Monday, 27 June 2011

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  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 

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  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.


  1. Dr Shepherd covering his bottom in this strange (but entirely understandable choice of words);

    "It is quite clear from consideration of photographs of the scene that, at the time they were taken"

    Mr Green in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry was less aloof;

    "There were a few stains and so forth but it did not have any staining that would suggest to me that his injuries, or his major injuries if you like, were caused while he was standing up, and there was not any -- there did not appear to be any blood underneath where he was found, and the body was later moved which all suggested those injuries were caused while he was sat or lying down."

    We're not sure if Mr Green is refering to the body being moved when it was being undressed or taken from the site or at some other time(s)

    What we do know is photographic proof exists that shows the body sat against a tree, lay on its back several feet from a tree and then later with the head very close to a tree.

    This isn't just proof that the body was moved at the scene but it is proof that Thames Valley Police, Lord Hutton and Dominic Grieve have conspired to pervert the course of justice in covering this very clear fact by denying it happened and by denying proper investigation into why it happened.

  2. Witness statement of David T McGee - not for release - personal witness statement TVP/7/0023 - 0025

  3. Thanks very much Felix! We can be truly confident I believe that the two files of photos sent to Dr Shepherd are those taken by Mr McGee.

    There is no evidence that he has been shown any earlier photographs.

  4. Brian
    Kevin McGinty sends Prof Shepherd the following (police) statements prepared for the Hutton Inquiry
    Dr Allan (3) Dr Hunt (1) and also one each from Renee Gilliland, Anne Franc, Eileen Hickey, Roy Green, John Sharpley, Andrew Hodgson, Mark Schollar. Quite a number of these statements by forensic scientists never made it onto the Hutton Inquiry web site. Sharpley & Schollar's did.

  5. There is also at least one scene video, I don't think doc Shepherd refers to this. And Mr Green took along a photo to the Hutton inquiry (not sure who took it)

    "LORD HUTTON: Were the packets actually found -- in what part of the clothing?
    A. They were in Dr Kelly's Barbour jacket, my Lord. I have a photograph --
    LORD HUTTON: I think it suffices to have your evidence,thank you"

  6. Roy Green's newly available report says that it should be read in conjunction with Dr Allan's of 21 July 2003 and that of Anne Franc concerning drugs dated 2 September 2003.
    Extraordiarily, only ONE of the three statements by Dr Allan is listed at the Hutton Inquiry website and even more perplexing is that no statement from Anne Franc finds its way to the Hutton Inquiry, a vital report one might imagine. But Mr Green never submitted his report until 27 September 2003, conveniently after taking evidence at the Inquiry had ceased. It is not known if Lord Hutton ever saw the report by Anne Franc.
    And where are the other two statements by Dr Allan? Did Lord Hutton see these?
    Such opaque behaviour makes this Comment is free post by the Guardian's former Parliamentary correspondent, David Hencke, appear ridiculous. Hencke reckoned case was closed because Roy Green had given a few snippets from the pathologist's report to Lord Hutton when Green himself never completed his own report until the Hutton Inquiry had ceased taking evidence! What is Hencke hiding?
    It is well worth revisiting the rubbish written by Hencke last year.

  7. From Roy Green's report:
    Eileen Hickey .. carried out various tasks under my direction.These tasks included taking digital photographs which were downloaded onto a compact disc (exhibited as RJG1)

  8. LL, in fact Dr Shepherd in 1(c) of his report says: 'Dr Hunt is quite clear in his report that on arrival at the site he was shown a scene video ...'

    At the top of page 2 of his 20 page report Mr Green indicates that his assistant Dr Eileen Hickey took digital photographs 'which were later downloaded on to a Compact Disc'. This would explain why he had a photo available, and willing to reveal, before Lord Hutton's hasty intervention.

  9. Felix, I hadn't seen your later post when I responded to LL!

  10. Brian, the additional statements are better described by in the report by Professort R.J.Flanagan
    Anne Franc's drug report was not published until 2 September yet Prof Flanagan seems only to rely on the toxicology report of 21 July by Dr Allan. One wonders if its findings were incorporated into Dr Allan's third report of 17 September 2003 which was submitted after witnesses to the actual death of Dr Kelly had ceased to be called.

  11. By the way, Professor Flanagan also sees all the various statements passed to Shepherd, but makes no remark on them apart from Dr Allen's.