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

The Death of David Kelly - Did ACC Page pervert the course of justice?

This post consists largely of an email to the Attorney General's office to be sent today.

On 13th May I drew the Attorney General's attention to evidence suggesting that ACC Page had lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

I can trace no consideration of that potentially important matter in Dominic Grieve's statement of 9th June 2011 or the supporting documentation.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly (3rd appln): Did ACC Page pervert the course of justice?

The content of the email is:

Mr. McGinty,

This email is intended to be considered by the Attorney General in the context of the Third Application to the Attorney General re a possible application to the High Court to order an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

On 13th May 2011 I wrote to the Attorney General informing him that it appeared that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page, formerly of Thames Valley Police, had lied to the Hutton Inquiry.

See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html for a copy of that communication.

In that communication I sought to draw the Attorney General's attention to evidence that a senior Police officer had fabricated a sequence of events that did not, in fact, happen and also concealed from the Hutton Inquiry evidence that there were unidentified fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records. (The issues are explained in more detail in the communication of 13th May.)

I am unable to trace any indication in Mr. Grieve's statement to the House of Commons of 9th June 2011 that that hugely important issue was given any consideration whatever.

If I have overlooked mention in his statement or supporting documentation of Mr. Grieve's consideration of that important matter, could you please now draw my attention to the evidence of such consideration of the matter by Mr.Grieve?

In the absence of such consideration by Mr. Grieve prior to 9th June, I ask that it be considered as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General.

In passing I would mention that if I were one of the doctors who might seek to judicially review the Attorney General's decision announced in his statement of 9th June, I would look with interest at the seeming total failure of the Attorney General to examine evidence that a senior Police Officer lied to the Hutton Inquiry while dishonestly attempting to lead the House of Commons to believe that he had carried out a thorough inquiry of the relevant issues.

Given that this communication relates to the Contempt of Parliament by Dominic Grieve QC MP I am copying this email to John Bercow and Kevin Barron.

I am copying this email to chief officers of Thames Valley Police.

I ask those officers to log this matter as the potential crime of perverting the course of justice by former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page and provide me with a relevant URN.

I am willing to make a formal statement on this matter at my local Police HQ (Grampian). I gave my full contact information to Thames Valley Police in connection with URN 514 of 28/10/10.

Given the evidence that more than one officer in Thames Valley Police may have perverted the course of justice I ask that the statement not be made to Thames Valley Police officers. In that context I invite Chief Constable Thornton to refer this matter to another Police force for investigation.

If Chief Constable Thornton is of the view that the suspected reported crime took place in the area of the Metropolitan Police I specifically ask her to forward this report of suspected crime to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for action by him.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this communication.

I would also ask you to forward this information (and a copy of my communication to the Attorney General of 13th May 2011) to Lord Hutton to seek his view on whether the possibility that ACC Page lied to his Inquiry causes him to change his view as to the safety of his conclusion of suicide.

I also ask the Attorney General's Office to publish Lord Hutton's reply.

I would also ask Chief Constable Thornton to acknowledge receipt of this communication and inform of me what action she is taking in response to this report of what I believe to be a very serious crime by an officer of Thames Valley Police.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this email will be found on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-did-acc-page.html.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - The position of the body when found

This post places on the public record an email I am sending today to the Attorney General's Office.

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.