In the preceding post I recorded the fact that a second more thorough search was carried out at the Kelly home. It was supposedly the use of a dog, that might have been distracted by Mrs Kelly (!), that led to her having to wait outside.
Was this use of a dog a deliberate ploy to get Mrs Kelly out of the house? It's a question that investigators would like answering. Certainly there have been a couple of reasons advanced suggesting why it would have been useful to obtain unfettered access to the house.
The first possibility was the need for some props to paint a suicide scenario, principally co-proxamol blister packs from Mrs Kelly's supply and a knife from the drawer of Dr Kelly's study. There is also a body of opinion disputing Ruth Absalom's evidence that Dr Kelly was wearing a jacket and so his Barbour was procured at the same time.
It was another alleged event at the time though that produced a further "excuse" to empty the house. The story is that wallpaper was stripped from the sitting room of the Kelly home whilst Mrs Kelly and her daughters were outside. One of the first investigators of the Kelly death was Rowena Thursby and I think that Mrs Kelly might have informed her about the wallpaper. The most obvious explanation of the action that has been suggested was to sweep the room for listening devices.
Number 167 in the "schedule of responses to issues raised" demands some careful analysis
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf
Here are the question and its answer:
Issue
According to Dr Kelly's widow, police stripped wallpaper from their sitting room on the night of his disappearance. Why?
Response
Thames Valley Police have no record of any wallpaper being stripped and there is no reference to it in the search documentation. The officer that spent the night at the Kelly house confirms that the house was searched (in the presence of a family member) but no wallpaper was stripped. The Police liaison officer appointed to Mrs Kelly following the death has no recollection of this being mentioned.
It seems to me that it would be more likely to be a member of the intelligence services stripping wallpaper than TVP. The reference to the house being searched in the presence of a family member would suggest that the search mentioned was the earlier reasonably thorough one. If Mrs Kelly was made to go outside during the "dog search" then that surely applied to other family members. I can't see a way around that.
Showing posts with label Mrs Kelly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mrs Kelly. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
"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, 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 --
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.
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 communication masts (2)
At least two investigators to my knowledge had independently made Freedom of Information requests to Thames Valley Police seeking more information about the communication masts. The minute amount of information voiced at the Hutton Inquiry came from Mrs Kelly ... and we now know that it was wrong in detail. Perhaps then at long last TVP would answer some FoI act questions on the masts.
It turned out to be a forlorn hope because I have found out that each of the two investigators asking questions were rebuffed - the police declaring that their questions were "vexatious" and not answering them! There the matter stayed until the autumn of 2011 when I was surprised to see an answer on TVP's Freedom of Information log that at least gave some explanation about the use of the communication masts.
On the log was the response to a long multifaceted request - I have no idea about who the questioner was. For the sake of simplicity then I shall only quote the first four questions and the responses to them:
It turned out to be a forlorn hope because I have found out that each of the two investigators asking questions were rebuffed - the police declaring that their questions were "vexatious" and not answering them! There the matter stayed until the autumn of 2011 when I was surprised to see an answer on TVP's Freedom of Information log that at least gave some explanation about the use of the communication masts.
On the log was the response to a long multifaceted request - I have no idea about who the questioner was. For the sake of simplicity then I shall only quote the first four questions and the responses to them:
Investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly
29 November 2011, 2:04 pm
Introduction
This request, reference RFI2011000746, was received on Tuesday 20 September 2011, 2:04pm.
Question
1. Who asked for the appearance of the masts at the Kelly household and when?
2. Which members of your force, or others, used such masts and for what purpose?
3. Who persuaded Mrs Kelly to give evidence to Hutton that the said masts were for Police communications?
4. Why did no member of your force who appeared before Hutton say a single word about the said masts?
Response
1& 2) The area of Longworth offered no UHF coverage so
officers could only communicate via VHF which was only fitted to
vehicles. This was reported to our Silver Command Suite and arrangements
were made to call out the on call HQ Comms staff to deploy a mast to
relay the signals. They attended and deployed a 35 foot vehicle mounted
“pump up” telescopic mast on the road near the Kelly house. This did not
prove to be powerful enough so an 85 foot mast was then installed in
the orchard of the Kelly property and the shorter one removed.
3) This question presupposes that Mrs Kelly was “persuaded”. There is no evidence to suggest this.
4) This question does not fulfil the criteria of Section 8 of the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as you are seeking an opinion or
judgement and not access to recorded information.
No mention of Mrs Kelly's 45 foot mast, nor Mr Baker's 110 feet one. There is evidence of an old trick here: superficially the fairly long combined response to questions 1 and 2 gives the impression of a very adequate reply. Analyse it though and it will be seen that the question of "when were the masts requested" has been neatly avoided. The official narrative suggests that the police activity during the night was focussed on the Kelly's home and immediate surroundings and that a more thorough search was made of the house shortly before 5 o'clock. Clearly with officers within hailing distances of each other a tall mast would hardly be necessary at that time!
The impression given by Mrs Kelly's testimony is that the masts appeared relatively early in the proceedings. Now we know from her evidence about the helicopter just how far out she could be on her timings. It wasn't right to expect her to be correct on such matters though, it was up to Hutton to get precise information from police witnesses.
Thames Valley Police have yet to tell us when a decision was made to deploy a tall communication mast. Until they come clean on this the suspicion remains that they have something to hide.
The communication masts (1)
My last six posts have dealt with the search helicopter and one issue I have highlighted is just how inaccurate the evidence was from Mrs Kelly on this matter. Rather than criticise her for the inaccuracies the point that needs to be made is that it was ludicrous for her testimony to be used as the primary source of a technical matter that was really the province of the police. The question that has to be asked is why did Hutton rely on the wrong witness for this information ... one possible reason I suggest is that counsel wouldn't consider questioning her further on such things whereas a technically orientated witness might find themselves overstepping the mark with the answers they gave.
After her testimony about the helicopter Mrs Kelly moved on to the communication masts. Once again, following Freedom of Information requests, her evidence was demonstrated to be incorrect as to the detail. These are the questions from Mr Dingemans and her replies:
After her testimony about the helicopter Mrs Kelly moved on to the communication masts. Once again, following Freedom of Information requests, her evidence was demonstrated to be incorrect as to the detail. These are the questions from Mr Dingemans and her replies:
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, 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 --
Q. Trying to --
A. Trying to establish that he was not there.
It is plainly ludicrous for the Inquiry to have relied on the evidence of a non expert on communication masts when a police officer could have been asked about it. In his book Norman Baker relates information he was given by Thames Valley Police in a letter dated 27 February 2007: the mast was even higher at 110 feet! He quotes them as saying it was 'to assist radio communications in an, at that time, recognised black spot'. Mr Baker tells us that he had also spoken to a chief constable (evidently not Peter Neyroud of Thames Valley Police) who told him that he would expect a mast only 15 feet high to be used in an area of poor reception.
Whether Mrs Kelly had mentioned the masts in her police witness statements I don't know but apart from that possibility there is no indication that Hutton was provided with any detail about the masts. Hutton might have been as much in the dark as the rest of us. It is plainly wrong that Hutton didn't obtain the proper technical evidence about this.
Following his reply from TVP it's not surprising that Mr Baker, followed by many others, believed that this tall mast was there so that communication could be made with Mr Blair as he was flying from America to Japan. I have to admit that I was one who subscribed to that theory, the more so because of my memory of the Portland spy furore decades earlier when it was revealed that the Krogers transmitted information to Moscow from Ruislip, Middlesex using a 74 foot aerial. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_4059000/4059209.stm
An indication of just how tall the communication mast appeared to be can be seen in this Getty image: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/police-officer-walks-past-reporters-waiting-outside-the-news-photo/2186900
Later information from TVP invalidated the height figure given to Mr Baker and eventually they were more forthcoming about why the masts were used. I will cover this in my next post.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
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.
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:
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. 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Saturday, 4 August 2012
Three police deliver a missing persons form
During the evening of the 17th July two of Mrs Kelly's daughters Sian and Rachel went out looking for their father. Sian came over with her partner Richard from their home at Fordingbridge and it seems that they searched separately from Rachel. Their journey to Southmoor would take about one and three quarter hours. The third daughter, Ellen, lived with her husband in Scotland.
This is the continuation of Mrs Kelly's evidence to Mr Dingemans from the point when Rachel returns to the house having gone on foot to see if her father was returning on his regularly used footpath:
Q. The police are called. Do they turn up?
A. They turn up. Three of them come with a missing persons form to fill in. I explained the situation that David had been in and it seemed immediately to go up to Chief Constable level.
Q. What time did the police arrive? The call I think you told us was about 11.
A. Yes. Within 15 minutes they were there.
Q. Three turned up?
A. Yes.
I'm not clear why Dingemans talks of the phone call being about 11, having just been told by Mrs Kelly it was at about 20 to 12.
The really surprising thing in this part of Mrs Kelly's testimony is that she states that three police turn up with a missing persons form. One would surely be enough, two possibly but three!? I can't claim that this is an original observation by myself ... another investigator had previously drawn attention to this oddity. I don't know how accurate Mrs Kelly was in stating that the police arrived in 15 minutes but it's been pointed out that for this to happen it was almost as if the three police were sat in the car, missing persons form in hand, and ready for the off!
As I will explain later the evidence of police activity during the course of that night was almost entirely supplied by Mrs Kelly. This included details about communication masts and helicopter flights. No disrespect intended towards her but it was patently ridiculous that the Inquiry should have relied on what she said about such matters rather than the police giving evidence.
There is plenty of reason to be suspicious of the whole Hutton process. Of course with only Mrs Kelly giving the "technical" evidence about masts and helicopter flights for example then any further elaboration on such matters wouldn't be forthcoming. That may have been useful from the perspective of Thames Valley Police. However one looks at it it does demonstrate the total inadequacy of the Hutton Inquiry process.
This is the continuation of Mrs Kelly's evidence to Mr Dingemans from the point when Rachel returns to the house having gone on foot to see if her father was returning on his regularly used footpath:
Q. What time was this?
A. This must have been about 6.30 perhaps by now. I am not sure of the times. I was in a terrible state myself by this time trying not to think awful things and trying to take each moment as it came.
Q. And Rachel gets back about 6.30.
A. Something like that.
Q. What does she say?
A. Then the phone rings and it is Sian, one of our other daughters. She immediately says: I am coming over. So she and her partner Richard set out by car from their home near Fordingbridge to drive the distance. They then spent the rest of the evening driving up and down lanes, looking at churches, bus shelters, and so on, looking for her father.
Q. What time did Sian and Richard arrive?
A. After 11 I believe.
Q. They had not seen Dr Kelly?
A. They had not seen him. Obviously it was very dark by then.
Q. What was decided to be done?
A. Well, we had delayed calling the police because we thought we might make matters worse if David had returned when we started to search. I felt he was already in a difficult enough situation. So we put off calling the police until about 20 to 12 at night.
Q. And who called the police?
A. I think it was Sian, I am not sure. It may have been
Rachel.A. This must have been about 6.30 perhaps by now. I am not sure of the times. I was in a terrible state myself by this time trying not to think awful things and trying to take each moment as it came.
Q. And Rachel gets back about 6.30.
A. Something like that.
Q. What does she say?
A. Then the phone rings and it is Sian, one of our other daughters. She immediately says: I am coming over. So she and her partner Richard set out by car from their home near Fordingbridge to drive the distance. They then spent the rest of the evening driving up and down lanes, looking at churches, bus shelters, and so on, looking for her father.
Q. What time did Sian and Richard arrive?
A. After 11 I believe.
Q. They had not seen Dr Kelly?
A. They had not seen him. Obviously it was very dark by then.
Q. What was decided to be done?
A. Well, we had delayed calling the police because we thought we might make matters worse if David had returned when we started to search. I felt he was already in a difficult enough situation. So we put off calling the police until about 20 to 12 at night.
Q. And who called the police?
Q. The police are called. Do they turn up?
A. They turn up. Three of them come with a missing persons form to fill in. I explained the situation that David had been in and it seemed immediately to go up to Chief Constable level.
Q. What time did the police arrive? The call I think you told us was about 11.
A. Yes. Within 15 minutes they were there.
Q. Three turned up?
A. Yes.
I'm not clear why Dingemans talks of the phone call being about 11, having just been told by Mrs Kelly it was at about 20 to 12.
The really surprising thing in this part of Mrs Kelly's testimony is that she states that three police turn up with a missing persons form. One would surely be enough, two possibly but three!? I can't claim that this is an original observation by myself ... another investigator had previously drawn attention to this oddity. I don't know how accurate Mrs Kelly was in stating that the police arrived in 15 minutes but it's been pointed out that for this to happen it was almost as if the three police were sat in the car, missing persons form in hand, and ready for the off!
As I will explain later the evidence of police activity during the course of that night was almost entirely supplied by Mrs Kelly. This included details about communication masts and helicopter flights. No disrespect intended towards her but it was patently ridiculous that the Inquiry should have relied on what she said about such matters rather than the police giving evidence.
There is plenty of reason to be suspicious of the whole Hutton process. Of course with only Mrs Kelly giving the "technical" evidence about masts and helicopter flights for example then any further elaboration on such matters wouldn't be forthcoming. That may have been useful from the perspective of Thames Valley Police. However one looks at it it does demonstrate the total inadequacy of the Hutton Inquiry process.
Friday, 3 August 2012
"Gone for a walk by the river"
Mrs Kelly gave her evidence on the morning of 1st September. This is the exchange with Mr Dingemans regarding her activity following the time that her husband set off for his walk on the afternoon of the 17th:
A. About 15 minutes, depending if he met somebody, perhaps 20 minutes, 25 minutes.
Q. What time did you start to become concerned?
A. Probably late afternoon. Rachel rang, my daughter rang to say: do not worry, he has probably gone out to have a good think. Do not worry about it, he will be fine. She had planned to come over that evening. She made a decision definitely to come over. She arrived -- I am not quite sure what time she arrived, half five, six o'clock, I think. She went out. She said: I will go and walk up and meet Dad. She walked up one of the normal footpaths he would have taken -- in fact it was the footpath he would have taken. She came back about half an hour or so later.
Q. What time was this?
A. This must have been about 6.30 perhaps by now. I am not sure of the times. I was in a terrible state myself by this time trying not to think awful things and trying to take each moment as it came.
Q. And Rachel gets back about 6.30.
A. Something like that.
Rachel gave her evidence on the same day and we have this (Mr Dingemans posing the questions again):
Q. On the 17th we have heard about the circumstances in which your mother contacted you.
A. Yes.
Q. I think you came and helped look for your father?
A. I did, yes. I came over -- Mum told me that Dad had gone for a walk; and we are actually quite a private family and I assumed that after all he had been through he would want to find some solitude, which I quite understood. I thought he had perhaps gone for a walk down to the river. I could quite understand that need in him. So initially I did not worry. But When he then -- I could not reach him on his mobile phone, which did make me worry because I could always reach him. I then dashed home and was talking to my sisters. Mum actually was not very well and I was torn between leaving Mum and going to look for Dad. Initially I walked down -- I just assumed he would be coming home by now and I walked down to see if he was coming. Then I went back home and then went out in the car and just searched all the local routes. I went actually down to Harrowdown first, that was my first thought, and looked at the track but I could not see him coming. I promised I would not leave the car and start walking as it was starting to -- it was quite an overcast night.
I think that it was quite understandable for a young woman on her own to be concerned about going up the track to Harrowdown Hill on an overcast evening. Even if she had followed the track I'm sure that she wouldn't have seen the spot where her father was discovered the following morning, unless she went into the wood.
Civil servant James Harrison was the Deputy Director for Counter Proliferation and Arms Control in the MOD. In the late afternoon of the 17th he tried contacting Dr Kelly on his mobile phone to resolve some points about Dr Kelly's press contacts but to no avail. He also spoke to Mrs Kelly and made a note of the conversation with her as seen at MOD/13/0032 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/mod_13_0032.pdf
Mr Knox seeks clarification about the note and the following relates to its first paragraph:
Q. We know at MoD/13/32 you appear to have made a note of your last conversation.
A. Indeed, yes.
Q. Perhaps you could just clarify one or two words. "Rang Mrs K about 1750 or so."
I am not quite sure, the words you have inserted then are?
A. "Having tried mobile -- rang, no answer."
Q. And then?
A. I am afraid I am not sure what the blob is.
Q. Then after that?
A. "To see if back", i.e. if David was back yet. "Gone for a walk by the river. Bad headache. Had intended to go about 2 o'clock, but delayed [by phone calls?]. Sometimes goes on long route."
Mrs Kelly hadn't said anything in her evidence about a walk by the river but she seems to be sure that is what has happened. Rachel wonders if he had gone down to the river. Did she impart that thought to her mother with the latter believing that is where he had gone and then Mrs Kelly telling Mr Harrison the same as a fact. Possible perhaps but difficult to really believe. I'm assuming that "Bad headache" refers to the fact that Mrs Kelly had a bad headache - but is this right? Perhaps Dr Kelly had had a bad headache, we just don't know.
What we do know though is that the last quoted evidence was given by Mr Harrison on his first visit to the Inquiry, on the 27 August, less than a week before the testimony from Mrs Kelly was heard. If Hutton was honest, competent and diligent - as we have every right to expect - then he should have asked Mrs Kelly about the supposed walk by the river. This wasn't an isolated failing on the part of his Lordship, again and again and again he failed in his duty to adequately investigate matters.
Q. So between 3 and 3.20 he had gone for a walk?
A. That is right, yes.
Q. And what were you doing for the rest of the day?
A. I was still feeling extremely ill so I went to sit in the sitting room. I could not settle, I put the TV on, which is unheard of for me at that time of the day. There were a few callers at the front door. I answered those and had a short chat with each of them. Then I began to get rather worried because normally if David was going for a longer walk, he would say. It was a kind of family tradition, if you were going for a longer walk you would say where you were going and what time you would be back.
Q. He had not said?
A. That is right, yes.
Q. And what were you doing for the rest of the day?
A. I was still feeling extremely ill so I went to sit in the sitting room. I could not settle, I put the TV on, which is unheard of for me at that time of the day. There were a few callers at the front door. I answered those and had a short chat with each of them. Then I began to get rather worried because normally if David was going for a longer walk, he would say. It was a kind of family tradition, if you were going for a longer walk you would say where you were going and what time you would be back.
Q. He had not said?
A. He had not said that. He just said: I am going for my walk.
Q. How long would a normal walk take?A. About 15 minutes, depending if he met somebody, perhaps 20 minutes, 25 minutes.
Q. What time did you start to become concerned?
A. Probably late afternoon. Rachel rang, my daughter rang to say: do not worry, he has probably gone out to have a good think. Do not worry about it, he will be fine. She had planned to come over that evening. She made a decision definitely to come over. She arrived -- I am not quite sure what time she arrived, half five, six o'clock, I think. She went out. She said: I will go and walk up and meet Dad. She walked up one of the normal footpaths he would have taken -- in fact it was the footpath he would have taken. She came back about half an hour or so later.
Q. What time was this?
A. This must have been about 6.30 perhaps by now. I am not sure of the times. I was in a terrible state myself by this time trying not to think awful things and trying to take each moment as it came.
Q. And Rachel gets back about 6.30.
A. Something like that.
Rachel gave her evidence on the same day and we have this (Mr Dingemans posing the questions again):
Q. On the 17th we have heard about the circumstances in which your mother contacted you.
A. Yes.
Q. I think you came and helped look for your father?
A. I did, yes. I came over -- Mum told me that Dad had gone for a walk; and we are actually quite a private family and I assumed that after all he had been through he would want to find some solitude, which I quite understood. I thought he had perhaps gone for a walk down to the river. I could quite understand that need in him. So initially I did not worry. But When he then -- I could not reach him on his mobile phone, which did make me worry because I could always reach him. I then dashed home and was talking to my sisters. Mum actually was not very well and I was torn between leaving Mum and going to look for Dad. Initially I walked down -- I just assumed he would be coming home by now and I walked down to see if he was coming. Then I went back home and then went out in the car and just searched all the local routes. I went actually down to Harrowdown first, that was my first thought, and looked at the track but I could not see him coming. I promised I would not leave the car and start walking as it was starting to -- it was quite an overcast night.
I think that it was quite understandable for a young woman on her own to be concerned about going up the track to Harrowdown Hill on an overcast evening. Even if she had followed the track I'm sure that she wouldn't have seen the spot where her father was discovered the following morning, unless she went into the wood.
Civil servant James Harrison was the Deputy Director for Counter Proliferation and Arms Control in the MOD. In the late afternoon of the 17th he tried contacting Dr Kelly on his mobile phone to resolve some points about Dr Kelly's press contacts but to no avail. He also spoke to Mrs Kelly and made a note of the conversation with her as seen at MOD/13/0032 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/mod_13_0032.pdf
Mr Knox seeks clarification about the note and the following relates to its first paragraph:
Q. We know at MoD/13/32 you appear to have made a note of your last conversation.
A. Indeed, yes.
Q. Perhaps you could just clarify one or two words. "Rang Mrs K about 1750 or so."
I am not quite sure, the words you have inserted then are?
A. "Having tried mobile -- rang, no answer."
Q. And then?
A. I am afraid I am not sure what the blob is.
Q. Then after that?
A. "To see if back", i.e. if David was back yet. "Gone for a walk by the river. Bad headache. Had intended to go about 2 o'clock, but delayed [by phone calls?]. Sometimes goes on long route."
Mrs Kelly hadn't said anything in her evidence about a walk by the river but she seems to be sure that is what has happened. Rachel wonders if he had gone down to the river. Did she impart that thought to her mother with the latter believing that is where he had gone and then Mrs Kelly telling Mr Harrison the same as a fact. Possible perhaps but difficult to really believe. I'm assuming that "Bad headache" refers to the fact that Mrs Kelly had a bad headache - but is this right? Perhaps Dr Kelly had had a bad headache, we just don't know.
What we do know though is that the last quoted evidence was given by Mr Harrison on his first visit to the Inquiry, on the 27 August, less than a week before the testimony from Mrs Kelly was heard. If Hutton was honest, competent and diligent - as we have every right to expect - then he should have asked Mrs Kelly about the supposed walk by the river. This wasn't an isolated failing on the part of his Lordship, again and again and again he failed in his duty to adequately investigate matters.
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
Hutton and Dingemans visit Mrs Kelly
Lord Hutton and Mr Dingemans visited Mrs Kelly on the morning of Saturday 26 July 2003. This was at the instigation of Hutton. At the Inquiry Hutton didn't reveal what was said between them. The failure to do this was a matter raised by "The Doctors" when they applied to the Attorney General asking him to go to the High Court with the object of an inquest being granted. Their application was by way of a "Memorial" which can be read via this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_01_11davidkelly1.pdf It is paragraph 50 on page 22 which is particularly relevant to this discussion.
In a letter to the Attorney General dated 3 November 2010 Hutton replies to this criticism:
17. Paragraph 50 claims that I committed an irregularity because "during his investigations, Lord Hutton visited Mrs Kelly at home". Together with Mr James Dingemans QC I visited Mrs Kelly and her daughters at their home a few days after I was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The sole purpose of my visit was to express my sympathy to her and her daughters and to assure them that I intended to investigate Dr Kelly's death fully and carefully. I took no evidence from her. The visit was well publicised and would have been well known to all the parties represented at my inquiry. No objection was made, or could have been made, to the visit at the inquiry. The only evidence which I took from Mrs Kelly was the evidence which I heard when she gave evidence over a radio link to my inquiry.
In a press notice dated 28 July 2003 on the Hutton website the first paragraph says:
Lord Hutton had a meeting with Mrs Kelly, the widow of Dr David Kelly, in her home on Saturday morning, 26th July. The meeting took place at Lord Hutton's request. At the meeting he told Mrs Kelly that the Inquiry would meet any legal costs which she might incur in relation to it.
Number 37 in the schedule of responses to issues raised on the Attorney General's website is clearly a precis of the statement in Hutton's letter of 3 November above.
The retort by Hutton in his letter is at variance with what he himself told the Inquiry. These are his own words in his opening statement on 1 August:
In a letter to the Attorney General dated 3 November 2010 Hutton replies to this criticism:
17. Paragraph 50 claims that I committed an irregularity because "during his investigations, Lord Hutton visited Mrs Kelly at home". Together with Mr James Dingemans QC I visited Mrs Kelly and her daughters at their home a few days after I was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The sole purpose of my visit was to express my sympathy to her and her daughters and to assure them that I intended to investigate Dr Kelly's death fully and carefully. I took no evidence from her. The visit was well publicised and would have been well known to all the parties represented at my inquiry. No objection was made, or could have been made, to the visit at the inquiry. The only evidence which I took from Mrs Kelly was the evidence which I heard when she gave evidence over a radio link to my inquiry.
In a press notice dated 28 July 2003 on the Hutton website the first paragraph says:
Lord Hutton had a meeting with Mrs Kelly, the widow of Dr David Kelly, in her home on Saturday morning, 26th July. The meeting took place at Lord Hutton's request. At the meeting he told Mrs Kelly that the Inquiry would meet any legal costs which she might incur in relation to it.
Number 37 in the schedule of responses to issues raised on the Attorney General's website is clearly a precis of the statement in Hutton's letter of 3 November above.
The retort by Hutton in his letter is at variance with what he himself told the Inquiry. These are his own words in his opening statement on 1 August:
At my request I have been sent a considerable quantity of documents by the BBC, the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office and I have also been given information by
Dr Kelly's widow when I met her at her home on the morning of Saturday 26th July. It is probable that more documents will be sent to me in the next few days. From the documents and the information given to me, the following outline of events can be seen and I now state
that outline in very general terms without, at this stage, attempting a comprehensive account or any degree of precision. Many of the matters have already been reported in the media.
Dr Kelly's widow when I met her at her home on the morning of Saturday 26th July. It is probable that more documents will be sent to me in the next few days. From the documents and the information given to me, the following outline of events can be seen and I now state
that outline in very general terms without, at this stage, attempting a comprehensive account or any degree of precision. Many of the matters have already been reported in the media.
I view Lord Hutton's statement in his letter as a piece of deliberate deception. I don't doubt that he expressed sympathy, he might well have assured her that he would investigate the death fully and carefully and, in the strictly legal sense of the term, he may not have taken "evidence" from Mrs Kelly. However, by his own admission, she gave him information and goes on to say 'From the documents and information given to me ..'. It is surely abundantly clear that his duty at the Inquiry was to state the information given to him by Mrs Kelly.
Geoff Hoon visits Mrs Kelly
In the week following Dr Kelly's death Mrs Kelly asked Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to visit her at her home. This is a contemporary report from the Daily Mail to which I have no commentary to add.
Daily Mail, The (London, England) - Thursday, July 24, 2003
Author: DAVID HUGHES
GEOFF Hoon was yesterday summoned to explain himself by the widow of weapons expert Dr David Kelly.
The Defence Secretary, who has been accused by Gulf veterans of 'moral bankruptcy', made a cap-in-hand visit to the home of Janice Kelly as the crisis threatens to end his career.
He was driven to the home of the woman who has the power to break him to answer for what happened at the Ministry of Defence in the days before Dr Kelly's lonely death last week on an Oxfordshire hillside.
Dr Kelly had faced a brutal grilling by a committee of MPs after being identified by Mr Hoon's chief press aide as the source of a BBC story claiming Downing Street 'sexed up' the dossier used to justify war on Iraq.
Mrs Kelly has not made public her views on the pressures brought to bear on her husband before his apparent suicide.
The family's only observation has been that all involved should reflect 'long and hard'.
Defence officials insisted the visit was akin to those made to the bereaved families of soldiers.
But neither Mr Hoon nor Tony Blair has visited the home of any family who lost a soldier, sailor or airman in the Iraq war.
Mr Hoon has met bereaved families - most recently those of the six military police killed near Basra, when the bodies were flown back to Brize Norton airbase.
Yesterday's extraordinary visit, lasting an hour and 17 minutes, is understood to have involved Mr Hoon answering Mrs Kelly's questions about her husband's treatment by the Ministry of Defence.
He later insisted to colleagues that there had been 'no recriminations' and he had found the family 'incredibly impressive'.
A lawyer by training, Mr Hoon was accompanied by a senior civil servant who took notes of the meeting with Mrs Kelly and her daughters.
The Defence Secretary clearly feels vulnerable as Lord Hutton's inquiry into the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death gets under way.
The visit marked an ominous turnaround for Mr Hoon since the weekend, when he felt able to go to the Grand Prix at Silverstone.
He has since faced accusations that he was the man who allowed Dr Kelly's name to become public, piling on unbearable pressure.
On Tuesday, Tony Blair denied that authority to leak Dr Kelly's name came from Downing Street.
That left Mr Hoon looking isolated and vulnerable.
The visit to Dr Kelly's home was an unprecedented humiliation for a senior minister who, a fortnight ago, was writing angry letters to the BBC demanding the Corporation agree the weapons expert was its source.
Over the weekend Mr Hoon was happily giving assurances that the MoD had used its 'best efforts' to preserve Dr Kelly's anonymity. At that point he felt no need to visit Mrs Kelly to explain.
Yesterday the media was tipped off and he had to brave the cameras as he left his Vauxhall Omega outside the family home in Southmoor, near Abingdon.
Guarded by a dozen uniformed police and one plain clothes man, Mr Hoon adjusted his purple tie as he walked down the drive.
Mrs Kelly's questions are thought to centre on what happened at the Ministry in the five days after her husband volunteered the fact that he had spoken to BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan and before his name became known publicly.
There has been speculation that threats were made against his career and his pension. There have also been questions over when and why he was told he was to be exposed to public scrutiny.
After the meeting Mr Hoon said only: 'I came to see Mrs Kelly.' The MoD said: 'Whatever is discussed is private between them.' Mrs Kelly's daughters Sian, 32, and twins Ellen and Rachel, 30, have been with her since her husband's death last week.
The family released a statement on Saturday that said: 'Events over recent weeks have made David's life intolerable, and all of those involved should reflect long and hard on this fact.' There was no suggestion that Mr Hoon offered any form of apology over Dr Kelly's death.
A war veterans' leader branded Mr Hoon and the MoD 'morally bankrupt' yesterday. Shaun Rusling, chairman of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said: 'He has not visited a single family of soldiers who died in Iraq, and neither has he met with the relatives of the 574 veterans who have died since the Gulf War in 1991, despite repeated requests.
'We have written letter after letter requesting meetings, and he has not responded favourably to one.' Mr Rusling said the decision to meet Mrs Kelly was politically motivated by the 'mire in which he finds himself'.
Paul Keetch, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: 'I think the widows and loved ones of those who were killed in Iraq won't understand why Geoff Hoon made this visit to David Kelly's family and not to them.'
The Defence Secretary, who has been accused by Gulf veterans of 'moral bankruptcy', made a cap-in-hand visit to the home of Janice Kelly as the crisis threatens to end his career.
He was driven to the home of the woman who has the power to break him to answer for what happened at the Ministry of Defence in the days before Dr Kelly's lonely death last week on an Oxfordshire hillside.
Dr Kelly had faced a brutal grilling by a committee of MPs after being identified by Mr Hoon's chief press aide as the source of a BBC story claiming Downing Street 'sexed up' the dossier used to justify war on Iraq.
Mrs Kelly has not made public her views on the pressures brought to bear on her husband before his apparent suicide.
The family's only observation has been that all involved should reflect 'long and hard'.
Defence officials insisted the visit was akin to those made to the bereaved families of soldiers.
But neither Mr Hoon nor Tony Blair has visited the home of any family who lost a soldier, sailor or airman in the Iraq war.
Mr Hoon has met bereaved families - most recently those of the six military police killed near Basra, when the bodies were flown back to Brize Norton airbase.
Yesterday's extraordinary visit, lasting an hour and 17 minutes, is understood to have involved Mr Hoon answering Mrs Kelly's questions about her husband's treatment by the Ministry of Defence.
He later insisted to colleagues that there had been 'no recriminations' and he had found the family 'incredibly impressive'.
A lawyer by training, Mr Hoon was accompanied by a senior civil servant who took notes of the meeting with Mrs Kelly and her daughters.
The Defence Secretary clearly feels vulnerable as Lord Hutton's inquiry into the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death gets under way.
The visit marked an ominous turnaround for Mr Hoon since the weekend, when he felt able to go to the Grand Prix at Silverstone.
He has since faced accusations that he was the man who allowed Dr Kelly's name to become public, piling on unbearable pressure.
On Tuesday, Tony Blair denied that authority to leak Dr Kelly's name came from Downing Street.
That left Mr Hoon looking isolated and vulnerable.
The visit to Dr Kelly's home was an unprecedented humiliation for a senior minister who, a fortnight ago, was writing angry letters to the BBC demanding the Corporation agree the weapons expert was its source.
Over the weekend Mr Hoon was happily giving assurances that the MoD had used its 'best efforts' to preserve Dr Kelly's anonymity. At that point he felt no need to visit Mrs Kelly to explain.
Yesterday the media was tipped off and he had to brave the cameras as he left his Vauxhall Omega outside the family home in Southmoor, near Abingdon.
Guarded by a dozen uniformed police and one plain clothes man, Mr Hoon adjusted his purple tie as he walked down the drive.
Mrs Kelly's questions are thought to centre on what happened at the Ministry in the five days after her husband volunteered the fact that he had spoken to BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan and before his name became known publicly.
There has been speculation that threats were made against his career and his pension. There have also been questions over when and why he was told he was to be exposed to public scrutiny.
After the meeting Mr Hoon said only: 'I came to see Mrs Kelly.' The MoD said: 'Whatever is discussed is private between them.' Mrs Kelly's daughters Sian, 32, and twins Ellen and Rachel, 30, have been with her since her husband's death last week.
The family released a statement on Saturday that said: 'Events over recent weeks have made David's life intolerable, and all of those involved should reflect long and hard on this fact.' There was no suggestion that Mr Hoon offered any form of apology over Dr Kelly's death.
A war veterans' leader branded Mr Hoon and the MoD 'morally bankrupt' yesterday. Shaun Rusling, chairman of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said: 'He has not visited a single family of soldiers who died in Iraq, and neither has he met with the relatives of the 574 veterans who have died since the Gulf War in 1991, despite repeated requests.
'We have written letter after letter requesting meetings, and he has not responded favourably to one.' Mr Rusling said the decision to meet Mrs Kelly was politically motivated by the 'mire in which he finds himself'.
Paul Keetch, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: 'I think the widows and loved ones of those who were killed in Iraq won't understand why Geoff Hoon made this visit to David Kelly's family and not to them.'
Monday, 2 July 2012
The formal identification of the body
This is a copy of a Freedom of Information request and response from the Thames Valley Police website:
This request, reference RFI2010000737, was received on Thursday 28 October 2010, 11:51am.
Question
1) Who formally identified the body of Dr. David Kelly (on or around 18th July 2003)?
2) On what date and time was formal identification carried out?
3) At what location was the body identified?
4) On whose authority and on what grounds was the person making formal identification of the body chosen?
Response
1) Dr Kelly’s body was formally identified by his widow, Janice Kelly.
2) 11:25am on Saturday 19th July 2003
3) Chapel of Rest – John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford
4) It is normal practice to use a close family member to provide the formal identification.
My understanding is that normally formal identification would be by looking at the face of the deceased. The mortuary technician would resew the skin where incisions had been made to examine the internal organs; I'm told that after this is done that the corpse is as presentable as it can be for viewing by one or more relatives. Dr Kelly's death was viewed as suspicious and Dr Hunt carried out a "special" post mortem going further in his examination than a pathologist normally would. As stated in my last post Dr Hunt dissected the facial soft tissues to the level of the bone. To add to Mrs Kelly's trauma she would have viewed her late husband's face hacked about in the way described.
With a suspicious death and following the examination at the scene by the pathologist then one would expect the autopsy at the mortuary to be carried out as soon as possible. In the case of Dr Kelly there would have been further time pressure because samples from the body were needed for the toxicologist. As stated in a previous post the toxicologist, Dr Allan, came in on the Saturday morning to conduct some tests although inexplicably his testing wasn't completed at this time.
We are told on the one hand that throughout the 18th Dr Hunt was viewing the death as potentially suspicious. Yet at the same time the police were telling Mrs Kelly that the death wasn't suspicious, that it was sadly a case of suicide.
It is a short distance from Southmoor to Oxford (about ten miles) so couldn't she have been taken to identify her huband at the Chapel of Rest before Dr Hunt started the post mortem?
The fact that the formal identification was delayed in the way it was may be more "cock up" than "conspiracy". It was nevertheless very unfortunate and to me suggests that the situation for Mrs Kelly was made even more awful than it needed to be.
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Giving the "suicide" story an early spin
My last post was number 100 in this blog and I've decided that for the moment I'll get away from the scene at Harrowdown Hill, albeit temporarily, and spend a little while looking at legal rather than forensic aspects. But before that I want to flag up the fact that on the very day the body is discovered the family are already being informed that Dr Kelly has committed suicide. The statements reproduced here could hardly be more significant regarding the cover up.
On the 1st September Dr Kelly's half sister, Sarah Pape, is being examined by Mr Knox. Dr Pape is a consultant plastic surgeon. This is part of her testimony relating to the morning of 18th July, the morning the body was discovered:
I returned to my office between the next two operations, which would have been some time after 10 o'clock, and there was a message from my husband asking me to ring home. I initially thought he was just going to give me the same information, that the press would by now know. In fact when I rang him he told me that the police had found my brother's body and that it looked as though he had committed suicide. I decided that I was not going to be able to stay at work, so I decided that I should come home at that point.
This is from the Sunday Mirror of 20 July 2003:
On the day the body was discovered Mrs Kelly gave a telephone interview to the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/international/worldspecial/19BRIT.html?scp=2&sq=dr%20kelly%2018%20july%202003&st=cse
The third paragraph of the piece is extraordinary:
Mrs. Kelly said the police had confirmed that the body was her husband's, and that the cause of death was suicide. She declined to say what led the police to that conclusion, saying they had asked her not to discuss details of his death.
This is an extract from Tony Blair's autobiography:
In the middle of the night Sir David Manning woke me. 'Very bad news,' he said....'David Kelly has been found dead,' he said, 'suspected suicide.' It was a truly ghastly moment.
(At that time Blair was flying west from Washington to Tokyo, Blair started talking to Falconer at 12.10 so it was before then)
On the morning the body was discovered the only visible evidence relating to cause of death was an injured wrist and a knife nearby. It was midday before the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt and Chief Investigating Officer DCI Young arrived at Harrowdown Hill. Dr Hunt's detailed examination commenced at 14.10 and the post mortem wasn't completed until 00.15 on the following morning.
In a nutshell there was no justification whatsoever on Friday 18 July to say that the death was suicide or suspected suicide.
On the 1st September Dr Kelly's half sister, Sarah Pape, is being examined by Mr Knox. Dr Pape is a consultant plastic surgeon. This is part of her testimony relating to the morning of 18th July, the morning the body was discovered:
I returned to my office between the next two operations, which would have been some time after 10 o'clock, and there was a message from my husband asking me to ring home. I initially thought he was just going to give me the same information, that the press would by now know. In fact when I rang him he told me that the police had found my brother's body and that it looked as though he had committed suicide. I decided that I was not going to be able to stay at work, so I decided that I should come home at that point.
This is from the Sunday Mirror of 20 July 2003:
Dr Kelly's grief-stricken brother-in-law Derek Vawdrey attacked the behaviour of MPs on the committee.
Mr Vawdrey, 56, of Crewe, Cheshire, said: "There is no doubt that he was traumatised by it. David was devastated. He was never trained for this sort of thing unlike Alastair Campbell.""
He told how his sister, Janice Kelly, rang him on Friday morning. "Her first words were 'Are you sitting down? She then just blurted it out. She could hardly speak for the shock of being told herself. She said he'd committed suicide." He went on: "Somewhere along the line someone needs pay for this. David was driven into a corner, the pressure on him was immense.
Mr Vawdrey, 56, of Crewe, Cheshire, said: "There is no doubt that he was traumatised by it. David was devastated. He was never trained for this sort of thing unlike Alastair Campbell.""
He told how his sister, Janice Kelly, rang him on Friday morning. "Her first words were 'Are you sitting down? She then just blurted it out. She could hardly speak for the shock of being told herself. She said he'd committed suicide." He went on: "Somewhere along the line someone needs pay for this. David was driven into a corner, the pressure on him was immense.
On the day the body was discovered Mrs Kelly gave a telephone interview to the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/international/worldspecial/19BRIT.html?scp=2&sq=dr%20kelly%2018%20july%202003&st=cse
The third paragraph of the piece is extraordinary:
Mrs. Kelly said the police had confirmed that the body was her husband's, and that the cause of death was suicide. She declined to say what led the police to that conclusion, saying they had asked her not to discuss details of his death.
This is an extract from Tony Blair's autobiography:
In the middle of the night Sir David Manning woke me. 'Very bad news,' he said....'David Kelly has been found dead,' he said, 'suspected suicide.' It was a truly ghastly moment.
(At that time Blair was flying west from Washington to Tokyo, Blair started talking to Falconer at 12.10 so it was before then)
On the morning the body was discovered the only visible evidence relating to cause of death was an injured wrist and a knife nearby. It was midday before the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt and Chief Investigating Officer DCI Young arrived at Harrowdown Hill. Dr Hunt's detailed examination commenced at 14.10 and the post mortem wasn't completed until 00.15 on the following morning.
In a nutshell there was no justification whatsoever on Friday 18 July to say that the death was suicide or suspected suicide.
Friday, 29 June 2012
The mobile phone and James Harrison
At this point I need to make a correction, thinking that I had mentioned all those known to have rung the mobile. In the late afternoon of 17 July John Clark had to go to an appointment with the optician. A colleague, James Harrison, made one further attempt to ring Dr Kelly's mobile and this is Mr Harrison answering Mr Knox's questions on 27 August:
Q. Did you try to call Dr Kelly on his mobile?
A. Yes. John had left at, as I say, around 5 o'clock and he had tried to ring -- he had spoken to Mrs Kelly shortly before that. I was very conscious of the need to get the balance right. On the one hand, we had to try to answer these questions and the letter fully and accurately on that day if we could. At the same time, I did not want to be bothering Mrs Kelly on the phone or David indeed unnecessarily soon, when there were already messages for David to ring back.
Q. When you rang Dr Kelly's mobile phone --
A. Yes.
Q. -- what was the response? Was it dead, completely dead or was there any electronic voicemail?
A. My recollection is it rang and was not answered and I rang at about 10 to 6 or thereabouts.
Q. I think we heard from Wing Commander Clark that when he tried calling there was an automated response.
A. Yes.
Q. You say when you tried it was simply ringing and there was no automated response?
A. Yes. We discussed this issue the following day, the Friday. Bryan Wells was in the office and that was after it had been announced by the police that David Kelly was missing. We compared noting on our telephone conversations. I think Bryan Wells had tried shortly after I had and at that time on the Friday morning my clear recollection was that I had rung his
mobile number and that the phone had rung but not been answered.
Q. And you may already have said, what was the precise time as far as you can tell that you first tried to get hold of the mobile?
A. At around 10 to 6. That was the only time.
From the above it seems as if Bryan Wells had also tried to contact Dr Kelly but to no avail.
The "questions" referred to in the testimony will be the subject of a later post.
The mobile phone - Freedom of Information request
I note this Freedom of Information request and response on the Thames Valley Police website:
Introduction
This request, reference RFI2010000133, was received on Monday 08 November 2010, 10:48am.
Question
1) At what time was Dr Kelly’s mobile phone last
operating and did it cease operating because it was switched off or
because it was damaged?
2) Was it damaged or undamaged when found by police officers?
3) At what time was it last operating?
4) Can you confirm at what time the last call from the mobile was made,
and at what time the last call to the mobile was made, and what the
location of Dr Kelly was on the occasion of those two calls, giving the
grid reference or similar.
Response
1) We do not hold information as to when Dr Kelly’s mobile telephone was last operating.
2) There were no signs of damage to the phone.
3) See response to point 1.
4) Last outgoing call was at 12.58hrs on 17/7/2003.
Last incoming call was at 19.18hrs on 16/7/2003.
We do not hold information about the location of Dr Kelly at the time the calls were made.
From reading the official narrative it seems quite likely to me that the 19.18 time was a call to her husband from Mrs Kelly who had come up to Oxford by train that day from Cornwall and arrived in the evening.
The 12.58 time for the last outgoing call from the mobile is interesting. Mrs Kelly's testimony has her husband sitting in the sitting room at about 12.30. At some stage they have some sandwiches and after that Mrs Kelly developed a huge headache ... she went upstairs to lie down, something she said she quite often would do because of her arthritis. The timing she gave for this was 'about half past 1, quarter to two perhaps' . Mrs Kelly also says in relation to her headache that she was physically sick several times so it's not inconceivable that, unknown to her, her husband used his mobile while he was in the sitting room and she had gone to the toilet.
I have no idea as to the recipient of the 12.58 call.
The 12.58 time for the last outgoing call from the mobile is interesting. Mrs Kelly's testimony has her husband sitting in the sitting room at about 12.30. At some stage they have some sandwiches and after that Mrs Kelly developed a huge headache ... she went upstairs to lie down, something she said she quite often would do because of her arthritis. The timing she gave for this was 'about half past 1, quarter to two perhaps' . Mrs Kelly also says in relation to her headache that she was physically sick several times so it's not inconceivable that, unknown to her, her husband used his mobile while he was in the sitting room and she had gone to the toilet.
I have no idea as to the recipient of the 12.58 call.
Monday, 25 June 2012
The co-proxamol (6)
Now I want to highlight a few miscellaneous points not covered in the previous five posts.
- Why was one tablet left? If Dr Kelly had managed to swallow 29 tablets with 78% of the water (assuming a full bottle to start with) then I'm sure that there was enough water left for the final tablet.
- Why didn't Dr Kelly buy a half bottle of whisky say in the village instead of taking water with him. Alcohol is much much more lethal in combination with co-proxamol than water.
- The fingerprint technician (Renee Gilliland) has to record ANY marks even if they don't appear to be usable. If Dr Kelly swallowed 29 tablets then one is looking at 29 thumb/finger movements to extract the tablets. The blister packs were found in the Barbour jacket so protected from the elements. I really can't believe that Dr Kelly would have left no marks whatsoever. This comment needs some qualification in fact because one of the blister packs was kept for DNA testing so only two were checked for fingerprints. In that respect 29 should be replaced by 19 ... still an unbelievable scenario.
- Regarding the DNA testing of one blister pack Mr Green says in his report A full STR profile matching that of Dr Kelly was obtained. It's not inconceivable in my opinion that the pack aquired Dr Kelly's DNA through being in the pocket of his Barbour jacket.
- Schedule of responses to issues raised number 33 concerns post mortem changes in drug levels http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf This is part of the response: The number of pills ingested is only of relevance to cause of death if there were evidence to suggest that the drug was introduced into his body in some other way. There is no such evidence. It could also be argued that there is no evidence that the drug wasn't introduced into his body in some other way. As previously pointed out it's possible that the damage to Dr Kelly's lip happened as a result of the insertion in his mouth of a gastric tube. Perhaps the injury complex on the left wrist masked an injection site. I'm not saying I have proof on any of this but it's wrong for the official response to be so dismissive.
- In the response to issue 18 we read: Mrs Kelly stated that her husband would never take any sort of tablet, not even for a headache but that he was aware that she was prescribed co-proxamol as a painkiller. Similarly in 44 there is reference to Mai Pederson giving details to Thames Valley Police of Dr Kelly's avoidance of taking pills. From a press article we learn that Ms Pederson has also said that Dr Kelly had in fact a physical problem in swallowing pills. If TVP were aware of this then they are clearly guilty of covering up the fact. Hutton should have investigated why Dr Kelly had an aversion to taking pills. Yet again he failed to perform his task with due diligence.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
The co-proxamol (4)
In 2003 Mrs Kelly was taking prescription co-proxamol to relieve the pain of her arthritis. When Dr Kelly's GP, Dr Warner, was examined by Mr Knox at the Inquiry there is this exchange:
Q. Did you ever have to prescribe Coproxamol to Dr Kelly?
A. No.
If Dr Kelly had ingested co-proxamol tablets then his wife's supply would be the most obvious source, particularly, as I understand things, co-proxamol was available prescription only.
Mr Dingemans questioned Mrs Kelly about the co-proxamol:
Q. Did you ever have to prescribe Coproxamol to Dr Kelly?
A. No.
If Dr Kelly had ingested co-proxamol tablets then his wife's supply would be the most obvious source, particularly, as I understand things, co-proxamol was available prescription only.
Mr Dingemans questioned Mrs Kelly about the co-proxamol:
Q. Do you take any medicine?
A. I do. I take co-proxamol for my arthritis.
Q. I think we are also going to hear that appears to be the source of the co-proxamol that was used.
A. I had assumed that. I keep a small store in a kitchen drawer and the rest in my bedside table.
A. I do. I take co-proxamol for my arthritis.
Q. I think we are also going to hear that appears to be the source of the co-proxamol that was used.
A. I had assumed that. I keep a small store in a kitchen drawer and the rest in my bedside table.
That highlighted question was one of the most disgraceful in the whole of the Hutton Inquiry! It seems to me that Dingemans was trying to nudge Mrs Kelly towards a favourable answer, he must have known that nobody would know for sure about the source of the co-proxamol or would give evidence about that. He should have asked Mrs Kelly whether she had noticed any missing from her supply. She was making an assumption, not certain how much she had perhaps.
We aren't told at the Inquiry how much co-proxamol Mrs Kelly had in her home. However the responses to issues raised schedule does have an answer at number 18 http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf
Subsequent to the body being found there were 4x10 packs in her bedroom drawer and, in the kitchen drawer, a full box of 10x10. One would think, assuming the removal of 3 packs in one go, that she might have noticed that amount of depletion from her stock. Although the full pack had come from the "White Horse Medical Practice" I'm aware of the fact that she had been getting supplies of the drug from a high street chemist. My guess is that the Medical Practice had recently set up their own dispensary, a not unusual circumstance.
As can be seen from this witness statement dated 11 November 2003 from DC Eldridge http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_17_0001.pdf the manufacturers of the co-proxamol were approached regarding the batch numbers of the tablets. It looks as if DC Eldridge might well have been posing the wrong question, certainly he is quoting the "product licence" number in his statement rather than a batch number. The subject is covered in this blog post by Dr Andrew Watt http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/death-of-david-kelly-possible-important.html
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
The Family and the knife
When Mrs Kelly attended the Hutton Inquiry on 1 September 2003 Mr Dingemans had little option but to ask her about the knife. This is the relevant part of her evidence:
Q. We have heard about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death and the fact that a knife was used. Were you shown the knife at all?
A. We were not shown the knife; we were shown a photocopy of I presume the knife which we recognised as a knife he had had for many years and kept in his drawer.
Q. It was a knife he had had what, from childhood?
A. From childhood I believe. I think probably from the Boy Scouts.
Q. It was a knife he had had what, from childhood?
A. From childhood I believe. I think probably from the Boy Scouts.
It appears that there was nothing to distinguish this knife from any similar knife. I would suspect that part of the "identification" was derived from the fact that the knife was missing from the draw.
In paragraph 146 of his report Hutton says:
Very understandably the police did
not show the knife found beside Dr Kelly's body to his widow and
daughters but the police showed them a photograph of that knife.
It is clear that the knife found beside the body was a knife which
Dr Kelly had owned since boyhood and which he kept in a desk in
his study, but which was found to be missing from his desk after
his death.
He then sets out the quoted evidence I have already given. Paragraph 146 is completed as follows;
And in a statement furnished to the Inquiry Police
Constable Roberts stated:
The knife found in possession of Dr David Kelly
is a knife the twins, Rachel and Ellen recognise (from pictures
shown by Family Liaison Officers). It would not be unusual to
be in his possession as a walker. They have seen it on their walks
with him. He would have kept it in his study drawer with a collection
of small pocket knives (he did like gadgets) and the space in
the study drawer where a knife was clearly missing from the neat
row of knives is where they believe it would [have] lived and
been removed from.
In the evidence tab on the inquiry website there ought to be mention of the statement by WPC Roberts but as yet I haven't located it. There is I think just this statement from her about Dr Kelly's handedness: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_16_0001.pdf It can be seen that there was an extraordinary delay in making the statement relating to David Kelly's handedness. Whereas she spoke to Sian about this it was Rachel and Ellen who appeared to have given information about the knife so it wouldn't be surprising in my view if WPC Roberts made separate statements about these matters.
I might have missed the other witness statement from the WPC in the evidence lists. Please add a comment if you see it!
The suggestion that there was a space in the drawer where a knife was clearly missing I have to treat with some scepticism. Unless the knives were separated by being in their own compartments for example then I find it difficult to believe with the opening and closing of the draw that Dr Kelly's knives would neatly stay in a line. My experience of putting things in a draw is that they don't stay arranged for long if merely neatly placed.
Friday, 11 May 2012
Mrs Kelly failed to mention these phone calls
Dr Kelly's colleague Wing Commander John Clark spoke to him shortly before 3 pm on 17th July. This call was evidently to Dr Kelly's home telephone and was to be the last time that John Clark made contact with him.
In his examination by Mr Knox on 27 August 2003 John Clark mentions two further phone calls that he made ... calls answered by Mrs Kelly:
In his examination by Mr Knox on 27 August 2003 John Clark mentions two further phone calls that he made ... calls answered by Mrs Kelly:
MR KNOX: In the course of these conversations were you told by anyone that any further contacts with journalists had to be checked with Dr Kelly?
A. Yes, I was contacted by the Secretary of State's office and he brought up the subject of the article that had been published on 13th July, written by Nick Rufford. Now, Dr Kelly had made no reference to that meeting in his one-to-one meetings, and I was asked to check with Dr Kelly if that meeting had taken place and, if it had, then really it ought to be included in the response.
Q. Before we go on for a moment, when you say the Secretary of State's office contacted you, who was the individual you spoke to?
A. It was his PS -- can I check my notes?
Q. Before we go on for a moment, when you say the Secretary of State's office contacted you, who was the individual you spoke to?
A. It was his PS -- can I check my notes?
Q. Was it a Mr Wilson?
A. No, it was Peter.
Q. Peter Watkins?
A. Peter Watkins.
A. Peter Watkins.
Q. What did you do?
A. Again I discussed it with James Harrison with Bryan Wells and attempted to ring Dr Kelly.
Q. At what time did you attempt to ring Dr Kelly?
A. It was -- I have since been told by the police -- I thought it was close to 3 o'clock but it was about 3.20, and I was told by his wife who answered the telephone that Dr Kelly had gone for a walk at 3 o'clock.
Q. Can you recall what the last telephone conversation you actually had with Dr Kelly was before that attempt to get hold of him?
A. Yes, I had a call with him which was just before 3 o'clock. Again I thought it was earlier but we have been able to track that down from investigating my log of e-mails and the telephone log that the police were able to provide. So about 6 or 7 minutes before 3 o'clock was the last conversation. That was the one where we discussed Susan Watts and the business cards.
Q. When you say Susan Watts, i.e. appearing in the body of the text?
A. Absolutely right. So that had been agreed.
Q. And after you had not been able to get hold of Dr Kelly, what did you do?
A. I was surprised that I could not get two-way with him because he was always very proud of his ability to be contacted. He took his mobile phone everywhere. I do not mean to be light-hearted but an example of that was that one day I rang him up and I could hardly hear what
he was saying because he was on his lawnmower cutting his grass. But that is the sort of man he was; he was always contactable. So on this occasion when I rang him I asked his wife in the first instance when she said he went for a walk, did he have his mobile, and she did not
know. I rang and it was switched off and I was very surprised that it had been switched off.
Q. When you say it was switched off, did you get any message?
A. Yes, I got an electronic voice saying: the number you have rung is not reacting. Which is the normal one that one would associate if the telephone itself had been switched off.
Q. After you had not been able to get hold of Dr Kelly on the mobile then, did you try again?
A. I rang his wife because clearly I needed to get the staff work taken forward and I needed to speak to Dr Kelly. I spoke to her and said I had not been able to contact Dr Kelly on his mobile and I thought she might say something but she was quite matter of fact and
said, you know -- did not really record the fact. I then said: could you ask Dr Kelly when he returns, could he give me a ring. That is how the message was left with his wife.
A. Again I discussed it with James Harrison with Bryan Wells and attempted to ring Dr Kelly.
Q. At what time did you attempt to ring Dr Kelly?
A. It was -- I have since been told by the police -- I thought it was close to 3 o'clock but it was about 3.20, and I was told by his wife who answered the telephone that Dr Kelly had gone for a walk at 3 o'clock.
Q. Can you recall what the last telephone conversation you actually had with Dr Kelly was before that attempt to get hold of him?
A. Yes, I had a call with him which was just before 3 o'clock. Again I thought it was earlier but we have been able to track that down from investigating my log of e-mails and the telephone log that the police were able to provide. So about 6 or 7 minutes before 3 o'clock was the last conversation. That was the one where we discussed Susan Watts and the business cards.
Q. When you say Susan Watts, i.e. appearing in the body of the text?
A. Absolutely right. So that had been agreed.
Q. And after you had not been able to get hold of Dr Kelly, what did you do?
A. I was surprised that I could not get two-way with him because he was always very proud of his ability to be contacted. He took his mobile phone everywhere. I do not mean to be light-hearted but an example of that was that one day I rang him up and I could hardly hear what
he was saying because he was on his lawnmower cutting his grass. But that is the sort of man he was; he was always contactable. So on this occasion when I rang him I asked his wife in the first instance when she said he went for a walk, did he have his mobile, and she did not
know. I rang and it was switched off and I was very surprised that it had been switched off.
Q. When you say it was switched off, did you get any message?
A. Yes, I got an electronic voice saying: the number you have rung is not reacting. Which is the normal one that one would associate if the telephone itself had been switched off.
Q. After you had not been able to get hold of Dr Kelly on the mobile then, did you try again?
A. I rang his wife because clearly I needed to get the staff work taken forward and I needed to speak to Dr Kelly. I spoke to her and said I had not been able to contact Dr Kelly on his mobile and I thought she might say something but she was quite matter of fact and
said, you know -- did not really record the fact. I then said: could you ask Dr Kelly when he returns, could he give me a ring. That is how the message was left with his wife.
According to John Clark then he had spoken to Mrs Kelly twice after Dr Kelly had apparently left for his walk. Mrs Kelly fails to mention these later phone calls from Clark and Hutton also doesn't raise the subject during Mrs Kelly's examination. This is Mrs Kelly responding to Mr Dingemans:
Q. And did he, in fact, go straight off for his walk?
A. Well, the phone rang a little bit later on and I assumed he had left so I suddenly realised I had not got a cordless phone and I thought it might be an important call for him, perhaps from the MoD. So I went downstairs to find the telephone in the dining room. By this time the ringing had stopped and I was aware of David talking quietly on a phone. I said something
like: I thought you had gone out for a walk. He did not respond of course because he was talking on the phone.
Q. Where was he at this time?
A. In his study.
Q. Do you know what time this was?
A. Not exactly, no. Getting on for 3, I would think.
Q. Do you know who the caller was?
A. I assumed it was the MoD, I am not sure.
Q. And did Dr Kelly go out for his walk?
A. Well, the phone rang again at about 3.20, after which -- it was a call for me -- a return call for me, and I could not settle in bed so I got up at that stage and I was aware that definitely David had left by this time.
A. Well, the phone rang a little bit later on and I assumed he had left so I suddenly realised I had not got a cordless phone and I thought it might be an important call for him, perhaps from the MoD. So I went downstairs to find the telephone in the dining room. By this time the ringing had stopped and I was aware of David talking quietly on a phone. I said something
like: I thought you had gone out for a walk. He did not respond of course because he was talking on the phone.
Q. Where was he at this time?
A. In his study.
Q. Do you know what time this was?
A. Not exactly, no. Getting on for 3, I would think.
Q. Do you know who the caller was?
A. I assumed it was the MoD, I am not sure.
Q. And did Dr Kelly go out for his walk?
A. Well, the phone rang again at about 3.20, after which -- it was a call for me -- a return call for me, and I could not settle in bed so I got up at that stage and I was aware that definitely David had left by this time.
Why did she fail to mention John Clarks calls and why did Hutton ignore this omission?
Mrs Kelly's dubious testimony (6)
Coming to Saturday 12th July Mrs Kelly tells Mr Dingemans that they go to the Eden Project, which is in mid Cornwall. As to the rest of the day the detail is very vague:
Q. What else do you do on the Saturday?
A. Somehow we got through the day. I am not terribly sure what we did now. We certainly went back home. We wandered along the beach at some stage. That was not easy for him. It was just a nightmare. That is all I can describe it as.
A. Somehow we got through the day. I am not terribly sure what we did now. We certainly went back home. We wandered along the beach at some stage. That was not easy for him. It was just a nightmare. That is all I can describe it as.
To help Mrs Kelly with her memory lapse I can tell her that she and her husband visited Mr and Mrs Dabbs on the Saturday afternoon. This couple live in a village on the Cornish coast. It is astonishing that Mrs Kelly had no recollection of visiting them.
Lord Hutton fails once again. Despite him being provided with police witness statements from Mr and Mrs Dabbs he doesn't call either of them to the Inquiry. Surely they could have helped provide an insight into Dr Kelly's apparent state of mind at that time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)