In Lord Hutton's opening statement his intention to hold the inquiry in two stages was spelt out together with his reasoning behind this. I think it is just as easy for the reader to interpret Hutton's thoughts here by going to the official website rather than me to try and explain the logicality behind the process. Suffice to say that his Lordship made his opening statement on 1st August 2003 and took evidence for stage one from Monday 11th August till lunchtime on Thursday 4th September. Hearings were then adjourned until Monday 15th September and stage two ran through till Hutton's closing statement on the 25th of that month. It had to reconvene for a day on 13th October for Sir Kevin Tebbit's examination, Sir Kevin having had an eye operation at the time he would normally have given evidence.
On the morning of 3rd September we hear from ACC Page in response to Mr Dingemans:
Q. What was the name of the pathologist who --
A. The pathologist was Mr Nicholas Hunt.
Q. We were hoping to call Mr Hunt to give evidence this morning, but he is on holiday and he is coming in stage 2. Just so that we can keep the evidence chronological, perhaps you can assist me in identifying some of the material parts of his findings.
A. Yes, my Lord.
A little later Dr Hunt is mentioned again before reference is made to Mr Green:
Q. And we will hear from him but unhappily not today. What other searches were carried out at the scene? You have mentioned a forensic biologist. What do they do?
A. A forensic biologist, I believe you will be hearing from one later --
Q. Who was the forensic biologist?
A. A Mr Green I think. Yes, Mr Rory Green.
Q. I think you have very kindly arranged for him to come along later today?
A. That is correct, my Lord.
Mr Green does indeed arrive that afternoon to give evidence and at the end is thanked for coming at short notice. This again demonstrates the farce of the Hutton Inquiry, the implication being that Mr Green came at short notice because Dr Hunt failed to show up and that it was the industry of ACC Page that ensured that the inquiry wasn't left with a gap that afternoon. Dr Hunt hadn't been suddenly taken ill he was away on holiday for goodness sake! The nature of Mr Green's evidence meant that he would be a candidate for stage one of the Inquiry, which finished at lunchtime the following day anyway. So why does Mr Dingemans say to Mr Green 'Thank you for coming at short notice'?