Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Dr Hunt's Exhibit List

A little while back Lancashire Lad had spotted what appeared to be an anomaly, something causing concern, and he made a comment about it on one of my blogposts.  In a nutshell LL flagged up that Dr Hunt's evidence included mention of a Barbour cap with blood on it and lying near Dr Kelly's body.  This was not included in the list of exhibits that formed part of Dr Hunt's report of the 25th July.  However what was included in the list was "NCH/17/5 Flat cap from game pocket", although this second cap didn't feature in Dr Hunt's testimony.  Some speculation has arisen about all this, particularly the apparent failure to include the "blooded cap" in the Exhibits List.  It would seem from what I have been able to deduce that the reason for the anomaly is very mundane!

I have been trawling through Dr Hunt's Exhibit List in his report and then the penny dropped as they say.  It wasn't just the Barbour cap that was missing from the list but the knife, wristwatch and Evian water bottle!  However the articles in the Barbour jacket pockets had been included.  Whether this would be standard practice I don't know but here there appears to be a demarcation line: any exhibits relating to Dr Kelly's body and anything that he was wearing at the time of the examination (including any pocket contents) would rightly come under Dr Hunt's exhibits.  Other objects close to the body even if only inches away would be the province of the SOCOs so far as their numbering was concerned.

This is not to say of course that Dr Hunt didn't look at the knife, wristwatch, water bottle and Barbour cap although he seems to have paid remarkably little attention to them.  And again he is at fault in not recording the presence of the cap in the game pocket in his main body of evidence; he did of course describe the contents in the bellows pocket - the mobile phone, spectacles, key fob and blister packs.  He was perhaps so excited by the presence of the blister packs that he forgot to record the game cap information at that time!  Did he overlook any other pockets in the Barbour jacket?


  1. I think there is a bigger picture here.
    The separation is clearly deliberate. I remarked about the irrationality of putting the co-proxamol packets back in the pocket. The evidence had pre-empted this by adducing that Dr Kelly had been working his way through the packet as he was walking around. The "double check" that Hunt and Green verified the finding of mobile phone AND co-proxamol in the pockets must be to allay any suspiction that they were found in the SOCO area, so would now have been the province of Dr Hunt and the various redacted names in his report.
    The mobile phone was comprehensively examined at
    TVP/7/0063 - 0073 (Examination reports (3) of mobile phone - not for release - Police operational information)
    I think the extra game cap was inconvenient and was not mentioned at the Hutton Inquiry for that reason: a cock-up.
    Relevant extract from Mr Green's examination by
    MR DINGEMANS: Were you present while any other relevant discoveries were made?
    A. I do not believe so"

    One final thought - what happened to the blister packs and the remaining tablet? There seems to be no information or TVP report on it (the tablet)/them (the packs).

  2. Felix, although artefacts found in the pockets of the Barbour jacket would be in Dr Hunt's record initially, once he had looked at them and made any deductions I assume that they would have become TVP "property". We know that two of the blister packs were tested for fingerprints and the third for DNA from the FOI result.

    As the person finding the various objects in the jacket pockets Dr Hunt would correctly in my view put this into his report as a matter of record whereas objects unattached to the body and seen by others would not be in the Exhibit List even though we assume he made some sort of examination of them.

    One has to assume that the blister packs were put in the jacket pocket so that they would inevitably be discovered - something of that lightness would risk being blown away if not put in a pocket.

  3. For what it's worth I believe that Dr Kelly's body was delivered to the scene already dead by a helicopter in the early hours of the 18th, the outer tent was erected over the landing area to hide the obvious landing imprints.

    The body was taken into the wood and placed sat against a tree; the wrist was then cut and the body was left alone. Props gathered during searches of Kelly's home earlier in the night were placed around the body.

    When Dr Kelly had died(from some kind of poisoning) he was left flat on his back until the journey to Harrowdown Hill.

    At some point the error of positioning the body sat against a tree was highlighted because livor mortis could reveal the body was flat on its back after death (in the event this may have been a needless fear as Dr Hunt reported livor mortis still being mobile when he performed the post mortem)

    But the fear was great enough for the body to be repositioned but there was a problem; there was a pool of blood by Dr Kelly's left hip at the base of the tree.

    When the body was dragged away from the tree the pool of blood was next to the body's head / shoulder, this was covered up by no.1 cap.

    After Dr Hunt's first visit to the body the scene was re-arranged again. If I am correct the photos taken by Sawyer and the forensic photographer will confirm tis.

  4. If the Barbour cap had been placed over the original pool of blood (from the sitting position)then the cap would have been soaked in blood, maybe this is another reason that ACC Page did not report back to the inquiry with the forensic investigation findings.

    Also if the body was moved a new pool of blood would be required under the new position of the wrist. Dr Hunt to the Daily Mail 23 Aug 2010 "Dr Kelly repeatedly dislodged clots or scabs to ensure he continued bleeding. 'His wrist was red so he must have been doing this for some time."

    The left wrist position described by Franklin and Hunt (palm down) is opposite to the description given by Holmes and Chapman (palm up) but these four attended the scene at the same time.

    And Hunt's description of the position of the left arm at his first visit to the body "His left arm was towards his side" contradicts his descrition of his 2nd visit "The left arm was extended out from the body slightly, closer to shoulder level"

    Looking at the left arm / wrist position and description of the injuries from Holmes, Chapman, Franklin, Sawyer, Vanessa Hunt, Bartlett, Dr Hunt's 1st & 2nd visit and Green; you get the impression that the body had been moved a number of times. Presumably to get the blood staining to match the body position.

  5. Sorry replace Sawyer for Hunt in 3rd Para in previous post

  6. Apologies again, too many hand positions, too many different accounts para 3 above police account Franklin & Saywer is at odds with the ambulance crew; V Hunt & Bartlett,(palm down vs palm up

    The inury was on display to the ambulance crew and had the blood had dried and started to crack. But the police say the wrist was towards the ground and the wound therefore not visible.

  7. No money, no wallet. No identity. Is he royalty? Has he been robbed?

  8. Felix - I must admit that if I was walking locally I wouldn't necessarily be carrying a wallet or any ID. Perhaps I should in case I have a heart attack and the ambulance crew want to know who I am but I have a tendency to travel very light. Perhaps I (and Dr Kelly) are the odd ones out.

  9. Or coins....
    If Dr Kelly's silent heart condition had overcome him, nobody would have known who he was. Unless his role, whatever that was, prevented him from carrying i/d. I guess we differ...

  10. Felix,

    A very interesting observation about the lack of money and wallet.