A pouch, suitable it seems to house a mobile phone, was attached to the trouser belt. There's very little about it on the Hutton website but it gets a mention in this exchange between Mr Dingemans and paramedic Vanessa Hunt:
Q. And did you note whether or not he had a mobile phone?
A. There was a mobile phone pouch clipped to his belt on his front but slightly to the right side, but you could not see if there was a phone within the pouch or not.
Dr Hunt notes its presence, together with the belt, in his report under 'Clothing':
A brown leather belt with a white metal buckle which was done up at the waist. On the brown leather belt, over the right hip area, was a 'Virgin Atlantic', Velcro closed pouch. The Velcro was done up although the pouch flap was at something of an angle.
The two descriptions of the pouch position differ slightly; some people will say that this is just two witnesses effectively stating the same thing, alternatively I think that the pouch position might have shifted as a result of the body being moved to a small degree after the paramedics left the scene. This should NOT be confused with the very significant movement of the body away from the tree prior to the arrival of the ambulance team.
Dr Hunt correctly separates the belt and pouch in his exhibits list. Mr Green receives both these items amongst others at his laboratory on 25 July 2003. In his report Mr Green says:
He was dressed in brown hiking boots (NCH.4&5), beige socks (NCH.6&7), faded blue jeans (NCH.10) with a leather belt (NCH.8) that had a "Virgin Atlantic" pouch (NCH.9) attached at the front.
Mr Green and Dr Hunt are viewing the same scene so one saying the pouch was attached at the front, the other that it was over the right hip area shouldn't I suppose give cause for concern. Perhaps Vanessa Hunt was the most accurate of the three in her description!
Mr Green deals with the results of his testing of the pouch on page 13 of his report:
The belt (NCH.8) was made of tan coloured leather. This item was examined visually for the presence of bloodstaining but none was found.
Item NCH.9 was an empty pouch, which had been connected to the deceased's belt. The pouch was beige and black in colour and bore the "Virgin Atlantic" logo on the front. The pouch was closed with a Velcro flap. The outside of the flap bore a small contact stain and another small bloodstain was present on the right side of the pouch. Traces of bloodstaining were also observed on the Velcro under surface of the flap and the corresponding surface of the pouch. STR profiling of the blood under the flap produced a full profile, which matched that of Dr Kelly therefore this blood could have come from him. This finding tends to suggest that Dr Kelly was already injured at the time the pouch was opened.
I wouldn't like to say whether any of this blood on the pouch was seen at Harrowdown Hill or perhaps it was only noted when Mr Green gave the item a really close inspection a week later. How it came to be there is an interesting question, I would just mention again though that by the time Mr Green inspects the scene there appears to be more blood present than earlier ,,, for example the stain on the right knee is about 10 times bigger in area than when seen by the ambulance team and that there is now a pool of blood under the knife, a fact inexplicably missed by DC Coe as well as the paramedics.
There is plenty to consider regarding events at Harrowdown Hill on the 18th July. However I'm going to leave that for the moment and I'll explain some of my thoughts on the legal aspects of this business.