Thursday, 21 July 2011

My post re Iraq War on Chris Ames's thread Guardian Comment is Free 13/1/09

No, Councillor, I disagree.

Goldsmith, as a senior lawyer, should have resigned rather than be leaned on to change his legal advice, not just once but twice and thereby legitimise (albeit tenuously) Blair's war and by proxy America's war. Goldsmith must have known that his legal advice, in the absence of a new United Nations resolution, would be used by Blair and others to convince Sir Michael Boyce, the Cabinet, Parliament and the British people that the proposed war was legal. The point is that Blair knew all along that there were no were no weapons of mass destruction and that there was no imminent threat to the United Kingdom - so, he knew that the self-defence argument was false, and that that argument was required in the absence of a new United Nations resolution. So, whether or not the Intelligence was "sexed-up"/concocted was crucially a distraction from the most important issue of whether or not Goldsmith's legal advice was "sexed-up"/concocted. You see, agressive war on a sovereign state is "the supreme international war crime" according to the Geneva Conventions, and additionally a war not authorised by a Security Council resolution is illegal according to the United Nations Charter. So, Blair needed all the legal cover he could obtain. The allegation is that Goldsmith tailored his legal advice to allow Blair and America to go to illegal war. There is little doubt that Goldsmith, unsuccessfully in my view, legitimised Blair's war, and of course there is no doubt that Blair was used by Bush et al. to legitimise America's war in the eyes of a sceptical American public.

Goldsmith should have resigned - that would have been the end of America's plans to invade Iraq. Arguably, Goldsmith was the most culpable of all through his weakness, and that is being generous, but Blair and others conspired with others to wage illegal war on Iraq with America (and Australia, Denmark and Poland).

There are surely serious criminal charges to be answered in this shameful tale? And, it was all done in your name and my name and in the name of every British and American (and Australian, Danish and Polish) citizen.

The Iraq War

The Iraq War
STEPHEN FROST <stephen.frost@> 
Monday, 19 April, 2010 23:14:04

20 May 2007

I wrote this for my three children - they wanted to know about the Iraq War - it's not perfect but it's not bad either - trying to distil everything I knew into such a short space was difficult and took me two hours. Inevitably, there are important omissions, but there are few, if any, inaccuracies, and it is the truth, the whole truth (well not quite), and nothing but the truth, as far as I can judge. Here it is:


Iraq is a country in the Middle East, approximately three quarters the size of France, with an area of 437,072 sq km, and a population of approximately 25 million. It is bordered by Iran, the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, and is consequently of immense strategic importance. It is widely accepted that Iraq (formerly Mesopotamia) is “the cradle of civilisation”, and was home to the first two civilisations known to Man, namely the Sumerians and the Babylonians. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world (after Saudi Arabia).

On 20 March 2003, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark and Poland invaded Iraq on the pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and that those weapons constituted a “clear and immediate threat” to Western interests. Thus the purported justification for war, especially in the United Kingdom, was self defence. In the United States, there was an apparently deliberate blurring of the reasons for going to war, including the claim that Iraq had links with Al Qaeda (not true), and that it was an opportunity to remove an odious dictator from power and introduce democracy (“regime change”), in addition to the WMD reason. Many thought at the time that the real reason for going to war with Iraq was to gain control of its oil supplies.

It was judged eventually to be impossible to obtain United Nations approval for the long-planned war because France through Chirac announced 10 March 2003, shortly after Russia, that they too would use their veto to block the new resolution, at that time being considered by the UN Security Council. Further, France crucially, according to Blair, went further than Russia by saying that France would veto a new resolution “no matter what the circumstances”, but that proved to be a Blair embellishment seemingly intended to discredit France; Chirac duly protested but the damage was done. Germany, though not possessing a veto like France and Russia, had previously (January 2003) said that it would oppose a new resolution. In addition, it was thought that China would follow Russia and France in using its veto powers.

This did not deter Bush et al., who gained the necessary US approval to wage war. The Geneva Conventions (which resulted from the Nuremberg Trials following the Second World War) clearly state that aggressive war on a sovereign state (“regime change”) is the “supreme war crime”. It was judged therefore by the British that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, must provide legal advice to the British Government which allowed the UK to go to war. Goldsmith’s written legal advice of 7 March 2003 (which had already been changed once, and which led eventually to the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the second most senior lawyer at the Foreign Office) was judged not to suffice and an unminuted meeting took place at 10 Downing Street on 13 March 2003 between Goldsmith and Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan, when Goldsmith passed on his “verbally expressed view” to Falconer and Morgan. At the Butler Inquiry, Goldsmith said that that verbal view was later transformed into the Parliamentary Answer of 17 March 2003, and it was that (devoid of all caveats), rather than a summary of the 7 March 2003 written legal advice (as claimed), which was shown to Cabinet. It was not even certain that Goldsmith had written the Parliamentary Answer, though he later - 2005 - claimed that he had. Thus Goldsmith changed his legal advice not once but twice. Blair was required by Bush et al. to legitimise America's war on Iraq in the eyes of the American people. Blair could not have done what was required of him without Goldsmith's legal advice, and others in the British Government (and Opposition, and mainstream media) were complicit in differing degrees. However, Goldsmith's legal advice was the single most important enabling factor in allowing America to wage aggressive war.

In addition, there was controversy over the existence or otherwise of WMD, and it only recently (a few days ago) became clear that the September 2002 dossier was not written by John Scarlett, Head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, as had been claimed,. There were later claims that 10 Downing Street orchestrated attempts to “sex up” the Intelligence, and the world expert on biological and chemical weapons, Dr David Kelly paid with his life for the storm that ensued. Kelly’s “suicide” was never proved (beyond reasonable doubt), as required by law, and neither was Kelly’s suspicious death investigated by a proper inquest (also required by English and European law). Lord Hutton lacked the powers necessary to achieve such a high level of proof. He could not, and did not, hear evidence under oath, for example.

No WMD were ever found. In addition, there have been 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq since the 2003 invasion (The Lancet, several months ago). Some believe that that figure has now reached 1,000,000.

The Iraq War ... Lord Goldsmith "pinned to the wall" by Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan (all three unelected) at an unminuted meeting at 10 Downing Street

Lord Goldsmith, Lord Falconer, Baroness Morgan (all three unelected) and their crucial
                                                  roles in waging war on Iraq

STEPHEN FROST <stephen.frost@>
     Wednesday, 10 February, 2010 0:12:12

Dear Miles,

1)  Lord Boyce, the then Chief of the Armed Forces, asked for an assurance from Tony Blair on 13 March 2003 that the proposed imminent waging of war on Iraq would be legal.

2)  Lord Goldsmith, the then Attorney General, was asked to attend a meeting (unminuted) at 10 Downing Street later that same day with Lord Falconer (the then Lord Chancellor and Minister for Constitutional Affairs, and best friend of and fixer-in-chief for Tony Blair) and Baroness Morgan.  I believe Lord Falconer lied on Question Time last Thursday when he claimed that Lord Goldsmith had asked for that meeting ... it was OBVIOUSLY the other way around.

3)  Lord Goldsmith gave the impression in his evidence to the Butler Inquiry (see transcript) that he had NOT written the crucial 17 March 2003 legal advice which was presented in the form of a Parliamentary Answer.  I believe Lord Goldsmith lied in the run-up to the 2005 General Election when, under intense pressure, he DENIED that he had NOT written it.  It is thought that Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan wrote the infamous 17 March 2003 Parliamentary Answer (on a single sheet of A4) which represented the final legal advice (and crucially was the only legal advice shown to Cabinet), devoid of all caveats present in Goldsmith's 7 March 2003 written legal advice, purporting to be a summary of the 7 March 2003 advice when it was no such thing, the 7 March 2003 advice itself representing Goldsmith's FIRST change of mind.  Goldsmith tried to claim in evidence to Chilcot that his mind had been changed by the Americans when he visited the US ... Bellingham said that they (the Americans) had had trouble with your (the UK's) Attorney General but that they had got him there in the end (or similar).  In fact, the second MUCH MORE IMPORTANT change of mind was forced on Goldsmith by Falconer and Morgan.  Goldsmith should have resigned ... had he done so Blair could not (and Boyce would not) have gone to war, and (whatever the US says now) that would have prevented the US from going to war, because Blair had been used by the US to legitimise the war in the eyes of the American public.  So, it turns out that Goldsmith (a lawyer, bound by professional standards) was arguably the most culpable of all in enabling the US, the UK, Australia, Denmark and Poland to wage aggressive war on a sovereign state, thereby committing "the supreme international war crime" according to the Geneva Conventions (as well as being clearly illegal according to the United Nations Charter).  And, not only was that war crime committed, there was also a conspiracy to concoct the legal advice (in addition to a conspiracy to concoct the Intelligence) to enable the crime to be committed, and of course after the crime had been committed there were numerous conspiracies to cover up the crime and all the resulting crimes.  To clarify, the Intelligence was concocted to create the impression that Iraq was "a clear and immediate threat to the United Kingdom" but many including Lord Boyce were highly sceptical, so it was necessary at a very late stage (in panic) to lean on Lord Goldsmith (to pin him to the wall) to allow the legal advice to be concocted (and remember Goldsmith was not an international law expert, unlike the lawyers at the Foreign Office, Wood, Wilmshurst et al., who all took the view that the war would be illegal).

Many say now that international law is not clear.  That argument matters not one jot.  The inescapable fact is that had Goldsmith resigned on 13 March 2003, as he should have done as a member of the legal profession if for no other reason, there would have been no war on Iraq.

Sorry this became rather long! ... please pass it to Glenn and/or the Political Editor.

Best wishes,


Saturday, 16 July 2011

My response to Attorney General's New Year's Eve (2010) email

From: STEPHEN FROST <stephen.frost@>
To: Kevin McGinty <Kevin.McGinty@attorneygeneral>
Cc: Frances Swaine <fswaine@leighday>
Sent: Friday, 31 December, 2010 18:23:44
Subject: Fw: Dr David Kelly

Dear Mr McGinty,

Thank you for your reply to my emails, received by me during the late afternoon of this New Year's Eve.

I am sorry that this evening, because of other commitments, I am unable to reply to your letter in detail.  Indeed, I have only had time to read your letter very quickly.

I will say this now, however: whatever the Attorney General decides, I know, you know, indeed everyone knows that the laws of this country and indeed Europe require that a death occurring in the circumstances in which Dr David Kelly is said to have died require that the death be properly investigated.  Dr Kelly's death has not been properly investigated and everyone now knows that.

I and my colleagues could supply you with mountains of evidence but it would make little, indeed no, difference to the proper decision to be reached: an inquest is required.

It is true that we have presented in our Memorial an "unanswerable" case for an inquest.  We are not boasting about this, merely informing the public.  We have demonstrated or supplied:

1) insufficiency of inquiry

2) irregularity of proceedings

3) rejection of evidence

4) new facts or evidence

5) fraud (in this context deceit)

6) refusal or neglect to hold an inquest which ought to be held

any one of which would normally satisfy the requirements of Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act.

I will leave until later the matter of precisely who should apply to the High Court, and indeed the matter of whether or not we are "properly interested persons".  But, on the latter point, I will say now that it is difficult to see how such status could reasonably be denied us, when we would have been instrumental in causing any inquest to take place and we (doctors and lawyers) would be best placed at any inquest to ask the questions which need to be asked.

This is my initial and necessarily brief response to your email, and mine alone.  I have consulted nobody.  You will no doubt be hearing from our lawyers in due course and I personally will attempt to respond fully and accurately to each and every point you raise.

Best wishes to you and your family this New Year's Eve,


Attorney General Dominic Grieve's New Year's Eve (2010) email

Saturday, 9 July 2011

Email from Kevin McGinty dated 30 July 2010

RE: RE: Dr David Kelly
Kevin McGinty <Kevin.McGinty@attorneygeneral>

To:STEPHEN FROST <stephen.frost@>
Friday, 30 July, 2010 11:18:30

Dear Dr Frost

Thank you for your email.  I am sorry if my apparent discourtesy has upset you.  It was not intentional.  I had acknowledged receipt of your report in my email of 26th July.  Let me now thank you for it.

As I set out in my email of that date, I explained that meetings between Ministers are confidential - that is the nature of Government.  I did not promise that we would be writing to Leigh Day and Co within a day or two of any meeting taking place.  Under no conceivable circumstances would that have happened.  What I did try to explain, clearly not well, and set out in my email  was that at present the Lord Chancellor is considering the request to release material touching on Dr Kelly's death to you.  That is his decision, not ours, and the timing of his decision and when and how he announces it is a matter for him and not us.  If he releases the material to your solicitors then, no doubt, Leigh Day will make an application to us under section 13 in due course.  It will then be considered by the Attorney General.  If the Lord Chancellor does not release the material, the Attorney General will then consider what other options may be open to him.  If, at any stage, he agrees to consider papers himself, he would at some stage of that consideration write to your solicitors inviting any representations they may wish to make on your behalf.

I am sorry that you feel frustrated by what you see as inaction but this is a legal process.  If you are unhappy with that process no doubt your solicitors will advise you on what steps you can take.

It seems that my attempts to answer your questions appear only to have irritated you.

Yours sincerely

Kevin McGinty
Attorney General's Office
020 7271 ....

Long email to Kevin McGinty dated 29 July 2010

Fw: RE: Dr David Kelly
STEPHEN FROST <stephen.frost@> 

Thursday, 29 July, 2010 18:21:53

Dear Mr McGinty,

Further to my email of Monday of this week, I would have thought it a matter of common courtesy to thank me for taking the trouble to provide you with the medical report which you had requested in an earlier email.

In our telephone conversation last Friday, 23 July 2010, you told me that the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor would be meeting this last Monday 26 July 2010 and that a letter would be sent to our lawyers, Leigh Day & Co., on Tuesday 27 July 2010.  I have heard nothing from our lawyers.  Would you be so good as to inform me whether the letter was written and sent as promised, and if not why not?

We have patiently waited for a response to a number of approaches from our lawyers, being especially anxious not to put pressure on the incoming coalition government, but our goodwill it seems has not been reciprocated for, to date, our lawyers have not received a single communication from the Lord Chancellor's office or the Attorney General's office since the General Election.

Given that it is now over six months since the Coroner passed to us the astounding information that Lord Hutton had SECRETLY classified for 70 years the medical documents relating to Dr Kelly's death, and given that Lord Hutton waited only two days following publication of that revelation before letting it be publicly known that he had no objection to the doctors seeing the medical records, and given that the Ministry of Justice has consistently been unable to explain the legal basis under which the documents were held following Lord Hutton's SECRET request for a 70 years embargo (you will be aware that the Hutton Inquiry was an ad hoc judicial inquiry NOT governed by the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act 1921), nor indeed to explain the legal basis under which the said documents continue to be hidden from public scrutiny, I and many other British citizens find it astonishing that the documents continue to be shrouded in such secrecy.

In these extraordinary circumstances, I think it is perfectly reasonable for British citizens to ask what is so important to hide in the documents that the new Government is prepared to risk its reputation for a refreshing and much longed for openness.

Further, put simply, it is my understanding that Dominic Grieve is waiting for evidence, and Ken Clarke is withholding the very same evidence.  The irony of this farcical situation cannot be lost on you.  If Dr David Kelly committed suicide as claimed, why the continuing secrecy and obfuscation, especially when Dominic Grieve has indicated that there has been an insufficiency of inquiry into Dr David Kelly's death, both immediately prior to the recent General Election while in Opposition, and since being appointed Attorney General.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Frost      

Short acknowledgement to Kevin McGinty dated 26 July 2010

RE: Dr David Kelly
STEPHEN FROST <stephen.frost@> 

To:Kevin McGinty <Kevin.McGinty@attorneygeneral>
Monday, 26 July, 2010 18:45:07

Dear Mr McGinty,

Thank you for keeping me informed.

I hope the medical report was helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Frost 

Email from Kevin McGinty dated 26 July 2010

RE: Dr David Kelly
Kevin McGinty <Kevin.McGinty@attorneygeneral> 
To:Stephen <stephen.frost@>
Monday, 26 July, 2010 18:16:23

Dear Dr Frost

I am sorry I have not been able to get back to you sooner.  I
acknowledge receipt of your report.

I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Lord Chancellor and the AG meet
often and their discussions, which of course cover a range of issues,
are confidential.

In terms of the consideration which the ministers are giving to the
circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death,  I am sure that once the
Lord Chancellor has decided whether or not he may release material to
you and your colleagues he will inform you.  Then, as I explained on
Friday, depending on the Lord Chancellor's decision, the Attorney
General may give further consideration on whether, and how, his
responsibilities under section 13 of the Coroners Act should be

Yours sincerely

Kevin McGinty
Attorney General's Office
020 7271 ....

Email to Kevin McGinty dated 25 July 2010

From: Stephen [mailto:stephen.frost@] 
Sent: 25 July 2010 15:00
To: Kevin McGinty
Subject: Dr David Kelly

Dear Mr McGinty,

Thank you for talking to me on Friday.

I am not sure whether you still require the medical report, but after
consideration I thought I would send it anyway (please see attachment)
as it could well be useful to Dominic Grieve when he meets Ken Clarke

Very few people have seen the medical report, so I should be grateful if
you would confirm receipt of this email as soon as you can.

Given the huge interest in this case, I wonder whether, after the
meeting has taken place, you could give me some idea how it went.

Yours sincerely.

Stephen Frost
07825 ......

Attorney General's response to protest re David Cameron's intervention re Dr David Kelly at Prime Minister's Questions (see my fourteenth submission to the Attorney General)

Sunday, 3 July 2011

Reply on behalf of the Attorney General to my letter dated 2 July 2010

From: "Kevin McGinty" <Kevin.McGinty@attorneygeneral>
To: <stephen.frost@>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:19 PM
Subject: Dr David Kelly

Dear Dr Frost,

Your email with its attachments of 2nd July has been forwarded to me as
I will advise the Attorney General in due course on the exercise of his

The Attorney General has no power to order an inquest himself.  Only the
High Court can order a new inquest and it does so on application by the
Attorney General or by another with the consent of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General can only make an application if he has sufficient
evidence in an admissible form to persuade the Court that the conditions
set out in section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 for a new inquest are
met.  The Act, which gives the Attorney General this function does not
provide him with investigatory powers and he cannot investigate matters

As you know, the Lord Chancellor is currently considering whether to
release medical evidence surrounding the death to the group of doctors
(of which I believe you are one) that are calling for a new inquest.  If
that evidence is released the Attorney General would expect an
application to be made to him in due course by the solicitors that have
been instructed, Leigh Day & Co.  If the Lord Chancellor does not
release the material, or all of it, the Attorney General will consider
with Ministers what other options may be open to him.

In the meantime, I would be greatly assisted by seeing the report to the
Coroner that you mentioned.

Your sincerely

Kevin McGinty
Attorney General's Office
020 7271 ....

Saturday, 2 July 2011

Letter to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve dated 2 July 2010

STEPHEN FROST <stephen.frost@>

Friday, 2 July, 2010 14:31:11

Dear Dominic,


I write to you as a British citizen, with the best long-term interests of our country at heart.

There are now gathering suspicions that Dr David Kelly has been the victim of one of the gravest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen.  There is also compelling evidence that the elaborate Hutton Inquiry, which purported (wrongly) to obviate the need for a coroner's inquest, amounted to nothing less than a huge high-level conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  If indeed there were such a conspiracy, it would surely be reasonable to ask the following question: what was so important to hide from public view that the taking of the enormous risk of conspiring to comprehensively subvert due process of law, in full public view, was deemed necessary?

I am one of the doctors who has been fighting for almost seven years to secure an inquest into Dr Kelly's death.  You will remember that you and I met at the House of Commons some five years ago (my constituency MP, David Jones, arranged the meeting), and I showed you a copy of Dr Kelly's death certificate, as well as other documents.  As you are aware, an inquest is required by the laws of our country and, indeed, those of Europe, in the circumstances in which Dr Kelly is alleged to have died.  There are no "ifs" or "buts" about this; the law is the law and the law requires that there be an inquest.  It is my opinion, and the opinion of others, that the invocation of Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners' Act by Lord Falconer (on 13 August 2003), the then Lord Chancellor and Minister for Constitutional Affairs, was inappropriate and that a statutory inquest should never have been replaced by the non-statutory judicial inquiry of Lord Hutton, not subject, as it was not, to the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act 1921, which Act was itself repealed almost unnoticed in the dying days of the penultimate government and replaced by the odious Inquiries Act 2005.  Section 17a was ostensibly intended to be used to avoid duplication of inquiry in mutiple death scenarios such as a train crash, where the cause of death to some extent can be assumed, or is clear. But, Dr Kelly allegedly died alone, so the invocation of Section 17a in the case of David Kelly was unique on two counts: it was the first time in English legal history that Section 17a had been invoked to replace an inquest (statutory) by a non-statutory judicial inquiry (as opposed to a statutory public inquiry), and it was the first time that it had been invoked to investigate a single death (as opposed to multiple deaths). The subterfuge was all the greater because the public was led to believe that Dr Kelly's death would be better investigated by Lord Hutton's inquiry than by a coroner's inquest, when the exact opposite was the case.

Amongst many further points one could raise as to the inadequacy of the Hutton Inquiry as an instrument to investigate Dr Kelly's death was the clear insuffiency of inquiry over which Lord Hutton presided, the undoubted lack of rigour of Thames Valley Police, the Coroner and Lord Hutton in first ruling out foul play before even considering suicide, and the obvious inability of Lord Hutton to effectively reach a suicide verdict from the evidence which he heard and later cited.  But, the law is clear on the last of these: that before a verdict of suicide can be returned, the Coroner must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt (a very high standard of proof, in fact a criminal level of proof) that the deceased not only killed himself, but that he intended to kill himself.  Now, if one examines the transcripts of the evidence heard by Lord Hutton it is obvious that he could not be sufficiently satisfied, not least because the evidence which he heard was not heard under oath.

There have been five inquiries into the Iraq War, namely the Foreign Affairs Committe, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Hutton Inquiry, the Butler inquiry and the Chilcot Inquiry (unfinished) but not a single word of evidence from any of the witnesses at any of these inquiries has been heard under oath.  At an inquest into Dr Kelly's death the evidence would automatically be heard under oath, and the death would be required to be investigated in the context of the United Kingdom's reasons for waging agressive war on a sovereign state, Iraq.

Below, appears a link to the article (published last Saturday, 26 June 2010, in the Daily Mail) written by Miles Goslett (freelance journalist) and me, and I should be grateful if you would read the article and the 147 following comments, some attracting hundreds of recommendations.

The link to Miles Goslett's story which appeared yesterday (Thursday, 1 July) as the "splash" headline in the Daily Mail appears below, and as you will see there are once again hundreds of following comments, many again attracting hundreds of recommendations.

On the evidence of these two articles alone, Dr David Kelly's death is still (nearly seven years later) a matter of huge public interest and concern.  You will no doubt have seen the Daily Mail editorial on Dr David Kelly which appeared yesterday.

As a British citizen, I implore you to take the steps necessary to order the necessary inquest into Dr Kelly's death, linked inextricably as this most important death was to the United Kingdom's alleged reasons for waging war on the sovereign state of Iraq.  Such a move would not only meet with huge approval from the British public, but would also go a long way to restoring confidence in the political system and the rule of law.  Perhaps, most importantly, such an order would go some way to restoring the severely tarnished reputation of this country around the world, deservedly damaged by the many appalling actions of the previous government.

Finally, and this is very important, it is my opinion that the police investigation into the death of Dr Kelly should be reopened immediately, the "finding" of suicide being patently unsafe.

This is a private communication, and I hope you will respect my wish that it remains private.  That said, should you wish to show this email on a confidential basis to trusted colleagues, you have my permission to use it as you think fit.  For my part, I will respect your position as Attorney General, and of course I would not wish anyway to compromise any future legal proceedings in any way.

I look forward to hearing from you.  Should you require further information from me and/or my colleagues, for example sight of the medical report which we prepared and which we sent to the Coroner, please let me know.

Yours sincerely,

(Dr) Stephen (Frost)