During the course of the Hutton Inquiry it became obvious that witnesses were giving materially different versions of the same event. One of the best known of these discrepancies concerned the position of Dr Kelly's body as seen by witnesses at Harrowdown Hill on the morning of 18 July 2003.
In summary: the first known witness to the dead body was searcher Louise Holmes. In her police witness statement we now know that she got within four feet of the body. She has consistently said that the body was slumped against a tree with its head and shoulders against the tree. Her fellow searcher Paul Chapman, much further away when the body was first discovered, said the body was flat on the ground in his police witness statement but had his back against the tree when he spoke at the Inquiry. Later witnesses stated the body was on its back. Importantly nobody was saying that the body was any distance from the tree. With his now familiar lack of clarity Dr Hunt tried not to mention the tree at all!
When Lord Hutton presented his report on the 28th January 2004 he tried, in chapter 5 of the report, to square the circle regarding witness testimony differences. He said:
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.
He singles out the matter of body position and very clearly leaves one in no doubt that he has seen a photograph with the head against a tree. One assumes that he would be diligent enough to look at other photos to check that the body hadn't been moved. However he doesn't say.
If we go to page 57 of Norman Baker's book "The Strange Death of David Kelly" we find out that Mr Baker contacted Lord Hutton about this photograph. Hutton told him that he didn't know who had taken the picture 'but it is likely to have been a police photographer'.
By the 28th January 2004 it seems to me that nobody had at that time suggested that the body was at a distance away from the tree. The only problem for Hutton to deal with was the different way witnesses described the body position and so hence what you read on page 151 of his report and this is what I have quoted above.
Fast forward to 9 June 2011 and the Attorney General Dominic Grieve, like Hutton, singles out the body position but has to confront a new dilemma. Subsequent to the publication of the Hutton Report the ambulance crew have been on television and have spoken to the press. As a result we now know that one of them, Dave Bartlett, not only confirms finding Dr Kelly's body on its back but that the head was some distance from the tree - sufficiently so in fact that Mr Bartlett was able to both stand and work in the space that afforded him.
The evidence of space between head and tree has now been confirmed by Dr Shepherd who has produced a "Forensic Medical Report" for the Attorney General
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.
In its submission Annex TVP 3 to the Attorney General http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf Thames Valley Police compare the relevant police witness statements with what was said by the same people at the Inquiry regarding the observed body position. So far as the following are concerned we can easily make the comparison: Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, DC Coe, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett and Dr Hunt. But what of PCs Franklin and Sawyer? Parts of their police witness statements are quoted it's true but nothing about body position or orientation. So either they never mentioned this in their statements or that part of their statements has just not been quoted in TVP 3.
That neither of them comment on body position is totally unbelievable in the normal course of events but perhaps they were advised not to go into this sort of detail. If they had mentioned the body position in their witness statements then here we have yet further proof of just how far Thames Valley police were prepared to go in a cover up.
Friday, 24 June 2011
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Two uniformed officers with DC Coe
In the post before last I had written about the significant number of police officers and police vehicles seen by the ambulance crew when they arrived on site at 09.55. http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/2011/06/invisible-police-officers-of-harrowdown.html
I also highlighted the fact that not only did PCs Franklin and Sawyer fail to comment on the presence of these police officers and vehicles but that they didn't mention being logged into the outer cordon which had been established nearly half an hour before.
In Annex TVP1 in the Attorney General's bundle of documents we read:
DC Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving DC Shields and PC A and Louise Holmes behind. DC Shields and PC A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.
Given that both PC Franklin and PC Sawyer say they met Paul Chapman coming down the track as they were going up it then it seems evident to me that the two PCs should already have seen Louise Holmes, DC Shields and PC A. The nearest we get is this from PC Sawyer:
We then went to the track that leads up to Harrowdown Hill, I do not know the name of the track,
but when we arrived we saw a vehicle parked which belonged to Louise.
This from Louise Holmes at the Inquiry:
Q. So in other words, Paul Chapman goes back with the police to show them where the body is?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went back to the car to sort the dog out and then when I got to the car further police officers and personnel came up to the car to take over, take over the scene.
So the testimonies of Franklin and Sawyer are dishonest in my opinion in making no reference to the presence of Ms Holmes, DC Shields or PC A.
It gets much worse though. PC's Franklin and Sawyer are very clear that when they see DC Coe then the latter is in the company of two uniformed officers. This is what they said at the Inquiry.
PC Franklin
Q. After you get that information, where did you go?
A. PC Sawyer and I attended Harrowdown Hill and went to the scene. We were unsure initially whereabouts we were going, but we passed Paul from the South East Berks Volunteers and he directed us to two uniformed police officers and DC Coe.
PC Sawyer
Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to?
A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
Q. Paul Chapman?
A. He told us basically the body was further up in the woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers. I said, you know: whereabouts is the body? He pointed the path he had taken. I asked him if he had approached the body. He said he had. I asked him to point out where he had entered the woods and PC Franklin and myself entered the woods at the same point, taking with us a dozen or 15 aluminium poles we use when we are moving towards a scene to establish a common approach path.
Q. Were the paramedics with you at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. The other three officers?
A. They remained down on the path.
Q. So it is you, PC Franklin and two paramedics, then the other three officers you have met; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You go down further into the woods, is that right?
A. The three officers -- DC Coe and the two uniformed officers -- stayed on the path which leads through the woods. We branched off to the left about 50 or 70 metres up into the woods, where the body was.
..............
Q. Now, after you had taken the photographs and seen the body, did you carry out any further searches?
A. Yes. On the way back -- once we had finished with the body, once the paramedics had finished, we went back down the common approach path to the path where DC Coe and the two uniformed officers were.
If we believe Thames Valley Police then the two original police officers accompanying DC Coe didn't see the body but stayed at the bottom of the track with Louise Holmes. In Annex TVP 1 she describes them as being in plain clothes anyway, at the Inquiry Paul Chapman is clear that they were from CID.
We have then the totally absurd scenario of PCs Franklin and Sawyer failing to mention the already placed outer cordon, the invisible presence of Louise Holmes, DC Shields and PC A, the presence of lots of police and police vehicles seen by the ambulance crew when they arrive and now two further unnamed uniformed officers in the company of DC Coe.
All this and Thames Valley Police expect us to believe them!
I also highlighted the fact that not only did PCs Franklin and Sawyer fail to comment on the presence of these police officers and vehicles but that they didn't mention being logged into the outer cordon which had been established nearly half an hour before.
In Annex TVP1 in the Attorney General's bundle of documents we read:
DC Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving DC Shields and PC A and Louise Holmes behind. DC Shields and PC A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.
Given that both PC Franklin and PC Sawyer say they met Paul Chapman coming down the track as they were going up it then it seems evident to me that the two PCs should already have seen Louise Holmes, DC Shields and PC A. The nearest we get is this from PC Sawyer:
We then went to the track that leads up to Harrowdown Hill, I do not know the name of the track,
but when we arrived we saw a vehicle parked which belonged to Louise.
This from Louise Holmes at the Inquiry:
Q. So in other words, Paul Chapman goes back with the police to show them where the body is?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went back to the car to sort the dog out and then when I got to the car further police officers and personnel came up to the car to take over, take over the scene.
So the testimonies of Franklin and Sawyer are dishonest in my opinion in making no reference to the presence of Ms Holmes, DC Shields or PC A.
It gets much worse though. PC's Franklin and Sawyer are very clear that when they see DC Coe then the latter is in the company of two uniformed officers. This is what they said at the Inquiry.
PC Franklin
Q. After you get that information, where did you go?
A. PC Sawyer and I attended Harrowdown Hill and went to the scene. We were unsure initially whereabouts we were going, but we passed Paul from the South East Berks Volunteers and he directed us to two uniformed police officers and DC Coe.
PC Sawyer
Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to?
A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
Q. Paul Chapman?
A. He told us basically the body was further up in the woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers. I said, you know: whereabouts is the body? He pointed the path he had taken. I asked him if he had approached the body. He said he had. I asked him to point out where he had entered the woods and PC Franklin and myself entered the woods at the same point, taking with us a dozen or 15 aluminium poles we use when we are moving towards a scene to establish a common approach path.
Q. Were the paramedics with you at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. The other three officers?
A. They remained down on the path.
Q. So it is you, PC Franklin and two paramedics, then the other three officers you have met; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You go down further into the woods, is that right?
A. The three officers -- DC Coe and the two uniformed officers -- stayed on the path which leads through the woods. We branched off to the left about 50 or 70 metres up into the woods, where the body was.
..............
Q. Now, after you had taken the photographs and seen the body, did you carry out any further searches?
A. Yes. On the way back -- once we had finished with the body, once the paramedics had finished, we went back down the common approach path to the path where DC Coe and the two uniformed officers were.
If we believe Thames Valley Police then the two original police officers accompanying DC Coe didn't see the body but stayed at the bottom of the track with Louise Holmes. In Annex TVP 1 she describes them as being in plain clothes anyway, at the Inquiry Paul Chapman is clear that they were from CID.
We have then the totally absurd scenario of PCs Franklin and Sawyer failing to mention the already placed outer cordon, the invisible presence of Louise Holmes, DC Shields and PC A, the presence of lots of police and police vehicles seen by the ambulance crew when they arrive and now two further unnamed uniformed officers in the company of DC Coe.
All this and Thames Valley Police expect us to believe them!
Monday, 20 June 2011
Letter to Catherine McKinnell Shadow Solicitor-General
Dominic Grieve made his (to my mind) dishonest statement to the House of Commons about Dr Kelly's death on 9 June. The shadow Solicitor-General, Catherine McKinnell, warmly responded to it.
Earlier today I sent her a letter by email. The title was 'The Attorney General's misleading statement of 9 June 2011'
This is the text:
Brian Spencer
If, having read this, you want to contact Ms McKinnell, her email address is catherine.mckinnell.mp@parliament.uk Her office phone number is 0191 2861266
Earlier today I sent her a letter by email. The title was 'The Attorney General's misleading statement of 9 June 2011'
This is the text:
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:
Yours sincerely'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.
‘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.
Brian Spencer
If, having read this, you want to contact Ms McKinnell, her email address is catherine.mckinnell.mp@parliament.uk Her office phone number is 0191 2861266
Thursday, 16 June 2011
The invisible police officers of Harrowdown Hill
Reading the testimonies of PCs Franklin and Sawyer at the Hutton inquiry you could be readily forgiven for thinking that the morning of 18th July 2003 was very quiet at Harrowdown Hill. Buzzing with activity? No, not if you believe what the two PCs said on the 2nd September. PC Franklin was examined by Mr Dingemans, PC Sawyer by Mr Knox.
PC Franklin first:
Q. How many are in your team?
A. I was given a search team leader, which is PC Sawyer, and 6 other officers, when we received a call that a body had been found at Harrowdown Hill.
Q. Do you know how many other people were out searching at this time?
A. I believe it was only the two volunteers out searching at that time. The parameters for our search and the logistics of calling our teams in does take a bit of time. So PC Sawyer and I were going to be the first team out on the ground.
Q. We have heard evidence about a helicopter out searching the night before. Had you heard about that?
A. No.
Q. After you get that information, where did you go?
A. PC Sawyer and I attended Harrowdown Hill and went to the scene. We were unsure initially whereabouts we were going, but we passed Paul from the South East Berks Volunteers and he directed us to two uniformed police officers and DC Coe.
Q. The South East Berks Volunteers, what are they?
A. They are SEBEVs. South East Berks Volunteers. They are an organisation we use regularly for missing person searches.
Q. To help?
A. To help us. They are a highly professional and motivated organisation.
Q. You mentioned DC Coe. Was he part of your search team?
A. No.
Q. What he was he doing?
A. He was at the scene. I had no idea what he was doing there or why he was there. He was just at the scene when PC Sawyer and I arrived.
Q. Who was in charge of the scene at this time?
A. DC Coe was until I turned up and then I took charge of the scene.
Now PC Sawyer:
We are just about to leave to perform our first searches, which would have been in the village and the surrounding areas of the route he was thought to have taken, when information came in that a body had been found. I then left with Police Constable Franklin to attend the scene.
Q. Can you remember what time it was that that information came in?
A. It would have been about 9 o'clock, I believe.
Q. So you then leave with Police Constable Franklin?
A. Yes.
Q. And anyone else?
A. We had three other officers in the back who we took from the search team to act as the cordons, because obviously we do not want members of the public or members of the press approaching the scene until it has been obviously searched and declared sterile.
Q. And where did you then go?
A. We then went to the track that leads up to Harrowdown Hill, I do not know the name of the track, but when we arrived we saw a vehicle parked which belonged to Louise. We started walking up the track. We also had with us two paramedics who had arrived, which we took up with us to make sure that the person we were going to see did not require any medical assistance.
Q. Those two paramedics had obviously arrived separately from you?
A. They had arrived more or less at the same time we did. So the five of us went up because we were with Sergeant Alan Dadd as well.
Q. Where did you stop the cars?
A. Stopped the cars -- I believe it at is the top, I have not seen the map but I believe it is at the top of Common Lane. Then we turned left and right up to the track which leads up to Harrowdown Hill.
Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to?
A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
Q. Paul Chapman?
A. He told us basically the body was further up in the woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers.
From the interview with DC Coe in the Mail on Sunday on 8 August 2010 we know that DC Coe and his companions left their unmarked car in Longworth and walked up. In summary then the two PCs with their 3 "cordons" arrive at the bottom of the lane at about the same time as the ambulance crew. This is at 9.55 according to Dave Bartlett's evidence. Sergeant Dadd is also there but whether he comes in his own car or the police land rover isn't clear. The car owned by Louise Holmes is spotted although she and Brock are not.
PCs Franklin and Sawyer believe that they are the first team out on the ground, apart from the volunteer searchers. PC Franklin seems bemused by the presence of DC Coe and says that he 'had no idea what he was doing there'. However he doesn't seem surprised by the presence of an outer cordon (established nearly half an hour before at 9.28) I presume because he doesn't mention it.
There is an interesting contrast in testimonies between the PCs and the ambulance crew (arriving at almost identical times we are told). This from Vanessa Hunt at the inquiry:
Q. When you arrived on the scene was anyone there?
A. Yes, there were a number of police officers.
Q. Do you remember how many?
A. Just lots and there was police vehicles there as well.
Q. Did you drive off the public road?
A. We parked up at the end of the public road, I do not know the name of the road.
Q. And you proceeded on foot?
A. Yes.
Q. Who had met you?
A. There was an officer in regulation clothing who directed us to two or three other officers in combat trousers and black polo shirts and we followed them along the track.
Dave Bartlett's response when questioned:
Q. What happened when you arrived?
A. We parked at the end of the lane where there were some cars already parked, a lot of police officers there. We asked one police officer who directed us to the police that were in the combat uniforms and they asked us to bring some equipment and follow them down into the woods.
A report in The Observer of 12 December 2004 has the two ambulance crew speaking out about their concerns after the Hutton Inquiry. Vanessa Hunt again:
When they arrived at the woods 15 minutes later it was immediately clear that this was not a run-of-the-mill incident. 'There were a lot of police around,' said Hunt. 'Some were in civilian clothes and others in black jackets and army fatigues. I thought it might have been a firearms incident as there were the guys from the special armed response units.'
The contrast between the testimonies at Hutton could hardly have been more marked. Surely the police presence noted by the paramedics must have been seen by PCs Franklin and Sawyer.
PC Franklin first:
Q. How many are in your team?
A. I was given a search team leader, which is PC Sawyer, and 6 other officers, when we received a call that a body had been found at Harrowdown Hill.
Q. Do you know how many other people were out searching at this time?
A. I believe it was only the two volunteers out searching at that time. The parameters for our search and the logistics of calling our teams in does take a bit of time. So PC Sawyer and I were going to be the first team out on the ground.
Q. We have heard evidence about a helicopter out searching the night before. Had you heard about that?
A. No.
Q. After you get that information, where did you go?
A. PC Sawyer and I attended Harrowdown Hill and went to the scene. We were unsure initially whereabouts we were going, but we passed Paul from the South East Berks Volunteers and he directed us to two uniformed police officers and DC Coe.
Q. The South East Berks Volunteers, what are they?
A. They are SEBEVs. South East Berks Volunteers. They are an organisation we use regularly for missing person searches.
Q. To help?
A. To help us. They are a highly professional and motivated organisation.
Q. You mentioned DC Coe. Was he part of your search team?
A. No.
Q. What he was he doing?
A. He was at the scene. I had no idea what he was doing there or why he was there. He was just at the scene when PC Sawyer and I arrived.
Q. Who was in charge of the scene at this time?
A. DC Coe was until I turned up and then I took charge of the scene.
Now PC Sawyer:
We are just about to leave to perform our first searches, which would have been in the village and the surrounding areas of the route he was thought to have taken, when information came in that a body had been found. I then left with Police Constable Franklin to attend the scene.
Q. Can you remember what time it was that that information came in?
A. It would have been about 9 o'clock, I believe.
Q. So you then leave with Police Constable Franklin?
A. Yes.
Q. And anyone else?
A. We had three other officers in the back who we took from the search team to act as the cordons, because obviously we do not want members of the public or members of the press approaching the scene until it has been obviously searched and declared sterile.
Q. And where did you then go?
A. We then went to the track that leads up to Harrowdown Hill, I do not know the name of the track, but when we arrived we saw a vehicle parked which belonged to Louise. We started walking up the track. We also had with us two paramedics who had arrived, which we took up with us to make sure that the person we were going to see did not require any medical assistance.
Q. Those two paramedics had obviously arrived separately from you?
A. They had arrived more or less at the same time we did. So the five of us went up because we were with Sergeant Alan Dadd as well.
Q. Where did you stop the cars?
A. Stopped the cars -- I believe it at is the top, I have not seen the map but I believe it is at the top of Common Lane. Then we turned left and right up to the track which leads up to Harrowdown Hill.
Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to?
A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
Q. Paul Chapman?
A. He told us basically the body was further up in the woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers.
From the interview with DC Coe in the Mail on Sunday on 8 August 2010 we know that DC Coe and his companions left their unmarked car in Longworth and walked up. In summary then the two PCs with their 3 "cordons" arrive at the bottom of the lane at about the same time as the ambulance crew. This is at 9.55 according to Dave Bartlett's evidence. Sergeant Dadd is also there but whether he comes in his own car or the police land rover isn't clear. The car owned by Louise Holmes is spotted although she and Brock are not.
PCs Franklin and Sawyer believe that they are the first team out on the ground, apart from the volunteer searchers. PC Franklin seems bemused by the presence of DC Coe and says that he 'had no idea what he was doing there'. However he doesn't seem surprised by the presence of an outer cordon (established nearly half an hour before at 9.28) I presume because he doesn't mention it.
There is an interesting contrast in testimonies between the PCs and the ambulance crew (arriving at almost identical times we are told). This from Vanessa Hunt at the inquiry:
Q. When you arrived on the scene was anyone there?
A. Yes, there were a number of police officers.
Q. Do you remember how many?
A. Just lots and there was police vehicles there as well.
Q. Did you drive off the public road?
A. We parked up at the end of the public road, I do not know the name of the road.
Q. And you proceeded on foot?
A. Yes.
Q. Who had met you?
A. There was an officer in regulation clothing who directed us to two or three other officers in combat trousers and black polo shirts and we followed them along the track.
Dave Bartlett's response when questioned:
Q. What happened when you arrived?
A. We parked at the end of the lane where there were some cars already parked, a lot of police officers there. We asked one police officer who directed us to the police that were in the combat uniforms and they asked us to bring some equipment and follow them down into the woods.
A report in The Observer of 12 December 2004 has the two ambulance crew speaking out about their concerns after the Hutton Inquiry. Vanessa Hunt again:
When they arrived at the woods 15 minutes later it was immediately clear that this was not a run-of-the-mill incident. 'There were a lot of police around,' said Hunt. 'Some were in civilian clothes and others in black jackets and army fatigues. I thought it might have been a firearms incident as there were the guys from the special armed response units.'
The contrast between the testimonies at Hutton could hardly have been more marked. Surely the police presence noted by the paramedics must have been seen by PCs Franklin and Sawyer.
Email sent to Thames Valley Police regarding the body position
I have today sent an email to Thames Valley Police concerning conflicting statements by DC Coe about the position of Dr Kelly's body and the fact that TVP have ignored the evidence on the body position given by Louise Holmes. The email was entitled 'Dr Kelly's death - conflicting evidence from DC Coe as to body position' This is the text of the email:
Chief Constable, DCC Habgood, ACC Ball
The Attorney General Dominic Grieve made a statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 concerning the death of Dr David Kelly.
Despite evidence to the contrary Mr Grieve asserted that the body hadn't been moved.
This communication looks at the evidence given by DC Coe, the first police officer to see the body, as to his description of the body position and that seemingly subsequent to his police witness statement he depicts it as being seen in a different position.
In Annex TVP1 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%201.pdf submitted to the Attorney General's Office we have sight of DC Coe's police statement. In it he says 'I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back'
At the Hutton Inquiry this is the question and answer in DC Coe's testimony that deals with the body position:
8 Q. And how was the body positioned?
9 A. It was laying on its back -- the body was laying on its
10 back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the
11 tree.
9 A. It was laying on its back -- the body was laying on its
10 back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the
11 tree.
On 8 August 2010 an interview of DC Coe (retired) appeared in The Mail on Sunday. In annex TVP1 you focus on "The Third Man" who was with DC Coe, the admitted evidence of a third man having come into the public domain via this article. Annex TVP1 states that 'DC Coe was interviewed on the 25th August 2010 in response to the Mail story'
Assuming a reasonable level of competence on the part of the interviewing officer(s) then they would have read the article in its entirety and discussed any aspects of the piece in the Mail on Sunday with DC Coe that were in conflict with his police evidence statement or other known evidence not just the matter of "The Third Man". In the article these are the quoted words by DC Coe relating to the body position:
'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 description exactly matches that given by Louise Holmes, the first person to see the body. Ms Holmes gets to within four feet of the body and is consistent in her police statement evidence and her testimony at the Hutton Inquiry. Nevertheless in Annex TVP3 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%203.pdf you are implying it seems to me that her evidence regarding the body position can't be right and should be disregarded. About 45 minutes after the body discovery ambulance technician Dave Bartlett is able to stand and work in the space between Dr Kelly's head and the tree.
I do not believe that at a distance of four feet from the body Ms Holmes would think the head and shoulders were slumped against the tree if the body was a significant distance from the tree.
I should like to be informed as to whether the interviewing officer(s) did discuss the body position with DC Coe in the light of his quoted remarks in The Mail on Sunday. It would be a matter of great concern surely if the matter wasn't discussed. There is no suggestion in your submissions to the Attorney General that the point was put to DC Coe. I have therefore to pose the question as to whether Thames Valley Police misled the Attorney General regarding the vital question as to whether the body was moved.
I am copying this email to the Attorney General's office. It will also appear on my blog http://drkellysdeath-suicideormurder.blogspot.com/ Blind copies are being sent to others who I feel might have a particular interest in the content.
Brian Spencer
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
DC Coe's very brief statement in Annex TVP1
We have sight of at least part of a statement by DC Coe in Annex TVP1 in the bundle of documents lodged with the Attorney General. For reference TVP1 can be accessed here http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%201.pdf
It will be seen that DC Coe's statement in the box area is exceptionally short. From the list of documents on the Hutton website DC Coe's statement is the one at TVP/1/0030-0031 ie two pages. The statement in TVP1 in the link I've given would be less than a full page but it has to be remembered that DC Coe was at the Kelly home on Saturday 19 July. According to the interview he gave "The Mail on Sunday" of 8 August 2010 'several boxes' of files went back to the police station, 'where DC Coe spent three days examining them with an officer from Thames Valley Special Branch'. All this enough to make up a two page statement perhaps.
I feel that the statement quoted is the full statement so far as Friday morning is concerned. The first sentence gives it away:
At 09.40 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back.
I think that the reference to the date would be made once only and that at the start of his evidence. Looking at his Hutton testimony one would expect DC Coe to start his witness statement with perhaps At 06.00 am on Friday 18th July I received a call to attend a briefing at Abingdon police station ... There would be no need to repeat the date for the rest of his statement so far as it relates to that particular day.
From the above it seems that DC Coe didn't record in his statement any of his activity between 06.00 and 09.40 that morning. Nor does he make mention of his police companions. The question of course is 'Why?'.
DC Coe mentions the peaked cap close to the body (a more precise description of the position would have been helpful) but at the Inquiry isn't too sure whether the cap was on or off Dr Kelly's head.
No mention is made about police accompanying the ambulance crew. It's what isn't in DC Coe's statement that I find most revealing.
It will be seen that DC Coe's statement in the box area is exceptionally short. From the list of documents on the Hutton website DC Coe's statement is the one at TVP/1/0030-0031 ie two pages. The statement in TVP1 in the link I've given would be less than a full page but it has to be remembered that DC Coe was at the Kelly home on Saturday 19 July. According to the interview he gave "The Mail on Sunday" of 8 August 2010 'several boxes' of files went back to the police station, 'where DC Coe spent three days examining them with an officer from Thames Valley Special Branch'. All this enough to make up a two page statement perhaps.
I feel that the statement quoted is the full statement so far as Friday morning is concerned. The first sentence gives it away:
At 09.40 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back.
I think that the reference to the date would be made once only and that at the start of his evidence. Looking at his Hutton testimony one would expect DC Coe to start his witness statement with perhaps At 06.00 am on Friday 18th July I received a call to attend a briefing at Abingdon police station ... There would be no need to repeat the date for the rest of his statement so far as it relates to that particular day.
From the above it seems that DC Coe didn't record in his statement any of his activity between 06.00 and 09.40 that morning. Nor does he make mention of his police companions. The question of course is 'Why?'.
DC Coe mentions the peaked cap close to the body (a more precise description of the position would have been helpful) but at the Inquiry isn't too sure whether the cap was on or off Dr Kelly's head.
No mention is made about police accompanying the ambulance crew. It's what isn't in DC Coe's statement that I find most revealing.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
"The position of the body when found" - the photograph
In my last post I had discussed some aspects of Annex TVP 3 - "The position of the body when found".
The third of the opening three paragraphs is particularly fascinating:
A photograph was taken by the first search officers on the scene prior to the ambulance crew attaching the electrodes to the chest of Dr Kelly. The only people who had seen the body prior to this photograph being taken were Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman and DC Coe.
This is what the man with the camera (PC Sawyer) says at the Inquiry:
As we crested the slight rise, I saw the body lying at the base of a tree. I then said to PC Franklin and the paramedics to stop while I got my digital camera because I wanted to take a record of the scene before it was -- before we actually approached it at all. So I took a number of pictures as we approached the body, and of the body and the surrounding area; and then the paramedics asked if they could do their job, to which we said: yes.
They tried to -- they used the paddles of the electrocardiogram machine to try to see if there was a sign of life through Dr Kelly's shirt. They were unable to do so and said: could they undo the shirt? I said: yes. I asked them to wait for a second. I took another two more reference pictures.
It is obvious that, as you would expect, PC Sawyer 'took a number of pictures'. So why do TVP refer to just one photograph as if that is the only one PC Sawyer took. It's barmy. Why didn't they describe exactly what was in the picture, presumably it was of the body on its back but we aren't told.
Conclusion viii makes mention of 'the photographs'. What photographs? Are we talking of the Sawyer photographs or some of those taken later in the day.
As a piece of work trying to advance an argument TVP 3 is exceptionally poor.
The third of the opening three paragraphs is particularly fascinating:
A photograph was taken by the first search officers on the scene prior to the ambulance crew attaching the electrodes to the chest of Dr Kelly. The only people who had seen the body prior to this photograph being taken were Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman and DC Coe.
This is what the man with the camera (PC Sawyer) says at the Inquiry:
As we crested the slight rise, I saw the body lying at the base of a tree. I then said to PC Franklin and the paramedics to stop while I got my digital camera because I wanted to take a record of the scene before it was -- before we actually approached it at all. So I took a number of pictures as we approached the body, and of the body and the surrounding area; and then the paramedics asked if they could do their job, to which we said: yes.
They tried to -- they used the paddles of the electrocardiogram machine to try to see if there was a sign of life through Dr Kelly's shirt. They were unable to do so and said: could they undo the shirt? I said: yes. I asked them to wait for a second. I took another two more reference pictures.
It is obvious that, as you would expect, PC Sawyer 'took a number of pictures'. So why do TVP refer to just one photograph as if that is the only one PC Sawyer took. It's barmy. Why didn't they describe exactly what was in the picture, presumably it was of the body on its back but we aren't told.
Conclusion viii makes mention of 'the photographs'. What photographs? Are we talking of the Sawyer photographs or some of those taken later in the day.
As a piece of work trying to advance an argument TVP 3 is exceptionally poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)