Dead Scientists
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
 
WHEN IS AN INQUEST NOT AN INQUEST?

Did I miss something? Was that an "inquest" we heard at the Hutton Inquiry? Not one of the discrepancies mentioned by this group was mentioned, let alone explored. Are we to assume that these high-flying barristers will sew it all together behind the scenes, present it to Lord Hutton, who will offer the final analysis? With so many voices saying that all the evidence is "consistent" with suicide (Page, Hunt, Green) is there any real hope of this?

However, there is a chink of light. Now that Nicholas Gardiner, the coroner, has changed his tune from:

'...because of the ongoing independent judicial review being conducted by Lord Hutton, it was “highly unlikely” that any more evidence would need to be heard by him [Gardiner] ....

to

"maybe I will demand the inquest be re-opened, given that 230 out of 300 witness statements have not been put forward" (my words)

we have at least a chance of securing a more forensic inquiry into HOW Kelly died. The fact that a coroner's court is a court of law, that the coroner may summon witnesses, and that people found to be lying are guilty of perjury, will certainly help matters.

Will Lord Falconer, Tony Blair's old buddy, put his oar in once again? It will be entertaining to see what methods are used to try and prevent a separate inquest from being held. But, in the happy event, that the brave or foolish Mr Gardiner has his way, perhaps now is the time to be deluging him with demands - to fill the gouda cheese left by Huttton.

Rowena Thursby

PLEASE CLICK ON WORDS UNDERLINED IN ABOVE TEXT FOR WIKIPEDIA DEFINITIONS

[snip]

The Hutton Inquiry, though ostensibly set up to investigate Kelly’s death, has done no such thing. It has discussed the events leading up to Kelly being found dead, but not how he died.

Yet on August 14 the Coroners Inquest into Kelly’s death, which had met for just a few hours on July 19, was closed down after the most superficial investigation imaginable. It consisted almost exclusively of hearing evidence from an amended medical report by Home Office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt.

This is all that is known of Kelly’s death from that inquest:

Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner said that the report showed the main cause of death was the number of incisions into Kelly’s left wrist.

Hunt had concluded the main cause of death was haemorrhage and there were two wounds which would have been fatal. The secondary cause of death was ingestion of the prescription painkiller Co-Proxamol, though toxicology reports showed the amount present in Kelly’s blood would not alone have been enough to kill him.

Gardiner said that the four cardio-electrode pads found on Kelly’s chest at the time of his death were placed there by paramedics on the scene to detect heart action.

He then explained that because of the ongoing independent judicial review being conducted by Lord Hutton, it was “highly unlikely” that any more evidence would need to be heard by him and he was handing the main investigation into Kelly’s death over to Lord Hutton’s inquiry.

He did so because the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, had ordered him to under Section 17a of the Coroner’s Act of 1988 allowing a public inquiry chaired or conducted by a judge to “fulfil the function of an inquest”.

The Hutton Inquiry has now been ongoing for three weeks and it must be clear to all that it cannot be trusted to make a serious investigation of how Kelly died. It has certainly shown no inclination in this direction. If it had, then someone reporting that Kelly believed he would be found dead in the woods would not have been passed over in such a cavalier fashion. It would have spurred on those concerned to intensify their efforts to get at the truth and demand answers to questions that are being raised by many ordinary members of the public who do not accept the official version that Kelly committed suicide.

* Kelly had been at home for just one day after his testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Yet there were apparently no police guards, MI5-MI6 spies or even any media outside his house. Why?

* His behaviour on the morning of July 17 is hard to reconcile with that of a man who later supposedly committed suicide. He had worked on a report which he said he owed the Foreign Office and sent emails, including one to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in which he famously spoke of “many dark actors playing games” with him and another stating that he was determined to overcome the scandal surrounding him and was enthusiastic about the possibility of returning to Iraq as a weapons inspector. No suicide note was left by Kelly.

* Why did a scientist choose such a difficult means of killing himself as slashing his wrist and not even take enough painkillers to do the job more effectively and less painfully?

* Special Branch officers from Scotland Yard sealed off Kelly’s offices in Whitehall and seized his computer, but we do not know what they found.

On July 3, the New Scientist wrote an editorial anticipating the Hutton Inquiry and what questions it expected to be answered. It provides an indication of how many people will feel cheated by what has happened subsequently.

The editorial asks, “First, why does Kelly’s testimony to the select committee differ from accounts given by BBC reporters of their discussions with him? By the time Kelly gave evidence, he had reportedly been questioned for five days by his employer (the Ministry of Defence), named in public by the MOD against his wishes, and kept in an MOD safe house. During all this time, had the MOD forced him into some kind of deal?

“Could it be that BBC reporters manipulated Kelly’s views for their own ends? For one journalist to do this is plausible. But it seems Kelly spoke to three and gave a similar account to all of them.

“Finally, in two of the BBC reports there is a sense that Kelly speaks not only for himself but for ‘people in intelligence’. This raises the question of whether he acted alone or with the approval of others.

“Answering these questions may go some way to explaining why a man who survived confrontations with the vicious, secretive regime in Baghdad was finally destroyed by a supposedly free and open society.”

THE ABOVE IS AN EXCERPT FROM AN ARTICLE BY CHRIS MARSDEN TO BE FOUND HERE
 
QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS....

Some excellent questions here found on a forum. Judging from question 16, this person has significant medical knowledge. RT

1) Were the duties of the Coroner legally transferred to Lord Hutton?

2) If those duties were legally transferred, was it in the public interest
(and/or that of Kelly's family) that they should be?

3) Why was there no discussion as to the legality or desirability of that
transfer?

4) Why did the Police pronounce on the cause of death soon after the body
was found? Is not determination of the cause of death the task of the
pathologist(s)?

5) Why did the Coroner say it was suicide before he had held his own inquest
and again after he had been ordered by Lord Falconer to adjourn the inquest
indefinitely but before Lord Hutton had reported his findings? Did not the
Coroner know that he should not have expressed an opinion at such times? If
he did know, why did he do it?

6) Why were these apparent transgressions ie 4) and 5) not discussed in the
press?

7) Why did Lord Hutton say in his opening address to his inquiry that Kelly
had removed his watch and spectacles "indicating self-harm"?

8) Why did only one pathologist examine Dr Kelly post-mortem?

9) Why was that one pathologist so inexperienced? - he said that he had been
on the Home Office List since 2001 - when in 2001?

10) How can it be acceptable, in such a high-profile inquiry, that none of
the witnesses is required to give evidence under oath?

11) Why was Dr Hunt, scheduled to give evidence in the first part of the
inquiry, the only witness not to give evidence until the second part of the
inquiry - because he was "on holiday" - was he really on holiday? and was
that an adequate reason to excuse such an important witness? Why was there
no discussion about this? - it was barely reported, never mind discussed. In
determining the manner of death (ie whether suicide, murder, death by
misadventure, accidental death etc.) the evidence of the pathologist(s) is
crucial.

12) Was it decided (and if so, by whom?) that Dr Hunt should not give
evidence in the first part of the inquiry to avoid the possibility of calls
for him to being subjected to cross-examination in the second part of the
inquiry?

13) Why was the pathologist so ready to say that this or that "is consistent
with ..." when every medical student is taught (or should be) that this or
that "could be consistent with ..." is less likely to be challenged by a
lawyer? I believe Dr Hunt said that the injuries observed (other than those
to the wrist) were consistent with Dr Kelly "stumbling around in the woods".
Who said Dr Kelly was "stumbling around in the woods"?

14) Why was the expert on suicide (name forgotten) not asked whether cutting
one's wrists is a common method of suicide (it is not) amongst highly
intelligent males in this culture? Why was the pathologist not asked the
same question? Dr Kelly was not only highly intelligent but was one of the
world's experts (if not the pre-eminent expert) on biological and chemical
weapons - one would have thought that he could have come up with a more
sophisticated method of committing suicide than cutting his wrist.

15) Why was the forensic biologist, having admitted that it was not his job
to opine on suicide, allowed to do just that? - his opinion supported a
suicide verdict.

16) Why did Dr Kelly allegedly sever the ulnar artery when he would surely
have known that the radial artery is far more accessible at the wrist? - the
radial artery is superficial, the ulnar artery is deep. There is another
reason why the radial artery is more accessible to one intent on self-harm,
too difficult to describe here. In addition, the ulnar arterty is deep to
the volar carpal ligament at the wrist, which is why the "pulse" is always
felt by a doctor at the radial artery.

17) Why was Tony Blair not called for cross-examination when his evidence at
the inquiry, that he was responsible for the naming of Kelly, so completely
contradicted his strong denial to reporters when questioned on his trip
around the world?

18) Why was Dr Kelly's female friend in the US not called by Lord Hutton to
give evidence? What happened to the statement promised by her lawyers?

19) Are the Police continuing to countenance the possibility of foul play?
Are they still treating the death as suspicious and continuing
investigations?

20) Why has Blair not been asked about his contacts with Bush et al during
the period leading up to (and after) Kelly's death?

21) Was Kelly perceived as a threat not only to Blair's government but also
to Bush et al? - was he that important? Was that the real reason for the
argument with the BBC? - was that just a smokescreen? - how much did they
fear Kelly?

22) Was he, or was he not, interrogated in a safe house for 4 days? If so,
by whom?

23) Was he threatened with his life? Did they suggest to him that harm would
come to his family? Did he refuse to play ball?

24) Are the CIA empowered to act as they see fit, anywhere in the world,
without Presidential authority? - was there not a change to the US law
regarding just this soon after Bush came to power? - the significance of
such a change is not obvious but it dispenses with the necessity for
potentially incriminating orders emanating from the top.

25) Was Kelly murdered?

26) Why was the pathologist not asked whether he had looked for tiny needle
marks or for that matter one tiny needle mark on the body?

27) Why was the toxicologist not asked whether there are substances, which
cannot be detected post mortem

a) which, in sufficient dose, would cause rapid loss of consciousness or
death without
an injection being necessary?

b) which when injected in sufficient dose into an unconscious subject would
cause
death?

28) Has this inquiry really ruled out foul play? - the principal requirement
of an inquest is to rule out foul play and this inquiry has replaced the
inquest.

29) Given the importance of Dr Kelly and the potential threat he posed to
both Blair and Bush, is a D-notice in force? - is that why the press are so
docile, when many are so suspicious?

30) Has the Kelly family, or perhaps just Mrs Kelly, been reminded of the
long-term interests of the United Kingdom? - has an appeal been made at the
highest level to their/her patriotism?

31) Why did Geoff Hoon and Lord Hutton visit Mrs Kelly at her home?

32) Why did the paramedic and his assistant both remark independently on the
paucity of the blood at the scene and why were those observations not
followed up with further questions, despite the fact that both only stated
it when asked if there was anthing further they would like to say ie at the
end of their evidence?

33) Why did the pathologist at the end of his summary of his evidence say
that it was self-harm and then add the rider "disregarding other aspects of
the case" (or similar)? Also, when asked have you anything further to say he
said "not as a pathologist" or similar. Was he trying ever so subtly to let
someone know that he was suspicious but could not find the evidence (or had
he found something but been required, in the interests of national
security?, to edit his findings)?

34) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

35) Was Dr Kelly under surveillance during the days leading up to his death?
Was he under intense surveillance? Was, his alleged suicide observed?

In my view, he was murdered and the Hutton Inquiry is the cover-up, the
smoke-screen.

Further thoughts:

1. Why was (possibly) the last person to see Dr Kelly alive Paul Weaver not
called to give testimony?
2. The initial reports in the press - clearly quoting a police briefing -
describe Dr Kelly as wearing shirt sleeves. Clearly he was wearing a coat
and had a hat when discovered.
3. The body was moved after discovery by the volunteers but prior to the
arrival of PCs Sawyer and Franklin. The testimony of the volunteers, PCs, DC
Coe and the paramedics confirms this. Note that Dr Hunt described the body
as not even touching a tree whereas both volunteers describe him in some way
as being supported by a tree. A clear difference.
4. The volunteers noted the right arm to the side of the body whereas
subsequently it was over his chest - and had to be moved by the paramedics.
5. Both paramedics reported a paucity of blood at the scene. In both cases
this testimony was given after being asked if they had anything else to say.
In both cases (in my view) their statements did not meet with the important
consideration that their observations deserved. They are medical
professionals.
6. The disparity in the number of officers met by the volunteers after
discovering the body. They saw three whereas DC Coe admitted he had one
officer with him. I am sure that the volunteers can count to three as well
as being able to tell if a body is lying on its back or being supported
(even partially) by a tree.
7. There are those vomit stains going from mouth to ear. Clearly not a
problem for a body lying on its back but as we know the body was not lying
on its back when discovered.
8. The abrasions on Dr Kelly's head don't really have an explanation with
the suicide hypothesis. Our volunteers and police found access to the copse
and to the body without too much trouble and Dr Kelly, by all accounts, knew
the terrain well. I cannot accept that he made himself so intoxicated with
the co-proxamol that he stumbled about. He may then have risked passing out
before completing his intention.
9. There is the disparity between Mr Green and Dr Hunt. Mr Green said there
were bloodstains on the right sleeve for which he proposed an explanation.
Dr Hunt reported no blood stains on the right sleeve.
10. What the Inquiry has not done to my knowledge is:
a. established that the co-proxamol was from Mrs Kelly's prescription;
b. established if the water bottle came from the Kelly's house or had to be
bought by Dr Kelly en route (someone would of course then be a witness to
this purchase);
c. asked who the 'third officer' was;
d. confirmed objectively that the co-proxamol and/or products thereof was
not only present in excessive quantities in the blood but in other body
fluids in addition;
e. questioned why Dr Hunt took a rectal temperature just before he left the
scene i.e. gave the greatest margin for error for time of death;
f. questioned Dr Hunt and/or Mr Green to establish if the right sleeve of
the jacket had a blood stain on it or not.

And the above points leave aside the more subjective questions as to Dr
Kelly's state of mind being not indicative of suicide, and him selecting
such a risky, messy and painful way to possibly kill himself.

Remember these points and when the Hutton Enquiry finally delivers the
official line on this tragic affair be open minded about the "verdict"

Sunday, September 28, 2003
 
WHAT A TANGLED WEB THEY WEAVE...

There is some marked AMBIGUITY in the BBC article below -
"Kelly inquest may be reopened" - as to whether we are to understand that,

(a) witnesses refused to allow their testimony to go forward to the Hutton Inquiry......

Coroner, NICHOLAS GARDINER:

"I may ask the police to see the reports if necessary and then I will decide whether to reopen the inquest.
"That's what it boils down to. Why these witnesses did not want their evidence to go forward to the inquiry I do not know."

or

(b) police deemed their statements to be irrelevant

The police interviewed some 500 people and took 300 witness statements during the investigation, but fewer than 70 were handed over to Lord Hutton.....
Most of the others were not deemed relevant by officers.


Thames Valley Police confirmed that a number of witnesses did not allow their statements to go to the inquiry, but insisted there was nothing "pertinent" in them.


Could it be that people like Mai Pederson and "Gabriele", crucial witnesses who were never called, did not want their testimonies revealed, not because they were "irrelevant" but for the opposite reason - they were very relevant indeed?

I doubt that ordinary people with nothing to hide would have withheld their testimonies. Unless they were intimidated?

And meanwhile we have "officers" deciding what is relevant and what isn't.... in an inquiry of this magnitude, shouldn't that be left to the lawyers? Or, on second thoughts... hmmm, in whom can we place our TRUST?

Rowena

RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

Kelly inquest may be reopened


The coroner will make his decision based on Lord Hutton's report
The inquest into the death Dr David Kelly may have to be reopened because some witnesses have refused to allow their statements to be passed to the Hutton inquiry.
The original inquest was adjourned under a section in the Coroners Act which allows a public inquiry conducted by a judge to fulfil the function of an inquest.

But Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner said he may ask Thames Valley Police to hand over the evidence if he is not satisfied with Lord Hutton's findings.


Dr Kelly apparently killed himself after being named as the suspected source of a BBC report claiming the government "sexed up" a dossier on the threat from Iraq.

Mr Gardiner said: "I shall in due course have to decide if grounds exist to resume the inquest, but I can't do anything until I see Hutton's report.


Nothing pertinent

"I may ask the police to see the reports if necessary and then I will decide whether to reopen the inquest.

"That's what it boils down to. Why these witnesses did not want their evidence to go forward to the inquiry I do not know."

Thames Valley Police confirmed that a number of witnesses did not allow their statements to go to the inquiry, but insisted there was nothing "pertinent" in them.

A spokesman refused to confirm reports that one of the individuals was Mai Pederson, the American linguist who introduced Dr Kelly to the Baha'i faith.

The coroner will read it and can make a decision about whether he wishes to reopen the inquest or whether he is satisfied with the findings

Spokesman for Hutton Inquiry

Earlier this week the force's assistant chief constable, Michael Page, told the Hutton Inquiry that Ms Pederson had given a statement to police but that it contained nothing of relevance.

It is understood there was a clause on the statement form asking if witnesses agreed to their statements going forward to the inquiry.

Unlike a coroner's inquest, the Hutton Inquiry did not have the power to compel people to appear or hand over evidence.

The police interviewed some 500 people and took 300 witness statements during the investigation, but fewer than 70 were handed over to Lord Hutton.

Avoiding trauma

Most of the others were not deemed relevant by officers.

A spokesman for the Hutton inquiry said the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would provide Mr Gardiner with a copy of Lord Hutton's report after receiving it himself.

"The coroner will read it and can make a decision about whether he wishes to reopen the inquest or whether he is satisfied with the findings," he said.

"Lord Falconer directed that the inquest should not go ahead at the same time as the inquiry to avoid causing more trauma for the Kelly family. After the inquiry it will be up to the coroner."

The spokesman added: "The Hutton inquiry does not have any statutory powers and so witnesses were perfectly entitled to withhold their statements."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3145120.stm
Thursday, September 25, 2003
 
VOMIT DIRECTION
(AS INDICATOR OF KELLY'S BODY POSITION)


If you've just had your tea or your breakfast I apologise. What I'm addressing here is the DIRECTION of Kelly's vomit for what it tells us about the position of the body.

In his testimony to the Hutton Inquiry PC Sawyer tells us Kelly's body was,

"Lying on its back with its head at the base of a tree... The head was tilted to the left.**"

Further on Sawyer says,

".... from the mouth, the corner of.. the right-hand corner of the mouth to the ear there was a dark stain where I took it that Dr Kelly had vomited and it had run down the side of his face...."

According to David Bartlett, the ambulance technician,

"...going from the corners of the mouth were two stains, one slightly longer than the other.
Q: Where did the stains go to from the mouth?
A: Towards the bottom of the ears."

I am sure, from the red highlighting that you've worked out that:
Kelly had to have been unconscious, and LYING DOWN when he vomited, otherwise the stains would not run from the corners of the mouth to the ears.

Yet, according to Louise Holmes the first person to witness Kelly's body, Kelly was "at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree" or, as Paul Chapman, the second witness says, "sitting up against a tree".

While Louise and Paul do not mention the vomit, neither are they asked about it. If their testimony is reliable, and the body was sitting up, then the dark stains on Kelly's face would not have travelled, against gravity, from the corners of the mouth to the ears, but instead would have run down his chin and neck.

If Louise and Paul both made a mistake in saying the body was in contact with the tree, (either head & shoulders, slumped or sitting) then there is no problem with the vomit stains, and their direction - from corners of mouth to ears - indicates that Kelly was at least unconscious, possibly already dead and lying down when he vomited.

If, however, Louise and Paul correctly described finding the body sitting up, then, prior to their arrival, someone must have propped up Kelly's dead or unconscious body against the tree. Later it must have been pulled down again to lie flat, as witnessed by PCs Franklin & Sawyer, Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett - and others.

Given that the body was apparently sitting against the tree for the first 2 witnesses and lying down at the base of the tree for the rest, it is reasonable to suspect that DC Coe*** -the only attendee of the body between the first and second batch of witnesses - quickly took hold of Kelly's feet and pulled him down to a lying position, as it had been realised that in the sitting position the vomit stains would look wrong. So by putting the body back in the lying position the direction of the vomit stains again made sense. By his own admission DC Coe had about 25-30 minutes alone with the body before PCs Franklin and Sawyer arrived with the paramedics, all of whom said the body was lying flat.

As to the location of the death prior to the body being propped up, this could have been either (a) at the scene or (b) elsewhere. If the former then this would be consistent with Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist when he says that vomit was found on the ground next to Kelly's left shoulder. (See below). However it is also possible that Kelly's body was brought to the scene and Dr Hunt lied about the vomit being found on the ground, in order to make it appear that Kelly had always been lying flat on its back on that spot & had also vomited there. Also, it could be that Hunt deliberately neglected to mention the direction of the vomit in order to avoid attention being drawn any further to it.

Nicholas Hunt, forensic pathologist....

"Q: Did you notice anything about the face?
A: .... there was...what looked like vomit running from the right corner of the mouth and also from the left corner of the mouth and streaking the face. [Note he fails to give us any information about HOW it streaks the face, whether it runs down the chin or to the ears; neither is he asked.]
Q: What would that appear to indicate?
A: It suggested that he had tried to vomit whilst he was lying on his back and it had trickled down.
Q: Was there any vomit found on the scene itself?
A: Yes, there was some vomit. There was some vomit staining over the left shoulder of the jacket and also on the ground in the region of his left shoulder."

In summary, if Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman are correct, and they found the body sitting up, this suggests that Dr Kelly vomited (while unconscious) some time beforehand, possibly but not necessarily in a different place, where his body would have been not sitting, but lying down. It was then moved to the location in which it was found on Harrowdown Hill, placed in a sitting position & the "suicide scene" neatly arranged, with watch, knife, bottle of water, & cap all carefully positioned. UNTIL, someone realised that the vomit direction would give the game away, and sent DC Coe in to re-arrange the scene so that Kelly was put back in a lying position, where the vomit direction would make sense.

Rowena Thursby

RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

** N.B. Also curious is the fact that the vomit direction was from BOTH corners of the mouth towards the ears when several witnesses have consistently said that his head was tilted to the LEFT - but it is conceivable that Kelly vomited on his back while unconscious, then his head fell naturally to one side.

***Given that 5 people testified to there being 2 officers with Coe, whereas in Coe's testimony he says there was only one, how much credence are we to give to the rest of his testimony
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
 
THE BIGGEST DISCREPANCY OF ALL:
The Third Man


'The only reason I can think of that Coe would contradict four witnesses about who was with him is that the third man's presence could not be satisfactorily explained.'
Jim Rarey

You would think that DC Coe would name this man if it was a constable, just as DC Shields was named - in order for people not to smell a BIG RAT. After all, DC Shields was not called, to the witness stand at the Hutton Inquiry so this other guy needn't have been called either. There must be a BIG reason why (apparently) his companions dwindled from 3 to 2. Remember no fewer than 5 people testified that Coe was with 2 officers.

The other thing is - yes it does look like the 3 men in black were, in fact, DC Coe and 2 "uniformed officers" (1+2 = 3) - so the reason Page could not say WHO the 3 were, is because of the fact that there WERE INDEED 3, and not 2, as DC Coe maintained later.

This is the BIGGEST and MOST GLARING discrepancy of all and probably the most important to follow up on.

Rowena Thursby



 
THE 3 MEN IN BLACK

This is from Asst Chief Constable Page's testimony yesterday, 23 September 2003:

15 Q. In the course of your inquiries were you contacted by
16 a person who suggested there had been three men dressed
17 in black wandering around at the time that Dr Kelly's
18 body was found?
19 A. Yes, I think both we and the Inquiry received
20 a communication from a gentleman who expressed concern
21 that he had noticed three individuals dressed in dark or
22 black clothing near the scene where Dr Kelly's body was
23 found. I am speaking from memory, but I think the
24 sighting was at somewhere between 8.30 and 9.30 in the
25 morning, something like that.

202
1 Q. Did you follow up that sighting?
2 A. Yes, we undertook some fairly extensive work. We got
3 statements from all our officers who were at the scene
4 and that was in excess of 50. We plotted their
5 movements on a map and eventually were able to
6 triangulate where the writer was talking about and
7 identify three of our officers, so I am satisfied that
8 I am aware of the identity of these three individuals.

That's it? He's satisfied, what about telling who they were?

Sounds pretty much like DC Coe and his two "PC's" and the time fits. It could also be the same police the men on the boat in the Thames told Louise and Paul they saw.

Louise did not mention it but Paul did.

Paul

Q. Did you see anyone on that search?
12 A. Not until we reached the river and we met the people on
13 the boat.
14 Q. How many people were on the boat?
15 A. Either three or four, I cannot remember.
16 Q. Did you speak to them?
17 A. Yes, we did.
18 Q. What did you say to them?
19 A. They enquired what we were doing. We explained a search
20 team assisting the police, looking for a missing person,
21 and gave them a rough description of his age and said if
22 they saw anything could they contact the police.
23 Q. Had they seen anything?
24 A. They had heard the helicopter and seen some police
25 officers at some point previously.

23
1 Q. Right. What, police officers on an earlier part of the
2 search?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But they had not seen Dr Kelly at all?
5 A. No.

Louise

Did you at any point go along the River Thames?
3 A. We went up to where we -- where our boundary of our
4 search area was on the Thames and spoke to some people
5 there who were just moored on a boat on the Thames.
6 Q. What did you say to them?
7 A. Well, Brock had found them because he obviously is just
8 trained to pick up on human scent, so he went off and
9 indicated on them and so I had a game with him as
10 a reward. They just said: what are you doing? We said
11 we were assisting the police in the search for a missing
12 male person and if they saw anything to contact the
13 police.
14 Q. Did they say they already had seen anything?
15 A. They said they had seen the helicopter up the previous
16 night but they had not seen anybody or anything other
17 than that.


Is Louise just a scatterbrain or is it something more sinister? Paul had a lot more experience in search and rescue than Louise but evidently the one with the dog is in charge of the team.

I am assuming now that it is a given that DC Coe had two other men with him. Five persons testified on the issue. The two volunteers (Paul and Louise) and the two PC's (Franklin and Sawyer) all said there were two "uniformed police" with Coe. Only Coe himself said there was only one.

If Coe and/or whoever was interrupted by Brock, they had plenty of time to circle around and pretend to be approaching the site for the first time. They had 25-35 minutes after Paul and Louise left to "clean up" the site including moving the body and planting some blood.

The only reason I can think of that Coe would contradict four witnesses about who was with him is that the third man's presence could not be satisfactorily explained. (That would make a good title for a movie "The Third Man" wouldn't it?)

Thanks to Jim Rarey for this information & commentary.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
 
BROUCHER MAKES "MISTAKE" WITH HIS DATES

I was reading the transcript of Rachel Kelly's testimony to the Hutton Inquiry (see (A) below) when I came across this interesting item, which appears to have gone unmentioned in the mainstream media. It turns out the conversation Broucher reported had taken place between him and Dr David Kelly in Geneva did not actually occur in February 2003, as Broucher claimed, but on 18th February 2002 - a whole year earlier!
While it may be understandable for someone to miss a date by a week or two, a whole YEAR is a tad more difficult to swallow. And if Mr Broucher lied about the DATE of his meeting with Kelly, what else did he lie about?

How convenient that Mr Broucher came forward at this point. The conversation (see article below - (B) - from the Independent ) gave us a graphic portrayal of Kelly's tortured conscience: he had repeatedly promised the Iraqis they would be safe if they complied with weapon's inspections. In other words this gave us an bigger EXPLANATION for suicide other than that he had been under great stress from the MoD and a televised Foreign Affairs Committee.

Even better, it showed Kelly to have an awareness of the danger he was in - not from a highly-embarrassed western establishment on both sides of the Atlantic - but from THE IRAQIS. Finally, the tour de force, that phrase: "dead in the woods" - Kelly almost forecasting the circumstances of his own death. If Broucher was a year-out with the date of this conversation, might have he been "out" with other elements of it?

Shall we call it a lapse in memory? By a whole year? At such a vitally important time politically? Or did Broucher fib about the date in order to make the whole sense of this conversation more immediate, more urgent and thus offer a better explanation for David Kelly's "suicide"?


Rowena Thursby

RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk


(A) TRANSCRIPT OF RACHEL KELLY'S TESTIMONY TO THE HUTTON INQUIRY
Can I ask you to look
8 at a diary entry for 2002? Before I ask you to look at
9 that, can you just tell me where you found the diary?
10 A. Yes. The diary was in my father's study --
11 Q. It is FAM/1/1. If we look at the entry for February,
12 what does it tell us?
13 A. It mentions specifically a meeting with David Broucher
14 on 18th February 2002, and the interesting thing with my
15 father's diaries is he tended to write entries in them
16 after the event and this would have been a meeting that
17 he actually had because it is in his diary.
18 Q. It does not look like we have been able to get the diary
19 on the screen, but if I look at the diary that I have in
20 front of me, it says:
21 "Monday 18th February 2002, 9.30, David Broucher,
22 US mis."
23 A. Yes, US mission.
24 Q. It gives details of his flights into Geneva the day
25 before.

98
1 A. Yes, the day before.
2 Q. And out of Geneva on 20th February; is that right?
3 A. Yes, that is correct, on the 20th.
4 Q. And that is February 2002?
5 A. It is a year earlier than the date that David Broucher
6 gave as being this year, the conversation he had with my
7 father.
8 Q. And I think Mr Broucher told us he had only had one
9 meeting with your father.
10 A. Yes, that is what made me look at it. I actually
11 thought that was the case.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Q. Finally just to show the diary entry for February 2003.
5 You will remember Mr Broucher thought the meeting was in
6 February 2003. That is 133. Does the 2003 diary show
7 any entry for Mr Broucher in 2003?
8 A. No, and in fact it does not record any trip to Geneva
9 either. The only trip I have noticed is the February
10 trip the previous year.
11 Q. The only time that you have noticed from these diaries
12 that he had been to Geneva?
13 A. Yes, I think (inaudible).

(B)
Kelly: 'I'll probably be found dead in the woods'
PA News Reporters -- The Independent 21 August 2003

David Kelly, the government weapons expert, predicted that he would be "found dead in the woods" if Iraq was invaded, months before his apparent suicide, the Hutton Inquiry heard today.

The weapons inspector slashed his wrist in Oxfordshire woodlands after being revealed as the source for BBC claims that the Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been "sexed up" in the run-up to war.

Foreign Office official David Broucher said Dr Kelly had made what he thought to be the "throwaway" remark in February, when they met in Geneva.

Dr Kelly had expected to remain anonymous after meeting BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan, the inquiry had heard earlier.

He had publicly maintained that the Ministry of Defence had been "quite good" when he revealed he had briefed Mr Gilligan. But privately the weapons expert told a trusted contact: "I have been through the wringer."

Dr Kelly told Sunday Times journalist Nick Rufford, shortly after hearing from the MoD that he would be named in the next day's papers: "I am a bit shocked, I was told it would all be confidential."

Mr Broucher told the inquiry Dr Kelly had told him that continued inspections "properly carried out would give a degree of certainty about compliance" with UN disarmament demands.

"He said he had tried to reassure them that if they cooperated with the weapons inspections, they had nothing to fear," Mr Broucher said.

"My impression was that he felt he was in some personal difficulty or embarrassment about this because he felt the invasion might go ahead anyway and somehow it was putting him in a morally ambiguous situation."

Mr Broucher, the Foreign Office's ambassador-ranking permanent representative at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, said: "As David Kelly was leaving, I said to him 'what do you think will happen if Iraq is invaded?'.

"His reply was, which at the time I took to be a throwaway remark, he said 'I will probably be found dead in the woods'."

Mr Broucher said he had discussed the dossier with Dr Kelly and told the inquiry that it was part of his job to "sell" the dossier to senior officials at the UN, many of whom found it "unconvincing".

Dr Kelly had defended the dossier, saying there had been a lot of pressure to make it "as robust as possible".

Mr Broucher said he asked Dr Kelly what would happen if the coalition went to war with Iraq. He told the inquiry: "His reply was, which I took at the time to be a throwaway remark, he said 'I will probably be found dead in the woods'."

Mr Broucher added: "I didn't report it at the time to anyone because I didn't attribute any particular significance to it.

"I thought he might have meant that he was at risk of being attacked by the Iraqis in some way."

He heard of the weapons expert's death while he was on leave in Geneva but said he had not immediately realised the circumstances.

The inquiry saw an e-mail sent by Mr Broucher to Patrick Lamb, deputy head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office.

"In a conversation in Geneva which took place in late February, he explained to me that he thought that the weapons inspectors could have a good idea what the Iraqis had built and destroyed," it read.

The e-mail said Dr Kelly feared that in the event of an invasion it would have appeared that he had "betrayed his contacts, some of whom might be killed as a direct result of his actions."

The e-mail repeated Dr Kelly's statement that following on from this "he would probably be found dead in the woods.

Last updated 24/08/2003


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=1023

 
SLOPPY REPORTING OF THE KELLY STORY

The inaccuracy of Matthew Tempest's reporting of the scene of Dr Kelly's death is breathtaking. I could understand it better if this was a straightforward suicide, but given that it was possibly a murder made to look like suicide, accurate reporting of every detail is a prerequisite in helping us fathom what actually happened here. See comments in red below. RT

Kelly's family 'held onto hope he was safe'

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday September 2, 2003

David Kelly's wife and family held out hope to the last minute that the missing government scientist had merely been taken ill, the Hutton inquiry heard today.
At 7.15am on the morning of Friday July 18, Dr Kelly's relatives told police who had been investigating his disappearance for more than 17 hours that they "genuinely believed" he had been taken ill while out walking.

Their hope that Dr Kelly might be still be found alive came despite him being missing overnight.

Three police officers, two search volunteers and a neighbour of the dead Ministry of Defence scientist today gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry as it heard the circumstances of the discovery of Dr Kelly's body that Friday morning.

It emerged that Dr Kelly's likely last words were: "Cheerio, see you again then, Ruth" - spoken to a neighbour, Ruth Absalom, who was walking her dog near the woods where Dr Kelly's body was later found.

Both Thames Valley police officers who carried out the initial scene of crime search around Dr Kelly's body said there was "no sign of a struggle", and surrounding undergrowth was "still standing upright".

Dr Kelly's body was found by the search dog of a community volunteer, Louise Holmes, at just after 7.30 am on Friday 18th.

The four accounts of Dr Kelly's position, given by two volunteers and two police officers, broadly matched each other. [No they didn't - the two volunteers said the body was slumped or sitting against a tree, the 2 policemen said it was flat on its back]. Dr Kelly was found on his back [No he wasn't - the first 2 say that he was sitting up] slumped against [well slumped against suggests that he was not entirely on his back but partially with his head and back touching the tree] the trunk of a large tree , his right arm outstretched [no, most of the witnesses say it was by his side], his left hand "inverted" and in a large pool of blood [who said there was a large pool of blood around the wrist? - certainly not the first 2 and the paramedics who came later said they were surprised at how little blood there was at the scene considering it was an arterial bleed - only PC Franklin talks of not a large pool, but "a fair amount of blood sort of puddled around"]

Beside his left hand was a wristwatch, a three-inch curved knife. An open bottle of Evian water was next to his head. [Well, at least he got that right.]

One witness, PC Jonathan Sawyer, told how he also saw an "dark stain" running from the right corner of Dr Kelly's mouth to his ear. He told Lord Hutton he took it to be that Dr Kelly had vomited, and it had run down the side of his face. He also said there was a stain [what kind of stain? vomit? nope, actually, he means blood] on Dr Kelly's right knee.

[THE GUARDIAN IS A MEMBER OF THE RIIA.]


http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1034133,00.html

Contact: RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

 
ROY GREEN, FORENSIC BIOLOGIST REPORTS A "FAIR BIT OF BLOOD"....

But oddly enough, Mr Green can't seem to say where this "fair bit of blood" actually went.

In their testimonies to the Hutton Inquiry, Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett, the paramedics, had both volunteered the fact that in their opinion, there was very little blood around for an arterial bleed.

Vanessa Hunt: "the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing"

Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist confirmed that this WAS an arterial bleed, so there would have been substantial blood loss. Yet Roy Green, the forensic biologist, offers a bit of spraying on the nettles, some on the sleeve, some on the jeans, and some smearing on the bottle. And while Green says the leaf litter would absorb the blood, he did not say it DID absorb the blood. He spent from 2pm till 7pm (5 hours) examining the area, yet he did not say categorically, that the ground HAD absorbed the blood.

Rowena Thursby

This is from xymphora's blogspot:


From the testimony of Roy James Green, a forensic biologist, who examined the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found (here, at section 143):
"Q. We have heard from some ambulance personnel, and they said they were not specifically looking, for obvious reasons, at the distribution of blood but they noted, just on their brief glance, not very much blood. What were your detailed findings?


A. Well, there was a fair bit of blood.


LORD HUTTON: There was - I beg your pardon?


A. A fair bit of blood, my Lord. The body was on leaf litter, the sort of detritus you might find on the floor of a wood, which is - and that is very absorbent, so although it may not have appeared to them there was that much blood, it would obviously soak in.


MR DINGEMANS: A bit like blotting paper in some respects?


A. Yes."

Note that he says that it would obviously soak in - he gives no indication that he checked to see if it did soak in. The same witness later said (sections 146 to 147; my emphasis):
"The jeans, as I have talked about, with this large contact stain, did not appear to have any larger downward drops on them. There were a few stains and so forth but it did not have any staining that would suggest to me that his injuries, or his major injuries if you like, were caused while he was standing up, and there was not any - there did not appear to be any blood underneath where he was found, and the body was later moved which all suggested those injuries were caused while he was sat or lying down."

So it is clear he relied on superficial appearances to judge that there was no blood under the body, thus putting into question his confidence about the blood soaking into the leaf litter (and what does he mean by major injuries?). Given that the police and the paramedics differed on the amount of blood at the scene, and it was the paramedics with the better view who noted the surprising lack of blood (presumably they would have had experience at attending scenes of suicides by slit wrists, and would have an appreciation for the amount of blood involved), this is an important issue that has not been properly resolved. If there is not enough blood, the body was moved to where it was found, and foul play would have been involved.

[Or else Kelly was already dead when he arrived at the scene of death, and only then was the left wrist slit - if indeed there were slashes in the wrist, for as far as I can remember, only Nicholas Hunt appears to have actually seen the wound or wounds, despite an upturned wrist. If he was already dead that could explain the absence of blood].

NOTE: Both Nicolas Hunt and Roy Green work for the same company: Forensic Alliance.
Nicholas Hunt is a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist and has been on the
Home Office list since 2001.



http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_xymphora_archive.html

Powered by Blogger