Evidence of lying by the police sent to the Attorney General

Earlier today I sent an email to the office of the Attorney General.  This one concerned the need for an inquest with sworn testimony because of lies told by officers from Thames Valley Police.  It is not meant to be exhaustive.  The matters I discuss in the email are ones  which I have posted about in far more depth before.  What I have tried to do is produce a digestible summary that illustrates how police officers lied at the Inquiry.  The text of the email is reproduced below:

Mr McGinty

This email for the consideration of the Attorney General is, I consider, clear evidence of lies told by police officers at the Hutton Inquiry.  The particular evidence to be detailed here is contained in the testimonies produced by the first three police officers known to have approached Dr Kelly's body: DC Coe, PC Franklin and PC Sawyer.

DC Coe 

In his testimony on 16 September 2003 at the Inquiry DC Coe, in contradiction to other witnesses, states that he is with one other police officer (Detective Constable Shields) when he goes towards Harrowdown Hill on the morning of 18 July 2003.  However in a press article in August 2010 DC Coe admits the presence of a third man.  Thames Valley police have subsequently confirmed to me in writing that they know the identity of this third man, although they are not prepared to tell me his name or rank.  Even though the evidence given by DC Coe was obviously inconsistent with that of the earlier witnesses at the Inquiry Lord Hutton appears to have made no attempt whatsoever to resolve the difference.

There has been an assumption that DC Coe stood close to the body from the moment searcher Paul Chapman took him to where the body lay till the time PC Franklin and PC Sawyer arrived.  However DC Coe's evidence suggests otherwise:

21 Q. How far away from the body did you actually go?
22 A. 7 or 8 feet.
23 Q. How long did you spend at the scene?
24 A. Until other officers came to tape off the area. I would
25 think somewhere in the region of about 25 or 30 minutes.
4
1 Q. Did anyone then arrive after that time?
2 A. Yes, two other police officers arrived, I took them to
3 where the body was laying and then they made a taped off
4 area, what we call a common approach path for everybody
5 to attend along this one path. 

The precise definition of "the scene" is open to interpretation.  Certainly from what DC Coe says it is evident that he meets the other officers at a point away from the body and takes them to it.  Evidence from other witnesses indicates he was down on the track when met by them, at a minimum 50 to 70 metres from the body.  The differing accounts by earlier examined witnesses about the position of the body is indicative of the body being moved when DC Coe was present.  I consider that a diligent judge would have checked with DC Coe how much of the 25 or 30 minutes he was down on the track and how much of the time the body was within DC Coe's sight.

PC Franklin 

This is part of PC Franklin's testimony:

2 Q. Did you get taken into the wood?
3 A. DC Coe took us into the woods, PC Sawyer and myself, to
4 the area where the body was.
5 Q. And what did you see there?
6 A. We walked between 50 and 70 metres into the wood up
7 a slight gradient, and in a clearing at the base of
8 a tree was the body of a white male.

This is confirmation of what DC Coe says, and as one would expect DC Coe actually takes PC Franklin and PC Sawyer to where the body is.

Further on in the testimony:

16 LORD HUTTON: May I just ask you: how long were you at the
17 scene before the paramedics arrived?
18 A. Less than two minutes. 

PC Sawyer

Here we have his testimony about his arrival at the bottom of the track leading up to Harrowdown Hill:

6 Q. And where did you then go?
7 A. We then went to the track that leads up to
8 Harrowdown Hill, I do not know the name of the track,
9 but when we arrived we saw a vehicle parked which
10 belonged to Louise. We started walking up the track.
11 We also had with us two paramedics who had arrived,
12 which we took up with us to make sure that the person we
13 were going to see did not require any medical
14 assistance.
15 Q. Those two paramedics had obviously arrived separately
16 from you?
17 A. They had arrived more or less at the same time we did.
18 So the five of us went up because we were with
19 Sergeant Alan Dadd as well.

No explanation is provided about any further part played by Sergeant Dadd but at least we have confirmation that the paramedics arrive at about the same time as the PCs 

This is further testimony from PC Sawyer:

25 Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to?

47
1 A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
2 Q. Paul Chapman?
3 A. He told us basically the body was further up in the
4 woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw
5 DC Coe and two uniformed officers. I said, you know:
6 whereabouts is the body? He pointed the path he had
7 taken. I asked him if he had approached the body. He
8 said he had. I asked him to point out where he had
9 entered the woods and PC Franklin and myself entered the
10 woods at the same point, taking with us a dozen or 15
11 aluminium poles we use when we are moving towards
12 a scene to establish a common approach path.
13 Q. Were the paramedics with you at the time?
14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The other three officers?
16 A. They remained down on the path.
17 Q. So it is you, PC Franklin and two paramedics, then the
18 other three officers you have met; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You go down further into the woods, is that right?
21 A. The three officers -- DC Coe and the two uniformed
22 officers -- stayed on the path which leads through the
23 woods. We branched off to the left about 50 or
24 70 metres up into the woods, where the body was.
25 Q. So it is just the four of you; is that right?

48
1 A. Just the four of us went up there.

From this detailed questioning it is clear that PC Sawyer's version of events is markedly different to that of PC Franklin regarding the approach to the body and whether DC Coe is with them at that time.  If PCs Franklin and Sawyer approach the body only once (with the ambulance crew slightly behind them) then it is clear that either PC Franklin or PC Sawyer is not telling the truth.  Once again Lord Hutton fails to resolve an important piece of conflicting evidence.

The three officers give conflicting accounts about what was happening between the time the volunteers find the body and the time that the ambulance crew arrive at the point in the woods where the body is situated.  Clearly it is essential for an inquest with sworn testimony to now take place.

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

Brian Spencer  

 

The coroner and the deficiencies in the Hutton Inquiry

Earlier today I sent an email to the office of the Attorney General.  It was mainly concerned with highlighting the fact that all the deficiencies in the Hutton inquiry were subsumed into the decision made by the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner on the 16th March 2004 not to resume his inquest.

The text of my email to Mr McGinty at the AG's office is reproduced below:

Mr McGinty

On 10 December 2010 I wrote a letter to the Attorney General concerning new evidence that I had received relating to the death of Dr David Kelly.  I subsequently sent you an email on the 23rd February 2011 again relating to the death of Dr Kelly.  I ask that you place this present communication with those previously mentioned for consideration by the Attorney General.

I request that in considering any deficiencies in the Hutton Inquiry (in the meaning of the criteria specified in Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988), whether identified by myself or others, that these deficiencies are also applied in the Attorney General's consideration of the abbreviated inquest conducted by Nicholas Gardiner QC.

Lord Falconer, at the time in question holding the post of Lord Chancellor, invoked section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988  during the course of the Hutton Inquiry.  Lord Hutton's Terms of Reference at the start of his Inquiry were "urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly".  Bearing in mind that section 17A had been invoked I had wondered whether his Terms of Reference had changed during the course of the Inquiry to reflect this fact but from a Freedom of Information (FOI) request I ascertained that the Terms of Reference remained unaltered through the Inquiry.

Lord Hutton chose to hear all the evidence unsworn even though section 17A had been invoked.  There were instances when a witness produced testimony that was in direct contradiction to that of one or more other witnesses.  I consider that a competent judge would have resolved these differences, not only did Lord Hutton fail to do this but he made no attempt to try and do so.

As is well known Lord Hutton formally delivered his report to Lord Falconer, the latter in his then role of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, on the 28 January 2004.  In his report Lord Hutton concurred with the view of forensic pathologist Dr Hunt that Dr Kelly had met his death by committing suicide.

On 16 March 2004 the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner held a hearing to determine whether there were exceptional reasons to resume his inquest.  I understand that it was only the family of Dr Kelly and the Ministry of Defence that were represented at this hearing.  Notwithstanding the fact that Lord Hutton didn't take witness evidence under oath, that there were clearly unresolved conflicts of evidence in the testimonies and that Lord Hutton couldn't subpoena witnesses to attend Mr Gardiner found no exceptional reasons to resume the inquest.  This decision by Mr Gardiner I find to be quite extraordinary.

I note the following in the "The Coroners (Amendment) Rules 1999:

“Public inquiry findings

37A.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 37, at an inquest resumed after having been adjourned pursuant to section 17A of the 1988 Act, the coroner may admit documentary evidence relevant to the purposes of the inquest and containing the findings of the public inquiry to which section 17A(1)(a) refers.

By making clear his acceptance of the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry (even though the Inquiry was deficient as outlined above and clearly not of coronial standard) Mr Gardiner had effectively subsumed the Hutton Inquiry into his hearing of the 16 March 2004.  Therefore any criticisms of the Hutton Inquiry, and I am aware that there are a large number that have been directed to the Attorney General for his consideration, are also equally valid criticisms of the decision by the coroner Mr Nicholas Gardiner on 16 March 2004 not to resume the inquest because of his expressed satisfaction with the Hutton Inquiry and its findings.

The content of this communication is I submit further reason for there to be a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly and for such an inquest to be overseen by a new coroner.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email. 

Brian Spencer

"Southend Leaks" - an odd website about Dr Kelly's death

A number of websites and forums have appeared over the last seven and a half years that have tried to make sense of the unusual death of Dr David Kelly.  One of the most recent showed up in the second half of January this year, calling itself "Southend Leaks" it is an offshoot of another website "Southend Voice".  Southend Leaks can be read here http://www.southendleaks.com/index.html

The website has made seven "releases" relating to Dr Kelly's death.  On their Home Page they state 'We always extend total privacy to all our contacts', this is fair enough but it does mean that we have to rely on other (anonymous) people's honesty when the site reports "facts".   There is though one fact I have been able to verify myself, as I will explain in a moment.

At this point I would urge readers to go to the site and read the releases for themselves, it won't take too long as there is very little meat in them.  What they claim though is of some interest to those of us trying to get to the bottom of the Dr Kelly mystery.

I want to particularly draw attention to their Release Four: "The Kellys and the de Haans - Part Two".  First though we need to go back a little further to Release Two in which it is stated that Mrs Kelly is on record as saying that she and her husband spent three nights at Mevagissey (which is in South Cornwall): Thursday 10th, Friday 11th and Saturday 12th July 2003.  This is factually incorrect, Mrs Kelly talks of walking down into Mevagissey on the Sunday morning and it would be easy to infer from this that they stayed there the previous three nights but Janice Kelly doesn't actually say this.

Going to Release Three and it's claimed that witnesses saw the Kellys at Higher Tresmorn Farmhouse which is on the coast of North Cornwall!  We aren't informed of the date.  Now Higher Tresmorn is on a lane to nowhere else really apart from Lower Tresmorn and a very rough gated lane and I  find it almost inconceivable that anyone would have passed the farm at the critical moment and subsequently informed "Southend Leaks" that they saw the Kellys.

The story now gets even more unbelievable with the reference to the village of St Gennys described as a short walk from Higher Tresmorn Farmhouse.  As the crow flies the distance is a little under a mile but of course the distance walking is considerably more and the terrain very hilly, much more severe than that in the neighbourhood of Southmoor in Oxfordshire.  Dr Kelly might conceivably have walked it but as for Mrs Kelly with her arthritis definitely not.  If they visited St Gennys Church it would have been by car.  The very small hamlet of Cleave, which would be on the walk, but not for the Kellys is named on the map but there is no indication on the ground of what it is called so far as I could see when I was there yesterday.

Southend Leaks talk of the alleged disappearance of the visitor book in St Gennys Church and they are correct at least in saying that the present book starts on 2nd August 2003.  They seem to be suggesting that maybe the Kellys visited the Church, signed the visitors book and that someone then removed the book so that evidence of their visit was covered up.  So what proof do Southend Leaks have in support of all this?  None so far as I can see.

It's the bit about the 200/1 odds of the present visitors book starting two and a half weeks after Dr Kelly's death that I find really astonishing.  They say they have done the maths.  Their conclusion on this aspect is utterly ridiculous.  Sorry, but you cannot assign odds to such a thing, it's a nonsense!  We don't know when the previous book started, how many pages it had, how many people visited the church, how many of these signed the book, you can't work out odds on this sort of thing.

I'm not saying that the content of the Southend Leaks is all fiction but I find it very difficult to believe what they are saying.

A timeline for events relating to Harrowdown Hill

TIMELINE for events on Friday 18.7.03 (Harrowdown Hill related)

Hutton Inquiry evidence is in RED       FOI evidence is in BLUE

05.07 Sunrise for Oxford on 18/7/03
05.00 (soon after) Paul Chapman gets initial page
Unspecified time Paul Chapman says: 'Further text message to say we had a call out'
05.15 ACC Page starts his meeting about Dr Kelly's disappearance & the search
06.00 DC Coe called out
06.00 (about) PC Sawyer called out
06.15 PC Franklin called out
07.15 to 07.30 Louise Holmes arrives Abingdon Police Station
08.00 (about) Paul Chapman, Louise Holmes and Brock start search
08.00 (about) PC Franklin, PC Sawyer and others briefed by Sgt Woods
08.45 (about, estimated) Brock finds boat people
09.20 Paul Chapman makes 999 call
09.28 Outer cordon established
09.30 Closing time “Operation Mason”
09.40 Ambulance gets call out
09.55 Ambulance arrives at Harrowdown Hill (Dave Bartlett evidence)
10.07 Ambulance crew declare life extinct (PC Franklin & DC Coe evidence)

10.26 Ambulance crew logged out of outer cordon
* "At 11 a.m., police hunting for Kelly say the body of an unidentified man has been found at   Harrowdown Hill, five miles from Dr Kelly's home."

12.00 Dr Hunt logged into outer cordon (From his published report)
12.04 Dr Hunt logged into inner cordon (From his published report)
12.06 DCI Young logged into outer cordon
12.35 Death confirmed by Dr Hunt
12.50 PC Franklin gets request from DCI Young to do fingertip search
* "Just before 2 p.m., police say they believe the body is that of Kelly."
14.10 Dr Hunt (with Mr Green) logged into inner cordon (from his published report)
16.45 First fingertip search completed
17.30 Dr Hunt's tapings and swabs completed (from his published report)
19.00 Mr Green finishes at HH and notes the hearse approaching
19.15 Dr Hunt takes DK's rectal temperature (from his report)
19.19 Dr Hunt logged out of inner cordon (from his report)
19.35 Dr Hunt logged out of outer cordon (from his report)
19.24 Second fingertip search started (in area of removed body)
19.45 Second fingertip search completed

I hope that the above timeline is helpful

UPDATE: *The two timings starred have been added from a timeline here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/14/156637/-Plame,-Miller,-Kelly,-WMD-Timeline

(Many thanks to Felix who pointed out this link to me in a comment on a later post) 

A Facebook page you should know about

'We think the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly, former UN Weapons Inspector, should be re-opened'  This is the highly commendable description on a page of the massive Facebook site.  It can be accessed here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=193075719823&v=wall#!/group.php?gid=193075719823&v=info

To be honest I'm not really into social networking, and "Facebook" I suppose is the most familiar of the sites for this sort of thing, but it has to be said that Facebook isn't solely a site for just everyday chit-chat.  It is also a vehicle for mounting campaigns and the page I've linked to and started by Margaret is one such.  In the links on the info page can be seen "wall" and this is where members can write comments and generally interact with other like minded people.

Although Facebook likes people to talk about themselves on the site this really isn't necessary.  So if, like me, you want to remain fairly anonymous it isn't a problem.  There is a fairly simple procedure to register and once done you are encouraged to say something to your other "friends" but if you aren't comfortable with this there is no coercion!  As with this blog for example the readers are always likely to substantially outnumber those commenting!  There are editing facilities - I saw them somewhere - so you can control how much of your profile is visible to the casual reader.

If you are already a regular user of Facebook  then you know how it all works.  If not it is still worth clicking the link above and having a look around.  Margaret and Miriam are doing a really good job on Facebook and I recommend their site to you.

The death of Dr Kelly - taking stock

This post isn't going to be about any single facet connected with the death of Dr David Kelly, rather it's a case of after nearly five months of blogging and 76 posts reviewing how far forward I've been able to go and just what I can now say with confidence about the dramatic events that occurred in 2003, events and their consequences that seem to have taken over much my life of late.  Reading that sentence again I have fallen into the trap of just mentioning 2003 whereas I should at least be bracketing that year with 2002, the year of the September dossier.  It might be that we should not get totally blinkered by linking Dr Kelly's death to the infamous dossier .....

There is a theory that the body discovered at Harrowdown Hill on the morning of the 18th July wasn't that of Dr Kelly, that another body had been substituted for his and that he is alive and well at some unknown location.  Even though fact has a habit of being stranger than fiction I can't buy into such a scenario at the moment.  Ignoring that possibility we have the "fact" of Dr Kelly's dead body being discovered at Harrowdown Hill.  The options to look at I suggest are:

• He committed suicide where his body was found
• He committed suicide elsewhere but he was then brought to Harrowdown Hill  to give the appearance of suicide having occurred there.
• He was murdered at Harrowdown Hill and the murder was dressed up as suicide.
• He was murdered elsewhere and brought to HH and the murder dressed up as suicide.

For a whole variety of reasons I don't believe that the first option is tenable.  The second option is one that has been put forward by the website "southendleaks.com" - the justification they appear to use in their final release is the perceived ongoing and increased distress experienced by Dr Kelly in the days leading up to his death.  They say 'There is no evidence of murder' but fail to demonstrate any evidence of suicide.  It could be that they are right and I am keeping an open mind on the subject.  So my verdict on the "southend leaks" explanation is 'is it possible - yes' but 'is it compelling - no'.

That leaves the two murder alternatives.  If we assume, as surely we have to, that the apparent appearance of suicide was carried out by professionals (and this applies to the "southend leaks" explanation as well) why was it botched to the extent that so many questions have been asked of it.  It looks as if the body was having to be moved almost up to the time that the ambulance crew arrived to confirm that Dr Kelly was dead.  Although delayed it was inevitable that  paramedics would be called to Harrowdown Hill and that they would have to give evidence at the Hutton Inquiry.  No doubt the hope was that after giving their testimonies at the Inquiry Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett would just go away and forget about it.  Fortunately for us they didn't.  They could see with certainty that the official suicide explanation wasn't plausible and unluckily for those engaged in the cover up they went public, both on television and in the press.  Luckily for us we can see and read what they said on the internet.

At this juncture I want to comment that I don't totally condemn all those involved in telling lies in regards of the cover up.  I'm particularly thinking of the minor players, people such as DC Coe, PC Franklin and PC Sawyer all of whom I consider lied at the Inquiry to some extent.  They are not necessarily bad men, they could have been persuaded that it really was all for the best; without actually being in their shoes at the time I can't honestly say what I might or might not have done.

Apart from DC Coe lying (admitted) I am now sure that PC Franklin and PC Sawyer had moments in which they weren't telling the truth.  I am quite sure that the civilian searchers were sent to Harrowdown Hill in the certain knowledge that they would find the body of Dr Kelly there and that no harm would befall them.

There are still plenty of unknowns relating to Dr Kelly's death some of which I have previously touched on.   In this regard I would remind readers of another blog in which many of the anomalies have been flagged up and discussed: it's Dr Andrew Watt's blog http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/  I want to thank those people who are interacting with me in the comments - although it is nice to know who is commenting at any particular time I appreciate that there are some who would prefer to retain there anonymity.  This is fine so don't feel inhibited in adding something to the mix.  The number of readers in other countries is heartening as well - my audience has extended to every continent!  So thanks everyone!

Volunteers searching unaccompanied

When the volunteer searchers Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman arrived at Abingdon Police Station on the morning of Friday 18th July 2003 they were asked to carry out a search the like of which I'm sure they wouldn't have seen before.  I have previously posted videos of Ms Holmes and her lovely search dog Brock http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2010/12/louise-holmes-and-brock.html and http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/02/age-of-brock.html  In these videos I, for one, got a sense of what the lowland search dogs were all about.  What they quite definitely didn't seem to be about to me was being involved in looking for a high profile person and where there was a possibility of a crime having occurred.

To add a little to my remark about the possibility of a crime having taken place it's instructive I think to read the testimony of ACC Page when he makes his first visit to the Inquiry on the morning of the third of September.  This is what is said after ACC Page states he had organised a meeting for 5 o'clock on the Friday morning (Mr Dingemans asking the questions):

Q. Did they all get there at 5 am?
A. I think we started the meeting about 5.15 am.
Q. What did you discuss at the meeting?
A. I was obviously briefed on the information that had been obtained from Dr Kelly's family.
Q. What information had been obtained?
A. In terms of when he had left the house, his demeanour, what he had been wearing when he had left, details of any conversations that had taken place, their feelings about his mood at the time of leaving, general background information as to what had happened over the last few weeks and what impact that may have had on him.
Q. And your receipt of that information -- and we have heard from the family ourselves now -- what effect did that have on your approach to the investigation?
A. Well, at that stage it was a missing person investigation. My concerns were that Dr Kelly had gone out for a walk, perhaps become ill, perhaps had an accident befall him, possibly had been abducted against his will, possibly was being detained. There were a whole range of options that I was trying to consider.

So at that moment in time we have ACC Page considering that Dr Kelly might have been abducted against his will, in fact he might have been detained somewhere.  This is serious stuff - we aren't talking about a missing child or an elderly person suffering from Alzheimer's walking around confused.  Surprisingly then we have the two volunteer searchers looking for Dr Kelly rather than a police team with dogs.  When sending Ms Holmes, Mr Chapman and Brock out to Harrowdown Hill it might have been a sensible precaution one would think to have a police officer accompany them.  It was their controller Neil Knight who was briefing them in the company of other police and my thought is that there would have been some serious discussion between Mr Knight and the police initially with Mr Knight made totally aware of the high profile of Dr Kelly.  Incidentally I don't recall seeing a witness statement from Mr Knight amongst the documents lodged at the Inquiry.

When PCs Franklin and Sawyer arrive for their briefing at Abingdon Police Station there seems to be quite a change of emphasis regarding the reason for Dr Kelly's disappearance.  This is an exchange between Mr Knox and PC Sawyer at the Inquiry:

Q. What happened when you first turned up?
A. I was called out, I believe, about 6 o'clock in the morning to attend Abingdon police station for, where I was informed by PC Franklin we had a high risk missing person. We had a missing person who was identified to me as Dr Kelly.
Q. Just pause there for a moment. A high risk missing person, meaning what?
A. "High risk" means that there is a possibility that because of the length of time they have been missing there is a possibility that he might have done himself harm. 

As we know no harm befell the volunteers but when the two ambulance crew gave an interview in the Observer of 12 December 2004 we have this from paramedic Vanessa Hunt:

When they arrived at the woods 15 minutes later it was immediately clear that this was not a run-of-the-mill incident. 'There were a lot of police around,' said Hunt. 'Some were in civilian clothes and others in black jackets and army fatigues. I thought it might have been a firearms incident as there were the guys from the special armed response units.' 

If I had a suspicious mind I might be tempted to believe that the volunteers were sent out with the police confident that no danger was going to befall them.  Did ACC Page have a moment of clairvoyance seeing Dr Kelly's dead body in the woodland on top of Harrowdown Hill that July morning?  

Consideration for higher honours

This post is to cover something that appears relatively minor compared with many of the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Christopher Kelly CMG but while it's in my mind I want to cover it.  I am not very knowledgeable about letters that go after people's names but evidently CMG is the Cross of St Michael and St George.

On 11th August at the inquiry Mr Dingemans examines Terence Taylor by video link from Australia.  Now Mr Taylor's name wasn't familiar to me but at the time of giving his evidence he describes himself as:

the president and executive director for the International Institute of Strategic Studies US, which is based in Washington DC.

Mr Taylor has warm words for Dr Kelly and in the course of hearing his testimony Mr Dingemans reads out the text of the citation relating to the award of the CMG:

"... he devised the scientific basis for the enhanced biological warfare defence programme and led strong research groups in many key areas. Following the Gulf War he led the first biological warfare inspection in Iraq and has spent most of his time since either in Iraq or at various sites in the former Soviet Union helping to shed light on past biological warfare related activities and assisting the UK/US RUS trilateral confidence building process. He has pursued this work tirelessly and with good humour despite the significant hardship, hostility and personal risk encountered during extended periods of service in both countries. In 1991 he was appointed adviser to the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM). His efforts in his specialist field have had consequences of international significance."

Awarded in 1996 the recommendation would have been by the then Conservative Government led by John Major.

A restricted document lodged at the Inquiry http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/fam/fam_5_0001to0005.pdf  indicated that Dr Kelly's name had been suggested for a further honour in the New Years Honours List for 2004, the minute is dated 9 May 2003.  Mr Dingemans asks Mrs Kelly where she found the document:

Can you tell us where you found that?
A. Can you give me a bit more information about it?
Q. It is from Eric Mattey, Honour's Secretary, dated 9th May 2003.
A. Is this the one where it was scribbled at the top left-hand corner?
Q. Yes, there is some writing in the top right-hand corner
A. This is something we found in his filing cabinet a couple of weeks ago or so. It was headed -- this was a trawl for people to be on the New Year's Honours List.
Q. In 2004?
A. And scribbled in the top left-hand corner was: "How about David Kelly? Iraq is topical."
Q. Iraq being topical in handwriting. The note appears to be dated 14th May.
A. That is right.
Q. You found that, where do you say?
A. In his filing cabinet. There were a few files left after the police had been and taken what they needed.
Q. And did he discuss that with you at all?
A. No, he had not mentioned that. It was headed "confidential".

Apart from the fact that it seems like Mrs Kelly might be reading from a script the thing that strikes me first is that this document printed off a PDF file was left behind by the police and only discovered by the Kelly family a couple of weeks before, in other words about a month after Dr Kelly's death.


The other point I would highlight is why was it ever in the possession of Dr Kelly.  He wasn't on the circulation list and surely he shouldn't have had sight of something that was only a suggestion from an individual.  It's not normal civil service practice - suppose the recommendation was ignored, that would not do his morale any good.  A person I know who got an MBE was notified out of the blue about it, in no way forewarned.  My belief is that someone sympathetic towards Mrs Kelly perhaps wanted her to know that her husband's name was at least in the frame for a further award and sent the information to her some time after Dr Kelly's death.

The 10.07 time on the 18th July (2)

To make sense of this post it is worth reading not just my preceding post http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/02/1007-time-on-18th-july-1.html but this one also http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/02/few-thoughts-about-evidence-of-pcs.html  They are lengthy and detailed and might need more than one perusal to take in the information; it is a complicated old business and of course the Hutton Inquiry muddies the water even more. 

In my last post I came to the conclusion that the ambulance crew just had PCs Franklin and Sawyer for company when they examined Dr Kelly's body and declared life was extinct.  At this time I believe that DC Coe was at least 70 metres away down on the track that adjoins the eastern side of Harrowdown Hill Wood.  From the evidence at the Inquiry we have both PC Franklin and DC Coe declaring that the paramedics were confirming at 10.07 the fact of death.  But the problem is that whilst Franklin was with the ambulance crew DC Coe wasn't!  So why did DC Coe have that time in his notebook?

Dave Bartlett is asked about the time that he and Vanessa Hunt arrived with the ambulance:

Q. Can you remember when you arrived at the place you were going to? 
A. The time?
Q. Yes, the time. 
A. 9.55.

I'm making an assumption that there is a log book with the ambulance and that the time that the vehicle arrives at an incident is noted - maybe there is some sort of tachograph that does it.  Even with the Patient Report Form going missing (see my last post) the 9.55 time is available for Dave Bartlett to check.  The paramedics are logged out of the outer cordon at 10.26 according to an FOI request I made (see this post http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/02/replies-to-my-latest-foi-requests-to.html)  So it can be seen that the paramedics had 31 minutes to scoot up the track, go into the wood , check Dr Kelly's body for life and get back down the lane and logged out of the cordon.

If we believe what is said by PC Franklin and DC Coe then the trip up the track and everything that the paramedics did took 12 minutes and that this then would have left a generous 19 minutes for the walk back down and through the outer cordon.  Those two figures reversed would make much more sense I feel.  The track itself up to the point they would have entered the wood is I reckon half a mile long.  If, as I believe, DC Coe was standing on the track with PC Franklin and PC Sawyer and it was two other police that led the paramedics up the track then the time at which the paramedics reach DC Coe's position might very well be 10.07.  From this point the paramedics go into the wood with the two policemen putting in metal poles as they go.  Arriving at the scene PC Sawyer takes a number of photographs and snaps a few more when Dr Kelly's shirt is undone.  All the time the clock is ticking away and it wouldn't surprise me if death isn't confirmed until say 10.12 to 10.14.  Certainly I don't believe the time of 10.07 given in evidence is tenable.

This now leaves 10 minutes or a little more to pack up and return down the path to the outer cordon and the ambulance.  The timeline I'm imagining here makes a lot more sense to me.  Both PC Franklin and DC Coe I think would have jotted down the time that the paramedics reached them (10.07).  DC Coe starts replying to Mr Knox as if the question is about the arrival of the paramedics at the top of the track and hurriedly has to revise this to the time death is confirmed.  As for DC Franklin it might be something as simple as forgetting to note the time the paramedics said life was extinct, when it came to the Inquiry he just had that single time of 10.07 in his notebook and quoted that.

One final point is this interesting interjection by Lord Hutton in the middle of PC Franklin's testimony:

LORD HUTTON: May I just ask you: how long were you at the scene before the paramedics arrived?
A. Less than two minutes.
LORD HUTTON: Less than two minutes. I see. Thank you.
     
It is now clear in our minds isn't it that the two paramedics were never more than two minutes behind the two PCs from the moment they arrived at Harrowdown Hill.  You might believe that of course but I don't.

The 10.07 time on the 18th July (1)

It is generally agreed I think that Dr Kelly was confirmed dead by the ambulance crew at 10.07 on the morning of 18th July 2003.  In trying to establish a timeline for events at Harrowdown Hill on that day it had appeared to me that this was one of the few immovable recorded times and that the timing of anything else had to be adjusted to fit in with it.

So far as I can see there are just two mentions of the time of 10.07 at the Hutton Inquiry, one from PC Franklin and the other from DC Coe.  We know that the ambulance crew took three readouts from the heart monitor machine and that the strips were handed over to the police.  In their evidence we hear from the paramedics that the times printed on the readouts have to often be corrected by the paramedics checking against their watches.  Every call out requires the crew of the ambulance to complete a "Patient Record Form" but unfortunately in this instance the form has now gone missing - the story can be found in the Mail on Line for 12th September 2010 (sorry for not supplying a clickable link, I've been wasting a lot of time trying to add it and failing).

At the Inquiry we have the situation that the ambulance crew weren't able to recall the time they declared that death was extinct.  Without something in writing in front of them it would have been extraordinary for them to exactly remember this, something that happened over six weeks before.  There is nothing to suggest that the readouts from the monitor were deposited as evidence to the Inquiry or indeed that the Patient Report Form was lodged, extraordinary if this is the case.  So it looks as if we have to rely on what two individual policemen say about the matter.

Exactly what did these two police officers say at the Inquiry?  Here are the relevant extracts:
First, PC Franklin on 2nd September (Mr Dingemans asking the question)

Q. What did you see the paramedics do?
A. The shirt was unbuttoned, they placed four sticky pads, I believe it is four, on to the body, the chest, and attached it to a medical machine -- sorry, I have no idea what it is. And they pronounced life extinct at 10.07 hours that morning.  

Two weeks later Mr Knox is examining DC Coe:

Q. How long did you spend at the scene? 
A. Until other officers came to tape off the area. I would think somewhere in the region of about 25 or 30 minutes.
Q. Did anyone then arrive after that time?
A. Yes, two other police officers arrived, I took them to where the body was laying and then they made a taped off area, what we call a common approach path for everybody
to attend along this one path.
Q. Did any ambulance people arrive?
A. They did, yes.
Q. Can you remember what time they arrived?
A. I can, if I use my pocket book. Can I? 
Q. Of course.
A. I have 10.07 here.
Q. 10.07 being the time at which the ambulance arrived? 
A. Pronounced death, but they might have arrived just prior to that.
Q. It is they who pronounced death; is that right?
A. Yes.

Read DC Coe's remarks carefully and it seems initially he is thinking of 10.07 as the time the ambulance crew arrived and then realises that 10.07 is the time already in the public domain, thanks to PC Franklin, of the time death was confirmed.  Notice too how DC Coe states that he took two police officers to where the body was laying.  If we are to believe PCs Franklin and Sawyer they were all of the time just in front of the ambulance crew from the parking area at the bottom of the track right up to the point where the body was lying.  Looking at DC Coe's evidence once more and we have to believe that DC Coe, PC Franklin and PC Sawyer approached the body together and that the two ambulance crew were just behind them.

So were there five people approaching the body through the wood?  This is what PC Franklin said:

Q. Did you get taken into the wood?
A. DC Coe took us into the woods, PC Sawyer and myself, to the area where the body was.
Q. And what did you see there?
A. We walked between 50 and 70 metres into the wood up a slight gradient, and in a clearing at the base of a tree was the body of a white male.  

At this point Mr Dingemans asks PC Franklin about what Dr Kelly was wearing and what he saw in the vicinity of the body.  Then we have this:

Q. And did you form any opinion about whether or not there was a sign of life?
A. We had two paramedics who were following closely behind us, but my initial thought was the body we had found was that of a dead man.

And a little later this:

Q. Having located the body, what did you do as a result of that?
A. The paramedics came to the scene to pronounce life extinct, which they did.
Q. Did you see them do that?
A. Yes, we did.

Immediately after PC Franklin completes his testimony we have Mr Knox examining PC Sawyer and his recollection has a different emphasis:

Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to? 
A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
Q. Paul Chapman?
A. He told us basically the body was further up in the woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers. I said, you know: whereabouts is the body? He pointed the path he had taken. I asked him if he had approached the body. He said he had. I asked him to point out where he had entered the woods and PC Franklin and myself entered the woods at the same point, taking with us a dozen or 15 aluminium poles we use when we are moving towards a scene to establish a common approach path.
Q. Were the paramedics with you at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. The other three officers?
A. They remained down on the path.
Q. So it is you, PC Franklin and two paramedics, then the other three officers you have met; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You go down further into the woods, is that right?
A. The three officers -- DC Coe and the two uniformed officers -- stayed on the path which leads through the woods. We branched off to the left about 50 or 70 metres up into the woods, where the body was.
Q. So it is just the four of you; is that right?
A. Just the four of us went up there.

PC Sawyer's evidence isn't making sense where he is suggesting that DC Coe is just pointing out the path to the way to the body which is 50 to 70 metres away.  DC Coe would instinctively have led the way himself of course.  There were two uniformed officers with DC Coe on the path from the two PCs evidence when they met him, never mind the outer cordon established at 9.28 back down the track, so its a nonsense to suggest DC Coe would  have merely pointed in the general direction of the body. 

Vanessa Hunt said 'we followed the two chaps up into the wooded area'.

Dave Bartlett wasn't quite so certain in this part of his evidence:

Q. What did you eventually come across?
A. We got to the end of the lane, there were some more police officers there. I think it was two or three, I cannot remember, I think it was two, took us up into the woods which was like right angles to the track. 

Bearing in mind the very positive assertions by PC Sawyer I think that only four people were present at the body when life was declared extinct. 

It is my belief that PCs Franklin and Sawyer approached the body twice, the first time in the company of DC Coe and then later to lead the way for the paramedics. 

 

The age of Brock

This is something of an unintended post and is the result of a bit of what I now perceive to be bogus information.  On New Years Eve 2010 I wrote a post entitled 'Louise Holmes and Brock' http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2010/12/louise-holmes-and-brock.html  In it are links to a couple of YouTube videos and I have just been replaying the first of these.  It should be accurate as to detail one would think as it is evidently an Official Crufts video.  Just a few seconds in and Brock is described as five years old.  Let us suppose in fact he was 5 years 364 days old at that moment, technically still a five year old dog.  That would mean he would have been a puppy just a few months old when Dr Kelly's body was discovered on 18th July 2003.  Something is very wrong here I thought, surely the man from Crufts couldn't be wrong in his commentary?

Panic over (I think).  I've now found another video from 2009 in which Louise herself describes Brock as being seven years old.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY3k4D-JJiE  This still makes him a young dog it seems to me when he made his most newsworthy find.  Louise Holmes has had him since he was eight weeks old and his training I suppose started when he was quite young.

This little investigation proves just how careful one needs to be in establishing facts. 

Replies to my latest FOI Requests to Thames Valley Police

In my last rather long post I referred to a couple of timings that I had obtained from a Freedom of Information Request to Thames Valley Police.  Actually I had received the answers to five requests in one single email, although not all the requests were lodged at the same time.  For interest and ease of reference I'll reproduce the five questions and answers here:

Thank you for your recent requests for information which for clarity I have repeated below with our response to each point.

Reference No: RFI2010000841

The body of Dr David Kelly was discovered on 18th July 2003.  Close to the body a knife was found.  My FOI request is to be told whether there was any string, tape or any other material attached to the handle of this knife when this knife was examined subsequent to the discovery of Dr Kelly's body.

I can inform you that there were no items or material attached to this knife.

Reference No: RFI2010000851

On 16th September 2003 Detective Constable Coe gave his evidence at the Hutton Inquiry.  At the time he stated that he was with just one other officer when he met the searchers at Harrowdown Hill on the morning of 18th July 2003.  We now know that in fact he was accompanied by two people.  If his recollection at the Hutton Inquiry had been correct then the name of the other officer would have been in the public domain alongside that of Detective Constable Shields.

To complete the picture this Freedom of Information Request is for the rank and name of this third person please.

We confirm that we do hold the information you have requested.  We consider that the information is exempt by virtue of the following exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Section 40(2) – Personal Data

We believe that disclosure of this information would breach the first data protection principle.

Reference No: RFI2010000852

At the Hutton Inquiry evidence was heard about a watch being found close to the body of Dr David Kelly.  My FOI request is as follows:

1. Was this watch positively identified as belonging to Dr Kelly?

2. Was this watch still functioning when examined?  If it had stopped what time had it stopped at?

3. Was the watch checked for fingerprints?  If so were fingerprints found?  If "yes" were the fingerprints those of Dr Kelly?

4. Was the watch checked for DNA?

1) This watch was not positively identified as belonging to Dr David Kelly

2) The watch was functioning when examined and displayed the correct time

3) No fingerprint marks were developed from this watch

4) The watch was checked for DNA. (A full profile of Dr David Kelly was obtained).

Reference No: RFI2010000860

This FOI request concerns the times of various events relating to the discovery of the body of Dr David Kelly at Harrowdown Hill on 18 July 2003.

1. At what time was a 999 call from volunteer searcher Paul Chapman received at Abingdon Police Station?

2. At what time did the Police return Mr Chapman's call?

3. At what time was an ambulance called to attend the discovery of a body at Harrowdown Hill?

4. When was an outer cordon established at Harrowdown Hill?

5. When were the ambulance crew of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett logged out of the outer cordon?

6. When was Detective Chief Inspector Alan Young logged in at the outer cordon?

1) The 999 call was received at 09:20am

2) Thames Valley Police holds no relevant information to this part of your request

3) Thames Valley Police holds no relevant information to this part of your request

4) An outer cordon was established at 09:28am

5) The ambulance crew was logged out at 10:26am

6) DCI Young was logged in at 12:06pm

Reference No: RFI2010000866

The Hutton Inquiry records that PC Sawyer took a number of photographs on the 18th July 2003 at the scene where Dr Kelly's body was found.

My FOI request is as follows:

1. Were any of these photographs submitted in digital, print or slide form to the Inquiry?

2. Were all of these photographs submitted in digital, print or slide form to the Inquiry?

3. Was a time and date stamp incorporated in the photographs as part of the photograph taking process?

1) These photographs were submitted to the Inquiry in digital form

2) Please see the above response to Question 1

3) A time and date stamp was not incorporated in these photographs as part of the photograph taking process.

---

---

A few thoughts about the evidence of PCs Franklin and Sawyer

When it comes to the police investigation at Harrowdown Hill on Friday 18th July 2003 we seem to be totally dependent on the testimonies of PC Franklin, PC Sawyer and DC Coe at the Hutton Inquiry to determine the events of that day involving Thames Valley Police.  I suppose I should include ACC Page who was controlling things from Abingdon Police Station, in the early stages at least.

I'm now going to list some "facts" of interest that particularly deal with the time between 9 am and 10 am that morning.  I have to use inverted commas around the word facts because as with so much in the Dr Kelly business the so called facts are liable to later revision!  However I'm confident that most of the events numbered below are correct.  What I'm writing here largely revolves around the actions and statements of PCs Franklin and Sawyer.

These two policemen have evidently had specialist training in conducting searches as explained in their opening replies to questions at the Inquiry.  PC Sawyer has written an interesting article about the police search business which can be read here http://www.sarworld.org/articles/article-archive/92-the-tale-of-a-police-search-team-leader  The paragraph just below the second picture is particularly interesting: he writes warm words about Louise Holmes who, Norman Baker states in his book without comment, was the girl friend of PC Sawyer - whether that was the case I don't know.  Sawyer also talks of Dr Kelly being 'missing for over nine hours before being reported to us', an interesting statement when one remembers the family phoning the police at 11.40 on the 17th.

Something else in that paragraph caught my eye because I was always puzzled about who called out the volunteer searchers.  According to PC Sawyer it was PS Paul Woods.  In his evidence at the Inquiry we have this evidence from searcher Paul Chapman:

Q. Were you called to assist in the search for Dr Kelly?
A. I was.
Q. When did you get that call?
A. I got an initial page soon after 5 o'clock on the 18th.
Q. In the morning or evening?
A. In the morning. And then a further text message to indicate we had a call out.

The messages Mr Chapman was getting presumably came from his controller Neil Knight.  Intriguingly it wasn't till about 5.15 that morning that ACC Page started his meeting of interested parties into how and where to search for Dr Kelly .....

Back to the main thrust  of the article and some of the events happening in the hour between 9 and 10 o'clock.

1. PC Sawyer is asked about what time the information came in about the body being found (the two PCs and other officers were at Abingdon Police Station at the time):

Q. Can you remember what time it was that that information came in?
A. It would have been about 9 o'clock, I believe.

Would PC Sawyer have been so adrift with this time (20 minutes early)?


2. An FOI request confirms that the 999 call from Paul Chapman at Harrowdown Hill is logged at 9.20.  Paul Chapman's evidence now after the body had been found and Louise Holmes asked him to phone control:

Q. Did you get through to Control?
A. We did not on the mobiles, no, because the mobiles were all to answerphone.
Q. So how did you contact anyone?
A. I then rang 999 and asked to be put through to Abingdon police station. They could not transfer me so I asked them to get someone at Abingdon police station to call me urgently.
Q. On your mobile?
A. On my mobile, yes.
Q. Did they call back?
A. They called back within a couple of minutes, yes.
Q. Do you remember who you spoke to?
A. I do not. He just said it was a sergeant at Abingdon police station.
Q. What did you report to him?
A. I reported who I was, a member of the search team, and we had found the missing person, could they please then speak to the search manager and the search police officers there and get them to give me a ring.
Q. Did they?
A. Yes, they did. They called me back straight after that.
Q. What arrangements did you make?
A. At that point we were walking back down the path towards the car and they said: keep going there and we will send some police officers out to meet you there, back at your car, Louise's car.

So Paul Chapman gets two call backs, one after the other, from the police and with the conversations taking place he must have finished with them at a time not far short of 9.25 I would have thought.

3. The volunteer searchers are walking down the track to return to the car when they meet DC Coe and his companions coming the other way.   According to Paul Chapman this happened only 2 or 3 minutes after I had made the phone call.  This would make the timing of this meeting somewhere between 9.25 and 9.30 I believe.

4.  From an FOI request I have ascertained that the outer cordon at Harrowdown Hill was established at 9.28.  Who says that the police aren't quick and efficient!


5. The searchers explain to DC Coe who they are and that they have found the body.  Mr Chapman returns up the track with DC Coe and his companions, however it is only DC Coe who accompanies Paul into the wood itself to be shown the body.  Meanwhile Ms Holmes returns to her car with her dog Brock.  This is her evidence at this juncture:

Q. So in other words, Paul Chapman goes back with the police to show them where the body is?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went back to the car to sort the dog out and then when I got to the car further police officers and personnel came up to the car to take over, take over the scene.

I would think that Louise arrived at her car by 9.40.  The further police and personnel reference is a little bit cryptic so far as the word 'personnel' is concerned.  Certainly it would seem that it wasn't just the outer cordon that was present at that time.

6. The evidence from the ambulance crew is that they had the call at 9.40 (Vanessa Hunt) and arrived at the track at 9.55 (Dave Bartlett).  Their concerns subsequent to the event led to an interview in The Observer of 12 December 2004.  This is an extract:

When they arrived at the woods 15 minutes later it was immediately clear that this was not a run-of-the-mill incident. 'There were a lot of police around,' said Hunt. 'Some were in civilian clothes and others in black jackets and army fatigues. I thought it might have been a firearms incident as there were the guys from the special armed response units.'
The paramedics parked their ambulance. Carrying their resuscitation equipment, they followed two armed-response police for about a mile until they reached a wooded area. In a clearing, they first saw Kelly's body.

The full article is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/12/politics.davidkelly 
Note: the distance quoted is hopelessly wrong - using the "Google Earth" ruler I make the distance from the parking area to the start of the path into the wood almost exactly half a mile.  The significant thing here is the number and variety of police reported.  There is possible confusion about following two armed response police, if that was who they followed up the track then this would suggest they are not PCs Franklin and Sawyer.  The PCs were in their summer search gear of polo shirts and dark trousers - would Vanessa Hunt have mistaken them for armed response police, they wouldn't have been armed of course.  Was this aspect misreported? 


7.  In his evidence PC Sawyer says this about going out to Harrowdown Hill after the body had been found:

A. We had three other officers in the back who we took from the search team to act as the cordons, because obviously we do not want members of the public or members of the press approaching the scene until it has been obviously searched and declared sterile.

It will be recalled that in actual fact the outer cordon was established at 9.28.  The wording above suggests to me that the three other officers were intended to be the original cordon rather than any additional one.


8. Following the answer given by PC Sawyer in "7" above we have this exchange:

Q. And where did you then go?
A. We then went to the track that leads up to Harrowdown Hill, I do not know the name of the track, but when we arrived we saw a vehicle parked which belonged to Louise. We started walking up the track.  We also had with us two paramedics who had arrived, which we took up with us to make sure that the person we were going to see did not require any medical assistance.
Q. Those two paramedics had obviously arrived separately from you?
A. They had arrived more or less at the same time we did.  So the five of us went up because we were with Sergeant Alan Dadd as well.

PC Franklin, in his evidence, expresses surprise about seeing DC Coe and his companions but neither he nor PC Sawyer even bothers to mention all the other police and personnel noted by Louise Holmes, Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett.  In fact in reference to DC Coe our policemen state that they thought that they were the first search team out there.  Were they not puzzled by all the other police that were present?

9. This is the testimony from Paul Chapman after describing the body:

Q. Right. After you had seen that, where did you go next?
A. We retraced our steps back down to the main path and then walked back south along the path to where the car was parked.
Q. Did the police attend?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And did you help them when they had arrived?
A. Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police officers coming the other way that were from CID. We identified ourselves to them. They were not actually aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out searching this area. They I think had just come out on their own initiative to look at the area. I informed them we had found the body and they asked me to take
them back to indicate where it was.
Q. So these were not the people you had arranged to meet, as it were?
A. No, because this was only 2 or 3 minutes after I had made the phone call.
Q. How did you know they were police officers?
A. Because they showed me their Thames Valley Police identification.
Q. Do you recall their names?
A. Only one of them was DC Coe.

Paul Chapman was quite certain they were from CID, in fact DC Coe names one as DC Shields.  We are clear surely that we have three officers in plain clothes.


10. Now read this from PC Franklin:

Q. After you get that information, where did you go?
A. PC Sawyer and I attended Harrowdown Hill and went to the scene. We were unsure initially whereabouts we were going, but we passed Paul from the South East Berks Volunteers and he directed us to two uniformed police officers and DC Coe.

and this from PC Sawyer:

Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to?
A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
Q. Paul Chapman?
A. He told us basically the body was further up in the woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers. I said, you know: whereabouts is the body? He pointed the path he had taken. I asked him if he had approached the body. He said he had. I asked him to point out where he had entered the woods and PC Franklin and myself entered the woods at the same point, taking with us a dozen or 15 aluminium poles we use when we are moving towards a scene to establish a common approach path.
Q. Were the paramedics with you at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. The other three officers?
A. They remained down on the path.
Q. So it is you, PC Franklin and two paramedics, then the other three officers you have met; is that right?

So by the time the two PCs arrive and meet DC Coe, the latter's two plain clothes companions have disappeared only to be replaced by two uniform officers.  Interesting!  Also Paul Chapman is walking down the track from the Hill at sometime after 9.55 it seems.  The question of how long it took him to show DC Coe the body might now be asked.


11. We have this from the Daily Mail in August 2010 in the interview of DC Coe when he admitted the presence of "The Third Man":

Eventually, two officers, PC Andrew Franklin and PC Martyn Sawyer, arrived and stood with DC Coe.

‘We sealed off a pathway to the scene,’ said DC Coe, ‘and I stayed for a bit after that and had a chat with them about old times. I told them there he is, dead, and then you chat about other things.

‘Then the ambulance team came and opened his shirt to put white pads on his chest [four electrodes connected to a heart monitor, the reading from which was a flatline].’


Dr Kelly was pronounced dead at 10.07am and DC Coe left the scene shortly afterwards.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reporting or whether DC Coe is telling the truth here, although my own gut feeling is that he is.  If I'm correct it might suggest that the paramedics came up the track with a couple of police and then a quick swap of personnel was made when they reached DC Coe's location.


12.  Unfortunately the descriptions from the ambulance crew at the Inquiry as to who they accompanied is a little unclear, to me at least.  This is no criticism of them, the important thing is that they recalled the detail of the body and its immediate surroundings very well.  But for completion this is how they describe going up the track and into the wood.

Vanessa Hunt:

Q. Who had met you? 
A. There was an officer in regulation clothing who directed us to two or three other officers in combat trousers and black polo shirts and we followed them along the track. 
Q. You followed them along the track?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did that lead to?
A. To a wooded area that was on the left of the track.
 Q. And once you got to the wooded area did you stay on the outside of the wood?
 A. Initially there were three people on the track, what I now know to be detective constable, one was the search and rescue and there was another gentleman there. The police officers that we had followed stopped and spoke to them and then we followed the two chaps up into the wooded area.


Dave Bartlett:

Q. What happened when you arrived? 
A. We parked at the end of the lane where there were some cars already parked, a lot of police officers there. We asked one police officer who directed us to the police that were in the combat uniforms and they asked us to bring some equipment and follow them down into the woods. 
Q. And you did that?
A. Yes. We took a defib monitor with us and our own personal kit.
Q. You walked down into the woods, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you eventually come across? 
A. We got to the end of the lane, there were some more police officers there. I think it was two or three, I cannot remember, I think it was two, took us up into the woods which was like right angles to the track. As we walked up they were in front of us putting the marker posts in and told us to stay between the two posts. 
 

Does all the foregoing mean that PCs Franklin and Sawyer arrived at Harrowdown Hill by 9.28 say?  I'm not saying that but I find the "facts" I have enumerated interesting at the very minimum.

The blackout and the boot print machine

Here's a little story that never made it at the Inquiry but I think it is interesting in its own right.  I believe that what the two ambulance crew said at the Hutton Inquiry and subsequently to the media holds a lot of clues to the mystery of Dr Kelly's death.  This is simply because out of all the witnesses they would appear to have no motive to say things other than the truth.  Others I feel might not be similarly disposed.

Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett, highly experienced in their profession, realised that things as explained officially were just plain wrong - I can't be clearer than that.  Some people perhaps wouldn't let it worry their conscience when they could see that the reasoning for the death was not correct but fortunately for us, if not for Hutton, Ms Hunt and Mr Bartlett have huge integrity.  Their concerns led them to appear on TV to voice their felings and also be interviewed for The Observer http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/12/politics.davidkelly and later Dave Bartlett presented some very interesting facts in the Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311255/Dr-David-Kellys-body-obviously-moved-Paramedic-death-scene-reveals-concerns-Hutton-Inquiry.html

Towards the end of the last named we read:

After leaving the woods, the paramedics found the police had implemented a ‘news blackout’ – meaning they were not even allowed to radio their control room for fear it would be intercepted.

In addition, they were told that as they had been near the body, they would have to wait for a machine to arrive that was able to take their boot prints so they could be ruled out of any future inquiry.

He was later surprised to hear at the inquiry that no footprints at all had been found at the scene.

Mr Bartlett said: ‘It was only when we were walking back to the ambulance that we were told who the body was. One of the coppers told us it was going to be front-page news once it got out


‘We were there for an hour under a news blackout. We weren’t able to radio our control or anything. That was the only time that happened to me in my 24-year career as a paramedic.’

Looking at the evidence of the two  search volunteers it seems that they couldn't leave immediately either.  Why was it so essential for the police to "freeze" the site for about an hour.  Though too late to do anything for Dr Kelly the purpose of an ambulance crew  is to answer emergency calls and save lives yet here for unexplained reasons they seem to have been prevented from continuing their work.  Regarding the boot print machine where did this come from?  From their evidence it is clear that Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman had also to have their footwear checked but it isn't really certain from their testimonies whether that was done on site or back at Abingdon police station.  

It would be interesting to hear the reason why Thames Valley Police felt it was so necessary to put an ambulance and its crew out of circulation for an hour, a question that could be asked at an inquest.