The Death of David Kelly - Another Oxford Mail article

Another article about David Kelly is now online on the Oxford Mail website. See Conspiracy theories still surround Kelly death.

My understanding is that it will be in print tomorrow in the Oxford Mail, possibly as a double page spread. The final five paragraphs, in the printed version, may appear as a sidebar of Five Unanswered Questions.

The Death of David Kelly - Dr. Malcolm Warner

This post consists largely of a communication sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office on 4th March 2011.

My interpretation of Dr. Warner's actions has changed a little since that communication was sent but the email is put in the public domain for the record.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Dr. Malcolm Warner (FAO Attorney General)

The content of the email was:

Mr McGinty,

This communication is for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court for an order to hold an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

In this email I summarise a number of issues relating to Dr. Malcolm Warner, the General Practitioner of Dr. David Kelly, which I consider, at a minimum, to evidence or have resulted in "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The possibility remains open that, on further inquiry, other Section 13 criteria are also met.

In this document I summarise my concerns regarding Dr. Warner under three headings:

1. Economy with the truth re his evidence

2. Dr. Warner's (allegedly) seeing the body of Dr. David Kelly

3. Dr. Warner's name in Dr. Kelly's notebook of July 2003

I will deal with each point in turn.

1. Economy of truth in evidence

The relevant transcript is at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans26.htm on the Hutton Inquiry web site. See Page 4.

Dr. Warner's economy with the truth in his evidence starts with his response to the first question, "Dr. Warner can you tell the inquiry your full name?".

Dr. Warner answered, "I am Dr. Malcolm Warner.".

Dr. Warner was asked for his full name. The correct answer is, so I understand, Dr. Malcolm David Warner.

If Dr. Warner's economy with the truth was confined to his name then it is not a matter for consideration by the Attorney General.

However, Dr. Warner's economy with the truth, on the face of the evidence, is much more serious.

Dr. Kelly, so the Hutton Report narrative goes, incised his left wrist. Assuming that Dr. Kelly did not do so holding a knife in his mouth, he must have held the knife in his right hand.

It is with the functional capacity of that right hand that Dr. Warner's much more serious economy with the truth appears to arise.

Evidence from Mai Pedersen, unfortunately not given at Hutton, is to the effect that Dr. Kelly had a previous injury of the right arm/elbow that in the months prior to his death caused such incapacity as to render it difficult for him to cut steak with a knife.

Human skin is typically surprisingly tough to incise. If David Kelly had difficulty cutting steak it is highly questionable whether he could have inflicted the wounds on his left wrist described by Dr. Nicholas Hunt.

It is with this potentially crucial matter of Dr. Kelly's past injury to the right arm that Dr. Warner's economy with the truth is concerned.

In the Hutton Inquiry evidence, document TVP/10/0136 - 0137 is labelled "Letter: J Kenwright / D Warner re Dr Kelly 21.01.92 - not for release - personal information".

I understand Professor John Kenwright to have been a Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at Oxford. It would appear that in 1992 Dr. David Kelly may have required Orthopaedic Surgery.

Document TVP/10/0135 on the Hutton Inquiry web site is labelled "Trauma Service John Radcliffe Hospital: Medical Summary for Dr Kelly 04.02.92 - not for release - personal information", thus confirming the existence of trauma to Dr. Kelly early in 1992.

Thus from the titles of the two preceding documents one can deduce that David Kelly sustained bone and/or joint trauma early in 1992.

At what location in the body did that seeming orthopaedic trauma occur?

A scar described as "An old, curving scar around the outer aspect of the right elbow." was noted by Dr. Hunt in his postmortem report.

It would appear that there was an old injury at or near the right elbow, the presence of the scar suggesting a previous operation in the elbow area.

That injury appears, at least for a time, to have caused significant functional limitation necessitating physiotherapy. See document TVP/10/0134 on the Hutton Inquiry web site labelled "Oxfordshire District Physiotherapy Service Report for Dr Kelly 24.04.92 - not for release - personal information".

Assuming that the preceding interpretation is well founded then there is evidence suggesting that Dr. David Kelly sustained an injury to or near the right elbow early in 1992. The old scar is consistent with that injury requiring operation in 1992.

In his oral evidence Dr. Malcolm Warner made no mention whatsoever of Dr. Kelly's injury to the right elbow. Professor Kenwright wrote to him so it's not easy to imagine that Dr. Warner was unaware of the trauma etc.

If Dr. Kelly did have an old injury to his right elbow, then this seems to me to be an extremely serious omission on the part of Dr. Warner.

If Dr. Kelly had an old injury to the right elbow then, at a minimum, Dr. Warner should have ensured that the Hutton Inquiry was informed of that injury. He failed to do so.

Had this economy with the truth taken place on oath I suggest it might reasonably be intepreted as perjury given the obligation to express "the whole truth" and the invitation at the end of Dr. Warner's evidence at the Hutton Inquiry to make any appropriate statement on any matter not previously covered.

I can trace no point in the Hutton Inquiry transcript or report of any investigation of Dr. Kelly's right elbow injury or its functional importance.

This is an omission of monumental seriousness by Lord Hutton.

If David Kelly had, on 17th July 2003, persisting or recently occurring (e.g. due to post-traumatic arthritis of the right elbow) functional limitations of using his right hand for cutting then the "suicide hypothesis" expressed in the Hutton Report is very seriously called into question.

Information regarding the documents referred to is located at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence-lists/evidence-tvp.htm on the Hutton Inquiry web site.

This omission of evidence (assuming my interpretation is correct) is of such fundamental seriousness that I consder that there are grounds for the Police to investigate whether the seeming withholding of evidence by Dr. Warner constitutes perversion of the course of justice. As the Attorney General is aware I consider that the medical and other evidence suggests that Dr. David Kelly was murdered (see, for example, http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-evidence-that-it.html ).


2. Dr. Warner's (allegedly) seeing the body of Dr. David Kelly

I understand that the Attorney General may be aware that the former MP Robert Jackson has stated that Dr. Malcolm Warner saw the body of Dr. David Kelly.

From personal inquiries I am satisfied that Mr. Jackson genuinely believes that Dr. Warner saw Dr. Kelly's body at the scene at Harrowdown Hill.

Mr. Jackson's belief arose from statements made to him by Dr. Warner himself.

Whether Mr. Jackson was correct or misunderstood Dr. Warner, the seeming seeing of the body by Dr. Warner (in person or, for example, via scene video) is a matter that Lord Hutton should have established, in my view.

The possible identification by Dr. Warner (assuming Mr. Jackson was not mistaken) may have occurred very early after discovery of the body. How else, one might ask, could Sarah Pape have been informed around 10.30 on 18th July 2003 that the body was David Kelly (see Sarah Pape's oral evidence here at page 93: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm ) and that it was suicide?

The reason why Dr. Warner may have seen the body is not disclosed. It may merely be unusual but the possibility remains open that it was improper.

The seeming failure by Dr. Warner to disclose this matter to the Hutton Inquiry is in favour more of something improper than something unusual having taken place.

Again, this is a matter that Lord Hutton failed to inquire into. Further evidence of insufficiency of inquiry, in my view.


3. Dr. Warner's name in Dr. Kelly's notebook of July 2003

This point is new and arises from something I noticed in the Hutton Inquiry evidence only this week.

It is thus new evidence; arguably very new evidence!

The Notebook in which Dr. Kelly made speaking notes for his appearance at the Intelligence and Security Committee on 16th July 2003 is document TVP/3/0116 - 0129 located at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_3_0116to0129.pdf .

On page 1 of the notebook there are notes for the ISC meeting.

One can assume those speaking notes were made no earlier than 11th July 2003.

The mention of Dr. Warner is in a heavily redacted section on page 11 of the notebook. And is followed by 3 pages which are withheld from the public.

Thus, assuming that Dr. Kelly used the notebook sequentially, there was some matter of common interest between Dr. Kelly and Dr. Warner sometime around or after 11th July 2003.

Dr. Warner gave no evidence about this.

Lord Hutton made no inquiry into this.

I submit that this is further evidence of insufficiency of inquiry.

In the interests of transparency I am copying this email to Dr. Warner, who may be able to shed light on the concerns which I raise herein.

I would be grateful if you would confirm safe receipt of this email and that the Attorney General will consider this matter when deciding whether an application to the High Court is appropriate.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - "The Harrowdown Hill Challenge" (First Draft)

I'm posting for comment an idea that I'm calling "The Harrowdown Hill Challenge".

For some time now I've been carefully thinking about whether the "pruning knife" found at Harrowdown Hill could produce the wrist wounds and other forensic evidence described in Dr. Nicholas Hunt's postmortem report.

My conclusion, thus far, is that it isn't possible for David Kelly to have produced the wounds himself with that knife while he was alive.

If it's not possible in principle for it to have happened then I conclude that it didn't happen.

If David Kelly didn't produce the wounds then someone else did. In other words, David Kelly was murdered.

The "Harrowdown Hill Challenge" is intended to be posed publicly to the forensic pathology community of the United Kingdom, not least to the forensic pathologist from whom the Attorney General is seeking expert opinion.

If nobody in the United Kingdom's forensic pathology community can demonstrate that the pruning knife could produce the forensic evidence that is on record then Lord Hutton's "suicide hypothesis" is in very deep trouble on that ground alone.

However, the challenge is intended to elicit interest in a wider community. It is a "who dunnit" but with a very serious, real-life foundation.

So, if I can draft it well, I'm hoping that afficianados of detective fiction will also have a go at solving the "Harrowdown Hill Challenge".

Perhaps I've missed an "obvious" (or least a credible) solution. If so, then identifying such a solution will help to clarify how David Kelly might have died. That would be helpful in establishing the truth of what happened.

Comments on the idea and a first draft of the possible text of the "challenge" (set out below) are welcome.

The Harrowdown Hill Challenge

The purpose of this document is to ask a very serious question, "Is it possible that Dr. David Kelly killed himself with a pruning knife at Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire on 17th July 2003 to produce the publicly documented wounds and other forensic evidence?".

If it's not "possible in principle" for David Kelly to have killed himself in such a way then, it seems to me, that the inescapable conclusion is that he was murdered.

That serious question is posed in an unusual way - as an open challenge to the forensic pathology professionals of the United Kingdom. Interested amateurs, whether they are individuals concerned that David Kelly was murdered or afficianados of detective fiction, are also invited to look for a solution.

The remarkably inactive detectives of Thames Valley Police are also invited to participate. Eight years late is better than nothing!

The Parameters of the Challenge

The Harrowdown Hill Challenge assumes the following scenario to be the case:

1. A middle-aged man with suicidal intent is in the middle of woodland in Oxfordshire.
2. No tables or other props are available to stabilise the left wrist.
3. The only weapon available is a pruning knive (somewhat curved blade) assumed to be around 40-50 years old.

So far, so simple. Seemingly.

The Demanded Results

In his report of the Hutton Inquiry, Lord Hutton concluded that David Kelly had killed himself in woodland using the pruning knife by incising his left wrist.

The Hutton Report is online here: Hutton Inquiry - Report by Lord Hutton.

Lord Hutton summarised the "facts" here: The Facts. See numbered paragraph 14.

Lord Hutton's more detailed account of the supposed suicide is here: The cause of the death of Dr Kelly. See numbered paragraph 157.

Lord Hutton had available the forensic evidence that I'll list in the next section.

To achieve a "solution" to the Harrowdown Hill Challenge you need to be able to demonstrate how a middle-aged man could incise his own left wrist in the circumstances which applied and produce the forensic evidence documented at the Hutton Inquiry and, subsequently, in the postmortem report released on 22nd October 2010.

The Forensic Evidence

There are, I believe, two important elements to the forensic evidence:

1. The wounds described in his postmortem report by Dr. Nicholas Hunt
2. The distribution of blood on Dr. Kelly's clothing and skin

With regard to the wounds I see the following as key.

1. The ulnar artery was transected.
2. No wound extended on to the ulnar (little finger) side of the wrist.
3. There was no "arterial rain" or bloodstains on the lateral side (outside) of the thigh of Dr. Kelly's jeans.
4. There was no "arterial rain" or bloodstains on the upper surface of the thigh of Dr. Kelly's jeans.
5. There was no "arterial rain" on Dr. Kelly's face or neck.
6. There was no "arterial rain" or large bloodstains on the right thigh of Dr. Kelly's jeans.

The relevance of points 3. to 6. will be explained shortly.

However, the full evidence can be accessed online.

Dr. Hunt's postmortem report was released by the UK's Ministry of Justice on 22nd October 2010. The announcement of the release, Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports,includes a link to the postmortem report, Post mortem of Dr David Christopher Kelly.

An OCR-derived text version of Dr. Hunt's report is easier to navigate. It's here: David Kelly: pathologist's report to the coroner - text version.

Dr. Hunt also gave oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry on 16th September 2003. You have to scroll down the page linked to in order to find Dr. Hunt's testimony.

Other individuals who visited the scene and who gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry were Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett, DC Coe, PC Franklin and PC Sawyer. Their oral tesimony can be accessed from this page: Hutton Inquiry Web Site - Hearing Transcripts.

The Mechanics of Making the Incisions

There is no mention of any convenient waist-high table or tree stump in the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry. The Challenge assumes that no such prop is available.

Without such a prop I suggest it's necessary to think about how the left wrist could have been braced to make it possible for deep wounds to have been made.

The solutions I've considered assume sitting with his back against a tree. I can identify three basic "bracing positions":

1. Left wrist either adjacent to the left thigh or resting on the left thigh.


2. Left wrist braced against the left side of the chest, with the left wrist close to the chin.


3. Left wrist laid across the lower part of the right thigh

The Distribution of Blood on clothes and skin

The difficulty that I perceive is that if Dr. Kelly cut his own wrist then "arterial rain" and/or bloodstaining should be present at one or more of the locations listed in 3. to 6. above.

But there is no evidence of such arterial rain or bloodstaining.

So, it seems to me that there is an absence of forensic evidence where it ought to have been found.

The Nature of the Wounds

Having spent a considerable time thinking about the wounds, I can't see a way in which, in the circumstances which applied, Dr. Kelly could have cut his own wrist and produced those wounds.

I could explain that in detail but until such time as the absence of "arterial rain" and bloodstaining is explained there is, I think, no need to explore the lack of correspondence between the knife and the wounds.

My "solution"

My "solution", after several hours careful thinking about the problem, is that it has no solution, at least it has no solution in the sense of David Kelly having used the pruning knife to have killed himself.

My "solution" is that the knife was different from that found at the scene and that it was used by a third party.

The knife needed a sharp point to go deep enough to cut the ulnar artery without extending the wound on to the medial side of the left wrist.

A credible knife is a Stanley knife or similar sharp-pointed very sharp blade. No such knife was found at Harrowdown Hill.

The direction of cutting is from the ulnar (little finger) to the radial (thumb) side of the wrist. A direction of cutting very natural for someone to the left of Dr. Kelly (whether at Harrowdown Hill or at some other location).

In other words, having carefully looked at the scenario which Lord Hutton casually interpreted I conclude that David Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown and that the murder weapon was either removed from the scene (or that the murder weapon had never been at the scene).

Send Solutions Here

Attempted solutions should be sent to Dr. Andrew Watt at this email address: AndrewWattChilcot@gmail.com.

I intend to post interesting solutions (even if they prove or suggest that my current opinion is incorrect) on my Chilcot's Cheating Us blog.

The Death of David Kelly - What was PC Franklin wanting to say?

In the evidence given by PC Franklin there is a fascinating question and answer here:

11 Q. And is there anything else surrounding the circumstances
12 of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship
13 with?
14 A. Not with this initial part, sir, no.

It seems to me to be at least plausible that PC Franklin was intending to (or expecting to?) talk about some other matter(s) after "this initial part".

Did counsel to the Hutton Inquiry deliberately terminate PC Franklin's evidence part way through the scope of his written witness statement?

If so, why?

Was PC Franklin expecting to go on to tell the Hutton Inquiry about the "secret helicopter landing"? See The Death of David Kelly - The Secret Helicopter Landing of 18th July 2003.

If my speculation is correct, why might counsel to the Hutton Inquiry elect not to disclose the "secret helicopter landing"?

The quoted evidence form PC Franklin comes from page 42 his oral testimony given during the morning of Tuesday 2nd September 2003.

The Death of David Kelly - Some questions for DC Graham Coe

I thought it might be interesting to post a list of possible questions which might be put to DC Graham Coe if he were asked to give evidence on oath at an inquest.

DC Coe's oral testimony to the Hutton Inquiry is here.

The ordering of the suggested questions follows the sequence of information addressed during his testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

• Which senior officer sent you to the Longworth area?


• You interviewed Ruth Absalom. Please read the record of her evidence that you made in your notebook.


• What part of Ruth Absalom's evidence led you and your colleagues to head towards the River Thames?


• You said you were assigned to house to house inquiries. On whose authority did you discontinue those and head towards the River Thames?


• Did you seek authority from a more senior officer for discontinuing house to house inquiries?


• Which two colleague(s) accompanied you during the house to house inquiries?


• When you headed towards the River Thames who accompanied you?


• How was it that you came to head towards Harrowdown Hill?


• Can you specify where you met Paul Chapman?


• At what time did you first see the body?


• When Mr. Chapman showed you the body, did you return to the track with him? Or did you leave him to return alone to the track?


• Please read out the observations regarding the body and the surrounding scene that you made in your notebook.


• Was the head of the body against the trunk of a tree or some distance from a tree?


• Did you remain with the body until other Police officers arrived?


• In your evidence to the Hutton Inquiry you said that you stayed at the scene yet you also said you took other officers to the body. If you stayed with the body how could you take someone to it?


• Did you see the ambulance staff?


• Did you stay at the scene while the ambulance staff determined whether or not life was extinct?


• If not, how did you come to have 10.07 in your notebook as the time when life was pronounced extinct?

I'm sure others can improve on or add to the list of questions which a QC might ask DC Coe at an inquest, but thought that attempting to create a list might stimulate thinking and debate about the gaps and/or inconsistencies in DC Coe's evidence to Lord Hutton.

The Death of David Kelly - Where are his planner diaries?

One of the very odd characteristics of David Kelly's diaries as put into the public domain at the Hutton Inquiry is that they cannot be used (or were not used) as I use(d) a diary.

There is no sense of David Kelly using those diaries for forward planning.

Information, for example, about a flight is limited to date, destination and flight number (on those occasions when the data is fairly full).

Surely he would also need to know what time the flight was due to depart.

What did he use for such basic forward planning?

There is nothing in the diaries to record something like "On 8th to 10th September I am due to attend a conference at [some institution]".

How did David Kelly forward plan?

There is no evidence, for example, of him using a succesion of Post-it-type notes inside his diary to allow for multiple changes in plan.

Given the need in his professional life to adapt to circumstances he must have had some record of his existing commitments over the following weeks and months.

He must have had some form of planner diary. Where is it?

Is there another set of diaries that have been carefully concealed from public view?

The Death of David Kelly - The Tom Mangold approach to storytelling

Tom Mangold was prominent in the media on 18th July 2003 regaling his audience with tales about David Kelly.

How reliable a witness is Tom Mangold?

The following quote from Birthdays: Aug 20 is worrying:

He [Tom Mangold] says: “If you want to know why I keep going, it’s because I love telling stories and I’ll be begging, phoning, cajoling, lying, cheating every day.”

Quite!

The Death of David Kelly - An article in the Oxford Mail about ACC Page's fingerprint evidence

There is an article online from the Oxford Mail which looks briefly at the questions relating to the evidence given by ACC Page regarding the (supposed) absence of "extraneous" fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records.

See Dental record fingerprints pose riddle over Kelly death.

Wholly unsurprisingly, Thames Valley Police were "unable to comment" when approached by the Oxford Mail.

The Death of David Kelly - The Dr. David Kelly debate on The Daily Politics

A recording of part of the piece on today's The Daily Politics on BBC2 has been posted on YouTube here: Dr David Kelly debate - The Daily Politics - 23/05/11.

The quality of the recording isn't perfect and it omits Sir Peter Tapsell asking the question of the Prime Minister.

Perhaps a better quality recording will appear on the BBC site before long.

The Death of David Kelly - Unreliability of the evidence of ACC Page regarding the dental records

This post consists largely of the text of a communication sent to the Attorney General on 13th May 2011.

The addressee was Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Unreliability of evidence given by ACC Michael Page

The text of the email to the Attorney General's office was:

Mr McGinty,

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

In this email I draw to the Attorney General's attention new evidence which casts significant doubt on the reliability of one section of the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry by Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page.

I consider that the new facts cast doubt on all of ACC Page's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

It seems to me that, at a minimum, the new evidence constitutes "new facts or evidence" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. Arguably, the concern referred to may also constitute "fraud" in the meaning of Section 13. I can also see arguments that "insufficiency of inquiry" and "irregularity of proceedings" may apply since questions on forensic evidence were put to someone not qualified to answer the questions with the result that the information in question was not adequately explored and the true position was not established.

In addition to the Section 13 concerns, I consider that the information I present is prima facie evidence of "concealment of evidence" which I understand to be an element of the offence of perverting the course of justice. Alternatively or additionally the giving of inaccurate evidence to a judicial inquiry may correspond to an "offence akin to perjury" which I understand also to be an element of the offence of perverting the course of justice. See for example

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/index.html#a03

and

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/.

The new evidence which I present arises from consideration of a recent Freedom of Information Request / Response from Thames Valley Police and identifying significant discrepancies between it and the oral evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry by Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page on 23rd September 2003.

The full text of the FOI Response is below my signature. I'll interpolate my understanding of its content in the main text of this email. No doubt the Attorney General will wish to seek expert assessment of whether or not my interpretation of the FOI Response is accurate.

Assistant Chief Constable Page's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd September 2003 is here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans42.htm.

The relevant part of that evidence, relating to the disappearance and reappearance of Dr. Kelly's dental records, is at pages 202 and 203 and is quoted here for convenience:

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.

There are two specific causes for concern regarding the evidence given by ACC Page.

1. In his evidence he indicates that two telephone calls (or other communications) were received from Dr. Kelly's dentist. However the FOI Response indicates that a single call was received. ACC Page's evidence does not appear to accurately reflect the facts stated in the FOI Response.

2. In his evidence ACC Page indicates that there were no "extraneous fingerpints" on the dental records whereas, as I read the FOI Response, there are six prints which do not match the elimination prints. I take the latter to be the fingerprints of members of staff of the dental surgery. In other words there are six fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records file which cannot be identified (or have not been identified). Therefore, contrary to ACC Page's unqualified assertion, one cannot exclude the possibility of the dental records having been removed and replaced by person or persons unknown.

With regard to the first point, ACC Page invents a phone call on or around Friday 18th July 2003 which, it seems, did not take place. In itself that may not be material. However, the lack of care taken by ACC Page to give accurate evidence is worrying since it is unknown whether this invented phone call is an isolated slip on his part or part of a pattern of misleading and/or inaccurate evidence from him. If, as is demonstrated, he has invented a narrative on this point which appears not to correspond to the truth then one has to ask how extensive such a casual, careless or deceptive approach to the truth might be in the generality of ACC Page's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Were other parts of ACC Page's evidence made up as he went along?

With regard to the second point ACC Page makes the following unqualified statement:

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


In my interpretation, ACC Page's statement to the Hutton Inquiry about that forensic evidence was untrue.

How many other times does ACC Page make false statements about the forensic evidence? We don't know.

If ACC Page's statement to the effect that there was no evidence of third party involvement at the dental surgery is untrue, might his statements purporting to exclude the presence of third parties at Harrowdown Hill be comparably unreliable and/or contrary to the evidence?

If that were the case the credibility of the "suicide hypothesis" accepted by Lord Hutton seems to me to collapse irretrievably.

The systematic "insufficiency of inquiry" and "irregularity of proceedings" at the Hutton Inquiry regarding forensic evidence make it impossible to exclude the possibility that other supposed forensic "evidence" given to Hutton is equally unreliable.

Consequently, I consider that the reliability of all ACC Page's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry comes into question and needs detailed and thorough re-exanination.

I suggest scrutiny of one dimension of ACC Page's evidence can, in the first instance, most appropriately be done in a properly conducted rigorous and open inquest where testimony on forensic and other scientific matters should be given on oath by appropriately qualified experts.

Given the concerns expressed in this email about the evidence given by the most senior Thames Valley Police officer who gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry I believe the Attorney General has a clear duty in the interests of justice to apply to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

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.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt


******************************************************************************

Text of the relevant Freedom of Information Request / Response


Reference No: RFI2011000301



I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th April 2011 which I have repeated below with our response to each point.



1. Were Dr David Kelly's dental records ever reported to Thames Valley Police as being missing and, if so, on what date?



Our records show that at 22.21hrs on Sunday 20th July 2003 the dental surgery reported that they had been unable to locate the notes on Friday (18/07/03) but that they were present that day (Sunday). The notes were therefore in the possession of the dentist before the Police were made aware.

2. On what date was it officially established by Thames Valley Police that Dr. David Kelly's dental records had been found?



As above

3. Were the folder containing Dr Kelly's records, and the records themselves, ever checked by Thames Valley Police (or, to your knowledge, any other organisation) for fingerprints and/or DNA?



The dental records of Dr Kelly were examined for fingerprints as were the covers for the records either side of his. DNA was an inappropriate method for this type of item.

4. If so, on what date did this happen, and were any fingerprints and/or DNA found on the folder or on the records?


This is a staged process spanning from 15th – 18th August 2003. A total of 15 marks were revealed for photography. Two marks were revealed on the outside cover of an adjacent set of patient records, neither of these marks was of a usable quality. No marks were revealed on the adjacent cover. The remaining thirteen marks all came from Dr Kelly’s record’s folder and contents. Five of these were unusable and two were eliminated to a member of staff.



The remaining six marks were of sufficient quality to be checked against elimination prints. These were all negative. None of the six marks were of sufficient quality to be permanently loaded on to the national database. All six marks were filed.



5. Was it possible positively to identify any of the fingerprints or DNA?



As above



6. If so, whose fingerprints or DNA was found?



As above



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



Yours sincerely,





Malcolm Hopgood | Information Compliance Officer | Telephone 01865 846321 | Internal 700 6321 | Address Thames Valley Police HQ, Oxford Road, Kidlington, Oxon OX5 2NX

The Death of David Kelly - An article in the Mail today about the fingerprints on the dental records

There is another article in today's Daily Mail by Miles Goslett.

See Dr Kelly police probe thrown into doubt over riddle of prints on 'missing' dental records.

For the first time doubt about the evidence given by Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page to the Hutton Inquiry has reached the mainstream media.

The specific point on which new questions have been raised is the matter of fingerprints on the temporarily missing dental records. I've posted the relevant Freedom of Information Response from Thames Valley Police on the Come Clean On Kelly blog here: FOI Response from Thames Valley Police re fingerprints on David Kelly's dental records.

The Death of David Kelly - The Come Clean on Kelly blog

A few weeks back I set up another blog called Come Clean On Kelly.

Its purpose was, and is, to progressively put into the public domain the information about the death of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.

Up to this point in time, I've posted only information relating to Freedom of Information requests and the single Hutton witness statement from Dr. Brian Jones.

In time I hope to encourage others who provided witness statements to the Hutton Inquiry to put their witness statements into the public domain.

Today, I've posted a FOI request about the start and end times of Operation Mason: FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re start and end times of Operation Mason.

If Thames Valley Police provide an honest answer to the questions posed then it should be possible to refute or confirm some of the speculation about the nature of Operation Mason.

It will be interesting to see if Thames Valley Police choose to conceal or disclose the start and end times of Operation Mason.

The Death of David Kelly - Video of Sir Peter Tapsell's question

A video clip of Sir Peter Tapsell's question to David Cameron at Prime Ministers Questions in the House of Commons on 18th May 2011 has been placed on YouTube: PMQs: No investigation into Dr.David Kelly murder (18May11).

I wonder if Sir Peter's question will prove to be one of the defining moments of David Cameron as Prime Minister?

The Iraq Inquiry - Alastair Campbell digs himself a new hole

There is an old saying "When you're in a hole, stop digging".

Alastair Campbell seems to think it doesn't apply to him.

In today's Guardian, Alastair Campbell rejects Iraq dossier claims, there is an article about Alastair Campbell's response to Major General Michael Laurie's evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry.

Among the points attributed to Mr. Campbell is the following:

• "Neither I – nor, so far as I am aware, anyone else in Downing Street – was made aware of his views at the time, or at any time in the subsequent nine years, until he felt moved to write to you, and his letter was published."

And there, I think, lies the "new hole" in Mr. Campbell's defence.

One relevant document on the Hutton Inquiry web site is Note of meeting, 09/09/02, from Alastair Campbell, which includes the following quote:

The media/political judgement will inevitably focus on "what's new?" and I was pleased to hear from you and your SIS colleagues that, contrary to media reports today, the intelligence community are taking such a helpful approach to this in going through all the material they have. It goes without saying that there should be nothing published that you and they are not 100% happy with.

Was Alastair Campbell serious about publishing nothing that "the intelligence community" wasn't 100% happy with?

Or was it a fig leaf?

What steps did Alastair Campbell take to ensure that the "intelligence community" was "100% happy" with the dossier?

None, so far as I'm aware.

What steps did Alastair Campbell take to ensure that "helpful" lackeys such as the then Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, Tony Cragg, did not choke off serious concerns expressed in writing by analysts in the Defence Intelligence Staff?

None, so far as I'm aware.

What steps did Alastair Campbell take to ensure removal of the "lots of spin" in the draft dossier that David Kelly had identified?

None, so far as I'm aware.

There you have it. Alastair Campbell issues fine words about the content of the dossier but, seemingly, fails entirely to take any action to show that he was serious.

Is he negligent? Or disingenuous?

Or, perhaps, both.

You decide.

The Death of David Kelly - House of Commons Hansard on PMQs of 18th May 2011

For convenience, I'm posting here the link in the House of Commons Hansard to Sir Peter Tapsell's question at Prime Ministers Questions on 18th May 2011.

And the text of the question and answer as recorded in Hansard:

Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police has decided to

18 May 2011 : Column 340

review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.

The Death of David Kelly - Some extracts from the evidence of David Broucher

At the Hutton Inquiry, with a little help from Rachel Kelly (see transcript of her oral testimony on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003), Lord Hutton succeeded in dismissing the evidence of David Broucher.

David Broucher was the person who gave evidence that David Kelly had mentioned the possibility of being found dead in the woods.

David Broucher's evidence was given on the afternoon of Thursday 21st August 2003.

The conversation with David Kelly lasted about an hour:

24 Q. How long did the meeting last?
25 A. About an hour.

This was an in depth conversation about Iraq's biological weapons capabilities:

140
1 Q. You said you wanted to pick his brains. What were you
2 discussing?
3 A. We talked about the history of Iraq's biological weapons
4 capability, about his activities with UNSCOM, about what
5 he thought might be the current state of affairs, and we
6 talked a little about Iraq and the biological weapons
7 convention.

David Kelly revealed that the claim in the September 2002 dossier was nonsense:

8 Q. What view did Dr Kelly express about the Iraqi position
9 in terms of preparedness?
10 A. As far as I can recall, he felt that if the Iraqis had
11 any biological weapons left it would not be very much.
12 He also said that the -- I believe it is called the fill
13 for the weapons would be kept separately from the
14 munitions and that this meant that the weapons could not
15 be used quickly.

It was clear that the conversation had taken place after September 2002 since the dossier launched on 24th September 2002 by Tony Blair was discussed:

25 Q. Did you discuss the dossier at all in this conversation?

144
1 A. We did discuss the dossier. I raised it because I had
2 had to -- it was part of my duties to sell the dossier,
3 if you like, within the United Nations to senior
4 United Nations officials; and I told Dr Kelly that this
5 had not been easy and that they did not find it
6 convincing. He said to me that there had been a lot of
7 pressure to make the dossier as robust as possible; that
8 every judgment in it had been closely fought over; and
9 that it was the best that the JIC could do. I believe
10 that it may have been in this connection that he then
11 went on to explain the point about the readiness of
12 Iraq's biological weapons, the fact they could not use
13 them quickly, and that this was relevant to the point
14 about 45 minutes.

At the end of a long conversation David Kelly said that he would probably be found dead in the wood, in certain circumstances:

24 Q. Right. Did you have any other conversation with
25 Dr Kelly that day?

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

There are two possibilities that come to mind as to how to intepret the remark.

One is that David Kelly had, in February 2003, formed the intention to commit suicide if Iraq was invaded.

The second, and more credible, possibility is that David Kelly was in February 2003 already aware of a threat to his survival somehow related to the invasion of Iraq.

Was the threat from an Iraqi entity? Or from an entity much closer to home?

The Death of David Kelly - "Madeleine McCann, yes. David Kelly, no"

Regular readers of the Independent will be familiar with the repetitious, fatuous inanities of one John Rentoul on the subject of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

However, the Independent today shows that there is still hope that it may get it right ... in the end.

Today, Richard Ingrams demonstrates more insight into the matter of David Kelly's death in a few lines than John Rentoul has managed in his lifetime.

The ripples from Sir Peter Tapsell's question at Prime Ministers Questions on 18th May 2011 continue to spread out.

Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police has decided to review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.

Richard Ingrams' piece today on David Kelly is on this page: Richard Ingrams: Emptied streets give the lie to Anglo-Irish bonds.

The comment on the death of David Kelly is entitled, "Madeleine McCann, yes. David Kelly, no".

I quote the relevant material in full here. Copyright, of course, remains with the Independent and/or Richard Ingrams.

For some months a campaign led by Dr Michael Powers QC and a group of fellow-doctors had been gaining ground for a proper inquest to be held into the death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

There were always plenty of arguments in favour, not least the fact that Lord Hutton, who replaced the Oxfordshire coroner on government orders, made such a cursory attempt to deal with the many suspicious elements in Dr Kelly's supposed suicide, which remain unexplained to this day – the lack of blood on the ground, the evidence that the body had been moved after death, the lack of any fingerprints on the knife, not to mention the lack of any suicide note or, for that matter, any evidence that Dr Kelly was in a suicidal state. Hutton made little or no attempt to address any of these awkward points

Then, presumably in order to silence the many doubters, the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, last year released the post-mortem report made at the time of Kelly's death by pathologist Dr Norman Hunt who described it as "a textbook suicide". It was hardly surprising that Dr Powers and his colleagues failed to be satisfied with this bizarre conclusion.

Then this week Dr Kelly surfaced again at Prime Minister's Questions when veteran Tory MP Sir Peter Tapsell asked David Cameron for a full investigation "into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly". Cameron replied: "I don't think it's necessary to take that case forward." So that appears to be that. As a former PR man, Cameron prefers to reopen the Madeleine McCann file, for obvious reasons.

Quite!

One erratum. The pathologist was, of course, Dr. Nicholas Hunt.

The Death of David Kelly - James Dingemans QC does FA inquiring

Currently James Dingemans QC is doing FA inquiring. See FA raise stakes in FIFA bribes probe as relations are further strained.

Some observers would say that this is not the first time that James Dingemans QC has done FA inquiring.

The first time? When he supposedly inquired into the cause of death of Dr. David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - A couple of information sources

For afficianados only ...

I'm posting this information for those interested in the Hutton Inquiry and the September 2002 dossier and who have more time to explore online information than I currently have.

The following site attempts to summarise the Hutton Inquiry: The Hutton Inquiry.

One of the external links is to this site about the September 2002 dossier: Welcome to IraqDossier.com.

If anything interesting turns up in these sites I'd appreciate a pointer in a Comment.

The Death of David Kelly - Did David Kelly call Judith Miller on 17th July 2003?

In a YouTube video, New suspicion in Kelly's death, the claim is made that David Kelly's last telephone call on 17th July 2003 was to Judith Miller.

The claim occurs about 1 minute 10 seconds into the video.

Does anyone know if there is any evidence to support that claim?

The Death of David Kelly - Tom Mangold in the Evening Standard of 18th July 2003?

Mention is made of an article by Tom Mangold about David Kelly in the Evening Standard of 18th July 2003.

But I cannot find the article online.

Can anyone help find it?

The Death of David Kelly - "David Kelly, NuTory Boy, Norman Baker and me"

The title of this post references a recent blog post by Robert Henderson stimulated by Sir Peter Tapsell's question at PMQs on Wednesday about the "suicide or murder" of David Kelly.

Mr. Henderson's blog post is here: David Kelly, NuTory Boy, Norman Baker and me.

The post is long and includes the text of interactions between Mr. Henderson and Norman Baker in 2006.

Some of the issues he raises are still in need of an answer.

The Death of David Kelly - The Prime Minister oftens says things at PMQs that are not true

Isn't this quote fascinating: "the Prime Minister often says things at Prime Minister's Questions that are not true".

The source? One David Cameron. See David Cameron apologises over Titian Wikipedia change.

I wonder if David Cameron will apologise for saying something untrue at PMQs two days ago:

On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.

See House of Commons Hansard for 18th May 2011.

The Death of David Kelly - The blade of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill was similar to this

One of the bizarre facts surrounding the articles found at Harrowdown Hill is that they have never been seen in any public forum, such as a Coroner's court.

To the best of my understanding no exhibits such as the knife were seen or examined during the Hutton Inquiry.

The knife was never shown to the Kelly family. Only a photograph or "photocopy" of the knife was shown.

The verbal descriptions given of the knife in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry suggest that it was a pruning knife with a curved blade similar to that in the photograph below. The knife found at Harrowdown Hill was of a different make from the knife shown in the image and had, if I understand the evidence correctly, a folding blade.

Dr. Hunt in his postmortem report says that the knife found at the scene is a candidate for being the knife that inflicted the wounds. It may be a candidate, but is it a credible candidate?

We can have no definitive impression of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill in the absence of public disclosure.

The knife shown in the first photo is relatively new. The point of a knife supposedly 40 or 50 years old may be substantially blunter than that shown in the photograph.

It seems to me likely that the sharpness of the point of a concave blade is potentially crucial. By contrast, in a No.10 scalpel blade the blade is convex and can incise without the need for a particularly sharp point. With a convex blade such as that shown below the sharpness of the point of the blade is markedly more important, in my view.

There are technical difficulties in sharpening the blade on the curved part of a knife such as that shown. Over 40 or 50 years it seems to me to be likely that the point may well have become significantly more rounded than that shown in the image.

In addition, Mai Pederson has stated that David Kelly had difficulty in sharpening a knife since he couldn't hold a sharpening stone. It seems that 1992 is the most likely time of the right elbow injury, suggesting that David Kelly might not have fully been able to sharpen the knife (if it was his knife) for something of the order of 11 years!
















I very much doubt that a 40 or 50 year old imperfectly sharpened pruning knife can have been used in the circumstances of Harrowdown Hill by a man, said by Mai Pederson to have difficulty cutting steak, to produce the wounds described in the postmortem report.

To produce the wounds which Dr. Nicholas Hunt described in his postmortem report I believe you would need to use a blade with characteristics more like those of the blade shown in the following picture.

The sharp point is, I believe, essential to achieve the depth of wounds which Dr. Hunt describes, given the circumstances which applied at Harrowdown Hill. The point need not be of the extreme pointedness shown in the image. Other Stanley blades (or similar) would be adequate, I believe.



Note too the razor-sharp or scalpel-sharp blade that disposable knives such as a Stanley knife blade has. That sharpness of blade can cut human skin and tendons.










My interpretation of the description of the wounds is that they were more likely to have been made by a sharp-pointed, scalpel-sharp blade such as that above and to have been made by a third party standing or kneeling to the left of the body.

No knife with a blade having the characteristics of a very sharp point and scalpel-sharp blade was found at Harrowdown Hill.

If I'm correct that a blade of that nature is needed to produce the wounds described by Dr. Hunt then how is the absence of such a knife at the scene to be explained?

Surely it's, at a minimum, highly suggestive of the presence of a third party who removed the real weapon.

What would be the point of a third party removing a "suicide" weapon? That makes no sense.

What would be the point of a third party removing a murder weapon and, hypothetically, planting a pruning knife?

Well, that would make it look like suicide.

And making it look like suicide is something that a murderer would find a very desirable outcome, I would suggest.

The Death of David Kelly - A ripple in Argyll

The ripples keep spreading out from Sir Peter Tapsell's question about the "suicide or murder" of David Kelly, The Death of David Kelly - The text of Sir Peter Tapsell's question about the need for an inquest.

Not only in the Westminster village which generated today's Evening Standard Londoner's Diary piece but in some unexpected places.

Today I found this interesting article on a local site in Argyll: David Kelly’s death is a political touchstone.

There are, in my opinion, a few minor errors of fact or interpretation in the article but it's a very interesting read which identifies many of the important issues.

The Death of David Kelly - The Secret Helicopter Landing of 18th July 2003

This post consists largely of the text of a communication sent to Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office on 3rd April 2011.

Alert readers will observe similarities with the recent article, Mystery of the helicopter that landed at scene of Dr Kelly's death after his body was found, which appeared in the Daily Mail on 14th May 2011.

It remains to be established whether that helicopter landing was innocent or sinister.

The title of the email was:

David Kelly - Secret Helicopter Landing at Harrowdown Hill on 18/07/2003

The text of the email was:

[This email is for the attention of Dominic Grieve QC, Attorney General in connection with his possible application to the High Court to seek an order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.]

Mr McGinty,

I write to draw to the attention of the Attorney General "new evidence" in relation to the death of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.

Specifically, it has emerged from an FOI response by Thames Valley Police that a Police helicopter landed at Harrowdown Hill at around 10.55 on 18th July 2003.

The existence of that helicopter landing was concealed from the Hutton Inquiry (at least in oral evidence) as was its purpose.

The information about the helicopter landing is contained on page 5 of the document which, at the time of writing, is currently located here:
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutus/aboutus-depts/aboutus-depts-infman/aboutus-depts-foi/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-investigate/rfi2010000727_helicopter_reports_1_-2.pdf.

Should Thames Valley Police remove the document from their website, I attach a copy of the PDF document for convenience.

The reference to the landing is in the Summary at the bottom of the fifth page of the PDF file. As the Attorney General will see the Summary is heavily redacted.

I have no significant doubt that the information about the helicopter landing is "new evidence" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

One question which remains to be answered is whether or not such a helicopter landing was "innocent" or had some more sinister purpose.

If the helicopter landing was "innocent" one has to ask why Thames Valley Police (in the persons of ACC Page, PC Franklin, PC Sawyer and others) withheld information about it from the Hutton Inquiry.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this new evidence and that the Attorney General will consider this new information when arriving at his decision as to whether or not to seek from the High Court an order to hold an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Item in the Evening Standard's Londoner's Diary today

The ripples from Sir Peter Tapsell's question about the "suicide or murder" of David Kelly at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday continue to reverberate round the Westminster village.

In today's Londoner's Diary in the Evening Standard there is the following piece: Kelly statement leaves Baker in a quandary.

I suspect that such items may be removed from the source web site in time, so I reproduce it below for the record.

How will transport minister Norman Baker be able to look the Prime Minister in the eye? Only yesterday David Cameron said he did not think a full inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly was needed, eight years after his body was found in a wood near his house in Oxfordshire. In 2007, Baker, the Lib-Dem MP for Lewes, published a book called The Strange Death of David Kelly, in which he concluded that Dr Kelly was murdered. Baker continues to believe this and has spoken frequently of the need for a full coroner’s inquest into the death because he says the public inquiry into it, chaired by Lord Hutton, had no proper investigatory powers. Some at Westminster are saying Baker is now facing a career-defining choice: serve in a government which is apparently happy to suppress the truth as he sees it, or quit. Which will it be? Last year he waxed indignant that Kelly’s name was barely mentioned during the Chilcot inquiry. “If we are to draw a line under the events of 2003, Chilcot needs to acknowledge that Lord Hutton was as useless in dealing with Dr Kelly’s death as he was with weapons of mass destruction, if not more so,” said Baker. “He should accept that Dr Kelly is entitled to the inquest he never had, and recommend that one should now take place.”When I asked Baker’s office for his response to the PM’s statement I was told he was unavailable for comment.

Copyright of the quote, of course, remains with the Evening Standard.

One might almost wonder if the Londoner's Diary had been pondering my post of 15th May: The Death of David Kelly - If Dominic Grieve says "No" to an inquest will Norman Baker resign?.

Perhaps it's simply that great minds think alike!

The Death of David Kelly - Another article and Comment piece in today's Daily Mail

Following Sir Peter Tapsell's question yesterday to David Cameron, today's Daily Mail has a further article on the need for an inquest into the death of David Kelly and also has a short but expressive Comment piece.

In the paper version of the Mail the article is on page 19. The Comment piece, entitled "Stay out of Kelly case", is the third of three.

An online version of the article is here: No need for inquest on Dr Kelly says PM, leading to anger as Cameron appears to pre-judge review.

The Iraq Inquiry - Request for evidence by the end of June 2011

In recent months I've devoted much of this blog to the evidence relating to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. However, the Iraq Inquiry (the "Chilcot Inquiry" that is "cheating us") remains very much on my radar.

Sir John Chilcot is quoted here as asking for further evidence by the end of June 2011 (Iraq war Inquiry issues more documents):

I should be grateful if anyone with any further insights could ensure that they are submitted to the Inquiry by the end of June.

on the following basis:

To write the full report, the Iraq war Inquiry needs to gather a full range of evidence. Accordingly, the Inquiry officials continue asking for “statements from the witnesses who have unique perspective on the events it is studying.”

The recently disclosed evidence from Major General Michael Laurie suggests that Alastair Campbell lied to the Iraq Inquiry. See, for example, Iraq evidence 'vindicates BBC's dossier claims':

Rod Liddle, a former Today editor who hired Mr Gilligan, said: "These comments tell us what we knew already – that the BBC told the truth, Gilligan told the truth and Alastair Campbell's outrage was confected and it was a lie."

Of course, if Rod Liddle is correct, then Lord Hutton also failed to find the truth.

The Death of David Kelly - "Events, dear boy, events"

A former Conservative Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, is the source of the phrase, "Events, dear boy, events".

The phrase encapsulates the unpredictability of life as Prime Minister.

Yesterday, David Cameron experienced an "event" in the form of this question from Sir Peter Tapsell:

Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police has decided to review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.

Mr. Cameron asserts that the report is "fairly clear".

Where, Mr. Cameron, in the Hutton Report is it "fairly clear" about the absence of fingerprints on the knife found at Harrowdown Hill? That important evidence was withheld or suppressed at the Hutton Inquiry.

Where is it "fairly clear" how David Kelly (supposedly) held the knife without leaving fingerprints?

Mr. Cameron, you were bullshitting in the House of Commons yesterday. You were the bluffer.

And yesterday may yet prove to be an "event" in the search for justice for David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - The text of Sir Peter Tapsell's question about the need for an inquest

The full text of Sir Peter Tapsell's question to David Cameron at Prime Ministers Questions today is now available.

Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police has decided to review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.

David Cameron provided a "bluffer's guide to the Hutton Inquiry" in his Guardian article, Hutton in five easy steps.

Today his bluff ws called.

He simply had no idea what he was talking about. His "bluffer's guide" was written by the bluffer, not for the bluffer.

David Kelly didn't have an inquest that complied with the requirements of the Coroners Act 1988.

Are you paying attention, Prime Minister? David Kelly didn't have a lawful inquest.

The Death of David Kelly - David Cameron is an expert on the Hutton Inquiry ... supposedly

Around the time that the Hutton Report was published the then leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard, entrusted the responsibility to understand the detail of the Hutton Inquiry to an ambitious young MP called David Cameron.

Not only did David Cameron brief Michael Howard but he also wrote two pieces about the Hutton Inquiry for the Guardian.

On 8th January 2004 David Cameron wrote this: Hutton in five easy steps.

On 3rd February 2004 David Cameron wrote this: Hutton's takeaway.

It seems that David Cameron didn't spot the deficiencies of the Hutton Inquiry regarding David Kelly's death.

Would a new inquest be too embarassing for David Cameron since it might reveal his shortcomings in interpreting complex data?

The Death of David Kelly - Question about the need for an inquest at Prime Ministers Questions

Today in the House of Commons Sir Peter Tapsell MP asked a question of the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

The BBC reports the interaction as follows ( The Full Story: PM's Questions )

1224:

Sir Peter Tapsell MP - a firm favourite with MPs on all sides - asks for a full investigation into the death of weapons scientist Dr David Kelly following the announcment of a review into the Madeline McCann case. The PM says he welcomes the latter and thinks previous inquiries into the former were sufficient.

David Kelly - Obituaries

Attempting to understand the man that was David Kelly is not easy at this distance in time. One indirect way to gain an impression of David Kelly outside the furore of the last weeks of his life is to read the obituaries by his colleagues and others.

Here I list some obituaries in the mainstream and other media.

• Archives of Virology: Obituary In Memoriam David Christopher Kelly CMG (1944–2003) by Chris Payne who had known David Kally for over 30 years. Did you know that David Kelly played the saxophone?


• The Guardian: David Kelly: Biological weapons expert with a reputation for thoroughness


• The Times: David Kelly Scrupulous United Nations weapons inspector who alerted the world to Iraq’s biological weapons programme


• The Independent: David Kelly Model weapons inspector in Russia and then in Iraq

The Death of David Kelly - On 18th July 2003 were ministers and civil servants seeing something like this?

The image below is of Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, sometimes referred to as COBRA.

A Cabinet Office Briefing Room is as much a procedure as a physical location. Since most COBR meetings are held in Conference Room A in the Cabinet Office the UK Government emergency or crisis procedures are often referred to as COBRA.



On 18th July 2003 were UK Government ministers and civil servants viewing a bank of monitors similar to the one shown in the image, perhaps including transmissions from Harrowdown Hill via the mystery helicopter which was the subject of media interest over the weekend?

Was COBRA communicating with the Kelly home in Southmoor via the 110 foot high communications mast?

And was COBRA communicating with Tony Blair in an aeroplane en route from Washington to Tokyo?

At present we don't know with certainty the answers to such questions.

The Death of David Kelly - The state of the Kelly marriage

The principle I've tried to follow throughout my consideration of the death of David Kelly is that the Truth is paramount.

To find the truth one has to examine the evidence - all the evidence! Even the evidence that it might be more congenial to ignore.

I'm conscious that in this post I'll explore issues which will make at least some readers uncomfortable - the state of the Kelly marriage. Yet to ignore the question is to risk missing important elements of the Truth.

If some of the media reports are true, then Janice Kelly's evidence has to be viewed in a different light, a more unfavourable light, than was the case when she gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry on 1st September 2003.

Similarly, the evidence of Professor Keith Hawton is further called into question since much of his evidence is based on a remarkably uncritical regurgitation of what Janice Kelly told him.

The Hutton Inquiry, to the surprise of few, is almost entirely silent on the state of the Kelly marriage.

Almost entirely silent but not quite.

As almost the final question in Janice Kelly's evidence we read this in the transcript of her evidence on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003 (pages 54 and 55):

21 Q. I have just been asked to ask one thing. There was
22 a report in one of the newspapers yesterday that there
23 had been some rows; is there anything you would like to
24 say in relation to that?
25 A. Absolutely not. We did not row. If we had

55
1 a disagreement, we agreed to disagree. There was
2 absolutely no row whatsoever. I was in no physical
3 state anyway and neither was David. There was
4 absolutely no row.

According to Janice Kelly there were no rows.

But Professor Alastair Hay paints a different picture. He is quoted in an article in the Telegraph of 31st August 2003, Kelly and wife 'rowed in hours before his death':

Professor Alastair Hay, a close friend of Dr Kelly, said last week: "It is going to be very difficult for Mrs Kelly when she gives evidence because of all the things that have gone on between them.

"They [the Hutton Inquiry lawyers] will be asking what was said between them. You can't undo any of those things. We are all human and things do get said because of the pressure you are under."

Interestingly, the Hutton Inquiry lawyers gracefully sidestepped any exploration of such issues, with the exception of the single question quoted earlier.

The same article claims that David and Janice Kelly had rowed about his appearing before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:

Another friend, who wished to remain anonymous, said Dr Kelly had told friends that he had rowed with his wife over his submission to the Commons foreign affairs select committee.

On 28th January 2004 (the day the Hutton Report was published), Terence Taylor a friend of David Kelly was quoted in this Evening Standard article, Determined widow prepares to fight back , as saying this:

"There is no question there were marital problems at home," says Terence Taylor, a close friend who stayed with the couple shortly before Dr Kelly's death.

"It is a deeply private subject but, from my point of view and from what I observed, there were problems within the marriage, very much so." Even when Dr Kelly was grappling with the Gilligan crisis last summer, his wife could only stand by and observe his distress.

And last year Tom Mangold wrote this in the Independent, Tom Mangold: Shame made David Kelly kill himself:

The exposure of that lie would have meant that his career would end in disgrace and he would retire a broken man in a marriage that had effectively run its course earlier.

Was Janice Kelly telling the truth? And the other commentators were mistaken or being dishonest?

If Janice Kelly is telling the truth there are two pieces of evidence that, to my mind at least, make no sense:

1. Janice Kelly portrays herself as a supportive wife in her evidence to the Hutton Inquiry. If that was true, why did she stay behind in Cornwall when David Kelly returned to Oxford on Sunday 13th July 2003? If the relationship between David Kelly and Janice were good and she was as supportive as she portrayed herself to the Hutton Inquiry surely she would have wanted to be at his side ... supporting. And, if Janice Kelly's evidence were reliable, David Kelly would have wanted her at his side ... supporting. Not least since 15th July 2003, the day David Kelly gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, was their 36th wedding anniversary.


2. Janice Kelly portrays David Kelly at lunchtime on 17th July 2003 as, supposedly, being unable to communicate coherently, yet as I've described in the post The Death of David Kelly - On 17th July 2003 a busy professional was efficiently clearing his backlog of work , with everyone but Janice David Kelly was behaving like a competent and diligent professional who had been through a tough time but was coping well with the backlog of tasks before an anticipated departure to Iraq in the following week.

The two preceding points seem to me to indicate a marriage that was in serious trouble. A husband and wife between whom there was such tension and alienation that they had reached the point where they could barely speak to each other.

Is there a credible alternative interpretation?

In my view there is a clear but uncomfortable choice: believe Janice Kelly or believe other sources of information on the question of the state of the Kelly marriage.

If Janice Kelly misled Hutton on the issue of the state of the Kelly marriage what else might she have been less than honest about?

The Death of David Kelly - Photographs of the helicopter that landed at 10.55

Readers may be interested in the following photographs on the Civil Aviation Authority web site which show the helicoper G-CHSU which landed at or close to Harrowdown Hill at 10.55 on 18th July 2003.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

The helicopter which used an infra-red camera to attempt to find David Kelly during the night of 17th to 18th July 2003 is a different aircraft: G-CPSH.

The Death of David Kelly - If Dominic Grieve says "No" to an inquest will Norman Baker resign?

On page 206 of his book "The Strange Death of David Kelly", Norman Baker MP states the following:

I had concluded in my mind, after analysing the facts and available information as carefully and objectively as I could, that David Kelly's death could not have been suicide, and that therefore it must have been murder.

Having carefully looked at the evidence, Norman Baker is convinced that David Kelly was murdered (by person or persons unknown).

To the best of my knowledge Norman Baker has uncovered no new evidence since the publication of "The Strange Death of David Kelly" to cast doubt on his view that the death of David Kelly was murder.

On the contrary, there is much new evidence calling into question the "suicide hypothesis" adopted as fact by the Hutton Inquiry. Some of that new evidence has been presented to the Attorney General. See, for example, The Death of David Kelly - Interim List of Correspondence to the Attorney General.

At the time of writing that book Norman Baker was a backbench MP.

Now he is a junior minister in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government.

Dominic Grieve is the Attorney General in that government.

If Dominic Grieve refuses to go to the High Court to seek an inquest into the death of David Kelly what will Norman Baker do?

Morally, he surely must resign since (in this hypothetical situation) the Attorney General in the same Government is, in effect, covering up a murder.

Politically, the pressures on Norman Baker not to resign are enormous. His resignation could, in theory, fracture the coalition.

The dilemma facing Norman Baker if Dominic Grieve says "No" is a particularly difficult one.

However, if an MP who believes a death is murder acquiesces to an as yet hypothetical cover-up by the Attorney General doesn't he lose any semblance of credibility?

The level of public trust in Members of Parliament is already low. Surely the credible impression that an MP will, for reasons of party or personal advantage, continue in a Government that chooses (hypothetically, as yet) to cover up a murder will bring trust in MPs to a new low!

The Death of David Kelly - Video of Susan Watts on Newsnight 2nd June 2003

On the BBC web site is a transcript and video of Susan Watts' piece on Newsnight on 2nd June 2003 about the doubts growing regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The article is here: Intelligence case oversold?.

A link to the video of Susan Watts' piece is on that page but hopefully clicking here can take you direct to the video.

In includes footage of Tony Blair in flagrant Blair-faced lie mode:

"The idea that we doctored such intelligence is completely and totally false. Every single piece of intelligence we presented was cleared very properly by the Joint Intelligence Committee."

and

"I think it is important that if people actually have evidence they produce it, but it is wrong, frankly, for people to make allegations on the basis of so-called anonymous sources, when the facts are precisely the facts that we've stated."

What Mr. Blair could claim in June 2003, that the intelligence was cleared "very properly", no longer stands up.

Incidentally, the "Unnamed Man" in the transcript saying,

It is beginning to look as if the Government's committed a monumental blunder.

is Robin Cook.

Perceptive chap!

The Death of David Kelly - Today would have been his 67th birthday

David Kelly was born on 14th May 1944.

Today would have been his 67th birthday if person or persons unknown hadn't murdered him and deposited his body in woods at Harrowdown Hill.

Perhaps it's fitting that today is the day when the Daily Mail ran two articles on the death of David Kelly.

Hopefully those articles will be a step towards establishing the truth about the murder of David Kelly and, perhaps a forlorn hope, establishing who committed the murder and, perhaps more importantly, who commissioned the crime.

The Iraq Inquiry - Did Alastair Campbell lie when giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry?

In the last 48 hours or so the evidence that Alastair Campbell gave to the Iraq Inquiry in January 2010 has come under considerable scrutiny since a letter and testimony from Major General Michael Laurie has contradicted what Alastair Campbell said.

Alastair Campbell gave oral testimony to the Iraq Inquiry on 12th January 2010. There are two transcripts of his evidence plus an addendum:

• Alastair Campbell Morning Session transcript


• Alastair Campbell Afternoon Session transcript


• Alastair Campbell addendum to evidence

Apparently Major General Laurie was incensed by Alastair Campbell's evidence and moved to send a communication to the Iraq Inquiry.

Major General Laurie's letter of 27th January 2010 is on the Iraq Inquiry site here: Laurie-statement-FINAL.pdf.

The transcript of Laurie's heavily redacted testimony to the Iraq Inquiry is here: transcript.

Some of the mainstream media criticism of Alastair Campbell has been expressed in pretty vitriolic terms. For example, A brazen liar who's been found out at last.

The BBC covered the issue in more insipid terms, Iraq inquiry: Campbell dossier evidence questioned, perhaps wary following the drubbing it took at Campbell's hands courtesy of the charade that was the Hutton Inquiry.

The BBC quotes Campbell as saying this to Chilcot:

In his evidence last year, Mr Campbell said he "defended every single word" of the document and that it did not "in any sense misrepresent the situation" with regard to Iraq at the time.

It did not in any sense misrepresent the situation? Really??

The Death of David Kelly - Daily Mail Comment piece and article today

Today the Daily Mail has published a Comment piece and an article relating to the death of David Kelly.

The Comment piece is here: Doubts over Dr Kelly that won't go away.

The article relates to a previously undisclosed helicopter landing at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003. See Mystery of the helicopter that landed at scene of Dr Kelly's death after his body was found.

The article includes a useful sidebar that lists ten unanswered questions about the death of David Kelly.

Ten unanswered questions out of a very much larger number.

The Death of David Kelly - On 17th July 2003 a busy professional was efficiently clearing his backlog of work

The evidence of Janice Kelly given to the Hutton Inquiry on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003 was that David Kelly was so distressed at lunchtime on 17th July 2003 that he could hardly speak (page 47):

9 Q. And that was how he was looking and seeming to you. Did
10 you talk much at lunch?
11 A. No, no. He could not put two sentences together. He
12 could not talk at all.

In this post I want to examine the behaviour of David Kelly on 17th July 2003, if one removes the melodramatic evidence of Janice Kelly from the picture, of which the preceding quote is a brief example.

David Kelly got up at about 08.30, according to Janice Kelly.

David Kelly spoke to Olivia Bosch to confirm details about one journalist, the information being required to answer a parliamentary question and the questions from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. See Olivia Bosch's evidence given on the morning of Thursday 4th of September 2003 at page 45.

16 Q. On 17th July, Thursday, did you talk to him that day?
17 A. Yes. He telephoned me about mid morning. I think it
18 was around 10.45 or so, but the telephone records may
19 show me perhaps. And he telephoned me because he was
20 preparing a list of journalists, which he had to do for
21 the Foreign Affairs Committee. And he asked me to help
22 him with the name of a journalist that he thought
23 I would know. It was someone he met a long time ago and
24 had moved on. I was able to help him with that name.
25 He was telling me he was preparing a list. He seemed in

Olivia Bosch's timing seems unlikely given the timing of the email which summarised journalist contacts. It was probably significantly earlier in the morning of 17th July 2003 than she suggests.

At 09.22 David Kelly sent an email to John Clark and Bryan Wells, E Mail from Dr Kelly 17 July 03, listing his journalist contacts (E Mail from Dr Kelly to John Clerk 17 July). The list had been requested orally by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 15th July 2003.

[There are two timings for the preceding email 09.22 and 10.22, possibly due to the use of GMT and BST on different computers.]

After sending the email just mentioned, David Kelly phoned his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence to tell them that the email was on the "internet machine" so they could collect and deal with the information he had sent them. See paragraph 121 of the Hutton Report.

He also phoned his line manager, Bryan Wells, at around 09.45. See Bryan Wells' evidence given on the morning of Thursday 14th August 2003 (pages 93 and 94):

17 A. Yes, I did. We had discussed, on the afternoon when he
18 was in my office, how we were going to get information
19 to answer the two PQs and also the letter from the
20 Foreign Affairs Committee -- the particular issue here
21 was that I was on leave on Thursday 17th July and so if
22 David was able to get any information to me, it would
23 have to be done by e-mail to my home. And he said he
24 thought he would be able to get the information to me by
25 about 11 o'clock, I believe. In the event, he rang me

94
1 about a quarter to 10 to say that he had e-mailed me the
2 information that he had.
3 Q. And that was about his contact with journalists?
4 A. That was.

At 11.18 David Kelly sent several emails to individuals who had emailed him with messages of support over the previous few days. Those emails are mentioned and quoted in the Hutton Report at Paragraph 123.

During the course of 17th July 2003 David Kelly had several telephone conversations with Wing Commander John Clark, including jointly deciding that David Kelly would travel to Iraq on 25th July 2003. Wing Commander Clark booked Dr. Kelly's tickets to and from Iraq. (See See paragraph 121 of the Hutton Report. )

David Kelly also entered in his diary 25th July 2003 as his departure date to Iraq and 10th of August 2003 as his return date. See pages 8 and 9 of Contents of diary.

At around 15.20 David Kelly was seen by Ruth Absalom. They had a chat and David Kelly's last words to her were described as follows in her oral evidence given on the morning of Tuesday 2nd September 2003 (pages 2 and 3):

12 idea. We just stopped, said hello, had a chat about
13 nothing in particular --
14 Q. What did you say to him?
15 A. He said, "Hello Ruth" and I said, "Oh hello David, how
16 are things?" He said, "Not too bad". We stood there
17 for a few minutes then Buster, my dog, was pulling on
18 the lead, he wanted to get going. I said, "I will have
19 to go, David". He said, "See you again then, Ruth" and
20 that was it, we parted.
21 Q. How did he seem to you?
22 A. Just his normal self, no different to any other time
23 when I have met him.
24 Q. Did you see whether he was carrying anything?
25 A. No, I do not think he was.

3
1 Q. And do you remember how long you spoke to him for?
2 A. Five minutes at the most.
3 Q. And did you see what direction he left in?
4 A. Well, he was going for his walk. I suppose he went to
5 my right, along the road towards Kingston Bagpuize
6 I suppose in the end, if he had gone round that way, but
7 obviously he was going down to the fields down the road
8 or down to the fields down the back.

In the absence of Janice Kelly's melodramatic evidence David Kelly, having been through a stressful time over the preceding several days, is busy working through the tasks that he needs to complete, has several phone conversations including making plans to go to Iraq the following week and has a normal conversation with a neighbour.

In the absence of Janice Kelly's melodrama there is, so far as I can see, nothing to suggest that David Kelly was about to commit suicide on 17th July 2003.