"And a dog was put through our house" (1)

For this post I shall repeat the short piece of testimony from Mrs Kelly that I quoted in my first post on the communication masts:

Q. Did you speak to the police at all during that night?
A. Yes, all night, all night. Then a vehicle arrived with a large communication mast on it and parked in the road and then during the early hours another mast, 45-foot mast was put up in our garden.
Q. For police communications?

A. Yes, indeed. And a dog was put through our house. At 20 to 5 the following morning I was sitting on the lawn in my dressing gown while the dog went through the house.
Q. Trying to --

A. Trying to establish that he was not there. 

As touched on in my last post, assuming a reasonably orderly recollection of events by Mrs Kelly, and noting use of the phrase 'during the early hours' then it is quite likely that the communication masts had arrived before the start of the search with the dog.

Two days after Mrs Kelly ACC Page makes his first visit to the Inquiry.  Not only was he a poor witness giving a number of vague answers he, so far as is known, didn't visit the Kelly home so the report on events at the house that night provided by him was second hand.  Clearly the witness statement from Sergeant Morris should have been sent to the Inquiry and Morris called to give evidence.

Page informed the Inquiry that he received a phone call at 3.09 am regarding the missing person report on Dr Kelly.  At some time prior to his assessing the situation we learn from Mr Page that Sergeant Morris with officers from the night shift at Abingdon had made 'a reasonably thorough search of Dr Kelly's house and the surrounding grounds' . 

It seems that 'reasonably thorough' wasn't thorough enough because there is this response by ACC Page to questioning from Mr Dingemans:


Q. And what was the outcome of your review?
A. I asked for a further, more thorough search of the house and the outbuildings and the surrounding grounds to be made.
Q. We have heard from Mrs Kelly in fact I think she said 4.30, it may have been 5.30 in the morning she has to go out of the house while a police dog goes through. That is as a result of your initiative, is it?
A. Yes.

As an aside it might be asked why once again Dingemans is sloppy with the times ... the same thing had happened when evidence was given by Mrs Kelly about the time one of her daughters had called the police.  Picking up on a point made by Felix in response to an earlier post where he expressed surprise about Mrs Kelly being precise about the time the police were called we have a repeat situation here with the time of '20 to 5'.  Yet her testimony on other timings is often very vague.


Norman Baker recalls a conversation with a chief constable who described the second search with a dog as 'bizarre'.  The fact that Mrs Kelly had to vacate her home while the search was made appears extraordinary in view of the fact that she obviously had a thorough appreciation of the geography of the building.  In a letter to Mr Baker TVP, explaining why Mrs Kelly had to wait outside, said that they wanted 'to remove possible distractions from those engaged in the search'.  TVP also stated that 'a dog is used as an aid to search operations as they can detect things beyond human capability', however that should be interpreted in this context.

Although not stated by Mrs Kelly logic would suggest that the other members of the family joined her outside for the duration of the more thorough search.

Possible more sinister reasons for the Kelly family having to wait outside will be discussed in my next post.

 

The search helicopter - some useful information

Evidence at the Hutton Inquiry about the search helicopter was given by Mrs Kelly.  Subsequently DS Webb and ACC Page referred to the helicopter but revealed little other than at some unspecified time Sergeant Morris had called for its use.

MP Norman Baker wasn't very happy about the paucity of detail and in 2006 asked questions.  The ministerial responses were from Mr Ingram on 2 June and from Mr McNulty on 6 July and 13 September.  The respective Hansard entries regarding the three questions and answers can be read at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060605/text/60605w0008.htm#06060519000016 and http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060706/text/60706w0021.htm#06070727003551 and http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060913/text/60913w0040.htm

When one reads these ministerial responses it can be seen just how far removed the facts given are from the comments made by Mrs Kelly.  According to McNulty at least the helicopter search started at 02.50 rather than at about 1 o'clock - the time that Mrs Kelly mentioned.  Also it was the Luton helicopter and not the Benson one.  There are two possibilities here it seems to me: either Mrs Kelly was hopelessly wrong or there was an earlier search that the authorities didn't want to reveal.

Number 73 in the "Schedule of responses to the issues raised" includes this information about the times of the helicopter search flights:

Two flights were made in the early hours of 18/7/03 as follows:
At 02.50 it deployed to search for Dr Kelly.
At 03.20 it arrived on scene
At 04.05 running low on fuel it went to base to refuel.

At 04.25 hrs it re-launched.
At 04.35 hrs it arrived back on scene
At 04.45 hrs it resumed back to base. (The pilot was running out of legal flying hours.)

From these figures it can be seen that the first search took 45 minutes  but that the second after refuelling was just 10 minutes because the pilot was at risk of going over his permitted flying hours.

At 5.15 on the morning of 18 July ACC Page chairs a meeting and Mr Dingemans asks him about it:

Q. What was the result of your meeting at 5.15?
A. Well the result of my meeting was that we began to establish a search pattern. As a holding measure,  I asked for officers who were reinforcement officers who were arriving about this stage -- we had between 30 and 40 officers available to us, and I asked them to start searching outward from Dr Kelly's house. I asked for the helicopter to be brought into play again.

There is no record of the helicopter being brought into play again.  As we know from the information above the pilot was running out of legal flying hours but wasn't there another pilot available?  Whatever Hutton fails to ask questions about this.

The search helicopter - evidence at the Inquiry

In my last post but one I had quoted that part of Mrs Kelly's evidence that dealt with one of her daughters calling the police a little before midnight and three officers arriving with a missing persons form.  She also stated: I explained the situation that David had been in and it seemed immediately to go up to Chief Constable level.  The three officers having arrived at her home her evidence continues as follows:

Q. Then it is referred up as far as you are aware?
A. Yes, it is referred up and the search begins. TheThames Valley helicopter had gone off duty by that time so they had to wait for the Benson helicopter to come across.
Q. That is RAF Benson, is it?
A. That is right.
Q. So the helicopter was involved in searching?
A. Indeed it was, and tracker dogs too, I believe.
Q. Could you hear the helicopter?
A. Yes, it came and the police switched on their blue light on their vehicles so it could pinpoint the position of our house, the starting point for David's walk.
Q. What time did the helicopter start searching, do you remember?
A. It must have been about 1 o'clock. I am not sure.
Q. How many police were there then?
A. Certainly the three were there. I think they may have been joined by a couple more by this stage.

Hutton had just heard evidence from a non specialist about the use of a search helicopter.  It has to be asked why Mrs Kelly started talking about what helicopter was where when she wasn't even invited to discuss the helicopter.

There is this passing reference to the helicopter by Detective Sergeant Webb in his evidence the following day, DS Webb having arrived at the point of mentioning the uniformed sergeant who spent time at the Kelly home:

Q. What were you doing while you were at Abingdon police station?
A. I was briefed on what had gone on previously.
Q. Who by?

A. By various people, including a uniformed sergeant who had been -- who had spent the night with the Kelly family and who had originally taken the report of Dr Kelly's disappearance.
Q. Do you remember who that was?
A. His name was Sergeant Simon Morris.
Q. He had come back to the police station?
A. He returned to Abingdon police station and briefed those present of what had gone on during the night.
Q. What had gone on during the night?
A. As I understand it, they had done some searching of the area, as much as they could possibly do in the dark.
Q. Who had done that?
A. Uniformed police officers.
Q. Do you remember how many?
A. I could not say at the moment.
Q. Were you told about a helicopter that had been used?
A. I understand the helicopter had been used in an attempt to find any sort of zones of heat, I believe they call that.
Q. What had been the result of those night-time searches?
A. They were all negative. 

So it can be seen that DS Webb's knowledge about the helicopter is very much second hand and he provides little detail. 

The day after DS Webb gives his evidence and it's the turn of Assistant Chief Constable Page to make his first contribution to the Inquiry.  He describes getting called out and his subsequent actions:

Q. We have heard there was a report to the police at 11.40 on 17th July in the evening.
A. That is correct.
Q. When did you become aware of that report?
A. I received a telephone call at 3.09 am on Friday morning.
Q. So some four hours later?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it normal for a missing person report to get up to Assistant Chief Constable level as quickly as that?
A. Only where there are vulnerable or exacerbating factors to the missing person.
Q. What were those vulnerable or exacerbating circumstances?
A. Well, all missing persons are subject to an assessment and the officers at the scene carried out an assessment.
Q. Do you know who the officer at the scene was?
A. Sergeant Morris.
Q. We have heard he was from Abingdon police station, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. He carried out an assessment?
A. That is right, which rated Dr Kelly as a medium risk missing person.  

Q. What does that mean, is that a good or bad thing?
A. Neither good nor bad in many respects. But it raises our awareness of issues around that person and prompts us to take certain actions.
Q. What are those actions?
A. Normally the notification of the senior officer so that any specialist resources that are required can be obtained. In this particular case, that assessment was arrived at which prompted a call to the officer's area commander, as it would do.
Q. The area commander is what rank?
A. Chief Superintendent. She, on receipt of the information, coupled with her knowledge of Dr Kelly and the circumstances that surrounded him --
Q. She had watched the news?
A. She had watched the news and because he was a resident in her area, she was perhaps a little more aware of what was going on, and she decided that adding those circumstances to the standard assessment --
Q. The medium risk?
A. The medium risk raised it somewhat higher and she rang me almost immediately.
Q. That is why you get the call in the morning?
A. Absolutely.
Q. What did you do?
A. I listened very carefully to what had happened thus far and made my own assessment of the actions that had been taken.
Q. What had been done so far?
A. There had been a reasonably thorough search of Dr Kelly's house and the surrounding grounds.

Q. Who had done that?
A. That had been carried out by Sergeant Morris and officers from the night shift at Abingdon. They were later supplemented by a police dog which had been used to assist in the search. I do apologise for my voice.  So that search had been conducted at the scene. The police helicopter had also been called out and had been making intermittent searches around the area of the house using heat seeking equipment.
Q. So who had been responsible for calling out the police helicopter?
A. Sergeant Morris.
Q. Where is that helicopter based? We have heard it came from RAF Benson, is that right?
A. That is correct, that is where it is based.
Q. How many police officers were involved in the search?
A. At that particular time half a dozen.
LORD HUTTON: Just so that it is clear, I think what you said, Mr Page, this was a police helicopter?
A. It was a police helicopter, my Lord, yes.
MR DINGEMANS: Does it have anything that assists in finding people?
A. A number of items but the principal one in use on the night was heat seeking equipment.

Page gets it wrong ... it's the Luton helicopter, not the one based at Benson!

We now know from ACC Page that it was Sergeant Morris who called out the helicopter but no detail was provided as to when Sgt Morris made his decision, nor the times of the flights, nor the exact route taken during the seach. Answers eventually came from Freedom of Information requests.  

Sgt Morris was evidently a key person that night: he had called out the helicopter, visited Mrs Kelly and overseen a reasonably thorough search of the house and grounds.  Hutton failed to call him, not only that there was no witness statement from him on the Inquiry website. 

The first involvement of the coroner

A body is found.  The police are called.  The death appears unusual.  One of the first things for the police to do is to inform the coroner, in the case of Dr Kelly's death this was the Oxfordshire County Coroner Nicholas Gardiner.

A person who has been appointed as a coroner unsurprisingly has to have either a legal or medical background.  In the most perfect of worlds they would have had some experience in both these disciplines.  Mr Gardiner, now retired, came to his post via the legal route http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9556523.Coroner_calls_time_on_a_daily_date_with_death/
Dr Kelly died in unusual circumstances and it seems to me that Mr Gardiner would have been more dependent than usual on the reports from the forensic pathologist and toxicologist as to cause and mode of death.

I'm fascinated by the relationship between coroner, pathologist and the police, something I've thought about because of the death of Dr Kelly.  Fundamentally the pathologist is answerable to the coroner and in our case Dr Hunt sent his reports to Mr Gardiner.  Obviously the post mortem report is likely to be of great interest to the police.  What I haven't investigated is, whether as a matter of protocol, the pathologist only writes to the coroner with him/her in turn passing the report to the police or whether the police are automatically copied in when the coroner is sent the report.

Having just written the last paragraph I now see on Dr Hunt's report published on the internet on 22 October 2010 the words: This is a confidential report to the coroner and should not be disclosed to a third party without his permission.  The same report is on the Attorney General's website but recast as a police witness statement and thus doesn't include the reference to it being a confidential report to the coroner.  I hope that this makes sense.


Mr Gardiner wrote to the Attorney General's office on 6 May 2011  http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Gardiner%20to%20AGO%206%20May%202011.pdf 
The specifics relating to the morning of the 18th are recorded in this paragraph:

To turn to this particular case the discovery of Dr Kelly's body was reported to me by the police on the morning of the 18th July.  From the outset it was clear that this was going to be a high profile case.  Amongst matters I would have discussed with the police at that point would have been the identity of the pathologist who would be carrying out the post mortem examination.  We were both clear in our minds that this would have to be what is commonly called a Forensic Pathologist, that is one recognized by the Home Office, we decided that Dr Hunt would be appropriate.  There are a number of facts governing this choice although the number of Home Office recognized pathologists is quite small and they are not always available.  Dr Hunt was available and he actually lived locally and so was able to get to the scene quite quickly.  As you know he did go to the scene and his observations are recorded.  

On his first visit to the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September ACC Page said: 

We were very anxious, from the outset, to ensure the most thorough possible examination of the scene. I spoke to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Gardiner, and we agreed between us that we would use a Home Office pathologist, which is a very highly trained pathologist. 

In his 2007 book Norman Baker states that there are 43 forensic pathologists on the Home Office register.  Unless Dr Hunt had recently moved into the area then I suspect that he had conducted a large number of post mortems for Mr Gardiner.  Rather like a retained fireman a pathologist has to be "on call" and one imagines that coroners are kept up to date regarding availability of pathologists, when they are on holiday, etc.  

An earlier post  described Dr Hunt's location when the police called him to attend the scene at Harrowdown Hill http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/dr-hunt-what-he-did-before-1410-1.html

In his report Dr Hunt states:  'The facial soft tissues were dissected to the level of the bone'.  This has some relevance to my next post.

Dr Hunt - what he did before 14.10 (1)

Dr Kelly's body was discovered at about 9.15 on the morning of Friday 18 July 2003.  It was though nearly three hours before the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt arrived at Harrowdown Hill and then two more hours before the examination of the scene started in earnest.  It is self evidently a matter of commonsense that the pathologist should start his investigation as soon as possible.  

On page 27 of his book Norman Baker makes some criticism about the time it took for Dr Hunt to arrive.  However I feel he is being a little unfair on Hunt ... unless Mr Baker is party to some information that I haven't yet seen.  Critically, I don't know when on that morning Dr Hunt was contacted and asked to attend the scene. 

We have a little information from the coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, who, in a letter to Kevin McGinty at the Attorney General's Office dated 6 May 2011 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Gardiner%20to%20AGO%206%20May%202011.pdf included this:

To turn to this particular case the discovery of Dr Kelly's body was reported to me by the police on the morning of 18th July.  From the outset it was clear that this was going to be a high profile case.  Amongst matters I would have discussed with the police at that point would have been the identity of the pathologist who would be carrying out the post mortem examination.  We were both clear in our minds that this would have to be what is commonly called a Forensic Pathologist, that is one recognized by the Home Office, we decided that Dr Hunt would be appropriate.  There are a number of factors governing this choice although the number of Home Office recognized pathologists is quite small and they are not always available.  Dr Hunt was available and he actually lived locally and so was able to get to the scene quite quickly.  As you know he did go to the scene and his observations are recorded. 

When ACC Page attended the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September he told Mr Dingemans:

We were very anxious, from the outset, to ensure the most thorough possible examination of the scene.  I spoke to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Gardiner, and we agreed between us that we would use a Home Office pathologist, which is a very highly trained pathologist.

A little earlier he had said this:

Q. Having received the information about Dr Kelly's body being found, did you go to the scene?
A. No, I did not.
Q. What happened after that information had come to your attention?

A. Well, from my perspective I appointed a senior investigating officer [DCI Alan Young], a man who would, if you like, carry out the technical issues around the investigation.  I met fairly quickly with my Chief Constable [Peter Neyroud] and we decided what levels of resourcing and what levels of investigation we should apply to these circumstances. 

I would have thought that ACC Page would have contacted the coroner sooner than later and would suggest that the initial conversation between them would have occurred by 10 o'clock.  It must be remembered that finding the body wasn't totally a "bolt from the blue", significant resources were already available as a result of what had been a missing person investigation.

In the "Dr Hunt interview" in the Sunday Times of 22 August 2010 the first sentence reads 'On July 18, 2003, Nicholas Hunt was conducting a case review at the National Crime Faculty in Bramshill, Hampshire, when he took a phone call that still weighs heavily upon him.'   Dr Hunt would, I think, have been here http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10755.htm  Looking at one internet source it seems that the drive from Bramshill to Harrowdown Hill would take a little over an hour, say an hour and a quarter.  My assumption (and hope) is that Dr Hunt carries his forensic suit and other necessary gear in his car. 

Possibly Mr Baker does have a point: what we don't know is just when TVP spoke to Dr Hunt and whether the latter decided to complete his "case review" before making his way to the site where Dr Kelly's body had been located. 

Why did Mr Green come "at short notice"? (2)

In my last post it was established that forensic biologist Mr Green attended the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September, that he came at short notice and that it was ACC Page who facilitated his visit in stage 1.

This post looks at why I think he might have been asked to come "at short notice".

On the afternoon of the previous day the two members of the ambulance team gave evidence.  Counsel to the Inquiry will have their police witness statements and, as such, will be familiar with what they did at the time and can question them accordingly.  As one would expect both Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett were asked if there was anything else they wanted to mention.  Most witnesses, as happened at the Hutton Inquiry, would say no.  After all they had been examined in relation to their written statements and I would think that a natural reaction would be to end their ordeal in the spotlight just as quickly as possible.

However the ambulance team seemed to be reading from a different script.  They each commented on the lack of blood at the scene, see my post  http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/blood-ambulance-teams-evidence.html  This would be quite alarming to those intent on promoting the conclusions reached by Dr Hunt ... effectively they were saying, as experienced professionals, that Dr Hunt couldn't be right in his belief that Dr Kelly died from haemorrhage after cutting his wrist.  Moreover, because it was such an ineffective way of committing suicide they would have far more practical experience than Dr Hunt in viewing the result of wrist slashing.

Mr Dingemans quickly sees the problem and tries to recover the situation by suggesting that Ms Hunt wouldn't be examining the ground for blood loss.  Well she wouldn't have been specifically doing this but she noticed the small patch of blood on the right knee of Dr Kelly's jeans and some blood on nearby nettles.  She would have been kneeling or squatting near the left side of the body and it's not really credible that she would miss seeing any sizeable pool of blood.

In his report Dr Hunt had recorded smears of blood here, there and everywhere.  Logically, as the blood specialist, Mr Green would have seen the same or more.  Therefore if he could testify at short notice then some of the harm done to the official narrative might be nullified.  

Official proceedings on the afternoon of the 2nd finished at 3.50 pm.  This would leave Hutton time, after discussing the situation with counsel, to phone ACC Page and get him to pop round to see Mr Green.  Mr Green then on the following day went up to London and "delivered" more blood to a very grateful Lord Hutton.

There is evidence that the blood at the scene was augmented between the time that the ambulance team see it and Mr Green's arrival at Harrowdown Hill, this will be discussed later as will Mr Green's imaginative explanation of how some of the blood disappeared. 

 

Why did Mr Green come "at short notice"? (1)

The forensic biologist Mr Green gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry on the afternoon of 3rd September 2003.  At the conclusion of those proceedings Mr Dingemans said 'Thank you for coming at short notice'.  The yet to be answered question is: why did Mr Green go to the Inquiry at short notice?

Wind the clock back to the morning of that day and we find ACC Page being examined by Mr Dingemans.  Reference is made to the non appearance of Dr Hunt in Part One of the Inquiry and that Mr Green will be coming later:

Q. We have heard how a common access path was established yesterday.

A. Yes.
Q. And the fingertip searching was carried out. Did forensic pathologists become involved?
A. Yes. We were very anxious, from the outset, to ensure the most thorough possible examination of the scene. I spoke to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Gardiner, and we agreed between us that we would use a Home Office pathologist, which is a very highly trained pathologist.  It was also agreed with the senior investigating officer that we would use forensic biologists who are able to look at the scene and, in particular, blood splashes and make certain determinations from those in relation to what may have happened. 

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

Q. What was the name of the pathologist who --
A. The pathologist was Mr Nicholas Hunt.
Q. We were hoping to call Mr Hunt to give evidence this morning, but he is on holiday and he is coming in stage 2. 

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

Q. Right. And did he [Dr Hunt] form any conclusion about cause of death?
A. His conclusion around cause of death was that it was due to blood loss from incisions made to Dr Kelly's wrist.
Q. And we will hear from him but unhappily not today.  What other searches were carried out at the scene?  You have mentioned a forensic biologist. What do they do?
A. A forensic biologist, I believe you will be hearing from one later --
Q. Who was the forensic biologist?
A. A Mr Green I think. Yes, Mr Rory Green.
Q. I think you have very kindly arranged for him to come along later today?
A. That is correct, my Lord.
Q. What was he doing? We will hear in detail from him.
A. Essentially he was looking at the undergrowth around Dr Kelly's body.
Q. For what?
A. For blood splashing. Perhaps it is best to allow him to explain it himself but essentially he would be able to give a judgment as to what occurred at the scene from the pattern made by the blood splashes.

At this time Mr Green had further testing to do.  It might be argued that in the absence of Dr Hunt it was a good idea to have a forensic expert give at least some evidence in stage 1.  Surely though it would make more sense to wait until he had assembled all of his evidence in case the earlier evidence conflicted in some way with that obtained when the testing was completed.  A further oddity was the fact that Mr Green didn't complete his detailed report until 27 September.  Rather than the headlong rush to complete the Inquiry in double quick time wouldn't it have been better to complete the forensic testing first and the Inquiry team to look at all the forensic information before proceeding?

The other point I must mention is that it was evidently ACC Page who arranged for Mr Green to come that day.  Why?  It seems to me that the Inquiry team ought to have contacted Mr Green themselves.

In my next post I shall set out a possible scenario that might explain why Mr Green came "at short notice".

Fingerprints and Annex TVP 2

On 9 June 2011 the Attorney General Dominic Grieve made a statement in the House of Commons saying that he wasn't going to go to the High Court to apply for an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.  On the same day a considerable body of written material was published on the Attorney General's website relating to his decision  http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Pages/DrKelly.aspx  It can be seen under the sub-heading "Thames Valley Police (TVP) statements" there are seven links; the first six links are titled Annex TVP 1 to 6.

Bearing in mind the wording of the sub-heading referred to then it might reasonably be assumed that a police officer from TVP authored the six annexes.  That is not the case though: we now know from a Freedom of Information request that they were drafted by Kevin McGinty, a senior civil servant in the Attorney General's Office.

Mr McGinty's "Annex TVP 2 Fingerprint and DNA evidence" is the one relevant to this post  http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%202.pdf   It is quite a brief document so should be read as a whole, however it is only the part dealing with fingerprints that I will concentrate on in this particular post.


Superficially it may appear to be fine but I want to point out my concerns about it.

At point number 7 Mr McGinty states 'It should be pointed out that these figures and the fingerprint statistics that follow are from a fairly small sample'.   The question that needs to be asked is how small is 'fairly small'?  We just don't know.  If a police force is involved in a cover up then how do we know whether or not the 'fairly small sample' has been weighted in some way.  Again we just don't know.  Really the statistics Mr McGinty then goes on to quote do not necessarily add up to very much.


Another matter not addressed is that a person intent on suicide would normally have little motivation to avoid leaving fingerprints.  Contrast this with a planned assassination say where I suggest the murderer or murderers could be very keen not to leave fingerprint, or DNA, evidence!  Without him being aware of the circumstances of the event leading to the possible procurement of fingerprint evidence how can Mr McGinty make a valued judgement from the statistics provided?


It is worth reading paragraphs 2 and 3 together.  Effectively I think they are saying that because no third party DNA or fingerprints were found at the scene that doesn't in anyway exclude the possibility of third party activity at Harrowdown Hill.  Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page made the point at the Hutton Inquiry that there was no evidence of third party involvement in Dr Kelly's death.  Clearly then the lack of third party DNA and fingerprints on its own couldn't exclude the possibility of third party presence.  


One area in which Mr Page's reasoning lets him down at the Inquiry is that because he can't find evidence of third party activity at the scene then no third party activity took place.  Hence Dr Kelly wasn't murdered, hence he committed suicide.  This line of argument is demonstrably nonsense!


In many ways the testimony given by Mr Page is very poor, no doubt I will be looking again at what he said at the Inquiry in later posts.

Were the "expert" witnesses competent and honest?

When Lord Hutton conducted his Inquiry he quite reasonably called a number of witnesses who one would expect to be expert in their specialisms.  We imagine these individuals are both competent and honest.  A person who is supposedly a forensic expert can pull the wool over one's eyes because most of us don't have the knowledge to immediately refute the expert's argument nor do we have the time to dissect what they have said or written.  The expert has had his say, and with a number of qualifications and in most cases years of experience who are we to say they are wrong?

I am not an expert but, as with certain other folk, I can pull an argument apart and am prepared to do so where necessary.  The following have all been found wanting: Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page, Forensic Pathologist Nicholas Hunt, Forensic Toxicologist Alexander Allan, Forensic Scientist Roy Green, Consultant Psychiatrist Keith Hawton and we musn't overlook Lord Hutton himself.  An expose of at least some of their failures will be a key feature of this blog.

It's worth noting at this point what Hutton was saying about expert witnesses and his Inquiry on 3 September 2010.  On this date he wrote to the Attorney General with an attached report, what he described as "a note" that he intended giving to the Lord Chancellor.  In response to criticisms he states at 1(b):
The inquiry was as full and thorough as an inquest, and was probably more so because a considerable number of expert witnesses gave detailed evidence including a Home Office pathologist, a forensic biologist and a forensic toxicologist.  The leading expert on suicide in England, Professor Keith Hawton of Oxford University, was also called to give evidence.

This paragraph by Lord Hutton is absolute nonsense!  It would have been open to the coroner to call all of these people including Hawton.  There would have been nothing at all to stop the Oxfordshire coroner doing this, whether he would have done so is a different argument, the point is he could have done.  Moreover, because they would have had to give evidence under oath at an inquest then it would be more likely if anything for the inquest to be better than an inquiry (or at least the casual sort of inquiry that happenned here).

The example just given of Hutton's musings demonstrates how poor his arguments can be.