Wristwatch: Item AMH.4 was a black plastic "Casio" digital wristwatch. This watch including the strap was not obviously damaged, and it was in working order, displaying the correct date and time when it was examined. This item was very heavily stained with contact bloodstains and/or blood splashes over most of its surfaces. A full STR profile matching that of Dr Kelly was obtained from a sample of the blood.
Amongst the debris (AMH.4.1) from the watch was a hair that was similar in appearance to the reference sample of wrist hairs (NCH.54) from Dr David Kelly.
There is a very interesting choice of words here by Mr Green: he uses the phrase 'when David Kelly's wrist was cut' rather than 'when Dr Kelly cut his wrist'. In fact he is being objective at this point in not assuming that Dr Kelly had been necessarily doing the cutting.
We know that Dr Hunt had speculated that the watch had been removed part way through the cutting and it's quite possible that Mr Green suggested this scenario when they were working together at Harrowdown Hill on the afternoon of the 18th July. See also my post and the comments here http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3634321588005420812#editor/target=post;postID=2250564181200068174 It does seem totally illogical for Dr Kelly to remove the watch part way through the cutting rather than before he starts.
The fact that the watch was of the make and material stated seems to me to be in keeping with what we know about Dr Kelly. In other words his choice of watch owes more to a desire for simple functionality than to be a piece of expensive jewellery.
In the "Schedule of responses to issues raised" http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf number 80 is illuminating:
Dr Hunt considered that the removal of Dr Kelly's watch by Dr Kelly is indicative of the fact that he removed it to facilitate the cutting of his wrists. But he does not know when the watch was removed or by whom.
ResponseNo-one can know precisely what happened when Dr Kelly died but in the complete absence of any evidence of third party involvement in his death it is logical to assume that Dr Kelly removed his own watch. It is also logical to assume that if he wished to cut his wrist he might want to remove his watch first.
The last sentence acknowledges that, contrary to the Green/Hunt hypothesis, Dr Kelly might want to remove his watch first.
The remark about 'complete absence of any evidence of third party involvement' is incorrect as will be discussed in a later post. Importantly there is strong evidence that I can disclose that points to the watch and knife having being moved subsequent to the ambulance crew visiting the scene.
It will, I hope, be appreciated by the reader that there is a huge amount of detail in my investigations and that I am mindful of trying to avoid individual posts becoming too lengthy. So I need to stop here I think.