The watch "just on top of the knife"

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

Q. Where was the watch? 

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

Q. And where was the knife?

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

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

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

Issue

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Kelly's wristwatch

One of the items found on the ground and to the left of the body was a wristwatch.   This is what Mr Green says about the watch in his report:

Wristwatch:  Item AMH.4 was a black plastic "Casio" digital wristwatch.  This watch including the strap was not obviously damaged, and it was in working order, displaying the correct date and time when it was examined.  This item was very heavily stained with contact bloodstains and/or blood splashes over most of its surfaces.  A full STR profile matching that of Dr Kelly was obtained from a sample of the blood.

Amongst the debris (AMH.4.1) from the watch was a hair that was similar in appearance to the reference sample of wrist hairs (NCH.54) from Dr David Kelly.

In my opinion the wristwatch was being worn when David Kelly's wrist was cut but may have been taken off part way through to access areas of the wrist covered by the watch.

There is a very interesting choice of words here by Mr Green: he uses the phrase 'when David Kelly's wrist was cut' rather than 'when Dr Kelly cut his wrist'.  In fact he is being objective at this point in not assuming that Dr Kelly had been necessarily doing the cutting.

We know that Dr Hunt had speculated that the watch had been removed part way through the cutting and it's quite possible that Mr Green suggested this scenario when they were working together at Harrowdown Hill on the afternoon of the 18th July.  See also my post and the comments here http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3634321588005420812#editor/target=post;postID=2250564181200068174  It does seem totally illogical for Dr Kelly to remove the watch part way through the cutting rather than before he starts.

The fact that the watch was of the make and material stated seems to me to be in keeping with what we know about Dr Kelly.  In other words his choice of watch owes more to a desire for simple functionality than to be a piece of expensive jewellery.

In the "Schedule of responses to issues raised" http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf number 80 is illuminating:

Issue

Dr Hunt considered that the removal of Dr Kelly's watch by Dr Kelly is indicative of the fact that he removed it to facilitate the cutting of his wrists.  But he does not know when the watch was removed or by whom.

Response

No-one can know precisely what happened when Dr Kelly died but in the complete absence of any evidence of third party involvement in his death it is logical to assume that Dr Kelly removed his own watch.  It is also logical to assume that if he wished to cut his wrist he might want to remove his watch first.

The last sentence acknowledges that, contrary to the Green/Hunt hypothesis, Dr Kelly might want to remove his watch first.

The remark about 'complete absence of any evidence of third party involvement' is incorrect as will be discussed in a later post.  Importantly there is strong evidence that I can disclose that points to the watch and knife having being moved subsequent to the ambulance crew visiting the scene.

It will, I hope, be appreciated by the reader that there is a huge amount of detail in my investigations and that I am mindful of trying to avoid individual posts becoming too lengthy. So I need to stop here I think.