tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post5313773058455312543..comments2023-07-28T09:53:02.523+01:00Comments on Dr Kelly's Death - Suicide or Murder: DC Coe's very brief statement in Annex TVP1brian in the tamar valleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-41375013827096073702011-06-16T19:02:54.626+01:002011-06-16T19:02:54.626+01:00Possibly special branch. What did he do the next d...Possibly special branch. What did he do the next day, Saturday 19th July?<br /><i>"I went to [Dr Kelly's house] and at that time. I had an <b>attachment</b> with me who acted as an exhibits officer at the house and I oversaw what he did. I made no search whatsoever of the premise."</i><br /><br />But did Coe <b>handle</b> the documents he oversaw being ferreted out, perhaps while the family were allegedly at the formal identification??<br /><br />Not the same trainee "attachment" ,the so-called <b>third man</b> who mysteriously vanishes from Harrowdown Hill mid morning the previous day,surely??? <br />Yet Dc Coe had apparetly forgotten at the Hutton Inquiry that he had an <b>attachment</b> with him on Harrowdown Hill the previous day along with Dc Shields.<br />Is this all credible?felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-90428233757086794162011-06-16T14:41:09.381+01:002011-06-16T14:41:09.381+01:00LL, one has to suspect that DC Coe was in Special ...LL, one has to suspect that DC Coe was in Special Branch at that time. I believe that Special Branch officers can retain their official rank as in "normal" policing so that outwardly they would appear to be part of the everyday constabulary.<br /><br />I wonder how many house to house enquiries were carried out by DC Coe before "striking lucky" with Ruth Absalom!brian in the tamar valleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-49098694759619487192011-06-16T14:34:35.931+01:002011-06-16T14:34:35.931+01:00Felix, I do wonder if Mr Knox was distracted by th...Felix, I do wonder if Mr Knox was distracted by the thought of the soon to be heard testimony of Dr Hunt (immediately following that of DC Coe).<br /><br />Mr Knox says 'Tuesday 18th July' when of course he should have said 'Friday 18th July.brian in the tamar valleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-29117248576127757422011-06-16T10:06:28.667+01:002011-06-16T10:06:28.667+01:00It is curious that a detective constable was clear...It is curious that a detective constable was cleared to read secret documents but an assistant chief constable was not. Could it be that DC Coe worked for special branch? No of course not, they wouldn’t be used to make house to house inquiries. Would they?<br /><br />ACC Page<br />“The house was subject to a full search by search trained officers and by members of Thames Valley Special Branch. Their presence I felt necessary again because of Dr Kelly's background. Should we come across any documents of a secret nature, those officers are cleared to handle those documents. That is why they were there.<br />Q. You are not cleared to handle those sort of documents?<br /> A. Not at present, I have been in the past.”LancashreLadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635388809036821102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-84468408266767536672011-06-16T07:09:10.187+01:002011-06-16T07:09:10.187+01:00No explanation was offered as to why Coe couldn...<i>No explanation was offered as to why Coe couldn't appear earlier in the Inquiry.</i><br /><br />....and Dr Hunt,who had an urgent holiday to attend to on 3rd September when he was due to pop into the Hutton Inquiry to give evidence.<br /><br /> Just like London Buses: none for a fortnight then two come along together.<br /><br />Was this question by Mr Knox a shot in the dark? Or did he have something meatier from Coe to go on?<br /><br /><i>"On Tuesday 18th July in the early morning were you on duty?"</i><br /><br />I wouldn't call 9.40 am early morning.felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-74164080000623794722011-06-16T06:50:46.273+01:002011-06-16T06:50:46.273+01:00Anonymous, interesting questions! My thoughts:
1...Anonymous, interesting questions! My thoughts:<br /><br />1. I too am fascinated about the timing of the interview 7 years after the event. Had someone given him the nod to talk to the press or did he do it off his own bat? It was an interesting coincidence that Dr Hunt beefed up his own evidence in an interview in the same month.<br /><br />Perhaps the authorities, concerned about the continuing interest in Dr Kelly's death, were desperate to try and close down the speculation. Hence DC Coe "coming clean". This is purely a guess of course!<br /><br />Perjury wouldn't come into it as the testimony at the Inquiry wasn't under oath. Not sure about perverting the course of justice. TVP reckon that DC Coe had a memory lapse - I remain to be convinced!<br /><br />2. Mr Knox presumably only had the same very brief statement from Coe to look at that we have now seen. So in his questioning he would have been in the dark. DC Coe's testimony is in very marked contrast with that of PCs Franklin and Sawyer as to level of detail.<br /><br />There is no excuse in my opinion for letting DC Coe off so lightly. You could be forgiven for believing that there was a motive for keeping DC Coe's testimony as fuzzy as possible.<br /><br />No explanation was offered as to why Coe couldn't appear earlier in the Inquiry. Could it be that TVP wanted to assess the testimonies of other witnesses first? Perhaps they were worried about how his evidence would sit with that of the searchers say; two weeks later and most people would have forgotten.<br /><br />3. At the moment I can't find out when DC Coe retired and started his (part time) job as an assistant with the police.brian in the tamar valleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-5322020125495550282011-06-15T22:57:58.826+01:002011-06-15T22:57:58.826+01:00I'd like to make a few points, re. DC Coe.
1....I'd like to make a few points, re. DC Coe.<br /><br />1. Why did he agree to a (paid?) interview with the Daily Mail, 7 years later, and why did he decide to admit to there being a 'third man' in that interview? Did he not realise that this could be seen as perverting the course of justice or perjury? <br /><br />2. Agreeing that DC Coe's evidence appeared 'a bit mangled' is not true that Hutton did not ask the relevant questions and then act upon the answers?<br /><br />3. I believe that DC Coe is possibly now a civilian working for the Police Force and has been for some time. Does anyone know when this actually came about?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-36982333626717957412011-06-15T22:26:51.298+01:002011-06-15T22:26:51.298+01:00Felix, one of the reasons perhaps for DC Coe's...Felix, one of the reasons perhaps for DC Coe's evidence appearing a bit mangled, particularly in relation to the work of the ambulance crew, is that he is so concerned to say the minimum both in his police witness statement and at the Inquiry that the words don't flow properly.brian in the tamar valleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475701925894027724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1076171049417505718.post-76453147608273029372011-06-15T19:40:26.910+01:002011-06-15T19:40:26.910+01:00Very good point, Brian, about evidence starting at...Very good point, Brian, about evidence starting at 9.40 am.<br /><br />The wording about the ambulance crew is extremely woolly.<br />At the Hutton Inquiry Dc Coe says this:<br /><i>Q. "Did any ambulance people arrive? <br />A. They did, yes. <br />Q. Can you remember what time they arrived? <br />A. I can, if I use my pocket book. Can I? <br />Q. Of course. <br />A. I have 10.07 here. <br />Q. 10.07 being the time at which the ambulance arrived? <br />A. Pronounced death, but they might have arrived just prior to that."</i><br /><br />Yet now he says<br /><i>"At 1007 am ambulance crew </i>(sic)<i> attended the scene where death was pronounced</i>"<br /><br />The two are not quite the same thing. How long does it take for an ambulance crew to attend and pronounce death? Not immediately, I feel.felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.com