On his "Chilcott's Cheating Us" blog Andrew Watt put up a fascinating post yesterday: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-lord-huttons.html
Andrew had seen his MP following the statement of the Attorney General Dominic Grieve on the 9th June 2011 to express his concerns about what Grieve had said. The MP wrote to the Prime Minister who evidently passed the letter on to the Attorney General, now Andrew has heard back from his MP with Mr Grieve's reply.
Part of Grieve's letter referred to paragraph 151 in Chapter 5 of Lord Hutton's Report of 28 January 2004. For ease of reference this is the whole of 151:
151. 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.
Andrew quotes from Grieve's letter as follows:
As I made clear in my statement to the House, the evidence supported the fact that Dr. Kelly took his own life is overwhelming. In particular, the forensic evidence supports the conclusion that Dr. Kelly died in the position in which his body was found. It is not for me to explain what Lord Hutton intended in making the comment he did in paragraph 151 of his report but I have seen the photographs that were before Lord Hutton and I believe what he meant was that when seen from different angles, the body might have appeared to be slumped against a tree. Reading paragraph 151 in its entirety does not suggest that Lord Hutton believed the body had been moved."
This is the first time I have seen reference to paragraph 151 by Grieve although I never doubted that he was familiar with it. In my opinion the paragraph is one of the most important in the whole Report - Hutton realises that there were many conflicts in the evidence which he made no effort to resolve and so he felt obliged I think to make a comment to, apart from anything else, get himself off the hook.
In view of the importance of the content of the paragraph Hutton, I'm sure, would have weighed his words carefully. Taking his comment about the photograph of the body position at face value leads me to say that there is no ambiguity about what Hutton says he saw. That Hutton blatantly lied I have no doubt, I don't believe he did see a photograph as described.
If it wasn't for the seriousness of the matter Grieve's interpretations could be seen as highly comical. Let's say that Grieve is right about what Hutton meant: why wouldn't have Hutton used a form of words to reflect that meaning? Grieve says 'I believe what he meant ...' So how can Grieve say with conviction that the body hadn't been moved when he himself indicates uncertainty about the meaning of Hutton's words?
Hutton himself is now in a very serious predicament. He has either premeditately lied about the photo or, supposing such a photo does exist, then he must surely have looked at the other photos as seen by Dr Shepherd showing the head a significant distance from the tree. Whichever alternative is the case he has totally misled the public in my opinion.
Grieve for Justice
ReplyDelete“In particular, the forensic evidence supports the conclusion that Dr. Kelly died in the position in which his body was found.”
The body was found sat / slumped against a tree, the forensic evidence supports the conclusion that Dr Kelly was flat on his back shortly before death (vomit stains from mouth to ear) and remained on his back after death (lividity).
In his 9th June statement to Parliament Dominic Grieve raises the questions
“If the body had been moved, then why, by whom and for what purpose?”
Quite sensible and proper questions one might think but Grieve mocked Parliament when he posed them in a rhetorical sense; he had no intention of determining an answer and more to the point he was not going to let a Coroner of the police investigate this puzzle either.
Grieve lied to Parliament, he has conspired to pervert the course of justice and corrupted our democracy.
Grieve knew what he was doing, he knew his actions were desperately wrong, he could have resigned and said I’m having nothing to do with this but he chose not to.
When this comes to Court, which it surely will, Mr Grieve is looking at a very long jail sentence along with a lot of other high profile figures; I hope they're having sleepless nights
Brian,
ReplyDeleteLord Hutton refers to his interpretation of para 151 in his letter to Kevin McGinty of 1 December 2010.
He says the different perceived positions of the body "indicate nothing sinister" and "give no support to theories that Dr Kelly might have been murdered"
He continues
" Even if his head or body was slightly moved at some stage after the body was discovered,it is clear from Mr Green's evidence about the arterial rain that Dr Kelly's death had already occurred before the body was discovered by the volunteer searchers and that Dr Kelly could not have been murdered elsewhere and the body moved to Harrowdown Hill. Therefore a slight movement of the body after it was discovered is of no relevance to the question whether Dr Kelly was murdered or committed suicide"
A very strange paragraph indeed...
"Therefore a slight movement of the body after it was discovered is of no relevance to the question whether Dr Kelly was murdered or committed suicide"
ReplyDeleteHe may have been having a senior moment, because if the body was moved slightly (from slumped against a tree to flat on it back a significant distance from a tree)it has huge relevance.
As Grieve asks in his statement to Parliament but fails to answer
“If the body had been moved, then why, by whom and for what purpose?”
The answer to those questions still need to be answered and until they are, murder cannot be ruled out.
LL,
ReplyDeleteLord Hutton was talking rubbish, as you realise.
If the body was moved then the alleged absence of other parties at the scene is blown out of the water.
Also, if the body was found slumped againt a tree (see, for example, The Death of Dr. David Kelly - DC Coe agrees with Louise Holmes that the head and shoulders were against the tree) then it is highly suggestive that David Kelly was murdered. See The death of David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "Hutton himself is now in a very serious predicament.".
That would be true IF our so-called justice system had any integrity.
When the Attorney General and a now-retired Law Lord lie to conceal a murder I think it's fair to say that our so-called justice system is in very bad shape indeed.
In all likelihood Lord Hutton will escape scot-free for perverting the course of justice.
Hopefully, Dominic Grieve won't be so fortunate.