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?
Nor is there any mention of DC Coe's change of account of the position when he first saw it.
ReplyDeleteThe Mail on Sunday ran a piece on DC Coe changing his evidence on the 8th Aug 2010. In that article DC Coe admitted he had lied to the Hutton Inquiry about who was with him and said, regarding the position of the body
“ 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”
http://www.pressawards.org.uk/modules/entries/images/entries-01011-00568.pdf
Following the publishing of the article Coe is asked to make a police statement on the 25th Aug 2010; this is revealed in the Attorney General's disclosures. Interestingly Mr Grieve’s investigation does take a cursory look at the lapse of memory regarding who was with Coe but ignores completely the crucial evidence that Coe also lied about the position of the body.
"On his back" would to me describe face up the up/down position. "Flat out/flat on his back" might describe no slumping/slouching.
ReplyDeleteEarly reports to the press described the body as face down, incidentally, stemming I think from Kate Smith, the Communications Manager of Thames Valley Police at the time.
The statement of Louise Holmes is quite clear, and consistent with her statement at the Hutton Inquiry 6 weeks later.
Now why would all persons leave the scene (evidence of PC Franklin)?
Despite it now being an established fact that the body of Dr David Kelly was moved as evidenced by photographic proof, we have a bizarre situation where Thames Valley Police, Lord Hutton and now the Attorney General are saying the body wasn't moved.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know why the body was moved because the authorities refuse to recognise the fact and make proper investigation. Until the reason is known we can never know the truth regarding Dr Kelly’s death
The only conclusion I can come up with is that the authorities already know why the body was moved but don't want us to know. They have covered up the fact by denying it happened contrary to overwhelming proof that the body was moved.
Until this matter is resolved I am afraid that we are all living in a lawless society where political corruption takes precedence over justice; where the people whose wages are paid by the taxpayer to uphold law and order, laugh at us and hold us in as much contempt as they do for our justice system.
These are very dark times.
LL, as it is a direct quote in the Matt Sandy piece I am assuming that the words are accurate. Continuing the quote DC Coe says 'If you wanted to die you'd never lie flat out. But neither was he sat upright.' This description mirrors that of Louise Holmes exactly.
ReplyDeleteIt is a shame that this insight into the observed body position has been so overlooked.
That Dr Hunt didn't ask himself about why Dr Kelly chose to lie down to cut his wrist rather than sit against a tree is yet another bizarre failing of the investigation.
Felix, I've noticed that what we see of the statements of DC Coe and PCs Franklin and Sawyer leaves a lot to be desired. There is a lack of clarity with detail inadequately recorded.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that what Franklin is trying to say is that the four at the body leave the scene.
At the bottom of page 50 Sawyer tells the Inquiry that they return down the common approach path to meet Coe and two uniformed officers who guard the scene from the track.
There is certainly unnecessary vagueness in the police statements.
One should also bear in mind the ridiculous explanation of the bruising on Dr Kelly's chest and both lower legs given by Dr Hunt:
ReplyDeleteWould you be able to say how those bruises or injuries could have occurred?
A. They would have occurred following a blunt impact against any firm object and it would not have to be a particularly heavy impact. They may be caused -- some of them may have been caused as Dr Kelly was stumbling, if you like, at the scene.
Or even
"Over the left side of his head there were three minor abrasions or grazes to his scalp, and of course that part of his head was relatively close to undergrowth.
This is quite inconsistent with a quiet suicide sitting down, if one is to believe the implicit TVP narrative, cutting the left wrist then keeling flat out backwards away from the tree as he faints through blood loss (one must assume).
Does it matter if there is a motive for moving the body? It must have moved. It is not credible that Dr Kelly , when surrounded by trees to lean against, chose to sit upright on a flat piece of ground clear of a tree and then keeled over backwards.
Sometimes, the courts DO investigate murder dressed up as suicide very thoroughly as in this 2000 judgment albeit a staged hanging rather than wrist cutting.
At sometime after midday on the 17th July 2003, Dr David Kelly received a telephone call, the caller told Dr Kelly that it was to be made public knowledge that the lies he had been told to say and coaxed in to the FAC and ISC were indeed lies and everyone would know that he had told them.
ReplyDeleteWhat does a senior civil servant and eminent scientist do when it is to be revealed that he has told lies under orders from his political masters? To Parliament!?
Simple, grab the bluntest knife in the house and some pills and head for the hills. But Dr Kelly’s bid to be parted from this mortal coil for being found out lying for the government (on the governments orders) was given a reprieve on his final journey. He was brought back to normality when he met his neighbour and boisterous friendly dog. Their chat brought him back to sanity.
So instead of heading for Harrowdown Hill he set off in the opposite direction to his favourite pub.
We can only assume what happened next but if the pub had closed for that session (3.00 last orders) Dr Kelly may have spiralled into a depths of despair once more. And returned to his original plan.
Arriving at the wood he chose not to sit against a tree but by a convenient patch of stinging nettles in a clearing in the copse, this proved too attractive a final resting place. The rest as they say is history or at least history that continues to be rewritten.
LL,
ReplyDeleteAt sometime after midday on the 17th July 2003, Dr David Kelly received a telephone call, the caller told Dr Kelly that it was to be made public knowledge that the lies he had been told to say and coaxed in to the FAC and ISC were indeed lies and everyone would know that he had told them.
Where do you get this from?
Geoaunnes
ReplyDeleteI made it up
or rather reconstructed it based on Mr Mangold's insights and Mr Campbell's diary entries.
A small point - if the body hadn't been moved the police would never have got a blue scene tent round it. Otherwise it would have had a huge tree poking out of the top. So what would have happened if the body and scene were investigated slumped at the base of a large tree?
ReplyDeleteI don't think 2003 saw the birth of a new strand of forensic science but this was a period when bolloxology seemed to take off.
ReplyDeleteBolloxology is partly based on quantum cognitive retrieval techniques blended with powerful data mapping software that is pliant media driven.
The resulting science allows a skilled, or otherwise, practitioner to establish conclusions that would not ordinarily be made by main stream forensic scientists.
This gives the supervisors of investigators unparalleled scope in not just framing a crime scene in a way that suits a political perspective but permits the communication of hard to accept facts to a incredulous public in a way that the most inquiring of sceptics are afforded the same access to facts as a judge and jury (if a court /coroners inquisition is deemed necessary).