Dr Hunt - what he did before 14.10 (3)

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

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

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

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

The 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.

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.