain while their respective investigations were taking place.

I am unable to trace any evidence in the public domain that either Thames Valley Police or Lord Hutton adequately investigated this matter.

If Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton failed by reason of unawareness, incompetence or other reasons, to investigate this evidence it seems to me that this is further evidence of "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988. A competent and diligent coroner would have instructed Thames Valley Police to establish the facts on this matter. So far as I can trace, Lord Hutton failed to do so.

If Thames Valley Police and/or Lord Hutton were aware of the evidence but chose not to examine the issue in the way that would reasonably be required that seems to me to be serious "irregularity of proceedings" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988. A coroner of integrity would not have acted in such a way.

If Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton were genuinely unaware of this contemporary evidence of "kidnapping" of David Kelly then there seems to me to be "discovery of new facts or evidence", in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988.

Whichever of the options stated in the three preceding paragraphs is correct, it seems to me that there may be a further basis re the grounds expressed in Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988 that the Attorney General seek an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

It further seems to me that, if the "safe house" story is true, both Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold failed to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that is satisfactory in terms of accuracy and completeness.

If my conclusion (expressed in previous correspondence to the Attorney General) is correct that David Kelly was murdered (see http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-evidence-that-it.html in the public domain, for example) then it seems to me that there is a case for investigating whether the possible insufficiency of evidence of Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold given to the Hutton Inquiry is sufficiently deficient that it might constitute perverting the course of justice.

Given that there is prima facie evidence that David Kelly may have been held against his will, I would further suggest that there may be a duty attaching to the Attorney General to report this possible crime to the relevant Police force(s) in order to ensure that the matter is, possibly for the first time, fully investigated.

I would be grateful if you would confirm that the Attorney General will consider the content of this communication in the context of his consideration of the need for inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I would be grateful if the Attorney General would inform me of the steps he has instituted to ensure that the possible crimes of kidnapping and perverting the course of justice to which I draw his attention in this email are fully and appropriately investigated by the relevant Police force(s) in order to establish the truth of the matter.

As the Attorney General is aware, I have reported to Thames Valley Police (URN514 of 28/10/10) my belief that Dr. David Kelly was murdered. I am copying this email to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - The vanishing "safe house"

One of the interesting contemporary pieces of evidence that both Thames Valley Police and the Hutton Inquiry seem to have ignored is the statement attributed to Janice Kelly via Tom Mangold on 18th July 2003 indicating that David Kelly had been held (with his consent or, more plausibly, against his will) in a "safe house" at some point in the period preceding 17th July 2003.

The Guardian, Body matches Kelly's description, in a "2.45pm update" quotes Mr Mangold as stating that Janice Kelly told him the following in a telephone call on the morning of 18th July 2003:

Mr Mangold told ITV News: "She [Dr Kelly's wife] told me he had been under considerable stress, that he was very very angry about what had happened at the committee, that he wasn't well, that he had been to a safe house, he hadn't liked that, he wanted to come home.

Interestingly, neither Janice Kelly nor Tom Mangold mention the "safe house" nor the distress it caused David Kelly in their oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

The following interpretations occur to me to explain this discrepancy:

1. The Guardian misquotes Tom Mangold and his evidence (and that of Janice Kelly) to Hutton was honest and complete.


2. Tom Mangold invented Janice Kelly's supposed statement about the "safe house" for reasons of attention seeking or otherwise, and his evidence (and that of Janice Kelly) to Hutton was honest and complete.


3. Tom Mangold accurately reported what Janice Kelly told him on the morning of 18th July 2003. If that is the case then both the evidence of Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold to the Hutton Inquiry fail with respect to accuracy and completeness, since neither mention the "safe house" in their oral testimony.

Option 1., above, doesn't appear to hold water since the Independent of 19th July 2003, The death of a civil servant, a casualty of war, quotes Tom Mangold using almost identical wording:

Mr Mangold said Dr Kelly's wife had told her that her husband was infuriated and made deeply unhappy by the way events unfolded. "She told me that he was very, very angry about what had happened at the committee," Mr Mangold said, "that he wasn't well, that he had been to a safe house, he hadn't liked that, he wanted to come home."

With respect to the evidence that Janice Kelly gave to Hutton the following questions arise in my mind:

• Had she forgotten David Kelly's stay in the "safe house"?


• Had she decided, following "coaching" or otherwise, to mislead the Hutton Inquiry by withholding what she knew about David Kelly's supposed stay in the "safe house"?
  

I find it astonishing that both Thames Valley Police and the Hutton Inquiry failed through incompetence, pre-meditated or otherwise, adequately to explore the evidence suggesting that David Kelly had been held in a "safe house" at some point in the days before his death.

Whether David Kelly was murdered or committed suicide I believe it is important to establish the truth, or otherwise, of the "safe house" story including the identity of those organisations and individuals who were party to what appears, ipso facto, to have been the kidnapping of David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - Tom Mangold on 18th and 19th July 2003

Where did the narratives about David Kelly's death being suicide and there being, in effect, a single source for Andrew Gilligan originate?

Interestingly, both lines of thinking can be traced back to Tom Mangold on 18th and 19th July 2003.

In an article published on 19th July 2003, Kelly 'believed he was major source' for Gilligan?s story, Tom Mangold is quoted as stating "He felt he was Gilligan's major source.".

Despite the "headline" quote, much of the article casts doubt on Mangold's speculation.

Similarly, we find in an article (Kelly 'didn't want to live') in the Sun published on 19th July 2003 Mangold is quoted as saying that Janice Kelly stated the following to him: "“She didn’t use the word depressed, but she said he was very unhappy and this was really not the kind of world he wanted to live in."

The Guardian in an article posted on 18th July 2003, Body matches Kelly's description, quotes Mangold as having stated the same words to ITV News (presumably earlier on 18th July 2003).

I don't pretend that Tom Mangold is the only source from which these matters might be traced but I find it very interesting that he is so active in the media propagating these two ideas so soon after David Kelly's death.

By early afternoon on 18th July 2003 (perhaps even before Dr. Nicholas Hunt began to examine David Kelly's body) Tom Mangold is briefing that it was suicide.

One has to ask what motives he might have for briefing the media in such a way before the facts were known.

The Death of David Kelly - Formal Request to Thames Valley Police to review their refusal to answer FOI requests

In the preceding post, The Death of David Kelly - Questions that Thames Valley Police have refused to answer, I listed questions which Thames Valley Police refused to answer.

The Freedom of Information legislation allows for a request for formal review to be made where an individual who requests information is not satisfied with the response given.

The following email (together with the text of the TVP email of 6th January 2011) was sent today to Malcolm Hopgood (TVP FOI officer) with copies to Sarah Thornton (Chief Constable), Francis Habgood (Deputy Chief Constable) and Helen Ball (Assistant Chief Constable).

The email title is here:

Re: RFI2010000848, 849, 850 & 857

The text is here:

Mr Hopgood,

I write formally to request that Thames Valley Police reviews its decision expressed in your email of 6th January 2011.

It is my position that the decision which your email expresses misapplies the relevant part of The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

Further, if Thames Valley Police persists in what I view as a misapplication of the Regulations it is my intention formally to raise the matter with the Information Commissioner.

I am copying this email to Chief Officers for information and in the context of my concerns (already conveyed to Chief Officers) that one or more Thames Valley Police officers acted in such a way as to pervert the course of justice.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Questions that Thames Valley Police have refused to answer

The purpose of this post is primarily to put on record a number of Freedom of Information requests that Thames Valley Police have refused to answer.

The full text of an email from Thames Valley Police in which they refuse to answer a number of questions is reproduced below. I include the pretext stated by Thames Valley Police for refusing to answer the questions I posed to Thames Valley Police.

I anticipate that I may, in due course, post in more detail about why the information requested is relevant to establishing how Dr. David Kelly died and why Thames Valley Police may wish to conceal the answers to the questions below.

Dear Dr Watt

Reference No: RFI2010000848, RFI2010000849, RFI2010000850, RFI2010000857

I write in connection with the above recent requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

For clarity I have repeated these requests below:

RFI2010000848

With respect to the vehicle with a communications mast on it (described by Janice Kelly in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry at Lines 7 and 8 on Page 53 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm ),

1. At what time on 17th July 2003 or 18th July 2003 was the presence of the vehicle at the Kelly home requested?

2. At what time on 18th July 2003 did the vehicle arrive at the Kelly house?

3. On whose authority was the presence of the vehicle requested?

4. Where, in July 2003, was the vehicle normally based?

5. From what location did the vehicle travel to the Kelly house?

6. Which organisation(s) owned the vehicle and its associated communications equipment?

7. What was the make and model of the communications equipment on the vehicle?

8. What was the maximum range of the communications equipment on the vehicle?


RFI2010000849

With respect to the communications mast on it (described by Janice Kelly in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry at Lines 9 and 10 on Page 53 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm ),

1. At what time on 17th July 2003 or 18th July 2003 was the presence of the "45-foot" communications mast at the Kelly home requested?

2. At what time on 18th July 2003 did the "45-foot" communications mast arrive at the Kelly house?

3. On whose authority was the presence of the "45-foot" communications mast requested?

4. Where, in July 2003, was the "45-foot" communications mast normally based?

5. From what location did the "45-foot" communications mast travel to the Kelly house?

6. Which organisation(s) owned the mast and its associated communications equipment?

7. What was the make and model of the communications equipment related to the mast?

8. What was the maximum range of the communications equipment related to the mast?

9. Is it correct that the "45-foot" mast described by Janice Kelly was, in fact, 110 foot high?



RFI2010000850

I wish to ask the following questions with respect to Dr. David Kelly's mobile phone:

1. On how many occasions was Dr. Kelly's mobile phone switched off on 17th July 2003 and 18th July 2003?

2. For each such occasion, what time was it switched off and in which locality was it situated at the time it was switched off? (I understand that when a mobile phone is switched off it signals to the nearest mast. The location of the relevant mast(s) is sufficient detail for the purpose of the question.) Additionally, if it is possible to identify the time and location at which it was switched on again, I would also like that information.

3. Were any calls made from Dr. Kelly's home phone number to the mobile? For each such occasion, at what time was/were such call(s) made?

4. Did the telephone number for the mobile phone found in Dr. Kelly's Barbour jacket pocket and Dr. Kelly's known mobile phone number correspond? In other words, was it checked that they were the same? And were they the same?

5. Was the battery of the mobile phone found in the Barbour jacket pocket charged sufficient for the mobile phone to be used to receive incoming calls or to initiate an outgoing call?

6. Were any outgoing calls made on Dr. Kelly's mobile phone after 13.00 on 17th July 2003? If so, how many such calls were made and at what time was each call made?


RFI2010000857

The following individuals were documented, in evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry, to be close to or in contact with the body of Dr. David Kelly at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003 before the creation and search of the Common Approach Path.

For each of those individuals I wish to ask what forensic or other evidence was found during the search of the Common Approach Path, or otherwise, that demonstrated that they had been in proximity to the body found at Harrowdown Hill?

1. Louise Holmes

2. Paul Chapman

3. DC Graham Coe

4. Vanessa Hunt

5. Dave Bartlett

6. PC Dean Andrew Franklin

7. PC Jonathan Martyn Sawyer

It would, I suggest, be best should any such evidence have been found if the answer is formulated in a list with, for example, "No evidence" beside each name to which that accurately applies. And a description of the evidence for any individual for which evidence of presence was found.

Alternatively, if no forensic or other relevant evidence was found for the presence of any of the named individuals then a blanket "No evidence" would suffice.


We have previously responded to 14 Freedom of Information Act requests from you on this subject matter (our references RFI2010000727, RFI2010000728, RFI2010000729, RFI2010000730, RFI2010000731, RFI2010000732, RFI2010000737, RFI2010000738, RFI2010000756, RFI2010000757, RFI2010000758, RFI2010000768, RFI2010000819, and RFI20100000840).

Please note that the relevant costs incurred in responding to those requests exceeded the “appropriate limit” provided for in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

We take the view that all your requests have been for the same or similar information (ie. detailed information relating to the investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly) and all have been received within a period of 60 working days. For the purposes of calculating the likely costs of dealing with your current requests, we have therefore aggregated all requests from you on this subject matter.

We estimate that the costs of determining whether or not we hold the information requested in your four most recent requests would exceed the “appropriate limit” provided for in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. We have reached this estimate based on the detailed nature of the information you have requested and our experience of the time taken to deal with previous requests on this subject matter.

By virtue of section 12 of the FOIA, we are therefore not obliged to confirm whether or not we hold the information requested in your four most recent requests and this letter represents a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the FOIA.

Please also note that future requests by you on this subject may be regarded as “vexatious” and refused pursuant to section 14 of the FOIA. In our view they are imposing a significant and disproportionate burden on police officers and staff.

In accordance with our duty under section 16 of the FOIA, I would invite you to contact me via this e-mail address should you require any advice or assistance in relation to the application of sections 12 or 14 of the FOIA or in any other respect.

I have attached our Complaints Procedure to this email as the first stage of appealing this decision is by writing to me and requesting an Internal Review, detailing why you believe our decision is not in accordance with the FOIA.

Yours sincerely,

The Death of David Kelly - A tiny experiment in the woods

One of the issues which concerns me about the Thames Valley Police investigation in 2003 is the reliability of the evidence underpinning the conclusion that no "third party" was present at the scene where David Kelly's body was found.

It is far from clear from the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry that an adequate investigation of this issue was undertaken by Thames Valley Police.

In that context, today I carried out a small series of experiments in a wood near where I live.

It should, of course, be borne in mind that the location and time of year differ from the scene at Harrowdown Hill and that, therefore the characteristics of the vegetation may differ from that at Harrowdown Hill. Nonetheless, I believe my findings are potentially interesting.

Basically, what I did was to stand (wearing walking boots) on a variety of different grasses, tussocks etc and watch how long the imprint of my boot was clearly discernible and how long it took for any discernible impression to disappear. I did that both with a very non-natural imprint (my boot in one place for several seconds) and with a more natural "walking" imprint.

On grass of a variety of lengths I was surprised just how quickly the grass sprang back into its previous shape. It took about 10 to 60 seconds for grass to resume its previous shape so I was wholly unable to identify a footprint whose exact location I knew.

It seems to me that the chances of Thames Valley Police identifying on grass-covered ground any footprints of David Kelly and/or third parties in Harrowdown Hill woodland some hours after the footprints (had they existed) were made would be, essentially, zero.

I conclude that the absence of evidence on grass of footprints tells us nothing about whether "third parties" were present at Harrowdown Hill or not.

The Death of David Kelly - Thames Valley Police and the Wilding Report

There are potentially worrying discrepancies in the evidence supporting Andrew Gilligan's account of comments which he attributed to Dr. David Kelly.

Not least is that the first version of the "Kelly" comments is dated 21st May 2003 on Andrew Gilligan's computer.

Since Andrew Gilligan and Dr. Kelly met on 22nd May 2003 it is potentially very disturbing that a supposed record of a meeting appears to have been written the day before the meeting took place.

The discrepancy was investigated, at least to some extent, by Edward Wilding. Mr. Wilding gave oral evidence at the Hutton Inquiry but his written report was withheld from the Hutton web site!

One would expect that Thames Valley Police would have thoroughly investigated that discrepancy.

But it appears that they ignored it.

See the following response from Thames Valley Police to a Freedom of Information request:

Dear Dr Watt

Reference No: RFI2010000819

Thank you for your request for information dated 29/11/2010 which for clarity I repeat below

1. To ask for a copy of the written report and/or statement(s) of Mr. Edward Wilding which he produced relating to his forensic examination of Andrew Gilligan's personal digital assistant?

2. To ask, if Thames Valley Police do not have a copy of the report for what reason(s) Thames Valley Police failed to secure a copy of the report in 2003.

Thames Valley Police does not hold this report.

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

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Possible pre-meditated insufficiency of inquiry by Lord Hutton

This post consists largely of the text of an email sent to the Attorney General's Office on 27th January 2011.

The following was the title of the email:

David Kelly - Possible pre-meditated insufficiency of inquiry by Lord Hutton

And the content was as follows:

Mr McGinty,

I write to draw to the attention of the Attorney General a potentially serious matter which I do not recall having seen raised in any publicly available documents sent to the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court with a view to obtaining an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The matter causing me concern is prima facie evidence that Lord Hutton's insufficiency of inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly was, in fact, pre-meditated.

The following text is, so I understand, a quote from material written by Lord Hutton for the Inner Temple Yearbook 2004. The Attorney General will note that the meaning on the face of Lord Hutton's text is that he didn't bother looking rigorously into various matters within the scope of the Hutton Inquiry.


I thought that there would be little serious dispute as to the background facts [about Dr Kelly’s death].


I thought unnecessary time could be taken up by cross-examination on matters which were not directly relevant.



The material quoted is from here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1245626/NORMAN-BAKER-Hutton-farcical-feeble-amateurish--MUST-told-truth-week.html

A lengthier version of the quote appears on page 83 of the book The Strange Death of David Kelly by Norman Baker MP.

Unusually, with respect to matters I have written to the Attorney General about I do not have access to a full copy of the original document. I suggest it should be straightforward for you to obtain a copy of a full version of the relevant text to allow appropriate evaluation of the scope and severity of the problem.

The notion of "background facts" is potentially very broad. Consequently, Lord Hutton's approach is, in its scope, potentially far ranging.

I suggest that the quote above is prima facie evidence that Lord Hutton excluded an unspecified variety of issues from rigorous consideration. It seems to me that such an approach is potentially both improper and insufficient.

The lengthier version of the quote indicates that "the basic facts" were already apparent "from reports in the press and other parts of the media".

For a judge to exclude from consideration consideration about supposed "background facts" because of "reports in the press" is something I find astonishing in this context.

It strongly suggests to me that Lord Hutton did not diligently inquire into all matters relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Since it is apparent that he premeditatedly intended not to inquire into some matters it is, to my mind, disturbingly clear that Lord Hutton's insufficiency of inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly is, in at least some respects, a pre-meditated insufficiency of inquiry.

I ask the Attorney General carefully to examine the scope and seriousness of what appears to have been a pre-meditated insufficiency of inquiry on the part of Lord Hutton in the context of previous correspondence from myself and others with respect to the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

In my estimation, the interests of justice require an inquest to explore issues which were ignored in what appears to have been a pre-meditatedly insufficient inquiry by Lord Hutton.

(Dr) Andrew Watt