When Dr Hunt checked the pockets of Dr Kelly's Barbour jacket at the scene he finds, among other things in the front bellows pocket, a nokia mobile phone. In his first visit to the Inquiry on 3 September ACC Page refers to items found by Dr Hunt and says:
A. Again when the body had been moved he found Dr Kelly's mobile phone.
Q. Do you know whether that was on or not?
A. My recollection is that when found it was off.
A pouch for a mobile phone was also found on the body; this will be discussed in a later post.
Mr Green states that he received swabs from the mobile phone in his laboratory on 28 July and reports as follows:
Mobile telephone: Swabs from the ear area (SART.1) and the mouth area (SART.2) of the mobile telephone, which was recovered from the jacket pocket, were examined for the presence of bloodstaining but none was found. Attempts to obtain an STR profile from these swabs were unsuccessful.
On 29 July the mobile phone (and other items) were tested by Fingerprint Development Technician Rennee Gilliland but no marks were recovered from it.
Further testing is described in Annex TVP 5 on the Attorney General's website http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%205.pdf
The mobile phone was tested by police officers on the 17th September 2003 to check it was functioning correctly. To achieve this officers took the phone back to Harrowdown Hill and performed several functions to ensure the phone was operating correctly. The phone was undamaged and in working order.
It's an interesting time gap between fingerprint checking and seeing if the phone was operational ... almost as if this last mentioned procedure was a late afterthought.
Showing posts with label Renee Gilliland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Renee Gilliland. Show all posts
Friday, 29 June 2012
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, 20 May 2012
Dr Kelly's spectacles
Like the Evian water bottle that my most recent posts have focussed on the spectacles are another thing worth blogging about I think.
Dr Hunt, in his report, describes finding a pair of bi-focal spectacles in a pocket of the jacket. He again refers to them as bi-focal spectacles at the Hutton Inquiry. The fact that they weren't on his face at Harrowdown Hill but in his pocket led Dr Hunt to speculate that their removal was indicative of Dr Kelly wanting to cause himself self-harm. Oddly no spectacles case was found at the scene suggesting a possibility that he was otherwise wearing them.
In this earlier post I had commented on the spectacle wearing http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dr-kelly-interview-germ-warfare.html One would need to make a close inspection of the various photographs and videos of Dr Kelly to ascertain if it was obvious that he was a wearer of bi-focals. If so I hadn't noticed.
Interestingly someone has made a Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police about these spectacles, particularly asking whether DNA and fingerprint tests had been carried out on them. They had but nothing had been recovered.
What I found quite strange was that TVP tested for fingerprints on three separate days. That seems to me to be a high level of concern. The FOI result states that fingerprint tests were conducted on 20/7/2003, 29/7/2003 and 30/7/2003.
The first of these (20/7) is a Sunday and just two days after finding the body. As described in an earlier post they were tested for marks by technician Renee Gilliland on 29/7. Ms Gilliland goes on to say that all the articles were resealed and repackaged and that they were collected by hand on 1 August. The FOI answer though says that they were tested on the 30th as well as the 29th.
Dr Hunt, in his report, describes finding a pair of bi-focal spectacles in a pocket of the jacket. He again refers to them as bi-focal spectacles at the Hutton Inquiry. The fact that they weren't on his face at Harrowdown Hill but in his pocket led Dr Hunt to speculate that their removal was indicative of Dr Kelly wanting to cause himself self-harm. Oddly no spectacles case was found at the scene suggesting a possibility that he was otherwise wearing them.
In this earlier post I had commented on the spectacle wearing http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dr-kelly-interview-germ-warfare.html One would need to make a close inspection of the various photographs and videos of Dr Kelly to ascertain if it was obvious that he was a wearer of bi-focals. If so I hadn't noticed.
Interestingly someone has made a Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police about these spectacles, particularly asking whether DNA and fingerprint tests had been carried out on them. They had but nothing had been recovered.
What I found quite strange was that TVP tested for fingerprints on three separate days. That seems to me to be a high level of concern. The FOI result states that fingerprint tests were conducted on 20/7/2003, 29/7/2003 and 30/7/2003.
The first of these (20/7) is a Sunday and just two days after finding the body. As described in an earlier post they were tested for marks by technician Renee Gilliland on 29/7. Ms Gilliland goes on to say that all the articles were resealed and repackaged and that they were collected by hand on 1 August. The FOI answer though says that they were tested on the 30th as well as the 29th.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
The lack of fingerprints
No comment was made at the Hutton Inquiry about whether there were fingerprints on the knife found near the body. Nor indeed about fingerprints on any of the other items at Harrowdown Hill. But Norman Baker asked Thames Valley Police about prints on the knife at least. After some delay he received a response on 27 February 2007 stating that 'no fingerprints were recovered from the knife'
More recently it has been discovered via freedom of Information requests that similarly there were no prints on the spectacles, mobile phone, watch or from two of the co-proxamol blister packs. (Although there were three blister packs one was retained for DNA checking - as the packets had been in a pocket of the Barbour jacket it is not too surprising that DNA believed to be that of Dr Kelly was found on it). The packet with one tablet left was one of the two tested for fingerprints.
I have now had a witness statement dated 4 August 2003 sent to me. This is by Renee Gilliland, a "Fingerprint Development Technician" employed by Thames Valley Police. It is clear that she looks for fingerprints or other marks, photographs them and then these photographs are examined by someone else. There has been understandable confusion about the process, the fact that there is a record of no fingerprints has been interpreted by some as being no identifiable prints. Ms Gilliland has to report on any marks, it could be say a third of a smudged thumbprint, or less ... it doesn't matter.
On Tuesday 29 July she examined and chemically treated the following objects as described by her:
AMH/2 Evian water bottle
AMH/5 Sandvik knife
AMH/4 Watch from left hand side body near left hand
NCH/17/2 Co-proxamol blister packets
NCH/17/4 Glasses
NCH/8 Belt
NCH/4 Right shoe
NCH/5 Left shoe
NCH/17/1 Mobile phone
I don't know why the belt and shoes were tested. The first three items had a reference AMH because they were the preserve of Scenes of Crime Officer Andrew Hodgson, the remainder have a Nicholas Hunt reference.
With all this testing she found just two marks: these were near the mouth of the bottle. Black and white photographs of the marks were forwarded to the force fingerprint bureau. She gives a date of 4 July 2003 which is clearly way out - perhaps she was thinking of America's Independence Day for some reason! Maybe she meant to say 4 August but would it take almost a week to have the photographs developed and sent?
She has to report on ANY marks that are revealed. I find it difficult to believe that all she got out of the testing were two marks on the neck of the water bottle. We don't know if any significant conclusions were drawn from the presence of the two marks.
More recently it has been discovered via freedom of Information requests that similarly there were no prints on the spectacles, mobile phone, watch or from two of the co-proxamol blister packs. (Although there were three blister packs one was retained for DNA checking - as the packets had been in a pocket of the Barbour jacket it is not too surprising that DNA believed to be that of Dr Kelly was found on it). The packet with one tablet left was one of the two tested for fingerprints.
I have now had a witness statement dated 4 August 2003 sent to me. This is by Renee Gilliland, a "Fingerprint Development Technician" employed by Thames Valley Police. It is clear that she looks for fingerprints or other marks, photographs them and then these photographs are examined by someone else. There has been understandable confusion about the process, the fact that there is a record of no fingerprints has been interpreted by some as being no identifiable prints. Ms Gilliland has to report on any marks, it could be say a third of a smudged thumbprint, or less ... it doesn't matter.
On Tuesday 29 July she examined and chemically treated the following objects as described by her:
AMH/2 Evian water bottle
AMH/5 Sandvik knife
AMH/4 Watch from left hand side body near left hand
NCH/17/2 Co-proxamol blister packets
NCH/17/4 Glasses
NCH/8 Belt
NCH/4 Right shoe
NCH/5 Left shoe
NCH/17/1 Mobile phone
I don't know why the belt and shoes were tested. The first three items had a reference AMH because they were the preserve of Scenes of Crime Officer Andrew Hodgson, the remainder have a Nicholas Hunt reference.
With all this testing she found just two marks: these were near the mouth of the bottle. Black and white photographs of the marks were forwarded to the force fingerprint bureau. She gives a date of 4 July 2003 which is clearly way out - perhaps she was thinking of America's Independence Day for some reason! Maybe she meant to say 4 August but would it take almost a week to have the photographs developed and sent?
She has to report on ANY marks that are revealed. I find it difficult to believe that all she got out of the testing were two marks on the neck of the water bottle. We don't know if any significant conclusions were drawn from the presence of the two marks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)