the fuss about kelly (part one)

8/6/2019 The Fuss About Kelly (Part one)

1/114

the fuss about Kelly? (Part one).

To Harish and Koshila, at Mobil.

To be, or not to be: that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,And by opposing end them? 1

_____________

Persons are still surprised that Dr Kelly took his own life in July of 2003, and so muchso that an inquest is still being called for. That which would have the authority to callany person it pleased, which could require any person so called to give evidence underoath, which could then tease out any strand it pleased after that, which could thenmake any call pleased, which could then come out with any recommendation if seencalled for also, an age old and respected process.

That rather, also, than the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death that the British government did

at that time decide to initiate instead. And so that with the limited remit of all inquiriesthen. And that because, we might imagine, that if these inquiries weren't limited insome way, then we could suppose that 'questions' could go on forever. And that,paradoxically, has been the case anyway.

And this because of this inquiry really. For that didn't satisfy all, of course. And so onecould even wonder about that now? If inquiries are ever even meant to achieve thatthen also? That because it is intrinsic in the nature of inquiries that succour oftenremains for those that will never be totally satisfied anyway. And that because of theselimits. And perhaps we even have fallen into a trap such as that, if such a trap existsthat is...

Still, given that, and that we might have fallen into that trap or any other trap there is,a gap always exists, doesn't it, somewhere in between. There where all judges, real

judges even no doubt, try in all conscience to always sit..? That might of course seema tad toadyto some; to others, of course, not so much so then. Ah the gap then, thereit is: to mine it, or mind it, then? Ah that is another question, entirely.

_____________

As in our first work we start off with some form of introduction, not our own, again.Something to give us some feel for our subject, again, to begin with at least. And aswith our first work, while feeling finally that the introduction had been somewhatstarchy, it did at least get us going, we gave our self that. This might be starchy also

then, can't be helped. For as we will be applying, essentially, the same modus asbefore, this is how we must start again then. This sort of approach works. We'd allow,of course, that there were significant others who didn't think much of our approachfirst time round though. That an outcome, actually, that was very near our being putoff off continuing. Perhaps a good thing? Once more then, into the breach, we will

1 From William Shakespeare's play, Hamlet: Act 3, scene 1.'To be, or not to be,' is the famous openingphrase of a soliloquy in William Shakespeare's play, Hamlet. In the soliloquy Hamlet wanders about thestage questioning the meaning of life, and whether or not it is worthwhile to stay alive, when life containsso many hardships. He comes to the conclusion that the main reason people stay alive is due to a fear ofdeath and uncertainty at what lies beyond life.' Wikipedia: On, 'To be, or not to be...'''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be

'A soliloquy, from Latin ("talking by oneself" like writing), a device often used in drama to enable acharacter to speak to himself or herself, relating their thoughts and feelings, sharing them with theaudience. Other characters, however, are not aware of what is being said, of what is going on in anothersmind?

_____________

1


2/114

see

In this work we are going to recount from Tony Blair's biography, Tony Blair: A Journey(2010), his version of events concerning the opening of the war in Iraq, as he sawthem looking back later on: The wars tenuous legitimacy to begin with; hence hisgreat concern to get the war on to a legal footing. Of his frustrations then, as eventslike this played out on the side-lines, he did not escape any of it.

_____________:

'The absence of international unity in the original decision [to invade Iraq], and the vestedinterests of many to prove that it was a mistake counted heavily against us. I got a taste of thisduring a visit to Russia at the end of April Vladimir Putin...convinced the US was on aunilateralist course, not for a good practical purpose...the British surrogates...

There was also another more pressing and more embarrassing issue for us. We were activelysearching for the WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. We were sure we would find them. Thiswas the moment I was waiting for. It would draw a line under one major issue...my attentionsoon got diverted...

On 29 May, the BBC's Today programme contained as its top story revelations from its defencecorrespondent Andrew Gilligan. In it, he focussed on the forty-five minute claim in theSeptember 2002 dossier. As I've said, this claim was in the dossier, it was highlighted by somepapers the next day in a form we should, in retrospect, have corrected. But it then disappearedoff the radar.

The claim turned out to be wrong. Also, unknown to me, or to the secretary of state, or indeedto the JIC [Joint Intelligence Committee], there had been internal ministry of defence debate ofit. One of those taking part in that debate, although not directly responsible for the dossier,was a Dr David Kelly, a Ministry of Defence intelligence expert of about twenty years'experience.

The BBC broadcast did not claim, simply, that the intelligence was wrong on the forty-five

minutes. What Gilligan said was: What we've been told by one of the senior officials in chargeof drawing up that dossier was that actually the government probably knew that that forty-fiveminute figure was wrong even before it decided to put it in...Downing Street, our source says, aweek before publication ordered it to be sexed up to be made more exciting and ordered morefacts to be discovered.

There could hardly have been a more inflammatory or severe charge. Mistaken intelligence isone thing. Intelligence known to be mistaken but nonetheless still published as accurate is awholly different matter. That is not a mistake but misconduct. What's more, directly attributedto Number 10.

In view of five separate inquiries into this and the vast quantities of ink, time and energyexpended on it, it would be tedious to go back over every fact, every argument, every sub-

argument and all the very painful personal grief that it caused. Dr Kelly, a decent andhonourable man, took his own life. The top two people at the BBC, Greg Dyke and GavynDavies, resigned. Alistair [Campbell] and numerous officials went through several months ofabsolute hell over an allegation that was untrue. Probably my own integrity never recoveredfrom it. Quite a consequence really.

As a result of it, something else happened: the division over the war became not adisagreement but a rather vicious dispute about the honesty of those involved. A difficultsituation became and remains an ugly one.

Of course, as I have said, the blunt and inescapable truth is that though Saddam definitely hadWMD, since he used them, we never found them. The intelligence turned out to be wrong. Buthere is where the relationship between politics and the modern media plays such a crucial role.

The intelligence was wrong. We admitted it. We apologised for it. We explained it, even. But itwas never enough, in today's media, for there to have been a mistake. The mistake is serious;

2


3/114

but it is an error. Humans make errors. And, given Saddam's history, it was an understandableerror.

But it leads to a headline that doesn't satisfy today's craving for scandal. A mistake doesn't hitthe register high enough. So the search goes on for a lie, a deception, an act not of error but ofmalfeasance. And the problem is, if one can't be found, one is contrived or even invented.

I'm not saying we handled the allegation well. But it was a global firecracker that set blazing awhole series of conspiracy theories that in turn, at the very moment when we needed to unifypeople, divided them in the sharpest way possible. Before it, we were in error; after, we wereliars.

The basic facts are, actually, straightforward. As each inquiry in turn found - and on theevidence there was no other finding possible each of the points in the original broadcast waswrong. The forty-five minutes claim was not put in the dossier by anyone in Downing Street oranyone in government, but by the JIC. We didn't 'probably know it was wrong' and neither didanyone else. We never ordered the dossier to be 'sexed up'. Dr Kelly was not one of the officialsinvolved in drawing it up.

Worse, Gilligan then went on in an article in the Mail on Sunday to allege that Alistair was the

author of the whole claim, i.e. invented it, a charge that brought Alistair into the forefront of allthe anti-war protest and was just an unbelievable thing to write, unless you were really sure itwas true; which, of course, manifestly it wasn't, and by then both ourselves and the JIC haddenied it.It was never clear if Dr Kelly, who though he admitted talking to Gilligan denied making theallegation, really did brief him in terms that justify that story.

But what followed set the pattern for the interaction between ourselves and the media in theyears that followed. Relations between myself and the BBC never really recovered; and parts ofthe media were pretty off-limits after it.

The problem was that the BBC hierarchy couldn't see that it wasn't an allegation we could let

pass. Look, if political leaders had to chase up every false or distorted story about theirmotives, they would be full-time press fact checkers. But this was qualitatively different. Peoplewere giving their lives in Iraq. They could forgive an error. They couldn't forgive a deception.Besides anything else, it meant I had deliberately misled the House of Commons. That in itself,if true, would mean resignation and disgrace.

From the outset, I tried to get Greg and Gavyn to see it. Here's where my friendship with bothwas a hindrance not a help. The Mail had been running a campaign attacking them as stooges.They wanted to prove their independence. Greg had also been personally anti-war and couldn'treally see that as Director General off the BBC he had to remain neutral.

All I needed was for them to accept that the story was untrue. They could attack thegovernment al they liked, but the allegation of impropriety should be withdrawn. Theywouldn't. Gavyn kept saying it wasn't the function of the BBC governors to investigate the truthof the allegation a bizarre position since that was precisely what they should have done. Greg he could be very obstinate tried to maintain that the broadcast was accurate because theforty-five-minutes claim was wrong, which, as I constantly said, was not the point.

Anyway, I could bore you to tears with my side of the issue and no doubt they could with theirs.What happened subsequently was more serious and tragic.

The Gilligan allegation led to a rash of others. The Foreign Affairs Committee decided it shouldinvestigate, and we were slap bang into what turned into a six-month battle of immensely time-consuming, wearing, dispiriting and draining efforts to clear our collective name.

It became apparent in early July who the source was for the Gilligan story. Dr Kelly offeredhimself up. He admitted that he had also talked to Susan Watts on Newsnight, but her reporthad been a lot milder and less inflammatory, though even those had the quite wrong allegationthat there had been a dispute over the forty-five-minutes claim the intelligence services and

3


4/114

Downing Street, which was not the case. There had never been a discussion of it, since wenever knew of it until the JIC put it in the dossier.

I will never know precisely what made Dr Kelly take his own life. Who can ever know the reasonbehind such things? It was so sad, unnecessary and terrible. He had given such good and loyalservice over so many years, probably, unused to the intensity of the pressure which theGilligan broadcast generated, he felt hemmed in and possibly vulnerable to internal discipline if

his role emerged. I don't know and shouldn't really speculate. I met his family later atChequers, at my request, and very dignified and sensible people they were. The awful ironywas that for all the controversy caused, Dr Kelly himself had long been an advocate of gettingrid of Saddam.

How Dr Kelly's name came out was the subject of a significant part of the Hutton Inquiry. Thattoo was the subject of Brutal media allegations, particularly against Alistair. It was suggestedthat he had leaked the name in breach of instructions from the Ministry of Defence. He hadn't.It was simply that once we knew it was Dr Kelly, and since the Foreign Affairs Committee wasengaged in investigating the forty-five-minutes claim and broadcast, we would have been atrisk of a charge of concealment from them had we known the source of the leak and refused tosay. In fact, the whole thing was handled by Dr Kelly's line management, the permanentsecretary at the Ministry of Defence, Sir Kevin Tebbit, and by Sir David Omand, the Security and

Intelligence Coordinator in the Cabinet Office, at my insistence. His name was released on 10July, and surprisingly the Foreign Affairs Committee said they would interview him.

On 15 July he was interviewed. He denied he could have been the source of the Gilligan storysince he disputed it. In particular, he said he had never thought or said that Alistair wasresponsible for inserting stuff into the dossier. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC)was also conducting its own inquiry. He had to give evidence to them as well; and in the courseof it said he thought the dossier was 'a fair reflection of the intelligence that was available andpresented [in] a very sober and factual way'.

I had a rough PMQs [Prime Minister Question session] on the back of it all on 16 July [so had DrKelly the day before, 15 July, and in front of not just that committee then [Nick Cohen, et allal2]. The BBC were refusing to say whether Dr Kelly was their source. The Foreign affairs

2 ' when he appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15 July 2003, Kelly appeared to beunder severe stress, which was probably increased by the televising of the proceedings. He spoke with avoice so soft that the air-conditioning equipment had to be turned off, even though it was one of thehottest days of the year. His evidence to the committee was that he had not said the things Gilligan hadreported his source as saying, and members of the committee came to the conclusion that he had notbeen the source. Some of the questioning was very precise. The Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay, inparticular, used a forceful tone in his cross-examination. For example, when asked to simply list the

journalists that he met, Kelly declined to answer and requested that such a list be sought from the MoD,which triggered a response: "...This is the high court of Parliament and I want you to tell the Committeewho you met... You are under an obligation to reply". The Chairman of the Committee (Donald Anderson)underscored the validity of MacKinlay's question telling Kelly: "It is a proper question... If you have met

journalists there is nothing sinister in itself about meeting journalists, save in an unauthorised way."

Mackinlay offered his opinion that Kelly had been used by Gilligan telling Kelly: "I reckon you are chaff;you have been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up,have you not?"

Kelly was deeply upset by his treatment before the Committee and privately described MacKinlay as an'utter bastard.' During the hearing, he was closely questioned about several quotes given to Susan Watts,another BBC journalist working on Newsnight, who had reported a similar story. It later emerged thatGilligan had himself told members of the committee that Watts' source was also Kelly. Kelly denied anyknowledge of the quotes, and must have realised that he would have serious problems if the Ministry ofDefence believed he had been the source of them. On the following day, (16 July 2003), Kelly gaveevidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee. He told them that he liaised with OperationRockingham within the Defence Intelligence Staff.'Wikipedia: On, Dr Kelly's appearance before House of Commons committees...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)#Appearance_before_House_of_Commons_committees

__________

From Nick Cohen: In this version the question put to Dr Kelly by MP Andrew Mackinlay, went like this:Have you ever felt

4


5/114

Committee had decided that he wasn't and reprimanded the government. I was outraged byThe BBC position. It was all very well for them to hold to the traditional journalistic practice ofnot revealing their source, but this was patently an exceptional case. Here someone was beingdescribed as a source. They could confirm or deny his involvement. They didn't need to namewho it was, if it wasn't Dr Kelly. Just say that there was someone else. But, of course, they didn'tdare, since if they admitted it was only Dr Kelly and since he had denied saying what theyalleged, they would have had to withdraw the story as originally broadcast. This, they were

damned if they were going to do.

That evening I flew to the US. The next day I was due to address both Houses of Congress. Itwas a big moment. I wrote the speech on the way over and the next morning. It was one of themost important and, in my judgement, best speeches I made...

This is the battle that can't be fought or won only by armies. We are so much more powerful inall conventional ways than the terrorist, yet even in all our might, we are taught humility. In theend, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, butour beliefs.

There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is aproduct of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American

values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; thatSaddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Victimise was Serbia's saviour.

Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the humanspirit. And everywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice isthe same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law; not the rule ofthe secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defence and our firstline of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify itaround an idea. And the idea is liberty. We must find the strength to fight for this idea and thecompassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, 'Those who deny freedom to othersdeserve it not for themselves.' And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of

liberty.

In some cases where our security is under direct threat, we will have recourse to arms. Inothers, it will be by force of reason. But in all cases, to the same end: that the liberty we seek isnot for some but for all, for that is the only true path to victory in this struggle...

And this is not a war of civilisations, because each civilisation has a unique capacity to enrichthe stock of human heritage.

We are fighting for the inalienable right of mankind black or white, Christian or not, left, right,or a million different to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a livingand be rewarded by you efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be youso long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we're fighting for. Andit's a battle worth fighting.

And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada orIdaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go, I know out there there's aguy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, thepolitical leaders of this country, 'Why me? And why us? And why America?

And the only answer is, 'Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment intime, and the task is yours to do.'

And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights

like you are a Patsy? You have been put up as chaff? Said one Parliamentarian...' That actually put,redacted or what, we don't know, but Cohen has it as fact, in quotation marks?Cohen, Nick (2010). London, England. Columnist,Blogger: http://nickcohen.net/2010/08/22/who-killed-david-kelly-part-2/

_____________

5


6/114

alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our commonbond, our job is to be there with you. You are not going to be alone. We will be with you in thisfight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.

The reception was ecstatic. They got up and applauded throughout, a total of thirty-five times.But then they have always been generous to their speakers.

In later times, congressmen and senators have frequently mentioned it to me. That thing is: itdid have an argument to it, and though the Republicans loved the tough security stuff, theDemocrats could agree on the broader agenda in the speech involving climate change, MiddleEast peace, Africa and social justice. The problem was that this, in a way, describes my politicalweakness. The right agreed partly; the left, partly. But very few in whole!

After the speech Cherie and I went back for diner with George and Laura, who were, as ever,gracious and welcoming. I think he was genuinely impressed with the speech and it was arelaxed and generally happy evening. At that point, we had won. Saddam had gone. FromGeorge's perspective, the regime had been changed and with relative ease. From mine, the UNwas now back in the mix and there was a prospect of the international community comingtogether again. It was the last easy going evening contemplating Iraq.

We left reasonably early. Alistair had gone back to the UK. I was due to fly to Japan and SouthKorea for a long promised visit. Cherie and I drove to the Andrew's Air Force Base outsideWashington. It would be a long flight. We changed into BA sleeper suits and went to sleep. Inthe middle of the night, Sir David Manning woke me. 'Very bad news,' he said.

David was calm, matter-of-fact, and a brilliant advisor, someone of deep integrity, great loyaltyand not insignificant courage. He has been a massive support throughout the whole Iraqbusiness. He was due to leave soon and go to Washington as ambassador. 'David Kelly hasbeen found dead,' he said, 'suspected suicide.' It was a truly ghastly moment.

Of course, in a rational world, it would be a personal tragedy. It would be explained by thepressure on him. It would be treated as an isolated event. I knew there was not the slightestchance of that happening in our media climate. It would be treated as a Watergate-style killing.

It would provoke every manner of conspiracy theory [it did!3]. It would give permission for anyand every fabrication of context, background and narrative. The media would declare it was ascandal. They were absolutely capable of ensuring there was one.

I often go over the decision to hold the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death, taken in those early hours,exhausted, on the flight across the Pacific, by means of the unsecured plane phone. I spoke toCharlie Falconer, who had succeeded Derry as Lord Chancellor. He agreed to find a judge. It hadto be someone utterly impeccable, impartial, someone whom no one could allege was NewLabour or even knew us. If necessary, we would do it in public, though I had no idea just howmuch there would be and how long it would take. Eventually, Charlie came back with thesuggestion of Lord Hutton, the former Northern Ireland judge, a law lord, someone whodefinitely fitted the description. He was indeed, by all accounts, of unimpeachable integrity. Weappointed him then and there.

Maybe I should just have slogged it out. Maybe I should have just refused to be overwhelmedby the ferocity of the onslaught. But, though, naturally, I was wanting to clear my name, thatwasn't the main motivation. From the outset, deprived of a real policy attack on New Labour,this alternative attack of being a government of 'spin', of 'deceit', of me as a 'liar', had takenroot. It was part of what modern politics was becoming: personal attack, not political debate. Innormal circumstances, in debates over the run-of-the-mill type of political issue, such brutalexchanges didn't go far. It was in the 2001 election that the Tories had first called me 'Bliar'.

However, this was about a decision to go to war. In this instance, could we really tough it out?Weren't we obliged to have it investigated? Maybe. Maybe not. But at that time, I felt enough isenough. Let it all be brought out in the open. Let us be utterly transparent. Let the truth be

told. The surely, with an objective judgement by a professional judge, people will accept the3 Prescience: New York Times (2003). '...Blair Calls Weapons Expert's Suicide a Tragedy.'http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/world/after-the-war-london-blair-calls-weapons-expert-s-suicide-a-tragedy.html

6


7/114

ruling. Surely? On balance, I still think it was worth it. Maybe, in time, it will be seen for what itis; but back then, after six diverting months, it was hard to see the positives.

I won't go through each and every point of the evidence. Read the report, I recommend. It wasunprecedented for the prime minister and all senior officials to give evidence like this. Therehad never been anything like it. It was due to conclude in October. Lord Hutton finally publishedthe report at the end of January 2004. it went over the dossier, it's compilation, the role of

Alistair, the activities of each minute section of the Ministry of Defence and Downing Street,what Dr Kelly did, and went over it all exhaustively. This was part of the conclusion:

The dossier was prepared and drafted by a small team of the assessment staff of the JIC. MrJohn Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, had the overall responsibility for the drafting of thedossier.

The 45-minutes claim was based on a report which was received by the SIS from a sourcewhich that service regarded as reliable. Therefore, whether or not at some time in the futurethe report on which the 45-minute claim was based on is shown to be unreliable, the allegationreported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the government probably knew that the 45-minuteclaim was wrong before the government decided to put it in the dossier was an allegationwhich was unfounded...

As the dossier was one to be presented to, and read by, Parliament, and the public, and wasnot an intelligence assessment to be considered only by the government, I do not consider thatit was improper for Mr Scarlett and the JIC to take into account suggestions as to drafting madeby 10 Downing Street and to adopt these suggestions if they were consistent with theintelligence available to the JIC...

The BBC management was at fault in the following respects in failing to investigate properlythe government's complaints that the report in the 6.07 a.m. broadcast was false [and] that thegovernment probably knew that the 45-minute claim was wrong even before it decided to put itin the dossier...There was [though] no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy bythe government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media.

What the judge found was all he could find, really, on the evidence. But it was a seminalmoment in the way the media behaved.

The judge, of course, had come under intense media pressure. He had stood up to it well, but inthe days preceding publication I was worried, not about the facts, but about whether he reallywould feel able to judge on them. Up to that point, the media had been egging him on: he wasa man of Ulster granite; he would put the government spin doctors in their place; he would beunafraid to call a lie a lie, etc.

When I was his pupil, Derry [Irvine] used to tell me that there were two types of judges: thosewho made up their minds, but left loose ends, something for the losing side to cling to,something that expressed the judge's own inner hesitation about making a clear decision; andthose who made up their mind, and once of that view, delivered the decision complete,unadulterated and unvarnished, with every allegation covered and every doubt answered. LordHutton was of the latter kind.

It was a comprehensive judgement, comprehensively delivered. Michael Howard, responding toit in the House, stupidly tried to carry on as if the judge hadn't found as he had, a bad mistakeand one which heightened the sense of him as an opportunist who supported the war and, nowit was tough, wanted to access some of the anti-war sentiment.

For us, it was a huge relief, but in our relief, we made our own mistake, a serious one withserious consequences. I had been having private conversations with Gavyn Davies throughout,keeping lines open and ensuring our entire relationship with the BBC was not jeopardized. Afterall, they were the main news outlet of the nation.

We had agreed in the course of these discussions that in the event of the judgement findingfault, we should try to keep the temperature down on both sides. The last of theseconversations took place just before Hutton declared his verdict and I reassured Gavyn that we

7


8/114

would not be asking for anyone's head if any in the BBC were criticised.

The day the report was published 28 January was hugely busy for us. The close team sat inthe Cabinet Room with trepidation and anticipation, awaiting copies which Cedric Smith, whohad been Alistair's number two, brought in. I joined them and we scoured the conclusionshungrily and there was an audible collective sigh of relief as we realised he had found in ourfavour; and then genuine amazement that he had had the courage not to dress it up for the

BBC, but to call it as it was.

I then had to prepare my statement to the Commons. It was only the day after we had narrowlysurvived the tuition-fee vote and both events had taken it out of me. I just wanted to go back tomy den and write my statement.

Alistair said he also wanted to do a statement. He had left Downing Street by then, but hadcome back to receive the report, as one of the main actors in the drama. We were still veryclose. Reluctantly, I agreed. In fact, I think he would have insisted. He wrote some words out.The statement included a passage about how if he or someone under him had been foundguilty of such a thing the judge had essentially found that the BBC broadcast was not justwrong, but they had known it was heads would have rolled. I took it out, much to his dismay,and he protested vigorously. He couldn't understand why. As I had agreed with Gavyn, I had

told no one about our conversations, apart from Anji [secretary]. So, Alistair didnt know why Iwas so vehement that the passage had to come out.

I had, insensitively and foolishly, not quite appreciated the strain Alistair was under. He is, as Ihave said, a highly strung character. Believe it or not, I only really understood this to its fullextent when I read his diaries. I hadn't realised that the months since he had left had beenlived in agony about the verdict. Of course, having left Downing Street he didn't have the all-embracing nature of the job to distract him. His life had been on hold. Meanwhile, he was stillregularly accosted in the street and accused of murdering Dr Kelly, and receiving hate mail,often with bloodstains on it, at his family home. So for him, this was a moment of enormousemotional release. But all the anger bottled up inside and Alistair had a lot of that in him also erupted. He wasn't thinking, he was lashing out.

When he came to make his statement, which he did with an emotion I could see was inspiredby sadness about the whole business, but others would see as revenge on the media he hadcome to hate, he had put the passage about 'heads rolling' back in, in milder form but stillthere.

Even then, I could have rescued the situation. But I was insufficiently focussed on the BBC;rather I was preparing my House of Commons statement, clearing my name and whackingMichael Howard for his opportunism. In any event, I thought Gavyn would call me before doinganything. I made my statement. It went well. I then went on a visit to a college. As I did adoorstep afterwards, I was still unsure exactly what the BBC had decided to do. I should,however, have said there and then that I didn't want anyone dismissed over it. Instead, I justconcentrated on saying all I ever wanted was the withdrawal of a wrong story that reflected onmy integrity.

It was a mistake. Gavyn, I think, assumed I had rescinded my side of the bargain, given theseverity of the judgement. He and Greg both resigned. I really didn't want that. Greg was justGreg and was never really suited to the BBC, but Gavyn was a decent and honourable guy and Ifelt I had let him down.

It also provoked the media into a fightback. For about twelve hours, they were stunned. Then,with the Mail Group and the BBC again in alliance one of the most sorry aspects of the wholeaffair they decided to pit their strength against ours. 'WHITEWASH' screamed the Daily Mailheadline the next day. The others took it up. Suddenly the man of Ulster granite was a DowningStreet lackey, the BBC were victims of the most awful conspiracy and cover-up, and actuallydidn't everyone know we were liars anyway? It was wall-to-wall for several days and then

topped off with polls showing the public did indeed believe it was a 'whitewash'. So what shouldhave been a way of lancing the boil of mistrust simply reinforced it and made it morepoisonous.

8


9/114


10/114

_____________

And well said, that man also! That is precisely so. And it is precisely this sort ofsentiment and reasoning that has led to all the fuss still evident, over this, still.

And first off (some other ideas on this now), what seemed so odd about Dr Kelly's'suicide' that day was that there seemed no sign, on that day, that he wasn't coping

(our more general reading of this anyway). He was keeping up with hiscorrespondence and confirming future commitments, which, co-incidentally or not,included going out to Iraq again, from whence he had returned from just a month,thereabouts, before then!

Then, at about 3pm, he took a walk after telling his wife he was going to do so, and ashe often did also. And then, somewhere along the way, or where he was found instead,he ingested at least a few painkillers (co-proxamol), and then, in a wooded area, eitherleaning against a tree, or not (?), he cut his wrist (and not very well), with a knife then.

Then, shortly after midnight, his wife becoming more and more worried, reported him

missing. After that he was found early the next morning. He wasn't alive, nor wasthere a lot of blood apparent on him, or even near him, either? And from that momenton there has also been concern over that, that lack of sign (as above the same?). Overnot just the apparent lack of sign that he was going to do this, now, but over theapparent lack of sign that he had done this where he was found also then?

And so it has even been suggested that Dr Kelly's body might have been placed theresince, and moved after that, also, then, after he was first found. And on that - not justmoved a little either but from a sitting up, to a lying 'flat out', position then? And thatdue to witness accounts now, given at the Hutton inquiry, into this? Some side-lineissue this.

Worse, items now, that were said to have been there with his body when he wasfound, now might, it has been said, have been placed there and so displayed therealso then? And that due to the first witnesses before the Hutton inquiry, giving theirevidence first, not being asked then, about the placement of any objects near to DrKelly, nor commenting about any such thing when they might have also, given somelead in..?

Of course, an inquest may well have cleared some of this up. That as witnesses can becalled back, more witnesses can even be called, as a coroner might see fit. Converselythough, more witnesses still might not have been able to clear this up... and then,well, what after that? More like this? There still could have been. Trust given to oneoffice, not always given to any other officer, the same?

And so we are not the first then, certainly won't be the last either, to draw some of thisout again. And although it could be asked, how this matters to us, anyway, still we arenot on our own. One in early on (just one month after the Hutton Reportwaspublished, 28 Jan, 2004), who was waiting for this then, then put this out there, oneRenan Talieva, who in this item, sub, sub-entitled 'Questions for the coroner's inquest',

having been by, Andrew Gilligan: 'I did not betray David Kelly or reveal him as my source: Andrew Gilligandisputes Nick Cohen's comment on the politics behind the death of the government scientist caught up inthe Iraq inquiry...' http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/aug/29/david-kelly-nick-cohen-andrew-gilliganCohen's comment, 'belief' as Gilligan put it: had been that he and the BBC had 'revealed' Dr Kelly as their

source?- Rather, Gilligan says this:'It was his employer, the Ministry of Defence, that effectively leaked his name after he came forward,having been promised anonymity to his bosses [or] as Alastair Campbell put it in his diary (same item,url): "The biggest thing needed was the source out", in order to "f..k Gilligan"...'

10


11/114

gives us a taster then, of just one of some of the objections about to be raisedfollowing this (whitewash?):

'Did Kelly bleed to death?

Medical specialists have questioned whether the incised wounds as described by Dr Hunt couldhave led to fatal haemorrhage. Only the small ulnar artery was cut which, having been

completely transected, would have defensively retracted and clotted while blood pressureslowed, thereby greatly inhibiting the flow of blood.

And if one were to accept a verdict of death by exsanguination [as an outcome of being bereftof blood not Hutton's only finding as to cause of death, but] why was there not more bloodfound in the vicinity? It has been estimated that for a person of Dr Kelly's size to die ofhaemorrhage, he would need to lose about five pints of blood. But witness accounts did notindicate anything near that amount at the scene.

Paramedic Vanessa Hunt volunteered [at the inquiry] the observation that there was 'noobvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obviousloss on the clothing.... As to on the ground, I do not remember seeing a sort of huge puddle oranything like that.' [HI] This was seconded by ambulance technician David Bartlett, who

commented 'we was [sic] surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterialbleed.' [HI*]

In rebuttal to these comments, the forensic biologist referred to 'a fair bit of blood' [HI] aroundthe body and surmised that much of it had probably been absorbed by leaf litter covering theground. He does not appear from the evidence to have tested the premise.

The pathologist's conclusion that '[t]he arterial injury had resulted in the loss of a significantvolume of blood,' [HI] seemed to derive from the fact that the artery had been cut rather thanfrom specific evidence at the scene or the post mortem examination. He did not offer anassessment of the amount of blood remaining in the heart and large vessels to support aconclusion of haemorrhage...'7

[HI*], above, stands for Hutton Inquiry, as does [HR*] stand for Hutton Report._____________

We could suppose that Renan Talieva might be a bit of an alarmist here? For this is ablog posting after all, and an early one at that, and he is, after that, a freelance writerliving in the west of the US...

But it does turn out that this point about blood loss the point is what it is couldhave been addressed before then had anybody thought ahead a little bit, allowed for abit of this also then But that would only have been done, apparently, had Dr Kelly'sdeath been deemed so odd at the time he was found dead also. And the lack of blood,

we might add to that (others have), may even, ordinarily, have made that seem sothen. But not, apparently, then.

And alarmed by that, or not, or by others after that, we have this, recently, on that.And this is from a former coroner also, a Dr Michael J Powers QC (a barristerspecialising in medical causation, a Fellow of the Faculty of Forensic and LegalMedicine of the Royal College of Physicians also), who now has this to say also, in theMail on Sunday, 15 August, 2010:

'Hutton focused on the so-called dodgy dossier and the conflict between the Government andthe BBC which, at that time, was more in the public eye.

Because it was taken from granted Dr Kelly had killed himself, the medical evidence was

7Talieva, Renan (2004). USA. Blog: 'Dead Scientists: THE STRANGE "SUICIDE" OF DAVID KELLY:

Questions for the coroner's inquest.' http://deadscientists.blogspot.com/11
http://deadscientists.blogspot.com/http://deadscientists.blogspot.com/


12/114

insufficiently explored. In the absence of any bleeding tendency from a clotting deficiency (andthere was no evidence of this) fatal haemorrhage from a severed ulnar artery is so improbablethat more evidence was essential before such a conclusion could be reached.

If you want to know how much beer has gone from a full pint glass, it is easy. You can eithermeasure how much has been poured out or measure how much remains. To be confident, youwould measure both. The same approach should have been adopted in this case. As it was not,

there is no evidence as to whether there was sufficient haemorrhage from the ulnar artery tocause death. The inquiry fell into the trap of the circular argument: Dr Kelly died, therefore hemust have lost sufficient blood.

'In my work as a barrister I meet many medics but I have never met a single doctor who hasdisagreed with the proposition that is extremely improbable that haemorrhage from a single,severed ulnar artery would ever be a primary cause of death.

Yet this extreme unlikelihood was never explored with Dr Hunt. Whatever the reason, this was aserious failure of the Hutton Inquiry.

It has understandably led to a suspicion of cover-up. This could not have been the cause ofdeath, the argument goes. If it were not the cause, then what did cause his death? Was it

something Dr Kelly did to himself, intending to cause his own death, which has not yet beendiscovered? Was it part of some elaborate plan by others to end his life?

The only way to stop the many theories which abound is for there now to be a thorough andopen investigation by way of a fresh inquest. Surely the Government realises that the way tofoster conspiracy theories is to be secretive and to resist calls to disclose all the medicalevidence.'8

_____________

And perhaps because of this, alarmed by this sort of talk, this medical evidence hasbeen released now, the pathologist's report (released by the new government, 22October 2010), in which blood loss is not reported as the sole cause of the death of Dr

Kelly anyway. This report says, that:'25. In summary it is my opinion that the main factor involved in bringing about the death ofDavid Kelly is the bleeding from the incised wounds to his left wrist. Had this not occurred hemay well not have died at this time. Furthermore, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely thatthe ingestion of an excess number of co-proxamol tablets coupled with apparently clinicallysilent coronary artery disease would both have played a part in bringing about death morecertainly and more rapidly than would have otherwise been the case. Therefore I give as thecause of death-

la. Haemorrhage [from the flow of blood from a ruptured blood vessel]lb. Incised Wounds to the Left Wrist2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis[CENSORED - signature]Dr Nicholas Charles Alexander HUNTBSc, MB, BS, MRCPath, DipRCPath (Forensic).'9

_____________

Hutton's conclusion, near seven years before then had, of course, been similar (Huntwas his witness on this, then, after all). But he concluded more clearly then, that bloodloss may not have been such a factor in the death of Dr Kelly, his way now:

'467. I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life and that the principal cause of death was

8Power's, Dr. Michael J. (2010): Mail on Sunday, lead item: 'Michael Howard [Conservative Party Leader]

leads MPs' call for full inquest into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly,' Simon Walters and GlenOwen. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303190/Michael-Howard-leads-MPs-Dr-David-Kelly-inquest.html9 The Telegraph, London (2010).''Pathologist report, David Kelly.''http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8079821/David-Kelly-pathology-report.html

12


13/114


14/114

Ashleigh Smith, Acting Principal SOCO, Mark Schollar and Senior SOCO, John Sharpley [NFS] Atthis stage I was given brief background information by Mr Schollar, these being that thedeceased was believed to be Dr David Christopher Kelly, date of birth 14.5.44.

I understand that the deceased, a Ministry of Defence adviser, had been reported missing byrelatives. He was apparently seen heading for a walk at approximately 15.00 hrs. on the 17thJuly 2003. He was subsequently seen at 15.30 hrs. walking northwards. That, I understand, was

the last known sighting of him (at this stage). I understand that he was reported missingsometime between 23.00 hrs. and midnight [NFS].

At approximately 09.15 hrs. on the morning of the 18th July 2003, a body was discovered [sic]the relevant location by a search team. Paramedics attended and on the basis of theirexamination declared that life was extinct at 10.07 hrs.'11

_____________

As noted above (p. 10), Mrs Kelly became concerned for her husband's welfare later onthe day of 17 July, 2003, and reported her concerns to police. A search was conductedproceeding from then and Sebev (a search and rescue organisation), volunteers,Louise Holmes and then Paul Chapman, sighted his body early the next morning, atapproximately 09.15.

The last persons reported as seeing Dr Kelly alive were neighbours the first beingRuth Absalom, who described him as '[j]ust his normal self, no different to any othertime when I have met him.' [HI]. Farmer Paul Weaver, as reported by The Observer, 20

July, 2003, also saw Dr Kelly walking through farmland that afternoon. Weavercommented that Kelly 'seemed happy enough' and had smiled at him.'12

_____________

From here before we add to this now, we would like to include the evidence verbatimgiven before the Hutton inquiry as regards that morning also beginning with Absalomfirst (Weaver was missed out); then, on, through the others called after that, up until

Dr Hunt (the pathologist), on another day, who arguably saw him last, still. And so asto get through this preamble as quick as we can, we are going to leave one outourselves now, PC Franklin, because we also think we can.

All this evidence, given only some six weeks after Dr Kelly was found in the way hewas, you'd have thought that all this 'evidence' would have been fairly uniform thenalso, considering the short time frame we mean. But uniform it was not quite, actually,leaving Lord Hutton with a moderate sized hurdle or two, to clear as best he couldthen also. He did well, but it is from bloggers, the odd newspaper article, that we knowthat there is still plenty left to get out of this story yet.

_____________

'1 Tuesday, 2nd September 20032 (10.30 am)3 MS RUTH ABSALOM (called)4 Examined by MR DINGEMANS5 LORD HUTTON: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.6 Mr Dingemans, I understand Ms Absalom is going to7 give evidence on the video link.8 Good morning Ms Absalom. Thank you very much for9 agreeing to give evidence to this Inquiry. I will ask10 Mr Dingemans, the senior counsel, to take you through11 your evidence.12 MR DINGEMANS: Ms Absalom, can you hear me?

11 The Telegraph, London (2010).''Pathologist report, David Kelly.''http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8079821/David-Kelly-pathology-report.html12 Talieva, Renan (2004). USA. Blog: 'Dead Scientists: THE STRANGE "SUICIDE" OF DAVID KELLY: Questionsfor the coroner's inquest.' http://deadscientists.blogspot.com/ (As above, p 10).

14


15/114

13 A. Yes.14 Q. Where are you at the moment?15 A. Where am I? Sorry.16 Q. You are in Oxford, are you? What village do you live17 in?18 A. Southmoor.19 Q. Did you know Dr Kelly?

20 A. Yes.21 Q. How long had you known him for?22 A. Well, from the time he came into the village, I suppose.23 I do not know how long that was, but a good many24 years -- several years.25 Q. What were you doing on 17th July? Do you remember the

11 17th July?2 A. Is that the day I met David?3 Q. Yes.4 A. Just walking the dog.5 Q. And how far is your house from Dr Kelly's house?

6 A. The width of a road, a main road. I do not know how7 many yards.8 Q. How many minutes walk?9 A. A couple.10 Q. A couple of minutes walk.11 A. Yes.12 Q. On 17th July, what time did you walk your dog?13 A. Well, I usually go about 3 but I went earlier that day,14 I suppose about quarter past 2.15 Q. Quarter past 2?16 A. Yes.17 Q. Did you see anyone while you were walking the dog?18 A. Not until I met Dr Kelly.

19 Q. And when did you meet Dr Kelly? What time was that?20 A. Round about 3 o'clock. I could not tell you for sure,21 I did not bother to look at my watch but I was taking22 the dog for a walk and --23 Q. Where did you meet him?24 A. The top of Harris's Lane, which is in Longworth, the25 next village. It is about roughly about a mile from

21 my home.2 Q. How far from his home is that?3 A. Well, he is only a matter of yards across the road from4 me.5 Q. So about just under a mile from his home; is that right?6 A. Yes.7 Q. How was he dressed?8 A. Normally. I did not take that much notice.9 Q. Do you remember whether he was wearing a jacket or...?10 A. Well, he had obviously got a jacket on but whether it11 was a suit or an odd jacket and odd trousers I have no12 idea. We just stopped, said hello, had a chat about13 nothing in particular --14 Q. What did you say to him?15 A. He said, "Hello Ruth" and I said, "Oh hello David, how16 are things?" He said, "Not too bad". We stood there

17 for a few minutes then Buster, my dog, was pulling on18 the lead, he wanted to get going. I said, "I will have19 to go, David". He said, "See you again then, Ruth" and20 that was it, we parted.

15


16/114

21 Q. How did he seem to you?22 A. Just his normal self, no different to any other time23 when I have met him.24 Q. Did you see whether he was carrying anything?25 A. No, I do not think he was.

3

1 Q. And do you remember how long you spoke to him for?2 A. Five minutes at the most.3 Q. And did you see what direction he left in?4 A. Well, he was going for his walk. I suppose he went to5 my right, along the road towards Kingston Bagpuize6 I suppose in the end, if he had gone round that way, but7 obviously he was going down to the fields down the road8 or down to the fields down the back.9 Q. Was that the last time you saw Dr Kelly?10 A. Yes.11 Q. And is there anything else surrounding the circumstances12 of Dr Kelly's death that you can help his Lordship with?13 A. None whatsoever. I am sorry, I wish I could, but that

14 is all I can tell you. I met him at the top of the road15 there and we had a few minutes' chat and then Buster was16 pulling his lead and David said, well, he said, "I must17 get going" and that was it. We parted and he said,18 "Cheerio Ruth", I said "Bye David". That was it.19 LORD HUTTON: Thanks very much indeed for giving your20 evidence. That is very helpful.21 A. All right.13

22 LORD HUTTON: Now would you like me to rise?23 MR DINGEMANS: Just for a few minutes, my Lord.24 (10.35 am)25 (Short Break)...

63 MR KNOX: My Lord, the next witness is Ms Holmes, please.4 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.5 MS LOUISE HOLMES (called)6 Examined by MR KNOX7 Q. Ms Holmes, could you tell the Inquiry your full name?8 A. It is Louise Holmes.9 Q. And your occupation?10 A. I am a hearing dog trainer.11 Q. Sorry?12 A. I am a hearing dog trainer.13 Q. For how long have you done that?14 A. The past two years.15 Q. And who are you employed by to do that job?16 A. I am employed by the charity Hearing Dogs for Deaf17 People.18 Q. How much experience do you have of foot searches for19 missing persons?20 A. I have been a member of my local search and rescue team21 for nearly two years now.22 Q. On Friday 18th July did you go to Abingdon police23 station?24 A. I did, yes.25 Q. At what sort of time did you go?

13 Absalom, Ruth (2003). Neighbour: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans26.htm

16


17/114

71 A. I arrived there around quarter past/half past 7.2 Q. When you got there, what were you told?3 A. I was given a briefing, the name of the person that we4 were looking for, a description of what he was wearing5 when he was last seen and I was given an area to go and6 search.

7 Q. And who gave you this briefing?8 A. It was done by a police officer and SEBEVs Control9 manager, Neil Knight.10 Q. Were you given a photograph of the person you were11 looking for?12 A. Yes, we were given a photograph and an A4 piece of paper13 with the name and a description of the missing person on14 it.15 Q. Were you told anything about the person you were looking16 for, in particular?17 A. Nothing other than what we were told. We were not given18 any other details. It was made -- it was mentioned it19 would probably become clearer during the day that it was

20 somebody who was fairly important, but other than that21 we were not -- I had no idea of who he was.22 Q. And you were given the name, Dr Kelly; is that right?23 A. Yes.24 Q. And were you in fact aware of Dr Kelly, who he was,25 before this or had you read about it in the press?

81 A. Not until after the search when somebody said: who is2 this guy? And then I went: oh yes.3 Q. Who was assisting you when you went on this search?4 A. I had Paul Chapman with me and then my search dog,5 because I was out searching with my dog.

6 Q. Your search dog was called Brock, I understand?7 A. Brock, yes.8 Q. What sort of a dog was he?9 A. He is a border collie crossed with an Australian10 shepherd.11 Q. You were at the police station initially, then where do12 you drive to?13 A. We drove to the start of our search area, which was at14 the bottom of Common Lane in Longworth.15 Q. That is where you had been told to go by the police16 initially?17 A. Yes.18 Q. You parked and got out of the car?19 A. We parked the car at the bottom of the search area and20 then started our search from where we had parked.21 Q. About what time did you arrive at the search area?22 A. It was about 8 o'clock.23 Q. And what type of search was it that you were going to24 do? Could you describe the method you were going to25 have to adopt for this search?

91 A. Well, I was working with the search dog, so it was2 a search with the dog and we did it purely as an air3 scent exercise, so the dog is trained to pick up on

4 particles of human scent and then follow them to their5 source.6 Q. Who was on this search?7 A. Me, the dog and Paul.

17


18/114

8 Q. No-one else had joined you?9 A. No.10 Q. And where did you initially go, after you got out of the11 car? Can you remember?12 A. We walked up the track that runs north, I am told, on my13 map of Common Lane up towards the River Thames.14 Q. Can you describe, generally, how the search went

15 initially? Where did you go?16 A. We were given the track to search north up to the17 River Thames as our boundary and the area of wood to the18 left of the track. So we did the bottom half of the19 track, the south boundary of the woods before we were20 forced to turn back because of a bashed wire fence. So21 we then searched through the bottom half of the woods22 which the fence ran all the way through. We then came23 back out on to the track, continued up the track to24 the -- to where our boundary was, came back down the25 track and did the north perimeter of the wood, and then

10

1 went into the wood from the north.2 Q. Did you at any point go along the River Thames?3 A. We went up to where we -- where our boundary of our4 search area was on the Thames and spoke to some people5 there who were just moored on a boat on the Thames.6 Q. What did you say to them?7 A. Well, Brock had found them because he obviously is just8 trained to pick up on human scent, so he went off and9 indicated on them and so I had a game with him as10 a reward. They just said: what are you doing? We said11 we were assisting the police in the search for a missing12 male person and if they saw anything to contact the13 police.

14 Q. Did they say they already had seen anything?15 A. They said they had seen the helicopter up the previous16 night but they had not seen anybody or anything other17 than that.18 Q. Did you eventually manage to get into the wooded area?19 A. Yes.20 Q. Can you remember roughly what point that was? Was that21 from the north or the south?22 A. We did the north boundary of the wood. The wind was23 blowing south to north and Brock was scenting in towards24 the woods. So we came around and came in from the east25 side of the wood.

111 Q. Then are you still with Mr Chapman at that point?2 A. Yes, Paul was with me.3 Q. What happened once you got into the wood?4 A. We went into the woods a little way and Brock started to5 pick up -- he gets quite excited when he gets on to6 something. And he went off at a quicker pace so7 I quickened to try to keep up with him, and I just8 carried on following him and letting him work the area9 and followed on until he went so that he was nearly10 almost completely out of my vision, but I could see his11 tail wagging and he went into the bottom of a tree and

12 then came running back at me barking to indicate that he13 had found something.14 Q. How far into the wood, roughly, was this from the point15 that you had actually mentioned to get in, a mile or

18


19/114


20/114

24 Q. How long did you spend looking at the body before you25 went back?

141 A. Probably only a couple of minutes, if even that. Just2 enough to check for any signs of life, make myself happy3 that there was none and that there was nothing I could

4 do; and then I went to go and reward my dog for his5 find.6 Q. I take it you did not actually go up to the body itself7 and feel the pulse?8 A. I did not touch it, no.9 Q. And when you went back to Mr Chapman, which path did you10 take?11 A. I walked as best as I could back out the path I walked12 in.13 Q. I take it from that there was a specific path you had14 walked in; was it actually a track?15 A. No, there were no tracks in the wooded area we were16 searching, no definite tracks anyway.

17 Q. Were there any tracks, as it were, around the wooded18 area you were able to see, where the body was, or had19 the person obviously walked in through the woods?20 A. Not that I remember seeing, but...21 Q. When you got back to Mr Chapman, what happened next?22 A. Paul had tried to ring Control but had been unable to23 get to them on the number we had for Control so we24 decided to ring through to ask to speak to Abingdon off25 a 999 call. So Paul rang the 999 and said we had some

151 information relating to that search, and somebody from2 Abingdon rang us back and we arranged to walk back to

3 the car to meet the police officer to take them and show4 them where the body was.5 Q. When you say someone from Abingdon, would that be6 Abingdon hospital?7 A. Abingdon police station.8 Q. And what did you then do?9 A. We walked back towards the car. On the way to the car10 we met three police officers and Paul took them back to11 show them where the body was, and I went back to the12 car.13 Q. Did you meet the police officers in the woods or after14 you got out of the woods?15 A. No, on the track, just between the woods and the car.16 Q. What did you tell the police officers?17 A. They identified to us who they were. We said who we18 were and we were involved in the search and we had found19 the body, and they went with Paul to see.20 Q. So in other words, Paul Chapman goes back with the21 police to show them where the body is?22 A. Yes.23 Q. What did you do?24 A. I went back to the car to sort the dog out and then when25 I got to the car further police officers and personnel

16

1 came up to the car to take over, take over the scene.2 Q. Did you then go back to the scene at all?3 A. No.4 Q. So you presumably drove back?

20


21/114

5 A. Yes, I was around about my car and car area for a while;6 and then I was taken back to Abingdon police station to7 give a statement.8 Q. Did you have to wear any special clothes or special9 shoes or anything?10 A. I just wore my normal walking shoes, trousers.11 Q. Did you hand in any of your clothes or shoes?

12 A. A print was taken of my shoes but they did not retain my13 shoes, they just took a copy of the soles.14 Q. The print was taken by the police, I take it?15 A. Yes.16 Q. Is there anything else you would like to tell this17 Inquiry about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death or18 indeed the circumstances in which you found his body?19 A. No, I do not think so.20 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Ms Holmes. Thank21 you.14

22 Mr Dingemans, I understand that Mr Chapman is going23 to give evidence. Would he like to give evidence from

24 where he is sitting?25 MR DINGEMANS: I think Mr Chapman wants to go into the

171 witness box, my Lord, but he has broken his leg so it2 will take a bit of time to get there.3 LORD HUTTON: Very well, I will just rise.4 (11.00 am)5 (Short Break)6 (11.02 am)7 MR PAUL CHAPMAN (called)8 Examined by MR DINGEMANS.9 LORD HUTTON: Yes.

10 MR DINGEMANS: Can you tell his Lordship your full name.11 A. Paul Philip Sam Chapman.12 Q. What is your occupation?13 A. I work for Prudential in Reading.14 Q. Do you take part in any other voluntary activities?15 A. Yes, I am a member of the Scouts Association and a16 search controller and team leader for SEBEV Search and17 Rescue.18 Q. We can see you have a broken leg; did that have anything19 to do with what you are about to give evidence about?20 A. No, none whatsoever. I dislocated my knee falling down21 some stairs.22 Q. Were you called to assist in the search for Dr Kelly?23 A. I was.24 Q. When did you get that call?25 A. I got an initial page soon after 5 o'clock on the 18th.

181 Q. In the morning or evening?2 A. In the morning. And then a further text message to3 indicate we had a call out.4 Q. What did you do as a result of those messages?5 A. I replied to the text message to say I was available for6 the search and could attend at any time that day.7 Q. What did you do? Did you attend anywhere?

8 A. Yes. Once the call out went live I got my kit together14 Holmes, Louise (2003). Search team: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans26.htm

21


22/114


23/114

17 We then entered the field by the wood, did a search of18 the southern perimeter of the wood until we reached19 a barrier, the barbed wire fence halfway round the other20 side.21 Q. Did you climb over the fence?22 A. No, we decided not to. We decided to retrace our steps23 round the wood back to the main path so we knew on the

24 map where we were and what areas we had covered.25 Q. While you were searching up to the barrier, had you seen

211 anyone at this stage?2 A. No.3 Q. Or heard anything?4 A. No, nothing at all.5 Q. You hit the barrier then retrace your steps.6 A. We retraced our steps and entered the southern side of7 the wood and had a look through the inside of the wood,8 where it was slightly more open.9 Q. Could you see anything?

10 A. Could not see anything. There was the barbed wire fence11 running the whole way through the woods, so that formed12 our natural barrier within the wood.13 Q. How large was the wood?14 A. 50 to 100 metres across, roughly.15 Q. Did you walk into the wood?16 A. We did, yes.17 Q. Up to the barbed wire in the wood?18 A. Up to the barbed wire, yes.19 Q. Where was the dog at this stage?20 A. The dog was ranging from 5, 10, 15 metres ahead of us,21 running in and out of the bushes and the areas. We were22 just following that. There were no paths or anything so

23 we were having to climb across trees and go round all24 the bushes and things.25 Q. Did you come across anything?

221 A. Nothing in the southern area, no.2 Q. Having searched the southern area of the wood, what did3 you do then?4 A. We returned to the main path, consulted with each other,5 looked at the map and decided we would do the rest of6 the pathway down to the river and get that eliminated,7 and then come back and do the rest of the wood.8 Q. Did you do the rest of the pathway down to the river?9 A. Yes, we walked all the way down the pathway, which came10 out to a gate just by the River Thames.11 Q. Did you see anyone on that search?12 A. Not until we reached the river and we met the people on13 the boat.14 Q. How many people were on the boat?15 A. Either three or four, I cannot remember.16 Q. Did you speak to them?17 A. Yes, we did.18 Q. What did you say to them?19 A. They enquired what we were doing. We explained a search20 team assisting the police, looking for a missing person,

21 and gave them a rough description of his age and said if22 they saw anything could they contact the police.23 Q. Had they seen anything?24 A. They had heard the helicopter and seen some police

23


24/114

25 officers at some point previously.

231 Q. Right. What, police officers on an earlier part of the2 search?3 A. Yes.4 Q. But they had not seen Dr Kelly at all?

5 A. No.6 Q. After you had gone down to the river, spoken to them,7 where do you go next?8 A. We retraced our steps back up the pathway until we9 reached the wood, came off the pathway and did the10 northern perimeter of the wood until we came to the11 other side of the barbed wire fence.12 Q. You went back into the wood itself?13 A. Initially no, we did the outside of the wood.14 Q. Looking into the wood?15 A. Looking into the wood. But it was quite dense16 undergrowth so a lot of places you could not actually17 get in through the perimeter there, but we were checking

18 the wood.19 Q. When you could get through a gap did you get into the20 wood itself?21 A. We did not enter the wood there until we returned back22 to the main path.23 Q. Where was the dog at this stage?24 A. The dog was running around, like I say, just ahead of25 us. We were keeping back so we do not affect its scent

241 and smell.2 Q. How long did it take to do the northern part of the3 wood?

4 A. A guess, about 10 or 15 minutes.5 Q. Did anything happen while you were doing the northern6 part of the wood?7 A. Nothing. Did not find anything. There were no8 indications from the dog either.9 Q. Where do you go after that?10 A. Once we reached the barbed wire fence we retraced our11 steps to the main path, again walking down the side of12 the wood where it is much more open. We then entered13 the wood after another 10 or 15 metres, and walked into14 the wood from there.15 Q. What part of the wood are you now looking at?16 A. We are in the northern sector of the wood.17 Q. Right. And does anything happen here?18 A. After about five minutes the dog indicates a find and19 Louise --20 Q. Where were you? Were you on the outside of the wood?21 A. I was in the wood about five metres behind Louise.22 Q. What happened to the dog?23 A. The dog was ahead, I could hardly see the dog at that24 point. I was just following up the hill and Louise then25 said -- indicated -- said he had found something and she

251 went forward to investigate, whereas I waited there.

2 Q. So you did not move at this stage?3 A. No, I waited there, as we are trained to do in case it4 is a scenes of crime or anything, so we do not5 contaminate it.

24


25/114


26/114

14 then walked back south along the path to where the car15 was parked.16 Q. Did the police attend?17 A. Yes, they did.18 Q. And did you help them when they had arrived?19 A. Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police20 officers coming the other way that were from CID. We

21 identified ourselves to them. They were not actually22 aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out23 searching this area. They I think had just come out on24 their own initiative to look at the area. I informed25 them we had found the body and they asked me to take

281 them back to indicate where it was.2 Q. So these were not the people you had arranged to meet,3 as it were?4 A. No, because this was only 2 or 3 minutes after I had5 made the phone call.6 Q. How did you know they were police officers?

7 A. Because they showed me their Thames Valley Police8 identification.9 Q. Do you recall their names?10 A. Only one of them was DC Coe.11 Q. Did you show them the body?12 A. Yes. We walked back up the hill with the three of them13 and then they decided as they got a bit closer to the14 edge of the wood that I needed only to take one of the15 officers in, so I took DC Coe in to show him where the16 body was.17 Q. What were you wearing at the time?18 A. I was wearing my standard search kit, walking boots,19 outdoor trousers, our uniform polo shirts.

20 Q. Did you need to give anything to the police?21 A. All they did was take a copy of the soles of my boots.22 Q. Right. After that, what happened?23 A. Once we had shown them where the body was, we returned24 to the car. More police officers had arrived there. We25 waited around a while until we were released from the

291 scene, where we went back with one of the police2 officers to Abingdon police station where we made our3 statements.4 Q. You made your statement and then go off to work?5 A. It was mid afternoon by the time we had finished there.6 I actually had a day off as I was going away to cub camp7 for the weekend.8 Q. Do you know of anything else surrounding the9 circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist10 his Lordship with?11 A. No, I do not.12 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Chapman. Just13 take your time, please, to leave and do not rush at all.14 Thank you very much15...

43...13 MR KNOX: My Lord, the next witness is Mr Sawyer.

14 POLICE CONSTABLE MARTYN SAWYER (called)15 Chapman, Paul (2003). Search team: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans26.htm

26
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http:/www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans26.htmhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http:/www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans26.htm


27/114

15 Examined by MR KNOX16 Q. Mr Sawyer, what is your full name?17 A. Jonathan Martyn Sawyer.18 Q. Your occupation?19 A. I am a police constable with the Thames Valley Police,20 stationed on the police search team the same as21 PC Franklin.

22 Q. Which station?23 A. That would be from the Royal Lodge in Windsor Great24 Park.25 Q. What are your qualifications?

441 A. I am a qualified EOD searcher, which is explosive2 ordnance searcher. We have to be licensed by the Home3 Office and we retrain on a periodic basis. We also4 train to search major crime scenes, murder scenes and5 any major event. We search events like Royal Ascot,6 which we call a defensive search, to make sure there are7 no explosive devices left. We also do offensive

8 searches or crime scene searches, as the Dr David Kelly9 search.10 Q. I understand you are a search team leader?11 A. I am a search team leader, which means I have done12 a further course which enables me to actually run13 a search. Police Constable Franklin, being the police14 search adviser, will liaise with the senior15 investigating officer. They will decide on the16 parameters of the search, what they want searched. It17 is then turned over to me to organise the logistics of18 it, to plan the search, do the cordons, to set the19 searchers going and supervise them while they are20 searching.

21 Q. You were on duty on the morning of 18th July?22 A. Yes.23 Q. What happened when you first turned up?24 A. I was called out, I believe, about 6 o'clock in the25 morning to attend Abingdon police station for 8, where

451 I was informed by PC Franklin we had a high risk missing2 person. We had a missing person who was identified to3 me as Dr Kelly.4 Q. Just pause there for a moment. A high risk missing5 person, meaning what?6 A. "High risk" means that there is a possibility that7 because of the length of time they have been missing8 there is a possibility that he might have done himself9 harm.10 Q. So Police Constable Franklin tells you that. Then what11 happens?12 A. Then we are in the briefing that13 Police Constable Franklin has already described.14 We are just about to leave to perform our first15 searches, which would have been in the village and the16 surrounding areas of the route he was thought to have17 taken, when information came in that a body had been18 found. I then left with Police Constable Franklin to

19 attend the scene.20 Q. Can you remember what time it was that that information21 came in?22 A. It would have been about 9 o'clock, I believe.

27


28/114


29/114


30/114

12 I do not know what it was, but it had the appearance of13 blood.14 Q. Did he still have his jacket on?15 A. Yes.16 Q. Were there any marks on the jacket, as far as you could17 see?18 A. No, only the blood from his wrist.

19 Q. Now, after you had taken the photographs and seen the20 body, did you carry out any further searches?21 A. Yes. On the way back -- once we had finished with the22 body, once the paramedics had finished, we went back23 down the common approach path to the path where DC Coe24 and the two uniformed officers were. We then walked,25 leaving them there to guard the scene so nobody else

511 could approach it, we then walked back to the truck, our2 Land Rover, and drove that up where we got some more3 metal poles. We extended the common approach path from4 one pole to two poles to about a 2 foot 6 gap, so people

5 could walk up and down. We then had a quick look on6 that path, a search, just to check there were no major7 items there. And then we waited for the senior8 investigating officer to arrive and liaise with9 Police Constable Franklin.10 Q. The senior investigating officer was?11 A. DCI Young.12 Q. I think we heard from PC Franklin earlier a further13 search was then carried out.14 A. Yes. It was decided a search of the woods 10 metres15 either side of the body, on the approach up the hill to16 the body, would be carried out. I was tasked by17 Police Constable Franklin to organise that. I had

18 a number of searchers at my disposal. Because of my19 number of searchers I decided to split it into three20 5 metre wide approaches up to the body.21 Q. This involves searching what you call the common22 approach path?23 A. Yes. The first search would include the common approach24 path. So my team of -- if I may refer to my notes.25 Q. Yes.

521 A. I had a team of seven searchers initially, so I put2 those into a 5 metre grid pattern which works up towards3 the body, and that would include the common approach4 path. So the first sweep, the first 5 metre search5 included the fingertip search of the common approach6 path.7 Q. And that was carried out at what time?8 A. That was carried out at -- sorry, we have an awful lot9 of paperwork when we are doing this job. It was started10 at 13.08 that first sweep.11 Q. How many sweeps do you do? You talk about the first12 sweep.13 A. Right. My plan shows there were six zones eventually14 which we searched. The first zone, zone 1, was to the15 right-hand side of the common approach path to include

16 the common approach path. The second zone was 5 metres17 beyond that, which took us up to level with the area18 that we had taped off surrounding the body. Zone 3 was19 the zone to the left of the common approach path.

30


31/114

20 Zone 4, 5 metres further on from that. Zone 5 was the21 10 metre radius round the back of the area where the22 body had been found, which was really dense brambles and23 overgrown trees. And zone 6 was the area where the body24 itself had been lying.25 Q. We do not have a photograph here at the moment but what

531 was the nature of the woods around the common approach2 path and then where the body was found?3 A. Up the common approach path to where the -- the common4 approach path was the easiest route in, and either side5 of that the undergrowth was reasonably light. But as6 you moved away each side, left and right, the7 undergrowth became extremely heavy. Zone 5, which went8 round the back of the scene, was almost impenetrable and9 the searchers had a really hard job getting through the10 brambles and the undergrowth to check the ground.11 Q. Obviously Dr Kelly had managed to get to where he was,12 but in the searches you did were you able to identify

13 any footprints at all which would have explained how he14 got there?15 A. He had moved up through the woods to the last area,16 where there was clear access. If I was walking into17 those woods myself I would have walked up as far as he18 had before deciding it was impossible to go any further,19 because there were footpaths apparently which led20 through that but they were so overgrown nobody had been21 through them for a number of months.22 Q. In other words, it was possible to walk to where23 Dr Kelly's body was found without much difficulty?24 A. Yes.25 Q. If you wanted to go any further you would have to go

541 through very dense --2 A. You would struggle, really struggle, yes.3 Q. How long was the common approach path?4 A. Estimate between 50 and 70 metres.5 Q. When did that search finish, can you recall?6 A. The final search finished at 19.45. We had to wait7 until Dr Kelly's body was removed before we could search8 zone 6, which is where the body had been lying.9 Q. You were involved in all these searches?10 A. Yes, I team led the team searches. When you are a team11 leader and you are assigned to this, you see it all the12 way through from beginning to end.13 Q. At the end of the search, did you collect all the suits14 you had been wearing?15 A. Yes, I collected all the suits from both search teams.16 As PC Franklin has said, halfway through or towards the17 end the search teams were changed through fatigue, and18 all the teams' suits and all the gloves were collected19 and produced as an exhibit.20 Q. They were taken back to the police station?21 A. Yes.22 Q. On the next day were you on duty as well, Saturday23 19th July?

24 A. Yes, I was. I returned to duty the following day again25 to work with PC Franklin as he wanted me to team lead

55

31


32/114

1 a search of Dr Kelly's house.2 Q. And what did you do once you got there?3 A. Whenever we search a premise the first thing we do is4 walk through with the search adviser and we, again, just5 check the parameters of the search. The search was to6 include the house, any out-buildings, garages, cars and7 the grounds, which were extensive in this particular

8 case. The house itself is a very large house.9 Q. What were the results of the search of the grounds of10 the house? Was there anything noticed?11 A. The grounds there was nothing found.12 Q. And what about in the house itself?13 A. The house itself there were a number of exhibits. Do14 you want me to go through them all?15 Q. I do not think you need you to go through all the16 exhibits themselves. Was there anything particular,17 apart from documents and so forth that you found in the18 house?19 A. No. Basically there were documents that were taken20 away. I believe there was a photograph found in his

21 study which has envisaged a little interest, but when22 I am team leading the search, the officers who find the23 exhibits will take them straight to the exhibits24 officer, who books them in to the exhibits. They then25 tell me so I can log them in my records, but I am not

561 looking over their shoulder the whole time although I do2 travel round and supervise.3 Q. Can you remember when the search of the premises began4 on the 19th?5 A. The search began at 11.05.6 Q. And when did it finish on that day?

7 A. It finished at 20.50, 10 to 9 that evening. The search8 of the study was concluded, and that was the last place9 to be finished.10 Q. I should have asked you this a moment ago, but while you11 were searching in the woods did you find anything at all12 which indicated that any other people had been there?13 A. No, nothing. Normally when we search wooded areas there14 is a fair amount of detritus, crisp packets, bottles,15 cans, cigarette ends. This area itself was remarkable16 for its complete lack of human interference.17 Q. I take it you did not find any footprints?18 A. No.19 Q. Would that be normal? Obviously Dr Kelly had got in20 there, but you would not have expected to see his21 footprints there?22 A. I would not have expected to find any footprints in that23 area because of the undergrowth itself. There was not24 a lot of bare earth for footprints to be recorded on;25 and when I first saw Dr Kelly I was very aware of the

571 serious nature of the search and I was looking for signs2 of perhaps a struggle; but all the vegetation that was3 surrounding Dr Kelly's body was standing upright and4 there were no signs of any form of struggle at all.

5 Q. Is there anything else you would like to say which you6 think might cast some light on the circumstances --7 A. I can think of nothing else which will help the Inquiry.8 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Constable.

32


33/114

9 A. My Lord.16

10 MR DINGEMANS: Detective Sergeant Webb, please.11 DETECTIVE SERGEANT GEOFFREY HUGH WEBB (called)12 Examined by MR DINGEMANS13 Q. Can you tell his Lordship your full name?14 A. Yes, my name is Geoffrey Hugh Webb.

15 Q. What is your occupation?16 A. I am a Detective Sergeant of the Thames Valley Police17 currently stationed at Didcot.18 Q. Were you involved in the search for Dr Kelly?19 A. No, I was not.20 Q. What was your role in relation to this?21 A. I was called in to work on that day --22 Q. That is 18th July?23 A. That is right -- at 4 am in the morning; and I was24 tasked, at that time, to go and meet Mrs Kelly and to25 chat with her and basically to debrief her on the581 circumstances of Dr Kelly's disappearance.

2 Q. Who had called you?3 A. I was called in by my detective inspector at that time.4 Q. And what time did you arrive at work?5 A. Quarter to 5.6 Q. Quarter to 5. Where was that?7 A. At Abingdon police station.8 Q. How long did you stay at Abingdon police station?9 A. For approximately an hour and a quarter, and then I went10 to Southmore.11 Q. What were you doing while you were at Abingdon police12 station?13 A. I was briefed on what had gone on previously.14 Q. Who by?

15 A. By various people, including a uniformed sergeant who16 had been -- who had spent the night with the17 Kelly family and who had originally taken the report of18 Dr Kelly's disappearance.19 Q. Do you remember who that was?20 A. His name was Sergeant Simon Morris.21 Q. He had come back to the police station?22 A. He returned to Abingdon police station and briefed those23 present of what had gone on during the night.24 Q. What had gone on during the night?25 A. As I understand it, they had done some searching of the

591 area, as much as they could possibly do in the dark.2 Q. Who had done that?3 A. Uniformed police officers.4 Q. Do you remember how many?5 A. I could not say at the moment.6 Q. Were you told about a helicopter that had been used?7 A. I understand the helicopter had been used in an attempt8 to find any sort of zones of heat, I believe they call9 that.10 Q. What had been the result of those night-time searches?11 A. They were all negative.12 Q. So Sergeant Morris had come back to Abingdon police

13 station. How many officers were in Abingdon police16 Sawyer, Martyn (2003). Police Constable: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry (Pt. 1).http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans26.htm

33


34/114


35/114


36/114


37/114

11 handwritten notes in pencil and other documentation12 concerning Dr Kelly's appearance before the Foreign13 Affairs Committee.14 Q. And anything else that you recovered from the coffee15 table?16 A. A number of booklets, one entitled "Iraq's Weapons of17 Mass Destruction", "The Decision To Go To War In Iraq,

18 Volumes 1 and 2" and another booklet entitled "Iraq's19 Weapons of Mass Destruction".20 Q. And you retrieved all those documents?21 A. I took possession of all those items, yes.22 Q. What did you do with those items?23 A. I subsequently placed them in the property holding24 store at Abingdon police station and then25 subsequently got them back and handed them on to

671 Detective Constable Boshell who was acting as exhibit2 officer for the investigation into Dr Kelly's3 unexplained death at that time.

4 Q. What time did you leave Dr Kelly's house?5 A. On that day I left at 1520, that is 20 past 3 in the6 afternoon, although I was required to return for two7 brief visits at 11 minutes past 4 and 3 minutes to 5.8 Q.

the fuss about kelly (part one)

Documents