John,
Thanks for replying.
Over the next few days I'll post a few self-contained posts in which I'll try to explain to you (and anyone else that may be reading) why I believe there is compelling reason, at a minimum, to question the Hutton Inquiry version of events with respect to the death of David Kelly.
One of the most important easily-understood issues is whether or not the body found at Harrowdown Hill was moved by a third party.
That issue is immensely important since it is crucial to the "suicide" interpretation put forward to the Hutton Inquiry by the former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page and is pivotal to the logic by which Lord Hutton reached a "suicide" conclusion.
This issue was considered in the second post on the subject of Dr. Kelly's death
that I posted, on 22nd October 2010, after reading the postmortem
results published by the Ministry of Justice. See
The Death of David Kelly - Who moved the body? Who was the missing policeman?
The basics of the evidence
The available evidence is as follows.
At 09.15 on 18th July 2003 the body of Dr. Kelly was seen from a distance of about four feet by Lousie Holmes with the "head and shoulders" against the base of a tree.
At approximately 10.15 on 18th July 2003 the ambulanceman Dave Bartlett was able to stand (and possibly kneel) in the gap between the head and the tree.
Both pieces of evidence are "solid" in the sense that there is no obvious reason to question them.
Louise Holmes' evidence is consistent in her oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry and in her written statement to the Police. It is, at least in part, corroborated by the evidence of Paul Chapman given at the Hutton Inquiry and by statements to the press in 2010 by Detective Constable Graham Coe.
Dave Bartlett's evidence is corroborated in photographs seen by forensic pathologist Dr. Richard Shepherd who, in the photographs shown to him, commented that the head was "some distance" from the tree.
How can the evidence be explained?
What are the possible explanations for the differences in observed body position?
These possible interpretations come to mind:
- Louise Holmes was mistaken
- Louise Holmes lied
- Dave Bartlett and Dr. Shepherd were mistaken
- Dave Bartlett and Dr. Shepherd lied
First, let's dismiss options 3. and 4. Other witnesses, implicitly rather than explicitly, indicate that after 10.15 the body was flat on the ground a little distance from the tree.
There is also said to be photographic evidence comfirming that.
Could Louise Holmes have been mistaken? Could she have lied?
Louise Holmes saw the body from a distance of about four feet. It seems to me to be inconceivable that she could be wrong about the body position from that distance.
Did Louise Holmes lie? Her evidence has never been called into question. She has no identifiable motive, that I can discern, to lie.
In my interpretation of the evidence there is no discernible reason to doubt that the body was in one position at 09.15 and in another position at 10.15.
What explanations are possible?
It seems to me that, in all the applicable circumstances, there are three possible interpretations of the body being in two different positions.
- Dr. Kelly was still alive when found by Louise Holmes and moved
- The body slid spontaneously down a slope
- The body was moved by a third party
The evidence of Dr. Nicholas Hunt about time of death indicates that Dr. Kelly was dead no later than 01.30 on 18th July 2003. In other words he had been dead for some 8 hours before being found by Louise Holmes. I recalculated Dr. Hunt's timings and the true timings are earlier than Dr. Hunt indicated. In any case all the available evidence is that Dr. Kelly had been dead for at least 8 hours. Dead bodies don't move themselves.
Could the body have slipped down a slope? There is no evidence to support that possibility. Dr. Shepherd in his report to the Attorney General indicates there were no marks on the ground to indicate that the body was dragged into a new position. That seems to me to exclude the possibility that the body slid spontaneously a couple of feet or more into a new position.
The only credible interpretation of the evidence, as it seems to me, is that an unidentified third party or third parties moved the body.
Given the absence of drag marks it seems likely that at least two third parties were present.
No such third party was identified by Thames Valley Police.
Conclusions
The evidence is that the body was seen in two positions.
There is no identified reason to question the evidence about either position of the body.
The only credible interpretation for the body being in two positions is that it was moved by a third party or third parties.
The "suicide" conclusion of the Hutton Inquiry rests on the supposed exclusion of the presence of a third party at the scene.
I conclude that the Hutton Inquiry conclusion of "suicide" is, at a minimum, highly questionable and, in reality, is unsafe and untrue.
Is there an alternative explanation of the evidence?
John,
You are on record as stating that there is no credible reason to question the "suicide" conclusion. At least that's how I understand your past comments on the matter.
How, then, do you explain this aspect of the evidence?
I can provide links to any components of the evidence that are of interest to you in considering this question or I can supply you with copies of the original documents e.g. Dr. Shepherd's report (where they have now been removed from the Internet by the Attorney General's Office).
Why did a third party move the body?
Once one accepts that the evidence indicates that Dr. Kelly's body was moved the question arises as to the motive(s) of such a third party.
Did some random member of the public come along and move the body with no motive for doing so and escape detection by Thames Valley Police? I think we can conclude that possibility is highly unlikely.
The alternate explanation is that a third party (or third parties) moved the body with specific motivation.
The most plausible motive, I suggest, is to "set the scene" to create an impression of "suicide" when that was not the true cause of death.
In other words the seeming "suicide" was faked in that regard.
If that aspect was faked how many other aspects of the seeming "suicide" were faked?
Apart from a "scene setting" motive to fake a seeming "suicide" can you suggest any other credible possible motive?
Do you have an alternative explanation?
John,
Do you have an alternative logical alternative explanation for the evidence as it exists?
A longer consideration of this evidence
The foregoing is a slightly abbreviated version of events and my analysis of it.
Together with the late Brian Spencer I presented a more detailed analysis in an application in April 2012 to the Attorney General in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
That Section 13 application is online here (after some introduction from Dr. Stephen Frost):
Suspicious Death of Dr David Kelly: Doctors Seek New Death Inquest
In that analysis Mr. Spencer and I concluded that it was likely that Lord Hutton had lied in the report of the Hutton Inquiry. At your discretion we can discuss the honesty or otherwise of Lord Hutton or simply focus on the issues of the presence or otherwise of one or more unidentified third parties at Harrowdown Hill.
If a third party (or third parties) was present at Harrowdown Hill then Lord Hutton got it wrong. At least that's my view.
