Wednesday, 25 April 2012

Who Killed David Kelly? - Whose body was found at Harrowdown Hill?

This post consists largely of an early draft of a chapter entitled, "Whose body was found at Harrowdown Hill?".

That's a question that a Coroner is required by Law to answer with respect to any death.

The Hutton Inquiry's examination of the question was visibly cursory.

Maybe that doesn't matter.

Maybe it matters enormously. If the Harrowdown Hill body wasn't David Kelly's then a very different scenario comes into view.

As always feel free to contact me privately with comments or other questions you'd like to see covered in the book, "Who Killed David Kelly?".

See Who Killed David Kelly? - Contacting me.

Whose body was found at Harrowdown Hill?

In this chapter I want carefully to look at the evidence about whose body was found at Harrowdown Hill.

I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if your first reaction to that is to wonder if I’m taking a step too far towards a weird and wacky conspiracy theory.

I don’t think I am.

One of the key pieces of information that a Coroner has to establish (or try to establish) is who is the person who died.

With a suspicious death that’s obviously particularly important.

With respect to the Harrowdown Hill body, the question is “Was it David Kelly’s body that was found at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003?”.

And the evidence that it was David Kelly’s body is surprisingly thin on the ground.

At the Hutton Inquiry neither Janice Kelly nor Rachel Kelly was asked about identification of the body.

So no evidence was taken from those who would, assuming the body was David Kelly’s, have been able, in normal circumstances to identify the body.

The only mention at the Hutton Inquiry of anything resembling identification evidence was by Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page.

In response to a question about the mysterious disappearance and reappearance of Dr. Kelly’s dental records we read ( ):

However, upon hearing about
12 this, and again I stress because I am a police officer
13 and probably inherently suspicious, because dental
14 records are a means of identification it did prompt me
15 to take the extra precaution of having DNA checks
16 carried out to confirm that the body we had was the body
17 of Dr Kelly, notwithstanding the fact that that had been
18 identified by his family.

So, ACC Page tells us, in a throwaway line that the body had been identified by the family.

What ACC Page didn’t say was that there was another question about the reliability of identification evidence that hadn’t, at that time, been publicly disclosed.

During the postmortem carried out on the evening of 18th July 2003, Dr. Nicholas Hunt had dissected the soft tissues of the face.

FACE: The facial soft tissues were dissected to the level of the bone and there was no evidence of soft tissue or bony injury.

The postmortem was carried out on the evening of 18th July 2003. The visual identification of the body was carried out on the morning of 19th July 2003.

How different did the face of the Harrowdown Hill body look after the soft tissues had been dissected?

We don’t know.

Was the appearance changed sufficiently to render visual identification unreliable?

We don’t know.

Did Janice Kelly say something clearcut like, “Oh yes, that’s David.” or, as a result of the dissection of the face, something uncertain like “Well, I suppose it is probably David.”?

We’re not told.

Was it the face that was used to identify the body at all?

We’re not told.

Could the unique feature of the body have been the curving scar on the right elbow? (You know the scar resulting from the injury and operation that everybody at the Hutton Inquiry carefully didn’t mention.)

We don’t know if that irony took place or not.

So, there are three sources of doubt at the identification evidence:

1. The visual identification was, in effect, hearsay since no member of the Kelly family stated that they had identified the body
2. The supposed visual identification of the body was carried out after the face was dissected, possibly altering the appearance of the face
3. The dental records were, so it seems, removed and replaced by person or persons unknown

ACC Page told the Hutton Inquiry that he asked for DNA tests on the body and the family.

The results of those tests (or what purports to be the results of those tests) were first disclosed in June 2011 [check] following the Attorney General’s statement to the House of Commons. Appendix 2 where the DNA results are contained was initially not disclosed but after a complaint to the Attorney General’s Office it was added to the documents on the AGO website.

However, Appendix 2 was disclosed only in heavily redacted form.

All the components of the DNA results for Sian Kelly, Ellen Wilson and Janice Kelly are redacted.

The result is that we are asked to take the DNA match on trust.

As I write this chapter, the inquest of the MI6 agent Gareth Williams is taking place. One issue in that connection is that the DNA evidence was messed up. Was that because the DNA database was hacked? We don’t know but we can’t exclude the possibility.

If the LGC Forensics DNA database can be hacked or is otherwise unreliable even the unredacted DNA evidence supposedly identifying the Harrowdown Hill body as Dr. David Kelly may be false or otherwise unreliable.

I started this chapter by asking “Whose body was found at Harrowdown Hill?”.

The strict answer to that question is that we don’t know.

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

Who Killed David Kelly? - 17th July 2003 - The Perfect Day for the Perfect Political Murder?

The bulk of this post consists of the draft text of what may be the first chapter of "Who Killed David Kelly?".

The chapter sets out hugely important questions about whether the death of Dr. David Kelly was an attempt at committing the perfect political murder, rather than the supposed "suicide" that Lord Hutton asked us to believe in.

The quoted material is very much a draft. It is subject to change.

But the draft chapter does reflect my current thoughts and opinion about the true interpretation of the death of Dr. Kelly.

Let me know what you think.

If you don't want to post public comments. You can email me at the address noted here: Who Killed David Kelly? - Contacting me.

17th July 2003 – A perfect day for a perfect political murder?

Imagine the scene.

In early 2003 Dr. David Kelly knows that his life is in danger, telling a colleague and an acquaintance that he might “be found dead in the woods”.

Little does he know just how much his life is in danger.

Plans are being laid for the perfect political murder on the politically perfect day in 2003 – 17th July 2003.

The perfect political murder, of course, is a murder that is never recognized for what it is.

How is it to be concealed from public recognition?

How is it to be concealed from Parliamentary scrutiny?

Timing is key.

What is the perfect day to carry it out?

17th July 2003.

The House of Commons heads off for its summer holidays.

The Press is starting to snooze preparing for the traditional summer “silly season”.

The political atmosphere is poisonous – the Government has taken the country into a war that many believe is illegal.

A mechanism to shut off serious examination of the murder is needed.

And this is what a Machiavellian minds comes up with.

Before the body is seen by a pathologist, someone who I’ll call the Spin Master is to start spinning a suicide story using Thames Valley Police as his mouthpiece. Off the record, of course.

Before the body is examined by a pathologist, the Government is to announce an ad hoc judicial inquiry which will shut down all discussion in the media until the judicial inquiry reports.

Identify and appoint a senior judge who doesn’t need to be leaned on; a judge who knows his duty.

And so we reach, 18th July 2003.

The suicide story is being spun before a doctor first officially sees the body.

A senior judge, a Law Lord no less, is appointed to conduct a judicial inquiry before the forensic pathologist starts to examine the body.

The Suicide Spin has already captured the minds of the media so the real reason for such a precipitate judicial inquiry isn’t recognised.

The media on the 18th July 2003 and the ensuing days is full of the sad “suicide” of Dr. David Kelly.

Not one of the mainstream media outlets questions the Suicide Spin. The Spin Master eases back in his seat, very satisfied.

For the plan to work, he knew that he’d need a network of corrupt officials and professionals.

But he knew that people cooperate with a little pressure. Or sometimes a lot.

It’s not hard to find a corrupt Law Lord.

Nor corrupt Policemen.

But doctors?

Ah! Here is one who will examine the body and fail … or choose to fail … to switch his brain on. Ideal.

But what about the family?

No problem. Just watch.

So there you have it.

A perfectly planned, perfect political murder, perfectly executed.

And the judicial inquiry goes smoothly. OK, a lot of questions weren’t asked. A senior Policeman had to tell a lie or two. The odd piece of key evidence had to be suppressed. The grieving widow put on a stormer of a performance telling that story about 10 minutes to evacuate the house before the media pack arrived. Brilliant.

And the report of the judicial inquiry causes a political storm.

But wait! What is this?

A few doctors start questioning the Suicide Spin. That wasn’t supposed to happen.

But a nice, friendly Coroner closes down the possibility of more honest investigation of the death. The Spin Master views Mr. Gardiner in a warm glow.

But the doctors have connected with an instinct of the British public that knows that something about the death of David Kelly stinks, despite the brilliance of the Suicide Spin, despite the cooperative and corrupt Law Lord.

And now an iconoclastic MP gets in on the act. And, worse, writes a book.

And, worse still, the MP puts in a formal application to the Attorney General asking for an inquest.

But a few quiet words and that’s closed down. Phew!

But the irritating public and medical interest in the case goes on.

A second application to the Attorney General is sent in.

How are we going to fix this one? It’s getting dangerous. The Truth could come out.

Never fear, a cooperative Attorney General produces rafts of documents. And a forensic pathologist wanders up prepared not to see glaring flaws with his colleague’s work in 2003. Yes, that’s the key. A reassuring report from a cooperative “independent expert”.

We’re almost there. We’ll make it go away for ever.

Confidence in delivery to the House of Commons by the Attorney General. And a deluge of written responses and other documentation.

Nobody will find their way through that haystack of information to the needle of the murder of David Kelly.

Surely not?

But one stubborn doctor seeks Judicial Review of the Attorney General’s refusal to seek an inquest

And as a bit-part player along comes a High Court Judge who takes a deferential approach to the views of our friendly, corrupt Law Lord and a “never mind the quality feel the width”approach to the evidence that an inquest is needed into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

Case closed.

Or so it seems.

Is that narrative fact or fantasy?

Was David Kelly murdered for political motives?

Did political, medical, police and judicial personalities act corruptly in the way I’ve suggested?

Did David Kelly’s family betray him by inventing a flight from the media pack on the evening of 9th July 2003? And by concealing evidence of his past right arm injury that made it difficult or impossible for him to cut his own left wrist?

Did the Scene Setter make some vital mistakes at Harrowdown Hill? Requiring some dangerously late tweaks, including a readjustment of the position of Dr. Kelly’s body.

Did the Spin Master leave a few too many clues to his activity on the morning of 18th July 2003?

Answering questions such as those is what the rest of this book is about.

I’ll present the evidence that leads me to lay out a scenario of a perfect political murder.

I’ll present my analysis of the evidence that’s already in the public domain.

And point you to some of the important questions that have yet to be answered.

Am I fantasizing?

Or calling attention to a political scandal that dwarfs Watergate?

A scandal in which the perfect political murder was attempted.

A scandal that involved the UK Government of the time, senior Police officers in 2003 and in 2011, forensic pathologists and forensic scientists. Oh yes, and a nice friendly Law Lord who long, long ago learned how not to see evidence after watching how Lord Widgery put a lid on the murderous events of Bloody Sunday.

Thanks Lord Hutton.

A scandal that raises serious doubts about the foundations of British justice. If you can’t trust a Law Lord, can’t trust senior Police officers and can’t trust forensic pathologists, the credibility of British Justice lies in deserved tatters.

Fact or fantasy?

You can make up your own mind.

Did David Kelly kill himself?

Was David Kelly killed by person or persons unknown as part of the perfect political murder?

Who killed David Kelly?

You decide.

Who Killed David Kelly? - Request to Malcolm Bruce MP to ask the Prime Minister if COBRA was activated on 17th or 18th July 2003

The Cabinet Office is being visibly evasive about whether or not the COBRA procedure (the UK Government's Emergency Reponse procedure) was activated on 17th or 18th July 2003 in relation to the disappearance and death of Dr. David Kelly.

See The Death of David Kelly - A coy Cabinet Office on COBRA for some relevant background.

Today I sent an email to my MP, Malcolm Bruce, asking him to table a written question to the Prime Minister as to whether or not COBRA was activated on 17th or 18th July 2003.

The title of the email was:
PQ to the Prime Minister - COBRA on 17th/18th July 2003

The text of the email was:

Mr. Bruce,

I write further to our meeting some months ago and your subsequent correspondence with the Attorney General.

I write to request that you ask the following written question of the Prime Minister.

"To ask the Prime Minister if the COBRA (Cabinet Office Briefing Room A) procedure was invoked at any time on 17th and/or 18th July 2003 in relation to the disappearance and death of Dr. David Kelly and if he will make a statement."

The reason for requesting that you table that as a written question is the obstructive response of the Cabinet Office who currently claim that "the Cabinet Office, which includes the Prime Minister's Office, does not hold information relevant to your request."

I find that response from the Cabinet Office wholly unacceptable and evasive.

If COBRA was activated in the context of the disappearance and death of Dr. David Kelly I think that would be a matter of considerable public and media interest.

I hope you will agree that it is important to establish the truth regarding this matter.

I am now engaged in writing a book entitled, "Who Killed David Kelly?".

In the interests of transparency I am posting a copy of this email on the "Who Killed David Kelly?" blog here:

Please let me know how you intend to proceed.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Who Killed David Kelly? - Copyright and such stuff

I'm maybe at risk of stating the obvious here.

Original material on this site is my copyright.

Or (c) Dr. Andrew Watt 2012, if you want the formal version.

Any quoted material in draft chapters posted online remains the copyright of those quoted.

I know. You didn't really want to know that, did you?

Monday, 16 April 2012

Who Killed David Kelly? - Which past presidents of the BAFM offered support to Dr. Nicholas Hunt?

The bulk of this post is the text of an email sent today to Dr. John Clark of the British Association in Forensic Medicine.

Dr. Nicholas Hunt claimed that the three immediate past presidents of the BAFM offered their "express support" to him.

I would like to know who those individuals were and what was the substance of the "express support".

The title of my email to Dr. Clark was:
BAFM - Past presidents

The text of the email to Dr. Clark was:

Dr. Clark,

I wonder if I might trouble you for minor pieces of factual information relating to the British Association in Forensic Medicine.

Dr. Nicholas Hunt has stated in a letter to the Attorney General's Office that three past presidents of the BAFM had been supportive of him with respect to the matter of the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

See page 1 at

There is no information on the BAFM web site (at least that I can find) that names the three individuals from whom Dr. Hunt claims to have received "express support" re his findings on the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly.

Could you please supply me with the names of the three presidents of BAFM who preceded Dr. Cary?

I ask in the context of a book provisionally entitled "Who Killed David Kelly?".

In that context a copy of this email will be placed on the "Who Killed David Kelly?" blog here:

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Thursday, 12 April 2012

Who Killed David Kelly? - Contacting me

I can readily understand that, in view of the political and other sensitivities surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly, some readers may not wish to leave attributable comments on the blog.

If you wish to contact me by email simply use the letters of the four word title of this blog in sequence but without the question mark, add an @ sign and then add gmail, a dot then com.

Hopefully that description should be transparent for human beings and opaque to spambots.

Who Killed David Kelly? - Request to Julie Flint for copy of her secret submission to the Hutton Inquiry

The bulk of this post consists of an email sent earlier today to Julie Flint, a friend of Dr. Kelly's who provided a secret submission to the Hutton Inquiry.

Ms. Flint's submission to the Hutton Inquiry may or may not shed light on the cause of Dr. Kelly's death.

I believe it is inappropriate that it continue to be secret.

The title of the email was:

Secret Julie Flint submission to the Hutton Inquiry

The content of the email was:

Ms Flint,

The Hutton Inquiry website indicates that you provided a secret submission to it.

It is referenced here:

The document is labelled, "Julie Flint: not for release - submission to the inquiry".

I am in the early stages of writing a book provisionally entitled "Who Killed David Kelly?" and would like to receive a copy of your submission.

The content of this email will be copied to my "Who Killed David Kelly?" blog here:

It would be helpful if you were able to provide an early reply indicating whether or not you are willing that your secret submission be made available to me.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Who Killed David Kelly? - Request to Guardian for disclosure of submission to the Hutton Inquiry

The bulk of this post consists of an email sent earlier today to Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, asking for disclosure of the content of the Guardian's submission to the Hutton Inquiry.

The title of the email was:
Secret Guardian Submission to the Hutton Inquiry

The text of the email was:

Mr Rusbridger,

I am in the early stages of writing a book provisionally entitled "Who Killed David Kelly?".

I note that the Guardian provided a submission to the Hutton Inquiry whose content was at the time hidden and continues to remain secret.

I suggest it is inappropriate that the Guardian's submission remain secret.

I therefore write to ask for a copy of the Guardian's submission to the Hutton Inquiry.

For ease of reference, the existence of the document is referenced on the Hutton Inquiry website here:

The document is labelled as follows: "Guardian: not for release - personal witness statement". Its content is hidden.

An early reply would be very helpful.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Who Killed David Kelly? - The Two Competing Hypotheses

This post consists largely of a very early draft of what may, in the end, form a brief "chapter" early in the book or may be subsumed into a longer Preface/Foreword.

Despite the preliminary nature of the draft, comments are welcome.

The Two Competing Hypotheses

Anyone wanting fully to understand what happened to David Kelly needs seriously to consider whether the totality of the evidence supports one or other of two mutually inconsistent possibilities:

1. That Dr. David Kelly killed himself
2. That David Kelly was murdered by one or more people who faked a seeming suicide

The evidence supporting or refuting those two basic questions is the principal focus of this book.

If you read this book carefully you should be in a good position to make up your own mind as to whether David Kelly committed suicide or was murdered.

The Official Story – that David Kelly committed suicide

The official story is that David Kelly killed himself at Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire in July 2003.

Lord Hutton tells us that no “third party” was involved.

David Kelly supposedly used a knife to cut his left wrist.

As a result of cutting his own wrist he bled to death. Or at least bleeding (haemorrhage) was the primary cause of death.

And he supposedly swallowed up to 29 co-proxamol tablets.

The Death Certificate, issued in questionable legal circumstances, indicates that “haemorrhage” was the primary cause of death. Secondary causes were co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery disease.

If the Hutton Inquiry was an honest and diligent inquiry then an intelligent citizen, so we are asked to believe, should the situation as being “case closed”. After all, a senior judge, a “Law Lord” no less, applied his considerable investigatory skills to answer the question definitively.

However, all is not as it seems, I suggest.

A variety of concerns has led members of the public, including several individuals who are medically qualified, to have serious doubts about the official story.

The alternative hypothesis – that David Kelly was murdered

The alternative hypothesis suggests that it wasn’t David Kelly who killed himself, Rather it was some other party.

If this second hypothesis is true then it follows that person or persons unknown killed David Kelly, either at Harrowdown Hill or elsewhere, and later arranged the scene at Harrowdown Hill to conceal a murder by creating a false impression of suicide.

Further, it is suggested (although it is not essential for the murder hypothesis) that a concerted cover-up has taken place involving Thames Valley Police, forensic scientists, forensic pathologists and the Attorney General’s Office.

The concept of a “network of corrupt officials” was, perhaps, once unthinkable. In a context where Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers of the Metropolitan Police can use that term in her evidence to the Leveson Inquiry (see, for example, ) why should anyone discount the possibility of there being another “network of corrupt officials” operating in the context of the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly?

Who Killed David Kelly? - Is it possible for a sucide scene to be manufactured?

The bulk of this post consists of an early draft of a chapter likely to be entitled, "Is it possible for a sucide scene to be manufactured?".

I emphasise that the following is an early draft. Everything in it is subject to revision.

It would be helpful to receive feedback, either via email or the Comment facility on this blog.

Don't spend time thinking about editing minutiae. Look at the big picture.

For example, does the tone work? Or is it too dry? Too forensic?

Are there things that you don't believe are possible?

Do you think the suggested scenario is inconsistent with some aspect of the publicly available evidence?

Or is there some other issue that concerns you about the draft?

Remember this is an early draft. I'm posting it to gauge reaction to the approach I'm proposing to take.

Is it possible for a suicide scene to be manufactured?

It is said that the KGB had a saying, “Anyone can commit a murder. It takes an artist to commit a suicide.”.

The existence of such a quote indicates a belief that it is possible, in principle, to fake a suicide.

If one accepts that, in principle, it is possible to fake a suicide one must ask if it’s possible to fake a suicide in the circumstances which we are asked to believe had applied at Harrowdown Hill?

At the time of writing this book there are still gaps in the evidence in the public domain. So the following account must of necessity be subject to revision. It serves, at this stage in the disclosure of the totality of the evidence, to indicate possible approaches to manufacturing a suicide scene at Harrowdown Hill.

We know that in February 2003 David Kelly told David Broucher that he might be found dead in the woods. Mr. Broucher confirmed the meeting in correspondence with Norman Baker MP and personally with me.

Assuming that Dr. Kelly felt his life was in danger in February 2003 then 5 months is more than enough time carefully to plan a simulated suicide.

What props would be needed?

Essentially, it would be necessary to obtain only two items which weren’t generally available – a knife which belonged to Dr. Kelly (or conld not be distinguished from a knife that did belong to him) and some pills similar to those used by Dr. Kelly’s wife Janice.

To a professional, obtaining those items would not be difficult. Dr. Kelly’s home was empty from the evening of 10th July 2003 until the evening of 16th July 2003. A break-in could have taken place without leaving any significant trace.

If Thames Valley Police were directly involved in the “scene setting” a further opportunity obtain the two required props would have presented itself during the early morning search of the Kelly home on 18th July 2003, when Mrs. Kelly testified that she was made to wait in the garden.

How could Dr. Kelly have been overpowered?

There are a significant number of possibilities.

When last seen on the afternoon of 18th July 2003 by Ruth Absalom, David Kelly was heading east towards Kingston Bagpuize. On that road or on the Draycote Moor Road which headed south from it, he could have been kidnapped.

But we are told by Dr. Nicholas Hunt, forensic pathologist, that there were no signs of a struggle. How could Dr. Kelly have been induced to get into a car?

One possibility is that he was told that he was under arrest.

That trick was said to have been used in the kidnapping in Glasgow of the accountant Andrew Ramsay in 2006. See, for example,

Given the background to Dr. Kelly’s appearances before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, someone identifying himself as being from, say, the Ministry of Defence Police or Special Branch and claiming that David Kelly was suspected of offences contrary to the Official Secrets Act would have little difficulty, I suspect, in persuading Dr. Kelly to get into his vehicle.

Another possibility is that some incapacitating substance was injected into Dr. Kelly or applied to his skin.

Yet another possibility, given the finding of semen stains on Dr. Kelly’s underwear, is that he had met someone (presumably a woman) for the purposes of having sex. If that did indeed take place then there must be few times when a man is more vulnerable to attack than just after orgasm.

Could the components of co-proxamol have entered Dr. Kelly’s body other than by him ingesting the tablets in order to kill himself?

I believe there are three other possibilities.

First Dr. Kelly might have been induced to take the tablets in order to protect his family, knowing already that he had no chance of survival.

Second, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated, crushed co-proxamol tablets could have been introduced via a nasogastic tube (a tube passed into the stomach).

Third, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated, the two components of co-proxamol (paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene) could be injected at the left wrist. Given the incisions to be made there subsequently the assailant could be almost 100% sure that an injection site at that location would not be detected.

Could the “arterial rain” have been faked?

The forensic scientist Mr. Roy Green interpreted the “arterial rain” found on nettles at Harrowdown Hill as proving that Dr. Kelly died at the scene.

That is not necessarily true.

It is possible to simulate “arterial rain”. In fact I understand it’s often simulated during the teaching of some forensic science techniques.

The blood appeared to be Dr. Kelly’s. It could readily have been obtained if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated (yet alive) at any time prior to his death. If an anticoagulant were added when the blood was taken it could have been kept fluid and arterial rain could have been faked at Harrowdown Hill.

Did the foregoing happen? We don’t know.

But, given the potential for 5 months preparation time there is ample scope for Dr. Kelly to have been murdered in such a way as to create an appearance of suicide.

Of course, faking a suicide becomes very much easier if the Police and forensic staff are part of conspiracy to rubber stamp the “suicide” story.

Of course, that requires a “network of corrupt officials”.

But if the term “network of corrupt officials” is not the correct one what is one to make of the following?

An Assistant Chief Constable and a Law Lord who agree not to mention evidence or Dr. Kelly’s right elbow fracture and consequent weakness and/or pain. Didn’t they realise the relevance of such information?

A general practitioner who gives evidence to the Hutton Inquiry but omits to mention Dr. Kelly’s right arm injury.

A forensic pathologist who observes the operative scar on Dr. Kelly’s right elbow but then totally ignores its implications.

If there is not a “network of corrupt officials” then the coincidences that pile up are indeed astonishing.

As I indicate in the J’Accuse chapter I believe that the most credible interpretation is that a “network of corrupt officials” greatly aided the concealment of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

Who Killed David Kelly? - April 2012 Open Forum

Each month during the writing of the book I intend to make a post specifically to encourage readers of the blog to comment on questions they would like to see addressed in a book about the death of Dr. Kelly or to draw attention to issues relating to the death of Dr. Kelly which they find particularly confusing.

As time allows, I hope to address such issues on this blog and/or add appropriate content to the developing manuscript of "Who Killed David Kelly?".

This post, which may not attract many comments given how recently the blog was launched, is intended for such general comments and questions in April 2012.

Friday, 6 April 2012

Who Killed David Kelly? - Open letter to Professor Robert Flanagan

The bulk of this post consists of the text of an email sent today to Professor Robert Flanagan who advised the Attorney General regarding toxicology matters prior to the Attorney General's statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

The point which I asked Professor Flanagan to consider was whether Dr. Alexander Allan had given untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry when he asserted that the only way that the components of co-proxamol could have entered David Kelly's body was by him ingesting (swallowing) co-proxamol tablets.

The title of the email to Professor Flanagan was:
Untrue evidence by Dr. Alexander Allan at the Hutton Inquiry

Here is the text of the email:

Professor Flanagan,

I write further to our previous correspondence.

I am in the early stages of writing a book provisionally entitled "Who killed David Kelly?". The book will explore two competing hypotheses - (1) that David Kelly killed himself and (2) that another person (or persons) murdered David Kelly and that there has been a concerted criminal conspiracy to conceal that murder.

For the avoidance of doubt, Professor Flanagan, my working hypothesis at present is that you are part of that criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

At a later time I anticipate writing to you again giving you opportunity to review for any factual inaccuracies the evidence that leads me to that conclusion which I presently intend to include in the book "Who Killed David Kelly?".

However, I now write to you to draw to your attention that, in my view, Dr. Allan lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to a material point.

So far as I can ascertain from your witness statement ( ), the Attorney General's Office did not provide you with a copy of the transcript of Dr. Allan's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

It seems to me that Dr. Allan lied in giving an untrue answer to a material question from Lord Hutton.

I quote the relevant question from Lord Hutton and Dr. Allan's answer here:

24 LORD HUTTON: That is the only way that those substances
25 could be found in the blood, by taking tablets

1 containing them?
2 A. Yes, he has to ingest those tablets.

The full transcript of the oral evidence of Dr. Allan is here:

I think we both know that Dr. Allan's assertion that "he has to ingest those tablets" is false.

Two other options exist.

1. Co-proxamol tablets could have been introduced by nasogastric tube, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated.

2. The components of co-proxamol could have been injected and the injection site concealed by the wounds at the left wrist. Again this assumes that Dr. Kelly was likely incapacitated.

Dr. Allan's absolute statement creates a false impression of certainty with regard to how the components of co-proxamol may have entered Dr. Kelly's body.

If one, for the sake of simplicity, assumes that Lord Hutton was acting honestly then, I suggest, Dr. Allan's absolute statement would create a false certainty in Lord Hutton's mind that Dr. Kelly swallowed the co-proxamol tablets.

Indeed it is clear in paragraph 144 of Lord Hutton's report that he relied in his Report on Dr. Allan's false statement:

144. Dr Allan also said in his evidence that the only way in which paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene could be found in Dr Kelly's blood was by him taking tablets containing them which he would have to ingest.

The quoted paragraph of the Hutton Report may be accessed here:

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing that excludes the possibility of the components of co-proxamol being introduced into Dr. Kelly's body either by nasogastric tube or by injection.

I ask you in your role as expert witness to review the veracity of Dr. Allan's statement.

If you consider that there is evidence to allow the use of injection or a nasogastric tube to be excluded I would be fascinated to know what that evidence might be.

Alternatively, if you agree that those other options exist I consider you have a duty to make that known to the relevant authorities.

My understanding is that, as an expert witness, you have an ongoing duty to draw material changes in your opinion to the attention of the relevant authorities, in this case I would suggest those to be Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police. A propos the latter the relevant reference is URN514 of 28/10/10 in which I reported to Thames Valley Police my belief that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered.

Should you write to the relevant authorities I would appreciate receiving a copy of any such correspondence.

This letter is an open letter and I am placing a copy of it on the "Who Killed David Kelly?" blog here:

Further, this letter, previous correspondence between us and any future replies from you may be used in the proposed book "Who Killed David Kelly?".

I look forward to learning how you plan to proceed in this important matter.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Visible copies of the email were sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty at the Attorney General's Office and to Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.