When the Attorney General made his woeful statement to the House of Commons three weeks ago he also published a huge bundle of documents which his office has assembled in support of his position. Perusing it all is taking some time and one has to be prepared for blood pressure to rise in respect of many of the assertions made and conclusions drawn. I've made references in previous posts to some of the appalling contributions from Dr Shepherd and from Thames Valley Police.
One good plus is that we are at last seeing some important new information coming in to the public domain. A question that has intrigued me for some time is 'how much co-proxamol did Mrs Kelly have in the house when Dr Kelly left the home for the last time'. Now we have an answer.
Within the Attorney General documents is a file titled 'Schedule of responses to issues raised' It's a PDF file of 60 pages and 169 entries so plenty to read! This is issue number 18:
It was assumed that, as Mrs Kelly had been prescribed co- proxamol, the empty blister
packs of these tablets found in Dr Kelly’s jacket pocket must have belonged to her. However,
this was never established adequately at the Inquiry. It was not established whether Mrs Kelly
would normally have had such a number of tablets, whether she had recently obtained a
repeat prescription, or when and from where the tablets had been dispensed.
And this is the response:
There were no assumptions made. The police investigated the matter as far as it was possible to do so.
Thames Valley Police report:
“Following the discovery of Dr Kelly’s body a search was made of his house. Mrs Janice Kelly was present and was asked to show officers any medicines in the house. Mrs Kelly showed the officers a drawer in her bedroom where there were 4 x 10 packs of co-proxamol in foil blister packs. These were not contained within a box. She also directed the officers to a kitchen drawer where a full box of 10 x 10 packs of co-proxamol were kept.
The full pack was issued to Mrs Kelly on the 20th May 2003 by the White Horse Medical Practice in Faringdon.
Mrs Kelly stated that her husband would never take any sort of tablet, not even for a headache but that he was aware that she was prescribed co-proxamol as a painkiller. He also knew that she kept her supplies of these tablets in her bedside cabinet and in a kitchen drawer.
The markings on the packets recovered from Dr Kelly’s body and those prescribed to his wife were compared and found to be identical.
The manufacturers of the tablets were approached to ascertain if it was possible to trace the history of the recovered packets. The Technical Manager told officers that each batch release would contain approximately 1.6 million packets which were distributed to numerous companies and could end up in chemists anywhere in Britain.”
Some figures then but it still fails to answer the question as to whether the (almost) empty foil packs found in the pocket of Dr Kelly's Barbour jacket originated from his wife's supply.
At the Hutton Inquiry Mr Dingemans employs some odd questioning regarding the co-proxamol when Mrs Kelly gives her testimony. This is the relevant exchange:
Q. We have also heard that some co-proxamol was used.
A. Indeed.
Q. Do you take any medicine?
A. I do. I take co-proxamol for my arthritis.
Q. I think we are also going to hear that appears to be the source of the co-proxamol that was used.
A. I had assumed that. I keep a small store in a kitchen drawer and the rest in my bedside
table.
I would readily accept that talking to that particular witness about the particular aspect is not a comfortable thing to do. At a properly conducted inquest I would think that the questioning would be very explicit rather than, as here, counsel virtually stating that Mrs Kelly's supply was the source of the co-proxamol allegedly swallowed by Dr Kelly.
Mr Dingemans' use of the words 'I think we are also going to hear that appears to be the source ...' is misleading and totally out of order in my view. I certainly don't think any later witnesses that particular day made any statement about the source of the co-proxamol.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Putting faces to some of the names at the Hutton Inquiry
I've found this link to The Guardian really useful http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/keyplayers/ As well as summarising some of the evidence these key players gave at the Hutton Inquiry there are "mug shots" accompanying some of them - I wonder if anyone has had preconceptions of what those they haven't seen before look like.
Personally I've never imagined anything about the appearance of Hutton witnesses.
For anyone wondering about the sort of person Dr Shepherd is I'm glad to say that Felix has been busy! My last post was titled "Dr Kelly's injury to his right elbow". The comment from Felix timed at 19.06 has a link to a short video featuring Dr Shepherd.
Personally I've never imagined anything about the appearance of Hutton witnesses.
For anyone wondering about the sort of person Dr Shepherd is I'm glad to say that Felix has been busy! My last post was titled "Dr Kelly's injury to his right elbow". The comment from Felix timed at 19.06 has a link to a short video featuring Dr Shepherd.
Dr Kelly's injury to his right elbow
If Dr Kelly did indeed commit suicide by severing the ulnar artery in his left wrist it would, it seems to me, need a well functioning right arm to perform the necessary action. Lets just remind ourselves that the ulnar artery is buried in the little finger side of the underside of the wrist. The radial artery, on the thumb side, is much closer to the surface and it is the radial artery with which people will be familiar as the one commonly felt to check ones pulse.
To get to the ulnar artery requires cutting through tendons and nerves; in the case of Dr Kelly the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt says in his report 'The wound was up to approximately 1 - 1.5 cms deep'. An open bloodstained knife was found at the scene. Mrs Kelly says at the Inquiry:
A. We were not shown the knife; we were shown a photocopy of I presume the knife which we recognised as a knife he had had for many years and kept in his drawer.
Q. It was a knife he had had what, from childhood?
A. From childhood I believe. I think probably from the Boy Scouts.
This would make the knife 40 to 50 years old in my estimation. It would seem that the knife wasn't particularly sharp, certainly no laboratory tests seem to have been done to ascertain if the knife was sufficiently sharp at that time. To make the incisions described by Dr Hunt would have needed Dr Kelly to grasp the knife tightly which makes it even more unbelievable that fingerprints weren't present.
A marked lack of functionality in the right arm would make the suicide hypothesis untenable in my opinion.
In late 1991 Dr Kelly suffered a fractured right elbow as a result of an accident. He underwent surgery followed in the early part of 1992 by a number of physiotherapy sessions. That much is agreed. In 2(b) of his report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf Dr Shepherd looks at the question of the strength of the right arm. Shepherd makes the assumption that everything is more or less back to normal on the basis it seems that there is no further reference to the injury in the later medical notes pertaining to Dr Kelly nor were there repeat referrals to orthopaedic surgeons. It seems to me that this forensic pathologist is trying to pose as an expert on bone fracture and subsequent healing.
To get a better insight and understanding of this whole subject I recommend going to the Andrew Watts blog and reading this post http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-articles-on-elbow.html
The question of whether Dr Kelly had the right arm strength to cut through the tendons and ulnar artery of his left wrist has been brought sharply into focus by statements given by his friend and confidante Mai Pederson. At this juncture I suggest reading this report by Sharon Churcher from 2008: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050919/David-Kellys-closest-female-confidante-COULDNT-killed-himself.html
I'm assuming with the volume of detail in the article that the report is fairly reflecting the comments of Ms Pederson. So perhaps she was lying? In trying to see whether an individual is lying I ask myself (a) what is the benefit to the "liar" in telling a lie and (b) what are the downsides to telling the lie.
So far as (a) is concerned I really can't see any gain for Ms Pederson by lying about such a matter. But it is (b) - looking at the downside which is particularly significant I think. Let us suppose that Dr Kelly's injury had completely healed. Mrs Kelly could have gone to her solicitor and made a sworn statement to that effect. To date she hasn't. Such a statement would have sunk Ms Pederson's credibility.
At the post mortem examination Dr Hunt reports the presence of 'An old, curving scar around the outer aspect of the right elbow' He doesn't investigate further which makes him negligent in my opinion. He should have got the police to interview both the family and the GP Dr Warner to get the background as to the presence of this scar. Failure to investigate further is shocking even though he must have been under pressure to come to a quick conclusion.
I would point out finally that Shepherd disgracefully derides the observation of Dr Shuttleworth in his letter of 30 April 2010.
To get to the ulnar artery requires cutting through tendons and nerves; in the case of Dr Kelly the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt says in his report 'The wound was up to approximately 1 - 1.5 cms deep'. An open bloodstained knife was found at the scene. Mrs Kelly says at the Inquiry:
A. We were not shown the knife; we were shown a photocopy of I presume the knife which we recognised as a knife he had had for many years and kept in his drawer.
Q. It was a knife he had had what, from childhood?
A. From childhood I believe. I think probably from the Boy Scouts.
This would make the knife 40 to 50 years old in my estimation. It would seem that the knife wasn't particularly sharp, certainly no laboratory tests seem to have been done to ascertain if the knife was sufficiently sharp at that time. To make the incisions described by Dr Hunt would have needed Dr Kelly to grasp the knife tightly which makes it even more unbelievable that fingerprints weren't present.
A marked lack of functionality in the right arm would make the suicide hypothesis untenable in my opinion.
In late 1991 Dr Kelly suffered a fractured right elbow as a result of an accident. He underwent surgery followed in the early part of 1992 by a number of physiotherapy sessions. That much is agreed. In 2(b) of his report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf Dr Shepherd looks at the question of the strength of the right arm. Shepherd makes the assumption that everything is more or less back to normal on the basis it seems that there is no further reference to the injury in the later medical notes pertaining to Dr Kelly nor were there repeat referrals to orthopaedic surgeons. It seems to me that this forensic pathologist is trying to pose as an expert on bone fracture and subsequent healing.
To get a better insight and understanding of this whole subject I recommend going to the Andrew Watts blog and reading this post http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-articles-on-elbow.html
The question of whether Dr Kelly had the right arm strength to cut through the tendons and ulnar artery of his left wrist has been brought sharply into focus by statements given by his friend and confidante Mai Pederson. At this juncture I suggest reading this report by Sharon Churcher from 2008: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050919/David-Kellys-closest-female-confidante-COULDNT-killed-himself.html
I'm assuming with the volume of detail in the article that the report is fairly reflecting the comments of Ms Pederson. So perhaps she was lying? In trying to see whether an individual is lying I ask myself (a) what is the benefit to the "liar" in telling a lie and (b) what are the downsides to telling the lie.
So far as (a) is concerned I really can't see any gain for Ms Pederson by lying about such a matter. But it is (b) - looking at the downside which is particularly significant I think. Let us suppose that Dr Kelly's injury had completely healed. Mrs Kelly could have gone to her solicitor and made a sworn statement to that effect. To date she hasn't. Such a statement would have sunk Ms Pederson's credibility.
At the post mortem examination Dr Hunt reports the presence of 'An old, curving scar around the outer aspect of the right elbow' He doesn't investigate further which makes him negligent in my opinion. He should have got the police to interview both the family and the GP Dr Warner to get the background as to the presence of this scar. Failure to investigate further is shocking even though he must have been under pressure to come to a quick conclusion.
I would point out finally that Shepherd disgracefully derides the observation of Dr Shuttleworth in his letter of 30 April 2010.
Examples of the sloppiness of Dr Shepherd
It seems to me that when Dr Shepherd was asked by the Attorney General's office to comment on the pathological aspects of Dr David Kelly's death he should have been acutely aware of just how sensitive an issue it was and that there was every likelihood that his report would be placed in the public domain. He must surely have known that his report would be very carefully scrutinized for accuracy and hence there would be an imperative to make sure there were no basic errors in the report he produced.
In an earlier post http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/06/documents-not-seen-by-dr-shepherd.html I had drawn attention to the fact that Shepherd had failed to obtain Dr Hunt's interim report of 19 July 2003 or asked for the photographs taken by PC Sawyer even though he should have been aware of their existence if he was on top of his job. I maintained in that piece that he was grossly negligent in exhibiting these failings. Shepherd says 'I have been provided with the documents and other items listed in Appendix A'. I'm not clear as to the exact process that took place. Did he read the relevant parts of the Hutton Inquiry and Report and then make a "shopping list" of the documents he needed or was he just presented with the items we see listed in Appendix A and thought that was sufficient?
It wasn't just the absolute failings referred to above though. His report is strewn with instances demonstrating a general air of sloppiness, as if he wasn't really that bothered to get things right.
The list that follows may not be exhaustive but it certainly gives great cause for concern.
Under the heading 'Brief Background' we see this sentence: On the afternoon of 17th July 2003 he left his home address to go for a walk and, apart from a possible sighting by a neighbour approximately half an hour later, he was not seen alive again'. Even though the testimonies at the Inquiry weren't under oath it's been assumed that all the witnesses were honest in giving their evidence (even though some certainly weren't honest!). Why then does Shepherd use the word 'possible' in relation to Ruth Absalom's testimony?
In the following paragraph Shepherd states that the body was found in 'the early hours of the following morning, 18th July 2007 ...' He has the year wrong, it should be 2003. Also 'the early hours' is unnecessarily vague. He has a copy of Paul Chapman's statement which makes it quite obvious that the body was discovered at 09.15. This was a clearly significant time so why not quote it in his report?
'Following consideration of the histology and receipt of report from the toxicologist, Dr Allan, dated 21st July 2003, (TVP/1/0033 et seq) Dr Hunt formed his conclusions as to the cause of death and issued his own report on 25th July 2003. (TVP/1/0059 et seq).' This is totally misleading as Dr Hunt had formed some conclusions as to cause of death in his interim report of 19th July to which Lord Hutton clearly refers in his opening statement of 1 August 2003.
Under 1(c) Shepherd states: 'The police officers (DCs Coe and Shields) who initially attended the scene commented that the body was 'laying on his back', they did not describe sitting or slumping against a tree'. Shields is only mentioned once by Coe at the inquiry and not in the context of being at the scene of the body. He isn't mentioned in Coe's witness statement. Shepherd isn't provided with a witness statement by Shields. A small point but Coe uses the words (according to Annex TVP1) 'lying on his back' rather than 'laying on his back'.
Under '2. Post Mortem Examination' we read 'The examination commenced at 21.20 hours on 18th March 2007 and ended just after midnight on 19th March 2007'. So month and year both incorrect. Why not quote the exact ending time of 00.15 that Dr Hunt states?
'I note that in October 1983, 24 years before his death, David Kelly complained of angina ...' Again Shepherd displays his fixation with the year 2007 it seems. 2003 is 20 years after 1983.
3 (c) Use of Henssge's Nomogram to determine the time of death
First paragraph '18th March 2007' twice, '17th March 2007' once.
5(a) Use of imperial measurements
'Dr Hunt quite correctly uses metric measurements within his report'
For goodness sake what's wrong with Dr Shepherd? No, Dr Hunt uses a mix of imperial and metric measurements in his report! Dr Hunt uses metric units for the pool of blood below the knife. In the very next paragraph he switches to imperial 'about 1' from his left elbow was an open bottle of 'Evian' water'. In the next paragraph there is reference to the 2'-3' bloodstaining and pool of blood. It just couldn't be clearer Dr Shepherd.
If you can bear to read it Dr Shepherd's statement can be accessed here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf
In an earlier post http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/06/documents-not-seen-by-dr-shepherd.html I had drawn attention to the fact that Shepherd had failed to obtain Dr Hunt's interim report of 19 July 2003 or asked for the photographs taken by PC Sawyer even though he should have been aware of their existence if he was on top of his job. I maintained in that piece that he was grossly negligent in exhibiting these failings. Shepherd says 'I have been provided with the documents and other items listed in Appendix A'. I'm not clear as to the exact process that took place. Did he read the relevant parts of the Hutton Inquiry and Report and then make a "shopping list" of the documents he needed or was he just presented with the items we see listed in Appendix A and thought that was sufficient?
It wasn't just the absolute failings referred to above though. His report is strewn with instances demonstrating a general air of sloppiness, as if he wasn't really that bothered to get things right.
The list that follows may not be exhaustive but it certainly gives great cause for concern.
Under the heading 'Brief Background' we see this sentence: On the afternoon of 17th July 2003 he left his home address to go for a walk and, apart from a possible sighting by a neighbour approximately half an hour later, he was not seen alive again'. Even though the testimonies at the Inquiry weren't under oath it's been assumed that all the witnesses were honest in giving their evidence (even though some certainly weren't honest!). Why then does Shepherd use the word 'possible' in relation to Ruth Absalom's testimony?
In the following paragraph Shepherd states that the body was found in 'the early hours of the following morning, 18th July 2007 ...' He has the year wrong, it should be 2003. Also 'the early hours' is unnecessarily vague. He has a copy of Paul Chapman's statement which makes it quite obvious that the body was discovered at 09.15. This was a clearly significant time so why not quote it in his report?
'Following consideration of the histology and receipt of report from the toxicologist, Dr Allan, dated 21st July 2003, (TVP/1/0033 et seq) Dr Hunt formed his conclusions as to the cause of death and issued his own report on 25th July 2003. (TVP/1/0059 et seq).' This is totally misleading as Dr Hunt had formed some conclusions as to cause of death in his interim report of 19th July to which Lord Hutton clearly refers in his opening statement of 1 August 2003.
Under 1(c) Shepherd states: 'The police officers (DCs Coe and Shields) who initially attended the scene commented that the body was 'laying on his back', they did not describe sitting or slumping against a tree'. Shields is only mentioned once by Coe at the inquiry and not in the context of being at the scene of the body. He isn't mentioned in Coe's witness statement. Shepherd isn't provided with a witness statement by Shields. A small point but Coe uses the words (according to Annex TVP1) 'lying on his back' rather than 'laying on his back'.
Under '2. Post Mortem Examination' we read 'The examination commenced at 21.20 hours on 18th March 2007 and ended just after midnight on 19th March 2007'. So month and year both incorrect. Why not quote the exact ending time of 00.15 that Dr Hunt states?
'I note that in October 1983, 24 years before his death, David Kelly complained of angina ...' Again Shepherd displays his fixation with the year 2007 it seems. 2003 is 20 years after 1983.
3 (c) Use of Henssge's Nomogram to determine the time of death
First paragraph '18th March 2007' twice, '17th March 2007' once.
5(a) Use of imperial measurements
'Dr Hunt quite correctly uses metric measurements within his report'
For goodness sake what's wrong with Dr Shepherd? No, Dr Hunt uses a mix of imperial and metric measurements in his report! Dr Hunt uses metric units for the pool of blood below the knife. In the very next paragraph he switches to imperial 'about 1' from his left elbow was an open bottle of 'Evian' water'. In the next paragraph there is reference to the 2'-3' bloodstaining and pool of blood. It just couldn't be clearer Dr Shepherd.
If you can bear to read it Dr Shepherd's statement can be accessed here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf
Monday, 27 June 2011
Dr Shepherd's visit to Harrowdown Hill
This post is more of an observation than a criticism but I'm adding it on the basis that I want to publish as many facts as I can even if some are deemed of purely passing interest.
Not unreasonably perhaps Dr Shepherd makes a visit to Harrowdown Hill fairly soon after getting his confirmatory letter from Kevin McGinty. The timing is unfortunate in that he finds himself going there in the winter: whereas Dr Kelly's body is discovered on 18 July 2003 Dr Shepherd's viewing of the scene is on Wednesday 8 December 2010.
In his report Dr Shepherd indicates that he is accompanied by Police Officers and members of the Attorney General's office. UK readers will recall that most of December 2010 was viciously cold. I've been able to get a clue to the weather in that particular area from this link on the internet http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=40521&posts=12 The 09.38 post on this forum indicates snow falling at North Hinksey - this is about 7 miles north east of Harrowdown Hill. I'm not saying that Dr Shepherd's party were caught in a blizzard but the day it would seem was pretty bleak.
Yes Dr Shepherd would have got some sense of the local topography at least. The wood though appears to consist entirely of deciduous trees or if there are evergreens then they are very few. In a very cold December the undergrowth would surely be minimal. I do wonder if the visit would have yielded much useful information as to the situation in July 2003.
This is an extract from a Daily Telegraph report of 29 January 2004:
Yesterday Harrowdown Hill was a different place. The path along which Dr Kelly took his final walk on July 17 last year was slithery underfoot with deep, sticky mud. The woods that crown the hill, dense and green when Dr Kelly's body was found by two searchers the morning after his disappearance, were a stark tangle of trunks and bare branches.
On 8 December last year I can imagine that Dr Shepherd and those with him would have been grateful to have got the site visit completed.
Not unreasonably perhaps Dr Shepherd makes a visit to Harrowdown Hill fairly soon after getting his confirmatory letter from Kevin McGinty. The timing is unfortunate in that he finds himself going there in the winter: whereas Dr Kelly's body is discovered on 18 July 2003 Dr Shepherd's viewing of the scene is on Wednesday 8 December 2010.
In his report Dr Shepherd indicates that he is accompanied by Police Officers and members of the Attorney General's office. UK readers will recall that most of December 2010 was viciously cold. I've been able to get a clue to the weather in that particular area from this link on the internet http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=40521&posts=12 The 09.38 post on this forum indicates snow falling at North Hinksey - this is about 7 miles north east of Harrowdown Hill. I'm not saying that Dr Shepherd's party were caught in a blizzard but the day it would seem was pretty bleak.
Yes Dr Shepherd would have got some sense of the local topography at least. The wood though appears to consist entirely of deciduous trees or if there are evergreens then they are very few. In a very cold December the undergrowth would surely be minimal. I do wonder if the visit would have yielded much useful information as to the situation in July 2003.
This is an extract from a Daily Telegraph report of 29 January 2004:
Yesterday Harrowdown Hill was a different place. The path along which Dr Kelly took his final walk on July 17 last year was slithery underfoot with deep, sticky mud. The woods that crown the hill, dense and green when Dr Kelly's body was found by two searchers the morning after his disappearance, were a stark tangle of trunks and bare branches.
On 8 December last year I can imagine that Dr Shepherd and those with him would have been grateful to have got the site visit completed.
Poor judgement shown by Kevin McGinty
Kevin McGinty in the Attorney General's Office has, it would seem, a high position there judging by the numerous entries on the internet that include his name. In relation to Dr Kelly's death he has been the point of contact for those writing to Mr Grieve. He has also been the individual who has been responsible for getting those such as Dr Shepherd to take instructions to review evidence and to provide reports.
He wrote to Dr Shepherd on 12 November 2010 to thank the latter 'for agreeing to take instructions in this case' http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/AGO%20to%20Shepherd%2012%20November%202010.pdf Unfortunately he displayed a serious lack of judgement as can be seen from the following two paragraphs:
Whilst I have already asked whether you would be prepared to work with Dr Hunt, counsel has since advised that in order to ensure not only the undoubted fact of your review being independent, we should also be concerned to ensure the appearance of independence.
Counsel has advised that it would be desirable if you did not have any direct contact with Dr Hunt but seek any information or materials you require through Treasury Solicitors Department. Whilst the appearance of independence is clearly important, I simply don't know how this proposal will impact on your ability to carry out this work. I will speak to you about this on Monday.
I have to say that I am disappointed that Mr McGinty got this wrong. Dr Shepherd's function was to review the work and report of Dr Hunt not engage in conversation with him.
Hopefully the letter was sent out sufficiently quickly that no contact had been made between Dr Shepherd and Dr Hunt in the interim.
He wrote to Dr Shepherd on 12 November 2010 to thank the latter 'for agreeing to take instructions in this case' http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/AGO%20to%20Shepherd%2012%20November%202010.pdf Unfortunately he displayed a serious lack of judgement as can be seen from the following two paragraphs:
Whilst I have already asked whether you would be prepared to work with Dr Hunt, counsel has since advised that in order to ensure not only the undoubted fact of your review being independent, we should also be concerned to ensure the appearance of independence.
Counsel has advised that it would be desirable if you did not have any direct contact with Dr Hunt but seek any information or materials you require through Treasury Solicitors Department. Whilst the appearance of independence is clearly important, I simply don't know how this proposal will impact on your ability to carry out this work. I will speak to you about this on Monday.
I have to say that I am disappointed that Mr McGinty got this wrong. Dr Shepherd's function was to review the work and report of Dr Hunt not engage in conversation with him.
Hopefully the letter was sent out sufficiently quickly that no contact had been made between Dr Shepherd and Dr Hunt in the interim.
Documents not seen by Dr Shepherd
Forensic pathologist Dr Richard Shepherd was commissioned by the Attorney General to write a Forensic Medical Report regarding the death of Dr David Kelly. This Shepherd duly did, his report being completed on 16 March 2011. Written confirmation of his commission to prepare a report had been made on 12 November 2010.
As Dr Shepherd was expected to make a critical assessment of the work of Dr Hunt it was obviously essential that he be provided with the full range of documents that could have a bearing on the report he would present to the Attorney General. Appendix A to the report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf makes for fascinating reading regarding items not sent for Dr Shepherd to peruse.
Heading the list is the PM report of Dr Hunt dated 25 July 2003. This is the one that found its way on line on 22 October last year. A much cleaner looking version of it with the ridiculous redactions removed is now available to read here http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
I had identified the fact a long time ago that there was an earlier version of Dr Hunt's report. Lord Hutton, in his opening statement of 1 August 2003, stated on page 14 that he had been sent a post-mortem report dated 19 July by the coroner. Whilst it would seem that additional toxicology information became available between 19 and 25 July and the final post-mortem report was therefore updated rumours abound that other parts of Dr Hunt's report were revised. So why didn't Dr Shepherd demand that the earlier document be sent to him? There may not be differences of significant concern but Dr Shepherd was clearly grossly negligent in not obtaining the earlier report.
Further down the list in "Appendix A" we see:
8. Scene photographs (DTM/1)
9. Postmortem photographs (DTM/2)
We know from the evidence of the forensic biologist Mr Green that the police photographer at the afternoon examination is Mr McGee. It seems a reasonable assumption that Mr McGee would follow through with taking the photographs at the evening post-mortem back at Oxford. I would suggest that the initials appended to the two folders of photographs sent to Dr Shepherd are those of Mr McGee; as yet I've not found any other internet presence for Mr McGee to confirm the initials. He doesn't seem to be named as an attendee in Dr Hunt's report although as explained I would be confident it was him at the mortuary as well.
In section 1(c) of his report Dr Shepherd looks into the matter of whether the body had been moved between discovery and the pathologist's examination. There are plenty of references in the Hutton Inquiry to the fact that PC Sawyer took photographs of the body. Why didn't Thames Valley Police send these through with the other photos? Moreover why didn't Dr Shepherd demand sight of them?
Again I submit that Dr Shepherd was grossly negligent.
One further point worth noting is that out of the early observers of the body there were two absentees so far as witness statements lodged with Dr Shepherd were concerned. Whereas the statements of the two volunteer searchers, DC Coe and the two ambulance crew went forward those of PC Franklin and (photographer) PC Sawyer did not!
Referring now to Annex TVP3 submitted by Thames Valley Police http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf and it's seen in the comparison of police witness statements and Hutton testimonies that PCs Franklin and Sawyer don't mention the body position in their witness statements, the others do.
On the question of moving the body DC Coe has taken all the flak. I think that the net should be cast wider.
As Dr Shepherd was expected to make a critical assessment of the work of Dr Hunt it was obviously essential that he be provided with the full range of documents that could have a bearing on the report he would present to the Attorney General. Appendix A to the report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf makes for fascinating reading regarding items not sent for Dr Shepherd to peruse.
Heading the list is the PM report of Dr Hunt dated 25 July 2003. This is the one that found its way on line on 22 October last year. A much cleaner looking version of it with the ridiculous redactions removed is now available to read here http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
I had identified the fact a long time ago that there was an earlier version of Dr Hunt's report. Lord Hutton, in his opening statement of 1 August 2003, stated on page 14 that he had been sent a post-mortem report dated 19 July by the coroner. Whilst it would seem that additional toxicology information became available between 19 and 25 July and the final post-mortem report was therefore updated rumours abound that other parts of Dr Hunt's report were revised. So why didn't Dr Shepherd demand that the earlier document be sent to him? There may not be differences of significant concern but Dr Shepherd was clearly grossly negligent in not obtaining the earlier report.
Further down the list in "Appendix A" we see:
8. Scene photographs (DTM/1)
9. Postmortem photographs (DTM/2)
We know from the evidence of the forensic biologist Mr Green that the police photographer at the afternoon examination is Mr McGee. It seems a reasonable assumption that Mr McGee would follow through with taking the photographs at the evening post-mortem back at Oxford. I would suggest that the initials appended to the two folders of photographs sent to Dr Shepherd are those of Mr McGee; as yet I've not found any other internet presence for Mr McGee to confirm the initials. He doesn't seem to be named as an attendee in Dr Hunt's report although as explained I would be confident it was him at the mortuary as well.
In section 1(c) of his report Dr Shepherd looks into the matter of whether the body had been moved between discovery and the pathologist's examination. There are plenty of references in the Hutton Inquiry to the fact that PC Sawyer took photographs of the body. Why didn't Thames Valley Police send these through with the other photos? Moreover why didn't Dr Shepherd demand sight of them?
Again I submit that Dr Shepherd was grossly negligent.
One further point worth noting is that out of the early observers of the body there were two absentees so far as witness statements lodged with Dr Shepherd were concerned. Whereas the statements of the two volunteer searchers, DC Coe and the two ambulance crew went forward those of PC Franklin and (photographer) PC Sawyer did not!
Referring now to Annex TVP3 submitted by Thames Valley Police http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf and it's seen in the comparison of police witness statements and Hutton testimonies that PCs Franklin and Sawyer don't mention the body position in their witness statements, the others do.
On the question of moving the body DC Coe has taken all the flak. I think that the net should be cast wider.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Catherine McKinnell responds to my letter
Last Monday I wrote to Catherine McKinnell MP the shadow Solicitor-General. Her "boss", the shadow Attorney General Baroness Scotland, of course sits in the House of Lords and so it was Ms McKinnell's job to respond for the Opposition to the statement made by Dominic Grieve to MPs on the 9th June.
Ms McKinnell was hugely supportive of Grieve's statement which we can see was designed to deceive the House. In my letter I pointed out why Grieve's assertions about the (non) movement of Dr Kelly's body were wrong. In her response she hasn't addressed any of my points. The arrogant attitude is one of "The AG has thoroughly looked at this, he's an honest guy and I believe him"
Here is her email to me:
This is the text of my letter to her of 20 June for easy reference:
I suspect that she referred my letter up to Baroness Scotland and the latter may have effectively provided the words. However it is signed by Ms McKinnell and hence she has to take responsibility for it.
If it wasn't so serious one would have to laugh or weep at the utter crassness of her reply to me.
Ms McKinnell was hugely supportive of Grieve's statement which we can see was designed to deceive the House. In my letter I pointed out why Grieve's assertions about the (non) movement of Dr Kelly's body were wrong. In her response she hasn't addressed any of my points. The arrogant attitude is one of "The AG has thoroughly looked at this, he's an honest guy and I believe him"
Here is her email to me:
Dear Mr Spencer,
Thank you for your e-mail of 20th June regarding the Attorney General’s decision not to make an application to the High Court for an inquest to be held into the death of Dr David Kelly.
As I outlined in my response to the Attorney General’s statement, both I and the Shadow Attorney General had sight of documentation, which was filed in the House of Commons library and made available online, relating to his inquiries. The Attorney General also made clear that he had seen many photographs of the scene, the body, Dr Kelly’s home, and the post mortem. These photos have not been made available to the general public as it would be inappropriate for them to be released without the consent of Dr Kelly’s family, however they have obviously been viewed and relied upon in the Attorney General arriving at his conclusions.
We consequently consider that the Attorney General addressed himself fully, comprehensively and transparently to the issues involved, over the lengthy period of time that his consideration of this matter took place. There is nothing to indicate that the Attorney General has not discharged his duty competently, honestly or rigorously in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Catherine McKinnell
Catherine McKinnell MP
Member of Parliament for Newcastle upon Tyne North
Tel: 0191 286 1266 (Constituency)
Dear Ms McKinnell
The purpose of this letter is to raise a matter of grave concern regarding a statement by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve to the House of Commons on 9 June 2011. You will recall that it was about the death of Dr David Kelly and whether there should be an inquest into his death.
On behalf of the Opposition you responded to this statement and appeared supportive. Quite understandably, and thinking of the position held by Mr Grieve, you would have taken the broad sweep of his statement "on trust". Again, bearing in mind the very substantial amount of documentation that Mr Grieve placed in the Libraries of both Houses, it would be unreasonable to expect you to have been familiar with all the detail when responding on the 9th June.
Mr Grieve in his verbal statement chose to highlight one particular issue that has caused a lot of controversy and that is whether on the 18th July 2003 Dr Kelly's body had been moved between its discovery and its examination by the forensic pathologist. One of the many concerns of those seeking an inquest is that the body was moved, however the Attorney General has apparently decided that the body's position hadn't changed. Obviously if there is evidence that the body had been moved in contradiction to the point made by Mr Grieve then his position as Attorney General is totally undermined.
Let us look at the relevant evidence:
1. Two volunteer searchers, Ms Holmes and Mr Chapman with Ms Holmes's search dog Brock, were sent out to the area of Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire to look for Dr Kelly. They found his body at 9.15 am in the wood that covers the top of Harrowdown Hill.
2. In her police witness statement (part of which is now included in Annex TVP1 in the bundle of documents sent to Mr Grieve) we see that Ms Holmes gets as close as 4 feet from the body. She says 'I saw that this person was slumped against the base of the tree with his head and shoulders resting on the trunk, his legs were stretched out straight in front of him.' At the Hutton Inquiry her testimony reaffirmed her statement to the police: 'He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree'
3. The other searcher (Mr Chapman) is the person referred to by Mr Grieve as having changed his evidence as to the body position. Unlike Ms Holmes he evidently didn't go forward to the body, in fact on page 27 of the relevant section of the Hutton website he says 'I probably reached about 15 to 20 metres from it' (that's about 50 to 65 feet away compared to the 4 feet of Ms Holmes)
4. The first police officer to approach the body was Detective Constable Coe. This was at 9.40. In an extremely short witness statement DC Coe states 'I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back' However in an article in "The Mail on Sunday" dated 8 August 2010 DC Coe is quoted as follows:
'As I got closer, I could see Dr Kelly's body sideways on, with his head and shoulders against a large tree. He wasn't dead flat along the ground. If you wanted to die, you'd never lie flat out. But neither was he sat upright' This obviously confirms the testimony of Ms Holmes.
5. In chapter 5 page 151 of his report Lord Hutton says: 'I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree' Again this confirms what Ms Holmes says.
6. About 45 minutes after the body has been found an ambulance crew are checking the body for signs of life. In a newspaper interview one of the crew, Mr Bartlett, said:
‘He was lying flat out some distance from the tree. He definitely wasn’t leaning against it. I remember saying to the copper, “Are you sure he hasn’t fallen out of the tree?”
‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there. If the earlier witnesses are saying that, then the body has obviously been moved.’
7. The Attorney General called in a forensic pathologist Dr Shepherd to produce a Forensic Medical Report. One of the issues examined by Dr Shepherd was the position of the body. In his report Dr Shepherd has this to say:
The paramedics who attended (Mr Bartlett and Miss Hunt), who examined the body and who certified life extinct, indicate there was a significant gap between the tree and the body in which they were able to stand to examine the body and apply ECG tabs.
It is quite clear from consideration of the photographs of the scene that, at the time they were taken, the body of David Kelly lay with his feet pointing away from the tree and that there was a significant gap between the base of the tree and the top of the head.
Significantly from the above points there is clear disparity between the photographic evidence reports of Lord Hutton and Dr Shepherd.
I believe that the only conclusion one can draw from the evidence itemised above is that either Mr Grieve was grossly incompetent or that he was dishonest in making his statement of the 9th June.
Although I have written to my own MP you are the only other MP I have written to at the present time because of your role in responding to Mr Grieve. As time permits I may well write to other MPs. A copy of this letter will appear on my blog http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/ Blind copies of this letter are being sent to people who I consider have a particular interest in the subject matter.
I ask you now to raise questions about the behaviour of the present Attorney General Dominic Grieve and about his competence and integrity.
I await your response.
Yours sincerely
Brian Spencer
‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there. If the earlier witnesses are saying that, then the body has obviously been moved.’
7. The Attorney General called in a forensic pathologist Dr Shepherd to produce a Forensic Medical Report. One of the issues examined by Dr Shepherd was the position of the body. In his report Dr Shepherd has this to say:
The paramedics who attended (Mr Bartlett and Miss Hunt), who examined the body and who certified life extinct, indicate there was a significant gap between the tree and the body in which they were able to stand to examine the body and apply ECG tabs.
It is quite clear from consideration of the photographs of the scene that, at the time they were taken, the body of David Kelly lay with his feet pointing away from the tree and that there was a significant gap between the base of the tree and the top of the head.
Significantly from the above points there is clear disparity between the photographic evidence reports of Lord Hutton and Dr Shepherd.
I believe that the only conclusion one can draw from the evidence itemised above is that either Mr Grieve was grossly incompetent or that he was dishonest in making his statement of the 9th June.
Although I have written to my own MP you are the only other MP I have written to at the present time because of your role in responding to Mr Grieve. As time permits I may well write to other MPs. A copy of this letter will appear on my blog http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/ Blind copies of this letter are being sent to people who I consider have a particular interest in the subject matter.
I ask you now to raise questions about the behaviour of the present Attorney General Dominic Grieve and about his competence and integrity.
I await your response.
Yours sincerely
Brian Spencer
If it wasn't so serious one would have to laugh or weep at the utter crassness of her reply to me.
Friday, 24 June 2011
The body position and those photographs
During the course of the Hutton Inquiry it became obvious that witnesses were giving materially different versions of the same event. One of the best known of these discrepancies concerned the position of Dr Kelly's body as seen by witnesses at Harrowdown Hill on the morning of 18 July 2003.
In summary: the first known witness to the dead body was searcher Louise Holmes. In her police witness statement we now know that she got within four feet of the body. She has consistently said that the body was slumped against a tree with its head and shoulders against the tree. Her fellow searcher Paul Chapman, much further away when the body was first discovered, said the body was flat on the ground in his police witness statement but had his back against the tree when he spoke at the Inquiry. Later witnesses stated the body was on its back. Importantly nobody was saying that the body was any distance from the tree. With his now familiar lack of clarity Dr Hunt tried not to mention the tree at all!
When Lord Hutton presented his report on the 28th January 2004 he tried, in chapter 5 of the report, to square the circle regarding witness testimony differences. He said:
Those who try cases relating to a death or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard from those who saw Dr Kelly's body in the wood there were differences as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr Kelly's death.
He singles out the matter of body position and very clearly leaves one in no doubt that he has seen a photograph with the head against a tree. One assumes that he would be diligent enough to look at other photos to check that the body hadn't been moved. However he doesn't say.
If we go to page 57 of Norman Baker's book "The Strange Death of David Kelly" we find out that Mr Baker contacted Lord Hutton about this photograph. Hutton told him that he didn't know who had taken the picture 'but it is likely to have been a police photographer'.
By the 28th January 2004 it seems to me that nobody had at that time suggested that the body was at a distance away from the tree. The only problem for Hutton to deal with was the different way witnesses described the body position and so hence what you read on page 151 of his report and this is what I have quoted above.
Fast forward to 9 June 2011 and the Attorney General Dominic Grieve, like Hutton, singles out the body position but has to confront a new dilemma. Subsequent to the publication of the Hutton Report the ambulance crew have been on television and have spoken to the press. As a result we now know that one of them, Dave Bartlett, not only confirms finding Dr Kelly's body on its back but that the head was some distance from the tree - sufficiently so in fact that Mr Bartlett was able to both stand and work in the space that afforded him.
The evidence of space between head and tree has now been confirmed by Dr Shepherd who has produced a "Forensic Medical Report" for the Attorney General
It is quite clear from consideration of the photographs of the scene that, at the time they were taken, the body of David Kelly lay with his feet pointing away from the tree and that there was a significant gap between the base of the tree and the top of the head.
In its submission Annex TVP 3 to the Attorney General http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf Thames Valley Police compare the relevant police witness statements with what was said by the same people at the Inquiry regarding the observed body position. So far as the following are concerned we can easily make the comparison: Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, DC Coe, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett and Dr Hunt. But what of PCs Franklin and Sawyer? Parts of their police witness statements are quoted it's true but nothing about body position or orientation. So either they never mentioned this in their statements or that part of their statements has just not been quoted in TVP 3.
That neither of them comment on body position is totally unbelievable in the normal course of events but perhaps they were advised not to go into this sort of detail. If they had mentioned the body position in their witness statements then here we have yet further proof of just how far Thames Valley police were prepared to go in a cover up.
In summary: the first known witness to the dead body was searcher Louise Holmes. In her police witness statement we now know that she got within four feet of the body. She has consistently said that the body was slumped against a tree with its head and shoulders against the tree. Her fellow searcher Paul Chapman, much further away when the body was first discovered, said the body was flat on the ground in his police witness statement but had his back against the tree when he spoke at the Inquiry. Later witnesses stated the body was on its back. Importantly nobody was saying that the body was any distance from the tree. With his now familiar lack of clarity Dr Hunt tried not to mention the tree at all!
When Lord Hutton presented his report on the 28th January 2004 he tried, in chapter 5 of the report, to square the circle regarding witness testimony differences. He said:
Those who try cases relating to a death or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard from those who saw Dr Kelly's body in the wood there were differences as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr Kelly's death.
He singles out the matter of body position and very clearly leaves one in no doubt that he has seen a photograph with the head against a tree. One assumes that he would be diligent enough to look at other photos to check that the body hadn't been moved. However he doesn't say.
If we go to page 57 of Norman Baker's book "The Strange Death of David Kelly" we find out that Mr Baker contacted Lord Hutton about this photograph. Hutton told him that he didn't know who had taken the picture 'but it is likely to have been a police photographer'.
By the 28th January 2004 it seems to me that nobody had at that time suggested that the body was at a distance away from the tree. The only problem for Hutton to deal with was the different way witnesses described the body position and so hence what you read on page 151 of his report and this is what I have quoted above.
Fast forward to 9 June 2011 and the Attorney General Dominic Grieve, like Hutton, singles out the body position but has to confront a new dilemma. Subsequent to the publication of the Hutton Report the ambulance crew have been on television and have spoken to the press. As a result we now know that one of them, Dave Bartlett, not only confirms finding Dr Kelly's body on its back but that the head was some distance from the tree - sufficiently so in fact that Mr Bartlett was able to both stand and work in the space that afforded him.
The evidence of space between head and tree has now been confirmed by Dr Shepherd who has produced a "Forensic Medical Report" for the Attorney General
It is quite clear from consideration of the photographs of the scene that, at the time they were taken, the body of David Kelly lay with his feet pointing away from the tree and that there was a significant gap between the base of the tree and the top of the head.
In its submission Annex TVP 3 to the Attorney General http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf Thames Valley Police compare the relevant police witness statements with what was said by the same people at the Inquiry regarding the observed body position. So far as the following are concerned we can easily make the comparison: Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, DC Coe, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett and Dr Hunt. But what of PCs Franklin and Sawyer? Parts of their police witness statements are quoted it's true but nothing about body position or orientation. So either they never mentioned this in their statements or that part of their statements has just not been quoted in TVP 3.
That neither of them comment on body position is totally unbelievable in the normal course of events but perhaps they were advised not to go into this sort of detail. If they had mentioned the body position in their witness statements then here we have yet further proof of just how far Thames Valley police were prepared to go in a cover up.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Two uniformed officers with DC Coe
In the post before last I had written about the significant number of police officers and police vehicles seen by the ambulance crew when they arrived on site at 09.55. http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/06/invisible-police-officers-of-harrowdown.html
I also highlighted the fact that not only did PCs Franklin and Sawyer fail to comment on the presence of these police officers and vehicles but that they didn't mention being logged into the outer cordon which had been established nearly half an hour before.
In Annex TVP1 in the Attorney General's bundle of documents we read:
DC Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving DC Shields and PC A and Louise Holmes behind. DC Shields and PC A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.
Given that both PC Franklin and PC Sawyer say they met Paul Chapman coming down the track as they were going up it then it seems evident to me that the two PCs should already have seen Louise Holmes, DC Shields and PC A. The nearest we get is this from PC Sawyer:
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.
This from Louise Holmes at the Inquiry:
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.
So the testimonies of Franklin and Sawyer are dishonest in my opinion in making no reference to the presence of Ms Holmes, DC Shields or PC A.
It gets much worse though. PC's Franklin and Sawyer are very clear that when they see DC Coe then the latter is in the company of two uniformed officers. This is what they said at the Inquiry.
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.
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?
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. Now, after you had taken the photographs and seen the body, did you carry out any further searches?
A. Yes. On the way back -- once we had finished with the body, once the paramedics had finished, we went back down the common approach path to the path where DC Coe and the two uniformed officers were.
If we believe Thames Valley Police then the two original police officers accompanying DC Coe didn't see the body but stayed at the bottom of the track with Louise Holmes. In Annex TVP 1 she describes them as being in plain clothes anyway, at the Inquiry Paul Chapman is clear that they were from CID.
We have then the totally absurd scenario of PCs Franklin and Sawyer failing to mention the already placed outer cordon, the invisible presence of Louise Holmes, DC Shields and PC A, the presence of lots of police and police vehicles seen by the ambulance crew when they arrive and now two further unnamed uniformed officers in the company of DC Coe.
All this and Thames Valley Police expect us to believe them!
I also highlighted the fact that not only did PCs Franklin and Sawyer fail to comment on the presence of these police officers and vehicles but that they didn't mention being logged into the outer cordon which had been established nearly half an hour before.
In Annex TVP1 in the Attorney General's bundle of documents we read:
DC Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving DC Shields and PC A and Louise Holmes behind. DC Shields and PC A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.
Given that both PC Franklin and PC Sawyer say they met Paul Chapman coming down the track as they were going up it then it seems evident to me that the two PCs should already have seen Louise Holmes, DC Shields and PC A. The nearest we get is this from PC Sawyer:
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.
This from Louise Holmes at the Inquiry:
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.
So the testimonies of Franklin and Sawyer are dishonest in my opinion in making no reference to the presence of Ms Holmes, DC Shields or PC A.
It gets much worse though. PC's Franklin and Sawyer are very clear that when they see DC Coe then the latter is in the company of two uniformed officers. This is what they said at the Inquiry.
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.
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?
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. Now, after you had taken the photographs and seen the body, did you carry out any further searches?
A. Yes. On the way back -- once we had finished with the body, once the paramedics had finished, we went back down the common approach path to the path where DC Coe and the two uniformed officers were.
If we believe Thames Valley Police then the two original police officers accompanying DC Coe didn't see the body but stayed at the bottom of the track with Louise Holmes. In Annex TVP 1 she describes them as being in plain clothes anyway, at the Inquiry Paul Chapman is clear that they were from CID.
We have then the totally absurd scenario of PCs Franklin and Sawyer failing to mention the already placed outer cordon, the invisible presence of Louise Holmes, DC Shields and PC A, the presence of lots of police and police vehicles seen by the ambulance crew when they arrive and now two further unnamed uniformed officers in the company of DC Coe.
All this and Thames Valley Police expect us to believe them!
Monday, 20 June 2011
Letter to Catherine McKinnell Shadow Solicitor-General
Dominic Grieve made his (to my mind) dishonest statement to the House of Commons about Dr Kelly's death on 9 June. The shadow Solicitor-General, Catherine McKinnell, warmly responded to it.
Earlier today I sent her a letter by email. The title was 'The Attorney General's misleading statement of 9 June 2011'
This is the text:
Brian Spencer
If, having read this, you want to contact Ms McKinnell, her email address is catherine.mckinnell.mp@parliament.uk Her office phone number is 0191 2861266
Earlier today I sent her a letter by email. The title was 'The Attorney General's misleading statement of 9 June 2011'
This is the text:
Dear Ms McKinnell
The purpose of this letter is to raise a matter of grave concern regarding a statement by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve to the House of Commons on 9 June 2011. You will recall that it was about the death of Dr David Kelly and whether there should be an inquest into his death.
On behalf of the Opposition you responded to this statement and appeared supportive. Quite understandably, and thinking of the position held by Mr Grieve, you would have taken the broad sweep of his statement "on trust". Again, bearing in mind the very substantial amount of documentation that Mr Grieve placed in the Libraries of both Houses, it would be unreasonable to expect you to have been familiar with all the detail when responding on the 9th June.
Mr Grieve in his verbal statement chose to highlight one particular issue that has caused a lot of controversy and that is whether on the 18th July 2003 Dr Kelly's body had been moved between its discovery and its examination by the forensic pathologist. One of the many concerns of those seeking an inquest is that the body was moved, however the Attorney General has apparently decided that the body's position hadn't changed. Obviously if there is evidence that the body had been moved in contradiction to the point made by Mr Grieve then his position as Attorney General is totally undermined.
Let us look at the relevant evidence:
1. Two volunteer searchers, Ms Holmes and Mr Chapman with Ms Holmes's search dog Brock, were sent out to the area of Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire to look for Dr Kelly. They found his body at 9.15 am in the wood that covers the top of Harrowdown Hill.
2. In her police witness statement (part of which is now included in Annex TVP1 in the bundle of documents sent to Mr Grieve) we see that Ms Holmes gets as close as 4 feet from the body. She says 'I saw that this person was slumped against the base of the tree with his head and shoulders resting on the trunk, his legs were stretched out straight in front of him.' At the Hutton Inquiry her testimony reaffirmed her statement to the police: 'He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree'
3. The other searcher (Mr Chapman) is the person referred to by Mr Grieve as having changed his evidence as to the body position. Unlike Ms Holmes he evidently didn't go forward to the body, in fact on page 27 of the relevant section of the Hutton website he says 'I probably reached about 15 to 20 metres from it' (that's about 50 to 65 feet away compared to the 4 feet of Ms Holmes)
4. The first police officer to approach the body was Detective Constable Coe. This was at 9.40. In an extremely short witness statement DC Coe states 'I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back' However in an article in "The Mail on Sunday" dated 8 August 2010 DC Coe is quoted as follows:
Yours sincerely'As I got closer, I could see Dr Kelly's body sideways on, with his head and shoulders against a large tree. He wasn't dead flat along the ground. If you wanted to die, you'd never lie flat out. But neither was he sat upright' This obviously confirms the testimony of Ms Holmes.
5. In chapter 5 page 151 of his report Lord Hutton says: 'I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree' Again this confirms what Ms Holmes says.
6. About 45 minutes after the body has been found an ambulance crew are checking the body for signs of life. In a newspaper interview one of the crew, Mr Bartlett, said:
‘He was lying flat out some distance from the tree. He definitely wasn’t leaning against it. I remember saying to the copper, “Are you sure he hasn’t fallen out of the tree?”
‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there. If the earlier witnesses are saying that, then the body has obviously been moved.’
7. The Attorney General called in a forensic pathologist Dr Shepherd to produce a Forensic Medical Report. One of the issues examined by Dr Shepherd was the position of the body. In his report Dr Shepherd has this to say:
The paramedics who attended (Mr Bartlett and Miss Hunt), who examined the body and who certified life extinct, indicate there was a significant gap between the tree and the body in which they were able to stand to examine the body and apply ECG tabs.
It is quite clear from consideration of the photographs of the scene that, at the time they were taken, the body of David Kelly lay with his feet pointing away from the tree and that there was a significant gap between the base of the tree and the top of the head.
Significantly from the above points there is clear disparity between the photographic evidence reports of Lord Hutton and Dr Shepherd.
I believe that the only conclusion one can draw from the evidence itemised above is that either Mr Grieve was grossly incompetent or that he was dishonest in making his statement of the 9th June.
Although I have written to my own MP you are the only other MP I have written to at the present time because of your role in responding to Mr Grieve. As time permits I may well write to other MPs. A copy of this letter will appear on my blog http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/ Blind copies of this letter are being sent to people who I consider have a particular interest in the subject matter.
I ask you now to raise questions about the behaviour of the present Attorney General Dominic Grieve and about his competence and integrity.
I await your response.
‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there. If the earlier witnesses are saying that, then the body has obviously been moved.’
7. The Attorney General called in a forensic pathologist Dr Shepherd to produce a Forensic Medical Report. One of the issues examined by Dr Shepherd was the position of the body. In his report Dr Shepherd has this to say:
The paramedics who attended (Mr Bartlett and Miss Hunt), who examined the body and who certified life extinct, indicate there was a significant gap between the tree and the body in which they were able to stand to examine the body and apply ECG tabs.
It is quite clear from consideration of the photographs of the scene that, at the time they were taken, the body of David Kelly lay with his feet pointing away from the tree and that there was a significant gap between the base of the tree and the top of the head.
Significantly from the above points there is clear disparity between the photographic evidence reports of Lord Hutton and Dr Shepherd.
I believe that the only conclusion one can draw from the evidence itemised above is that either Mr Grieve was grossly incompetent or that he was dishonest in making his statement of the 9th June.
Although I have written to my own MP you are the only other MP I have written to at the present time because of your role in responding to Mr Grieve. As time permits I may well write to other MPs. A copy of this letter will appear on my blog http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/ Blind copies of this letter are being sent to people who I consider have a particular interest in the subject matter.
I ask you now to raise questions about the behaviour of the present Attorney General Dominic Grieve and about his competence and integrity.
I await your response.
Brian Spencer
If, having read this, you want to contact Ms McKinnell, her email address is catherine.mckinnell.mp@parliament.uk Her office phone number is 0191 2861266
Thursday, 16 June 2011
The invisible police officers of Harrowdown Hill
Reading the testimonies of PCs Franklin and Sawyer at the Hutton inquiry you could be readily forgiven for thinking that the morning of 18th July 2003 was very quiet at Harrowdown Hill. Buzzing with activity? No, not if you believe what the two PCs said on the 2nd September. PC Franklin was examined by Mr Dingemans, PC Sawyer by Mr Knox.
PC Franklin first:
Q. How many are in your team?
A. I was given a search team leader, which is PC Sawyer, and 6 other officers, when we received a call that a body had been found at Harrowdown Hill.
Q. Do you know how many other people were out searching at this time?
A. I believe it was only the two volunteers out searching at that time. The parameters for our search and the logistics of calling our teams in does take a bit of time. So PC Sawyer and I were going to be the first team out on the ground.
Q. We have heard evidence about a helicopter out searching the night before. Had you heard about that?
A. No.
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.
Q. The South East Berks Volunteers, what are they?
A. They are SEBEVs. South East Berks Volunteers. They are an organisation we use regularly for missing person searches.
Q. To help?
A. To help us. They are a highly professional and motivated organisation.
Q. You mentioned DC Coe. Was he part of your search team?
A. No.
Q. What he was he doing?
A. He was at the scene. I had no idea what he was doing there or why he was there. He was just at the scene when PC Sawyer and I arrived.
Q. Who was in charge of the scene at this time?
A. DC Coe was until I turned up and then I took charge of the scene.
Now PC Sawyer:
We are just about to leave to perform our first searches, which would have been in the village and the surrounding areas of the route he was thought to have taken, when information came in that a body had been found. I then left with Police Constable Franklin to attend the scene.
Q. Can you remember what time it was that that information came in?
A. It would have been about 9 o'clock, I believe.
Q. So you then leave with Police Constable Franklin?
A. Yes.
Q. And anyone else?
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.
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.
Q. Where did you stop the cars?
A. Stopped the cars -- I believe it at is the top, I have not seen the map but I believe it is at the top of Common Lane. Then we turned left and right up to the track which leads up to Harrowdown Hill.
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.
From the interview with DC Coe in the Mail on Sunday on 8 August 2010 we know that DC Coe and his companions left their unmarked car in Longworth and walked up. In summary then the two PCs with their 3 "cordons" arrive at the bottom of the lane at about the same time as the ambulance crew. This is at 9.55 according to Dave Bartlett's evidence. Sergeant Dadd is also there but whether he comes in his own car or the police land rover isn't clear. The car owned by Louise Holmes is spotted although she and Brock are not.
PCs Franklin and Sawyer believe that they are the first team out on the ground, apart from the volunteer searchers. PC Franklin seems bemused by the presence of DC Coe and says that he 'had no idea what he was doing there'. However he doesn't seem surprised by the presence of an outer cordon (established nearly half an hour before at 9.28) I presume because he doesn't mention it.
There is an interesting contrast in testimonies between the PCs and the ambulance crew (arriving at almost identical times we are told). This from Vanessa Hunt at the inquiry:
Q. When you arrived on the scene was anyone there?
A. Yes, there were a number of police officers.
Q. Do you remember how many?
A. Just lots and there was police vehicles there as well.
Q. Did you drive off the public road?
A. We parked up at the end of the public road, I do not know the name of the road.
Q. And you proceeded on foot?
A. Yes.
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.
Dave Bartlett's response when questioned:
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.
A report in The Observer of 12 December 2004 has the two ambulance crew speaking out about their concerns after the Hutton Inquiry. Vanessa Hunt again:
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 contrast between the testimonies at Hutton could hardly have been more marked. Surely the police presence noted by the paramedics must have been seen by PCs Franklin and Sawyer.
PC Franklin first:
Q. How many are in your team?
A. I was given a search team leader, which is PC Sawyer, and 6 other officers, when we received a call that a body had been found at Harrowdown Hill.
Q. Do you know how many other people were out searching at this time?
A. I believe it was only the two volunteers out searching at that time. The parameters for our search and the logistics of calling our teams in does take a bit of time. So PC Sawyer and I were going to be the first team out on the ground.
Q. We have heard evidence about a helicopter out searching the night before. Had you heard about that?
A. No.
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.
Q. The South East Berks Volunteers, what are they?
A. They are SEBEVs. South East Berks Volunteers. They are an organisation we use regularly for missing person searches.
Q. To help?
A. To help us. They are a highly professional and motivated organisation.
Q. You mentioned DC Coe. Was he part of your search team?
A. No.
Q. What he was he doing?
A. He was at the scene. I had no idea what he was doing there or why he was there. He was just at the scene when PC Sawyer and I arrived.
Q. Who was in charge of the scene at this time?
A. DC Coe was until I turned up and then I took charge of the scene.
Now PC Sawyer:
We are just about to leave to perform our first searches, which would have been in the village and the surrounding areas of the route he was thought to have taken, when information came in that a body had been found. I then left with Police Constable Franklin to attend the scene.
Q. Can you remember what time it was that that information came in?
A. It would have been about 9 o'clock, I believe.
Q. So you then leave with Police Constable Franklin?
A. Yes.
Q. And anyone else?
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.
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.
Q. Where did you stop the cars?
A. Stopped the cars -- I believe it at is the top, I have not seen the map but I believe it is at the top of Common Lane. Then we turned left and right up to the track which leads up to Harrowdown Hill.
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.
From the interview with DC Coe in the Mail on Sunday on 8 August 2010 we know that DC Coe and his companions left their unmarked car in Longworth and walked up. In summary then the two PCs with their 3 "cordons" arrive at the bottom of the lane at about the same time as the ambulance crew. This is at 9.55 according to Dave Bartlett's evidence. Sergeant Dadd is also there but whether he comes in his own car or the police land rover isn't clear. The car owned by Louise Holmes is spotted although she and Brock are not.
PCs Franklin and Sawyer believe that they are the first team out on the ground, apart from the volunteer searchers. PC Franklin seems bemused by the presence of DC Coe and says that he 'had no idea what he was doing there'. However he doesn't seem surprised by the presence of an outer cordon (established nearly half an hour before at 9.28) I presume because he doesn't mention it.
There is an interesting contrast in testimonies between the PCs and the ambulance crew (arriving at almost identical times we are told). This from Vanessa Hunt at the inquiry:
Q. When you arrived on the scene was anyone there?
A. Yes, there were a number of police officers.
Q. Do you remember how many?
A. Just lots and there was police vehicles there as well.
Q. Did you drive off the public road?
A. We parked up at the end of the public road, I do not know the name of the road.
Q. And you proceeded on foot?
A. Yes.
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.
Dave Bartlett's response when questioned:
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.
A report in The Observer of 12 December 2004 has the two ambulance crew speaking out about their concerns after the Hutton Inquiry. Vanessa Hunt again:
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 contrast between the testimonies at Hutton could hardly have been more marked. Surely the police presence noted by the paramedics must have been seen by PCs Franklin and Sawyer.
Email sent to Thames Valley Police regarding the body position
I have today sent an email to Thames Valley Police concerning conflicting statements by DC Coe about the position of Dr Kelly's body and the fact that TVP have ignored the evidence on the body position given by Louise Holmes. The email was entitled 'Dr Kelly's death - conflicting evidence from DC Coe as to body position' This is the text of the email:
Chief Constable, DCC Habgood, ACC Ball
The Attorney General Dominic Grieve made a statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 concerning the death of Dr David Kelly.
Despite evidence to the contrary Mr Grieve asserted that the body hadn't been moved.
This communication looks at the evidence given by DC Coe, the first police officer to see the body, as to his description of the body position and that seemingly subsequent to his police witness statement he depicts it as being seen in a different position.
In Annex TVP1 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%201.pdf submitted to the Attorney General's Office we have sight of DC Coe's police statement. In it he says 'I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back'
At the Hutton Inquiry this is the question and answer in DC Coe's testimony that deals with the body position:
8 Q. And how was the body positioned?
9 A. It was laying on its back -- the body was laying on its
10 back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the
11 tree.
9 A. It was laying on its back -- the body was laying on its
10 back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the
11 tree.
On 8 August 2010 an interview of DC Coe (retired) appeared in The Mail on Sunday. In annex TVP1 you focus on "The Third Man" who was with DC Coe, the admitted evidence of a third man having come into the public domain via this article. Annex TVP1 states that 'DC Coe was interviewed on the 25th August 2010 in response to the Mail story'
Assuming a reasonable level of competence on the part of the interviewing officer(s) then they would have read the article in its entirety and discussed any aspects of the piece in the Mail on Sunday with DC Coe that were in conflict with his police evidence statement or other known evidence not just the matter of "The Third Man". In the article these are the quoted words by DC Coe relating to the body position:
'As I got closer, I could see Dr Kelly's body sideways on, with his head and shoulders against a large tree. He wasn't dead flat along the ground. If you wanted to die, you'd never lie flat out. But neither was he sat upright'
This description exactly matches that given by Louise Holmes, the first person to see the body. Ms Holmes gets to within four feet of the body and is consistent in her police statement evidence and her testimony at the Hutton Inquiry. Nevertheless in Annex TVP3 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf you are implying it seems to me that her evidence regarding the body position can't be right and should be disregarded. About 45 minutes after the body discovery ambulance technician Dave Bartlett is able to stand and work in the space between Dr Kelly's head and the tree.
I do not believe that at a distance of four feet from the body Ms Holmes would think the head and shoulders were slumped against the tree if the body was a significant distance from the tree.
I should like to be informed as to whether the interviewing officer(s) did discuss the body position with DC Coe in the light of his quoted remarks in The Mail on Sunday. It would be a matter of great concern surely if the matter wasn't discussed. There is no suggestion in your submissions to the Attorney General that the point was put to DC Coe. I have therefore to pose the question as to whether Thames Valley Police misled the Attorney General regarding the vital question as to whether the body was moved.
I am copying this email to the Attorney General's office. It will also appear on my blog http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/ Blind copies are being sent to others who I feel might have a particular interest in the content.
Brian Spencer
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
DC Coe's very brief statement in Annex TVP1
We have sight of at least part of a statement by DC Coe in Annex TVP1 in the bundle of documents lodged with the Attorney General. For reference TVP1 can be accessed here http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%201.pdf
It will be seen that DC Coe's statement in the box area is exceptionally short. From the list of documents on the Hutton website DC Coe's statement is the one at TVP/1/0030-0031 ie two pages. The statement in TVP1 in the link I've given would be less than a full page but it has to be remembered that DC Coe was at the Kelly home on Saturday 19 July. According to the interview he gave "The Mail on Sunday" of 8 August 2010 'several boxes' of files went back to the police station, 'where DC Coe spent three days examining them with an officer from Thames Valley Special Branch'. All this enough to make up a two page statement perhaps.
I feel that the statement quoted is the full statement so far as Friday morning is concerned. The first sentence gives it away:
At 09.40 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back.
I think that the reference to the date would be made once only and that at the start of his evidence. Looking at his Hutton testimony one would expect DC Coe to start his witness statement with perhaps At 06.00 am on Friday 18th July I received a call to attend a briefing at Abingdon police station ... There would be no need to repeat the date for the rest of his statement so far as it relates to that particular day.
From the above it seems that DC Coe didn't record in his statement any of his activity between 06.00 and 09.40 that morning. Nor does he make mention of his police companions. The question of course is 'Why?'.
DC Coe mentions the peaked cap close to the body (a more precise description of the position would have been helpful) but at the Inquiry isn't too sure whether the cap was on or off Dr Kelly's head.
No mention is made about police accompanying the ambulance crew. It's what isn't in DC Coe's statement that I find most revealing.
It will be seen that DC Coe's statement in the box area is exceptionally short. From the list of documents on the Hutton website DC Coe's statement is the one at TVP/1/0030-0031 ie two pages. The statement in TVP1 in the link I've given would be less than a full page but it has to be remembered that DC Coe was at the Kelly home on Saturday 19 July. According to the interview he gave "The Mail on Sunday" of 8 August 2010 'several boxes' of files went back to the police station, 'where DC Coe spent three days examining them with an officer from Thames Valley Special Branch'. All this enough to make up a two page statement perhaps.
I feel that the statement quoted is the full statement so far as Friday morning is concerned. The first sentence gives it away:
At 09.40 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back.
I think that the reference to the date would be made once only and that at the start of his evidence. Looking at his Hutton testimony one would expect DC Coe to start his witness statement with perhaps At 06.00 am on Friday 18th July I received a call to attend a briefing at Abingdon police station ... There would be no need to repeat the date for the rest of his statement so far as it relates to that particular day.
From the above it seems that DC Coe didn't record in his statement any of his activity between 06.00 and 09.40 that morning. Nor does he make mention of his police companions. The question of course is 'Why?'.
DC Coe mentions the peaked cap close to the body (a more precise description of the position would have been helpful) but at the Inquiry isn't too sure whether the cap was on or off Dr Kelly's head.
No mention is made about police accompanying the ambulance crew. It's what isn't in DC Coe's statement that I find most revealing.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
"The position of the body when found" - the photograph
In my last post I had discussed some aspects of Annex TVP 3 - "The position of the body when found".
The third of the opening three paragraphs is particularly fascinating:
A photograph was taken by the first search officers on the scene prior to the ambulance crew attaching the electrodes to the chest of Dr Kelly. The only people who had seen the body prior to this photograph being taken were Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman and DC Coe.
This is what the man with the camera (PC Sawyer) says at the Inquiry:
As we crested the slight rise, I saw the body lying at the base of a tree. I then said to PC Franklin and the paramedics to stop while I got my digital camera because I wanted to take a record of the scene before it was -- before we actually approached it at all. So I took a number of pictures as we approached the body, and of the body and the surrounding area; and then the paramedics asked if they could do their job, to which we said: yes.
They tried to -- they used the paddles of the electrocardiogram machine to try to see if there was a sign of life through Dr Kelly's shirt. They were unable to do so and said: could they undo the shirt? I said: yes. I asked them to wait for a second. I took another two more reference pictures.
It is obvious that, as you would expect, PC Sawyer 'took a number of pictures'. So why do TVP refer to just one photograph as if that is the only one PC Sawyer took. It's barmy. Why didn't they describe exactly what was in the picture, presumably it was of the body on its back but we aren't told.
Conclusion viii makes mention of 'the photographs'. What photographs? Are we talking of the Sawyer photographs or some of those taken later in the day.
As a piece of work trying to advance an argument TVP 3 is exceptionally poor.
The third of the opening three paragraphs is particularly fascinating:
A photograph was taken by the first search officers on the scene prior to the ambulance crew attaching the electrodes to the chest of Dr Kelly. The only people who had seen the body prior to this photograph being taken were Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman and DC Coe.
This is what the man with the camera (PC Sawyer) says at the Inquiry:
As we crested the slight rise, I saw the body lying at the base of a tree. I then said to PC Franklin and the paramedics to stop while I got my digital camera because I wanted to take a record of the scene before it was -- before we actually approached it at all. So I took a number of pictures as we approached the body, and of the body and the surrounding area; and then the paramedics asked if they could do their job, to which we said: yes.
They tried to -- they used the paddles of the electrocardiogram machine to try to see if there was a sign of life through Dr Kelly's shirt. They were unable to do so and said: could they undo the shirt? I said: yes. I asked them to wait for a second. I took another two more reference pictures.
It is obvious that, as you would expect, PC Sawyer 'took a number of pictures'. So why do TVP refer to just one photograph as if that is the only one PC Sawyer took. It's barmy. Why didn't they describe exactly what was in the picture, presumably it was of the body on its back but we aren't told.
Conclusion viii makes mention of 'the photographs'. What photographs? Are we talking of the Sawyer photographs or some of those taken later in the day.
As a piece of work trying to advance an argument TVP 3 is exceptionally poor.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Attorney General's evidence bank - "The position of the body when found"
This is another lodged piece of evidence from Thames Valley Police (Annex TVP3): http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf
In it TVP try to discredit those who consider that the body was moved at some point.
We now know that searcher Paul Chapman says that the body was 'flat on the ground' in his written statement but at the Inquiry states that he was 'sitting up against a tree'. So why the difference? It has to be remembered that he sees the body twice - once when Brock has found the body and then about 25 minutes later when he takes DC Coe into the wood. It is not impossible that he did actually see the body in a new position. So at the Inquiry he describes the position (twice) as he first saw it but in his statement it is as he sees it with DC Coe.
In Chapter 5 of his report Lord Hutton states 'Mr Chapman showed Detective Constable Coe the body lying on its back'
The extract of Paul Chapman's evidence in TVP1 says that he saw the body 'from about 15 metres'. At the Inquiry it's 15 to 20 metres as his description of the nearest point he reached from the body. What isn't explained is whether he got closer when with DC Coe.
Louise Holmes is the first person known to have seen Dr Kelly's body so her evidence is of crucial importance. In her statement she makes clear that she gets to within 4 feet of the body. My logic tells me that at that distance she can distinguish between a body with its head and shoulders slumped against the tree and a body flat on the ground particularly as ambulance technician Dave Bartlett later said that he stood in the space between the head and the tree.
TVP in Annex TVP 3 appear to give no weight to the evidence from Louise even though the clear detail in her statement fits well with what she later gave in testimony at the inquiry. I am quite angry with the way they dismiss her evidence as apparently worthless.
In the submission TVP3 we have useful side by side comparisons of part witness statements and what was said at the Inquiry. Where there is a statement indicating the body being seen on its back then this highlighted. Having just read this section again I received quite a shock! The extracts of the police statements from PCs Franklin and Sawyer make no mention of the body position although they both tell the Inquiry that the body is on its back. It's inconceivable that the two PCs wouldn't have described the body position in their statements and as the whole thrust of TVP3 is supposedly to tell us that everyone (except Louise) is seeing the body on its back why don't we see the relevant part of the statements.
Is it possible that there is some key parts of the statements of Franklin and Sawyer that the police are desperate for us not to see?
In it TVP try to discredit those who consider that the body was moved at some point.
We now know that searcher Paul Chapman says that the body was 'flat on the ground' in his written statement but at the Inquiry states that he was 'sitting up against a tree'. So why the difference? It has to be remembered that he sees the body twice - once when Brock has found the body and then about 25 minutes later when he takes DC Coe into the wood. It is not impossible that he did actually see the body in a new position. So at the Inquiry he describes the position (twice) as he first saw it but in his statement it is as he sees it with DC Coe.
In Chapter 5 of his report Lord Hutton states 'Mr Chapman showed Detective Constable Coe the body lying on its back'
The extract of Paul Chapman's evidence in TVP1 says that he saw the body 'from about 15 metres'. At the Inquiry it's 15 to 20 metres as his description of the nearest point he reached from the body. What isn't explained is whether he got closer when with DC Coe.
Louise Holmes is the first person known to have seen Dr Kelly's body so her evidence is of crucial importance. In her statement she makes clear that she gets to within 4 feet of the body. My logic tells me that at that distance she can distinguish between a body with its head and shoulders slumped against the tree and a body flat on the ground particularly as ambulance technician Dave Bartlett later said that he stood in the space between the head and the tree.
TVP in Annex TVP 3 appear to give no weight to the evidence from Louise even though the clear detail in her statement fits well with what she later gave in testimony at the inquiry. I am quite angry with the way they dismiss her evidence as apparently worthless.
In the submission TVP3 we have useful side by side comparisons of part witness statements and what was said at the Inquiry. Where there is a statement indicating the body being seen on its back then this highlighted. Having just read this section again I received quite a shock! The extracts of the police statements from PCs Franklin and Sawyer make no mention of the body position although they both tell the Inquiry that the body is on its back. It's inconceivable that the two PCs wouldn't have described the body position in their statements and as the whole thrust of TVP3 is supposedly to tell us that everyone (except Louise) is seeing the body on its back why don't we see the relevant part of the statements.
Is it possible that there is some key parts of the statements of Franklin and Sawyer that the police are desperate for us not to see?
Email inviting Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign
Blogger Dr Andrew Watt has sent an email to the Attorney General inviting both he and the Solicitor General to resign in the wake of Mr Grieve's statement to the House of Commons on 9th June (last Thursday).
He has copied this email into a blogpost http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html
I wholeheartedly agree with the points Andrew has made. Andrew is inviting UK readers to copy and paste the email he has sent to Dominic Grieve to be forwarded to our own MPs. I emailed mine last night. In my case I set the email within a letter but the main thing is to write to your MP as soon as possible, if you are able to phone or see them so much the better.
A quick way to find your MP's details is to go here http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/ and type in your postcode. Please be proactive about this if you seriously want there to be an inquest into Dr Kelly's death.
He has copied this email into a blogpost http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html
I wholeheartedly agree with the points Andrew has made. Andrew is inviting UK readers to copy and paste the email he has sent to Dominic Grieve to be forwarded to our own MPs. I emailed mine last night. In my case I set the email within a letter but the main thing is to write to your MP as soon as possible, if you are able to phone or see them so much the better.
A quick way to find your MP's details is to go here http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/ and type in your postcode. Please be proactive about this if you seriously want there to be an inquest into Dr Kelly's death.
Friday, 10 June 2011
Attorney General's evidence bank - "Three Men in Black"
Amongst the pile of evidence accrued by the Attorney General are six "annexes" from Thames Valley Police. We aren't told to what each is an annex, it may be a case of there being a simple covering letter. Whatever, this particular one concerns the "Three Men in Black" about whom ACC Page gives some imprecise testimony on his second visit to the Inquiry on 23 September 2003.
This AG link is http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%204.pdf
The related questioning of ACC Page by Mr Dingemans follows:
Q. In the course of your inquiries were you contacted by a person who suggested there had been three men dressed in black wandering around at the time that Dr Kelly's body was found?
A. Yes, I think both we and the Inquiry received a communication from a gentleman who expressed concern that he had noticed three individuals dressed in dark or black clothing near the scene where Dr Kelly's body was found. I am speaking from memory, but I think the sighting was at somewhere between 8.30 and 9.30 in the morning, something like that.
Q. Did you follow up that sighting?
A. Yes, we undertook some fairly extensive work. We got statements from all our officers who were at the scene and that was in excess of 50. We plotted their movements on a map and eventually were able to triangulate where the writer was talking about and identify three of our officers, so I am satisfied that I am aware of the identity of these three individuals.
This evidence from Mr Page illustrates only too well what an unreliable witness he is. For the "Gold Commander" at Abingdon to quote such vague timings (both wrong) is truly pathetic. We now know that the sighting was at about 10.30. The mid morning arrival of the helicopter at Harrowdown Hill, whose presence wasn't revealed at the Inquiry, is noted by the witness as coming from the east.
I'm finding it difficult to conjecture what the three men in dark clothing were doing. So we have this sighting of police officers from north of Harrowdown Hill to add to the much earlier report of police out and about in a similar area by the "boat people".
The most significant thing to me though is the revelation of just how shockingly casual ACC Page was in his testimony.
It seems to me that the sighting is probably to the north east of the hill. It's conceivable that the witness might have had some information about the presence or absence of the "boat people". Did the police later follow this up?
This AG link is http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%204.pdf
The related questioning of ACC Page by Mr Dingemans follows:
Q. In the course of your inquiries were you contacted by a person who suggested there had been three men dressed in black wandering around at the time that Dr Kelly's body was found?
A. Yes, I think both we and the Inquiry received a communication from a gentleman who expressed concern that he had noticed three individuals dressed in dark or black clothing near the scene where Dr Kelly's body was found. I am speaking from memory, but I think the sighting was at somewhere between 8.30 and 9.30 in the morning, something like that.
Q. Did you follow up that sighting?
A. Yes, we undertook some fairly extensive work. We got statements from all our officers who were at the scene and that was in excess of 50. We plotted their movements on a map and eventually were able to triangulate where the writer was talking about and identify three of our officers, so I am satisfied that I am aware of the identity of these three individuals.
This evidence from Mr Page illustrates only too well what an unreliable witness he is. For the "Gold Commander" at Abingdon to quote such vague timings (both wrong) is truly pathetic. We now know that the sighting was at about 10.30. The mid morning arrival of the helicopter at Harrowdown Hill, whose presence wasn't revealed at the Inquiry, is noted by the witness as coming from the east.
I'm finding it difficult to conjecture what the three men in dark clothing were doing. So we have this sighting of police officers from north of Harrowdown Hill to add to the much earlier report of police out and about in a similar area by the "boat people".
The most significant thing to me though is the revelation of just how shockingly casual ACC Page was in his testimony.
It seems to me that the sighting is probably to the north east of the hill. It's conceivable that the witness might have had some information about the presence or absence of the "boat people". Did the police later follow this up?
A link to the Attorney General's website
In making his statement yesterday the Attorney General Dominic Grieve stated that the supporting evidence for his decision not to apply to the High Court would be placed in the libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords. It is also on the website of the Attorney General's Office and can be read here http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Pages/DrKelly.aspx
There is an incredible amount to read and digest and I intend to read and digest it and discuss the various elements on this blog. What I've seen so far from a rapid skim through merely confirms my judgement that Grieve was lying yesterday. There will I believe be evidence of "cock up" rather than "conspiracy" in some elements but only some.
Excuse me now while I get down to a little reading .....
There is an incredible amount to read and digest and I intend to read and digest it and discuss the various elements on this blog. What I've seen so far from a rapid skim through merely confirms my judgement that Grieve was lying yesterday. There will I believe be evidence of "cock up" rather than "conspiracy" in some elements but only some.
Excuse me now while I get down to a little reading .....
Thursday, 9 June 2011
+ + Grieve turns down inquest for Dr Kelly + +
Well there we have it - the Attorney General has decided not to make application to the High Court for an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.
Mr Grieve gave a totally unconvincing performance in his statement to the House of Commons and in response to the very benign questions that followed it. His body language convinced me that here was a man pursuing a purely political agenda. The slight break in his voice, the constant looking down while making his statement, the hunched shoulders, all very indicative of a man having to lie in my opinion.
His apparent suggestion that the Hutton Inquiry was as good as an inquest in determining the truth was plainly ridiculous. We need to go and look at his statement in detail of course and it's vital that the "Doctors" in particular have sight of the conclusions that the two experts called in by Mr Grieve made on the lodged evidence.
This is a grim day. Let us hope it is darkest just before the dawn.
Mr Grieve gave a totally unconvincing performance in his statement to the House of Commons and in response to the very benign questions that followed it. His body language convinced me that here was a man pursuing a purely political agenda. The slight break in his voice, the constant looking down while making his statement, the hunched shoulders, all very indicative of a man having to lie in my opinion.
His apparent suggestion that the Hutton Inquiry was as good as an inquest in determining the truth was plainly ridiculous. We need to go and look at his statement in detail of course and it's vital that the "Doctors" in particular have sight of the conclusions that the two experts called in by Mr Grieve made on the lodged evidence.
This is a grim day. Let us hope it is darkest just before the dawn.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Harrowdown Hill timeline updated
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)
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)
10.01 Paul Chapman logged out of outer cordon
10.07 Ambulance crew declare life extinct (PC Franklin & DC Coe evidence)
10.07 Ambulance crew declare life extinct (PC Franklin & DC Coe evidence)
10.25 Helicopter takes off to go to Harrowdown Hill
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 another post)
10.26 Ambulance crew logged out of outer cordon
10.26 to 11.26 approx Communication blackout ordered at HH (Dave Bartlett information)
10.35 Helicopter on scene at Harrowdown Hill to take photographs
10.55 Helicopter lands
11.00 Helicopter takes off and departs for next task
* "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)* "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."
12.04 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 another post)
An email contact address
Although I'm prepared to accept anonymous comments on my blogposts, an option that is occasionally used, I think it's possible that some readers might wish to contact me privately, particularly to discuss matters outside of those written in current posts.
It may be that there are residents in the Southmoor and Longworth areas for instance concerned at the way official investigations have taken place and want somewhere to express their concerns.
Rest assured that names and addresses where given will not be shared unless express permission has been granted.
The contact address is inquestfordrkelly@hotmail.co.uk
It may be that there are residents in the Southmoor and Longworth areas for instance concerned at the way official investigations have taken place and want somewhere to express their concerns.
Rest assured that names and addresses where given will not be shared unless express permission has been granted.
The contact address is inquestfordrkelly@hotmail.co.uk
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Is this now the proof to show it was murder?
When I started this blog I came from I hope a position of neutrality as to the manner of Dr Kelly's death. True I had read Norman Baker's book and also much of Rowena Thursby's blogs but still tried to approach the subject in a totally objective way.
All my investigations were pushing me in the direction of David Kelly having been murdered but what was really needed was something forensically sound to show that he couldn't have killed himself at Harrowdown Hill as the official narrative would have us believe.
Hopefully, thanks to Dr Andrew Watt and his blog "Chilcot's Cheating Us", the wait may be over. I would recommend readers to go and read these links: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-harrowdown-hill.html and http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-blood-distribution.html They may take a little time to absorb but the read is worth it. If the forensic community are unable to negate Andrew's assertions then I believe it will not be credible for the Attorney General to not go to to the High Court to try and get an inquest.
All my investigations were pushing me in the direction of David Kelly having been murdered but what was really needed was something forensically sound to show that he couldn't have killed himself at Harrowdown Hill as the official narrative would have us believe.
Hopefully, thanks to Dr Andrew Watt and his blog "Chilcot's Cheating Us", the wait may be over. I would recommend readers to go and read these links: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-harrowdown-hill.html and http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-blood-distribution.html They may take a little time to absorb but the read is worth it. If the forensic community are unable to negate Andrew's assertions then I believe it will not be credible for the Attorney General to not go to to the High Court to try and get an inquest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)