Sunday, 20 May 2012

Dr Kelly's spectacles

Like the Evian water bottle that my most recent posts have focussed on the spectacles are another thing worth blogging about I think.

Dr Hunt, in his report, describes finding a pair of bi-focal spectacles in a pocket of the jacket.  He again refers to them as bi-focal spectacles at the Hutton Inquiry.  The fact that they weren't on his face at Harrowdown Hill but in his pocket led Dr Hunt to speculate that their removal was indicative of Dr Kelly wanting to cause himself self-harm.  Oddly no spectacles case was found at the scene suggesting a possibility that he was otherwise wearing them.

In this earlier post I had commented on the spectacle wearing   One would need to make a close inspection of the various photographs and videos of Dr Kelly to ascertain if it was obvious that he was a wearer of bi-focals.  If so I hadn't noticed.

Interestingly someone has made a Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police about these spectacles, particularly asking whether DNA and fingerprint tests had been carried out on them.  They had but nothing had been recovered.

What I found quite strange was that TVP tested for fingerprints on three separate days.  That seems to me to be a high level of concern.  The FOI result states that fingerprint tests were conducted on 20/7/2003, 29/7/2003 and 30/7/2003.

The first of these (20/7) is a Sunday and just two days after finding the body.  As described in an earlier post they were tested for marks by technician Renee Gilliland on 29/7.  Ms Gilliland goes on to say that all the articles were resealed and repackaged and that they were collected by hand on 1 August.  The FOI answer though says that they were tested on the 30th as well as the 29th.


  1. One possible explanation that I have considered for some time to be a reason for the spectacles to be in a pocket of the jacket is this: if Dr Kelly's body had been carried into the wood at Harrowdown Hill then it's possible that the spectacles might have been stuffed into the Barbour jacket pocket to ensure that they didn't inadvertently drop from his face in transit.

  2. Brian, the photo of Dr Kelly showing the right side of his face here in this forum page (haven't looked for the original) seems to show bifocal spectacle lenses. Since he wears them at his daughter's wedding (photo on same page), one is at a loss why they would have been removed if Dr Kelly had wanted to cut his wrist in private. He doesn't seem to have been short sighted.

  3. Felix, yes there is no doubt that Dr Kelly was in possession of bifocal spectacles and that Dr Hunt was correct in recording that fact in his report. The very fact that Dr Hunt was aware that they were bifocals should have caused him to ask "why remove them?" and similarly with the watch - "why didn't he take it off before he started cutting?" I can see no logic in Dr Hunt's assertion that this was evidence of intent of self harm. And then for Hutton to repeat this speculative nonsense in what should have been a purely factual opening statement is ridiculous.