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.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)