CHAPTER 5
The search for Dr Kelly and the
finding of his body
128. Dr Kelly did not return from his walk
and Mrs Kelly, who was joined by two of her daughters during the
course of the evening (her third daughter being in Scotland) became
increasingly worried about him. Mrs Kelly's two daughters went
out separately in their cars to look for their father on the roads
and lanes along which he might have been walking, but when they
had found no trace of him they rang the police about 12.20am on
Friday 18 July.
129. The Thames Valley Police began an immediate
search for Dr Kelly and the search operation was carried out with
great efficiency. A police dog was used to assist in the search
and a police helicopter with heat seeking equipment was called
in. Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page was informed that Dr
Kelly was missing at 3.09am and he arranged a meeting of key personnel
at Abingdon Police Station at 5.15am. By 7.30am 40 police officers
were engaged in the search and Assistant Chief Constable Page
was advised by two police specialists in the location of missing
persons that Harrowdown Hill, which was an area where Dr Kelly
had often walked, was an area to which particular attention should
be given in the search. Assistant Chief Constable Page then directed
that the area of Harrowdown Hill should be searched and members
of the South East Berks Emergency Volunteers and the Lowland Search
Dogs Association, who had joined the search, were deployed to
Harrowdown Hill.
130. Two of the volunteers taking part in
the search were Ms Louise Holmes, with her trained search dog,
and Mr Paul Chapman. They worked together as a team and began
their search about 8am and after a time they went into the wood
on Harrowdown Hill from the east side. The dog picked up a scent
and Ms Holmes followed him. Ms Holmes saw the dog go to the bottom
of a tree and he then ran back to her barking to indicate that
he had found something. She then went in the direction from which
the dog had come and she saw a body slumped against the bottom
of a tree. She shouted to Mr Chapman, who was behind her, to ring
control to tell them that something had been found and she went
closer to see if there was any first aid which she could administer.
She saw the body of a man at the base of the tree with his head
and shoulders slumped back against it. His legs were straight
in front of him, his right arm was at his side and his left arm
had a lot of blood on it and was bent back in a strange position.
It was apparent to her that the man was dead and there was nothing
she could do to help him. The person matched the description of
Dr Kelly which she had previously been given by the police. Ms
Holmes then went back to Mr Chapman retracing the route by which
she had come into the wood although there was no definite path
or track by which she had approached the tree.
131. Mr Chapman had been unable to contact
control so he made a 999 call to speak to Abingdon Police Station
and arranged to walk back to where he and Ms Holmes had parked
their car in order to meet the police officers who were coming
to meet them. On the way back to their car they met three other
police officers who themselves had been engaged in searching the
area and Mr Chapman told them that they had found the body. Mr
Chapman then took one of the police officers, Detective Constable
Coe, to show him where the body was. Mr Chapman showed Detective
Constable Coe the body lying on its back and Detective Constable
Coe said that the body was approximately 75 yards in from the
edge of the wood. Detective Constable Coe saw that there was blood
around the left wrist and he saw a knife, like a pruning knife,
and a watch on the left side of the body. He also saw a small
water bottle. He remained about seven or eight feet away from
the body and stayed in that position for about 25 or 30 minutes
until two other police officers arrived who made a taped off common
approach path to be used by everyone who came to the place where
the body was lying. Two members of an ambulance crew, Ms Vanessa
Hunt and Mr David Bartlett arrived at the scene about 9.55am.
They checked the body for signs of life and found none. They then
placed four electrodes on the chest to verify that life was extinct
and the monitor showed that there was no cardiac output and that
life was extinct. They then disconnected the four electrodes from
the heart monitor and left them on the chest and they themselves
left the scene.
Back to Top
The investigations into the death
of Dr Kelly
132. Assistant Chief Constable Page was
informed at 9.20am that the body had been found. In his evidence
he described the actions which he took and which were taken by
others on his instructions as follows:
[3 September, page 26, line 8]
Q. What happened after that information had come
to your attention?
A. Well, from my perspective I appointed a senior
investigating officer, a man who would, if you like, carry out
the technical issues around the investigation. I met fairly quickly
with my Chief Constable and we decided what levels of resourcing
and what levels of investigation we should apply to these circumstances.
Q. The fact that a body had been discovered,
what sort of inquiry did you launch at the start?
A. We determined from the outset because of the
attendant circumstances that we would apply the highest standards
of investigation to this particular set of circumstances as was
possible. I would not say I launched a murder investigation but
the investigation was of that standard.
Q. We have heard how a common access path was
established yesterday.
Q. And the fingertip searching was carried out.
Did forensic pathologists become involved?
A. Yes. We were very anxious, from the outset,
to ensure the most thorough possible examination of the scene.
I spoke to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Gardiner, and we agreed
between us that we would use a Home Office pathologist, which
is a very highly trained pathologist. It was also agreed with
the senior investigating officer that we would use forensic biologists
who are able to look at the scene and, in particular, blood splashes
and make certain determinations from those in relation to what
may have happened. As you say, a common approach path had been
established; and it was determined that for that common approach
path and for a distance of 10 metres either side and for a radius
of 10 metres around Dr Kelly's body that we would carry out a
fingertip search. It was also agreed that Dr Kelly's body would
be left in situ so that the pathologist and the biologists could
visit the scene with the body in situ to make their own assessment
of the scene, which is not always the case but in this case we
decided it would be wise to do so.
Q. Why was that, just to ensure -
A. Just to ensure that they could look at the
environment and the surroundings and take in the full picture.
133. The detailed examinations which were
carried out on the body at the place where it was found and of
the area surrounding the body in the wood were as follows. Police
search teams led by Police Constable Franklin and Police Constable
Sawyer conducted a thorough fingertip search of the common approach
path of the area surrounding the body and of the area on either
side of the approach path. After the body had been moved they
also conducted a fingertip search of the ground on which the body
had been lying. This search lasted from 12.50pm to 4.45pm and
the search of the ground on which the body had lain lasted from
7.24pm to 7.45pm. Nothing of significance was found in the searches
and Constable Sawyer said:
[2 September, page 56, line 25]
When I first saw Dr Kelly I was very aware of
the serious nature of the search and I was looking for signs of
perhaps a struggle; but all the vegetation that was surrounding
Dr Kelly's body was standing upright and there were no signs of
any form of struggle at all.
134. Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited
forensic pathologist arrived at the place where the body was lying
at 12.10 pm and at 12.35pm he confirmed that the body was dead.
He then waited whilst the police carried out a fingertip search
of the common approach path and he then began a thorough investigation
of the body at 2.10pm. After this examination of the body at the
scene and after a post mortem examination Dr Hunt furnished a
detailed post mortem report dated 25 July 2003 to the Oxfordshire
coroner and at the Inquiry he gave evidence in accordance with
his findings set out in that report.
135. Dr Kelly was right handed. In a statement
furnished to the Inquiry Police Constable Roberts stated:
On Saturday 19th July 2003, I was on duty performing
the role of Family Liaison Officer for Thames Valley Police.
On this date I spoke to Sian KELLY, the daughter
of Dr David KELLY who confirmed that her father was right handed.
136. In the course of his evidence Dr Hunt
gave (inter alia) the following evidence:
[16 September, page 9, line 14]
A. He was wearing a green Barbour type wax jacket
and the zip and the buttons at the front had been undone. Within
the bellows pocket on the lower part of the jacket there was a
mobile telephone and a pair of bi-focal spectacles. There was
a key fob and, perhaps more significantly, a total of three blister
packs of a drug called Coproxamol. Each of those packs would originally
have contained 10 tablets, a total of 30 potentially available.
Q. And how many tablets were left in those packs?
LORD HUTTON: Did you actually take those blister
packs out? Did you discover them in the pocket yourself?
A. Yes, as part of the search, my Lord.
[16 September, page 12, line 5]
Q. Did you notice anything about the face?
A. His face appeared, firstly, rather pale but
there was also what looked like vomit running from the right corner
of the mouth and also from the left corner of the mouth and streaking
the face.
Q. What would that appear to indicate?
A. It suggested that he had tried to vomit whilst
he was lying on his back and it had trickled down.
[16 September, page 12, line 22]
Q. Did you investigate the scene next to the
body?
Q. And what did that show?
A. There was a Barbour flat-type cap with some
blood on the lining and the peak near his left shoulder and upper
arm. In the region of his left hand lying on the grass there was
a black resin strapped wristwatch, a digital watch, which was
also bloodstained.
Q. Was the watch face up or face down?
Q. What about next to the watch?
A. Lying next to that was a pruning knife or
gardener's knife.
A. Can you describe what type of pruning knife
it was?
A. The make was a Sandvig knife. It was one with
a little hook or lip towards the tip of the blade. It is a fairly
standard gardeners' type knife.
Q. Were there any bloodstains on that knife?
A. Yes, over both the handle and the blade.
Q. Was there any blood beneath the knife?
A. Yes, there was. There was blood around the
area of the knife.
Q. How close to the knife was the blood?
A. It was around the knife and underneath it.
Q. Did you notice a bottle of water?
A. Yes, there was a bottle of Evian water, half
a litre.
Q. Was there any water in that bottle?
A. Yes, there was some remaining water. I do
not recall what volume exactly.
Q. Can you remember precisely where the bottle
was in relation to the bottle? (sic)
A. Yes, it was lying propped against some broken
branches to the left and about a foot away from his left elbow.
Q. And did you notice anything in particular
about the bottle?
A. Yes, there was some smeared blood over both
the bottle itself and the bottle top.
Q. Did that indicate anything to you?
A. It indicated that he had been bleeding whilst
at least placing the bottle in its final position. He may already
have been bleeding whilst he was drinking from it, but that is
less certain.
Q. Was there any other bloodstaining that you
noticed in the area?
A. There was. There was an area of bloodstaining
to his left side running across the undergrowth and the soil and
I estimated it was over an area of 2 to 3 feet in maximum length."
[16 September, page 15, line 13]
Q. Did you notice any signs of visible injury
to the body while you were there?
A. Yes. At the scene I could see that there were
at least five what I would call incised wounds or cuts to his
left wrist over the what is anatomically the front of the wrist,
but that is the creased area of the wrist.
Q. Were there any other visible signs of injury
to the body?
A. No, there was nothing at the scene.
137. At 7.19pm Dr Hunt ended his examination
of the body at the scene where it was found and the body was moved
to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford where Dr Hunt commenced
a post mortem examination at 9.20pm. The examination concluded
at 12.15am on 19 July. In describing what he found on his post
mortem examination Dr Hunt gave (inter alia) the following evidence:
[16 September, page 17, line 1]
Q. On this further examination, did you find
any signs of injury to the body that you have not already mentioned?
A. I did. I was able to note in detail the injuries
over his left wrist in particular.
Q. You have made a report, a post-mortem examination
report?
Q. Would you just like to read from the significant
parts of that in relation to the injuries you found?
A. Certainly. There was a series of incised wounds,
cuts, of varying depth over the front of the left wrist and they
extended in total over about 8 by 5 centimetres on the front of
the wrist. The largest of the wounds and the deepest lay towards
the top end or the elbow end of that complex of injuries and it
showed a series of notches and some crushing of its edges. That
wound had actually severed an artery on the little finger aspect
of the front of the wrist, called the ulnar artery. The other
main artery on the wrist on the thumb aspect was intact. There
were a number of other incisions of varying depth and many smaller
scratch-like injuries over the wrist. The appearance that they
gave was of what are called tentative or hesitation marks, which
are commonly seen prior to a deep cut being made into somebody's
skin if they are making the incision themselves.
[16 September, page 19, line 5]
Q. Did you see any signs of what are called defensive
injuries?
A. No, there were no signs of defensive injuries;
and by that I mean injuries that occur as a result of somebody
trying to parry blows from a weapon or trying to grasp a weapon.
Q. What injuries would you normally expect to
see of that type?
A. If somebody is being attacked with a bladed
weapon, like a knife, then cuts on the palm of the hand or over
the fingers where they are trying to grasp the knife, or cuts
or even stabs on the outer part of the arm as they try to parry
a blow.
138. In his evidence Dr Hunt stated that
he had sent a sample of the stomach contents to a forensic toxicologist,
Dr Alexander Allan, and he received a toxicology report back from
Dr Allan. He described what this report showed as follows:
[16 September, page 21, line 13]
Q. In summary what did it show?
A. It showed the presence of two compounds in
particular. One of them is a drug called dextropropoxyphene. That
is an opiate-type drug, it is a mild painkiller, and that was
present at a concentration of one microgramme per millilitre in
the blood.
Q. Did it show anything, this report, in summary?
A. Yes, it did. It showed the presence of paracetamol.
Q. The concentration of that?
A. 97 milligrammes per millilitre.
Q. Where was that present in the body?
A. It was also present in the stomach contents,
as well as the blood.
139. With reference to the estimated time
of death Dr Hunt's evidence was as follows:
[16 September, page 22, line 8]
Q. Were you able to estimate the time of death?
A. Yes, within certain limits, using a particular
technique based upon the rectal temperature.
Q. What time of death did you estimate as a result
of that?
A. The estimate is that death is likely to have
occurred some 18 to 27 hours prior to taking the rectal temperature,
and that that time range was somewhere between quarter past 4
on 17th July and quarter past 1 on the morning of the 18th July.
Q. You took the rectal temperature at what time?
A. That was taken at quarter past 7 in the evening
of the 18th.
140. In his evidence Dr Hunt summarised
his conclusions as a result of his examinations as follows:
[16 September, page 22, line 22]
I found that Dr Kelly was an apparently adequately
nourished man in whom there was no evidence of natural disease
that could of itself have caused death directly at the macroscopic
or naked eye level. He had evidence of a significant incised wound
to his left wrist, in the depths of which his left ulnar artery
had been completely severed. That wound was in the context of
multiple incised wounds over the front of his left wrist of varying
length and depth. The arterial injury had resulted in the loss
of a significant volume of blood as noted at the scene. The complex
of incised wounds over the left wrist is entirely consistent with
having been inflicted by a bladed weapon, most likely candidate
for which would have been a knife. Furthermore, the knife present
at the scene would be a suitable candidate for causing such injuries.
The orientation and arrangement of the wounds
over the left wrist are typical of self inflicted injury. Also
typical of this was the presence of small so-called tentative
or hesitation marks. The fact that his watch appeared to have
been removed deliberately in order to facilitate access to the
wrist. The removal of the watch in that way and indeed the removal
of the spectacles are features pointing towards this being an
act of self harm.
Other features at the scene which would tend
to support this impression include the relatively passive distribution
of the blood, the neat way in which the water bottle and its top
were placed, the lack of obvious signs of trampling of the undergrowth
or damage to the clothing. To my mind, the location of the death
is also of interest in this respect because it was clearly a very
pleasant and relatively private spot of the type that is sometimes
chosen by people intent upon self harm.
Q. Is that something you have found from your
past experience?
A. Yes, and knowledge of the literature. Many
of the injuries over the left wrist show evidence of a well developed
vital reaction which suggests that they had been inflicted over
a reasonable period of time, minutes, though, rather than seconds
or many hours before death.
LORD HUTTON: What do you mean by a "vital
reaction"?
A. A vital reaction, my Lord, is the body's response
to an area of damage. It manifests itself chiefly in the form
of reddening and swelling around the area.
LORD HUTTON: I interrupted you. You were at 9
and you are coming on to 10, I think.
A. Thank you, my Lord. There is a total lack
of classical defence wounds against sharp weapon attack. Such
wounds are typically seen in the palm aspects of the hands or
over the outer aspects of the forearms. It was noted that he has
a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have
played some small part in the rapidity of death but not the major
part in the cause of death.
Given the finding of blister packs of Coproxamol
tablets within the coat pocket and the vomitus around the ground,
it is an entirely reasonable supposition that he may have consumed
a quantity of these tablets either on the way to or at the scene
itself.
Q. What did the toxicology report suggest?
A. That he had consumed a significant quantity
of the tablets.
Q. I am not going to trouble you with the details
of the toxicology report. Was there anything else in addition
to the toxicology samples that you noticed?
A. (Pause). Really the only other thing in addition
to that was the coronary artery disease that could have had a
part in the rapidity of death in these circumstances.
Q. You have mentioned the minor injury to the
inner aspect of the lip.
Q. Moving on from that, you mentioned the abrasions
to the head. Would you like to resume your summary at that point?
A. Yes. The minor injuries or abrasions over
the head are entirely consistent with scraping against rough undergrowth
such as small twigs, branches and stones which were present at
the scene.
LORD HUTTON: Did you give any consideration or
do anything in relation to the possibility of Dr Kelly having
been overpowered by any substance?
A. Yes, indeed, my Lord. The substances which
one thinks of, as a pathologist, in these terms are volatile chemicals.
Perhaps chloroform is a classic example. So in order to investigate
that-
LORD HUTTON: you need not go into the detail
but if you state it in a general way.
A. I retained a lung and also blood samples until
the toxicology was complete.
LORD HUTTON: And the purpose of that toxicology
being?
A. To examine for any signs of a volatile chemical
in the blood or, failing that, in the lungs.
LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see. Thank you.
MR KNOX: If you move on to conclusion 18.
A. Certainly. The minor reddened lesions on the
lower limbs are typical of areas of minor hair follicle irritation
or skin irritation, so they were not injuries in particular. They
were not puncture wounds.
A. I had undertaken subcutaneous dissection of
the arms and the legs and there is no positive evidence of restraint-type
injury.
A. There is no positive pathological evidence
that this man had been subjected to a sustained violent assault
prior to his death.
LORD HUTTON: Just going back to your previous
observation, a restraint-type injury of someone who has been held
by the arms and the legs.
A. Yes, my Lord. Yes, particularly around the
areas of the ankles and the wrists.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Yes. Thank you.
A. There was no positive pathological evidence
to indicate that he has been subjected to compression of the neck,
such as by manual strangulation, ligature strangulation or the
use of an arm hold.
A. There is no evidence from the post-mortem
examination or my observations at the scene to indicate that the
deceased had been dragged or otherwise transported to the location
where his body was found.
141. Dr Hunt summarised his opinion as to
the major factor involved in Dr Kelly's death as follows:
[16 September, page 28, line 5]
Q. And in summary, what is your opinion as to
the major factor involved in Dr Kelly's death?
A. It is the haemorrhage as a result of the incised
wounds to his left wrist.
Q. If that had not occurred, would Dr Kelly have
died?
A. He may not have done at this time, with that
level of dextropropoxyphene.
Q. What role, if any, did the coronary disease
play?
A. As with the drug dextropropoxyphene, it would
have hastened death rather than caused it, as such.
Q. So how would you summarise, in brief, your
conclusions as to the cause of death?
A. In the formulation, the cause of death is
given as 1(a) haemorrhage due to 1(b) incised wounds of the left
wrist. Under part 2 of the formulation of the medical cause of
death, Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis.
Q. You have already dealt with this, I think,
but could you confirm whether, as far as you could tell on the
examination, there was any sign of third party involvement in
Dr Kelly's death?
A. No, there was no pathological evidence to
indicate the involvement of a third party in Dr Kelly's death.
Rather, the features are quite typical, I would say, of self inflicted
injury if one ignores all the other features of the case.
142. A forensic biologist, Mr Roy Green,
arrived at the scene where the body was lying at 2pm on 18 July.
He examined the scene with particular reference to the blood staining
in the area. The relevant parts of his evidence are as follows:
[3 September, page 144, line 9]
Q. Did you examine the vegetation around the
body?
Q. Did you form any conclusions from that examination?
A. Well, the blood staining that was highest
from the ground was approximately 50 centimetres above the ground.
This was above the position where Dr Kelly's left wrist was, but
most of the stainings were 33 centimetres, which is approximately
a foot above the ground. It was all fairly low level stuff.
A. It meant that because the injury - most of
the injuries would have taken place while Dr Kelly was sitting
down or lying down.
Q. Right. When you first saw the body, what position
was it in?
A. He was on his back with the left wrist curled
back in this sort of manner (Indicates).
Q. Did you make any other relevant discoveries
while you were looking around the area?
A. There was an obvious large contact bloodstain
on the knee of the jeans.
Q. What do you mean by a "contact bloodstain"?
A. A contact stain is what you will observe if
an item has come into contact with a bloodstained surface, as
opposed to blood spots and splashes when blood splashes on to
an item.
Q. Which means at some stage his left wrist must
have been in contact with his trousers?
A. No, what I am saying, at some stage he has
knelt - I believe he has knelt in a pool of blood at some stage
and this obviously is after he has been injured.
A. There were smears of blood on the Evian bottle
and on the cap.
Q. And what did that indicate to you?
A. Well, that would indicate to me that Dr Kelly
was already injured when he used the Evian bottle. As an explanation,
my Lord -
A. - when people are injured and losing blood
they will become thirsty.
MR DINGEMANS: They become?
A. Thirsty, as they are losing all that fluid.
Q. You thought he is likely to have had a drink
then?
Q. What else did you find?
A. There was a bloodstain on the right sleeve
of the Barbour jacket. At the time that was a bit - slightly unusual,
in that if someone is cutting their wrist you wonder how, if you
are moving across like this, how you get blood sort of here (Indicates).
But if the knife was held and it went like that, with the injury
passing across the sleeve, that is a possible explanation. Another
possible explanation is in leaning across to get the Evian bottle
that the two areas may have crossed.
Q. We know, in fact, the wrist which was cut
was the left wrist, is that right?
Q. And we know that Dr Kelly was right handed.
A. I was not aware of that, but yes.
Q. Were those all your relevant findings?
A. The jeans, as I have talked about, with this
large contact stain, did not appear to have any larger downward
drops on them. There were a few stains and so forth but it did
not have any staining that would suggest to me that his injuries,
or his major injuries if you like, were caused while he was standing
up, and there was not any - there did not appear to be any blood
underneath where he was found, and the body was later moved which
all suggested those injuries were caused while he was sat or lying
down.
143. Dr Alexander Allan, a forensic toxicologist,
was sent blood and urine samples and stomach contents taken from
the body of Dr Kelly in the course of Dr Hunt's post mortem examination
which he then analysed. Dr Allan found paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene
in the samples and stomach contents. He described paracetamol
and dextropropoxyphene as follows:
[3 September, page 8, line 2]
The two components, paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene,
are the active components of a substance called Coproxamol which
is a prescription only medicine containing 325 milligrammes of
paracetamol and 32.5 milligrammes of dextropropoxyphene.
Q. What sort of ailments would that be prescribed
for?
A. Mild to moderate pain, typically a bad back
or period pain, something like that. And the concentrations of
both drugs represent quite a large overdose of Coproxamol.
Q. What does the dextropropoxyphene cause if
it is taken in overdose?
A. Dextropropoxyphene is an opioid analgesic
drug which causes effects typical of opiate drugs in overdose,
effects such as drowsiness, sedation and ultimately coma, respiratory
depression and heart failure and dextropropoxyphene is known particularly
in certain circumstances to cause disruption of the rhythm of
the heart and it can cause death by that process in some cases
of overdose.
Q. And what about paracetamol, what does that
do?
A. Paracetamol does not cause drowsiness or sedation
in overdose, but if enough is taken it can cause damage to the
liver.
Q. If enough? I think you mean if too much is
taken.
A. If too much is taken. I beg your pardon.
Q. What about the concentrations you have mentioned
that you found in the blood? What did that indicate?
A. They are much higher than therapeutic use.
Typically therapeutic use would represent one tenth of these concentrations.
They clearly represent an overdose. But they are somewhat lower
than what I would normally expect to encounter in cases of death
due to an overdose of Coproxamol.
Q. What would you expect to see in the usual
case where dextropropoxyphene has resulted in death? What types
of proportions or concentrations would you normally expect to
see?
A. There are two surveys reported I am aware
of. One reports a concentration of 2.8 microgrammes per millilitre
of blood of dextropropoxyphene in a series of fatal overdose cases.
Another one reports an average concentration of 4.7 microgrammes
per millilitre of blood. You can say that they are several fold
larger than the level I found of 1.
Q. What about the paracetamol concentration you
found?
A. Again, it is higher than would be expected
for therapeutic use, approximately 5 or 10 times higher. But it
is much lower or lower than would be expected for paracetamol
fatalities normally unless there was other factors of drugs involved.
Q. What sort of level would you normal (sic)
expect for paracetamol fatalities?
A. I think if you can get the blood reasonably
shortly after the incident and the person does not die slowly
in hospital due to liver failure, perhaps typically 3 to 400 microgrammes
per millilitre of blood.
Q. About four times as much in other words?
Q. Putting it in short terms, you would expect
there to be about four times as much paracetamol and two and a
half to four times as much dextropropoxyphene?
A. Two, three, four times as much paracetamol
and two, three, four times as much dextropropoxyphene in the average
overdose case, which results in fatalities.
Q. You have mentioned that it seemed that a number
of Coproxamol drugs were taken. Was it possible, from your examination,
to estimate how many tablets must have been taken?
A. It is not possible to do that, because of
the complex nature of the behaviour of the drugs in the body.
I understand that Dr Kelly may have vomited so he would have lost
some stomach contents then. There was still some left in the stomach
and presumably still some left in the gastrointestinal tracts.
What I can say is that it is consistent with say 29/30 tablets
but it could be consistent with other scenarios as well.
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.
145. In relation to an examination of Dr
Kelly's body Assistant Chief Constable Page said in evidence:
[23 September, page 201, line 1]
Q. We heard about investigations that have been
carried out in the post-mortem and toxicology reports.
Q. And the pathologist said that Dr Kelly's lung
had been removed for tests. Have you discussed that matter with
the toxicologist?
A. I have discussed that matter with the toxicologist.
The lung was not subjected to tests, and the rationale given to
my team by the toxicologist is that the blood was tested for an
entire range of substances including volatile substances and stupefying
substances. No trace whatsoever was found and therefore they considered
that examining the lung would not be relevant because if it was
not in the blood, it would not be in the lung.
146. Very understandably the police did
not show the knife found beside Dr Kelly's body to his widow and
daughters but the police showed them a photograph of that knife.
It is clear that the knife found beside the body was a knife which
Dr Kelly had owned since boyhood and which he kept in a desk in
his study, but which was found to be missing from his desk after
his death. In her evidence Mrs Kelly said:
[1 September, page 53, line 22]
Q. We have heard about the circumstances of Dr
Kelly's death and the fact that a knife was used. Were you shown
the knife at all?
A. We were not shown the knife; we were shown
a photocopy of I presume the knife which we recognised as a knife
he had had for many years and kept in his drawer.
Q. It was a knife he had had what, from childhood?
A. From childhood I believe. I think probably
from the Boy Scouts.
And in a statement furnished to the Inquiry Police
Constable Roberts stated:
The knife found in possession of Dr David Kelly
is a knife the twins, Rachel and Ellen recognise (from pictures
shown by Family Liaison Officers). It would not be unusual to
be in his possession as a walker. They have seen it on their walks
with him. He would have kept it in his study drawer with a collection
of small pocket knives (he did like gadgets) and the space in
the study drawer where a knife was clearly missing from the neat
row of knives is where they believe it would [have] lived and
been removed from.
147. It also appears probable that the Coproxamol
tablets which Dr Kelly took just before his death came from a
store of those tablets which Mrs Kelly, who suffered from arthritis,
kept in their home. In a statement furnished to the Inquiry Detective
Constable Eldridge stated:
At 1000hrs on Thursday 7th AUGUST 2003 I was
on duty at Long Hanborough Incident Room when I removed from secure
storage the following items for examination:—
1. Exhibit SK/2 CO-PROXAMOL BOX AND STRIP
OF TEN TABLETS taken from Janice KELLY
2. Exhibit NCH/17/2 CO-PROXAMOL BLISTER PACKETS
FRONT BOTTOM BELLOWS POCKET these had been removed from Dr KELLY'S
coat pocket by the Pathologist
On examining both items I saw that they were
identical. They were marked M & A Pharmacy Ltd and had the
wording CO-PROXAMOL PL/4077/0174 written on the foil side of each
of the blister type packs.
I can say that enquiries have been made with
M & A PHARMACHEM who are the manufacturers of CO-PROXAMOL.
The batch number shown on the tablets in our possession was checked
with a view to tracing the chemist that these tablets had been
purchased from. I can say that this batch number relates to approximately
1.6 million packets of tablets that will have been distributed
to various chemists throughout the country.
148. In relation to the question whether
Dr Kelly took his own life the opinion of Dr Hunt was as follows:
[16 September, page 23, line 14]
The orientation and arrangement of the wounds
over the left wrist are typical of self inflicted injury. Also
typical of this was the presence of small so-called tentative
or hesitation marks. The fact that his watch appeared to have
been removed whilst blood was already flowing suggest that it
had been removed deliberately in order to facilitate access to
the wrist. The removal of the watch in that way and indeed the
removal of the spectacles are features pointing towards this being
an act of self harm.
Other features at the scene which would tend
to support this impression include the relatively passive distribution
of the blood, the neat way in which the water bottle and its top
were placed, the lack of obvious signs of trampling of the undergrowth
or damage to the clothing. To my mind, the location of the death
is also of interest in this respect because it was clearly a very
pleasant and relatively private spot of the type that is sometimes
chosen by people intent upon self harm.
Q. Is that something you have found from your
past experience?
A. Yes, and knowledge of the literature.
149. Professor Keith Hawton was requested
by the Inquiry to give evidence in relation to the death of Dr
Kelly. Professor Hawton is an eminent expert on the subject of
suicide and is the Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University
and is the Director of the Centre for Suicide Research in the
University Department of Psychiatry in Oxford. He stated in his
evidence that the majority of those who commit suicide do not
leave a suicide note or message. He further stated:
[2 September, page 101, line 25]
Q. Did you form any assessment of whether Dr
Kelly's death was consistent with suicide?
A. I think all the information we have about
his death and the circumstances of his death strongly point to
his death having been by suicide.
Q. And what would you say drives you to that
conclusion?
A. Well, the first thing is the site in which
the death occurred. We have heard that it occurred in an isolated
spot on Harrowdown Hill. In fact it was, as I think you have been
told, in woodland about 40 or 50 yards off the track taken by
ramblers. The site is well protected from the view of other people.
Q. Have you been to the site?
A. I have visited the site, yes.
Q. And what did you notice there then?
A. Well, I noticed, first of all - what struck
me was it is a very peaceful spot, a rather beautiful spot and
we know that it was a favourite - it was in the area of a favourite
walk of Dr Kelly with his family.
Q. What other factors have you considered relevant?
A. The nature of his injuries is very consistent
with an act of self cutting. The doctor - I have read Dr Hunt's
report , who is the Home Office forensic pathologist. I have also
seen the photographs of the injuries to Dr Kelly's body; and the
nature of the injuries to his wrist are very consistent with suicide.
Q. Why do you say that? We have heard from some
of the ambulance personnel who did not themselves see very much
blood. We have heard from others who did see more blood. What
is relevant here?
A. Well I am referring here particularly to the
nature of the cutting which perhaps I would prefer not to describe
in detail.
Q. Perhaps you can just explain why you do not
want to describe these matters in detail.
A. Well, one of the concerns I have is that there
is now good evidence that reporting and portrayal of detailed
methods of suicide in the media can actually sometimes facilitate
suicide in other people.
Q. So it is perfectly obvious there are lots
of members of the press here. If you had to say anything to them
about the reporting of your evidence today, what would it be?
A. I think with regard to the specific method
of suicide, I would prefer that that was kept as general as possible.
Q. You have talked about the cutting. What else
do you consider to have been consistent with suicide?
A. Well, the situation or the circumstances in
which Dr Kelly's body was found are consistent, in that he had
apparently removed - his glasses were found by his body in a way
- in a manner suggesting that they had been taken off by him,
as was his cap; his watch had been taken off, was removed from
the body.
Q. What does that indicate?
A. It suggests that he removed the watch to give
him better access to be able to carry out the cutting.
Q. And was there anything else that you saw from
the pathologist's report that assisted you in your conclusion?
A. Well, the instrument that was used, which
I have seen a photograph of, and the family, as you know, I think,
have been shown a copy of a similar instrument, a large penknife
- I will call it a penknife, but it is a rather primitive style
of penknife - is very similar to one that he had in his drawer
in his study, and it was one I think you heard yesterday he had
had since his childhood.
A. When considering something like this, one
obviously has to think about whether there could have been some
other person or persons involved in the act, and the circumstances
suggest that this was not the case.
Q. What, whether some third parties were involved
in Dr Kelly's death?
Q. And what circumstances do you consider show
that there were not?
A. Well, there were no signs of violence on his
body other than the obvious injury to his wrist that would be
in keeping with his having been involved in some sort of struggle
or a violent act. There was no sign I understand of trampling
down of vegetation and undergrowth in the area around his body.
So that makes it highly unlikely that others could have been or
were involved.
Q. We are going to hear from a toxicologist.
Have you had a chance to read that report?
Q. Does that assist you in your determinations?
A. Well, we know that evidence was found in Dr
Kelly's body and also on his person of him having consumed some
particular medication.
Q. Right. And what medication was that?
Q. And why does that assist in your determination?
A. Well, it in itself is quite a dangerous medication
taken in overdose because it can have particular effects on both
breathing and also on the heart rhythm.
LORD HUTTON: Just going back to the knife, Professor
Hawton, you said it was very similar to one in his drawer. Now,
we have been told, for very understandable reasons, that Mrs Kelly
was not shown the knife. But when you say "very similar",
are you drawing the inference that in fact it was probably a knife
that had been in his drawer, is that what why you say "very
similar"?
LORD HUTTON: Yes, quite. Thank you very much.
Yes.
MR DINGEMANS: We were dealing with the toxicologist's
report. What do you understand the position to be in relation
to that Coproxamol?
A. Well, I understand that the evidence found
from blood levels and from the contents of Dr Kelly's - in Dr
Kelly's stomach suggests that he had absorbed - he had taken approximately
30 tablets - I am sorry, the number of tablets is based on the
number that were missing from the sheets he had with him.
A. But that he had consumed well in access of
a therapeutic dose of Coproxamol and given the blood levels and
the relatively small amounts in his stomach, although he had vomited,
I believe you have heard evidence he has vomited, but this would
suggest he had consumed Coproxamol some time before death.
Q. Does that assist you in determining whether
or not any third party was involved?
A. Well, for a third party to have been involved
in the taking of the Coproxamol would, I imagine, have involved
a struggle. I mean if somebody was forced to take a substantial
number of tablets, it is difficult to believe there would not
have been signs of a struggle.
Q. That is a factor you have borne in mind?
Q. Did you come, then, to any overall conclusion
about whether or not Dr Kelly had committed suicide?
A. I think that taking all the evidence together,
it is well nigh certain that he committed suicide.
150. In his evidence Assistant Chief Constable
Page stated:
[23 September, page 195, line 13]
Can you just briefly outline to his Lordship
the lines of inquiry that you set out when confronted with the
discovery of Dr Kelly's body?
A. Yes, certainly. Very early on in the inquiry
one sets up a series of hypotheses which one tries then to knock
down. For the sake of completeness the first of these would be:
was the death natural or accidental? In this case it is fairly
obvious that was not the case. The next question is: was it murder?
I think as I pointed out in my last evidence, the examination
of the scene and the supporting forensic evidence made me confident
that actually there was no third party involved at the scene of
the crime and therefore, to all intents and purposes, murder can
be ruled out. One is then left with the option that Dr Kelly killed
himself.
LORD HUTTON: Sorry, may I just ask you Mr Page,
you say no third party was involved at the scene of the crime.
Did you consider the possibility that Dr Kelly might have been
overpowered and killed elsewhere and his body then taken to the
wooded area where it was found?
A. Yes, my Lord; and I think, again, upon examination
of the pathologist's evidence and of the biologist's evidence,
it is pretty clear to me that Dr Kelly died at the scene.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.
MR DINGEMANS: You were going on to say having
ruled out natural causes, having ruled out murder.
A. One is left with the fact that Dr Kelly killed
himself. My duty in that respect is to establish to the best of
my satisfaction that there was no criminal dimension to Dr Kelly's
death.
Q. Have you found any evidence suggesting that
there was a criminal element?
A. Based on the extensive inquiries that we have
undertaken thus far, I can find no evidence to suggest any criminal
dimension to Dr Kelly's death.
Q. Can you give his Lordship, and everyone else,
some idea of how many people you have interviewed in the course
of your inquiries?
A. Yes, certainly. We have made contact with
somewhere in the region of 500 individuals during the course of
our inquiry.
Q. How many statements have you taken?
A. We have taken 300 statements and we have seized
in excess of 700 documents in addition to the computer files I
referred to when I gave evidence last time.
LORD HUTTON: Mr Page, could you just elaborate
just a little on what you mean by no criminal dimension?
A. Well, again, my Lord, I would - I suppose
being a police officer and I am inherently suspicious and I would
look at the circumstances and ask myself a range of questions
as to why Dr Kelly would have taken his own life.
A. And very early on in the inquiry, based on
early discussions with the inquiry it seemed entirely out of character
for Dr Kelly to take that move. Therefore, my view of whether
there was a criminal dimension to this would centre around: was
he being blackmailed? Was he being put under some other criminal
behaviour that would have prompted him to take this action?
LORD HUTTON: Thank you for that, I just wanted
you to elaborate that. And you have excluded that in your inquiries?
A. We have carried out extensive inquiries and
based on those inquiries, I can find no evidence that he was being
blackmailed or indeed any other evidence of any other criminal
dimension.
151. Those who try cases relating to a death
or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely
honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the
scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard
from those who saw Dr Kelly's body in the wood there were differences
as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers
at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount
of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground
or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's
body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on
the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the
tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was
lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences
do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr
Kelly's death.
Back to Top
The evidence of Mr David Broucher
152. Mr David Broucher, a member of the
Diplomatic Service, gave evidence that in February 2003 he was
the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the Conference
on Disarmament in Geneva. He said that he had met Dr Kelly once
in connection with his duties. He had not made a minute of the
meeting or recorded it in his diary and doing the best that he
could he thought that the meeting was in February 2003 in Geneva.
He said that he wanted to pick Dr Kelly's brains because he knew
that he was a considerable expert on compliance with the biological
weapons convention in relation to Iraq. He had a meeting with
Dr Kelly for about an hour. They talked about the history of Iraq's
biological weapons capability, about Dr Kelly's activities with
UNSCOM, about what he thought might be the current state of affairs,
and they also talked about Iraq and the biological weapons convention.
153. Mr Broucher was asked:
[21/8, page 142, line 13]
Q. Did you then go on to discuss the possible
use of force in Iraq?
Q. Can you tell us, in your own words, what was
said?
A. I said to Dr Kelly that I could not understand
why the Iraqis were courting disaster and why they did not cooperate
with the weapons inspectors and give up whatever weapons might
remain in their arsenal. He said that he had personally urged
- he was still in contact with senior Iraqis and he had urged
this point on them. Their response had been that if they revealed
too much about their state of readiness this might increase the
risk that they would be attacked.
Q. Did Dr Kelly say how he was in contact or
not?
A. He did not give any details of names or places
or times; and I did not ask him that.
Q. Did he say what he had said to those persons
that he had contacted?
A. He said that he had tried to reassure them
that if they cooperated with the weapons inspectors then they
had nothing to fear.
Q. Which, as I understand it, was the position
adopted by the United Nations.
Q. And did he disclose how he felt about the
situation?
A. My impression was that he felt that he was
in some personal difficulty or embarrassment over this, because
he believed that the invasion might go ahead anyway and that somehow
this put him in a morally ambiguous position.
Q. Did he say anything further to you?
A. I drew some inferences from what he said,
but I cannot recall the precise words that he used.
Q. What inferences did you draw?
A. Well, I drew the inference that he might be
concerned that he would be thought to have lied to some of his
contacts in Iraq.
Q. Did you discuss the dossier at all in this
conversation?
A. We did discuss the dossier. I raised it because
I had had to - it was part of my duties to sell the dossier, if
you like, within the United Nations to senior United Nations officials;
and I told Dr Kelly that this had not been easy and that they
did not find it convincing. He said to me that there had been
a lot of pressure to make the dossier as robust as possible; that
every judgment in it had been closely fought over; and that it
was the best that the JIC could do. I believe that it may have
been in this connection that he then went on to explain the point
about the readiness of Iraq's biological weapons, the fact they
could not use them quickly, and that this was relevant to the
point about 45 minutes.
Q. Did you discuss Dr Kelly's position in the
Ministry of Defence?
A. He gave me to understand that he - it was
only with some reluctance that he was working in the Ministry
of Defence. He would have preferred to go back to Porton Down.
He felt that when he transferred into the Ministry of Defence
they had transferred him at the wrong grade, and so he was concerned
that he had been downgraded.
Q. Right. Did you have any other conversation
with Dr Kelly that day?
A. As Dr Kelly was leaving I said to him: what
will happen if Iraq is invaded? And his reply was, which I took
at the time to be a throw away remark - he said: I will probably
be found dead in the woods.
Q. You understood it to be a throw away remark.
Did you report that remark at the time to anyone?
A. I did not report it at the time to anyone
because I did not attribute any particular significance to it.
I thought he might have meant that he was at risk of being attacked
by the Iraqis in some way.
Q. And you, at the time, considered it to be
a sort of general comment one might make at the end of a conversation?
Q. Where were you in July this year on about
17th/18th July?
A. I was on leave in Geneva.
Q. And did you hear of Dr Kelly's death at all?
A. I believe I heard about it on the television
news.
Q. Right. And did you see a picture of Dr Kelly
on the news?
Q. What was your reaction to that?
A. I recognised him, I realised that I knew him.
Q. And as a result of that what happened?
A. Nothing happened immediately because I was
aware that I knew him but it was not until later that I became
aware of the circumstances of his death and realised the significance
of this remark that he had made to me, seemingly as a throw away
line, when we met in February.
Q. Did you contact anyone about your recollection?
A. Yes, I did, not immediately but when the Inquiry
began on 1st August it seemed to me that I needed to make known
this fact.
Q. Can I take you to CAB/10/9? How did you make
this fact known?
A. I sent an e-mail to my colleague, the press
officer for biological weapons in the Foreign Office, Patrick
Lamb.
Q. And you say to Patrick Lamb: "Is the
FCO preparing evidence for the Hutton Inquiry?" We have heard
from Mr Lamb: "If so, I may have something relevant to contribute
that I have been straining to recover from a very deep memory
hole." Is that right, that at the time your impression was
that it was a throw away remark, and is it also fair to say that
it was deeply buried within your memory?
A. Yes, that is fair to say, and the other facts
of the meeting took some time for me to remember; and it took
a long time to establish when the meeting took place because it
was not noted in my diary.
154. Mr Broucher was clear in his evidence
that he had only met Dr Kelly on one occasion. After he had given
evidence Dr Kelly's daughter, Miss Rachel Kelly, looked at her
father's diary and found that it contained an entry that he had
met Mr Broucher in Geneva on 18th February 2002. In her evidence
Miss Kelly said:
[1 September, page 97, line 6]
Q. We have heard from your mother this morning.
She has given us some of the background. Can I ask you to look
at a diary entry for 2002? Before I ask you to look at that, can
you just tell me where you found the diary?
A. Yes. The diary was in my father's study -
Q. It is FAM/1/1. If we look at the entry for
February, what does it tell us?
A. It mentions specifically a meeting with David
Broucher on 18th February 2002, and the interesting thing with
my father's diaries is he tended to write entries in them after
the event and this would have been a meeting that he actually
had because it is in his diary.
Q. It does not look like we have been able to
get the diary on the screen, but if I look at the diary that I
have in front of me, it says: "Monday 18th February 2002,
9.30, David Broucher, US mis."
Q. It gives details of his flights into Geneva
the day before.
Q. And out of Geneva on 20th February; is that
right?
A. Yes, that is correct, on the 20th.
Q. And that is February 2002?
A. It is a year earlier than the date that David
Broucher gave as being this year, the conversation he had with
my father.
Q. And I think Mr Broucher told us he had only
had one meeting with your father.
A. Yes, that is what made me look at it. I actually
thought that was the case.
Therefore it appears to be clear that Dr Kelly's
one meeting with Mr Broucher was in February 2002 and not in February
2003.
155. In his evidence Professor Hawton said:
[2 September, page 122, line 21]
Q. We have heard evidence from a Mr Broucher,
who relayed a comment about Dr Kelly being found "dead in
the woods" and he had at the time thought it was a throwaway
remark. He had attributed it, if he attributed it at all, to Iraqi
agents. Then after hearing of Dr Kelly's suicide he thought perhaps
it was something else. Can you assist with that at all?
A. Well, I gained the impression talking to family
members about that particular alleged statement that it was not
a typical - not that he would say that particularly - communicate
that, but it was the sort of throwaway comment he might make.
I have also gathered that it is quite possible that it was not
made at the time that was initially alleged but possibly a year
beforehand.
Q. We have seen now diaries. Mr Broucher thought
it was February 2003. He did say it was a deep memory pocket.
We have seen diaries which suggest that he has met Mr Broucher
in February 2002 and Mr Broucher has said they only met once.
So that may mean it is February 2002. Does that assist?
A. I think it is pure coincidence. I do not think
it is relevant to understanding Dr Kelly's death.
156. It is a strange coincidence that Dr
Kelly was found dead in the woods, but for the reasons which I
give in paragraph 157 I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own
life and that there was no third party involvement in his death.
Back to Top
The cause of the death of Dr
Kelly
157. In the light of the evidence which
I have heard I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life in
the wood at Harrowdown Hill at a time between 4.15pm on 17 July
and 1.15am on 18 July 2003 and that the principal cause of death
was bleeding from incised wounds to the left wrist which Dr Kelly
inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body. It
is probable that the ingestion of an excess amount of Coproxamol
tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery
disease would both have played a part in bringing about death
more certainly and more rapidly than would have otherwise been
the case. Accordingly the causes of death are:
1a Haemorrhage
1b Incised wounds to the left wrist
2 Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis
I am satisfied that no other person was involved
in the death of Dr Kelly for the following reasons:
(1) A very careful and lengthy examination of the
area where his body was found by police officers and by a forensic
biologist found no traces whatever of a struggle or of any involvement
by a third party or third parties and a very careful and detailed
post mortem examination by Dr Hunt, together with the examination
of specimens from the body by a forensic toxicologist, Dr Allan,
found no traces or indications whatever of violence or force inflicted
on Dr Kelly by a third party or third parties either at the place
where his body was found or elsewhere.
(2) The wounds to his wrist were inflicted by a knife
which came from Dr Kelly's desk in his study in his home, and
which had belonged to him from boyhood.
(3) It is highly unlikely that a third party or third
parties could have forced Dr Kelly to swallow a large number of
Coproxamol tablets.
These conclusions are strongly supported by the evidence
of Professor Hawton, Dr Hunt and Assistant Chief Constable Page.
158. I am further satisfied from the evidence
of Professor Hawton that Dr Kelly was not suffering from any significant
mental illness at the time he took his own life.
Back to Top
The statement issued by the BBC
after Dr Kelly's death
159. On Sunday 20 July the BBC issued the
following statement:
The BBC deeply regrets the death of Dr David
Kelly. We had the greatest respect for his achievements in Iraq
and elsewhere over many years and wish once again to express our
condolences to his family.
There has been much speculation about whether
Dr Kelly was the source for the Today programme report by Andrew
Gilligan on May 29th. Having now informed Dr Kelly's family,
we can confirm that Dr Kelly was the principal source for both
Andrew Gilligan's report and for Susan Watts reports on Newsnight
on June 2nd and 4th.
The BBC believes we accurately interpreted and
reported the factual information obtained by us during interviews
with Dr Kelly.
Over the past few weeks we have been at pains
to protect Dr Kelly being identified as the source of these reports.
We clearly owed him a duty of confidentiality. Following his death,
we now believe, in order to end the continuing speculation, it
is important to release this information as swiftly as possible.
We did not release it until this morning at the request of Dr
Kelly's family.
The BBC will fully co-operate with the Government's
inquiry. We will make a full and frank submission to Lord Hutton
and will provide full details of all the contacts between Dr Kelly
and the two BBC journalists including contemporaneous notes and
other materials made by both journalists, independently.
We continue to believe we were right to place
Dr Kelly's views in the public domain. However, the BBC is profoundly
sorry that his involvement as our source has ended so tragically.
Back to Top
Back | Contents
| Next
|
