It seeks to summarise the evidence about the position of the body at Harrowdown Hill in the period before any photographs were taken.
No photographs were taken prior to 10.11 on 18th July 2003.
The evidence of Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman and Graham Coe about the position of the body relates to the situation before any photographs were taken.
There is, it seems, no other evidence about the position of the body when found.
Arguing from the evidence of later photographs is spurious with respect to the situation when the body was found. The body was left unattended for a significant period.
And it is the difference in the position of the body at the time it was found and the position of the body after 10.11 that forms the basis of the view that the body was moved.
As stated in the email I intend to follow up with an email summarising the evidence about the position of the body in the (still secret) photographs.
The title of the email is:
David Kelly (3rd Appln): The position of the body when it was found
The content of the email is:
Dear Mr McGinty,
I am writing to you in order systematically to demonstrate that Dominic Grieve QC MP acted dishonestly when he gave a statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.
I view it as a matter of the utmost seriousness that the United Kingdom Attorney General demonstrated publicly that he is dishonest and corrupt.
Dominic Grieve lied to the House of Commons when he claimed that Dr. David Kelly's body was not moved.
I ask you to log this email as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General for an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.
This email summarises the available information about the position in which Dr. David Kelly's body was found.
In a subsequent email to you I will summarise the information available from photographs as to the subsequent position of the body and demonstrate that the evidence, honestly considered, demonstrates that the body was moved.
According to the available evidence the body of David Kelly was found at around 09.15 on Friday 18th July 2003.
The first photographs were taken around 10.11 on 18th July 2003 by, so I understand, PC Sawyer.
According to the publicly available evidence, only three people saw the body in the period after the body was found and before any photographs were taken. Those people were:
1. Louise Holmes (searcher)
2. Paul Chapman (searcher)
3. DC Graham Coe
Striictly speaking, only Ms Holmes and Mr. Chapman saw the body "when it was found".
I understand that neither they nor DC Coe took photographs at the scene.
Ms Holmes Evidence
Ms Holmes approached to about four feet from the body. She has consistently given evidence that the head and shoulders of the body were against the trunk of a tree.
See, for example, pages 1 and 2 of "Annex TVP 3 The position of the body when found" located at http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf.
In her written statement and her evidence to the Hutton Inquiry Ms Holmes is clear and consistent in her evidence.
Given that she viewed the body from a distance of about four feet it is inconceivable that Ms. Holmes was mistaken.
To challenge her evidence I think it would be necessary to say she was lying. So far as I'm aware, nobody has made such a suggestion.
So far as I'm aware the evidence is that Ms. Holmes is a clear, consistent and honest witness.
There is no doubt that given her proximity to the body that it is Ms Holmes' evidence that is the most authoritative about the position of the body when found.
She stated consistently that the head and shoulders were against the trunk of the tree.
Mr Chapman's Evidence
Mr Chapman saw the body twice, as I understand the situation. When the body was found he saw the body from a distance of about 30 feet or thereby.
When with Ms. Holmes at 09.15 or thereby when the body was found, he stated to the Hutton Inquiry that the body was "sitting up against a tree".
See page 2 at http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf.
Thames Valley Police appear to have interpreted his written statement as indicating that the body was flat on the ground without his head and shoulders against the tree. However, the written statement is sparse and makes no mention of the position of the head and shoulders.
Thames Valley Police appear to have taken no steps to clarify the possible discrepancy in his evidence either in 2003 or in 2010/11.
DC Coe's Evidence
DC Coe first saw the body at around 09.40.
On page 2 of http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf Thames Valley Police present DC Coe's evidence to create the impression that the body was lying flat on his back.
However, Thames Valley Police ignore in that Annex the evidence of DC Coe given to The Mail on Sunday and published on 8th August 2010.
DC Coe is quoted as saying, "As I got closer, I could see Dr. Kelly's body sideways on with his head and shoulders against a large tree."
The quote is from column 4 of Page 12 of the article.
Thames Valley Police were aware of the article (having in recent months re-interviewed DC Coe about the "third man" issue) but, conveniently, chose to ignore DC Coe's evidence about the position of the head and shoulders.
It is currently an open question as to whether that failure was due to an insufficiency of competence or an insufficiency of honesty on the part of Thames Valley Police.
Synthesis of the Evidence
All three of the people who saw the body before photographs were taken have stated that the head and shoulders of the body were against the tree.
Ms Holmes viewed the body from a distance of about four feet. It is, I suggest, inconceivable from that distance that she was mistaken.
DC Coe saw the body "sideways on". Viewing the body from that position can leave no doubt as to whether or not the body had its head and shoulders against the tree.
Mr Chapman gave superficially conflicting evidence but his written Police statement is potentially consistent with his statement to the Hutton Inquiry. Thames Valley Police should, in my view, re-interview Mr. Chapman to resolve what may be merely a matter of wording rather than an inconsistency in his evidence.
I believe that Thames Valley Police should also re-interview the former DC Coe.
Thames Valley Police may then wish to provide to the Attorney General a more reliable interpretation of the position of the body when found than was contained in Annex 3, quoted above.
This email is being copied to John Bercow and Kevin Barron in the context of Dominic Grieve's Contempt of the House of Commons, in that he lied to the House in his statement of 9th June 2011 and its supporting documentation.
It is also being copied to Keith Vaz since the inadequacies of Thames Valley Police may be of interest to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I am copying this email to David Cameron since he may wish to review whether he continues to consider that Dominic Grieve is a fit person to hold the office of Attorney General.
I am also copying this email to Norman Baker MP and Malcolm Bruce MP in view of their involvement with this matter.
In addition I am copying this email to Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball at Thames Valley Police with a view to Thames Valley Police re-investigating this evidence as a matter of urgency.
In the interests of transparency I am posting a copy of this email on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-position-of-body.html.
For the avoidance of doubt this is an open communication. Recipients of visible or blind copies of this email are free to distribute it as they see fit.
Assistant Commissioner John Yates had to resign following his "crap decision" in the matter of the phone hacking.
If examined honestly Dominic Grieve's decision regarding the death of David Kelly is a "crap decision" of monumental proportions. In time I believe Dominic Grieve will have to resign and should be investigated by the Police for Misconduct in Public Office and Perverting the Course of Justice.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General.
Thank you
(Dr) Andrew Watt
I plan to send a subsequent email to the Attorney General's Office summarising the evidence about the position of the body in photographs.
No comments:
Post a Comment