See Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports for links to the postmortem and toxicology reports.
For the first time the weaknesses in the evidence supposedly supporting the "suicide hypothesis" were open to public examination.
I have asked the Attorney General similarly to make available the report(s) produced by the expert(s), in for example forensic pathology and psychiatry, that he has consulted during his consideration of the application to him in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
The request to the Attorney General was sent yesterday via Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.
The title of the email was:
David Kelly - Transparency
The text of the email was:
[Additional copies are being sent due to a problem with Mr. McGinty's email address at present.]
I write in connection with the ongoing consideration by the Attorney General of a possible application to the High Court to seek an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
On the Number 10 web site it states, "We want to be the most open and transparent government in the world." (See http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/ ).
I write to enquire how the Government's aspiration of transparency will be expressed in connection with the Attorney General's consideration of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.
The Attorney General may recall that I have explicitly asked that he seek formal advice from a forensic pathologist, from a forensic biologist and from a forensic scientist with expertise in examination of wounds and the weapons which may have made them.
I made those requests on the basis of serious concerns regarding the reliability and integrity of the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.
Of course, each of those experts consulted should be visibly independent of Dr. Hunt, forensic pathologist, and Mr. Green, forensic biologist, who gave such unsatisfactory and/or misleading evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
Will the Attorney General identify all the forensic pathology experts consulted and publish the report(s) of the forensic pathologist(s) that he has consulted? If not, given that a forensic pathologist should be providing solely technical opinion, what legitimate reason can there be for withholding the information from the public?
Similar questions apply to the requested expert reports on the forensic biology, forensic science and psychiatric assessments.
Those are technical documents. If the technical assessments are reliable then, I suggest, they ought to be put into the public domain to allow others to assess whether the experts have taken into consideration all the relevant facts and whether their assessment is reliable.
If the Attorney General chooses, or has chosen, not to seek expert assessments of the kind I have requested will he publicly state his reasons for such a basic failure to examine the technical evidence?
I would also point out that at the present time the original forensic biology report of Mr. Roy Green, the DNA report (carried out, I assume, by Dr. Eileen Hickey) and the postmortem report of 19th July 2003 continue to be concealed. As do all the photographs taken at or around the scene at Harrowdown Hill.
How can there be any prospect of public confidence in the outcome of the Hutton Inquiry while the evidence continues to be concealed by the Government?
(Dr) Andrew Watt