Lord Hutton read out a statement on 28th January 2004 regarding some of the major points which appeared in the Report of the Hutton Inquiry which was published on the same day.
The full video of Lord Hutton's statement is available on this page: The Hutton Report: Video.
The statement by Lord Hutton is the upper of the two video links on that page.
About 1 hour and 19 minutes into Lord Hutton's statement he is interrupted at some length by a female member of the audience.
She is blonde and in dark clothing. I wondered if she had a foreign (German??) accent.
Who is she?
Rumour has it that part of what she said was "David Kelly was murdered".
Unfortunately for me the sound quality wasn't good enough to decipher what she said and I was unable to confirm or refute the rumoured assertion.
Friday, 29 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - Mai Pederson's evidence and its rejection by the Hutton Inquiry
This post consists largely of a communication sent to the Attorney General earlier today.
In it I draw to the attention of the Attorney General the evidence that might have been available to the Hutton Inquiry indicating that David Kelly had functional problems using his right arm and had an aversion to swallowing pills.
These matters, if substantiated, are of obvious potential importance in assessing the validity (or otherwise) of the "suicide hypothesis" adopted by the Hutton Inquiry.
The title of the email was:
The text of the email was:
In it I draw to the attention of the Attorney General the evidence that might have been available to the Hutton Inquiry indicating that David Kelly had functional problems using his right arm and had an aversion to swallowing pills.
These matters, if substantiated, are of obvious potential importance in assessing the validity (or otherwise) of the "suicide hypothesis" adopted by the Hutton Inquiry.
The title of the email was:
David Kelly - Rejection of Evidence - Mai Pederson
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 communication I wish to draw to the Attorney General's attention what I believe to be "rejection of evidence" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The "rejection of evidence" also casts a spotlight on yet another aspect of the "insufficiency of inquiry" by counsel to the Hutton Inquiry.
The specific cause for concern is the evidence potentially available to Lord Hutton from Mai Pederson, a close friend of David Kelly.
Mai Pederson is mentioned only twice in the oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry. First by Janice Kelly in the guise of "Mike Peddison" (the stenographer presumably having mis-heard the name) and second in the evidence of ACC Michael Page (on his second appearance before the Hutton Inquiry.
The relevant quote from ACC Page's evidence is here (page 199): http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans42.htm
5 Q. Have there been other people you have contacted and
6 taken statements from?
7 A. In order, my Lord, there were twelve individuals
8 including Olivia Bosch from whom we took statements.
9 Q. Was one of those persons Mia Pedersen?
10 A. Yes, we interviewed Mia Pedersen. She declined to give
11 a statement as such but I have a record of the
12 interviews that took place.
13 Q. Were you able to obtain any relevant evidence from her?
14 A. The conversation with Mia Pedersen added nothing that
15 was of relevance to my inquiry at all.
Again, Mai Pederson's name is incorrectly recorded.
The Press indicates that Mai Pederson's lawyer, Mark Zaid, wrote to the Attorney General on 10th June 2010 regarding the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly. Various quotes from that letter appear in the media.
I understand (and the Attorney General can readily confirm this) that Mark Zaid wrote on 10th June 2010 in a letter or email to the Attorney General,
"... as you may be aware, Ms. Pederson was requested to provide testimony to Lord Hutton and had agreed to do so. This never occurred because reasonable privacy protections, which were requested in part because she was an active duty member of the United States military at the time, were not afforded."
Further press reports ascribe statements to Ms. Pederson to the effect that David Kelly had an old elbow injury on the right side, had (at least sometimes) difficulty using his right arm to (for example) cut steak and had an aversion both to swallowing pills and to suicide.
Such statements are of immense importance in relation to proper assessment of the "suicide hypothesis".
Such testimony, if it were of the nature reported in the press, would have cast huge doubts over the "suicide hypothesis" adopted by Lord Hutton.
If Mr. Zaid's letter of June 2010 accurately reflects the facts in 2003 then it appears that the Hutton Inquiry rejected evidence that could have been of crucial importance in demonstrating the "suicide hypothesis" to be untenable.
One must ask why the Hutton Inquiry rejected Mai Pedersen's evidence.
It cannot have been a matter of Mai Pederson asking for exceptional treatment.
Mai Pedersen asked for privacy protection. Such was afforded to other witnesses.
The Hutton Inquiry afforded to "Mr. A." some level of anonymity and allowed Janice Kelly and Rachel Kelly to use an audio link. Roger Avery gave evidence by videlink from the USA.
Why did the Hutton Inquiry not offer similar anonymity or privacy protection to Ms. Pederson and allow her to give evidence to the Inquiry from the USA?
It seems to me that one principle of a properly conducted judicial inquiry is equity of treatment. Ms. Pederson was not, in my view, afforded that and the result was the rejection by the Hutton Inquiry of potentially crucially important evidence.
If I correctly interpret Mr. Zaid's assertion quoted earlier, then the approach of the Hutton Inquiry to Mai Pederson's evidence had obvious and worrying similarities to the concept of "constructive dismissal".
It seems to me that the failure of the Hutton Inquiry properly to collect and consider Mai Pederson's evidence constitutes "rejection of evidence" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
It is beyond the scope of this communication to explore whether the rejection by the Hutton Inquiry of Mai Pederson's evidence is due to oversight, incompetence or corruption.
However, given the multiple material deficiencies of the Hutton Inquiry it seems to me that exploration of all those possibilities in a formal Police inquiry, judicial inquiry or legal professional inquiry ought not to be indefinitely postponed.
The evidence ascribed by the Press to Mai Pedersen also indirectly sheds light on another aspect of the "insufficiency of inquiry" by the Hutton Inquiry. There is no record in oral testimony from anyone that David Kelly had full use of his right arm.
In a situation where a conclusion is reached of suicide by use of that right arm the failure to ask appropriate questions regarding the matter of the functionality of David Kelly's right arm (for example of Janice Kelly and/or Rachel Kelly) is, in my view, a gross failure on the part of both the James Dingemans QC and Lord Hutton.
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 - The Nine Silent Witnesses
In this post I report a communication sent earlier today to the Attorney General drawing attention to deficiencies of inquiry in relation to nine witnesses who may have had contact with David Kelly during the last few days of his life.
We don't know whether the "nine silent witnesses" had material evidence to contribute.
We should have known at the Hutton Inquiry.
And we should know now what evidence they might have had to contribute.
The email was entitled:
The text of the email was as follows:
We don't know whether the "nine silent witnesses" had material evidence to contribute.
We should have known at the Hutton Inquiry.
And we should know now what evidence they might have had to contribute.
The email was entitled:
David Kelly - The nine silent witnesses
The text of the email was 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 for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
The matter to which I refer in this communication is, I believe, "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. Further, the failures by counsel to the Hutton Inquiry in relation to this matter may also have resulted in "rejection of evidence" in the meaning of Section 13. In addition, the giving of evidence by ACC Page about "Gabrielle's concerns" is arguably "irregularity of proceedings".
Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page gave evidence on two occasions to the Inquiry. His second appearance was on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003. The transcript is here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans42.htm
ACC Page makes reference to interviewing twelve witnesses here (on pages 198 and 199):
8 MR DINGEMANS: In the course of those inquiries and
9 interviews I think you have interviewed a number of
10 people that Dr Kelly spoke to at some length, is that
11 right?
12 A. Yes, we have obviously established all known contacts
13 that Dr Kelly had in the last few days of his life; and
14 we have explored all those contacts. We assessed the
15 nature of the relationship between the contact and
16 Dr Kelly. Some were very fairly easily dealt with
17 because they were obviously casual contacts or business
18 contacts and we were able to deal with those by way of
19 questioning. Some we assessed the relationship with
20 Dr Kelly to be more of a friendship, and therefore my
21 main concern there was whether Dr Kelly may have
22 confided in those individuals and therefore with
23 a certain number of individuals we actually interviewed
24 them and took statements from them.
25 Q. And took statements. One of the persons that you
199
1 interviewed and took statements from in fact was able to
2 give evidence and that was Olivia Bosch and we have
3 heard from her.
4 A. That is correct, my Lord.
5 Q. Have there been other people you have contacted and
6 taken statements from?
7 A. In order, my Lord, there were twelve individuals
8 including Olivia Bosch from whom we took statements.
9 Q. Was one of those persons Mia Pedersen?
However, counsel goes on to ask ACC Page about the evidence of only three of the twelve individuals.
James Dingemans fails even to ask (about the other nine individuals) who they were and what information they had provided to the Police.
This, to my mind, is gross insufficiency of inquiry on the part of James Dingemans QC and the Hutton Inquiry.
It might be the case that the "nine silent witnesses" had nothing material to contribute. Surely, at a minimum, a competent and diligent counsel would have established that by brief, appropriate questioning!
Additionally, Mr. Dingemans seems to have accepted at face value ACC Page's implicit conclusion that "business contacts" and "casual contacts" can have no material evidence to contribute.
Counsel asks ACC Page nothing whatsoever about the purpose of interviewing the other nine witnesses, asks nothing about their identity and asks nothing about the nature of the evidence given by the anonymous nine witnesses.
To my mind this is overt and worrying "insufficiency of inquiry" by James Dingemans QC.
Since at least some of the twelve had spoken "at length" with David Kelly and possibly during the "last few days" of his life, then they might, at a minimum have been able to shed light on his mental state. (I have drawn to the attention of the Attorney General some of the doubts about Janice Kelly's evidence and the bizarre viewpoint adopted by Professor Keith Hawton.)
Evidence was potentially available to the Hutton Inquiry about David Kelly's mental state in the "last few days" of his life. The Inquiry failed to elicit that evidence. To my mind that is, in practical terms, "rejection of evidence".
Further, ACC Page sought to explain "Gabrielle's concerns". This seems to me to be "irregularity of proceedings". Surely, Gabriella Kraz-Wadsak should have given her own evidence. If David Kelly had been discussing concerns about the Iraq Survey Group's methodology and, possibly, integrity with Ms. Kraz-Wadsak that is, I would submit, potentially important information.
I have titled this email "The nine silent witnesses". Arguably, there are eleven silent witnesses since only Olivia Bosch of the "twelve" gave oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.
I anticipate writing separately to the Attorney General about the silencing by the Hutton Inquiry of one of the "twelve", Mai Pedersen.
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 - How to hide a needle
This post is by way of brief general commentary on the "needle" of the murder of Dr. David Kelly and how it could be hidden.
There are two basic techniques to hide a "needle" that occur to me:
Option 1. wasn't available to Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair and Charlie Falconer. The disappearance and death of David Kelly was too publicly visible.
Option 2. was the Hutton Inquiry. Detail was heaped upon detail in oral testimony. Inconsistency upon inconsistency. Document was piled upon document.
In real time, the press release processors of Fleet Street and the broadcast media didn't have a hope of identifying the gaps in the evidence.
The volume of information was overwhelming. And remains almost overwhelming even with much more time to process it than journalists had during the Hutton Inquiry.
Heaping copious quantities of "hay" on the "needle" almost succeeded as a cover-up strategy.
There are two basic techniques to hide a "needle" that occur to me:
- Pretend there is no needle.
- Heap enormous quantities of "hay" under, over and around the needle so that the chances of finding it are negligibly small
Option 1. wasn't available to Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair and Charlie Falconer. The disappearance and death of David Kelly was too publicly visible.
Option 2. was the Hutton Inquiry. Detail was heaped upon detail in oral testimony. Inconsistency upon inconsistency. Document was piled upon document.
In real time, the press release processors of Fleet Street and the broadcast media didn't have a hope of identifying the gaps in the evidence.
The volume of information was overwhelming. And remains almost overwhelming even with much more time to process it than journalists had during the Hutton Inquiry.
Heaping copious quantities of "hay" on the "needle" almost succeeded as a cover-up strategy.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
David Kelly - Why was he present at the FAC on 25th September 2002?
On 25th September 2002, David Kelly accompanied Jack Straw to an evidence session of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee. See WEDNESDAY 25 SEPTEMBER 2002 for the transcript of evidence.
On the previous day, a recalled House of Commons had heard Tony Blair announce the UK Government's dossier on the supposed threat that Iraq posed.
On 25th September 2002, David Kelly's only contribution to the evidence to the FAC was to agree absolutely with a mundane statement by Jack Straw. The following extract is from Jack Straw's answer to question 19:
Why was David Kelly there?
Why did Jack Straw call on him to say anything? There was no need for him to do so.
If Jack Straw was given advance notice of question 19, was this primarily a charade, a stage-managed interaction, to amplify the supposed need for military intervention in Iraq?
On the previous day, a recalled House of Commons had heard Tony Blair announce the UK Government's dossier on the supposed threat that Iraq posed.
On 25th September 2002, David Kelly's only contribution to the evidence to the FAC was to agree absolutely with a mundane statement by Jack Straw. The following extract is from Jack Straw's answer to question 19:
Your other point, Sir John, was about the way in which the inspectors were messed around in the 1990s. What I think is interesting about the way the environment and the inspectors work, and if I am wrong, I invite Dr Kelly to correct me because he was there and I was not, but what I am told by other people who were inspectors at the time was that when the international community were clear and resolute, the environment for the inspectors was a very different one from the moment it became fairly obvious that it was possible for Saddam to play one member of the international community off against another.
(Dr Kelly) You are absolutely right in that analysis.
Why was David Kelly there?
Why did Jack Straw call on him to say anything? There was no need for him to do so.
If Jack Straw was given advance notice of question 19, was this primarily a charade, a stage-managed interaction, to amplify the supposed need for military intervention in Iraq?
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - How was the DNA matching done?
Sometime around the time that the body was found at Harrowdown Hill, David Kelly's dentist found that his dental records were missing.
Despite a Thames Valley Police investigation they could not be located.
Mysteriously, a short time (a few days?) later the dental records reappeared. At least, dental records that purported to be the dental records of David Kelly were located.
Supposedly Thames Valley Police then identified (or confirmed the identification of) the body at Harrowdown Hill as being David Kelly on DNA evidence.
The basic question, of course not examined at the Hutton Inquiry, was how the supposed DNA matching was done.
Was there a DNA profile for Dr. David Kelly on file? If so, who held that file? Given his trips to Iraq in the past it might be reasonable for fingerprints and DNA to be held on file, in case he was the victim of a roadside bomb, for example.
Alternatively were DNA samples taken from family members in July 2003, for example from one or more of David Kelly's daughters? That would allow the DNA techniques used to establish paternity to be adapted to this situation.
We're not told which of these approaches, if any, was used.
The only "evidence" that the body is David Kelly's is an assertion unsupported by any expert testimony that the DNA matched.
If the purpose of the (assumed) break-in at the dental surgery wsa to falsify David Kelly's dental records, wouldn't the same party/parties have had the foresight potentially to have taken the steps to falsify any DNA profile on file?
Below is ACC Page's oral testimony about the dental records given on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003 (see pages 202 and 203):
Despite a Thames Valley Police investigation they could not be located.
Mysteriously, a short time (a few days?) later the dental records reappeared. At least, dental records that purported to be the dental records of David Kelly were located.
Supposedly Thames Valley Police then identified (or confirmed the identification of) the body at Harrowdown Hill as being David Kelly on DNA evidence.
The basic question, of course not examined at the Hutton Inquiry, was how the supposed DNA matching was done.
Was there a DNA profile for Dr. David Kelly on file? If so, who held that file? Given his trips to Iraq in the past it might be reasonable for fingerprints and DNA to be held on file, in case he was the victim of a roadside bomb, for example.
Alternatively were DNA samples taken from family members in July 2003, for example from one or more of David Kelly's daughters? That would allow the DNA techniques used to establish paternity to be adapted to this situation.
We're not told which of these approaches, if any, was used.
The only "evidence" that the body is David Kelly's is an assertion unsupported by any expert testimony that the DNA matched.
If the purpose of the (assumed) break-in at the dental surgery wsa to falsify David Kelly's dental records, wouldn't the same party/parties have had the foresight potentially to have taken the steps to falsify any DNA profile on file?
Below is ACC Page's oral testimony about the dental records given on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003 (see pages 202 and 203):
9 Q. Were you ever contacted by Dr Kelly's dentist?
10 A. Yes, we did receive a telephone call from Dr Kelly's
11 dentist, shortly -- I cannot recall whether it was on
12 the day that he died or the day after but we did receive
13 a call, yes.
14 Q. What was that about?
15 A. The doctor -- the dentist, rather, expressed some
16 concerns. Upon hearing of Dr Kelly's death on Friday
17 18th July, she was aware he was a patient and apparently
18 the practice has a process whereby patients are
19 contacted shortly before an appointment. She was aware
20 that he was due an appointment shortly and she did not
21 want to cause distress to Dr Kelly or his family, so she
22 went to the filing cabinet to find his notes of his
23 dental records and they were missing.
24 Q. So what did the police do?
25 A. We carried out a full examination of the surgery and, in
203
1 particular, one window which the dentist was concerned
2 may not have been secure. We found no trace of anything
3 untoward either in the surgery or on the window.
4 Q. Did you carry out any further investigations as a result
5 of this?
6 A. Yes, the dental records -- we had another call from the
7 dentist to say that the dental records had reappeared on
8 the Sunday in the place in the filing cabinet where they
9 should have been. We forensically examined those and
10 could find no evidence of extraneous fingerprints or
11 whatever on that file. However, upon hearing about
12 this, and again I stress because I am a police officer
13 and probably inherently suspicious, because dental
14 records are a means of identification it did prompt me
15 to take the extra precaution of having DNA checks
16 carried out to confirm that the body we had was the body
17 of Dr Kelly, notwithstanding the fact that that had been
18 identified by his family.
19 Q. Did you have those DNA checks carried out?
20 A. I did and they confirmed that it was the body of
21 Dr Kelly.
The death of David Kelly - A time to bury a bad decision?
Governments since the time of Tony Blair have had a reputation for cynically using major news events as times to bury bad news.
The upcoming Royal wedding on 29th April presents an opportunity for the Attorney General to bury a bad decision on the request that an inquest be held into the suspicious death of David Kelly.
Surely Dominic Grieve wouldn't be so cynical as to announce a "No" decision to coincide with the media furore over the Royal Wedding.
Surely?
The upcoming Royal wedding on 29th April presents an opportunity for the Attorney General to bury a bad decision on the request that an inquest be held into the suspicious death of David Kelly.
Surely Dominic Grieve wouldn't be so cynical as to announce a "No" decision to coincide with the media furore over the Royal Wedding.
Surely?
Saturday, 23 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - The ridiculously inadequate examination of David Kelly's computers
In this post I'd like to begin to examine the inadequacy of the examination of David Kelly's computers carried out by Thames Valley Police.
The approach described by ACC Page is grossly inadequate.
Remember he claimed that the investigation was of a standard comparable to a murder inquiry. He either had an unusual sense of humour in claiming that or a brass neck.
Below this long extract from ACC Page's oral testimony given on the morning of 3rd September 2003 (see pages 33 to 36) I'll briefly discuss some of the things that ought to have been done that appear not to have been done.
Notice the large amount of information that conveys essentially nothing. It is simply regurgitating technical detail of the computers. It tells us nothing about what David Kelly used the computers for.
The purpose of examining the computers ought to be to understand what was in David Kelly's mind, not mechanically list the characteristics of his computers.
A "key word" search is something that a computer forensics expert might have done as a "quick and dirty" first look.
However, a serious examination of the computers would need detailed understanding of David Kelly's life and why he might have been murdered.
Only then can specific email correspondence, for example, be looked for. For example, it would be of enormous interest to know if David Kelly had email contact with Judith Miller in the period leading up to her New York Times article which debunked the "mobile weapons labs" nonsense.
Similarly, it would have been of interest to look for all email contacts with Andrew Gilligan. Was there, for example, email contact in the period leading up to the leak in February 2003 of the Top Secret Defeence Intelligence Staff document rubbishing the supposed link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?
There is a notable gap in David Kelly's diary for April 2003. What was he doing then? A diligent and competent Police investigation would have taken steps to fill in those gaps by examining the computer files (not least the emails) for April 2003.
Worryingly, diligence and competence are not accusations that can be fairly levelled at Thames Valley Police's investigation; of the computer evidence or more widely.
With respect to examination of the computers, ACC Page's evidence leads me to conclude that on this aspect of the case there was gross "insufficiency of inquiry".
The approach described by ACC Page is grossly inadequate.
Remember he claimed that the investigation was of a standard comparable to a murder inquiry. He either had an unusual sense of humour in claiming that or a brass neck.
Below this long extract from ACC Page's oral testimony given on the morning of 3rd September 2003 (see pages 33 to 36) I'll briefly discuss some of the things that ought to have been done that appear not to have been done.
12 Q. That can go off the screen. What other material was
13 recovered from his house, just in general terms?
14 A. A range of documents, but principally computer equipment
15 and associated hardware, CDs, that type of thing.
16 Q. What have you done to analyse the computer equipment?
17 A. Well, there is a vast amount of equipment.
18 Q. Can you tell us what equipment there was?
19 A. I can, my Lord. If I can -- I will very quickly go
20 through the technical details. We seized one NJN tower
21 PC with a 6 gigabyte disk, 3.4 gigabytes of which had
22 been used.
23 Q. So he used over half the capacity of the machine?
24 A. On that particular machine, yes.
25 Q. If I decided to print out the whole of those contents
34
1 that he used, what sort of mound of paper would I end up
2 with?
3 A. I am advised by our computer technical people that of
4 all the memory that we have seized from Dr Kelly's
5 various computers --
6 Q. So from all the computers together?
7 A. From all the computers, if we were to print it out it
8 would produce a pile of paper twice as high as Big Ben.
9 Q. You have obviously not printed out or have you printed
10 out that amount of paper?
11 A. No, my Lord, we have not. What we have done is every
12 disk in our possession we have interrogated using
13 a number of key words which we felt would highlight any
14 data that would be of interest to police inquiries.
15 Q. What is an example of a key word?
16 A. "Suicide", "despair".
17 Q. Have you put in, for example, "Iraq"?
18 A. Yes, we have put in "Iraq".
19 Q. Right. And other key words of that nature?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And have you extracted anything as a result of those key
22 word searches?
23 A. We have extracted a number of documents, e-mails and so
24 forth.
25 Q. And where was this process carried out?
35
1 A. It was carried out on premises in Thames Valley, our
2 technical premises which I will not disclose the
3 location of, if you do not mind.
4 Q. Who did the work?
5 A. A technical computer technician employed by Thames
6 Valley Police as a forensic computer specialist.
7 Q. You recovered quite a lot of material from that and you
8 have shared relevant material with the Inquiry, is that
9 right?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. You were telling us what computers you have recovered
12 from the scene. We had got to the stack, I think.
13 A. In addition to the NJN tower PC, we seized a Palm M505
14 PDA.
15 Q. What is that?
16 A. Personal Digital Assistant, one of the small hand-held
17 computers, 12 megabyte disk, and everything had been
18 used on that. We seized a Dell tower PC with a disk
19 size of 55.9 gigabytes, 16.7 gigabytes of which had been
20 used. We seized a Toshiba laptop with a disk size of
21 3.8 gigabytes, 1.6 gigabytes of which had been used. We
22 seized a Dell laptop with a disk size of 9.3 gigabytes,
23 7.9 gigabytes of which had been used, and we seized
24 a further Dell laptop with a disk size of 55.9
25 gigabytes, 6.1 gigabytes of which had been used. We
36
1 seized one card-style laptop which was faulty and
2 therefore we have been unable to access. We retrieved
3 one hard-drive of 406 megabytes which has not been used,
4 and we also, from the Ministry of Defence, seized
5 a tower PC with a disk size of 3 gigabytes, 2.4
6 gigabytes of which had been used.
Notice the large amount of information that conveys essentially nothing. It is simply regurgitating technical detail of the computers. It tells us nothing about what David Kelly used the computers for.
The purpose of examining the computers ought to be to understand what was in David Kelly's mind, not mechanically list the characteristics of his computers.
A "key word" search is something that a computer forensics expert might have done as a "quick and dirty" first look.
However, a serious examination of the computers would need detailed understanding of David Kelly's life and why he might have been murdered.
Only then can specific email correspondence, for example, be looked for. For example, it would be of enormous interest to know if David Kelly had email contact with Judith Miller in the period leading up to her New York Times article which debunked the "mobile weapons labs" nonsense.
Similarly, it would have been of interest to look for all email contacts with Andrew Gilligan. Was there, for example, email contact in the period leading up to the leak in February 2003 of the Top Secret Defeence Intelligence Staff document rubbishing the supposed link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?
There is a notable gap in David Kelly's diary for April 2003. What was he doing then? A diligent and competent Police investigation would have taken steps to fill in those gaps by examining the computer files (not least the emails) for April 2003.
Worryingly, diligence and competence are not accusations that can be fairly levelled at Thames Valley Police's investigation; of the computer evidence or more widely.
With respect to examination of the computers, ACC Page's evidence leads me to conclude that on this aspect of the case there was gross "insufficiency of inquiry".
Friday, 22 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - A timeline on the 45-minute claim
Readers of this blog know that I like timelines since they can help to make a sequence of events much clearer.
Some readers may be interested in this timeline produced by the BBC about the 45-minute claim: Timeline: The 45-minute claim.
One of the issues which the timeline doesn't deal with is the use and the subsequent abandoning of use of the 45-minute claim by the Blair Government.
It seems plausible to me that the Blair Government knew around 25th September 2002 that the 45-minute claim was non-credible.
That (stunning?) realisation led to the Blair Government immediately stopping using the 45-minute claim in its public propaganda in favour of a war with Iraq.
Is there a better explanation of why the Blair Government abruptly stopped using the 45-minute claim?
If they knew the 45-minute claim was false, who told them it was false?
And, if all that is true, why didn't Blair, Campbell and others publicly acknowledge it to be false.
Surely a British Government wouldn't go to war on the basis of "intelligence" it knew to be false?
Some readers may be interested in this timeline produced by the BBC about the 45-minute claim: Timeline: The 45-minute claim.
One of the issues which the timeline doesn't deal with is the use and the subsequent abandoning of use of the 45-minute claim by the Blair Government.
It seems plausible to me that the Blair Government knew around 25th September 2002 that the 45-minute claim was non-credible.
That (stunning?) realisation led to the Blair Government immediately stopping using the 45-minute claim in its public propaganda in favour of a war with Iraq.
Is there a better explanation of why the Blair Government abruptly stopped using the 45-minute claim?
If they knew the 45-minute claim was false, who told them it was false?
And, if all that is true, why didn't Blair, Campbell and others publicly acknowledge it to be false.
Surely a British Government wouldn't go to war on the basis of "intelligence" it knew to be false?
The Death of David Kelly - "He seemed to be relaxed and on top of things"
The quote in the title of this post was made by Donald Anderson, then chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee regarding David Kelly's appearance before the committee on 15th July 2003.
See Body of MoD 'mole' found in Oxfordshire woods.
The "deeply anxious time" comment is because, on 18th July 2003, a body had been found but not yet identified as David Kelly.
Having watched, several times, the DVD of his appearance at the FAC I would slightly qualify Donald Anderson's comments to "he seemed pretty relaxed and on top of things". At appropriate times David Kelly laughed and was able to make the committee laugh too.
I find wholly incredible the notion that the person I saw in the DVD committed suicide some 48 hours later.
Further, I find it bizarre that Professor Keith Hawton (who has supposedly watched the DVD) can come to the opposite conclusion.
See Body of MoD 'mole' found in Oxfordshire woods.
Donald Anderson, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said: "I was shocked when I heard the news and I am sure the hearts of all the committee go out to his family at this deeply anxious time. The Committee interviewed him on Tuesday and he seemed to be relaxed and on top of things."
The "deeply anxious time" comment is because, on 18th July 2003, a body had been found but not yet identified as David Kelly.
Having watched, several times, the DVD of his appearance at the FAC I would slightly qualify Donald Anderson's comments to "he seemed pretty relaxed and on top of things". At appropriate times David Kelly laughed and was able to make the committee laugh too.
I find wholly incredible the notion that the person I saw in the DVD committed suicide some 48 hours later.
Further, I find it bizarre that Professor Keith Hawton (who has supposedly watched the DVD) can come to the opposite conclusion.
The Death of David Kelly - Lord Hutton has "previous" in concealing murder which would be embarassing to the State
On Sunday 30th January 1972 fourteen civilians in Londonderry received fatal wounds after being shot by members of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment.
The British Government immediately set up an inquiry under the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Widgery.
A pivotal figure in the now deservedly discredited cover-up by Lord Widgery of multiple murders by the British Army was one Brian Hutton.
Brian Hutton represented the Ministry of Defence and sought, successfully, to persuade Lord Widgery that the murders weren't murder.
Of course, it can be said that Brian Hutton was only doing his job.
However, equally, it can be said that Brian Hutton acted to conceal serious criminal offences which were embarassing to the British State. And accepted payment for doing so.
Not satisfied with successfully concealing multiple murders Hutton then had the audacity to reprimand the Londonderry coroner, Major Hubert O'Neill who had correctly identified the murders as what they were.
Hutton's shameful words echo to this day:
See 1973: 'Bloody Sunday' inquest accuses Army.
Ironically, given the flagrant inadequacies of the Hutton Inquiry, Hutton also criticised the Londonderry coroner of having heard only some of the evidence.
The Widgery Inquiry demonstrated clearly that a senior judge could easily act so as to conceal murder which was embarassing to the British State.
At the Widgery Inquiry Brian Hutton sought to conceal murders which would be embarassing to the British State.
With this outstanding track record of cover-up, it is hardly surprising that Lord Falconer identified Brian Hutton as an eminently suitable person to conduct an inquiry to conceal the murder of David Kelly.
I suspect that I'm not alone in believing that Lord Hutton, in conducting the Hutton Inquiry, followed in the footsteps of Lord Widgery and concealed murder embarassing to the British State.
The British Government immediately set up an inquiry under the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Widgery.
A pivotal figure in the now deservedly discredited cover-up by Lord Widgery of multiple murders by the British Army was one Brian Hutton.
Brian Hutton represented the Ministry of Defence and sought, successfully, to persuade Lord Widgery that the murders weren't murder.
Of course, it can be said that Brian Hutton was only doing his job.
However, equally, it can be said that Brian Hutton acted to conceal serious criminal offences which were embarassing to the British State. And accepted payment for doing so.
Not satisfied with successfully concealing multiple murders Hutton then had the audacity to reprimand the Londonderry coroner, Major Hubert O'Neill who had correctly identified the murders as what they were.
Hutton's shameful words echo to this day:
It is not for you or the jury to express such wide-ranging views, particularly when a most eminent judge has spent 20 days hearing evidence and come to a very different conclusion
See 1973: 'Bloody Sunday' inquest accuses Army.
Ironically, given the flagrant inadequacies of the Hutton Inquiry, Hutton also criticised the Londonderry coroner of having heard only some of the evidence.
The Widgery Inquiry demonstrated clearly that a senior judge could easily act so as to conceal murder which was embarassing to the British State.
At the Widgery Inquiry Brian Hutton sought to conceal murders which would be embarassing to the British State.
With this outstanding track record of cover-up, it is hardly surprising that Lord Falconer identified Brian Hutton as an eminently suitable person to conduct an inquiry to conceal the murder of David Kelly.
I suspect that I'm not alone in believing that Lord Hutton, in conducting the Hutton Inquiry, followed in the footsteps of Lord Widgery and concealed murder embarassing to the British State.
Thursday, 21 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - Was this the motive for murder?
Typically, in many posts I examine the evidence about the death of David Kelly methodically, systematically and fairly uncontroversially. In this post I'm going to depart from that approach and put up a potentially controversial hypothesis which might explain his being murdered on 17th July 2003.
Feel free to shoot it down if you think the facts don't add up. It's a hypothesis. It needs to be tested against the evidence. It may need refinement in the light of further evidence. It may need to be discarded if the evidence shows it to be untenable.
In the preceding post, The Death of David Kelly - Operation Rockingham, I mention a little about Operation Rockingham.
In that post I reproduce evidence showing David Kelly had liaison functions with the Defence Intelligence Service, Operation Rockingham and MI6.
Through one or more of those routes he would, in all likelihood, have learned about the intelligence behind the "45 minute" claim.
Supposedly, I have yet to check, he was out of the country during much of September 2002.
Suppose the "45 minute" claim genuinely wasn't seen by David Kelly until after publication of the September dossier (or until it was too late to remove the claim from the dossier).
Suppose David Kelly told the powers that be, maybe in late September 2002, that the "45 minute" claim is demonstrably rubbish.
The following extract from the Transcript of evidence taken on 15/07/03 before the Foreign Affairs Select Committe is expressed in diplomatic and subtle language:
I think that could reasonably be restated as this: "Even when the Iraqi WMD programme was in full flow a decade or so ago it wasn't credible that they could launch a biological or chemical attack in 45 minutes from the order being given. It is even less credible now.".
Suppose my paraphrase correctly restates David Kelly's views.
Suppose he told MI6 and the DIS those views shortly after the publication of the September 2002 dossier.
Could that explain the sudden expunging of the "45 minute" claim from the Blair Government narrative after its prominence in the September dossier?
After a highly public flurry in late September 2002 the "45 minute" claim evaporates from the propaganda of Blair's Government. Why? Could it be because David Kelly had, with good evidence, told them it was rubbish?
Suppose in July 2003 when the heat was on him about the Gilligan interview that David Kelly, hypothetically, told someeone they better back off since he could document that he'd told Blair (or someone close to him) that the "45 minute" claim was false in September 2002.
Was that the moment when he caused sufficient concern in high places that his life expectancy became very limited indeed?
Hypothetical? Yes.
Incredible? I suggest that it is not.
Are there gaps in the evidence for the hypothesis? Absolutely.
If the hypothesised rubbishing of the "45 minute" claim took place in September 2002 (and if there was credible evidence that it had) could the Blair Government afford to risk Kelly being left alive?
Particularly when he'd told the ISC on 16th July 2003 that he liaised regularly with MI6 on WMD intelligence issues?
Feel free to shoot it down if you think the facts don't add up. It's a hypothesis. It needs to be tested against the evidence. It may need refinement in the light of further evidence. It may need to be discarded if the evidence shows it to be untenable.
In the preceding post, The Death of David Kelly - Operation Rockingham, I mention a little about Operation Rockingham.
In that post I reproduce evidence showing David Kelly had liaison functions with the Defence Intelligence Service, Operation Rockingham and MI6.
Through one or more of those routes he would, in all likelihood, have learned about the intelligence behind the "45 minute" claim.
Supposedly, I have yet to check, he was out of the country during much of September 2002.
Suppose the "45 minute" claim genuinely wasn't seen by David Kelly until after publication of the September dossier (or until it was too late to remove the claim from the dossier).
Suppose David Kelly told the powers that be, maybe in late September 2002, that the "45 minute" claim is demonstrably rubbish.
The following extract from the Transcript of evidence taken on 15/07/03 before the Foreign Affairs Select Committe is expressed in diplomatic and subtle language:
Q138 Richard Ottaway: From Saddam Hussem saying "use them" to delivery on the
battlefield. to actually being fired at enemy troops, allied troops?
Dr Kelly: It makes a number of assumptions, that the weapons were all ready to go in the right
place with whatever system was being used with the right tracking to attack, and that is very
unlikely. We are talking in terms of Iraq, in terms of what we knew ten years ago, a country
which filled its weapons to use them, it did not maintain a stockpile of filled weapons, with the exception of mustard gas. it is actually quite a long and convoluted process to go from having bulk agent and munitions to actually getting them to the bunker for storage and then issue them and subsequently deploy them.
I think that could reasonably be restated as this: "Even when the Iraqi WMD programme was in full flow a decade or so ago it wasn't credible that they could launch a biological or chemical attack in 45 minutes from the order being given. It is even less credible now.".
Suppose my paraphrase correctly restates David Kelly's views.
Suppose he told MI6 and the DIS those views shortly after the publication of the September 2002 dossier.
Could that explain the sudden expunging of the "45 minute" claim from the Blair Government narrative after its prominence in the September dossier?
After a highly public flurry in late September 2002 the "45 minute" claim evaporates from the propaganda of Blair's Government. Why? Could it be because David Kelly had, with good evidence, told them it was rubbish?
Suppose in July 2003 when the heat was on him about the Gilligan interview that David Kelly, hypothetically, told someeone they better back off since he could document that he'd told Blair (or someone close to him) that the "45 minute" claim was false in September 2002.
Was that the moment when he caused sufficient concern in high places that his life expectancy became very limited indeed?
Hypothetical? Yes.
Incredible? I suggest that it is not.
Are there gaps in the evidence for the hypothesis? Absolutely.
If the hypothesised rubbishing of the "45 minute" claim took place in September 2002 (and if there was credible evidence that it had) could the Blair Government afford to risk Kelly being left alive?
Particularly when he'd told the ISC on 16th July 2003 that he liaised regularly with MI6 on WMD intelligence issues?
The Death of David Kelly - Operation Rockingham
One little-mentioned aspect of David Kelly's duties relates to a UK (possibly secret) intelligence operation called "Operation Rockingham".
The purpose of this post is simply to flag up what is in the public domain from the Parliamentary realm with a view to examination of other aspects of Operation Rockingham in future posts.
The publicly available information is extremely sparse.
David Kelly mentions his Operation Rockingham activities here in his evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee on 16th July 2003:
Normally, the preceding information would not have been available in the public domain.
Remarkably little has ever been disclosed to the UK Parliament about Operation Rockingham.
Operation Rockingham may have started as UNSCOM inspections in Iraq, see the following testimony to the Defence Select Committee here:
On 12th January 2004 the following written answer about Operation Rockingham was given:
In 2006 there is the following written answer about Operation Rockingham:
There is virtually no information relating to what Operation Rockingham was working on in the crucial period leading up to the pretext for the Iraq War propagandised by Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell in 2002/2003.
Note, above, that David Kelly says the following in the (expected to be) private hearing at the Intelligence and Security Committee:
But wasn't his public position that he didn't know about or hadn't seen the intelligence behind the 45 minute claim in the September 2002 dossier?
Which makes me wonder about the veracity of his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003.
The purpose of this post is simply to flag up what is in the public domain from the Parliamentary realm with a view to examination of other aspects of Operation Rockingham in future posts.
The publicly available information is extremely sparse.
David Kelly mentions his Operation Rockingham activities here in his evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee on 16th July 2003:
ANN TAYLOR: Can I ask, at the beginning you mentioned that you do see certain
intelligence reports but you haven't been very specific about that, can you give us some
idea of what you see by way of JIC papers, what you see from DIS, you mentioned that
you did see some intelligence reporting could you give us a fuller picture please, of what
they might be?
DR KELLY: Certainly. I see all the intelligence reporting concerned with both Iraq
and ***; with regard to chemical and biological weapons, that arrives in the Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat and I have full access to that. Within the Defence
Intelligence Services I liaise with the Rockingham cell which used to service UNMOVIC
and UNSCOM and now will service the Iraq Survey Group and I don't go through all the
information that they have but, almost on a weekly basis I'll sit down with the principal
officer there and he will alert me to anything that he thinks is of relevance to my work. I
also liaise with SIS, they call me in if they want to discuss any raw intelligence with me
or if they want any assistance in interpreting intelligence . I see them every two months
or so
Normally, the preceding information would not have been available in the public domain.
Remarkably little has ever been disclosed to the UK Parliament about Operation Rockingham.
Operation Rockingham may have started as UNSCOM inspections in Iraq, see the following testimony to the Defence Select Committee here:
1546. I know the experience. I gave evidence to a Committee yesterday and I was constantly being passed notes by the clerk. I did not read one of them, I might tell you!
(Brigadier Holmes) I am grateful for the sleight of hand on the part of the person behind me! Small numbers, mainly specialists, serving Operation Warden, which is deterrent forces covering Northern Iraq; Operation Jural, which is the no-fly zone over Southern Iraq; and occasionally Operation Rockingham, which is UNSCOM inspections in Iraq itself. So it is mainly specialists and the chap who caught my eye is an officer on UNSCOM inspections in Iraq.
On 12th January 2004 the following written answer about Operation Rockingham was given:
Operation Rockingham
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the role and function is of the unit set up under Operation Rockingham; what its cost was in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement. [146708]
Mr. Ingram: Operation Rockingham was established in 1991 to provide support to UNSCOM inspections in Iraq. It has subsequently also supported UNMOVIC
12 Jan 2004 : Column 538W
inspections and currently supports the work of the Iraq Survey Group. In the last financial year (2002–03), the cost of the team was £78,723.53.
In 2006 there is the following written answer about Operation Rockingham:
Operation Rockingham
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the present functions are of Operation Rockingham; how many staff are employed on it; and if he will make a statement. [69799]
15 May 2006 : Column 664W
Des Browne: The Operation Rockingham cell is working on residual issues relating to Iraqi WMD and analysing the lessons learned from the Iraq survey group deployment. It consists of three people (two part-time and one full-time).
There is virtually no information relating to what Operation Rockingham was working on in the crucial period leading up to the pretext for the Iraq War propagandised by Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell in 2002/2003.
Note, above, that David Kelly says the following in the (expected to be) private hearing at the Intelligence and Security Committee:
I see all the intelligence reporting concerned with both Iraq
and ***; with regard to chemical and biological weapons, that arrives in the Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat and I have full access to that.
But wasn't his public position that he didn't know about or hadn't seen the intelligence behind the 45 minute claim in the September 2002 dossier?
Which makes me wonder about the veracity of his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - Contacting Chilcot's Cheating Us
Since some new individuals are either commenting on the blog or following the blog it might be helpful to repost information about how to contact me, for example, to ask a question or forward a piece of possibly relevant information. Or just to say "Hi!".
See A contact email address for Chilcot's Cheating Us for the email address. I've tried to make it difficult for spamming bots to understand it but still make it accessible to human beings.
If there are any topics that you think ought to be discussed that aren't being mentioned or aren't being taken seriously enough then feel free to mention them too.
I'd simply say that there is a raft of correspondence to the Attorney General and a smaller amount to Thames Valley Police that I have yet to post on the blog. And there's some really juicy stuff in there (at least in my opinion).
So the fact that something isn't actually the subject of a recent blog post doesn't mean it has been overlooked (or is being overlooked).
See A contact email address for Chilcot's Cheating Us for the email address. I've tried to make it difficult for spamming bots to understand it but still make it accessible to human beings.
If there are any topics that you think ought to be discussed that aren't being mentioned or aren't being taken seriously enough then feel free to mention them too.
I'd simply say that there is a raft of correspondence to the Attorney General and a smaller amount to Thames Valley Police that I have yet to post on the blog. And there's some really juicy stuff in there (at least in my opinion).
So the fact that something isn't actually the subject of a recent blog post doesn't mean it has been overlooked (or is being overlooked).
The Death of David Kelly - "Do you have blood on your hands, Prime Minister?"
"Do you have blood on your hands, Prime Minister?"
These memorable words were asked of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in Japan in July 2003 following the discovery of the body of David Kelly at Harrowdown Hill.
The dramatic question is captured towards the end of this video: Have you got blood on your hands Prime Minister? David Kelly.
As you see on the video, Tony Blair greets the question with a stony silence.
That silence about whether or not Tony Blair has the blood of David Kelly on his hands continues to this day.
Maybe, just maybe, at some point in the fairly near future Tony Blair will have formally to answer the perceptive question posed in 2003.
Tony Blair's stony silence on this matter should not be allowed to persist.
These memorable words were asked of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in Japan in July 2003 following the discovery of the body of David Kelly at Harrowdown Hill.
The dramatic question is captured towards the end of this video: Have you got blood on your hands Prime Minister? David Kelly.
As you see on the video, Tony Blair greets the question with a stony silence.
That silence about whether or not Tony Blair has the blood of David Kelly on his hands continues to this day.
Maybe, just maybe, at some point in the fairly near future Tony Blair will have formally to answer the perceptive question posed in 2003.
Tony Blair's stony silence on this matter should not be allowed to persist.
The Death of David Kelly - Both Dr. Kelly and the MoD knew that Susan Watts was a "tricky area"
On 14th July 2003 a meeting was held at which Martin Howard (Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence), Dr. David Kelly, Dr. Bryan Wells (David Kelly's immediate line manager at the Ministry of Defence) and Ms. Heather Smith were present.
The offical note of the meeting is here: Notes of a meeting with Dr Kelly 14/07/03.
In addition to the typed note there are handwritten notes from three individuals (all except Martin Howard):
Dr. Wells: Hand-written notes of meeting with Dr Kelly 14/07/03
Ms. Smith: Handwritten note taken by Heather Smith at meeting with Dr Kelly 14.7.03
Dr. Kelly: Exhibit GHW/3/3 –handwritten notes
Each of the handwritten notes has a section labelled "tricky areas". One of the "tricky areas" for David Kelly at the Foreign Affairs Committee on the following day (15th July 2003) was Susan Watts. She is mentioned in each of the handwritten notes.
Several thoughts occur to me:
Hutton mentions the meeting notes here in paragraph 98 in Chapter 4 of the Hutton Report:
Notice that Bryan Wells did not produce the typed meeting note until 22nd July 2003, at a time when many in Whitehall might have been energetically covering their backs.
Hutton does notice that the typed note has expunged the inconvenient words "tricky areas".
Hutton fails to notice that it was Martin Howard who introduced the notion of "tricky areas" (see Bryan Wells' handwritten note). If, as the typed note indicates, the purpose of the meeting was to brief Dr. Kelly on the procedures to expect it is highly surprising that the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence introduces the concept of "tricky areas" to this purely informative briefing.
Interestingly Hutton opines that there were "three" tricky areas despite David Kelly's hand-written note clearly indicating that there were six!
The name Gavin Hewitt is written large at the top of Dr. Wells' handwritten note and is entirely absent from the typed note.
The offical note of the meeting is here: Notes of a meeting with Dr Kelly 14/07/03.
In addition to the typed note there are handwritten notes from three individuals (all except Martin Howard):
Dr. Wells: Hand-written notes of meeting with Dr Kelly 14/07/03
Ms. Smith: Handwritten note taken by Heather Smith at meeting with Dr Kelly 14.7.03
Dr. Kelly: Exhibit GHW/3/3 –handwritten notes
Each of the handwritten notes has a section labelled "tricky areas". One of the "tricky areas" for David Kelly at the Foreign Affairs Committee on the following day (15th July 2003) was Susan Watts. She is mentioned in each of the handwritten notes.
Several thoughts occur to me:
- Both David Kelly and the Ministry of Defence were well aware on 14th July 2003 that David Kelly's contacts with Susan Watts were a tricky area.
- When David Kelly appeared obtuse in his response to the questions about Susan Watts at the Foreign Affairs Committee he knew he was responding to a question about a "tricky area".
- In all likelihood, given that, David Kelly was deliberately misleading the Foreign Affairs Committee when he chose selectively to remember only his single meeting with Susan Watts.
- Interestingly, Bryan Wells's handwritten note indicates that Martin Howard introduced the notion of "tricky areas".
- The typed note of the meeting produced by Dr. Wells has expundged the notion of "tricky areas".
Hutton mentions the meeting notes here in paragraph 98 in Chapter 4 of the Hutton Report:
98. Dr Wells' typewritten record made on 22 July was based on a handwritten note which he had made at the meeting on 14 July and his handwritten note contained the words "tricky areas" which were not included in the typewritten record. A handwritten note made at the meeting by Dr Kelly also contained the words "tricky areas" as did a handwritten note made at the meeting by Ms Heather Smith. It appears that the "tricky areas" were the three areas set out in paragraph 3 of Dr Wells' typewritten record. The three handwritten notes of Dr Wells, Dr Kelly and Ms Smith respectively are set out in appendix 6.
Notice that Bryan Wells did not produce the typed meeting note until 22nd July 2003, at a time when many in Whitehall might have been energetically covering their backs.
Hutton does notice that the typed note has expunged the inconvenient words "tricky areas".
Hutton fails to notice that it was Martin Howard who introduced the notion of "tricky areas" (see Bryan Wells' handwritten note). If, as the typed note indicates, the purpose of the meeting was to brief Dr. Kelly on the procedures to expect it is highly surprising that the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence introduces the concept of "tricky areas" to this purely informative briefing.
Interestingly Hutton opines that there were "three" tricky areas despite David Kelly's hand-written note clearly indicating that there were six!
The name Gavin Hewitt is written large at the top of Dr. Wells' handwritten note and is entirely absent from the typed note.
The Death of David Kelly - Another minor inaccuracy in the evidence of Janice Kelly
In her evidence given on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003 Janice Kelly stated on page 8 that Dr. Kelly was thinking of retiring in 2005:
However, in an email (E-mail from Dr Kelly 4 March 03) sent on 4th March 2003 to an unknown recipient David Kelly is clear that he expects to retire in a year's time i.e. March 2004 (the time of his 60th birthday):
Yet another point regarding which there is reason to question the reliability of Janice Kelly's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
Is this an example of Janice Kelly projecting her thoughts or feelings on to David Kelly? As an experienced civil servant he would have known that the normal retirement age was 60.
8 Q. And had he talked about his retirement, at that stage?
9 A. Yes, but only in general terms. Later on he gave a date
10 to it. At that stage he was thinking perhaps of 2005.
However, in an email (E-mail from Dr Kelly 4 March 03) sent on 4th March 2003 to an unknown recipient David Kelly is clear that he expects to retire in a year's time i.e. March 2004 (the time of his 60th birthday):
Retirement is a year away for me and I continue to observe Iraq from far away for FCO and MOD and will continue until 2004
Yet another point regarding which there is reason to question the reliability of Janice Kelly's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
Is this an example of Janice Kelly projecting her thoughts or feelings on to David Kelly? As an experienced civil servant he would have known that the normal retirement age was 60.
The Death of David Kelly - Who is Paul Loftus? What is L&DR?
Some time back I posted about some seemingly minor discrepancies in David Kelly's emails sent on 17th July 2003: The death of David Kelly - Seemingly trivial discrepancies in emails on 17th July 2003.
Many of the emails have "Paul Loftus" with "LD&R-Lon" or "LDR-Lon" in the header.
Who is Paul Loftus?
What is L&DR-Lon?
I can find no information on a Paul Loftus in Thames Valley Police.
Many of the emails have "Paul Loftus" with "LD&R-Lon" or "LDR-Lon" in the header.
Who is Paul Loftus?
What is L&DR-Lon?
I can find no information on a Paul Loftus in Thames Valley Police.
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - An undisclosed search on 18th July 2003?
The recent post, The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Concealment of information on computers at his home, drew attention to the seeming incompleteness of available information from the computers at David Kelly's home.
However, another interesting aspect arises when the details of the circumstances are carefully considered.
The email from Terry Williams is timed at 18:13 on 18th July 2003.
That timing indicates that items (possibly not confined to the computers and associated items) were removed from Dr. Kelly's home on 18th July.
Apart from the brief (informal and/or unauthorised ?) search by Detective Sergeant Webb mentioned briefly in his oral evidence, I was under the impression that David Kelly's house was (first?) searched on Saturday 19th July 2003.
So far as I can ascertain there is a "search document" on the Hutton Inquiry web site only for the search on 19th July 2003: "Search document "Westfield" 19/07/03 - not for release - Police operational information TVP/3/0328 - 0368".
But none for the search conducted by Detective Sergeant Webb (and others?) on 18th July 2003.
However, another interesting aspect arises when the details of the circumstances are carefully considered.
The email from Terry Williams is timed at 18:13 on 18th July 2003.
That timing indicates that items (possibly not confined to the computers and associated items) were removed from Dr. Kelly's home on 18th July.
Apart from the brief (informal and/or unauthorised ?) search by Detective Sergeant Webb mentioned briefly in his oral evidence, I was under the impression that David Kelly's house was (first?) searched on Saturday 19th July 2003.
So far as I can ascertain there is a "search document" on the Hutton Inquiry web site only for the search on 19th July 2003: "Search document "Westfield" 19/07/03 - not for release - Police operational information TVP/3/0328 - 0368".
But none for the search conducted by Detective Sergeant Webb (and others?) on 18th July 2003.
The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Concealment of information on computers at his home
In the Evidence section of the Hutton Inquiry web site there is a page labelled Files retrieved from Dr Kelly's home computer.
Superficially, that seems to be openness on the part of the Hutton Inquiry.
However, the evidence page just referred to seems to be files retrieved from one computer.
However, there were at least five computers retrieved from David Kelly's home.
In this document Email Williams/Purnell 18/0703 we learn that two tower computers, three laptop computers and one PDA were removed from Dr. Kelly's home.
In addition to the computers there was an external zip drive, together with multiple CDs, floppy disks and zip disks.
[Notice, in passing, that it is to Superintendent Dave Purnell that the email is sent from Terry Williams, although so the Hutton narrative goes DCI Young is the police officer in charge of the investigation.]
There are five computers listed by Terry Williams.
The Hutton Inquiry web site seems to contain information from one of the five computers.
What information was contained on the other four computers?
So far as I can ascertain we are not told.
Superficially, that seems to be openness on the part of the Hutton Inquiry.
However, the evidence page just referred to seems to be files retrieved from one computer.
However, there were at least five computers retrieved from David Kelly's home.
In this document Email Williams/Purnell 18/0703 we learn that two tower computers, three laptop computers and one PDA were removed from Dr. Kelly's home.
In addition to the computers there was an external zip drive, together with multiple CDs, floppy disks and zip disks.
[Notice, in passing, that it is to Superintendent Dave Purnell that the email is sent from Terry Williams, although so the Hutton narrative goes DCI Young is the police officer in charge of the investigation.]
There are five computers listed by Terry Williams.
The Hutton Inquiry web site seems to contain information from one of the five computers.
What information was contained on the other four computers?
So far as I can ascertain we are not told.
The Death of Dr. David Kelly - The missing ambulance form
The Patient Report Form for David Kelly produced by the ambulance personnel who attended Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003 is, so we are told, missing.
Further, the relevant ambulance authority have recently refused to establish whether or not they hold a copy of the form on grounds of cost in response to a Freedom of Information Request.
However, is it possible that the Hutton Inquiry already holds the information?
The following interchange between Mr. Knox and Dave Bartlett took place in oral hearing on the afternoon of Tuesday 2nd September 2003 (see page 78):
Was Mr. Knox reading from the Patient Report Form to enable him to ask the question?
In other words, is the missing Patient Report Form buried somewhere in the morass of documents concealed by Hutton from public scrutiny?
Further, the relevant ambulance authority have recently refused to establish whether or not they hold a copy of the form on grounds of cost in response to a Freedom of Information Request.
However, is it possible that the Hutton Inquiry already holds the information?
The following interchange between Mr. Knox and Dave Bartlett took place in oral hearing on the afternoon of Tuesday 2nd September 2003 (see page 78):
14 Q. What is the number of the ambulance you were working in
15 that day; can you remember?
16 A. I cannot remember to be honest without going back to the
17 computer readouts. We use so many different ones.
18 Q. If I say number 934, does that sound right?
19 A. Could be, yes.
Was Mr. Knox reading from the Patient Report Form to enable him to ask the question?
In other words, is the missing Patient Report Form buried somewhere in the morass of documents concealed by Hutton from public scrutiny?
The Death of David Kelly - The silence of Martin Robbins and Dr. Andrew Davison
In November 2010 I posted open letters to the Guardian writer Martin Robbins and the Cardiff-based pathologist, The death of Dr. David Kelly - "Put up or shut up!".
In his Guardian article in August 2010, David Kelly conspiracy theorists should put up or shut up, Martin Robbins was bullish (or should that be bullshit-ish?) about the evidence that David Kelly supposedly committed suicide.
Readers might be interested in the response of Mr. Robbins and Dr. Davison to my open emails.
Total silence.
It's enough to make you wonder whether Martin Robbins had a clue about what he so confidently wrote about.
Long-time readers of the blog may also wonder about the response of the forensic pathologists to whom I wrote in my open communication recorded in this post, The death of Dr. David Kelly - An open letter to Professor Derrick Pounder and other forensic pathologists.
You guessed it.
Total silence.
Not one of the forensic pathologists quoted by the Guardian backed up their casual opinions expressed in the Guardian article.
That silence I find very interesting if the forensic pathologists are genuinely sure that David Kelly committed suicide.
In his Guardian article in August 2010, David Kelly conspiracy theorists should put up or shut up, Martin Robbins was bullish (or should that be bullshit-ish?) about the evidence that David Kelly supposedly committed suicide.
Readers might be interested in the response of Mr. Robbins and Dr. Davison to my open emails.
Total silence.
It's enough to make you wonder whether Martin Robbins had a clue about what he so confidently wrote about.
Long-time readers of the blog may also wonder about the response of the forensic pathologists to whom I wrote in my open communication recorded in this post, The death of Dr. David Kelly - An open letter to Professor Derrick Pounder and other forensic pathologists.
You guessed it.
Total silence.
Not one of the forensic pathologists quoted by the Guardian backed up their casual opinions expressed in the Guardian article.
That silence I find very interesting if the forensic pathologists are genuinely sure that David Kelly committed suicide.
The Death of David Kelly - His attitude to suicide
This post consists largely of the content of a communication sent to the Attorney General yesterday evening.
The title of the email was:
The text of the email was:
The title of the email was:
David Kelly - Dr. Kelly's attitude to suicide.
The text of the email was:
Mr. McGinty,
This communication is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with his consideration of whether or not an application should be made 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 issue which I believe to constitute "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
Lord Hutton concluded that David Kelly had committed suicide.
For a full assessment of the credibility of an alleged suicide an examination of the deceased's attitude to suicide is self-evidently potentially relevant, if such evidence is likely to be available.
Lord Hutton appears to have failed adequately to inquire into Dr. Kelly's attitude to suicide and failed to take oral evidence from two individuals who, arguably, potentially had unique insights into Dr. Kelly's attitude to suicide:
1. Professor Alistair Hay
2. An unnamed character referee for Dr. Kelly in 1985
Professor Hay was a friend of Dr. Kelly. Wendy Hay, Professor Hay's wife committed suicide in September 2002. See, for example, "Prozac blamed for woman's death" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2962654.stm .
The inquest on Wendy Hay took place on or around 5th June 2003.
Given Dr. Kelly's friendship with Professor Hay and their respective losses of a mother and a wife by suicide it is highly likely that they would have talked about Wendy Hay's suicide and it is entirely possible that Dr. Kelly may have expressed his attitude to suicide and, for example, its effect on a spouse and other family members.
Such quasi-contemporary evidence, had Lord Hutton made the effort to take it, would, I suggest, have been powerful evidence of Dr. Kelly's current views on suicide.
Professor Hay contacted Thames Valley Police to offer his assistance. See Professor Hay's email to Keith Jones of Thames Valley Police at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_2_0002to0007.pdf .
Although Professor Hay provided emails to Thames Valley Police no witness statement from him is visible on the Hutton Inquiry web site, so far as I can ascertain.
Nor did Lord Hutton take oral evidence from Professor Hay.
It seems to me that there is transparently an insufficiency of inquiry by Lord Hutton on a directly relevant issue.
Whether the "insufficiency of inquiry" primarily is attributable to a failure on the part of Thames Valley Police and/or a failure on the part of Lord Hutton is a matter which remains to be explored.
Equally of interest, is the evidence of a longstanding friendship between Dr. Kelly and an unnamed individual whose mother committed suicide around the same time as Dr. Kelly's mother.
This individual's identity was concealed at the Hutton Inquiry on the instruction of Lord Hutton. See the following extract of the oral evidence of Professor Hawton on 24th September 2003 at pages 162 and 163 here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans44.htm .
2 Q. Turning first to the letter from the legal adviser to
3 the Ministry of Defence. What relevant information does
4 that disclose?
5 A. I will read what it says. It says:
6 "I enclose two extracts from Dr Kelly's vetting file
7 which were prepared based on a report prepared by the
8 investigating officer handling his initial positive
9 vetting clearance in 1985. The first records an
10 interview on 20th November 1985 with Dr Kelly in which
11 he referred to his mother's death."
12 The relevant passage, quoting from the letter,
13 reads:
14 "'Dr Kelly said his mother died by her own hand in
15 1964, never having remarried. For many years prior to
16 her death she suffered from depression and he has little
17 doubt that the verdict of the coroner at the inquest
18 into her death that the balance of her mind was
19 disturbed was correct.'"
20 Q. Was there any other information in the letter?
21 A. Yes, there is a -- as follows:
22 "The second extract --
23 LORD HUTTON: I think there should be no reference to
24 anyone's name, Professor Hawton, or to any particular
25 locality.
163
1 A. I understand. The second extract reports an interview
2 on 28th November with a friend of Dr Kelly who had known
3 him for many years, who he had nominated as one of his
4 character referees. I am quoting here. The relevant
5 passage seems to be as follows:
6 "The main incident in their lives that had brought
7 them ..."
8 Sorry:
9 "He thought that the main incident in their lives
10 that had brought them closer friendship was that their
11 mothers each took their own life within a short period
12 of each other. They were in many ways able to give each
13 other encouragement and help following these tragedies,
14 which helped them to develop a closer bond of friendship
15 between them."
16 Then another following extract:
17 "He recalls the death of his mother [here one
18 assumes he is referring to Dr Kelly, Dr Kelly's mother],
19 which occurred at a time during his student days at the
20 University of Leeds and was known to be engrossed in his
21 studies and whilst the tragedy distressed him, he
22 appeared to ride the period well and at no time when
23 [they] were together did he display any mental reaction
24 to this unfortunate matter. In fact, the referee said
25 'he can be considered a well balanced person'."
It is clear that the referee referred to in the above extract had a longstanding close friendship with David Kelly and would likely have had detailed knowledge of David Kelly's attitude to suicide.
Yet, without explanation, no evidence was taken from him by the Hutton Inquiry on this directly relevant issue.
It seems to me that there is strong evidence of insufficiency of inquiry with respect to an issue directly relevant to how David Kelly had viewed and would view suicide.
I, of course, in makeing the preceding point make the assumption that the unidentified referee was alive in August / September 2003 which is unknown.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that it will be considered by the Attorney General.
Thank you.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
Monday, 18 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - Evidence suggesting suppression of contemporary medical report
This post consists largely of a communication sent earlier today to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's office.
The medical report whose content was suppressed was, so far as I'm aware, the one assessment of Dr. Kelly's health conducted by a health professional (or professionals). In my view, it is disgraceful that its content was not considered in detail at the Hutton Inquiry.
In the interests of transparency the email was copied to Professor Keith Hawton and Dr. Malcolm Warner, whose evidence to the Hutton Inquiry is referred to in the email to the Attorney General.
The title of the email was:
The content of the email to the Attorney General was as follows:
The medical report whose content was suppressed was, so far as I'm aware, the one assessment of Dr. Kelly's health conducted by a health professional (or professionals). In my view, it is disgraceful that its content was not considered in detail at the Hutton Inquiry.
In the interests of transparency the email was copied to Professor Keith Hawton and Dr. Malcolm Warner, whose evidence to the Hutton Inquiry is referred to in the email to the Attorney General.
The title of the email was:
David Kelly - Evidence suggesting suppression of contemporary medical report
The content of the email to the Attorney General was as follows:
Mr. McGinty,
This communication is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with his consideration of whether or not an application should be made 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 issue which I believe to constitute "rejection of evidence" and "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
On or around 7th July 2003 a medical examination was conducted on Dr. David Kelly at RAF Honnington.
The Kelly family gave written permission for the medical report to be released to the Hutton Inquiry. See page 2 of the document incorporating the hand-delivered letter of Peter Jacobsen of Bircham Dyson Bell of 7th August 2003 which is available online on the Hutton Inquiry website here: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/mod/mod_8_0005to0010.pdf .
Notice the reference to "envisaged" departure to Iraq signifying that the report referred to was produced shortly before the scheduled travel to Iraq on 11th July 2003 rather than being a medical report produced in May 2003 before David Kelly's abortive trip to Kuwait.
I have spent time attempting to identify the report on the Hutton Inquiry web site. The most likely document is labelled thus: Dr Kelly's medical report / Health Declaration - not for release - personal information ( TVP/10/0125 - 0130 ) which is not available to the public therefore I cannot give a link to its content.
The only reference in the oral testimony on the Hutton Inquiry web site that I can trace to the medical report is in oral testimony of Dr. Malcolm Warner on Tuesday 2nd September 2003 (see Page 5 of his evidence, quoted below):
14 Q. We know that an MoD health check was done on 8th July.
15 This I understand was sent to you; is that right?
16 A. That is right.
17 Q. Did it say anything significant?
18 A. No.
The questioning of the counsel to the Inquiry is visibly inadequate.
Further, Dr. Warner's evidence makes no sense, in my view. Whatever the MoD medical report contained or failed to contain I would suggest that, in the context of the Hutton Inquiry, it is both significant and important.
If, as has been rumoured, the MoD health check showed that Dr. Kelly's psychological state was fragile then the motive for suppression of evidence is clear - the medical report would be evidence that the Ministry of Defence had "thrown Dr. Kelly to the wolves" of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the press, knowing that his psychological state was fragile. In other words, a psychological report to the preceding effect would demonstrate negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence and a failure with respect to a duty of care.
Alternatively, given the seemingly desired "verdict" of the Hutton Inquiry as "suicide" the motive to suppress a positive assessment of Dr. Kelly's psychological health on 7th July 2003 is a powerful one. If Dr. Kelly's mental health was examined by a professional and identified as in a good state on or around 7th July 2003 then Professor Hawton's fairy tale given in evidence to Lord Hutton is significantly undermined. In passing, it requires to be established whether Professor Hawton was or was not shown the MoD report. The Hutton Inquiry transcript of Professor Hawton's evidence is unclear on this matter, in my view. If the report was withheld from Professor Hawton I would view that as "irregularity of proceedings". If Professor Hawton was shown the report but failed to discuss the relevance of its content then I view that as another example of the many deficiencies of Professor Hawton's speculative "expert" testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.
If it had been the case that Dr. Kelly's psychological state had not been examined that could simply have been stated to be the case. That possibility seems unlikely given that the environment that the Iraq Survey Group was to enter in Iraq was replete with insurgent activity at the time. It would, I suggest, have been negligent for ISG members to be sent to such an environment without a professional assessment having been made of each individual's psychological state and resilience.
One of the interesting aspects of the suppression of the MoD medical report is that, in October 2010, the Ministry of Justice withheld the MoD medical report while disclosing the postmortem report and the toxicology report. Assuming that the Ministry of Justice's decision was a rational one, the MoJ must have decided to conceal the content of the MoD medical report.
At the risk of stating the obvious, whatever Dr. Kelly's psychological state on 7th July 2003 it does not preclude his being murdered on 17th July 2003.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that it will be considered by the Attorney General.
Thank you.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
The Death of David Kelly - His attitude to suicide
Recently, I posted a brief item on the suicide of Wendy Hay, the wife of David Kelly's friend Professor Alistair Hay: The Death of David Kelly - The suicide of Wendy Hay.
It seems to me to be likely that David Kelly and Alastair Hay had spoken about suicide between Wendy Hay's suicide in September 2002 and David Kelly's death.
Surely the likelihood of a contemporary insight into David Kelly's attitude to suicide was apparent?
Why didn't Lord Hutton take evidence from Alistair Hay?
Lord Hutton also missed an important opportunity to establish David Kelly's attitude to suicide following the suicide of his (i.e. David Kelly's) mother.
One of David Kelly's character referees when he was first positively vetted in 1985 shared the unfortunate circumstance that his/her mother had comitted suicide. See the evidence of Professor Keith Hawton taken on the afternoon of Wednesday 24th September 2003:
Notice that Lord Hutton successfully suppresses the identity of the character referee.
Why wasn't that individual who acted as a character referee asked to give evidence about David Kelly's attitude to suicide in the light of the suicide of their respective mothers?
Together, evidence from Alistair Hay and the anonymous character referee might have provided insight into David Kelly's attitude to suicide much more reliable than such evidence as was collected at the Hutton Inquiry.
Lord Hutton, so far as I can gather, didn't even attempt to take such crucial evidence.
It seems to me to be likely that David Kelly and Alastair Hay had spoken about suicide between Wendy Hay's suicide in September 2002 and David Kelly's death.
Surely the likelihood of a contemporary insight into David Kelly's attitude to suicide was apparent?
Why didn't Lord Hutton take evidence from Alistair Hay?
Lord Hutton also missed an important opportunity to establish David Kelly's attitude to suicide following the suicide of his (i.e. David Kelly's) mother.
One of David Kelly's character referees when he was first positively vetted in 1985 shared the unfortunate circumstance that his/her mother had comitted suicide. See the evidence of Professor Keith Hawton taken on the afternoon of Wednesday 24th September 2003:
2 Q. Turning first to the letter from the legal adviser to
3 the Ministry of Defence. What relevant information does
4 that disclose?
5 A. I will read what it says. It says:
6 "I enclose two extracts from Dr Kelly's vetting file
7 which were prepared based on a report prepared by the
8 investigating officer handling his initial positive
9 vetting clearance in 1985. The first records an
10 interview on 20th November 1985 with Dr Kelly in which
11 he referred to his mother's death."
12 The relevant passage, quoting from the letter,
13 reads:
14 "'Dr Kelly said his mother died by her own hand in
15 1964, never having remarried. For many years prior to
16 her death she suffered from depression and he has little
17 doubt that the verdict of the coroner at the inquest
18 into her death that the balance of her mind was
19 disturbed was correct.'"
20 Q. Was there any other information in the letter?
21 A. Yes, there is a -- as follows:
22 "The second extract --
23 LORD HUTTON: I think there should be no reference to
24 anyone's name, Professor Hawton, or to any particular
25 locality.
163
1 A. I understand. The second extract reports an interview
2 on 28th November with a friend of Dr Kelly who had known
3 him for many years, who he had nominated as one of his
4 character referees. I am quoting here. The relevant
5 passage seems to be as follows:
6 "The main incident in their lives that had brought
7 them ..."
8 Sorry:
9 "He thought that the main incident in their lives
10 that had brought them closer friendship was that their
11 mothers each took their own life within a short period
12 of each other. They were in many ways able to give each
13 other encouragement and help following these tragedies,
14 which helped them to develop a closer bond of friendship
15 between them."
16 Then another following extract:
17 "He recalls the death of his mother [here one
18 assumes he is referring to Dr Kelly, Dr Kelly's mother],
19 which occurred at a time during his student days at the
20 University of Leeds and was known to be engrossed in his
21 studies and whilst the tragedy distressed him, he
22 appeared to ride the period well and at no time when
23 [they] were together did he display any mental reaction
24 to this unfortunate matter. In fact, the referee said
25 'he can be considered a well balanced person'."
Notice that Lord Hutton successfully suppresses the identity of the character referee.
Why wasn't that individual who acted as a character referee asked to give evidence about David Kelly's attitude to suicide in the light of the suicide of their respective mothers?
Together, evidence from Alistair Hay and the anonymous character referee might have provided insight into David Kelly's attitude to suicide much more reliable than such evidence as was collected at the Hutton Inquiry.
Lord Hutton, so far as I can gather, didn't even attempt to take such crucial evidence.
The Death of David Kelly - Contemporary videos on ITNsource.com
There are a number of interesting videos relevant to the death of Dr. David Kelly on the ITNsource.com website here: 2003 Compilation.
You will need to scroll down a long way to reach the relevant video clips.
Clip 52 is a videeo from 18th July 2003 which includes of (part of) an interview with Tom Mangold. Note that Mangold invents the use of "mug" and "prat" applied to Dr. Kelly by the Foreign Affairs committee, perhaps demonstrating the limitations of the reliability of Mangold as a witness or source in this context.
Clip 52 also includes a brief shot of the hearse, presumably in Longworth village.
It also mentions that David Kelly had complained to his wife about his treatment. Who told ITN that? Janice Kelly? Tom Mangold? Someone else?
Someone, it seems, had disclosed to the media conversations between David and Janice Kelly.
Clip 53 shows Tony Blair arriving in Tokyo (from Washington) on 19th July 2003.
Clip 59 from 6th August 2003 shows some coverage of the funeral of David Kelly. The first shot seems to show David Kelly's three daughters and their partners arriving. Later Lord Hutton and James Dingemans (counsel to the Hutton Inquiry) are shown arriving.
Clip 73 from 29th August 2003 relates to the resignation of Alastair Campbell and includes an interview with him. Nothing I see there alters my opinion of Alastair Campbell, that he is a psychopath with excellent communication skills.
Clip 77 from 25th September 2003 relates to the final day of the evidence-taking part of the Hutton Inquiry (apart from Kevin Tebbitt's evidence taken on 13th October 2003) and includes extracts from the closing oral submissions of some of the QCs including the QC who represented the Kelly family.
You will need to scroll down a long way to reach the relevant video clips.
Clip 52 is a videeo from 18th July 2003 which includes of (part of) an interview with Tom Mangold. Note that Mangold invents the use of "mug" and "prat" applied to Dr. Kelly by the Foreign Affairs committee, perhaps demonstrating the limitations of the reliability of Mangold as a witness or source in this context.
Clip 52 also includes a brief shot of the hearse, presumably in Longworth village.
It also mentions that David Kelly had complained to his wife about his treatment. Who told ITN that? Janice Kelly? Tom Mangold? Someone else?
Someone, it seems, had disclosed to the media conversations between David and Janice Kelly.
Clip 53 shows Tony Blair arriving in Tokyo (from Washington) on 19th July 2003.
Clip 59 from 6th August 2003 shows some coverage of the funeral of David Kelly. The first shot seems to show David Kelly's three daughters and their partners arriving. Later Lord Hutton and James Dingemans (counsel to the Hutton Inquiry) are shown arriving.
Clip 73 from 29th August 2003 relates to the resignation of Alastair Campbell and includes an interview with him. Nothing I see there alters my opinion of Alastair Campbell, that he is a psychopath with excellent communication skills.
Clip 77 from 25th September 2003 relates to the final day of the evidence-taking part of the Hutton Inquiry (apart from Kevin Tebbitt's evidence taken on 13th October 2003) and includes extracts from the closing oral submissions of some of the QCs including the QC who represented the Kelly family.
The Death of David Kelly - Dominic Grieve Dismisses suggestions of a cover-up
There are extracts online from a very interesting doorstep interview given by Dominic Grieve in August 2010 here: POLITICS: Doctor David Kelly death: Attorney General dismisses cover-up.
Among the things Dominic Grieve says is the following:
To get the clips (of which there are five) to run click on the video then let it run past its seeming end. Eventually it gets to the Dominic Grieve statement that I quote above.
I wonder if he regrets the comment now.
Among the things Dominic Grieve says is the following:
I have no reason to think, absolutely no reason to think, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest, that there has been some cover-up in respect of the circumstances of Dr. Kelly's death.
To get the clips (of which there are five) to run click on the video then let it run past its seeming end. Eventually it gets to the Dominic Grieve statement that I quote above.
I wonder if he regrets the comment now.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
The death of David Kelly - the relevance of the "misinformation effect"
The use of a single word in a question can alter the mental picture that witnesses of an event build up in their mind.
The classical scenario which demonstrated the "misinformation effect" was the experiment conducted by Elizabeth Loftus using a simulated car crash. If the word "smashed" was used in the question about vehicle speed rather than the word "hit" it resulted in witnesses testifying that the speed they had (supposedly) observed was higher. Further, a week later the "smashed" witnesses more often reported having seen broken glass (there was none in the simulated accident). See Misinformation Effect, for a brief summary of the effect.
It seems to me that the "mininformation effect" needs carefully to be thought about in the context of the death of David Kelly.
The media was full of the word "suicide", including using the word at times when the identity of the body was unconfirmed and when the cause of death was unknown.
On the morning of 18th July someone (we currently don't know who) was spreading the story that David Kelly had committed suicide.
Possibly the earliest appearance of the suicide story on 18th July 2003 is a little after 10.00 on 18th July 2003, as here on pages 92 and 93 of the evidence of Sarah Pape on the morning of 1st September 2003:
"It looked as though he had committed suicide."
At, let's say, 10.30 on 18th July 2003 nobody with any professional expertise knew how David Kelly had died.
Dr. Hunt, the pathologist, didn't arrive at Harrowdown Hill until shortly after 12 noon and didn't begin his examination of the body for another 2 hours or so.
It seems to me that on the morning of 18th July 2003 someone may have been deliberately spreading the misinformation that David Kelly had comitted suicide.
Who had the motive to do so?
At the risk of stating the obvious, the hypothetical murderer(s) had a huge incentive to spread the suicide story.
How much did the incessant (and seemingly unquestioned) story of "suicide" influence recollections of events, for example in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?
The "misinformation effect" would lead us to expect that it would colour such recollections.
The classical scenario which demonstrated the "misinformation effect" was the experiment conducted by Elizabeth Loftus using a simulated car crash. If the word "smashed" was used in the question about vehicle speed rather than the word "hit" it resulted in witnesses testifying that the speed they had (supposedly) observed was higher. Further, a week later the "smashed" witnesses more often reported having seen broken glass (there was none in the simulated accident). See Misinformation Effect, for a brief summary of the effect.
It seems to me that the "mininformation effect" needs carefully to be thought about in the context of the death of David Kelly.
The media was full of the word "suicide", including using the word at times when the identity of the body was unconfirmed and when the cause of death was unknown.
On the morning of 18th July someone (we currently don't know who) was spreading the story that David Kelly had committed suicide.
Possibly the earliest appearance of the suicide story on 18th July 2003 is a little after 10.00 on 18th July 2003, as here on pages 92 and 93 of the evidence of Sarah Pape on the morning of 1st September 2003:
23 Between operations I went back to my office and
24 checked to see whether there were messages on my mobile
25 phone and I picked up a message from Janice, my
93
1 sister-in-law, shortly before 10 o'clock and the message
2 that she left was to say that there was going to be
3 a press release and that I might hear something about my
4 brother having disappeared, but I knew that already so
5 I was not too concerned.
6 I returned to my office between the next two
7 operations, which would have been some time after
8 10 o'clock, and there was a message from my husband
9 asking me to ring home. I initially thought he was just
10 going to give me the same information, that the press
11 would by now know. In fact when I rang him he told me
12 that the police had found my brother's body and that it
13 looked as though he had committed suicide.
"It looked as though he had committed suicide."
At, let's say, 10.30 on 18th July 2003 nobody with any professional expertise knew how David Kelly had died.
Dr. Hunt, the pathologist, didn't arrive at Harrowdown Hill until shortly after 12 noon and didn't begin his examination of the body for another 2 hours or so.
It seems to me that on the morning of 18th July 2003 someone may have been deliberately spreading the misinformation that David Kelly had comitted suicide.
Who had the motive to do so?
At the risk of stating the obvious, the hypothetical murderer(s) had a huge incentive to spread the suicide story.
How much did the incessant (and seemingly unquestioned) story of "suicide" influence recollections of events, for example in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?
The "misinformation effect" would lead us to expect that it would colour such recollections.
The Death of David Kelly - The suicide of Wendy Hay
In this post I want briefly to mention one personal contemporary event which might be relevant to David Kelly's attitude to suicide.
In September 2002 the wife of David Kelly's friend Alastair Hay committed suicide. See Prozac blamed for woman's death.
The inquest into Wendy Hay's suicide appears to have taken place on or around 5th June 2003.
Alastair Hay is quoted as saying, "The concern I have is of course with the death of my wife. It has been devastating". See Coroner hedges on whether Prozac drove woman to suicide and No proof over Prozac user's death.
One thing is clear. David Kelly would have been aware of the effect of suicide on a bereaved spouse.
Would David Kelly, only a few weeks after Wendy Hay's inquest, credibly choose to inflict such pain on Janice Kelly and their three daughters?
In September 2002 the wife of David Kelly's friend Alastair Hay committed suicide. See Prozac blamed for woman's death.
The inquest into Wendy Hay's suicide appears to have taken place on or around 5th June 2003.
Alastair Hay is quoted as saying, "The concern I have is of course with the death of my wife. It has been devastating". See Coroner hedges on whether Prozac drove woman to suicide and No proof over Prozac user's death.
One thing is clear. David Kelly would have been aware of the effect of suicide on a bereaved spouse.
Would David Kelly, only a few weeks after Wendy Hay's inquest, credibly choose to inflict such pain on Janice Kelly and their three daughters?
Saturday, 16 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - The disappearing medical report of July 2003
On or around 7th or 8th July 2003 a medical examination was carried out on Dr. David Kelly, prior to his anticipated departure to Iraq on 11th July 2003.
The Kelly family gave their permission for the medical report to be released to the Hutton Inquiry. See page 2 of Fax of letter from Peter Jacobsen to Juliet Wheldon & annexures, 07/08/2003.
And then, so far as I can ascertain, that contemporaneous medical report disappears. I can't identify it in the Ministry of Defence Evidence.
Nor can I identify any mention of it in the Hutton Report.
Am I overlooking it? Or has it, perhaps, been suppressed?
If, as seems likely, David Kelly was given a clean bill of health (presumably including psychological health) on or around 7th or 8th July 2003 it would pose huge problems for the "suicide hypothesis".
Is that why the most contemporaneous report of Dr. Kelly's health makes no appearance, so far as I can trace, in the Hutton Inquiry?
I can find no mention that this report was made available to Professor Hawton. If it was not made available to him that would seem to me to be highly irregular on the part of the Hutton Inquiry. If it was made available and Professor Hawton ignored it then the irregularity would seem to be on Professor Hawton's part.
The Kelly family gave their permission for the medical report to be released to the Hutton Inquiry. See page 2 of Fax of letter from Peter Jacobsen to Juliet Wheldon & annexures, 07/08/2003.
And then, so far as I can ascertain, that contemporaneous medical report disappears. I can't identify it in the Ministry of Defence Evidence.
Nor can I identify any mention of it in the Hutton Report.
Am I overlooking it? Or has it, perhaps, been suppressed?
If, as seems likely, David Kelly was given a clean bill of health (presumably including psychological health) on or around 7th or 8th July 2003 it would pose huge problems for the "suicide hypothesis".
Is that why the most contemporaneous report of Dr. Kelly's health makes no appearance, so far as I can trace, in the Hutton Inquiry?
I can find no mention that this report was made available to Professor Hawton. If it was not made available to him that would seem to me to be highly irregular on the part of the Hutton Inquiry. If it was made available and Professor Hawton ignored it then the irregularity would seem to be on Professor Hawton's part.
The Death of David Kelly - Why did the Kelly family visit the Coroner?
The Hutton Inquiry transcripts have intriguing little nuggets buried in the most unlikely places.
Until yesterday I was unaware that the Kelly family had visited the Coroner.
See page 4 of the transcript of Mr Gompertz's remarks made on the morning of 25th September 2003:
So far as I'm aware this is the only mention of the Kelly family visiting the coroner.
Clearly, the visit took place before 25th September 2003.
What was the purpose of the visit made by the Kelly family to the Coroner?
We're not told.
Could it have been subtly to pressure the coroner into agreeing to adjourn the inquest?
Or was there some more legitimate purpose?
Until yesterday I was unaware that the Kelly family had visited the Coroner.
See page 4 of the transcript of Mr Gompertz's remarks made on the morning of 25th September 2003:
6 The media frenzy continued after his death with
7 reporters and photographers at the gate of the family
8 home, and photographers lying in wait when the family
9 visited the coroner.
So far as I'm aware this is the only mention of the Kelly family visiting the coroner.
Clearly, the visit took place before 25th September 2003.
What was the purpose of the visit made by the Kelly family to the Coroner?
We're not told.
Could it have been subtly to pressure the coroner into agreeing to adjourn the inquest?
Or was there some more legitimate purpose?
The Death of David Kelly - Three crucial missing words in the FAC transcript
In the preceding post, The Death of David Kelly - Video of his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, I drew attention to the video of David Kelly's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 15th July 2003.
At approximately 01:03:20 of the video we see the following interaction (the following quote is from the transcript of the Oral Evidence):
There are three crucially important words omitted from the transcript.
In his answer to Q168 David Kelly says, "I accept the process that is going on. I have to.".
David Kelly had to accept the process.
Who applied pressure to make him "accept the process"?
The question has, to the best of my knowledge, never before been asked since the three crucial words in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee have been overlooked for some 7 years.
At approximately 01:03:20 of the video we see the following interaction (the following quote is from the transcript of the Oral Evidence):
Q167 Andrew Mackinlay: I reckon you are chaff; you have been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up, have you not?
Dr Kelly: That is not a question I can answer.
Q168 Andrew Mackinlay: But you feel that?
Dr Kelly: No, not at all. I accept the process that is going on.
Q169 Chairman: I am sorry. You accept ... ?
Dr Kelly: I accept the process that is happening.
There are three crucially important words omitted from the transcript.
In his answer to Q168 David Kelly says, "I accept the process that is going on. I have to.".
David Kelly had to accept the process.
Who applied pressure to make him "accept the process"?
The question has, to the best of my knowledge, never before been asked since the three crucial words in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee have been overlooked for some 7 years.
The Death of David Kelly - Video of his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee
Some time ago I drew attention to the availability for purchase of a DVD of the evidence given by David Kelly on 15th July 2003 to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee: The death of David Kelly - Availability of DVD of Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on 15th July 2003.
Yesterday I discovered that almost the whole of his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee can be viewed online here: The Hutton Report: Video.
To view David Kelly's evidence, click on the lower of the two links on the page just linked to.
Then, once the video opens in Real Player click on the link "Dr. David Kelly: 15th July". It's not a normal web link so I can't, so far as I'm aware, link directly to that part of the video.
You might find it helpful to have access to the transcript of Dr. Kelly's Oral Evidence while watching the video.
I find it utterly bizarre that Professor Hawton concluded that Dr. Kelly (who laughs and jokes in parts of his evidence) committed suicide some 48 hours later.
The video begins at line 5 of Question 3 in the transcript.
Yesterday I discovered that almost the whole of his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee can be viewed online here: The Hutton Report: Video.
To view David Kelly's evidence, click on the lower of the two links on the page just linked to.
Then, once the video opens in Real Player click on the link "Dr. David Kelly: 15th July". It's not a normal web link so I can't, so far as I'm aware, link directly to that part of the video.
You might find it helpful to have access to the transcript of Dr. Kelly's Oral Evidence while watching the video.
I find it utterly bizarre that Professor Hawton concluded that Dr. Kelly (who laughs and jokes in parts of his evidence) committed suicide some 48 hours later.
The video begins at line 5 of Question 3 in the transcript.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - Pam Teare moves to the Ministry of Justice
Pam Teare who was a player in the "outing" of David Kelly by the Ministry of Defence in 2003 has been appointed to a post as Director of Communications and Information at the Ministry of Justice.
See Ministry Of Justice Appoints CPS's Pam Teare For Newly-Expanded Top Comms Role.
See Ministry Of Justice Appoints CPS's Pam Teare For Newly-Expanded Top Comms Role.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
The Death of David Kelly - Interim List of Correspondence to the Attorney General
This post consists largely of links to copies in the public domain of correspondence from myself to the Attorney General about the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
The list is far from complete. I will attempt to put copies of other correspondence to the Attorney General about David Kelly into the public domain as time allows.
Please draw to my attention any broken links, errors etc in Comments on this post.
I think the preceding list is about half of the correspondence to the Attorney General as of today's date.
The list is far from complete. I will attempt to put copies of other correspondence to the Attorney General about David Kelly into the public domain as time allows.
- 25th October 2010 - Open Letter to the Attorney General regarding the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly
- 26th October 2010 - The death of David Kelly - Communication of 26th October 2010 to the Attorney General
- 17th November 2010 - The death of David Kelly - Dr. Kelly had no motive to commit suicide on 17th July 2003
- 22nd November 2010 - The death of David Kelly - Evidence from the postmortem report that it was murder
- 22nd November 2010 - The death of David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder, which inadvertently essentially duplicated the preceding link.
- 27th January 2011 - The Death of David Kelly - Insufficiency of Inquiry into the Evidence of David Broucher
- 4th February 2011 - The Death of David Kelly - Informing the Attorney General of the possible kidnapping of Dr. Kelly
- 21st February 2011 - The Death of David Kelly - The need for expert review of Professor Hawton's evidence
- 24th February 2011 - The Death of David Kelly - Was the Hutton Inquiry a Section 17A inquiry?
- 26th February 2011 - The Death of David Kelly - Open Letter to Andrew Gilligan, a copy was sent to the Attorney General.
- 27th February 2011 - The Death of David Kelly - On 17th July 2003 he was planning a future
- 28th February 2011 - The Death of David Kelly - Did Andrew Gilligan fabricate evidence?
- 28th February 2011 - The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Error by Hutton regarding dextropropoxyphene in the stomach
- 28th February 2011 - The Death of David Kelly - Unresolved questions about "the knife"
- 28th February 2011 - The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Were third parties present or not?
- 12th April 2011 - The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Important technical questions about the knife, wound etc
Please draw to my attention any broken links, errors etc in Comments on this post.
I think the preceding list is about half of the correspondence to the Attorney General as of today's date.
The Death of David Kelly - Is the reddening a red herring?
In this post I want to briefly flag up another issue where it is possible to question Dr. Hunt's conclusions as to the cause of death.
In his postmortem report Dr. Hunt states the following:
It is possible that the wounds were inflicted while the "victim" was alive, as Dr. Hunt contends.
Equally, it is possible that the "victim" had been restrained using the left wrist leading to obvious reddening around the wrist and the wounds were inflicted after death in an area already reddened during life.
Each of the two hypotheses is credible, I suggest.
As an aside, I find it interesting that Dr. Hunt refers to the deceased as the "victim" when, so we are asked to believe, no crime had been committed.
In his postmortem report Dr. Hunt states the following:
There was extensive reddening around the whole injury complex indicating that they had been inflicted whilst the victim was alive.
It is possible that the wounds were inflicted while the "victim" was alive, as Dr. Hunt contends.
Equally, it is possible that the "victim" had been restrained using the left wrist leading to obvious reddening around the wrist and the wounds were inflicted after death in an area already reddened during life.
Each of the two hypotheses is credible, I suggest.
As an aside, I find it interesting that Dr. Hunt refers to the deceased as the "victim" when, so we are asked to believe, no crime had been committed.
The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Important technical questions about the knife, wound etc
Much of this post consists of a lengthy technical analysis of whether the knife found at Harrowdown Hill in July 2003 could have been used by David Kelly to cut his own wrists to produce the wounds described by Dr. Nicholas Hunt in his postmortem report of 25th July 2003.
For, I think, the first time someone is asking if it is possible for David Kelly to have made at Harrowdown Hill the wounds described in his left wrist.
That is a different (and more relevant) question from the implicit question usually asked - in general terms can someone cut their own wrist(s). The answer to the general question is "Yes".
I conclude that when one thinks carefully about the wounds and the knife in the context of the circumstances at Harrowdown Hill that it is not credible that David Kelly used the kinfe found at the scene to produce the wounds.
The following was sent to the Attorney General earlier today.
The title of the email to the Attorney General was:
The text of the email was:
For, I think, the first time someone is asking if it is possible for David Kelly to have made at Harrowdown Hill the wounds described in his left wrist.
That is a different (and more relevant) question from the implicit question usually asked - in general terms can someone cut their own wrist(s). The answer to the general question is "Yes".
I conclude that when one thinks carefully about the wounds and the knife in the context of the circumstances at Harrowdown Hill that it is not credible that David Kelly used the kinfe found at the scene to produce the wounds.
The following was sent to the Attorney General earlier today.
The title of the email to the Attorney General was:
David Kelly - Important Technical Questions about the knife, wounds etc
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.
To the best of my understanding the technical questions which I raise in this email have at no time been considered by Dr. Hunt nor by Lord Hutton nor Mr Gardiner. Their respective failures to examine such foundational questions are evidence of gross insufficiency of inquiry in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, in my view.
It seems to me that the technical questions raised will require detailed consideration by a forensic pathologist and by other individuals with expertise in other forensic disciplines. If, as I believe, the described wounds could not be made by David Kelly using the supposed knife then the "suicide hypothesis" disintegrates.
The questions I raise are multidimensional and much easier to illustrate visually than to describe in words. However, since only words are meantime available to me I hope that what follows can be readily understood, specifically by the relevant experts which I believe the Attorney General will require to consult.
Stated baldly, I conclude that the wounds described by Dr. Hunt in his postmortem report could not have been produced by David Kelly using the knife allegedly found at the scene. Later in the document I present a series of questions the answers to which lead me to the conclusion just stated.
In an ideal world, that conclusion requires access to the knife and the photographs of the wounds. However, since both the knife and the photographs of the wounds have been kept secret I have to base my conclusions largely on the verbal description by Dr. Hunt in his postmortem report and other oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry. In that sense, although I express a clear conclusion in the preceding paragraph that conclusion is subject to review when the full evidence is made available.
The underlying questions which lead to that conclusion are, in part, in the domain of a forensic pathologist but also lie in the knowledge domain of other forensic disciplines.
Further, I conclude that the wounds described can be produced by a sharp-pointed blade held by a second party standing/sitting/kneeling to Dr. Kelly's left. Such involvement by a second party is, I suggest, the most credible interpretation mechanically in order to produce the described wounds.
Attempting to express these issues in a standalone document is not straightforward, but I hope I succeed in conveying that there is at least good cause to conclude that there is "insufficiency of inquiry" on these foundational questions, in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
For convenience, I quote here the statements of Dr. Hunt in his postmortem report of 25th July 2003:
SIGNS OF SHARP FORCE INJURY
There was a series of incised wounds of varying depth running across the front of the left wrist and slightly onto the thumb side of that wrist. The complex of wounds extended over 8 cms from side to side and approximately 5 cms from top to bottom.
The largest wound lay towards the elbow end of the complex and was 6 cms in length with a series of notches over the inner, upper edge. There was crushing and maceration of the skin towards the outer edge where there were again a number of notches. 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. The ulnar artery had been completely severed and the ulnar nerve had been partially severed. The radial artery was intact as was the radial nerve. The wound was up to approximately 1-1.5 cms deep.
At the crease of the wrist there were two deep wounds. The lateral, deeper wound penetrated to the level of the flexor retinaculum (sheath of dense connective tissue around muscle tendons at the front of the wrist) and was approximately 2.5 cms long on the skin surface. The smaller, shallower wound was 2 cms long.
There were multiple, fine, superficial, incisions extending from all of the deeper incisions and the vast minority of the injuries lay in parallel with one another.
Towards the upper end of the injury complex there were at least four criss-crossing superficial incisions varying in depth between just cutting the epidermis to just entering the fat. These varied in length between approximately 2.5 and 3 cms. They were all crossed by a number of fine incisions, some orientated obliquely across the wrist. The impression given was of multiple, so-called 'tentative', or 'hesitation' marks
There was also a series of at least three, minor, superficial incisions running in parallel on the inner aspect of the junction of the left wrist crease with the left hypothenar eminence (bulge of tissue at the base of the little finger on the palm of the hand). These were each approximately 1[-]2 cms in length.
There was extensive reddening around the whole injury complex indicating that they had been inflicted whilst the victim was alive.
At the risk of stating the obvious I think it is not in dispute that a bladed object is, in principle, capable of incising and transecting the ulnar artery.
However, that is not the question which is appropriately applied to the consideration of how David Kelly died.
The question, I suggest, that ought to be asked is whether David Kelly was capable of inflicting the wounds described in the circumstances which applied at Harrowdown Hill using the knife which was found at the scene.
If the answer to any component of that question is "No" then, in my opinion, the "suicide hypothesis" must be rejected as untenable.
In order to assist understanding of the strands of meaning contained in that question I split the remainder of this email into the following sections:
1. Which bracing positions are possible?
2. Can a knife of the type indicated be sharpened sufficiently?
3. Can a knife of the type indicated produce the wounds described?
4. Can such a knife produce the wounds in the applicable circumstances?
5. Was David Kelly capable of using the knife in such a way?
6. Is Dr. Hunt's description of the wounds simply wrong?
7. Is there a "better fit" explanation for the wounds described?
The "suicide hypothesis" demands that David Kelly is alive at the beginning of the hypothesised process wherein he cuts his left wrist with the knife found at the scene, that he makes all the incisions using the knife found at the scene held in his right hand and he dies as a result of making those incisions.
1. Which bracing positions are possible?
At the risk of stating the obvious it is essentially impossible in the relevant circumstances to inflict serious wrist wounds without the wrist being braced in some way. If the wrist is, metaphorically, flapping around in the breeze then any wound inflicted will be pretty superficial.
Therefore it's essential to consider what bracing positions are possible.
It's also important to remember that there are multiple incisions, therefore the left wrist would have been oozing and/or bleeding for some time while later wounds were made.
In the circumstances at Harrowdown Hill the possible bracing positions that occur to me each offers significant technical problems for the "suicide hypothesis":
a) Left wrist flat on the ground - This potentially gives excellent bracing (due to the immobility of the ground) but poses huge practical problems to anyone attempting to inflict the described wounds with the alleged knife. The angles are "all wrong" to get down to the ulnar artery. A "round arm" approach results in the right arm impacting on the ground. An attempted "across cut" results in the right arm being blocked against the trunk or upper left thigh.
The mechanics and geometry are such that it would be the radial artery that would, I believe, be cut, not the ulnar.
b) Left arm braced against the left upper chest - This could give good leverage if the thumb side of the forearm was braced against the chest. However that position would result in the medial (little finger) side of the wrist being incised (and probably deeply incised). Dr. Hunt's report indicates or implies that the medial side of the wrist was not incised.
The absence of wounds on the medial side of the wrist leads me to conclude that any incisions were not made in this way.
Further, if the wounds were made using this bracing position then arterial rain over the face and upper chest would, I suggest, be expected. No such arterial rain is described in the oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
c) Left arm braced across the right knee -
The third bracing position that seems to be possible is placement of the left wrist, palm upwards, on or close to the right knee. To make any incision the left wrist needs, I think, to be a little lateral to the right knee. In other words the lower left forearm is likely to be braced on the lower front part of the right thigh.
Using this bracing position can explain the tendency for the wound to extend on to the lateral aspect of the wrist but, to my mind at least, the transection of the ulnar artery is inexplicable.
Further, if this bracing position was used then arterial rain should have been observed to the right of the body. No such evidence of arterial rain was expressed in oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
d) Left arm braced on upper left thigh
This position, too, is problematic in my view.
Attempting to incise the wrist is possible but incising the ulnar artery seems to me not to be a credible result.
In addition, if the ulnar artery had been transected in this position arterial rain would have been expected on the abdominal area of the clothing and large blood stains would be expected on the upper left thigh of the jeans.
2. Can a knife of the type indicated by sharpened sufficiently?
The knife found beside the body on Harrowdown Hill was, supposedly, identified as one which David Kelly had owned since childhood.
I do not propose to explore the questionable identification evidence for the knife here since I did so in another submission to the Attorney General.
What I wish to explore is whether or not a knife of the type described can be sharpened sufficiently to produce an edge capable of cutting human skin in the manner hypothesised.
The blade was stated to be curved.
The knife was some 50 years old, if the official narrative is to be believed.
I would suggest that such a knife would, in day to day use over some 50 years, have required sharpening several times.
Given the curved nature of the blade it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible. to achieve a sufficiently sharp edge near the tip of the blade credibly to incise human skin.
It would, however, be credible to achieve a very sharp edge on the straight part of the blade.
No evidence was presented to the Hutton Inquiry as to whether the knife was sufficiently sharp in any part of its length to incise human skin.
The absence of exploration of that question at the Hutton Inquiry is, in my view, "insufficiency of inquiry".
3. Can a knife of the type indicated produce the wounds described?
The seeming shape of the knife also raises serious questions about whether it could have been used to inflict the described wounds.
In any of the bracing positions mentioned above, I cannot identify a means to transect the ulnar artery by means of a self-inflicted wound using a knife of the described shape and consequent sharpening characteristics.
In other words, I conclude that the knife allegedly found at the scene is highly unlikely to have been capable of producing the described wounds in any circumstances.
Again, Hutton failed to ask such a key question. Further evidence of "insufficiency of inquiry", in my view.
4. Can such a knife produce the wounds in the applicable circumstances?
Quite simply, I consider that it is highly unlikely that the knife described could produce the described wounds by self-harm in the environment described at Harrowdown Hill.
When, for example, a bracing position is credible in relation to part of the evidence then it fails to fit with other parts of what would have happened if the "suicide hypothesis" were the true explanation of events e.g. arterial rain is absent.
Since the question was not asked by Hutton, I think the need to explore such fundamental questions is a further reason that an inquest is essential.
5. Was David Kelly capable of using the knife in such a way?
The preceding points of doubt relate to an averagely strong male of Dr. Kelly's age with full physical capacity of his right arm.
As mentioned in other emails there is prima facie evidence of some degree of limitation of functionality of Dr. Kelly's right arm likely resulting from an apparent old injury / operation to the right elbow. If it is true that Dr. Kelly had difficulty cutting steak then the question of whether it is conceivable that he was capable of incising skin with a 50 year old knife merits careful scrutiny.
In those circumstances the attribution of the described wounds to "self harm" is rendered even more implausible.
Again, Hutton failed to explore this key question. In my view, further evidence of insufficiency of inquiry.
6. Is Dr. Hunt's description of the wounds simply wrong?
I have read many times Dr. Hunt's description, quoted in the early part of this email, of the wounds on David Kelly's left wrist.
To my mind, that description doesn't add up when considered carefully.
The wounds run "across the front of the left wrist and slightly onto the thumb side of that wrist". That doesn't add up with the "suicide hypothesis" in my view where the assumed major blood loss comes from transection of the ulnar artery.
Nor can I see a way in which, given the other considerations mentioned earlier, it is possible to transect the ulnar artery with the knife described without inflicting significant damage on the medial (little finger) side of the wrist. But Dr. Hunt indicates or implies that such damage was absent on the medial side of the wrist.
Further, given the shape of the knife I have great difficulty in associating the quoted description with the seeming absence of damage to the radial artery.
The description just doesn't add up, in my view.
Perhaps Dr. Hunt mixed up medial and lateral or radial and ulnar in his description just as he appears to have confused the right and left lungs in his postmortem report (the weights appear to have been reversed).
It is insufficient to loosely ask a question of whether someone can cut their wrist, as Hutton seemed to do. The question that needed to be asked is whether David Kelly could credibly have incised his own wrist in all the prevailing circumstances.
7. Is there a "better fit" explanation for the wounds described?
Perhaps Dr. Hunt's description is merely poorly expressed. There is evidence that he struggles finding appropriate words. For example, in his narrative he uses "outer edge" when he means either "upper edge" or "outer end".
However, if one assumes that Dr. Hunt's description of the wounds is accurate then the most important wound is explicable .... IF one assumes the presence of a second party with a sharp pointed knife with a very sharp blade. Such a knife would be a Stanley knife.
That would allow access to the ulnar artery without inflicting skin wounds on the medial (little finger) side of the wrist. The sharp point of a Stanley knife (or similar pointed, very sharp blade) could go deep without encroaching on the medial side of the wrist.
But such an interpretation of how the described wounds were made is wholly inconsistent with the "suicide hypothesis".
Conclusions
1. The described wounds are not, in my view, credible in the context of the "suicide hypothesis" given all the technical issues mentioned in this email. At a minimum they have not been demonstrated to be credible, far less to the degree required to justify a suicide verdict at an inquest.
2. There was insufficiency of inquiry into these foundational issues.
3. The wounds described are suggestive of the involvement of a second party using a pointed, sharp-bladed knife such as a Stanley knife. In all likelihood the second party knelt at the side of the body to incise the wrist (assuming the wounds were made at Harrowdown Hill, which is unknown).
I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and confirm that the information contained in it will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General.
Given the technical nature of the content I would be grateful if you would further confirm that a forensic pathologist and other forensic experts will be asked to review the evidence relating to this matter.
Thank you.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)