In this post I want to highlight one implication of the limitations of the forensic biology report of 27th September 2003 from Mr. Roy Green, Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003.
Of course, given that the report wasn't produced until 27th September 2003 counsel to the Hutton Inquiry (and other counsel) had no opportunity to consider the written report during the period when oral evidence was being taken.
On page 5 of Mr. Green's report is a list of the laboratory tests that Mr. Green was asked to carry out.
I can identify no mention of Mr. Green having been asked to examine the clothing of Dr. Kelly for evidence of contact with a second party or parties.
Unless there is some other report which is not yet in the public domain it seems to me that there is no evidence that any forensic testing was done to look for recent contact between Dr. Kelly and another person or persons.
How then is it possible supposedly to "exclude" the presence of other people at Harrowdown Hill?
The simple answer is that it isn't possible to do that. The relevant tests were, so far as I can establish, never carried out.
So much for ACC Page supposedly excluding the presence of "third parties" at Harrowdown Hill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interestingly, and slightly bizarrely, Mr Green did establish that there was DNA from another person on the cap found close to the body.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the main DNA associated with the cap was that of Dr Kelly it seems that a lesser amount could be that of a female (not Mrs Kelly, Sian Kelly or Ellen Wilson) See Page 17 of Mr Green's Report.
This is not to imply of course that this female would have been wearing the cap on the 17th/18th July 2003!
Yes and DK's DNA found on the memory card from his camera (possibly touched only once) and no DNA found on his glasses which were in contact with him every day.
ReplyDeleteFunny stuff DNA
We have no idea what is buried in the report of Anne Franc which, as we all know, must be read in conjunction with Roy Green's.
ReplyDelete