Dr Hunt - what he did before 14.10 (3)

Mentioned in my last post was the fact that Dr Hunt confirmed the death at the scene at 12.35.  His detailed examination with Mr Green commenced at 14.10.  He withdrew from the scene and was away from it for just over one and a half hours. Did he use this time to advantage?

Frustratingly we don't know what he did in this time gap and he was never asked.  This post is concerned with some things, in my opinion, he should have been doing and thinking about.

• He should have asked the police to find out about Dr Kelly's handedness in view of the injury to the left wrist.  In a statement WPC Roberts (Family liaison officer) said that she asked this question of Sian Kelly on 19 July but it's not known if Dr Hunt was told  http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_16_0001.pdf
• In view of Dr Kelly's job it was quite likely that there would be a history of medical tests by a government doctor.  Any such reports and any similar from his GP should have been requested.
• If there was a possibility of suicide then the fact that the body wasn't leaning against a tree when he first saw it should have been something to think about.  As DC Coe said to journalist Matt Sandy:  'As I got closer, I could see Dr Kelly's body sideways on, with his head and shoulders against a large tree.  He wasn't dead flat along the ground.  If you wanted to die, you'd never lie flat out.  But neither was he sat upright.'  
• The fact that there was blood on the Barbour cap off the body was another anomaly.
• Dr Hunt showed remarkably little interest in the open bottle of water.  The fact is that it was very close to the left shoulder where, as the ambulance crew later remarked, it was surprising that it wasn't knocked over.  To all intents and purposes it was impossible to reach from the body's position too.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, rather it flags up a few things that Dr Hunt might have thought about or done.  Surely he must have used some of that time in considering the case, shouldn't he?

The bloodstained Barbour cap (1)

In previous posts I have discussed at some length the various bloodstained artifacts found in the vicinity of Dr Kelly's body: the knife, watch, Evian bottle and its top.  But also, close to the head, there was a Barbour cap ... also with blood on it.

This is what the witnesses said about the cap:

Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman
Although neither of them mention the cap or are asked about it, for completeness I feel that this needs to be mentioned.   What I found particularly interesting though is the fact that Louise Holmes who gets to within four feet of the body wasn't asked about what Dr Kelly was wearing yet Paul Chapman, much further away, was!  So far as the disclosed parts of their police witness statements in Annex TVP 3 are concerned there is no reference to clothing or to the cap.

 DC Coe
At the Inquiry DC Coe expresses a lot of uncertainty at times, as if not quite sure what answer he feels he should give, and the matter of the cap is a very good example of this.

Q. Did this person have any clothes on?
A. He did. He was fully dressed.
Q. Could you be more particular as to what the clothes you saw were?
A. He was wearing a Barbour jacket. There was a cap, a pair of trousers and think walking boots, but I cannot be certain on that. 

Q. Was the cap on the head or was the cap apart from the body? 

A. That I cannot remember -- I have a feeling the cap was off, but I cannot be sure. 

Why didn't Mr Knox ask Coe to check in his notebook about the position of the cap?

In Annex TVP 1 where part of DC Coe's statement is reproduced there is no problem:

There was also a peaked cap close to this male person.

Seven years later his memory still is clear on the matter because in the interview he gave Matt Sandy for the Mail on Sunday he states:

Near him was a pruning knife with a wooden handle and a curved, three-inch blade.
On the ground was a cap, a watch and a small Evian water bottle.

As with the other objects he doesn't mention seeing any blood on the cap.

Vanessa Hunt

Doesn't mention the cap at the Inquiry but nothing should be read into that.

Dave Bartlett

At the Hutton Inquiry:

Q. Did you notice any other items of clothing nearby? 

A. There was a cap ...(Pause). Yes, there was a flat cap on the left of the body, near the head end. 

It seems then that the cap was in place when viewed by Coe and Bartlett, whether it was there when the searchers discovered the body is unknown.

PC Franklin

As happened with Ms Hunt he doesn't note the presence of the cap.

PC Sawyer

He uses the word "cap" but from its context he is I think referring to the top of the Evian bottle.

Q. Did you see a bottle of water?
A. I did, by Dr Kelly's head. There was an open bottle of Evian, 500 ml or 300 ml bottle, with the cap by the side of it, by his head.

Dr Hunt

At the Inquiry:

Q. Did you investigate the scene next to the body? 

A. Yes.

Q. And what did that show?

A. There was a Barbour flat-type cap with some blood on the lining and the peak near his left shoulder and upper arm. In the region of his left hand lying on the grass there was a black resin strapped wristwatch, a digital watch, which was also bloodstained. 

In his report and under "Adjacent scene":

Lying adjacent to the left shoulder/upper arm was a 'Barbour' cap with the lining side uppermost.  There was blood over the lining and also the peak.

Mr Green

Cap not discussed with him at the Inquiry but the results of his tests on the cap will be noted in my next post.

The blood: DC Coe's evidence

At the end of my last post I had said that the next one would relate what the ambulance crew said about the blood at the scene.  However to try and keep some degree of correct chronological sequence I want to discuss what DC Coe had to say on this subject instead.

Going to the Hutton Inquiry and DC Coe's testimony given to Peter Knox here are the exchanges:

Q. Did you notice anything about the body? 

A. I did.

Q. What did you notice?

A. I noticed that there was blood round the left wrist.  I saw a knife, like a pruning knife, and a watch.  

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

Q. Did you notice if there were any stains on the clothes? 
A. I saw blood around the left wrist area.  


In that second exchange it can be seen that DC Coe really doesn't want to get involved with bloodstains on the clothes   If he was aware of blood being added to the scene then his reluctance is understandable, moreover Thames Valley Police mightn't be keen for him to talk about the blood either.

Annex TVP 1 from the Attorney General's website has this as part of Coe's witness statement:

At 0940 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr. Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr. Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back.  I could see that his left wrist had blood on it.  Close to the wrist was a small knife similar to a pruning knife together with a wrist watch.

There was a small bottle with a label Evian thereon.  The male was wearing striped shirt blue jeans that had a stain on the right knee Barbour type jacket.  There was also a peaked cap close to this male person.

At 1007 am ambulance crew attended the scene where death was pronounced. 

It's interesting to note the sentence immediately preceding this quoted part of the statement in TVP 1: 

Dc Coe's  Police statement is very short, not particularly descriptive but factually correct.  The TVP Annexes were penned by Mr McGinty at the Attorney General's Office but he assures us about the factual correctness so that is all right.

Although DC Coe doesn't mention blood being seen elsewhere it seems to me that we should assume that the only meaningful amount of blood at the scene is as he says in his evidence.

In his interview for the Matt Sandy article in the Mail on Sunday of 8 August 2010 Mr Coe feels able to firm up his observation about the lack of blood at the scene:

DC Coe is clear on the amount of blood he saw.  He said: 'I certainly didn't see a lot of blood anywhere.  There was some on his left wrist but it wasn't on his clothes.  On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any.

'I didn't see any bloodstains on the bottle and I didn't check the knife.'  

So the only difference I think with the press interview is that he is being more explicit.

He didn't see any bloodstains on the bottle although he had noted the Evian label.  He didn't check the knife which according to Mr Green was heavily stained with blood but did notice that (part of) the watch was on top of the knife.  Mr Coe's memory appears to be very selective!

As we shall see DC Coe's description of the paucity of blood at the scene is matched by the two members of the ambulance team but is at odds with the evidence from Dr Hunt and Mr Green.  

The knife - summarising my observations

The last seven posts on this blog have been concerned with the knife found close to the body at Harrowdown Hill.  Here is a summary of my thoughts on this particular aspect of the Dr Kelly mystery:

• There is general agreement in the description of the knife by witnesses.  An exception is DC Coe who, in the Mail on Sunday, stated that it had a wooden handle.
• The searchers fail to mention the presence of the knife.  They aren't asked about it either.
• The ambulance crew report the presence of the knife but don't talk of blood on it.  Nor do they observe a pool of blood under the knife.
• DC Coe states at the Hutton Inquiry that the watch was on top of the knife.  This was subsequently interpreted from photographic evidence as part of the watchstrap lying on the handle of the knife.  Despite this observation by DC Coe he fails to note the pool of blood under the knife.  In fact he states in the Mail on Sunday 'On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any'
• My belief is that the knife and watch were repositioned after being seen by the ambulance crew (I'll explain the reasoning later).  This might readily explain why neither Dr Hunt nor Mr Green see the watchstrap partly over the knife handle.
• The description of the knife demonstrates that it was totally unsuitable for the incision of the ulnar artery.  Ideally a very sharp straight blade with a knobbly sort of handle for good grip would be used, the traditional style of "Stanley" knife then would be much better than a pruning knife.
• Dr Hunt records the presence of crushed edges to the wrist wound which suggests that the knife wasn't very sharp.
• In 2010 Tom Mangold makes a comment about gaffer-tape on the handle of the knife contrary to previous recorded evidence.  The gaffer-tape story appears to have been brought into play to explain why fingerprints weren't recorded on the knife; when asked Mangold refuses to explain how the gaffer-tape story originated.
• The official narrative has the knife normally in a draw in Dr Kelly's study.  The implication from this it seems is that Dr Kelly took it from the drawer before he started his last walk thus lending some credence to the suicide hypothesis.
• Lord Hutton mentions comment about the knife by daughters Rachel and Ellen in his Report.  However the only oral evidence from the family about the knife came from Mrs Kelly.
• Mai Pederson believed that she had seen the knife and that Dr Kelly habitually carried it in a pocket of his Barbour jacket.

The watch "just on top of the knife"

DC Coe gave his evidence to the Hutton Inquiry on 16 September 2003.  Although it was very terse for I believe understandable reasons there are nevertheless some nuggets in it worth close examination.  This exchange with junior counsel Peter Knox is exceptionally interesting:

Q. Where was the watch? 

A. If I remember rightly, just on top of the knife.

Q. And where was the knife?

A. Near to the left wrist, left side of the body.

What on earth was the watch doing in that position 'just on top of the knife'?   Dr Hunt, the next witness to appear, had speculated in his report that the watch was removed part way through the cutting process yet here was the watch "on top of the knife".

This problem has been raised with the Attorney General as can be read at number 90 in the "Shedule of responses to issues raised" http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf

Issue

Dr Hunt relied on the removal of the watch as indicative of suicide.  However DC Coe's evidence was that the watch was on top of the knife.  If that is correct that knife was not used to make the cuts.  This discrepancy was not examined.

Response

DC Coe reported that when he first attended the scene he witnessed Dr Kelly's watch as being "on top" of the knife.  Dr Hunt sets out that the knife was actually "adjacent" to Dr Kelly's watch.  Photographs taken show that both descriptions could be considered accurate as a short section of the strap appears to rest on the handle of the knife whilst the bulk of the knife is adjacent.

This response to the issue raised fails.  Firstly if part of the wrist strap was on top of the knife handle both Dr Hunt and Mr Green should have recorded the fact; they both failed to do so.  Secondly, the fundamental question of why ANY part of the watch is on top of ANY part of the knife is simply not addressed.

My own belief is that the scene setters in arranging the various artifacts made a simple mistake in allowing part of the watch strap to be on top of the handle of the knife.  As I say a simple mistake but a telling one.

A final point for this post:  DC Coe sees part of the watch on the knife yet says he didn't check the knife (for blood).  He sees the watch strap but fails to spot the pool of blood under the knife.  As he said to journalist Matt Sandy:  'On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any'.

Is this credible?  I think you know the answer to that one!

The knife and DC Coe's newspaper interview

DC Coe gave a very informative interview to journalist Matt Sandy that appeared in the "Mail on Sunday" dated 8 August 2010.  To any "Dr Kelly" investigator this has proved to be a goldmine of information.  For this post though I shall only be looking at a small part of the piece, where Mr Coe talks of the knife http://www.pressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/entries-01011-00568.pdf

This is part of a direct quote:

Near him was a pruning knife with a wooden handle and a curved three-inch blade.

In my previous post none of the witnesses spoke of "a wooden handle" to the knife.  The person who should have been most reliable in his evidence is, in my opinion, Mr Green who not only sees the knife in situ but subsequently the knife goes to his laboratory.  Mr Green though describes it as a stainless steel knife, if the handle was partly or wholly wood he would surely have mentioned the fact.

Two possibilities come to mind:

• After an interval of seven years DC Coe's memory is at fault on this particular point.
• The knife described by him is not the same knife that the later witnesses saw.

The evidence given by the two ambulance crew in my previous post if anything support the all metal knife description but they aren't specific about the nature of the handle.

Later in the Matt Sandy article we read:

DC Coe is clear on the amount of blood he saw.  He said: 'I certainly didn't see a lot of blood anywhere.  There was some on his left wrist but it wasn't on his clothes.  On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any.

'I didn't see any bloodstains on the bottle and I didn't check the knife.'

Is it really credible that he never noticed the blade and handle being heavily stained with blood as viewed by Mr Green, or Dr Hunt's 8-10 by 4-5 cm pool of blood?

I suspect that the heavy bloodstaining on the knife, and the pool of blood, weren't there when he first saw the body.  Later I will explain why the knife was moved ... this would be the time then to "create" the pool of blood. 

The knife at Harrowdown Hill

A knife was found at Harrowdown Hill to the left of the body.  The purpose of this post is to record the descriptions of the knife through the eyes of the witnesses.  

Although apparently close to the body the knife isn't mentioned by either of the civilian searchers at the Hutton Inquiry or in that part of their police statements that have been disclosed.  Neither the counsel to the Inquiry nor Lord Hutton ask Louise Holmes or Paul Chapman about the knife.  The searchers aren't asked about any of the other objects near the body nor do they volunteer information about them, suggesting that they were added after the searchers left the scene.  As will be discussed later the evidence is of the body being moved as well as each arm relative to the body.  Therefore the possibility of the various artifacts being added by a third party can't be ruled out.

This is DC Coe at the Hutton Inquiry:

Q. Did you notice anything about the body? 

A. I did.

Q. What did you notice?

A. I noticed that there was blood round the left wrist.  I saw a knife, like a pruning knife, and a watch. 

DC Coe police witness statement (from Annex TVP 1)

I could see that his left wrist had blood on it.  Close to the wrist was a small knife like a pruning knife together with a wrist watch.

PC Franklin at the Hutton Inquiry

Q. And what did the knife look like?
A. The blade was open. It was some sort of lock knife. I cannot be that precise. I believe it had a curved -- slight curve to the blade. The blade was maybe 3 to 4 inches long.
Q. Was there anything on the blade?
A. Blood.

PC Franklin police witness statement (from Annex TVP 3)

... the deceased had an apparent cut to his left arm, his wristwatch and a knife were lying close to the left arm ...

PC Sawyer at the Hutton Inquiry

There was a large amount of blood on the back of the left arm. There was a watch and a curved knife by that wrist.
Q. And you say a curved knife. Was it open? Was it a penknife?
A. It was open. I have seen gardening pruning knives which look identical. I would have called it a pruning knife.

The published extract of PC Sawyer's witness statement is very short and doesn't include any reference to the knife.

Paramedic Vanessa Hunt at the Hutton Inquiry

Q. Right. And did you see anything on the ground? 

A. There was a silver bladed knife, a wristwatch, which was off of the wrist.

Q. Yes.

A. And, oh, a water bottle, a small water bottle stood up to the left side of Dr Kelly's head.

The published extract of Vanessa Hunts witness statement in Annex TVP 3 just deals with the body position.

Ambulance Technician Dave Bartlett at the Hutton Inquiry

Q. What type of a knife was it? 

A. I think it was one of those silver quite flat ones with like a curved blade, more like a pruning knife. 

Dave Bartlett police witness statement (Annex TVP 3)

On the ground next to the left arm I saw a watch and an open penknife and an empty water bottle.

Forensic Pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt at the Hutton Inquiry

Q. What about next to the watch?
A. Lying next to that was a pruning knife or gardener's knife. 

Q. Can you describe what type of pruning knife it was?

A. The make was a Sandvig knife. It was one with a little hook or lip towards the tip of the blade. It is a fairly standard gardeners' type knife.

Dr Hunt in his report 
Lying near his left hand, on the grass, was a black resin-strapped wristwatch; presumably a digital watch, lying face down and showing some bloodstaining.

Lying adjacent to this was a white metal 'Sandvik' pruning type knife, or gardener's knife, with its blade extended from the handle.  There was bloodstaining over both the handles and the blade and a pool of blood beneath the knife which was approximately 8-10 by approximately 4-5 cms.

Forensic biologist Roy Green at the Hutton Inquiry
Q. What else did you see around the body?
A. There was a bloodstained watch and a knife to --
Q. Was the knife bloodstained?
A. Yes, it was, yes. 

Mr Green's written statement 
The "Sandvik" knife (AMH.5) was a stainless steel penknife.  The single blade, which was curved and measured 7.5 cm in length, was exposed.  The blade and the handle were heavily stained with blood especially on the right side.

So what information can we draw from this?  The basic description of the knife is consistent between the various witnesses at Harrowdown Hill which is hardly surprising.  What is noticeable is that neither the ambulance crew nor DC Coe mention blood on the knife, by the time Mr Green sees it both the blade and handle are heavily stained with blood.  Even more theatrically Dr Hunt describes a pool of blood beneath the knife.  I shall explain later the evidence of the knife (and watch) having been moved between the time the ambulance crew are at the scene and the examination of the scene by Dr Hunt and Mr Green.

Mr Green, not surprisingly, gives us the most accurate description of the knife.  I have just made a measurement to see how wide my wrist is: it is almost exactly 7.5 cm across ... the same as the length of the blade.  The fact that the blade was curved demonstrates to me that its shape was far from ideal for the purpose.  I would have thought a knife of the "Stanley" type with a straight blade would have been far better for making incisions.

Some more interesting aspects of the knife to come in my next posts.

Dr Kelly Interview - Germ Warfare

The last interview with Dr Kelly was made in the middle of June 2003, about a month before his death.  Made for the Australian company ABC tv it can be watched as google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=268935367757039981  It's about 48 minutes long and is absolutely fascinating!

Apart from the obvious Dr Kelly interest it also serves an excellent purpose in giving an overview of the development of biological warfare research.  This is not about Iraq, at that moment a much too sensitive subject, but about for instance the clean up of Guinard Island, in which Dr Kelly was involved.  This island is off the coast of Scotland and is where experiments were carried out in the Second World War on sheep to test the efficacy of anthrax as a weapon.  Another important job that Kelly was involved with was the inspection of the Soviet biowarfare facilities, their programme being far bigger than anything in the Middle East.  

One or two other points.  The video confirmed that Dr Kelly was a person who spoke fairly quietly, this being relevant when one remembers that members of the FAC on 15 July 2003 had some difficulty hearing his answers until the fans were switched off.  It has been suggested that David Kelly was uncomfortable at the televised session of the FAC but certainly there seems to be no problem at the time the ABC film was being made.

Our usual perception of Dr Kelly is I think of a person who always wore spectacles but in the video there is quite a lot of footage of him not wearing them.  The searchers don't state whether he was wearing his spectacles when they found him but certainly Dr Hunt says they weren't on his face and finds a pair (presumably Kelly's) in a pocket of the Barbour jacket Dr Kelly was wearing.

At the Hutton Inquiry other witnesses, such as neighbour Ruth Absalom, could have been usefully asked whether he was wearing them.  Mrs Kelly should also have been questioned as to the sort of occasions in which he typically didn't wear them.

The first police officer to see the body (so the narrative goes) was DC Graham Coe.  His memory seems to come and go ... it will be recalled that he forgot that there was a third person accompanying  him and DC Shields when they were on the way to Harrowdown Hill.  In an interview with the Mail on Sunday of 8 August 2010 Coe says 'I think he was wearing his glasses and I think his eyes were closed'.  A lot of uncertainty.  If Dr Kelly set off from his home not wearing them or was likely to take them off  then I would have thought his spectacles case would have been in his pocket.

The email exchanges that led up to the filming are on the Hutton Inquiry website http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0032to0035.pdf