David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 2 - ACC Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry

This post consists largely of the text of Module 2 of the Pre-Action Protocol.

In Module 2 I raise the issue of Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page appearing to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to fingerprint evidence.

The title of my email to the Attorney General is:

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 2 - ACC Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry

The text of the email of Module 2 is:

Dear Mr. Grieve,

This email is one in a series of Modules in an unusually extensive Pre-Action Protocol with a view to avoiding the need for Judicial Review of your decision, announced in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, refusing an application made by myself and other individuals in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 seeking that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Each module attempts to be a self-contained preliminary examination of a specific issue which arises in relation to your decision with respect to the Section 13 application.

Each issue is raised with you with a view to affording you the opportunity to re-consider the matter so, hopefully, avoiding the need to proceed to seek Judicial Review of your decision.

The issue discussed in an individual module relates to an issue which I provisionally consider displays one of what I term the "Diplock Triad": "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

If the matter proceeds to Judicial Review I anticipate that I will seek to argue that one or more of the "Diplock Triad" applies with respect to this matter.

As you are aware, the Attorney General's Office continues to conceal a substantial number of relevant documents. If those are not voluntarily disclosed I anticipate that I will seek disclosure of such documents by legal process.

For the moment, continued non-disclosure of documents seems to me to inhibit my ability fully to develop potential legal arguments on this issue.

The subject of this module is: The false evidence of Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page to the Hutton Inquiry

On 13th May 2011 I wrote to the Attorney General informing him that it appeared that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page had lied to the Hutton Inquiry. See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html

ACC Page told the Hutton Inquiry that there were no "extraneous fingerprints" on Dr. Kelly's dental records.

The true position as revealed by a Freedom of Information Request in 2011 was that there were six unidentified fingerprints. The full text of the Thames Valley Police FOI Response is included towards of this link: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html and, for convenience, is repeated after my signature in this email.

ACC Page's false evidence misled the Hutton Inquiry since it appeared to exclude the presence of a third party (or parties) at the dental surgery (where the dental records had disappeared and myseriously re-appeared) when, in fact, the presence of unidentified fingerprints indicated the opposite. In other words, the presence of unidentified fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records indicated that an unknown person (or persons) had handled Dr. Kelly's dental records and had, potentially, had the opportunity to tamper with the dental records.

I intend to return to the issue of dental records in a later Module relating to the uncertainties of the identification of the body found at Harrowdown Hill.

The "suicide hypothesis" rests on a process of "logic" which excludes the presence of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

Given that ACC Page appears to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry with the effect of falsely excluding the presence of third parties at the dental surgery there is a very real possibility that he may also have lied with respect to the suppposed exclusion of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

At a minimum a careful evaluation of the previously assumed reliability of Assistant Chief Constable Page's evidence is required, I suggest.

In all the circumstances I provisionally conclude:

1. Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page appears to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry about forensic evidence as it relates to Dr. Kelly's dental records. Inevitably that calls into question all other aspects of the extensive body of evidence that ACC Page gave to the Hutton Inquiry. It seems to me, therefore, that the Attorney General's statement "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned." is irrational.

2. The Attorney General failed to investigate the false evidence of ACC Page and the implications for the totality of ACC Page's evidence despite the matter having been drawn to the Attorney General's attention on 13th May 2011. In my view the Attorney General failed to do something that he ought to have done before reaching a decision.

3. The Attorney General appears to have failed to draw to Lord Hutton's attention the information about the unreliability of ACC Page's evidence in my email of 13th May 2011. Given that Lord Hutton disclosed to the Attorney General several pre-meetings with ACC Page the potential for pervasive effect on the integrity of the Hutton Inquiry of dishonesty by ACC Page is obvious. The Attorney General failed to do something that I believe, in context, he ought to have done.

4. It appears to me that the Attorney General premeditatedly misled the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 since he failed to disclose that this serious issue had been raised with him about four weeks prior to his statement. I find the conclusion unavodable that the Attorney General acted dishonestly, lied to the House of Commons and committed a Contempt of Parliament.

[In the context of point 4. this email is copied to the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow and the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Kevin Barron.]

It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground (i.e. ACC Page's evidence) alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is defective and that the only identifiable remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

Arguably, when considered with other actions and failures to act, the Attorney General may have committed the criminal offences of Misconduct in Public Office and Perversion of the Course of Justice, given the evidence that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered. Viewed narrowly, that is not a matter to be decided by any Judicial Review.

In the interests of transparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-module-2.html

I ask you to give this matter your URGENT attention, in view of the short time available to resolve this issue without lodging papers seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

I again urge the Attorney General to consider whether the least bad way forward is promptly publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision of 9th June 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA




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

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 1 - The sharpness of the knife has never been tested

In Module 1 of the Pre-Action Protocol I ask the Attorney General to consider whether it is rational to exclude the possibility of an inquest returning a different verdict when the sharpness of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill has never been tested.

If we don't know that the knife is sharp enough to inflict the wounds we cannot logically conclude that the knife did inflict the wounds. The possibility remains open that another knife inflicted at least some of the wounds.

In my view the Attorney General's stated view is irrational.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 1 - Sharpness of the knife

The content of the email is:

Dear Mr. Grieve,

This email is one in a series of Modules in an unusually extensive Pre-Action Protocol with a view to avoiding the need for Judicial Review of your decision, announced in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, refusing an application made by myself and other individuals in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 seeking that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Each module attempts to be a self-contained preliminary examination of a specific issue which arises in relation to your decision with respect to the Section 13 application.

Each issue is raised with you with a view to affording you the opportunity to re-consider the matter so, hopefully, avoiding the need to proceed to seek Judicial Review of your decision.

The issue discussed in an individual module relates to an issue which I provisionally consider displays one of what I term the "Diplock Triad": "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

If the matter proceeds to Judicial Review I anticipate that I will seek to argue that one or more of the "Diplock Triad" applies with respect to this matter.

As you are aware, the Attorney General's Office continues to conceal a substantial number of relevant documents. If those are not voluntarily disclosed I anticipate that I will seek disclosure of such documents by legal process.

For the moment, continued non-disclosure of documents seems to me to inhibit my ability fully to develop potential legal arguments on this issue.

The subject of this module is: The sharpness of the knife

I described the issue on 13th June 2011 here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html and drew it to the attention of the Attorney General on that date.

To the best of my knowledge, the sharpness of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill has never been tested.

The inability of a forensic pathologist to give an authoritative view on the issue, together with the need for specific laboratory testing is expressed to the Attorney General in Dr. Shepherd's report of 16th March 2011 on page 14:

""It does not lie within the remit of the forensic pathologist to make a final assessment of the sharpness of an object at the scene. ... The pathologist must rely on assessments made by forensic expert scientists in controlled laboratory conditions.""

In other words, neither Dr. Shepherd (nor his predecessor forensic pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt) can say whether or not the knife was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds.

This seems to me to raise at least the following important points:

1. In the absence of laboratory testing, it is unknown whether or not the knife is sufficiently sharp to inflict the observed wounds. It seems to me, therefore, that the Attorney General's statement "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned." is irrational, given that the sharpness of the knife has never been tested.

2. In failing to ensure that the sharpness of the knife has been tested it seems to me that the Attorney General has failed to take an action which, in context, he ought to have taken.

If we don't know that the knife is sharp enough to inflict the wounds we cannot logically conclude that the knife did inflict the wounds. The possibility remains open that another knife inflicted at least some of the wounds.

It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is defective and that the only identifiable remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

In the interests of tranparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html

I ask you to give this matter your URGENT attention, in view of the short time available to resolve this issue without lodging papers seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

I again urge the Attorney General to consider whether the least bad way forward is promptly publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision of June 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA

David Kelly Judicial Review - Pre-action Protocol - Preliminaries

Today I am sending to Dominic Grieve a document formally asking him to consider whether he should withdraw the decision announced on 9th June 2011.

If Mr. Grieve withdraws his dishonest decision now it avoids unnecessary use of the time of the High Court in considering an application for Judicial Review.

I very much believe that, at a minimum, an inquest is required into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

A thorough and publicly-accessible inquest is an important step towards eliciting a truth that has been covered up for 8 years with considerable ingenuity and energy.

The email is hopefully self-explanatory but discussion in the Comments is welcome, particularly if some aspect of the document is unclear.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly Judicial Review: Pre-action protocol - Preliminaries

The content of the email is:

Mr. Grieve / Mr. McGinty,

I am writing to you to seek to determine whether or not it may be possible for the Attorney General to withdraw his decision announced on 9th June 2011 without my having to have recourse to seeking Judicial Review of the decision.

That decision relates to an application in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 with a view to seeking an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

Correspondence from myself and others in that context invited the Attorney General carefully to consider the grounds expressed in subsections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988:

(1)This section applies where, on an application by or under the authority of the Attorney-General, the High Court is satisfied as respects a coroner (“the coroner concerned”) either—(a)that he refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held; or(b)where an inquest has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should be held.

It is my considered view that the decision of the Attorney General is seriously defective and therefore potentially subject to Judicial Review.

I am unable to identify any mechanism that allows me, and potential co-appellants, to appeal the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 otherwise than by seeking Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's decision.

Given the applicable time limits I would be grateful if the Attorney General would give his URGENT attention to this matter, with a view to avoiding unnecessary use of the time of the High Court.

I understand that, broadly, the High Court prefers that the Appellant seeking Judicial Review of a decision should communicate in some manner with the decision maker indicating to the person or body whose decision may be judicially reviewed that the Appellant is sufficiently concerned by the decision in question so as to be contemplating Judicial Review.

It is the purpose of this email formally to do so.

Further, the decision maker should be invited to reconsider or withdraw his decision. In this email, I again invite Dominic Grieve to give careful consideration to the possibility that withdrawing now the decision announced on 9th June 2011 is the least damaging way forward.

Withdrawal of the decision will, no doubt, reflect negatively on Mr. Grieve personally.

However a willful persistence by Mr. Grieve in defending an irrational and dishonest decision can, in my view, only cause serious long-lasting harm to the credibility of the office of Attorney General.

In my view, the decision of the Attorney General announced on 9th June is materially defective. Such defects, in my assessment, are apparent in each of the three elements of what I term the "Diplock triad" - broadly those are "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

I would be grateful if you would consider this email together with other relevant correspondence from me since 9th June as constituting what I understand to be termed a Pre-action Protocol. My email of 12th June 2011 may be a useful starting point.

My email of 12th June is online here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html

As you may recall, I copied my email of 12th June to David Cameron (as well as Craig Oliver and Steve Field at Number 10). Mr. Cameron seems to have displayed inactivity in relation to this matter similar to his response to concerns about Andy Coulson.

However, the primary purpose of this email is not to highlight the deficencies of David Cameron's judgement. One might say, however, that an important purpose of this email is to begin to draw attention to serious errors of judgement by the Attorney General.

It seems to me that Dominic Grieve has taken the "never mind the quality feel the width" approach when considering the application made to him under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 by myself and others, not least Dr. Stephen Frost, Mr. David Halpin and other medical colleagues who I understand to have submitted a Memorial to the Attorney General via Leigh Day & Co, solicitors, in or around September 2010.

I do not repeat here the extensive correspondence in this context from myself to the Attorney General beginning with my Open Letter of 25th October 2010 which is online here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-letter-to-attorney-general.html

Unusually, given the time limitations, the Pre-Action Protocol to be sent to the Attorney General will be modular. Further modules are to be sent to the Attorney General for his consideration as soon as each component is expressed with what I hope to be sufficient clarity.

By doing so I think I can give the Attorney General the maximum opportunity in the circumstances to consider whether he ought publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision announced on 9th June 2011. This approach facilitates him forwarding a module specifically to, say, Dr. Richard Shepherd for his assessment of a specific issue relevant to his area of expertise.

Withdrawal of the decision will not, I imagine, be a congenial possibility. However, it may be the way to do least lasting harm to the office of Attorney General. That latter matter is, of course, for Mr. Grieve and Mr. Cameron to consider.

Mr. Grieve may recall that I expressed one of the many aspects of my concerns in an email on 12th June 2011 in somewhat forceful but, in my view, fully justified terms.

It remains my view that Mr. Grieve's decision is contrary to the totality of the evidence.

Of course, whether or not the Attorney General continues in his post depends primarily on the continuing confidence of the Prime Minister. Accordingly, I am copying this and associated emails to David Cameron MP.

I am also copying this email for information to my MP, Malcolm Bruce.

For the avoidance of doubt my part in this correspondence will be put, as time allows, into the public domain. Typically I plan to do so by posting copies of the modules of the Pre-Action Protocol on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/

Readers of my blog and recipients of blind copies of each email should feel free to distribute their content as they see fit. I view this correspondence as public.

The text of this email is being placed on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-pre-action.html

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

David Kelly Judicial Review - Request for URGENT disclosure of documents

This morning I am writing to Dominic Grieve and Kevin McGinty seeking urgent disclosure of documents relating to Mr. Grieve's dishonest decision announced to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

Twenty four hours ago I fully expected not to be part of any process to seek Judicial Review of Dominic Grieve's decision.

Circumstances have changed.

The email is, I hope, self-explanatory.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly: Judicial Review - request for URGENT disclosure of documents

The text of the email is:

Mr. Grieve / Mr. McGinty,

When I wrote to you on 21st August I had no thought that I might, personally, seek Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's dishonest statement to the House of Commons of 9th June 2011 and the underlying dishonest decision. I had assumed that others might undertake the task of seeking Judicial Review.

Circumstances have changed. I now intend to lodge papers with the High Court seeking a Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's decision.

I now ask that the Attorney General URGENTLY release the documents I requested in my email of 21st August in order not visibly to obstruct me in the process of lodging papers seeking a Judicial Review.

Should the Attorney General refuse to disclose the requested documents I anticipate seeking full disclosure of these, and other, documents during the Judicial Review process.

The list of documents sought follows my signature in this email in the full text of my email of 21st August.

I therefore ask for full disclosure of the documents specified in my email of 21st August no later than 17.00 on Friday 2nd September 2011.

In response to my request of 21st August, Mr. McGinty informed me that my request would be treated as a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Given the 20 working days allowed for response to an FOI Request, the Attorney General's Office would be given until around 16th September to respond.

Conveniently, for Mr. Grieve, around a week too late to be used in papers seeking a Judicial Review.

I view Mr. McGinty's response as a shameful procedural manoeuvre intended to protect a shameful decision from legitimate Judicial Review.

That procedural manoeuve is part of a pattern of obstruction by the Attorney General's Office. I understand that other doctors have sought such documents from the Attorney General, without success.

I now repeat, as a matter of urgency, my request for full disclosure of the documents requested on 21st August.

I anticipate writing again in the very near future seeking disclosure of further documents, given my intention to seek Judicial Review.

In the interests of transparency I am placing a copy of this email on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-request-for.html

I look forward to your early reply. I reserve the right to include that reply in papers to be lodged with the High Court.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt


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


Mr McGinty,

In the context of the Third Application to the Attorney General re the need for an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly I wish to request disclosure of the following documents.

1. A list of all photographs taken at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003, together with a brief description and the time that each photograph was taken. I should mention that I understand there were at least three sets of photographs (those by PC Sawyer, Mr McGee and Dr. Eileen Hickey).

2. A copy of all correspondence between the Attorney General's Office and Thames Valley Police with respect to the Annexes disclosed by the Attorney General on or around 9th June 2011 and to the report to which the annexes related. The Attorney General disclosed correspondence to Dr. Shepherd and Professor Flanagan. Why not comparably disclose correspondence with Thames Valley Police? Assuming, of course, that such correspondence would bear public scrutiny.

3. A copy of the report to the Attorney General by Thames Valley Police (six annexes of which were put in the public domain by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011 or thereby).

4. A copy of the complete version of Dr. Green's report. The version published on 9th June 2011 had had Appendix 2 removed. Can you please confirm whether Appendix 2 in that version of the report was removed by the Attorney General's Office or by Thames Valley Police? If so, why did the Attorney General's Office remove the Appendix? I would also point out that the version of the report on the Attorney General's website refers to matters in 2005 and therefore cannot have been a copy of the original report.

5. A copy of the report by Anne Franc. Dr. Green's report states that his report should be read with that of Anne Franc.

6. A copy of the report to Nicholas Gardiner QC by Alan Young of Thames Valley Police which, supposedly, was "excellent".

7. A copy of the written statement(s) made in 2003 to Thames Valley Police by Mai Pederson. It is my understanding that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page may have lied to Lord Hutton regarding the content of those statements. I understand that Mark Zaid (Ms Pederson's lawyer) wrote to Mr Grieve in or around June 2010 expressing his concern about related matters.

8. A copy of the report by Professor Gudjonsen.

9. A copy of the medical report on Dr. Kelly on or around 8th July 2003.

10. Copies of the medical reports from the 1990's on the fracture and operation on Dr. Kelly's right elbow.

11. A copy of the letter from Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth (of 30th October 2010) on the disability to Dr. Kelly's right arm consequent on the fracture/operation of the right elbow.

12. A copy of the laboratory report commissioned by the Attorney General in response to Dr. Shepherd's comment on page 14 of his report ( http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf ). Dr. Shepherd stated, "The pathologist must rely upon assessments made by expert forensic scientists in controlled laboratory conditions.". What did that examination under laboratory conditions show? If the Attorney General failed to have such a test carried out I ask for an explanation of that failure by Mr. Grieve and how he can have made his statement to the House of Commons when, as might be the case, it is unknown whether the knife found at the scene was or was not sharp enough to produce the wounds described by Dr. Hunt.

13. A copy of Professor Hawton's written report on Dr. Kelly's state of mind etc.

14. A copy of the report reviewing Professor Hawton's evidence. If, in response to my communication to the Attorney General ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-need-for-expert.html )raising concerns about Professor Hawton's evidence the Attorney General decided not to seek expert review of Professor Hawton's evidence I seek an explanation of that failure on the part of the Attorney General.

15. A copy of each of the photographs referred to in numbered item 1.

In the interests of transparency I am placing the text of this email online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-request-for.html

If it is the decision of the Attorney General's Office to continue to conceal these documents I would be grateful for an explanation of why they were concealed by the Attorney General with respect to the Second Application (by Dr. Frost et al) and why they continue to be concealed now.

If the Attorney General wishes to allay public and medical concerns regarding the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly I will say straightforwardly that full disclosure will be required in the light of lies told in 2003 and 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - On 18th July 2003 Lord Falconer had no powers as "Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs"

In this post I draw attention to a fundamental flaw, in Law, in Dominic Grieve's decision and statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

I believe that the issue may be sufficiently important as to satisfy, at Judicial Review, the "illegality" test in what I'll the "Diplock triad". See http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf for what I understand to be the original expression of the "Diplock triad".

"Illegality" in that context is not the same as saying that Dominic Grieve committed a criminal offence in that respect.

He stated something that was incorrect in Law, and based his decision on a false understanding of the Law.

However, for the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that Dominic Grieve QC MP has committed the offences of Misconduct in Public Office and Perverting the Course of Justice. But that is not the immediate focus of this post.

Dominic Grieve knew on 9th June (or had opportunity to know) that what he was saying to the House of Commons was untrue.

The following quote comes from here: Attorney General Dr Kelly written statement 9 June 2011 and is from page 8.

The then Secretary of State (and Lord Chancellor), Lord Falconer, acted entirely reasonably in exercising his powers to set up an inquiry ...

What Dominic Grieve says is untrue.

On 18th July 2003, in Law, there was no Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and consequently Lord Falconer had no powers which he could exercise (reasonably or otherwise) as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

Lord Falconer did not acquire his powers as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs until about a month later, on 19th August 2003.

And Dominic Grieve had been informed of that (by me) on 6th June 2011.

Let me set out the basis for those assertions.

The following email was sent on 6th June 2011 to the Attorney General's Office:

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.

I do not pretend to be an expert in constitutional matters but a consideration has come to my attention which appears to me potentially to have foundational importance with regard to the consideration by the Attorney General of the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Expressed directly, and perhaps overly simplistically, it seems at least arguable that Lord Falconer was not, in Law, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 18th July 2003 when he verbally asked Lord Hutton to conduct an inquiry nor was he Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 24th July 2003 when he wrote formally to Lord Hutton to confirm that request.

I hope to be able to substantiate later in this communication what might, at first sight, appear to be a bizarre suggestion.

First I'll briefly outline that Lord Falconer made the request in his role as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and then I'll briefly consider the basis in Law for casting doubt on Lord Falconer's status in Law on the dates in question.

In his report, Lord Hutton states:

On 18 July 2003 I was requested by the Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, to conduct an Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly

See Paragraph 1 in Chapter 1 of the Hutton Report here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter01.htm.

Lord Hutton goes on to state:

My terms of reference were:
"urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly."

If Lord Falconer was not, on 18th July 2003, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and/or did not, in Law, have the capacity of a Secretary of State then it is, I suggest, questionable whether he had lawful authority to invite Lord Hutton to conduct a judicial inquiry or authority to define the terms of reference of such a supposed inquiry.

On 24th July 2003 Lord Falconer wrote to Lord Hutton on headed paper conveying the notion that he was "Secretary of State" (for Constitutional Affairs).

See http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/cf240703.pdf on the Hutton Inquiry web site for the letter of appointment of 24th July 2003.

If my concerns are sound in Law then Lord Falconer's letter of 24th July 2003 is fraudulent since he purports on that date to be one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State when the office of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs may not have existed in Law in the date in question at least in the sense that it appears to have lacked any functions or powers of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State.

To my mind, if that interpretation is correct, the question arises as to whether Lord Falconer as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs had the power, on 18th July 2003 or 24th July 2003, to ask Lord Hutton to conduct a judicial inquiry.

Consequentially, it seems to me that it comes into question whether, in Law, the Hutton Inquiry can properly be considered to be an "inquiry" in the meaning of Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988.

I will now explain the basis in Law on which my concerns found.

To the best of my knowledge the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional affairs did not exist prior to the announcement in June 2003 of the creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 appears to require that the creation of a new post of Secretary of State and the acquiring of functions, powers etc by such a new Secretary of State depend on an Order of Her Majesty in Council.

The text of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 is available online here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/26/contents

To create the new post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs it seems to me that the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 requires Her Majesty to create the new post and give to it any powers and functions that might be appropriate by an Order in Council.

It appears that the Government also recognised that requirement imposed by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 since by an Order in Council, expressed in The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Order 2003, the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs was created and given functions and powers.

The problem for Lord Falconer's actions of 18th July 2003 and 24th July 2003 arises from the following text in the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Order 2003:

Made - - - - 17th July 2003
Laid before Parliament 29th July 2003
Coming into force 19th August 2003

Taken at face value the Order in Council did not come into force until 19th August 2003.

It seems to me, therefore, to be at least arguable that Lord Falconer had no powers or functions of a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 18th July 2003 or 24th July 2003 to set up a judicial inquiry (or, in fact, to carry out any function of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State).

Arguably, I suggest, the setting up of a judicial inquiry by a "Secretary of State" with no powers or functions may render the inquiry void.

If the validity of the judicial inquiry is in question, the question also arises as to whether Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 was applied by Lord Falconer acting as Lord Chancellor in circumstances to which it did not apply.

If, on the grounds suggested, there was no Section 17A inquiry the actions and/or failures to act of Nicholas Gardiner QC in early 2004 also come into further question.

If, as may be the case, the Hutton Inquiry is void and the stump "inquest" failed to carry out basic requirements of the Coroners Act 1988 (and the associated Coroners' Rules) then it seems to me that the requirements of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 are met. In other words, an inquest is required into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

If it is already the view of the Attorney General that he should apply to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly, this matter need not detain him.

If however, it were the provisional view of the Attorney General that he need not apply to the High Court for an Order, I suggest that this is a further issue which will require detailed consideration, in view of the possibility of Judicial Review of a decision in the negative by the Attorney General.

As is my custom, blind copies of this communication have also been sent to potentially interested individuals.

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 - Well-intentioned but futile e-petition

Today I stumbled across an e-petition to the Attorney General: Make Dr. David Kelly's autopsy results public.

Regular readers of this blog will know that the postmortem results are already public.

One version was released by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011: Post mortem report by Dr Hunt 25 July 2003.

That is the official version for 25th July 2003.

The most easily searchable, but unofficial, version is here: David Kelly: pathologist's report to the coroner - text version.

Tim Wilkinson of the Surely Some Mistake blog created it from the official version released on 22nd October 2010 by the Ministry of Justice: See Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports.

Dr. Allan's toxicology report of 23rd July 2003 is also available for download from that link.

Simon James, the creator of the e-petition, and the signatories presumably are unaware of the release of the documents just mentioned.

Unfortunately, there is no way to communicate with the creator or signatories of the e-petition.

The Death of David Kelly - Scotsman article on possible Judicial Review

The Scotsman has a brief article about the cover-up of the death of David Kelly and the need for Judicial Review.

See Doctors say David Kelly death 'a cover-up'.

The Death of David Kelly - Oxford Times article about the need for funds for a Judicial Review

There is a short article on the Oxford Times website about the need for funds for Judicial Review regarding Dominic Grieve's decision announced on 9th June 2011.

See Race to fight David Kelly inquest ruling.

The Death of David Kelly - Letter to Keith Vaz MP

Today I am sending a letter to Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressing my concerns regarding the conduct of a number of Police officers, including Sara Thornton.

I sent an advance copy of the letter to Mr. Vaz by email and that is online on my The Police Are Cheating Us blog here: Letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee re John Yates, Paul Stephenson, Sara Thornton and others.

The Death of David Kelly - Perverting the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others

Today I am reporting to Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistent Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police my belief that Mrs. Janice Kelly and three other named individuals may have perverted the course of justice with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

On 28th October 2010 I reported to Thames Valley Police my suspicion that Dr. David Kelly had been murdered (Thames Valley Police Unique Reference Number 514 of 28/10/10 refers).

It reamins my considered view that Dr. Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The email to Thames Valley Police is, I think, self-explanatory.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly - Perversion of the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others

The content of the email is:

Chief Constable Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Ball,

I write formally to report to you as constables of Thames Valley Police what I believe to be the criminal offences of perverting the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

I believe that you individually and collectively have a duty as constables to record and investigate this matter promptly and in a competent and diligent manner.

I make this report of suspected crime on the basis of the elements of the crime of perverting the course of justice as published by the Crown Prosecution Service, as I consequently understand them.

I request and require you to record these suspected seroius crimes in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standard.

Thames Valley Police is aware that I believe the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly to have been murder. Thames Valley Police Unique Reference Number 514 of 28/10/10 refers.

Having subsequently carefully considered the many documents released by the Attorney General in June 2011 it remains my view that Dr. David Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The individuals who I believe to have perverted the course of justice and whose conduct I report herein as suspected crimes are as follows.

1. Janice Kelly
2. Rachel Kelly
3. Dr. Sarah Pape
4. Dr. Malcolm Warner

It is the conduct of Mrs. Janice Kelly which I believe to be the most extensive and serious.

First I will briefly summarise conduct that, broadly speaking, is common to the four named individuals

Then I will briefly outline what I believe to be the more serious conduct of Janice Kelly.

Concealment of Evidence

The "suicide hypothesis" as it applies to David Kelly, in its essentials, is that he held a knife in his right hand.and bled to death after cutting his left wrist.

Each of the four named individuals failed to disclose in their oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that Dr. Kelly had sustained a fracture of his right elbow in a riding accident late in 1991 that, if I understand the situation correctly, had required operation.

That injury is variously documented on the Hutton Inquiry site (but in a largely concealed way) here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence-lists/evidence-tvp.htm
and, more openly, in Dr. Richard Shepherd's report to the Attorney General of 16th March 2011 here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf

Consequent on that serious injury of the right elbow and the subsequent operation Dr. Kelly had pain and significant functional limitation of his right arm. See, for example, the information from Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth referred to in Dr. Shepherd's report.

According to evidence from Mai Pederson that is in the public domain Dr. Kelly, in early 2003, had significant difficulty using a knife to cut steak. I interpret Ms. Pederson's evidence to be highly suggestive of post-traumatic arthritis.

If in 2003 Dr. Kelly had difficulty cutting steak, the credibility of whether or not Dr. Kelly could cut his own left wrist with the results documented by Dr. Nicholas Hunt comes seriously into question.

Each of the four named individuals concealed from the Hutton Inquiry information that I believe must have been in their possession about Dr. Kelly's elbow fracture and the consequent pain and functional limitations.

The effect, I believe, of concealing such information about the injury and its effects is to pervert the course of justice.

Hence my writing to Thames Valley Police to report these suspected crimes.

Had the named individuals disclosed the information about Dr. Kelly's elbow injury it would have been possible for the Hutton Inquiry to make an honest, public assessment of the degree of Dr. Kelly's functional limitations and whether or not it was credible that he (supposedly) held a knife in his right hand and produced the injuries of the left wrist documented by Dr. Nicholas Hunt in his postmortem report of 25th July 2003.

In addition to the preceding matter Janice Kelly acted so as to conceal other matters which I mention briefly in the section which follows.

Untrue statements by Janice Kelly

On 12th June 2011 I wrote to Peter Jacobsen, lawyer for the Kelly family, asking the Kelly family to consider whether they ought to "come clean" about a deception to which I believe the family has been party since 2003.

The content of that communication of 12th June 2011 is online here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-peter-jacobsen.html

A sample list of what I believe to have been untrue statements by Janice Kelly in her oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry is to be seen in that communication to Mr. Jacobsen.

Mrs. Kelly has, to the best of my knowledge, failed publicly to remedy the situation which I expressed on 12th June hence my now writing to Thames Valley Police to report these serious concerns.

One might speculate about why Janice Kelly would wish to conceal certain information from the Hutton Inquiry. I believe I understand some of her reasons. However, if my assessment of the situation is correct, a wish for privacy is not a foundation that justifies perverting the course of justice.

Everything stated by me in this communication and in the communication of 12th June 2011 is correct to the best of my belief, having spent many tens of hours studying the publicly available information relating to what I believe to have been the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

I wish to make a formal statement to the Police on this matter. That would most conveniently be done, in the first instance, at Grampian Police HQ. Perhaps Thames Valley Police would be good enough to make contact with Grampian Police to the end that I may make a formal statement at a mutually convenient time. I gave my full contact information to Thames Valley Police in the context of URN 514 of 28/10/10.

In the interests of transparency I am copying this email to Dr. Malcolm Warner, Dr. Sarah Pape and to Mr. Peter Jacobsen who I understand to be the solicitor for the Kelly family.

If any of the four named individuals believes that my concerns are without foundation no doubt they will wish to communicate on the matter with Thames Valley Police.

I am also copying this email to the Attorney General's Office in light of the ongoing public interest in the cover-up of the murder of Dr. Kelly.

I again ask the Attorney General to consider whether he should, ex proprio motu, retract his dishonest statement of 9th June 2011 to the House of Commons before the High Court potentially quashes his dishonest decision.

This email is additionally copied to Professor Keith Hawton for information, given that the "suicide hypothesis" with respect to Dr. Kelly's death is based significantly on Professor Hawton's credulous acceptance of Janice Kelly's uncorroborated evidence of the period around lunchtime on 17th July 2003.

A copy of this email will be placed on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-perverting-course.html

I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter of great public interest.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Alerting the Attorney General to Mr. Green's evidence being unsafe

As a follow-up to my post The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain I have now written to the Attorney General's Office asking for an urgent review of Mr. Green's written and oral evidence.

The title of today's email to the Attorney General's Office was,

David Kelly(3rd appln): Simulating "aterial rain" - need for urgent expert review

The text of the email was as follows:

Mr. McGinty,

I am writing to you as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General seeking, in the context of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

I write to draw to the attention of the Attorney General's Office important new evidence casting doubt on the credibility of the evidence of the forensic biologist Mr. Roy Green. This new evidence demonstrates, in my view, serious "insufficiency of inquiry" with respect to a pivotal part of the evidence supporting the "suicide hypothesis".

I ask you to draw this matter urgently to the attention of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in view of its fundamental implications for the safety of Lord Hutton's "suicide" conclusion of January 2004.

As you are aware the report of Mr. Green was kept secret, at the request of Lord Hutton, from 2003 until 9th June 2011. Thus it is only now that it is possible to subject Mr. Green's report to independent scrutiny.

Taken at face value (and Lord Hutton failed to looked deeper) Mr. Green's evidence seemed to create a seemingly indisputable scenario of bleeding at Harrowdown Hill.

Importantly, Mr. Green failed to disclose that simulation of arterial rain is possible and, moreover, failed to disclose that simulation of arterial rain is a fairly straightforward task.

In other words Mr. Green failed to disclose that it would be possible for a "Scene Setter" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-blood-distribution.html ) to fabricate a seemingly credible scenario of bleeding at Harrowdown Hill when no such bleeding had taken place.

Simulation of arterial rain is so straightforward that, in at least some centres, forensic science trainees routinely use simulation of arterial rain during their training. See the references in my blog post entitled, "The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain" located at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-simulating.html.

I do not attempt here to elucidate whether Mr. Green's failure to disclose the possibility of simulation is due to dishonesty, ignorance, oversight or some other factor. The most material issue is the implication of that failure with respect to the safety of Lord Hutton's conclusion.

The technically fairly straightforward task of simulating arterial rain casts fundamental doubt on the safety of Mr. Green's evidence with respect to the supposed bleeding taking place at Harrowdown Hill.

In turn that calls into question the safety of Lord Hutton's "suicide" conclusion.

I do not expect any member of the Attorney General's Office to have detailed technical knowledge of this matter. Having seen the visible inadequacies of the correspondence from the Attorney General's Office to, for example, Dr. Richard Shepherd I am taking the liberty to formulate some relevant questions - for Mr. Green, for an independent forensic expert and for Lord Hutton.

It seems to me that an honest Attorney General would wish to take steps similar to seeking such clarification.

In the interests of transparency I suggest that all such correspondence from the Attorney General's Office be disclosed publicly. The replies should similarly be publicly disclosed, I believe.

Questions for Mr. Green

1. Can you confirm that you did not disclose the possibility of simulation of "arterial rain" in your written and oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Prior to compiling your statement of 27th September 2003 did you consider the possibility of the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill having been simulated?

3. On 18th July 2003 and 27th July 2003 were you aware of the concept of simulation of arterial rain?

4. Did you disclose to or discuss with the forensic pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt the possibility that the supposed "arterial rain" had been simulated?

5. Do you accept, in principle, that it is possible to simulate arterial rain?

6. Do you believe that it was possible to differentiate the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill from simulated arterial rain?

7. What steps, if any, did you carry out to distinguish whether the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill was genuine or simulated?

8. On reflection, can you now state whether you believe that beyond reasonable doubt the blood on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill could only have been caused by bleeding at the scene? If you believe so, then please provide a detailed account of the evidence and logic which you consider to justify such an opinion.

Many other possible questions exist. The foregoing should be capable of casting useful light on the matter, assuming honest answers to the questions.

Questions for an independent forensic expert

The following questions assume that all relevant forensic evidence is disclosed to the chosen expert.

It may also be worth disclosing explicitly to the expert that the possibility of Judicial Review may be in prospect.

1. Are you able to identify any evidence to suggest that Mr. Green disclosed the possibility of simulation of "arterial rain" in his written or oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Do you accept, in principle, that it is possible to simulate arterial rain?

3. What is your assessment of the technical difficulty (or ease) of simulating arterial rain? Please answer with respect to the general case and the specific circumstances found at Harrowdown Hill.

4. Do you believe that it was possible to differentiate the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill from simulated arterial rain? If so, please provide a detailed account of how you believe that could reliably be done.

5. What steps, if any, could Mr. Green have carried out to distinguish whether the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill was genuine or simulated?

6. Did he carry out any such investigations? What is your assessment of the adequacy of any such investigations?

7. On the available evidence is it possible that the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill was simulated?

8. Can you state, beyond reasonable doubt, that the blood on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill could only have been caused by bleeding at the scene? If you believe so, then please provide a detailed account of the evidence and logic which you consider to justify such an opinion and thereby exclude the possibility of simulated arterial rain.


Questions for Lord Hutton

I suggest that Lord Hutton is best approached on this matter following receipt of answers from the independent forensic expert.

If the supposed "arterial rain" may have been simulated it seems to me that the "suicide hypothesis" is fatally holed below the waterline.

1. In light of the new information from Mr. Green and an independent forensic expert do you accept that your conclusion of January 2004 that Dr. David Kelly committed suicide is now unsafe?

2. If the answer to question 1. is in the negative, please provide a justification or explanation for that assessment.



Mr. McGinty, you may be aware that today's Daily Mail contains an article indicating the prospect of Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's (in my mind dishonest) decision of 9th June 2011. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030663/Doctors-unleash-legal-challenge-inquest-Dr-David-Kelly-had.html

It seems to me likely that matters such as this which further demonstrate "insufficiency of inquiry" on the part of Lord Hutton (and, indeed, on the part of the Attorney General) may be of interest to those contemplating Judicial Review.

The Duggan case seems to indicate that the Attorney General may ex proprio motu decide to review his own decision. I urge Mr. Grieve to consider whether now is the time to throw in the towel with respect to his dishonest decision and statement of 9th June 2011. It was nonsense on 9th June and increasing evidence is emerging to demonstrate that it was nonsense.

On 12th June 2011 I invited Dominic Grieve QC MP and Edward Garnier QC MP to resign in view of the dishonest decision and statement to the House of Commons. See "The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html )

I repeat here the invitation to Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier to resign in view of the demonstrably unsound decision announced on 9th June 2011.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this email is to be found on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-alerting-attorney.html

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this communication and confirm that it will be considered as part of a future assessment of this matter by the Attorney General of the time.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Acknowledgement of GMC complaint re Dr. Richard Shepherd

I have now received a brief, automated acknowledgement from the GMC re my complaint to the General Medical Council regarding the possible serious professional misconduct of Dr. Richard Shepherd.

See my recent post, The Death of David Kelly - Serious Professional Misconduct by Dr. Richard Shepherd?, for the full text of the complaint to the General Medical Council.

Thank you for your enquiry.

We will respond to you as soon as possible. We aim to do this within five working days.

Please also note that at peak times of the year (January to February and July to September) our Registration Directorate is extremely busy. It can take us longer at these times to answer your enquiries.



Please do not reply to this email, replies to this email address are not monitored or actioned.



General Medical Council

I will post about this matter again when a more substantive response is received from the General Medical Council.

The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain

In a post on 3rd November 2010, The Death of David Kelly - Is it possible to simulate "arterial rain", I asked the important question of whether it was possible to simulate "arterial rain".

The answer to the question is "Yes, it is possible to simulate arterial rain".

This question is very important in interpreting the evidence found at Harrowdown Hill.

Two possibilities exist for the cause of the supposed arterial rain found on the nettles to the left of the body:

1. Arterial bleeding from the left wrist of the body


2. Simulated arterial rain by the person I referred to as the "Scene Setter" here: The Death of David Kelly - The blood distribution indicates it was murder

It is not at all surprising that arterial rain can be simulated. After all, arterial bleeding is simply fluid being expelled from a tube under pulsatile pressure.

Not only is it possible to simulate arterial rain, it is so straightforward to do so that it is used in teaching forensic science.

One simulation technique is simply to use a syringe and tube. This is used at the Department of Forensic Science in Virginia. See Bloodstain Pattern Training Manual. Relevant material is in section 5.4.9 on page 19 of the PDF file.

The second simulation technique is to use a peristaltic pump (broadly a pump that produces pulses of pressure analogous to the pulses in the arteries, caused by pumping by the left ventricle of the heart). See Crime Scene to Court: The Essentials of Forensic Science - Google Books Result. The relevant section is Section 7.2.4.2 on page 179.

It is clear that simulation of arterial rain is sufficiently close in its characteristics to "genuine arterial rain" that the simulated arterial rain can be used for teaching purposes in the training of forensic science professionals.

Was Mr. Green aware that simulating arterial rain was straightforward?

If he was, he didn't disclose it to Lord Hutton in his oral evidence nor did he disclose that possibility in his report of 27th September 2003 (Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003).

Given that it is so straightforward to simulate arterial rain the safety of Mr. Green's conclusion the blood on the nettles arose from arterial bleeding from the left wrist of the body is obviously called into question.

I will be writing to the Attorney General's Office asking that an urgent expert review be carried out of Mr. Green's assessment of this aspect of the evidence at Harrowodown Hill

The Death of David Kelly - Letter to Lord Hutton re ACC Page's evidence

Today I wrote to Lord Hutton with regard to the evidence suggesting that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to the fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records.

The text of the letter (which was copied to Dominic Grieve and Sara Thornton) is here:

26th August 2011

Lord (Brian) Hutton
House of Lords

Dear Lord Hutton,

False testimony to the Hutton Inquiry given by ACC Michael Page

You may recall that the Attorney General’s Office wrote to you last year in relation to questions being raised by myself and a number of other doctors regarding the safety of the conclusion that Dr. David Kelly supposedly committed suicide.

In this communication I wish to draw to your attention evidence that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page gave untrue testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

I ask you to consider the information which I summarise below and consider whether you have a duty to contact the Attorney General on this matter with regard to the safety of the conclusion which appeared in your Report of 28th January 2004 and his consideration of an application under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

Briefly, ACC Page falsely (but successfully) sought to lead the Hutton Inquiry to believe that no “extraneous fingerprints” were present on Dr. Kelly’s dental records.

However, it recently emerged as a result of a Freedom of Information request that six unidentified fingerprints were present on the dental records.

In my assessment it is an inescapable conclusion that ACC Page gave false testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

The effect of the false testimony was to provide the Inquiry with unfounded reassurance that no “third party” had handled Dr. Kelly’s dental records and that, consequently, the temporary disappearance of Dr. Kelly’s dental records could be disregarded.

I drew this matter to Mr. Grieve’s attention on 13th May 2011. See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html.

Given that ACC Page appears to have lied to the Inquiry it seems to me that all his evidence requires to be re-examined. Bizarrely, and in my assessment dishonestly, Mr. Grieve refuses to examine this potentially hugely important issue.

I again drew the matter to Mr. Grieve’s attention on 23rd August 2011, (see http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-did-acc-page.html ), and again he seeks to avoid an issue of self-evident potential importance.

Mr. Grieve is aware that I view him as a dishonest and corrupt Attorney General so he will not be at all surprised that I view his bizarre inaction in this matter as a further facet of his dishonesty in office.

ACC Page’s false evidence in the matter of dental records related to (supposedly) excluding the presence of third parties at the dental surgery (where Dr. Kelly’s dental records disappeared and mysteriously re-appeared).

ACC Page also gave (at the time) unsubstantiated evidence to the effect that no third parties were present at Harrowdown Hill. The Hutton Inquiry accepted that evidence.

I suspect, but cannot yet prove, that ACC Page also may have lied to the Hutton Inquiry about the weight of evidence regarding excluding the presence of “third parties” at Harrowdown Hill, a pivotal issue with respect to the “suicide hypothesis”.

Clearly, if I am correct that such an important Police witness lied to or otherwise misled the Hutton Inquiry about such important matters of evidence then I believe it is self-evident that the conclusion which you reached in January 2004 is unsafe.

As I indicated earlier I believe you have a duty carefully to consider this matter and communicate to Mr. Grieve that your January 2004 conclusion is unsafe.

If you do write to Mr. Grieve expressing concern appropriate to the seriousness of a senior Police officer lying I would appreciate receiving a copy of that letter or letters.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this letter will be placed on my “Chilcot’s Cheating Us” blog at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely



(Dr) Andrew Watt

To:
Lord (Brian) Hutton, House of Lords

cc:
Dominic Grieve QC MP
Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Thames Valley Police

The Death of David Kelly - Peter Jacobsen communication of 12th June 2011

On 12th June 2011, following Dominic Grieve's dishonest statement to the House of Commons on 9th June, I wrote to Peter Jacobsen, solicitor for the Kelly family.

In that email I asked Mr. Jacobsen to consider whether it would be best for the Kelly family to "come clean" about a deception to which I believed (and believe) that the family was party.

Given the absence of any indication from Mr. Jacobsen that he has acted in a way I would believe to be appropriate to the seriousness of the matters under consideration I am putting that communication into the public domain.

Both Professor Keith Hawton and Dr. Malcolm Warner were copy recipients. To the best of my knowledge neither has taken appropriate action to correct the situation.

The title of the email of 12th June 2011 to Mr Jacobsen was,

The death of David Kelly - It's time for the Kelly family to tell the truth

The content of the email was,

Mr Jacobsen,

I write to you on the assumption that you continue to represent the Kelly family.

I write to ask you to consider how most appropriately to communicate to the Kelly family my concerns expressed in this email.

I write to invite you to discuss with the Kelly family the need for them, finally, to tell the truth regarding the events of July 2003.

I imagine that finally "coming clean" will not be an easy or painless process for the Kelly family.

I write not to create trouble for the Kelly family but to urge them to consider that "coming clean" now may be a much less traumatic way to put right what I believe to have included concealment of evidence by the Kelly family.

That, of course, is a choice for the Kelly family to make - individually and collectively.

The doubts about the evidence, including evidence given by the Kelly family, won't go away.

Nor will the doubts about the cover-up of the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly currently spearheaded by the Attorney General. See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html for more background.

It is my assessment that Janice Kelly gave misleading and, arguably, dishonest evidence to the Hutton Inquiry in 2003. Later in this email I will briefly summarise some of the basis for that opinion.

You will, I imagine, be aware of the statement made by the Attorney General to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

I imagine that your clients may have, as a result, hoped that the truth would, for ever, be concealed.

However, lying (even out of the most personal of motives) is problematic in a situation as thoroughly and publicly documented as the circumstances surrounding the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

You will be aware that the notion that Dr. Kelly committed suicide is founded primarily on statements made by Janice Kelly to Professor Keith Hawton.

In correspondence to the Attorney General I have been seriously critical of Professor Hawton's evidence.

See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-need-for-expert.html
for a copy of a communication to the Attorney General re Professor Hawton's evidence.

While I continue to be critical of Professor Hawton's evidence, one mitigating factor, I believe, is that Janice Kelly seriously misled him about the events of 17th July 2003.

I believe that there are good grounds to conclude that Janice Kelly was an unreliable witness.

The following are examples of the concerns which exist regarding Janice Kelly's evidence:

1. Janice Kelly gave evidence of a supposed "flight to Cornwall" on the evening of 9th July 2003. Thames Valley Police have now confirmed that David Kelly played cribbage on that evening.

2. Janice Kelly gave evidence that on the morning of 10th July 2003 she read an article in the Times by Nick Rufford. Nick Rufford does not write for the Times.

3. Janice Kelly gave evidence that on the morning of 10th July 2003 she and David Kelly travelled from Weston Super Mare to Cornwall. Mr. A (Rod Godfrey) stated that David Kelly was in his garden near Swindon drinking coffee.

4. Janice Kelly denied that any rows took place between herself and Dr. Kelly. I am led to believe that such a denial is untrue.

5. Janice Kelly supposedly could not remember what she and David Kelly did on the afternoon of Saturday 12th July 2003. She and David Kelly met with John and Pamela Dabbs. Mrs Kelly asked the Dabbs to keep secret confidences that David Kelly had disclosed. Mr Dabbs did as he was asked by Mrs, Kelly and concealed evidence from the Police and from the Hutton Inquiry.

I could go on but those examples are, perhaps, sufficient to evidence that there is a sound basis for my concerns.

My conclusion is that Janice Kelly misled Professor Hawton and misled Lord Hutton.

I believe I understand at least part of her motives for doing so.

You may also wish to discuss with Mrs. Kelly and other members of the Kelly family whether it is time honestly to give evidence about the after effects of Dr. Kelly's riding accident in December 1991.

See
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-silence-of-kelly.html
for a discussion of that matter.

That, of course, is material to the consideration of whether or not Dr. Kelly had the functional capacity in his right arm to incise his left wrist.

I am copying this email to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office for information.

I am also copying this email to Professor Keith Hawton, in order to give him the opportunity to reappraise his evidence to Lord Hutton and to consider whether, as a result, he has a duty to inform Thames Valley Police that his evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry may have been untrue or unsoundly based.

Given that Dr. Malcolm Warner also failed to disclose in oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry medical evidence regarding the injury to Dr. Kelly's right arm. Dr. Warner may also wish to review his position.

Blind copies of this email are also being sent, in part to document that the preceding questions have been posed to you acting on behalf of the Kelly family.

I have no plans to write again on this matter to you.

If, individually and collectively, the Kelly family considers that the best course of action is to ignore the issues I raise herein then I have no intention to pursue those issues again with you or directly with them.

Given renewed media interest in the withholding of evidence from the Hutton Inquiry expressed in today's Mail on Sunday,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2002640/Dr-David-Kelly-Friend-says-world-know-truth-thanks-Hutton-Inquiry.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
others, of course, may independently pursue the issue with the Kelly family.

It's not rocket science for readers of Mr. Mangold's article to figure out that the Kelly family may have influenced the withholding of evidence from the Hutton Inquiry.

It is my opinion that there is no painless way to correct years of what I believe to be deception.

I have, in good faith, suggested to you what I believe to be the least bad option.

The choice of what action to take, if any, belongs to you and the Kelly family.

Thank you for your attention.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Serious Professional Misconduct by Dr. Richard Shepherd?

Today I am writing to the General Medical Council to express my concerns regarding the Forensic medical report by Dr Shepherd 16 March 2011.

My concerns about the content of that report are so serious that I am asking the General Medical Council to carry out a formal assessment of whether Dr. Shepherd may be guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The title of the email is:

Concerns re possible serious professional misconduct by Dr. Richard Shepherd

The content of the (rather long) email is:

Dear Sirs,

I write to draw to the attention of the General Medical Council conduct by Dr. Richard Shepherd, forensic pathologist, which I believe may constitute serious professional misconduct.

I ask that the General Medical Council institute a formal inquiry into Dr. Shepherd's conduct in this matter.

The matters to which Dr. Shepherd's deficient conduct relate are of such seriousness and ongoing public interest that I ask the General Medical Council to consider whether a hearing of this matter be held entirely in public, in order to provide reassurance in the public mind regarding the conduct of forensic pathologists acting as supposed "experts".


Dimensions of Concern

My concern about Dr. Shepherd's conduct has three dimensions:

1. Dr. Shepherd failed in multiple ways to act in the unbiased and rigorous fashion that is to be expected of a supposed "expert" forensic pathologist, arguably sufficient to consitute serious professional misconduct. That aspect of Dr. Shepherd's conduct is the subject of this email and the request to the General Medical Council to investigate what seems to me to be serious professional misconduct by Dr. Shepherd.

2. Dr. Shepherd failed to act in the unbiased and rigorous manner to be expected of what is commonly referred to as a Home Office Pathologist. I intend to write to the Pathology Disciplinary Board with respect to my concerns regarding this aspect of Dr. Shepherd's conduct.

3. Dr. Shepherd, in my view, acted in such a manner as potentially to pervert the course of justice with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. I am giving serious consideration to contacting the Police with respect to this aspect of Dr. Shepherd's conduct.


Brief Background

On 12th November 2010 Dr. Richard Shepherd was asked by Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office to provide an expert forensic pathology opinion about the death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003. See http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/AGO%20to%20Shepherd%2012%20November%202010.pdf

The death of Dr. Kelly is the subject of ongoing serious concern in the minds both of doctors who have studied the available evidence and lay members of the public. One group of doctors made a formal legal application to the Attorney General in September 2010 in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

The question in Law to be addressed in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 is whether or not it is possible that a new inquest would arrive at a different verdict. In 2004 an inquiry by Lord Hutton had concluded that David Kelly had killed himself.

It was in this context of whether or not it was possible that a new inquest would reach a different verdict that the Attorney General's Office approached Dr. Shepherd.

Dr. Shepherd was supposed to provide unbiased expert assessment of the forensic pathology aspects of the case.

In his report Dr. Shepherd demonstrated his awareness of a duty to provide unbiased expert assessment.

On page 21 of his report of 16th March 2011 (which is available online here, http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf ) Dr. Shepherd shows his awareness of his duty to provide unbiased advice in these terms:

"I understand that I owe an overriding duty to provide independent assistance, by way of unbiased opinion in relation to the matters within my expertise and that such advice must be uninfluenced by the exigencies of the case. I have complied with, and will continue to comply with, that duty."

In my view this declaration by Dr. Shepherd is both dishonest and fraudulent.

I reach that conclusion based on these criteria:

1. Dr. Shepherd makes statements inconsistent with an unbiased assessment. Systematically, I believe that Dr. Shepherd's assessment is biased towards the "suicide hypothesis".

2. Dr. Shepherd fails fairly to express considerations which legitimately cast doubt on the "suicide hypothesis" and which ought to be expressed by a medical expert acting in an unbiased manner.

3. Dr. Shepherd makes statements which are outwith his area of expertise, yet fails appropriately to identify such comments and dishonestly allows these speculations falsely to appear to be "expert" assessment.

In the section which follows, Specific Serious Concerns, I list several of the issues where I believe that Dr. Shepherd's report departs in material respects from the conduct which the Public has the right to expect from an honest medical expert acting in an unbiased matter.

I conclude that Dr. Richard Shepherd departed seriously from the standards to be expected of an honest and diligent medical expert and that he may have demonstrated serious professional misconduct.


Specific Serious Concerns

In this section I list some points of serious concern to me that lead me to my conclusion that Dr. Shepherd may be guilty of dishonesty and serious professional misconduct.

The list which follows is illustrative rather than exhaustive.

For convenience, I list the illustrative issues in the order they appear in Dr. Shepherd's purported "expert" report of 16th March 2011.

1. The presence of "third parties" at the scene

On page 4 of the report, Dr. Shepherd states the following:

"In my opinion the length and detailed nature of the scene examination, the extent of the sampling for later scientific examination and the analyses to which those samples were subjected indicates that every effort was made to determine whether or not another individual or individuals had been present in, around or near the scene of death or had been in contact with Dr. Kelly before or after death."

This statement seems to provide sweeping reassurance that no "third party" was present at the scene. However, on more careful examination, it seems to me that such reassurance is spurious and unreliable.

First, making efforts is not the same as demonstrating something beyond reasonable doubt. Dr. Shepherd should have distinguished between those two concepts. Given his stated experience in the Coroners Court Dr. Shepherd knew, or ought to have known, about the relevance of fhe concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" for a suicide verdict properly to be sustained.

I can find no evidence in any report publicly available of "analyses" that directly informs the question of whether or not "another individual or individuals had been present in, around or near the scene of death (sic)". If such evidence exists it is very surprising that Dr. Shepherd does not express it, given the importance of the issue of possible presence of third parties at the scene at Harrowdown Hill.

In that context, Page 10 of the report of 27th September 2003 by the forensic biologist Mr Roy Green (See http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Roy%20Green%20forensic%20statement%2027%20September%202003.pdf ) states the following: "These tapes were retained at the laboratory in case further examination was required." implying that the tapes taken from the clothing had not been fully examined as of late September 2003.

That leads me to conclude that at least some of the evidence collected may never have been subject to laboratory testing.

If no such analyses were carried out (or if only partial testing was carried out) there is no secure scientific basis that I can identify to exclude the presence of third parties at the scene. If Dr. Shepherd were analysing this issue in an diligent, unbiased expert manner I feel he had a duty to identify this important conclusion and draw attention in his report to the implications of it.

Further, it is known (and Dr. Shepherd knew, see page 5 of his report) that two ambulance staff had been close to and handled the body (for example, attaching ECG electrodes).

The presence of those two individuals at the scene was undetected, so far as I'm aware. If the presence of known third parties was undetected there is no secure, logical basis to exclude the possible presence at the scene of unidentified persons.

Additionally, Louise Holmes and DC Graham Coe were close to the body but their presence at the scene was similarly undetected.

An honest and diligent expert would have identified and commented fairly on that important matter.

It seems to me that Dr. Shepherd's blanket reassurance on this matter is unreliable and biased, seeking to manufacture a certainty that no third party was present when, to the best of my knowledge, there is no adequate scientific evidence to support that as a safe conclusion.

2. Movement of the body

One of the issues generating ongoing suspicion is the evidence suggesting that the body found at Harrowdown Hill had been moved.

Dr. Shepherd attempted to address that issue on page 5 of his report.

Dr. Shepherd concludes, "In my opinion there is no evidence to support the theory that the body had been moved after discovery."

Dr. Shepherd had been provided with scene photographs. It is unknown whether or not Dr. Shepherd was provided with timing information for those photographs.

The body was found at approximately 09.15. The first photographs were taken at approximately 10.10.

It is evident, therefore, that the position of the body at "discovery" is not amenable to assesment using the photographs. The only evidence that relates to the 09.15 timepoint is that of Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman.

If Dr. Shepherd failed to inquire into the timing of the photographs he was negligent. If Dr. Shepherd knew that the photographs did not relate to the time of "discovery" then he has concealed that awareness by reason of either incompetence or dishonesty, in my view.

Dr. Shepherd knew (by virtue of the statement of Louise Holmes to which he had access, see page 20 of his report) that she found the body with head and shoulders against a tree.

Photographs (of undisclosed time) which Dr. Shepherd saw showed the body at some distance from the tree.

It is perverse, and contrary to logic, for Dr. Shepherd to conclude that the body was not moved since subsequent photographs show the body at some distance from the tree. I assume, in stating that, that Dr. Shepherd does not wish to postulate that a dead body moved itself.

Further, Dr. Shepherd visited Harrowdown Hill on 8th December 2010 (see page 3 of his report) in what I understand to have been wintry weather.

The initial examination of the scene was carried out on 18th July 2003.

What may have been "soft ground" in December 2011 might, given the clay-based nature of the soil, have been of a very different consistency in high summer in July 2003.

An honest expert would have expressed a note of caution about such potential seasonal differences. Dr. Shepherd failed to do so. I understand it is likely that he knew that no identifiable footprints were found in July 2003, indicating that at the time the characteristics of the ground were other than "soft ground".

Further, it does not require expertise in forensic pathology to realise that a body can be lifted or carried. The supposed absence of evidencing of dragging is not conclusive.

Again, in my view, Dr. Shepherd's consideration of this matter is at a minimum biased and may exhibit dishonesty and/or negligence.

Of course, if the body was in two different positions at 09.15 and after 10.10 one must conclude that it was moved, given the unlikelihood of a dead body moving itself.

That conclusion also impacts on the purported absence of third parties at the scene. If the body was moved some party other than the deceased must have moved the body.

3. Extent of bleeding at the scene

On page 5 Dr. Shepherd indulges in a bizarre attempt to assert the notion that guessing how much blood may have been lost is better than attempting to measure it.

Dr. Shepherd's consideration of this matter is risable and contrary to good science, in my view.

It is not the approach of a credible medical expert, in my view.

I accept Dr. Shepherd's assertion that in the prevailing circumstances accurate measurement of blood loss would in all likelihood be problematic. However, Dr. Shepherd's imagining that guessing how much blood was lost is an improvement on attempting measurement is something I find astonishing.

An honest expert would have stated that it is unknown how much (or how little) blood was lost at the scene. I suggest that an honest expert would also have commented that consequently it is uncertain whether or not haemorrhage was the primary cause of death.

4. Excluding of carrying of the body

On page 7 of his report Dr. Shepherd states the following, "The totality of the injuries identified were such that it is possible to exclude the use of physical restraint in any form or of holding or carrying before, during or after death.".

It seems to me that this statement is dishonest since Dr. Shepherd purports in absolute terms to exclude the possibility that the body was carried.

How, for example, can one exclude the possibility of carrying of an unconscious or dead body using, for example, a strong sheet or tarpaulin or something resembling a stretcher?

5. Supposed absence of injection marks

On page 7 of his report Dr. Shepherd states the following, "In addition there were no injection sites anywhere on the body and no marks on the skin that could be associated with an electrical stun device such as a Taser.".

An honest expert would, in my view, have qualifed the assertion about the supposed absence of injection sites by a remark such as "Given the nature of the injuries to the left wrist one cannot exclude injection in that region.".

The failure of Dr. Shepherd to insert such a qualifying remark further illustrates the bias in his report, in my view.

6. Strength of the right arm

The "suicide hypothesis" rests on the assumption of Dr. Kelly was capable of holding a knife in his right hand and incising his left wrist.

If the strength or function of the right arm is in question, the credibility of the "suicide hypothesis" is potentially seriously weakened.

On page 8 Dr. Shepherd provides what I believe to be a dishonest assessment of this important matter.

Dr. Shepherd first states, "It is self-evident that it is not possible to determine this (sic) strength of an individual's muscles after death.".

Dr. Shepherd purports to be providing a report as an expert forensic pathologist. An honest expert should have stopped there, possibly adding a comment to the effect, "This is a matter that is better investigated by questioning of those who knew the deceased in life.".

The matter is, quite simply, not one that a forensic pathologist can definitively assess.

In his continuation Dr. Shepherd, to my mind, exhibits a desire to substantiate the suicide hypothesis inconsistent with the actions of an unbiased expert.

Dr. Shepherd states, "no evidence of significant muscle wasting was recorded". However, nor was it recorded to be absent. We simply don't know if there was any muscle wasting or not. There is no documentation either way.

Dr. Shepherd attempts to undermine the evidence of Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth using tangentially relevant interpretations of the medical records. This, in my view, is risable and dishonest. Dr. Shuttleworth travelled regularly with Dr. Kelly for some two years in the period that I understand to be referred to.

Dr. Shepherd uses the silence in the GP notes from 1999 to 2003 to imply that no weakness or disability was present. This is speculation not the honest assessment of an expert. It is entirely possible that Dr. Kelly had problems with his right arm without having drawn those to the attention of his general practitioner.

Dr. Shepherd signally fails to mention the possibility of post-traumatic arthritis after a fracture of or around the elbow. If he was unaware of the condition he demonstrates his ignorance. If he was aware of the condition and didn't mention it he demonstrates his dishonesty, in my view. In any case, he is going beyond his "area of expertise". His comments on this are not, I suggest, those of an "expert".

Had he fairly considered the possibility of post-traumatic arthritis I would have expected him to comment that the elbow joint was not opened at the postmortem and therefore no opinion can be offered on the matter.

I conclude that Dr. Shepherd seeks to rubbish the concerns about functional limitation of the right arm in a manner wholly inconsistent with a dispassionate expert.

As a forensic pathologist he didn't know if the arm was weak or not. An honest forensic pathologist would, in my view, have stopped there.

7. Dr. Hunt's Postmortem Report of 25th July 2003

On page 10 Dr. Shepherd states the following with respect to Dr. Nicholas Hunt's postmortem report, "In my opinion this is a full, complete, expert pathological report on a death that was initially considered to be 'suspicious' and which had been dealt with by all members of the investigative team as a possible homicide.".

Dr. Hunt's report is online here:
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf

There are multiple deficiencies, in my view, in Dr. Hunt's report which Dr. Shepherd fails to identify.

I will limit myself to mention here of one serious deficiency.

On page 5 of Dr. Hunt's report mention is made of "An old, curving scar around the outer aspect of the right elbow.". But no assessment is made by Dr. Hunt of the significance of that observation.

Dr. Hunt is nonetheless content, elsewhere in his report, to postulate that Dr. Kelly used the right arm to incise his left wrist.

Dr. Shepherd fails to notice and/or comment on Dr. Hunt's failure in this visibly material consideration.

We have here, I suggest, a seriously deficient approach to forensic pathology. Neither Dr. Hunt nor Dr. Shepherd (each a Home Office Pathologist) attaches any significance to the scar nor makes mention of its possible significance.

It is difficult to know whether best to describe such glaring failures as risable, dishonest or worrying. Or all three.

8. Time of death

On page 11 (and following) Dr. Shepherd seems to me to seek to cover up or minimise Dr. Hunt's error in establshing body weight and his failure to apply corrective factors.

On page 12 Dr. Shepherd also seems to me to introduce an entirely spurious hypothesis involving the loss of heat energy in any blood lost.

9. Sharpness of the knife

On page 14 Dr. Shepherd correctly identifies the inability of the forensic pathologist to estimate the sharpness of a knife.

However, he fails adequately to alert the Attorney General to the need for the laboratory assessment to be carried out, if the assessment of the assumed sharpness of the knife is to move from guess to scientifically established fact.

10. Did the knife found cause the wounds

This is a serious issue. On page 14 Dr. Shepherd appears to find it adequate for the forensic pathologist effectively to guess that a knife is vaguely suitable to create the observed wounds.

Such guesswork is not, I suggest, the approach of a credible medical scientist or expert.

It is, I suggest, possible to carry out a much more rigorous and detailed assessment of whether the wounds were caused by the alleged knife. In my view both Dr. Hunt and Dr. Shepherd erred seriously in this context.

11. Volume of water ingested

On page 14 Dr. Shepherd dismisses the question of whether 300ml (actually 389ml) of water is sufficient to have allegedly swallowed 29 tablets as "entirely speculative".

I suggest that Dr. Shepherd's dismissal is comparably "speculative" and is inconsistent with an honest, expert assessment. Dr. Shepherd did not disclose the speculative nature of his comment.

If Dr. Shepherd has any scientific basis for his statement no doubt that will emerge at a hearing before the GMC.

12. The pattern of blood loss

On page 16 Dr. Shepherd states, "In my opinion the injuries to the left wrist of Dr. David Kelly have all the features of self-infliction and they would have resulted in the pattern of blood loss that was present at the scene.".

In a situation where it is not (as I have argued earlier) possible to exclude the presence of third parties the possibility exists that such a party had sought to create the appearance of suicide when the reality was murder.

Dr. Shepherd gives no hint that he even considered that possibility.

Further, there are significant questions about whether, if the seeming suicide was genuine, it is possible to have "arterial rain" only on the left of the body.

I have raised these technical questions in some detail with the Attorney General's Office.

I am unclear whether the Attorney General's Office forwarded the relevant documents to Dr. Shepherd. I therefore simply state here that I think Dr. Shepherd is wrong about the pattern of blood loss demonstrating that the death was suicide.

13. Thirst associated with blood loss

Dr. Shepherd states on page 18, "I have been unable to find any medical references that indicate an individual suffering from acute blood loss will also suffer from such accute thirst."

I entered the terms "blood loss thirst" in Google. The third result, http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u01/u01_006.htm. states in terms, "The patient feels thirsty", referring to patients with haemorrhagic shock.

Since Dr. Hunt asserts that haemorrhage is the primary cause of death and Dr. Shepherd approves of that assessement, a stage of haemorrhagic shock arguably seems inevitable.

Dr. Shepherd might have been wiser and more honest if he had stated that symptoms of living patients are not within the area of expertise of a forensic pathologist.

14. The glasses found in the pocket

On page 18, Dr. Shepherd states, "In my opinion it is not unreasonable to note and draw some inference from the presence of the glasses in the coat pocket.".

I suggest that the only legitimate inference that can be drawn from the finding of the glasses in the pocket is that the glasses were found in the pocket.

Any other inference is, I suggest, speculative.

In keeping with his perceived bias, Dr. Shepherd avoids criticising Dr. Hunt's unsubstantiated speculation on this matter.

15. Dr. Shepherd's "Overall Conclusions"

On page 19 Dr. Shepherd lists some "conclusions".

In my assessment these demonstrate failures of the kind described earlier.

In Conclusion 3. Dr. Shepherd states that the wounds are consistent with being self-inflicted but neglects to mention the possibility of infliction by a third party minded to make a murder look like suicide.

Conclusion 6. which excludes carrying of the body is unsafe in my view, as discussed earlier.

Conclusion 8 where it is asserted that there are no injection sites omits the necessary qualification in relation to the area of the left wrist consequent on the presence of the wound complex there.

In Conclusion 11 Dr. Shepherd asserts that the notion of measuring blood loss "owes more to fiction than reality". It can equally be said of Dr. Shepherd's reliance on guessing the blood loss relies more on speculation than on any sound scientific measurement or assessment.



Evidence of general sloppiness

There are multiple instances in Dr. Shepherd's report which demonstrate what might generally be termed a sloppiness of approach. In themselves they may not constitute misconduct. Taken together with the preceding issues, in my view they further serve to demonstrate the poor quality of Dr. Shepherd's report.

1. On page 2 of his report Dr. Shepherd states, "The sequence of events immediately before the death of Dr. David Kelly are well known and do not need to be repeated here.". It is my view that Dr. Shepherd was negligent in not inquiring into the "sequence of events" before Dr. Kelly's death. Those events have many gaps and are in dispute (in part due to the unreliability and dishonesty of key witnesses) and false evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry by Thames Valley Police officers, among others. A diligent and honest expert witness would have either given careful consideration to those events or have stated that his opinion was limited in its reliability due to his failure to inquire into those events.

2. On page 2 of his report Dr. Shepherd states that the body was found on 18th July 2007. This is incorrect. The body was found on 18th July 2003.

3. On page 5 Dr. Shepherd refers to a comment by DC Shields about the position of the body. Thames Valley Police currently contend that DC Shields did not go to the scene.

4. On page 7 Dr. Shepherd incorrectly states the date of the posmortem as 18th July 2007. The postmortem took place in 2003.


Conclusion

1. In my view the multiple deficiencies in Dr. Shepherd's report are such that the report falls far short of the standard reasonably to be expected of a medical practitioner acting as an "expert".

2. Dr. Shepherd's report demonstrates bias on multiple occasions, entirely inconsistent with his supposed role as an unbiased expert.

3. The effect of the deficiencies in Dr. Shepherd's report are such as potentially to pervert the course of justice with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly by creating an unsubstantiated appearance of certainty where major unresolved questions continue to exist.

4. The multiple deficiencies in Dr. Shepherd's report suggest to me that he may be guilty of serious professional misconduct, given the documented departures by him from the behaviour to be expected of a registered medical practitioner and the wording of the declaration quoted in the early part of this email.

This is a matter of great public concern. The effect, in my view, of what I believe to be Dr. Shepherd's serious professional misconduct is to conceal a possible murder - that of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in July 2003.

Administrative Matters

I am copying this email to the Attorney General's Office given that the Attorney General made an announcement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, based in significant measure on what I view as being a seriously defective and materially dishonest supposed "expert" report from Dr. Richard Shepherd.

In doing so, I ask Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office to forward to Dr. Richard Shepherd and to Dr. Nicholas Hunt a copy of this communication given the criticisms of their conduct that I express herein.

For the avoidance of doubt, since I consider Dr. Shepherd's conduct to be an issue of significant public concern I am sending blind copies of this email to potentially interested inviduals and reserve the right to disseminate further copies of this email at future dates.

Further, it is fair to inform the General Medical Council that there are multiple political dimensions to this case. It is my current intention to make available to Members of Parliament access to the information contained in this email.

I am also placing a copy of the full text of this email on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-serious.html

I would be grateful for written confirmation that the General Medical Council has received this communication and, in due time, a written indication as to how the General Medical Council proposes to proceed.

This email is the result of many hours studying the documentation from the Hutton Inquiry and the documentation released by the Attorney General in June 2011. The opinions expressed are my honest assessment of the available evidence.

If the GMC wishes any further background information that is in my possession relating to Dr. Shepherd's report I would be happy to provide that to the extent that applicable practical considerations allow.

It may be relevant to mention that the Attorney General's Office is currently continuing to conceal a substantial number of potentially relevant documents. A list of some of those documents may be found online here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-request-for.html

I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement from the General Medical Council in the near future.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol(Pathology) MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA