Conflicting evidence - Coe, Franklin, Sawyer (2)

In my last but one blogpost I reproduced an email I had sent to Mr McGinty at the Attorney General's Office pointing out the differing testimonies given by Coe, Franklin and Sawyer regarding the approach to the body.  I remarked in this email that I considered that there was clear evidence of lies having been told by the police at the Hutton Inquiry.

In the post I also reproduced number 55 from the "Schedule of responses to issues raised" on the Attorney General's website.  This had dealt with the matter raised in my email.  The following sentence in the response is particularly relevant to what I now wish to discuss:

The accounts of the officers does not appear to differ in any significant way.

The phrase "they would say that wouldn't they" springs readily to mind.


Dave Bartlett at the Inquiry says that they arrived at 9.55 which seems reasonable in relation to the time they were called out - 9.40.  This is part of Sawyer's evidence at the Inquiry:


We started walking up the track. We also had with us two paramedics who had arrived, which we took up with us to make sure that the person we were going to see did not require any medical assistance.
Q. Those two paramedics had obviously arrived separately from you?
A. They had arrived more or less at the same time we did. So the five of us went up because we were with Sergeant Alan Dadd as well.

Thus, if the official narrative is to be believed, Sawyer and Franklin arrived at the bottom of the track at about the same time as the ambulance and then Sawyer, Franklin, Dadd and the two paramedics walk up the track together.

The following series of questions and answers between Mr Knox and PC Sawyer are detailed and specific and, I would suggest, are not liable to misinterpretation:  

Q. Where did you stop the cars?
A. Stopped the cars -- I believe it at is the top, I have not seen the map but I believe it is at the top of Common Lane. Then we turned left and right up to the track which leads up to Harrowdown Hill.
Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to?
A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
Q. Paul Chapman?
A. He told us basically the body was further up in the woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers. I said, you know: whereabouts is the body? He pointed the path he had taken. I asked him if he had approached the body. He said he had. I asked him to point out where he had entered the woods and PC Franklin and myself entered the woods at the same point, taking with us a dozen or 15 aluminium poles we use when we are moving towards a scene to establish a common approach path. 

Q. Were the paramedics with you at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. The other three officers?
A. They remained down on the path.
Q. So it is you, PC Franklin and two paramedics, then the other three officers you have met; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You go down further into the woods, is that right?
A. The three officers -- DC Coe and the two uniformed officers -- stayed on the path which leads through the woods. We branched off to the left about 50 or 70 metres up into the woods, where the body was.  
Q. So it is just the four of you; is that right?
A. Just the four of us went up there.

The description given by Sawyer of his interaction with Coe is quite frankly unbelievable.  We are told that Coe is with two uniformed officers.  Sawyer asks him about the whereabouts of the body and Coe points out the path he took.  Sawyer asked him if he had approached the body.  Answer: yes he had.  We are asked to believe that Coe didn't actually take Franklin and Sawyer to the body even though there were two uniformed officers guarding the path.  Is this credible?  Of course not!  Yet Sawyer couldn't be clearer that Coe didn't accompany them to the body.

On the other hand both Coe and Franklin are quite certain that the former took Franklin and Sawyer to the body, a fact that was confirmed by Hutton himself as we shall see.

This is from Coe's evidence:

Q. How far away from the body did you actually go?
A. 7 or 8 feet.
Q. How long did you spend at the scene?
A. Until other officers came to tape off the area. I would think somewhere in the region of about 25 or 30 minutes. 
Q. Did anyone then arrive after that time?
A. Yes, two other police officers arrived, I took them to where the body was laying and then they made a taped off area, what we call a common approach path for everybody to attend along this one path.

To be precise here Coe doesn't name Franklin and Sawyer so in theory the 'two other police officers' could have been the two in uniform that Sawyer stated were with Coe.  However Sawyer made clear that it was he and Franklin who marked out the common approach path.

This is what Franklin had to say:

Q. Did you get taken into the wood?
A. DC Coe took us into the woods, PC Sawyer and myself, to the area where the body was.
Q. And what did you see there?
A. We walked between 50 and 70 metres into the wood up a slight gradient, and in a clearing at the base of a tree was the body of a white male.

Franklin here says Coe took Sawyer and himself to the area where the body was.  This is in direct contradiction to Sawyer later saying that Coe merely pointed the way he had taken into the wood.  It's worth remembering that the testimony from Sawyer immediately followed that of Franklin on that Tuesday morning.  It should have been very obvious that there was a problem with Sawyer's responses to detailed questioning from Mr Knox in as much as it was illogical for Coe not to have gone up to the body with the two police constables and that his evidence was markedly different from that of his colleague that they had just heard from.  Hutton at that moment could have, and should have, interjected to resolve the anomaly but decided not to.

In a letter dated 1 December 2010 to the Attorney General's Office Hutton reinforces Franklin's version of events http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Lord%20Hutton%20to%20AGO%201%20December%202010.pdf 

In it Hutton attempts to deal with the question of whether the body had been moved.  After reproducing Coe's evidence that Mr Chapman had taken him to the body he next states (on page 11):

Detective Constable Coe then took Police Constable Sawyer and Police Constable Franklin to see the body.  

That seems to me to be clear enough!

Sawyer's version of events, on the face of it at least, fits in with what the ambulance team had to say.  Yet it is at odds with Franklin's and Coe's testimonies.  How could Coe have shown Franklin and Sawyer the body prior to them attending the scene with the two ambulance crew?  It's an interesting conundrum which I'll address in another blogpost.   

Hutton's view on conflicting witness evidence

Even a fairly cursory examination of the written record of the Hutton Inquiry would, I think, show the reader that there is conflicting witness evidence.  In saying this I'm not focussing at the moment on what might be described as the "political evidence" such as the compilation of the September dossier and the now ridiculed "45 minute" claim.  What concerns me at present is the evidence on the ground at Harrowdown Hill and the various interactions of people who were there on Friday 18 July 2003 ... in other words the matters I have been largely concentrating on in my previous blogposts.

One of the most important paragraphs in Lord Hutton's Report is number 151 in Chapter 5 and this is it in its entirety:

Those who try cases relating to a death or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard from those who saw Dr Kelly's body in the wood there were differences as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr Kelly's death.

Although the penultimate sentence, in which Hutton states he has seen a photograph, is vitally important it is something to be analysed later.  It is the remainder of 151 that I want to discuss now.

Hutton's first sentence in paragraph 151 is undoubtedly true and I have no problem with it.  Where he is wrong, and I'm sure he knows he is wrong, is in extending that argument into the circumstances appertaining at Harrowdown Hill.  

Let me paint an imaginary scenario: I am at a bus stop and a few yards up the street a smash and grab raid takes place at a jewellers, people are seen running, there are shots in the air and the robbers get away in a couple of cars.  I remember some decades ago on TV a set up something like this was filmed and then an audience (and the audience at home) were asked various questions about what they observed.  Although I can't recall the details I do remember that the "witnesses" gave vastly different responses, so much so that you would have thought they had seen different events!  This is my reasoning as to why the observations varied so much:

• Most people, including myself, don't have professional standards of observation.  We aren't trained to note and remember details of scenes around us. 
• The sorts of event, such as the one I have outlined, are of the shocking and emotional variety.  As such the brain may be numbed to a certain extent by the nature of the incident and therefore not be at its best in recording and remembering what's in view.
• An incident such as the one described happens in a short timeframe.  This again doesn't help in assisting recollection.

The sort of example I've depicted, and to which Hutton's comments in paragraph 151 would apply, is vastly different to what was seen at Harrowdown Hill in every respect.  The witnesses were people who should have had better than average observational skills.  Moreover police have notebooks to record what they see and what people say, paramedics have a patient report form to complete.  Whereas if I see an accident on the road I'm not likely to be ready for it in the case of Dr Kelly the police and ambulance team knew they were going to a body.  They would have seen many dead or badly injured bodies and thus clearly wouldn't have the same emotional trauma as the man in the street who has never seen a deceased person in shocking circumstances.

Going back to my fictitious smash and grab raid such an event will happen quickly.  At Harrowdown Hill you know that the dead body isn't going to walk away.

What I have said so far demonstrates the total nonsense of Hutton's assertions ... as they apply to this particular case.  But there's more.  Let us suppose witness "A" is lying and that witness "B" is telling the truth.  Obviously then the two witnesses will give differing accounts.  It's all very well Hutton thinking that with his experience he would readily distinguish what was true and what was false but in criminal trials witnesses have to give evidence under oath.  This doesn't stop someone from lying of course but it's the best way to try and get witnesses to tell the truth and therefore return just verdicts.

Another reason why witnesses may give different accounts of what they saw can occur when the observations were made at different times.  Searcher Louise Holmes sees the body in one position, nearly an hour later the paramedics see it in a different position.  Using the Hutton logic it might be construed that they are all seeing the body in the same position whereas the evidence clearly points to the body having been moved by a third party in the interim.

Hutton was in a position where he knew he had to square the circle as best he could.  However there is no doubt whatsoever that his remarks in the context of Dr Kelly's death are absolute nonsense.   

Conflicting evidence - Coe, Franklin, Sawyer (1)

Prior to his making his statement to the House of Commons on 9 June 2011 Dominic Grieve had invited members of the public to send any evidence they had about Dr Kelly's death, and the investigations that followed, to his office.

On 28 February 2011 I sent this email to Mr McGinty at the Attorney General's Office: 

Mr McGinty

This email for the consideration of the Attorney General is, I consider, clear evidence of lies told by police officers at the Hutton Inquiry.  The particular evidence to be detailed here is contained in the testimonies produced by the first three police officers known to have approached Dr Kelly's body: DC Coe, PC Franklin and PC Sawyer.

DC Coe 

In his testimony on 16 September 2003 at the Inquiry DC Coe, in contradiction to other witnesses, states that he is with one other police officer (Detective Constable Shields) when he goes towards Harrowdown Hill on the morning of 18 July 2003.  However in a press article in August 2010 DC Coe admits the presence of a third man.  Thames Valley police have subsequently confirmed to me in writing that they know the identity of this third man, although they are not prepared to tell me his name or rank.  Even though the evidence given by DC Coe was obviously inconsistent with that of the earlier witnesses at the Inquiry Lord Hutton appears to have made no attempt whatsoever to resolve the difference.

There has been an assumption that DC Coe stood close to the body from the moment searcher Paul Chapman took him to where the body lay till the time PC Franklin and PC Sawyer arrived.  However DC Coe's evidence suggests otherwise:

21 Q. How far away from the body did you actually go?
22 A. 7 or 8 feet.
23 Q. How long did you spend at the scene?
24 A. Until other officers came to tape off the area. I would
25 think somewhere in the region of about 25 or 30 minutes.
4
1 Q. Did anyone then arrive after that time?
2 A. Yes, two other police officers arrived, I took them to
3 where the body was laying and then they made a taped off
4 area, what we call a common approach path for everybody
5 to attend along this one path. 

The precise definition of "the scene" is open to interpretation.  Certainly from what DC Coe says it is evident that he meets the other officers at a point away from the body and takes them to it.  Evidence from other witnesses indicates he was down on the track when met by them, at a minimum 50 to 70 metres from the body.  The differing accounts by earlier examined witnesses about the position of the body is indicative of the body being moved when DC Coe was present.  I consider that a diligent judge would have checked with DC Coe how much of the 25 or 30 minutes he was down on the track and how much of the time the body was within DC Coe's sight.

PC Franklin 

This is part of PC Franklin's testimony:

2 Q. Did you get taken into the wood?
3 A. DC Coe took us into the woods, PC Sawyer and myself, to
4 the area where the body was.
5 Q. And what did you see there?
6 A. We walked between 50 and 70 metres into the wood up
7 a slight gradient, and in a clearing at the base of
8 a tree was the body of a white male.

This is confirmation of what DC Coe says, and as one would expect DC Coe actually takes PC Franklin and PC Sawyer to where the body is.

Further on in the testimony:

16 LORD HUTTON: May I just ask you: how long were you at the
17 scene before the paramedics arrived?
18 A. Less than two minutes. 

PC Sawyer

Here we have his testimony about his arrival at the bottom of the track leading up to Harrowdown Hill:

6 Q. And where did you then go?
7 A. We then went to the track that leads up to
8 Harrowdown Hill, I do not know the name of the track,
9 but when we arrived we saw a vehicle parked which
10 belonged to Louise. We started walking up the track.
11 We also had with us two paramedics who had arrived,
12 which we took up with us to make sure that the person we
13 were going to see did not require any medical
14 assistance.
15 Q. Those two paramedics had obviously arrived separately
16 from you?
17 A. They had arrived more or less at the same time we did.
18 So the five of us went up because we were with
19 Sergeant Alan Dadd as well.

No explanation is provided about any further part played by Sergeant Dadd but at least we have confirmation that the paramedics arrive at about the same time as the PCs 

This is further testimony from PC Sawyer:

25 Q. You go along the track, where do you then go to?

47
1 A. We met Paul from SEBEV walking down the hill.
2 Q. Paul Chapman?
3 A. He told us basically the body was further up in the
4 woods. We continued walking up the hill, where I saw
5 DC Coe and two uniformed officers. I said, you know:
6 whereabouts is the body? He pointed the path he had
7 taken. I asked him if he had approached the body. He
8 said he had. I asked him to point out where he had
9 entered the woods and PC Franklin and myself entered the
10 woods at the same point, taking with us a dozen or 15
11 aluminium poles we use when we are moving towards
12 a scene to establish a common approach path.
13 Q. Were the paramedics with you at the time?
14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The other three officers?
16 A. They remained down on the path.
17 Q. So it is you, PC Franklin and two paramedics, then the
18 other three officers you have met; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You go down further into the woods, is that right?
21 A. The three officers -- DC Coe and the two uniformed
22 officers -- stayed on the path which leads through the
23 woods. We branched off to the left about 50 or
24 70 metres up into the woods, where the body was.
25 Q. So it is just the four of you; is that right?
48
1 A. Just the four of us went up there.

From this detailed questioning it is clear that PC Sawyer's version of events is markedly different to that of PC Franklin regarding the approach to the body and whether DC Coe is with them at that time.  If PCs Franklin and Sawyer approach the body only once (with the ambulance crew slightly behind them) then it is clear that either PC Franklin or PC Sawyer is not telling the truth.  Once again Lord Hutton fails to resolve an important piece of conflicting evidence.

The three officers give conflicting accounts about what was happening between the time the volunteers find the body and the time that the ambulance crew arrive at the point in the woods where the body is situated.  Clearly it is essential for an inquest with sworn testimony to now take place.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email.

Brian Spencer

My concern featured as number 55 in the "Schedule of responses to issues raised":

Issue
The three officers - DC Coe, PC Sawyer and PC Franklin all gave evidence to the Inquiry about finding the body which differed regarding the approach to the body and where DC Coe was.
Response
It is inevitable that honest witnesses, recalling details to the best of their memory, will give accounts that may vary, sometimes widely.  All courts recognise this.  How important such variation is depends entirely on how relevant the evidence is to the issue in question.  The accounts of the officers does not appear to differ in any significant way.  Lord Hutton had considerable experience in presiding over complex and difficult criminal trials and was very well equipped to make findings of fact in these circumstances. 

I want to examine the conflicting evidence given by the three officers in more detail but before that it's worth looking at what Lord Hutton - an experienced judge of course - had to say about differing accounts from witnesses.  This will be the subject of my next post.  

Richard Shepherd, DC Coe and DC Shields

The Hutton Inquiry quite amply demonstrated a cover up in respect of the death of Dr David Kelly.  Before making his announcement about not going to the High Court to seek an inquest the Attorney General Dominic Grieve added to the cover up by obtaining and preparing a lot more information.  One decision made in the autumn of 2010 was to gain the involvement of forensic pathologist Dr Richard Shepherd.  In the introduction of his Forensic Medical Report of 16 March 2011 Shepherd says:

I have been asked by the office of the Attorney General to comment on the pathological aspects of the death of Dr David Kelly on 17th July 2003

In passing I'll just note that he says that Dr Kelly died on 17th July 2003 whereas he later concludes that the death could have been on either 17 July or 18 July.  This is just one example of his sloppiness in delivering a very poor report.

Here is a reminder of a couple of paragraphs written by Kevin McGinty from the Attorney General's Office in Annex TVP-1:

As the officers went towards the river they came across the two civilian searchers (Paul Chapman & Louise Holmes) who had found the body and radioed for help.  This was a chance occurrence.  At this time they were at the foot of Harrowdown Hill, a considerable distance from the body location.  

Dc Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving Dc Shields and Pc A and Louise Holmes behind.  Dc Shields and Pc A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.

Pc A was the third member of DC Coe's party ... the person TVP have refused to identify.

As described in previous postings Mr McGinty went to some trouble in trying to convince everyone that DC Shields and PC A didn't go anywhere near the body.  By bringing in  outside "experts" like Dr Shepherd there was always the chance that something might be said that knocks out a pillar from McGinty's carefully constructed edifice. And so it happened in this instance.  Under "Scene Examination" and sub-section c) Position of the body in Shepherd's report http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf
we read:

The police officers (DCs Coe and Shields) who initially attended the scene commented that the body was "laying on his back", they did not describe sitting or slumping against a tree.

That's the trouble when you go over the top with a cover up, it's all to easy to let errors creep in.

Update
For the sake of completeness I should add number 42 in the "Schedule of responses to issues raised" on the Attorney General's website:
Issue.  Hutton failed to call DC Shields - one of two detectives who attended Dr Kelly's body.
Response.  DC Shields did not attend Dr Kelly's body and had no relevant information to assist the Inquiry.

Appendix A to Dr Shepherd's report is a list of "Reports, Statements, etc" that had been sent to him.  There is no witness statement from DC Shields but the "Thames Valley Police Report" by DCI Alan Young could be the source of Dr Shepherd's reference to both Coe and Shields attending the body.

The cordons at Harrowdown Hill

This is part of PC Sawyer's evidence responding to questions from Mr Knox:

Q. So Police Constable Franklin tells you that. Then what happens?
A. Then we are in the briefing that Police Constable Franklin has already described. We are just about to leave to perform our first searches, which would have been in the village and the surrounding areas of the route he was thought to have taken, when information came in that a body had been found. I then left with Police Constable Franklin to attend the scene.
Q. Can you remember what time it was that that information came in?
A. It would have been about 9 o'clock, I believe.
Q. So you then leave with Police Constable Franklin?
A. Yes.
Q. And anyone else?
A. We had three other officers in the back who we took from the search team to act as the cordons, because obviously we do not want members of the public or members of the press approaching the scene until it has been obviously searched and declared sterile.

It's interesting that Sawyer talks of 'the route he was thought to have taken' as if the police were already aware in general terms at least of where he had gone.  Did his regular walks cover more or less the same ground?  The helicopter log assists by showing that they were concentrating their search in a quadrant north and east of the Kelly home.  Perhaps the police were already aware of sightings by Ruth Absalom and/or Paul Weaving.

Franklin and Sawyer had three spare seats in the back of their land rover and the personnel were available so taking three officers to act as cordons seems to have been perfectly sensible.  Some Freedom of Information requests sought elaboration about the cordons.

This FOI request focussed on location of the cordons and when the inner one was established:

Introduction

This request, reference RFI2011000453, was received on Friday 17 June 2011, 2:03pm.

Question

1) Where was the outer cordon established? 2) Where was the inner cordon established? 3) When was the inner cordon established? 4) Please mark positions on a map.

Response

1) Complete information on this subject is not held however, records indicate cordon points were established at Tucks Lane/Common Lane and from Newbridge Farm along the towpath area to the north entrance to Harrowdown Hill.
2) Complete information on this subject is not held however, records indicate the outer perimeter of Harrowdown woods.
3) Complete information on this subject is not held however, references to the arrival of the two officers who began the cordon indicate the time was approximately 09:30 hrs.
4) No Information held.

A question incorporated in another request asked about when an outer cordon was established:  

Introduction

This request, reference RFI2010000860, was received on Monday 20 December 2010, 1:59pm.
Question
When was an outer cordon established at Harrowdown Hill?
Response
An outer cordon was established at 09:28am

This is the next part of PC Sawyer's testimony:


Q. And where did you then go?
A. We then went to the track that leads up to Harrowdown Hill, I do not know the name of the track, but when we arrived we saw a vehicle parked which belonged to Louise. We started walking up the track. We also had with us two paramedics who had arrived, which we took up with us to make sure that the person we were going to see did not require any medical assistance.
Q. Those two paramedics had obviously arrived separately from you?
A. They had arrived more or less at the same time we did. So the five of us went up because we were with Sergeant Alan Dadd as well.

We have some distinctly odd timings here: from the evidence of the paramedics we know they got their "shout" at 9.40 and arrived at the foot of Harrowdown Hill at 9.55.  I don't know in 2003 how close to each other the police station and ambulance station in Abingdon were.  But I can't believe that Franklin and Sawyer took much longer than the ambulance to do the journey.  They may have left the police station at 9.35 but that still suggests a rather late departure to me.

The FOI responses tell us that an outer cordon was established at 9.28.  My assumption has been that it was the one to the south of Harrowdown Hill ie between the hill and Longworth village.  However the timing might refer to the cordon to the north (on the towpath to the west of Newbridge) ... if police were already in the area at the time.

Was Sawyer being honest about when the land rover arrived?  If he was then clearly somebody beat him to it in establishing an outer cordon at 9.28 and an inner cordon at about 9.30.  What of DC Coe's two companions?  According to another FOI result they didn't enter the outer cordon.  If these two were the 9.28 cordon why didn't TVP say so?  The wording of the response to the relevant part of this last mentioned FOI request was very clever ... I'm only now fully appreciating it ... so I'll reproduce that section: 

Introduction

This request, reference RFI2011000401, was received on Sunday 29 May 2011, 3:46pm.

Question

Please inform me when a) DC Coe, b) DC Shields and c) the 3rd man were logged out of the outer cordon 

Response

DC Coe was logged out at 11.47am on 18/07/2003.  The other two officers did not enter the outer cordon.

We are asked to assume I think that DC Coe entered the outer cordon but that the other two didn't.  This then supports the story that the two volunteer searchers met the three officers at the bottom of the track and that only Coe went up to the wood with Paul Chapman.  However suppose another party becomes the outer cordon at the parking area at 9.28 whilst Coe and his pals are already a short way up the track.  Technically the threesome might not have entered the outer cordon in the sense of having their names noted because they were already in it when it was set up.   

I have previously discussed the point that in Annex TVP 1 a lot of trouble was taken to distance DC Shields and "the third man" from the body ... contrary to the evidence given by the two searchers http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/dc-coe-taken-to-body-2.html

So is the last described FOI response another piece of deviousness from TVP? 

 
 

FOI response about PC Sawyer's photographs.

This post needs to be read in conjunction with my last one in which I had cast doubt about the police evidence that the paramedics had confimed death at 10.07.  We know that PC Sawyer took photographs at the scene before and after death had been confirmed ... most of them before.  Therefore if we knew exactly when the photographs were taken we could get a good fix on the actual time and whether 10.07 was in fact accurate.

Fortunately the question has been asked by someone as a Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police.  The FOI request covered a number of matters so for clarity I shall just reproduce the part that concerns the times of Sawyer's photographs:

Introduction

This request, reference RFI2011000524, was received on Tuesday 12 July 2011, 9:32am.

Question
Do the electronic image files of any of the photographs carry time and / or date information (this does not refer to the printed photograph but the electronic files)? 

Response
EXIF information indicates the photos of the body in situ were taken at: 10.10:18, 10.10:37, 10.11:08, 10.11:20, 10.13:40 & 10.15:05.

This response very clearly suggests that the 10.07 time given by PC Franklin in his testimony was incorrect and that death was confirmed some minutes later.

However it's not just the response to this particular part of the FOI request that points to the official narrative being in error.   We also now know that Franklin and Sawyer were logged in at the outer cordon at 10.00 am and are subsequently logged out at 10.26.  Another FOI request had established that the paramedics were also logged out of the outer cordon at that same time of 10.26.  If the 10.07 time were correct then the seven minutes prior to it would be far too short and the nineteen minutes after surprisingly long.

Why the 10.07 time came into being isn't clear to me.  What I can say though with conviction is that I am certain that it is wrong. 

The time at which the paramedics confirmed death

Abingdon ambulance station was alerted at 9.40, twenty minutes after Paul Chapman's 999 call.  Paramedic Vanessa Hunt told Mr Dingemans:

We were asked to mobilise towards Southmoor for a male patient but we were given no more details at that time. 

The interaction at the Inquiry continued as follows:

Q. So, did you set off? 
A. Yes, we did.
Q. In an ambulance?
A. In an ambulance with my colleague Dave Bartlett.
Q. And you drove to Southmoor?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone meet you there?
A. On the way we were given some more information on our data screens.
Q. What did that say?
A. It just said that we were attending the address --  Harrowdown Hill in Longworth for a male believed to be a kilo 1 which is actually deceased, and the Thames Valley Police were on the scene.

According to the evidence of ambulance technician Dave Bartlett they arrived at 9.55 and then with their equipment were led up the track by the police and into the wood to the body.  Electrodes were attached to the body and the heart monitor confirmed that life was extinct.  They obtained three readouts all showing a flat line.  It seems that the machine wasn't reliable as to recording the time that readouts are made and that the normal practice was for the paramedics to check the time from their watches and write this information on the strips.

Q. What did you do with the strips from the machine?
A. Took three strips and handed them all to the police officer.    

We can be sure I think that the time would also have been recorded on the Patient Report Form which the paramedics have to complete whether the patient was alive or dead.  Having said this there is an exchange about the subject between Mr Knox and Dave Bartlett:

Q. Can you remember at what time death was pronounced?
A. (Pause). No, I did not actually make a note of the time. It would have been what was wrote on the strips.
Q. It was noted on the strips?
A. Yes. 

If not Mr Bartlett then I would have thought that Ms Hunt would have kept a note of the time.  Maybe I'm wrong on this.  Whatever, with no doubt many other incidents attended in the weeks following Dr Kelly's death it would be amazing if either of the ambulance team could recall the time written on the strips.  But thanks to PC Franklin and DC Coe the official narrative informs us that the time that death was confirmed was 10.07.  But was this factually accurate?  The evidence would suggest not!  I'm not saying there is anything necessarily sinister here though.

This is PC Franklin answering Mr Dingemans:

Q. What did you see the paramedics do?
A. The shirt was unbuttoned, they placed four sticky pads, I believe it is four, on to the body, the chest, and attached it to a medical machine -- sorry, I have no idea what it is. And they pronounced life extinct at 10.07 hours that morning. 

Exactly two weeks later and DC Coe is responding to Mr Knox:

Q. Did any ambulance people arrive?
A. They did, yes.
Q. Can you remember what time they arrived?
A. I can, if I use my pocket book. Can I?
1Q. Of course.
A. I have 10.07 here.
Q. 10.07 being the time at which the ambulance arrived?
A. Pronounced death, but they might have arrived just prior to that.
Q. It is they who pronounced death; is that right?
A. Yes.

In the case of Franklin one would think that he either looked at his watch when the paramedics confirmed death and put the time in his notebook or, having been given the strips from the machine on which the time had been written as previously described, transferred that information to his notebook.  PC Sawyer is clear in his evidence that only he and PC Franklin accompanied the paramedics to the body with DC Coe staying on the track, if this was the case then DC Coe was about 75 yards away from the body when death was confirmed.  

I can well understand PC Franklin recording this time in his notebook but how would DC Coe know?  It's interesting to read the relevant wording in DC Coe's written statement as revealed in Annex TVP 1:

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

My best guess is that 1007 was the time noted by DC Coe when he speaks to the two police constables who are being followed by the paramedics.  Several minutes can be added on for the walk into the wood with the officers putting in their marker posts for the common approach path, for Sawyer to take his photographs, for pupil reaction and carotid pulse to be checked, and for the unsuccessful attempt to look for heart activity with the paddles before using the electrodes.  There is further confirmation from Dave Bartlett:

Q. How long were you at the scene altogether?
A. 5 to 10 minutes.

If my belief is correct then what's the explanation for PC Franklin's evidence?  I'm not very confident about his reliability as a witness.  Perhaps he didn't note the time at the time.  Perhaps he asked DC Coe afterwards about timings.  Perhaps, being aware that DC Coe had a time of 10.07 in his notebook, he thought that he had better use that one in his evidence.  Yet later in his testimony Franklin is quite specific in the details of the times of the fingertip search.  Am I being unfair in thinking that he wasn't too bright?  I'm not sure.

In my next post I shall look at the strong evidence that indicates that the time at which the paramedics confirmed death was in fact later than 10.07.    


 

DC Coe guarding the body

Over a number of recent posts I have been recording the evidence given by DC Coe, PC Franklin, PC Sawyer, paramedic Vanessa Hunt and ambulance technician Dave Bartlett at the Inquiry ... and adding the occasional comment of my own.  Doing this has been relatively straightforward.  It's much more difficult to determine the true course of events that morning when examining the similarities and differences in the testimonies of these five key witnesses.  Putting my research into words is going to be challenging!

The impression that has been given, I think, is that DC Coe stood close to the body from the time that it was shown to him by volunteer searcher Paul Chapman until the arrival of the ambulance team.  This is a reminder of what DC Coe was saying to Mr Knox at the Inquiry:

Q. Did you notice if there were any stains on the clothes? 
A. I saw blood around the left wrist area.
Q. Anywhere else? How close an examination did you yourself make?
A. Just standing upright, I did not go over the body. I made a thing -- I observed the scene.
Q. How far away from the body did you actually go? 
A. 7 or 8 feet.
Q. How long did you spend at the scene?
A. Until other officers came to tape off the area. I would think somewhere in the region of about 25 or 30 minutes.
Q. Did anyone then arrive after that time?
A. Yes, two other police officers arrived, I took them to where the body was laying and then they made a taped off area, what we call a common approach path for everybody to attend along this one path.

A difficulty I've touched on before is how to interpret the phrase 'the scene'.  I sense that here they are applying the term not just to the very immediate vicinity of the body but right out to the track that adjoins the eastern boundary of the wood.  

For the moment let's assume that Mr Chapman has returned down the track and that Coe's companions aren't with him.  If I was DC Coe and attending the scene in a perfectly "innocent" mode what would I do?  Having assured myself that the body was dead I would radio in to say that I was with a body and that it appeared to be the corpse of Dr Kelly.  This seems to have happened and the paramedics are updated with the information that the body appears to be dead and that the police are on the scene.  The screen in the ambulance tells them this so we know that the information gets through between 9.40 and when they park up at 9.55.  

From his conversation with Paul Chapman DC Coe would be aware that the regular police were on the way.  His primary concern while waiting would be to secure the scene and avoid contamination of evidence.  I imagine he would write down the more obvious aspects of the scene in his notebook such as description of the body, the clothing and any items visible in the vicinity.  This is not going to take him the 25 or 30 minutes he refers to in his testimony at the Inquiry.

There is no obvious easy access into the wood than from the track.  Standing on the track would enable him to see if any rambler or farmer was coming that way and also he would meet the police reinforcements and direct them to the body.  Evidence given by witnesses suggests that it was necessary to climb up into the wood before seeing the body but whether there were certain points on the track from which the body would have been visible isn't clear.  One must remember too that that the body was about 75 yards from the track and that there was a certain amount of undergrowth limiting visibility.  In the article in The Observer of 12 December 2004 Vanessa Hunt states that they first saw the body in a clearing from about 20 metres.  So they had progressed a long way into the wood before seeing the deceased.

As will be described later there is no doubt that the body was moved before being seen by the ambulance team.  When the latter arrived Coe was seemingly down on the track.  The questions to be asked are how long was he there as opposed to being with the body and was he physically involved in repositioning the body.        

'There were a lot of police around'

'There were a lot of police around'.  This is a quote of Vanessa Hunt in the press article to which my last post linked.  To put it in proper context this is the relevant paragraph in Antony Barnett's piece in The Observer of 12 December 2004:

When they arrived at the woods 15 minutes later it was immediately clear that this was not a run-of-the-mill incident. 'There were a lot of police around,' said Hunt. 'Some were in civilian clothes and others in black jackets and army fatigues. I thought it might have been a firearms incident as there were the guys from the special armed response units.' 

The next paragraph reads:

The paramedics parked their ambulance. Carrying their resuscitation equipment, they followed two armed-response police for about a mile until they reached a wooded area. In a clearing, they first saw Kelly's body. 

In reality the distance they had to walk was about half a mile rather than a mile but far enough when you are carrying equipment as well.

This is Vanessa Hunt at the Inquiry:

Q. When you arrived on the scene was anyone there?
A. Yes, there were a number of police officers.
Q. Do you remember how many?
A. Just lots and there was police vehicles there as well.

Dave Bartlett also emphasises the number of police:


Q. What happened when you arrived?
A. We parked at the end of the lane where there were some cars already parked, a lot of police officers there. We asked one police officer who directed us to the police that were in the combat uniforms and they asked us to bring some equipment and follow them down into the woods.

There is also an interesting phrase in the testimony of Louise Holmes:

Q. So in other words, Paul Chapman goes back with the police to show them where the body is?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went back to the car to sort the dog out and then when I got to the car further police officers and personnel came up to the car to take over, take over the scene.
Q. Did you then go back to the scene at all?
A. No. 

She gets back to her car and refers not just to 'further police officers' but also uses the word 'personnel'.

The official narrative doesn't have anything to say about all these additional police and personnel.  From Franklin and Sawyer we glean the information that they brought three officers with them to act as cordons.  Sergeant Dadd was there as well.  That's a total of six officers.  DC Coe is up at the wood as are, I suspect, DC Shields and "the third man".

A real flurry of activity at the bottom of the lane it would seem when the ambulance crew park their vehicle.  I had been surprised by the fact that neither Franklin nor Sawyer had referred to Ms Holmes being at the parking area when they arrived although the presence of her car was mentioned.  My thought now is that someone from the police (and personnel) who took over the scene would want to talk to her; she could for instance have been sitting in a police vehicle when Sawyer and Franklin arrive.

There seems to be a deliberate attempt at the Inquiry to avoid any questions about the 'further police officers and personnel'.  As this is the Hutton Inquiry we really shouldn't be surprised.

   

Paramedics query Inquiry conclusion

(I have previously referred to the subject in this post http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/blood-ambulance-team-interview-of.html  The main point in the press article - lack of blood at the scene - is so important that I think it's right to mention this issue again, particularly as I have recorded the doubts of the paramedics at the Inquiry in my last two posts)

On 12 December 2004, less than 11 months after Hutton published his Report, an article by journalist Antony Barnett appeared in The Observer under the heading 'Kelly death paramedics query verdict'  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/12/politics.davidkelly

The central thrust of Mr Barnett's piece was that Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett weren't able to accept Lord Hutton's conclusion, based on the pathologist's report, about Dr Kelly's demise.  They stated that there just wasn't enough blood loss (or haemorrhage) to result in death.  Now it's not only Hutton's "verdict" of suicide that was under question here, it's the whole matter of mode of death - whether self inflicted or as a result of another party with malevolent intent.

I think it is generally accepted that the observations and conclusions of the forensic pathologist embodied in his report are key to establishing cause of death.  If Dr Hunt was wrong on such a fundamental matter as that raised by the paramedics then Hutton's verdict would clearly be unsafe.

As recorded in my last two posts Ms Hunt and Mr Bartlett had each drawn to the attention of the Inquiry their belief that there wasn't enough blood present at the scene for a fatal haemorrhage. I pointed out that Mr Dingemans, in damage limitation mode, was trying to hint that as Ms Hunt wasn't specifically looking for blood at the scene then she just wouldn't be aware of it.  This in fact is a piece of Dingemans mischief in my opinion.  Vanessa Hunt certainly saw blood on the nearby nettles and in kneeling, sitting or squatting by the body would be aware of any significant blood in the immediate area.  In a press article on 8 August 2010 DC Coe, by then retired, confirmed the almost total lack of blood at the scene.

There have been some commentators in the past who have suggested that there was sufficient blood loss but that it had soaked into the ground and that therefore the paramedics had got it wrong.  The overwhelmingly important thing to understand here is that it is up to the forensic pathologist to demonstrate beyond doubt that the blood loss was sufficient to cause death.  He clearly failed to do this.  One might have more confidence in Dr Hunt if he had mentioned coming across comparable circumstances in previous deaths he had investigated but there has been no indication from him that he had seen any other death resulting from the transection of a single ulnar artery.

It's evident from the article that Ms Hunt and Mr Bartlett had seen plenty of attempted wrist slashings in their long careers.  In other words they know what such situations typically look like.  In the oral evidence and written reports there is no indication that cracks had opened in the ground to permit the draining of blood.  Much earlier in this blog I had also looked at what other witnesses had to say about the blood so won't repeat it all here. The "blood" posts can be readily found by clicking on the archive for June on the right hand side of the page.