FOR THE URGENT ATTENTION OF MR DUNCAN PARISH (PPS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL)
Dear Mr Parish,
Please pass the letter below to the Attorney General as a matter of urgency. Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Frost
Dear Attorney General,
I would like to bring to your attention the following:
1) On 14 November 2010 the Daily Mail reported that Mr Nigel Cox, a friend of Dr David Kelly, offered Thames Valley Police (TVP) material evidence concerning Dr Kelly's death which was ignored by TVP and which was not mentioned at the Hutton Inquiry. TVP have admitted that they failed to collect this potentially vital evidence.
To put the evidence in context, the newspaper report reads as follows:
"The Mail has established that Dr Kelly left an upbeat answerphone message for his friend Nigel Cox just days before his body was found on July 18, 2003. Dr Kelly said he was looking forward to joining him for a game of cards on July 23. Mr Cox, who played in the same pub cribbage team as Dr Kelly, was on holiday at the time and only received the message after the scientist’s death. The message said ‘Hi Nige, I will see you at crib next Wednesday’, said Mr Cox, adding that the tone convinced him his friend was not suicidal. He contacted Thames Valley Police and suggested they listen to it because he believed it was an important indication of Dr Kelly’s state of mind and showed he had plans for the future. According to Mr Cox, police expressed interest in the message but it was never collected by investigating officers."
We have established that Mr Cox still has this recording and we believe that it is vital that the Attorney General listens to it. We have Mr Cox's address and telephone number, should the Attorney General require the recording. Further, we would like to know whether the Attorney General shares our belief that Professor Keith Hawton, the psychiatrist who gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry as an expert witness, ought to listen to the same recording.
2) When I wrote to you last month, I asked with whom in your department I could speak about what I believe to be new information concerning a witness who gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry in 2003. Mr McGinty advised me to write to you about the matter. To recapitulate, I have established that an ex-MP, Robert Jackson, who represented Dr Kelly's Oxfordshire constituency and who is now retired, was told important details by the said witness, Dr Malcolm Warner, who was Dr Kelly's GP, suggesting that Dr Warner saw Dr Kelly's corpse on the day it was found (Friday 18 July 2003). I understand that Dr Warner revealed this to Mr Jackson at a meeting between the pair shortly after Dr Kelly's death, yet he Dr Warner did not include this in the oral evidence he gave to the Hutton Inquiry. When asked for the date on which he had last seen Dr Kelly, Dr Warner said "1999". This information, which comes from Mr Jackson, suggests that Dr Warner concealed that he saw Dr Kelly's corpse when he gave evidence to Lord Hutton. There is more but I must be careful. I would appreciate hearing the Attorney General's views on this matter and also I would like confirmation that he intends to pursue it.
3) Why were 10 names redacted from Dr Kelly's post mortem report, which was published by Kenneth Clarke on 22 October 2010? In the statement which accompanied the report, Mr Clarke said he had decided to publish it "in the interests of maintaining public confidence in the inquiry into how Dr Kelly came to his death". Is it not the case that by withholding those names public confidence cannot be maintained? Will you ensure that those redacted names are published?
4) Will the Attorney General give an undertaking to watch, evaluate, and assess a video recording of the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) hearing of 15 July 2003 at which Dr David Kelly gave evidence (it lasts approximately 50 minutes)? Specifically, what is the Attorney General's view of Dr Kelly's mood, state of mind and demeanour bearing in mind a) the fact that the FAC decided immediately after that meeting that Dr Kelly could not have been Andrew Gilligan's principal source and wrote immediately to the Foreign Secretary to that effect and b) the fact that Dr Kelly's alleged suicide is attributed to the certainty that Dr Kelly was Mr Gilligan's principal source? Has it occurred to the Attorney General that the BBC in their highly irregular statement of 20 July 2003 deliberately sought to mislead the world into believing that Dr Kelly (who could no longer argue back) was Gilligan's one and only source, thereby killing the search for the real source whose identity at all costs had to be hidden? If Gilligan's prime source were say Robin Cook, Jack Straw or indeed John Scarlett, would not that be important? This is surely reason on its own for holding the Inquest which is required in law?
5) In view of the fact that on 21 July 2010 Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood held (with the blessing of Janice Kelly) a meeting with Kenneth Clarke about any future inquest into Dr Kelly's death, will the Attorney General comment on why the Ministry of Justice has refused to say if any members of that department have ever signed a legally binding agreement with any relatives of Dr Kelly, or whether to the best of their knowledge any member of the Kelly family has signed an agreement of such a nature with any Government department subsequent to Dr Kelly's death? If a Government department is not prepared to answer such a straightforward question public confidence surely cannot be maintained? What is the Attorney General's view?
6) Under the Freedom of Information Act, Police have now responded to more than one individual who had asked them for details about fingerprint evidence recovered from the scene where Dr Kelly's body was found (please note place of death still not established) on 18 July 2003. Police have stated that the knife which Dr Kelly allegedly used to kill himself, the open water bottle, the blister packs of pills he supposedly swallowed, a watch found with Dr Kelly's body (no evidence as to whether the watch belonged to him) and his mobile phone were all checked for fingerprints but not a single fingerprint (Kelly's or anybody else's) was found, despite the fact that Dr Kelly was not wearing gloves and that no gloves were found at the scene. Police have confirmed that the watch "was not positively identified as belonging to Dr Kelly", suggesting that it was assumed to have belonged to Dr Kelly but that no officer bothered to check. The watch, together with one of the three blister packs, were checked for DNA. A full profile of Dr Kelly was obtained from both items. But this DNA could have been blood or hair. It does not explain the lack of fingerprints. This evidence about the lack of fingerprints was not mentioned at the Hutton Inquiry and in my opinion constitutes important new evidence. I would like to know what the Attorney General's view of the matter is. Is he satisfied that the Police investigation into the fingerprint evidence was carried out as fully as it ought to have been? Does he believe that an independent examination of these items ought to be carried out?
7) Finally, while it occurs to me, Tom Mangold claimed on television that several agencies were simultaneously investigating the death of Dr David Kelly at an early stage, including the CIA. Does the Attorney General have any views as to the propriety or otherwise of the CIA investigating such a politically charged death on British soil? And, why was there no mention of the CIA's presence at the Hutton Inquiry?
I could raise many more points but I think that is enough for now.
I should be grateful if you would confirm not only that you have received this email, but also that each and every point contained herein is brought to the attention of the Attorney General as a matter of urgency.
This email is copied to our lawyers, Frances Swaine of Leigh Day & Co. and Dr Michael Powers QC, Dr David Halpin, Dr Christopher Burns-Cox, Dr Martin Birnstingl and Dr Andrew Rouse and my MP David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West).
Yours sincerely,
(Dr) C Stephen Frost BSc MB ChB Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (Stockholm, Sweden)
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment