Before looking at the evidence of PC Franklin and PC Sawyer some reference to their sergeant, Paul Woods, is necessary.
Unfortunately, as was the case with Sergeant Morris, Hutton doesn't call him as a witness. But at least his witness statement is sent TVP/7/0042 - 0043. None of his statement is in the public domain.
This is ACC Page on 3 September being examined by Mr Dingemans:
Q. And that further search carried out, did you ask for anything else?
A. Yes, I did. I asked for a number of key individuals to meet me at Abingdon police station at 5 am.
Q. Who were those key individuals?
A. Those key individuals were a superintendent to arrange resourcing for what I anticipated would be more widespread searching. The head of Special Branch of my organisation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Who else was there at the meeting?
A. I called out Detective Inspector Smith, who was the area detective inspector, to begin inquiries for me. And myself and the area commander -- I beg your pardon, I also asked for a qualified police search adviser, Sergeant Paul Wood.
Q. Sorry, I lost that, a qualified police?
A. Police search adviser.
Q. Yes.
A. And I asked for a sergeant from Milton Keynes who had undertaken a lot of work nationally in respect of the assessment of missing persons and I asked them all to meet me at Abingdon police station at 5 am.
Q. Did they all get there at 5 am?
A. I think we started the meeting about 5.15 am.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. What was the result of your meeting at 5.15?
A. Well the result of my meeting was that we began to establish a search pattern. As a holding measure, I asked for officers who were reinforcement officers who were arriving about this stage -- we had between 30 and 40 officers available to us, and I asked them to start searching outward from Dr Kelly's house. I asked for the helicopter to be brought into play again.
Q. Right.
A. But I also asked the police search adviser and the sergeant from Milton Keynes with the specialist knowledge of missing persons to make an assessment for me of where we should begin looking for Dr Kelly; and the way they do that is to gain as much information as they can about the person who is missing, favourite haunts, favourite walks, that type of thing and they produced a list of probably half a dozen places that we should begin to look. So by about 7 o'clock I was beginning to get some sort of form to the search we were making.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. By 7 o'clock you had got the assessment back from those two specialists in missing persons?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they identify Harrowdown Hill as a site of interest for you?
A. Yes, Harrowdown Hill to the best of my recollection was number 2 on their list.
Q. Did you send a search team to Harrowdown Hill?
A. Yes, I asked the police search adviser to arrange for the area to be searched, and members of the South East Berks Emergency Volunteers and the Lowlands Search Dogs Association, who by this time had also joined us, were deployed to Harrowdown Hill.
Two quick points: it appears that the helicopter wasn't brought into play again notwithstanding Page saying he had asked for it. Secondly. Page thinks that Harrowdown Hill was number 2 on the list (although I'm not that confident about his recollections). It would be interesting to know the location of number one and whether it was searched.
Paul Woods was an experienced police officer with, at that time, about 25 years service in the force.
Thus Sergeant Woods is seen as being instrumental in getting Harrowdown Hill searched.
Lastly, from the above information and other evidence Paul Woods appears to be "Bronze" in the search phase http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/gold-silver-and-bronze-in-search-phase.html
Wednesday 29 August 2012
Tuesday 28 August 2012
Grieve is visited by the ghost of Dr Kelly
My last ten posts have concentrated on DC Coe, I also wrote this post sometime ago when I was examining what he (and others) were saying about the blood at Harrowdown Hill http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/blood-dc-coes-evidence.html
From now on DC Coe will get the occasional mention rather than being the main focus of attention although when it comes to the movement of the body he will become more prominent again. That though will have to wait .....
Before moving on to PC Franklin and PC Sawyer I want to draw your attention to a new youtube video about Dr Kelly. It's a great cartoon by John Goss in which the Attorney General gets a surprise visitation. About a couple of minutes long it has a serious message http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircl4XSoPhs I must admit I wouldn't know where to start in producing something like this!
Please don't overlook the epetition to which there is a link beneath the video.
From now on DC Coe will get the occasional mention rather than being the main focus of attention although when it comes to the movement of the body he will become more prominent again. That though will have to wait .....
Before moving on to PC Franklin and PC Sawyer I want to draw your attention to a new youtube video about Dr Kelly. It's a great cartoon by John Goss in which the Attorney General gets a surprise visitation. About a couple of minutes long it has a serious message http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircl4XSoPhs I must admit I wouldn't know where to start in producing something like this!
Please don't overlook the epetition to which there is a link beneath the video.
Monday 27 August 2012
DC Coe - taken to the body (2)
My last post detailed what happened when the two searchers met the three police officers ... as recalled by the searchers themselves. DC Coe's police written statement makes no mention whatsoever of the two officers accompanying him, in itself somewhat suspicious.
As previously explained Annex TVP-1, written by civil servant Kevin McGinty nearly eight years after the event, is the official narrative that explains DC Coe's lapse of memory at the Hutton Inquiry regarding the third man. It also gives a different perspective as to the meeting of the three police officers and the two searchers.
In the case of the two volunteers they made their statements on the same day as they, with the help of Brock, discovered the body. I can see no apparent reason why they would have been dishonest about their interaction with DC Coe's party. The evidence of Ms Holmes at the Inquiry mirrored her witness statement precisely. There is some doubt regarding Mr Chapman's recall at the Inquiry about Ms Holmes being with him when DC Coe was shown the body; this wasn't helped by the lack of detail in that part of his witness statement.
This is what Mr McGinty says in Annex TVP-1:
As the officers went towards the river they came across the two civilian searchers (Paul Chapman & Louise Holmes) who had found the body and radioed for help. This was a chance occurrence. At this time they were at the foot of Harrowdown Hill, a considerable distance from the body location.
Dc Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving Dc Shields and Pc A and Louise Holmes behind. Dc Shields and Pc A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.
It's my considered view that Mr McGinty has been given false information; if that's not the case then he is deliberately misleading the reader of Annex TVP-1 I would suggest.
The impression is certainly given of the two searchers having arrived at the bottom of the track before meeting DC Coe and his companions. This is contrary to what the searchers had to say. Not just this but Mr McGinty states that DC Shields and PC A stayed behind with Louise Holmes. Both searchers are absolutely clear that all three police officers went at least part way up the track. DC Coe makes no mention of the other two officers in his witness statement. Perhaps DC Shields or PC A were more illuminating in their statements although I somehow doubt it.
How did McGinty know the detail to write into Annex TVP-1? He had sight of a police report from TVP in May 2011 it's true. Did this report include any musings by Mr Coe? His memory appears very suspect at times. If Paul Chapman's recall is accurate then DC Shields and PC A were on the edge of the wood when DC Coe was shown the body and not at the bottom of the track.
Once Paul Chapman had shown Dc Coe the body he returned to the bottom of the track where Dc Coe thinks that either Pc A or Dc Shields took the search team to the Police Station to make their statements.
A red herring I suspect to give credence to the "DC Shields and PC A remaining at the bottom of the track" story.
As previously explained Annex TVP-1, written by civil servant Kevin McGinty nearly eight years after the event, is the official narrative that explains DC Coe's lapse of memory at the Hutton Inquiry regarding the third man. It also gives a different perspective as to the meeting of the three police officers and the two searchers.
In the case of the two volunteers they made their statements on the same day as they, with the help of Brock, discovered the body. I can see no apparent reason why they would have been dishonest about their interaction with DC Coe's party. The evidence of Ms Holmes at the Inquiry mirrored her witness statement precisely. There is some doubt regarding Mr Chapman's recall at the Inquiry about Ms Holmes being with him when DC Coe was shown the body; this wasn't helped by the lack of detail in that part of his witness statement.
This is what Mr McGinty says in Annex TVP-1:
As the officers went towards the river they came across the two civilian searchers (Paul Chapman & Louise Holmes) who had found the body and radioed for help. This was a chance occurrence. At this time they were at the foot of Harrowdown Hill, a considerable distance from the body location.
Dc Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving Dc Shields and Pc A and Louise Holmes behind. Dc Shields and Pc A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.
It's my considered view that Mr McGinty has been given false information; if that's not the case then he is deliberately misleading the reader of Annex TVP-1 I would suggest.
The impression is certainly given of the two searchers having arrived at the bottom of the track before meeting DC Coe and his companions. This is contrary to what the searchers had to say. Not just this but Mr McGinty states that DC Shields and PC A stayed behind with Louise Holmes. Both searchers are absolutely clear that all three police officers went at least part way up the track. DC Coe makes no mention of the other two officers in his witness statement. Perhaps DC Shields or PC A were more illuminating in their statements although I somehow doubt it.
How did McGinty know the detail to write into Annex TVP-1? He had sight of a police report from TVP in May 2011 it's true. Did this report include any musings by Mr Coe? His memory appears very suspect at times. If Paul Chapman's recall is accurate then DC Shields and PC A were on the edge of the wood when DC Coe was shown the body and not at the bottom of the track.
Once Paul Chapman had shown Dc Coe the body he returned to the bottom of the track where Dc Coe thinks that either Pc A or Dc Shields took the search team to the Police Station to make their statements.
A red herring I suspect to give credence to the "DC Shields and PC A remaining at the bottom of the track" story.
DC Coe - taken to the body (1)
DC Coe related the fact that he went to the body with Paul Chapman after the police officers bumped into the two volunteer searchers. There are subtle but important differences in the accounts of Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman and DC Coe as to where the two groups met each other and how many police officers set off with Mr Chapman to view the body. Trying to make some sense from these variations is the purpose of this post.
Put yourself in the position of Louise Holmes or Paul Chapman on the evening of 1 September 2003: the next morning you are due to give evidence at the Hutton Inquiry. Even though the Inquiry isn't hearing anybody's evidence under oath you are conscientous and want to be correct in what you say. If it was me I would want to look at my police witness statement, the statement made on the very day of the event, to remind myself of what happened. I think it makes sense to examine that part of their revealed statements about meeting DC Coe and his companions and the events that immediately followed and then to see how well their oral evidence at the Inquiry compares.
A reminder of the relevant part of the statement by Louise Holmes:
Shortly afterwards we left the wooded area 'C' and returned to the track 'B' using the previous entry point into the wooded area. Nobody else was in sight and in order to meet up and show Police Officers where the body had been found, we walked south along the track 'B' towards Common Lane.
We met 3 Police Officers in plain clothes who identified themselves and we showed them our identity cards. We advised them that we had found a body in Harrowdown Hill 'C'. Paul then went with the 3 Police Officers to show them the location of the body and I returned to my vehicle parked in Common Lane at 'A'.
I think that her written statement could not be clearer. The searchers met the 3 plain clothes officers somewhere on the track, she states that she returned to her vehicle after meeting the police and it's clear that this meeting was somewhere on the length of the lane rather than at the parking area, or in the wood for that matter.
The fact that she didn't return to the body with Paul Chapman makes total sense to me:
(a) It only needed one searcher to show the police the body
(b) She would want to get Brock back to her vehicle and get him settled down
(c) The regular police had yet to arrive and it would make sense to be available to inform and direct them.
At the Inquiry her evidence was given to Mr Knox:
Q. And what did you then do?
A. We walked back towards the car. On the way to the car we met three police officers and Paul took them back to show them where the body was, and I went back to the car.
Q. Did you meet the police officers in the woods or after you got out of the woods?
A. No, on the track, just between the woods and the car.
Q. What did you tell the police officers?
A. They identified to us who they were. We said who we were and we were involved in the search and we had found the body, and they went with Paul to see.
Q. So in other words, Paul Chapman goes back with the police to show them where the body is?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went back to the car to sort the dog out and then when I got to the car further police officers and personnel came up to the car to take over, take over the scene.
Q. Did you then go back to the scene at all?
A. No.
An excellent match with her police witness statement and nothing to my mind at all controversial there. The phrase 'further police officers and personnel' is interesting when later comments by the ambulance crew are considered.
Now compare her witness statement with the one Paul Chapman made on the same day:
The time that we found the body was 09.15 hrs. I then tried to contact my manager but his phone was on answer machine so I called the police on 999. Once police arrived they then were shown where the body was and they took overall charge. I wish to further that I showed the body to DC2368 COE at 09.40 hrs.
No detail whatsoever about the process whereby Coe and his colleagues got involved. This from a man who works for a major insurance company where correct detailed replies to questions are essential. The question is: when looking at their respective witness statements which of the two searchers is more likely to give the correct information as to what happened after they met the three police officers? I suggest it would be Louise Holmes.
At the Inquiry this is the exchange between Mr Dingemans and Paul Chapman:
Q. Right. After you had seen that, where did you go next?
A. We retraced our steps back down to the main path and then walked back south along the path to where the car was parked.
Q. Did the police attend?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And did you help them when they had arrived?
A. Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police officers coming the other way that were from CID. We identified ourselves to them. They were not actually aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out searching this area. They I think had just come out on their own initiative to look at the area. I informed them we had found the body and they asked me to take them back to indicate where it was.
Q. So these were not the people you had arranged to meet, as it were?
A. No, because this was only 2 or 3 minutes after I had made the phone call.
Q. How did you know they were police officers?
A. Because they showed me their Thames Valley Police identification.
Q. Do you recall their names?
A. Only one of them was DC Coe.
Put yourself in the position of Louise Holmes or Paul Chapman on the evening of 1 September 2003: the next morning you are due to give evidence at the Hutton Inquiry. Even though the Inquiry isn't hearing anybody's evidence under oath you are conscientous and want to be correct in what you say. If it was me I would want to look at my police witness statement, the statement made on the very day of the event, to remind myself of what happened. I think it makes sense to examine that part of their revealed statements about meeting DC Coe and his companions and the events that immediately followed and then to see how well their oral evidence at the Inquiry compares.
A reminder of the relevant part of the statement by Louise Holmes:
Shortly afterwards we left the wooded area 'C' and returned to the track 'B' using the previous entry point into the wooded area. Nobody else was in sight and in order to meet up and show Police Officers where the body had been found, we walked south along the track 'B' towards Common Lane.
We met 3 Police Officers in plain clothes who identified themselves and we showed them our identity cards. We advised them that we had found a body in Harrowdown Hill 'C'. Paul then went with the 3 Police Officers to show them the location of the body and I returned to my vehicle parked in Common Lane at 'A'.
I think that her written statement could not be clearer. The searchers met the 3 plain clothes officers somewhere on the track, she states that she returned to her vehicle after meeting the police and it's clear that this meeting was somewhere on the length of the lane rather than at the parking area, or in the wood for that matter.
The fact that she didn't return to the body with Paul Chapman makes total sense to me:
(a) It only needed one searcher to show the police the body
(b) She would want to get Brock back to her vehicle and get him settled down
(c) The regular police had yet to arrive and it would make sense to be available to inform and direct them.
At the Inquiry her evidence was given to Mr Knox:
Q. And what did you then do?
A. We walked back towards the car. On the way to the car we met three police officers and Paul took them back to show them where the body was, and I went back to the car.
Q. Did you meet the police officers in the woods or after you got out of the woods?
A. No, on the track, just between the woods and the car.
Q. What did you tell the police officers?
A. They identified to us who they were. We said who we were and we were involved in the search and we had found the body, and they went with Paul to see.
Q. So in other words, Paul Chapman goes back with the police to show them where the body is?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went back to the car to sort the dog out and then when I got to the car further police officers and personnel came up to the car to take over, take over the scene.
Q. Did you then go back to the scene at all?
A. No.
An excellent match with her police witness statement and nothing to my mind at all controversial there. The phrase 'further police officers and personnel' is interesting when later comments by the ambulance crew are considered.
Now compare her witness statement with the one Paul Chapman made on the same day:
The time that we found the body was 09.15 hrs. I then tried to contact my manager but his phone was on answer machine so I called the police on 999. Once police arrived they then were shown where the body was and they took overall charge. I wish to further that I showed the body to DC2368 COE at 09.40 hrs.
No detail whatsoever about the process whereby Coe and his colleagues got involved. This from a man who works for a major insurance company where correct detailed replies to questions are essential. The question is: when looking at their respective witness statements which of the two searchers is more likely to give the correct information as to what happened after they met the three police officers? I suggest it would be Louise Holmes.
At the Inquiry this is the exchange between Mr Dingemans and Paul Chapman:
Q. Right. After you had seen that, where did you go next?
A. We retraced our steps back down to the main path and then walked back south along the path to where the car was parked.
Q. Did the police attend?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And did you help them when they had arrived?
A. Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police officers coming the other way that were from CID. We identified ourselves to them. They were not actually aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out searching this area. They I think had just come out on their own initiative to look at the area. I informed them we had found the body and they asked me to take them back to indicate where it was.
Q. So these were not the people you had arranged to meet, as it were?
A. No, because this was only 2 or 3 minutes after I had made the phone call.
Q. How did you know they were police officers?
A. Because they showed me their Thames Valley Police identification.
Q. Do you recall their names?
A. Only one of them was DC Coe.
Q. Did you show them the body?
A. Yes. We walked back up the hill with the three of them and then they decided as they got a bit closer to the edge of the wood that I needed only to take one of the officers in, so I took DC Coe in to show him where the body was.
Q. What were you wearing at the time?
A. I was wearing my standard search kit, walking boots, outdoor trousers, our uniform polo shirts.
Q. Did you need to give anything to the police?
A. All they did was take a copy of the soles of my boots.
Q. Right. After that, what happened?
A. Once we had shown them where the body was, we returned to the car. More police officers had arrived there. We waited around a while until we were released from the scene, where we went back with one of the police officers to Abingdon police station where we made our statements.
A. Yes. We walked back up the hill with the three of them and then they decided as they got a bit closer to the edge of the wood that I needed only to take one of the officers in, so I took DC Coe in to show him where the body was.
Q. What were you wearing at the time?
A. I was wearing my standard search kit, walking boots, outdoor trousers, our uniform polo shirts.
Q. Did you need to give anything to the police?
A. All they did was take a copy of the soles of my boots.
Q. Right. After that, what happened?
A. Once we had shown them where the body was, we returned to the car. More police officers had arrived there. We waited around a while until we were released from the scene, where we went back with one of the police officers to Abingdon police station where we made our statements.
I don't think he is using a royal "We" here, elsewhere the context confirms that "we" is he and Louise Holmes. Later it will be seen that he meets two police officers PC Franklin and PC Sawyer on the track after he had left DC Coe with the body ... but he is not reported as being with Ms Holmes at that time.
So why did he indicate that Louise Holmes went back with him to the body? It may not be totally satisfactory as an explanation but I can only think that Mr Chapman's memory let him down at this juncture. Looking at his witness statement wouldn't have helped remind him because the detailed sequence of events wasn't recorded.
In the next post another, questionable, version of events will be discussed.
Sunday 26 August 2012
DC Coe - speaking to Ruth Absalom
In the official narrative DC Coe is called out at six in the morning. At an unspecified time he is briefed at Abingdon Police Station and finds himself then making house to house enquiries in the area of the Kelly home. He is accompanied by DC Shields and a probationary police constable. Would two detective constables go to the same house? I don't know.
Anyway DC Coe tells us that they meet Ruth Absalom who informs them that she saw Dr Kelly the previous afternoon while out walking. The officers then go to the location where she spoke to him (the top of Harris's Lane according to her evidence) and from here they 'made a sort of search towards the river'. One would expect a much more precise description of where they went from a very experienced detective.
Norman Baker paints on odd scenario in his book. He had been in touch with DCI Young - promoted to Superintendent at the time when contacted by Mr Baker - and Mr Young had told him that he presumed DC Coe had received a call on his radio redirecting him towards the body. This assumption is totally negated by what Mr Coe had to say in his 2010 interview with Matt Sandy. It seems quite unbelievable to me that the Chief Investigating Officer wouldn't have found out the reason for DC Coe going towards Harrowdown Hill, to become the first police officer to see the body.
This from the Mail on Sunday for 8 August 2010:
DC Coe said: 'We headed towards the river. I just had a gut feeling that he might have gone that way. You know ... he goes missing overnight for no reason at all.
'You think to yourself, something ain't going to be right. You get a thought, what's the nearest thing? The river. We left our unmarked car in Longworth and walked up the bridle path to Harrowdown Hill'.
No indication from this that he was aware of the body.
DC Coe didn't note in his witness statement that he had spoken to Ms Absalom. Even if DC Shields had recorded the substance of this meeting in his own statement surely Coe would also have included it as it was to result in his further action that morning. Coe and Shields may not have taken a formal statement from Ms Absalom at that time - it was still a missing person investigation - but I would have thought that there would need to be proper recording of this interaction with her, beyond what they might have written in their notebooks.
If Dr Kelly had been found floating in the Thames then Coe's hunch would have been vindicated. But of course he wasn't. Dr Kelly by the way could have walked on another 600 yards from the wood and drowned himself laying down in a deserted stretch of the river ... so much easier than the way he was alleged to have committed suicide.
Why didn't Coe tell Hutton what Ms Absalom would have said about Dr Kelly's direction of travel after they had finished their conversation. Armed with this information surely the police wouldn't have aimed for the Thames, via the track to Harrowdown Hill. Would they?
Anyway DC Coe tells us that they meet Ruth Absalom who informs them that she saw Dr Kelly the previous afternoon while out walking. The officers then go to the location where she spoke to him (the top of Harris's Lane according to her evidence) and from here they 'made a sort of search towards the river'. One would expect a much more precise description of where they went from a very experienced detective.
Norman Baker paints on odd scenario in his book. He had been in touch with DCI Young - promoted to Superintendent at the time when contacted by Mr Baker - and Mr Young had told him that he presumed DC Coe had received a call on his radio redirecting him towards the body. This assumption is totally negated by what Mr Coe had to say in his 2010 interview with Matt Sandy. It seems quite unbelievable to me that the Chief Investigating Officer wouldn't have found out the reason for DC Coe going towards Harrowdown Hill, to become the first police officer to see the body.
This from the Mail on Sunday for 8 August 2010:
DC Coe said: 'We headed towards the river. I just had a gut feeling that he might have gone that way. You know ... he goes missing overnight for no reason at all.
'You think to yourself, something ain't going to be right. You get a thought, what's the nearest thing? The river. We left our unmarked car in Longworth and walked up the bridle path to Harrowdown Hill'.
No indication from this that he was aware of the body.
DC Coe didn't note in his witness statement that he had spoken to Ms Absalom. Even if DC Shields had recorded the substance of this meeting in his own statement surely Coe would also have included it as it was to result in his further action that morning. Coe and Shields may not have taken a formal statement from Ms Absalom at that time - it was still a missing person investigation - but I would have thought that there would need to be proper recording of this interaction with her, beyond what they might have written in their notebooks.
If Dr Kelly had been found floating in the Thames then Coe's hunch would have been vindicated. But of course he wasn't. Dr Kelly by the way could have walked on another 600 yards from the wood and drowned himself laying down in a deserted stretch of the river ... so much easier than the way he was alleged to have committed suicide.
Why didn't Coe tell Hutton what Ms Absalom would have said about Dr Kelly's direction of travel after they had finished their conversation. Armed with this information surely the police wouldn't have aimed for the Thames, via the track to Harrowdown Hill. Would they?
DC Coe - "The Third Man" (2)
In Annex TVP - 1 civil servant Kevin McGinty attempts to square the circle between DC Coe's failure to disclose the presence of the third man on 16 September 2003 and his subsequent admittance of that person being with him in an interview published on 8 August 2010, by which time Mr Coe had retired from the police force. http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%201.pdf
TVP - 1 includes extracts from the evidence given by the two searchers and by DC Coe both at the Inquiry and in their written police statements. I'm not going to repeat all that again as I think I have dealt with it fairly thoroughly already. It's Mr McGinty's explanation that I am going to focus on now. I shall record his commentary from the annex and append my own thoughts in blue.
Dc Coe was the first police officer on the scene. He provided a witness statement and gave oral evidence at the inquiry.
Concerns were raised following a Mail on Sunday article in which he stated that he had been accompanied by two officers when his evidence at the Inquiry was that he had only been with one other officer. Further doubt was cast on his account when the words of Paul Chapman and Louise Holmes, the two civilian search officers, were examined in detail and implied that Dc Coe and several other officers all went to the scene of the body. This is incorrect.
There now follows extracts from the written statements and oral evidence of DC Coe, Paul Chapman and Louise Holmes. Then:
Dc Coe was interviewed on 25th August 2010 in response to the Mail story.
He stated that on the 18th July 2003 he was on duty with Dc Colin Shields and a probationer attachment, Pc A. (Pc A has now left the Police and FOI requests for his identity have been refused under Sect. 40.)
They spoke to the witness Ruth Absalom who was the last person to see Dr. Kelly alive as he went on his walk. Having spoken to her they decided to head down towards the river in case he had gone that way.
This last sentence by McGinty doesn't explain why they elected to head down towards the river. Their interaction that morning with Ms Absalom will be the subject of another post from me.
As the officers went towards the river they came across the two civilian searchers (Paul Chapman & Louise Holmes) who had found the body and radioed for help. This was a chance occurrence. At this time they were at the foot of Harrowdown Hill, a considerable distance from the body location.
Dc Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving Dc Shields and Pc A and Louise Holmes behind. Dc Shields and Pc A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.
The whole question of where the searchers met the police officers and who went with Paul Chapman to see the body is a very important one to resolve and I will post separately on this. Suffice to say that I do NOT believe what Mr McGinty has written.
Once Paul Chapman had shown Dc Coe the body he returned to the bottom of the track where Dc Coe thinks that either Pc A or Dc Shields took the search team to the Police Station to make their statements. Dc Coe stayed with the body until the arrival of the ambulance team and other officers.
A FoI request response states that a report by Thames Valley Police was submitted to the Attorney General on 9 May 2011. It's authorship has not been disclosed but it was approved on behalf of the police force by ACC Helen Ball. The date of 9 May is exactly one month before the Attorney General stated that he wouldn't go forward to seek a new inquest. Previously unrevealed comments by DC Coe for instance would presumably have been recorded in this document. I would have thought that it would have been better to have actually checked who took the searchers to Abingdon rather than rely on what DC Coe thought. The Coe comment does of course distance his two companions from the body. The two searchers were still at Harrowdown Hill at 10.30 because ambulanceman Dave Bartlett says he checked Ms Holmes over to see if she was all right.
The inaccuracies were put to Dc Coe regarding the number of officers who were with him and said that this could not be right. He agreed and said that Pc A's presence had not come to his mind when he gave his oral evidence.
Experienced Detectives are often accompanied by trainees or others who are temporarily attached to them. It is perhaps not surprising that since Pc A did not attend the scene or play any major part in the events that morning his presence was forgotten by Dc Coe.
' Pc A did not attend the scene or play any major part in the events that morning'. But DC Shields didn't attend the scene either and there's no evidence of him playing any major part in the events that morning.
In a similar vein to the alleged moving of the body one must consider a common sense view with regard to this issue. What possible purpose would Dc Coe have in deliberately lying to the Hutton Inquiry about the presence of a third officer It is common ground that Dc Coe was the only police officer taken anywhere near the scene. Dc Coe's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry was factually incorrect but it would appear to have been a lapse in memory rather than an intention to mislead.
Mr McGinty's comparison with the alleged moving of the body is an unfortunate one for him as it will be demonstrated later that there is very solid evidence of the body being moved. It is not common ground that DC Coe was the only police officer taken anywhere near the scene as I shall be discussing.
TVP - 1 includes extracts from the evidence given by the two searchers and by DC Coe both at the Inquiry and in their written police statements. I'm not going to repeat all that again as I think I have dealt with it fairly thoroughly already. It's Mr McGinty's explanation that I am going to focus on now. I shall record his commentary from the annex and append my own thoughts in blue.
Dc Coe was the first police officer on the scene. He provided a witness statement and gave oral evidence at the inquiry.
Concerns were raised following a Mail on Sunday article in which he stated that he had been accompanied by two officers when his evidence at the Inquiry was that he had only been with one other officer. Further doubt was cast on his account when the words of Paul Chapman and Louise Holmes, the two civilian search officers, were examined in detail and implied that Dc Coe and several other officers all went to the scene of the body. This is incorrect.
There now follows extracts from the written statements and oral evidence of DC Coe, Paul Chapman and Louise Holmes. Then:
Dc Coe was interviewed on 25th August 2010 in response to the Mail story.
He stated that on the 18th July 2003 he was on duty with Dc Colin Shields and a probationer attachment, Pc A. (Pc A has now left the Police and FOI requests for his identity have been refused under Sect. 40.)
They spoke to the witness Ruth Absalom who was the last person to see Dr. Kelly alive as he went on his walk. Having spoken to her they decided to head down towards the river in case he had gone that way.
This last sentence by McGinty doesn't explain why they elected to head down towards the river. Their interaction that morning with Ms Absalom will be the subject of another post from me.
As the officers went towards the river they came across the two civilian searchers (Paul Chapman & Louise Holmes) who had found the body and radioed for help. This was a chance occurrence. At this time they were at the foot of Harrowdown Hill, a considerable distance from the body location.
Dc Coe went with Paul Chapman leaving Dc Shields and Pc A and Louise Holmes behind. Dc Shields and Pc A did not go to the scene at all and did not see the body.
The whole question of where the searchers met the police officers and who went with Paul Chapman to see the body is a very important one to resolve and I will post separately on this. Suffice to say that I do NOT believe what Mr McGinty has written.
Once Paul Chapman had shown Dc Coe the body he returned to the bottom of the track where Dc Coe thinks that either Pc A or Dc Shields took the search team to the Police Station to make their statements. Dc Coe stayed with the body until the arrival of the ambulance team and other officers.
A FoI request response states that a report by Thames Valley Police was submitted to the Attorney General on 9 May 2011. It's authorship has not been disclosed but it was approved on behalf of the police force by ACC Helen Ball. The date of 9 May is exactly one month before the Attorney General stated that he wouldn't go forward to seek a new inquest. Previously unrevealed comments by DC Coe for instance would presumably have been recorded in this document. I would have thought that it would have been better to have actually checked who took the searchers to Abingdon rather than rely on what DC Coe thought. The Coe comment does of course distance his two companions from the body. The two searchers were still at Harrowdown Hill at 10.30 because ambulanceman Dave Bartlett says he checked Ms Holmes over to see if she was all right.
The inaccuracies were put to Dc Coe regarding the number of officers who were with him and said that this could not be right. He agreed and said that Pc A's presence had not come to his mind when he gave his oral evidence.
Experienced Detectives are often accompanied by trainees or others who are temporarily attached to them. It is perhaps not surprising that since Pc A did not attend the scene or play any major part in the events that morning his presence was forgotten by Dc Coe.
' Pc A did not attend the scene or play any major part in the events that morning'. But DC Shields didn't attend the scene either and there's no evidence of him playing any major part in the events that morning.
In a similar vein to the alleged moving of the body one must consider a common sense view with regard to this issue. What possible purpose would Dc Coe have in deliberately lying to the Hutton Inquiry about the presence of a third officer It is common ground that Dc Coe was the only police officer taken anywhere near the scene. Dc Coe's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry was factually incorrect but it would appear to have been a lapse in memory rather than an intention to mislead.
Mr McGinty's comparison with the alleged moving of the body is an unfortunate one for him as it will be demonstrated later that there is very solid evidence of the body being moved. It is not common ground that DC Coe was the only police officer taken anywhere near the scene as I shall be discussing.
DC Coe - "The Third Man" (1)
DC Coe appeared at the Hutton Inquiry on 16 September whereas he had been scheduled to attend two weeks earlier. At two points in his evidence he indicated that he is was with just one other person on the morning of the 18th July and when he names DC Shields Mr Knox asks him whether it is just the two of them.
This is the relevant exchange:
Q. Where did you then go?
A. We spoke to a witness who lived more or less opposite, who had seen Dr Kelly on the afternoon, the Thursday afternoon, and myself and a colleague went to the area where she had last seen him and made a sort of search towards the river.
Q. And could you be more precise as to where this river is?
A. It is the River Thames. We decided -- from what we were told, since the previous afternoon Dr Kelly was missing we decided to try to find the shortest route to the River Thames.
LORD HUTTON: Do you remember the name of the person who had seen Dr Kelly?
A. Mrs Ruth Absalom, I believe, my Lord.
Q. So did you make a search of the River Thames in that area?
A. We did not get so far as the river.
Q. What happened before you got there?
A. On the route to Harrowdown Hill I met the two people from the volunteer search team, a female and Mr Chapman.
Q. And what did they say to you?
A. Mr Chapman told me that they had found a body in the woods.
Q. Who were you with at this time?
A. Detective Constable Shields.
Q. It is just the two of you?
A. Yes.
My last post made it clear that DC Coe hadn't referred to those accompanying him when he made his witness statement. Mr Knox with Coe's police statement in front of him should have realised it was more important than ever to obtain really detailed information from DC Coe to compensate for the marked shortfall in evidence in his statement. Both Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman were absolutely clear in their testimonies a fortnight earlier that there were three police officers.
DC Coe's contrary evidence and the total failure of the Inquiry to resolve the discrepancy was an anomaly that led to a lot of comment. We had to wait almost seven years to get an explanation and this came via Mr Coe's interview in the Mail on Sunday of 8 August 2010. http://www.pressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/entries-01011-00568.pdf
The article states:
He also confirms the much-disputed existence of a 'third man' with him and his partner DC Colin Shields that morning - a claim he dened at the Hutton Inquiry.
Critics who believe Dr Kelly was murdered have claimed the so-called 'third man' could have been a member of the security services. DC Coe now admits he existed and says he was a trainee officer. But he refuses to name him.
There is further elaboration in the article:
When questioned during the Inquiry, both Mr Chapman and Ms Holmes recalled running into three suited men on the path that morning.
However, when DC Coe was questioned by junior counsel Peter Knox, he insisted just he and his partner, DC Shields, were present.
The discrepancy has fuelled speculation that the mystery man may have been a member of the security services.
DC Coe is now willing to admit the existence of the third man but is unable to provide a plausible explanation for what he told Hutton. He says he does not remember giving that evidence.
He now claims the third man was a police constable who was still on his initial two-year probation period and had been seconded to the CID unit for a month as part of his training. But he refuses to name the officer and says he is no longer with the force.
This is the relevant exchange:
Q. Where did you then go?
A. We spoke to a witness who lived more or less opposite, who had seen Dr Kelly on the afternoon, the Thursday afternoon, and myself and a colleague went to the area where she had last seen him and made a sort of search towards the river.
Q. And could you be more precise as to where this river is?
A. It is the River Thames. We decided -- from what we were told, since the previous afternoon Dr Kelly was missing we decided to try to find the shortest route to the River Thames.
LORD HUTTON: Do you remember the name of the person who had seen Dr Kelly?
A. Mrs Ruth Absalom, I believe, my Lord.
Q. So did you make a search of the River Thames in that area?
A. We did not get so far as the river.
Q. What happened before you got there?
A. On the route to Harrowdown Hill I met the two people from the volunteer search team, a female and Mr Chapman.
Q. And what did they say to you?
A. Mr Chapman told me that they had found a body in the woods.
Q. Who were you with at this time?
A. Detective Constable Shields.
Q. It is just the two of you?
A. Yes.
My last post made it clear that DC Coe hadn't referred to those accompanying him when he made his witness statement. Mr Knox with Coe's police statement in front of him should have realised it was more important than ever to obtain really detailed information from DC Coe to compensate for the marked shortfall in evidence in his statement. Both Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman were absolutely clear in their testimonies a fortnight earlier that there were three police officers.
DC Coe's contrary evidence and the total failure of the Inquiry to resolve the discrepancy was an anomaly that led to a lot of comment. We had to wait almost seven years to get an explanation and this came via Mr Coe's interview in the Mail on Sunday of 8 August 2010. http://www.pressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/entries-01011-00568.pdf
The article states:
He also confirms the much-disputed existence of a 'third man' with him and his partner DC Colin Shields that morning - a claim he dened at the Hutton Inquiry.
Critics who believe Dr Kelly was murdered have claimed the so-called 'third man' could have been a member of the security services. DC Coe now admits he existed and says he was a trainee officer. But he refuses to name him.
There is further elaboration in the article:
When questioned during the Inquiry, both Mr Chapman and Ms Holmes recalled running into three suited men on the path that morning.
However, when DC Coe was questioned by junior counsel Peter Knox, he insisted just he and his partner, DC Shields, were present.
The discrepancy has fuelled speculation that the mystery man may have been a member of the security services.
DC Coe is now willing to admit the existence of the third man but is unable to provide a plausible explanation for what he told Hutton. He says he does not remember giving that evidence.
He now claims the third man was a police constable who was still on his initial two-year probation period and had been seconded to the CID unit for a month as part of his training. But he refuses to name the officer and says he is no longer with the force.
Saturday 25 August 2012
DC Coe - Police witness statement
Kevin McGinty from the Attorney General's Office is the author of six items on the AG's website that are titled Annex TVP 1, Annex TVP 2 and so on to Annex TVP 6. Logic might suggest that someone from Thames Valley Police would have been the author but a Freedom of Information request has revealed that it was this civil servant who scripted them. I have touched on some of these "annexes" in previous posts. Mr McGinty has called Annex TVP-1 "Evidence of Dc Coe" and it includes at least part of Coe's police witness statement.
The evident purpose of Annex TVP-1 is to provide an explanation of DC Coe's failure to remember that there was a third person with him when he met the searchers soon after they had discovered the body. The annex also attempts to distance DC Shields and the third man from the body itself with emphasis on the fact that it was only DC Coe who was shown the body by Paul Chapman.
In this post I want to concentrate on what DC Coe had to say in his witness statement with later posts on the third man and whether anybody else went with Coe to the body.
This is the text of at least part of DC Coe's witness statement, described by Mr McGinty as 'very short, not particularly descriptive but factually correct':
At 0940 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr. Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr. Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back. I could see that his left wrist had blood on it. Close to the wrist was a small knife similar to a pruning knife together with a wrist watch.
There was a small bottle with a label Evian thereon. The male was wearing striped shirt blue jeans that had a stain on the right knee Barbour type jacket. There was also a peaked cap close to this male person.
At 1007 am ambulance crew attended the scene where death was pronounced.
The whole of Annex TVP-1 can be read here http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%201.pdf
Thoughts
DC Coe's statement can well be described as absolutely minimalist ... as indeed was his evidence at the Inquiry. At the head of a witness form there is a warning to the effect that, if tendered in evidence, the witness shall be liable to prosecution if they have wilfully stated anything they know to be false or do not believe to be true.
With dodgy evidence what would you do as a police officer? I suggest that they would follow the dictum: "When in doubt - leave it out". I'm clear in my own mind that DC Coe's witness statement could have been, and should have been, very much more detailed than it was. As I have said before regarding the investigation into Dr Kelly's death what wasn't written or said is almost important as what was written and said. When important details are left out then the question to be asked is "Why?".
The evident purpose of Annex TVP-1 is to provide an explanation of DC Coe's failure to remember that there was a third person with him when he met the searchers soon after they had discovered the body. The annex also attempts to distance DC Shields and the third man from the body itself with emphasis on the fact that it was only DC Coe who was shown the body by Paul Chapman.
In this post I want to concentrate on what DC Coe had to say in his witness statement with later posts on the third man and whether anybody else went with Coe to the body.
This is the text of at least part of DC Coe's witness statement, described by Mr McGinty as 'very short, not particularly descriptive but factually correct':
At 0940 am on Friday 18th July 2003 together with a Mr. Paul Chapman a volunteer search person, I went to Harrow Down Hill, Longworth where a Mr. Chapman took me into a wooded area for about approximately 75 yards where I was shown the body of a male person who was lying on his back. I could see that his left wrist had blood on it. Close to the wrist was a small knife similar to a pruning knife together with a wrist watch.
There was a small bottle with a label Evian thereon. The male was wearing striped shirt blue jeans that had a stain on the right knee Barbour type jacket. There was also a peaked cap close to this male person.
At 1007 am ambulance crew attended the scene where death was pronounced.
The whole of Annex TVP-1 can be read here http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Annex%20TVP%201.pdf
Thoughts
- The fact that the date was quoted in the first line is indicative of the fact that none of DC Coe's actions that day prior to 9.40 were included in his statement.
- He makes no reference at all to the other personnel who had been with him earlier.
- Was the 'about approximately 75 yards' an eyeball measurement or did he stride it out from the track?
- He notes the blood on the left wrist and a stain on the right knee of the jeans. This matches what the ambulance team had to say although Vanessa Hunt had also recorded her sighting of blood on the nettles.
- The fact that it was an "Evian" bottle is noted but he fails to check whether any liquid was in it. The top was only a few inches from the bottle and it's surprising that Coe didn't pick up on that fact nor, of course, was he asked about it at the Inquiry.
- At the Inquiry he's not sure whether the cap was on or off the head but thinks it was off. Why didn't he check his note book?
- He makes no reference in his statement to Dr Kelly's footwear.
- No mention is made of any vomit on the face or nearby.
- Very significantly the statement makes no reference at all to the tree.
DC Coe's statement can well be described as absolutely minimalist ... as indeed was his evidence at the Inquiry. At the head of a witness form there is a warning to the effect that, if tendered in evidence, the witness shall be liable to prosecution if they have wilfully stated anything they know to be false or do not believe to be true.
With dodgy evidence what would you do as a police officer? I suggest that they would follow the dictum: "When in doubt - leave it out". I'm clear in my own mind that DC Coe's witness statement could have been, and should have been, very much more detailed than it was. As I have said before regarding the investigation into Dr Kelly's death what wasn't written or said is almost important as what was written and said. When important details are left out then the question to be asked is "Why?".
Friday 24 August 2012
DC Coe - more on his visit to the Kelly home
My last post about DC Coe attending an attachment at the Kelly home on the 19th was very brief. Essentially Mr Knox asked Coe one question about it and the latter gave the shortest response possible. It might be thought that no more detail was available on this particular aspect of the police investigation but thanks to Mr Coe himself we now know a lot more .....
The Mail on Sunday of 8 August 2010 ran an extremely interesting article by Matt Sandy based on an interview of Mr Coe who had by that time retired. Primarily it was seen as an admittance by Coe of there being a third man with him when he was met by the volunteer searchers and this is something I will look at in depth later. Fortunately there was a lot more in the article than Coe's forgetfullness about the "third man" - it's his additional revelations about his visit to the Kelly home and his subsequent actions that is the focus of this post.
To see the Matt Sandy article in its entirety click here http://www.pressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/entries-01011-00568.pdf
This is from Mr Sandy's article:
At the Inquiry ACC Page, responding to Mr Dingemans, said:
The Mail on Sunday of 8 August 2010 ran an extremely interesting article by Matt Sandy based on an interview of Mr Coe who had by that time retired. Primarily it was seen as an admittance by Coe of there being a third man with him when he was met by the volunteer searchers and this is something I will look at in depth later. Fortunately there was a lot more in the article than Coe's forgetfullness about the "third man" - it's his additional revelations about his visit to the Kelly home and his subsequent actions that is the focus of this post.
To see the Matt Sandy article in its entirety click here http://www.pressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/entries-01011-00568.pdf
This is from Mr Sandy's article:
The next day, he was ordered to go to
Dr Kelly’s home to act as an
‘exhibits officer’ in a thorough search.
Intriguingly, he believes the brief was
to look for any papers that ‘could be
of a sensitive nature’ about Iraq or
other national security concerns, not for
anything that might
relate
directly to his death.
He said:
‘We were looking for documents relating
to Iraq. No one knew whether he
kept any papers of a sensitive nature at
home. We had to search. If
someone writes a suicide note,
you’ll find it. We were looking for
politically sensitive documents.’
The search
team took ‘several boxes’ of
files back to the police station,
where DC Coe spent three days
examining them with an officer
from Thames Valley Special Branch. He
said the documents were about
‘all sorts of things’ but will not
disclose if anything sensitive was found.
He also said there were
drawings but, asked if they were
technical drawings, said only
they
‘weren’t artistic’.
His
involvement was touched on only
briefly at the Hutton Inquiry. He said he
went to the house to act as an
exhibits officer but was asked for no
further details. The inquiry
was
apparently satisfied with the evidence
of Assistant Chief Constable Michael
Page and PC Sawyer, who said
the house was searched and
unspecified ‘documents’ were taken
away.
A contradiction here: at the Inquiry DC Coe said he oversaw an exhibits officer whereas he is telling Matt Sandy that he himself was the "exhibits officer". With that untruth it's perhaps not unsurprising for him to have said to Mr Knox 'I made no search whatsoever'.
At the Inquiry ACC Page, responding to Mr Dingemans, said:
A. The house was subject to a full search by search
trained officers and by members of Thames Valley Special Branch. Their
presence I felt necessary again because of Dr Kelly's background. Should we
come across any documents of a secret nature, those officers are
cleared to handle those documents. That is why they were there.
Q.
You are not cleared to handle those sort of documents?
A. Not at present, I have been in the past.
A. Not at present, I have been in the past.
It looks then as if DC Coe had a higher security clearance than ACC Page at that time!
Detailed and honest evidence of DC Coe's responsibilities and actions as outlined in the press article should have been revealed at the Inquiry. They weren't.
Thursday 23 August 2012
DC Coe - the next day
A very short post because there was so little said by Coe about his actions on the following day - Saturday 19th.
Q. What about on the following day? We know the following morning there was a search made of Dr Kelly's premises. Were you at all involved in that?
A. Yes, I was. I went to the premises and at that time I had an attachment with me who acted as an exhibits officer at the house and I oversaw what he did. I made no search whatsoever of the premise.
Q. And is there anything else you would like to say about the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly?
A. Nothing whatsoever.
The use of the word "whatsoever" - twice - rings alarm bells with me. He is almost challenging Mr Knox not to ask further questions. In my opinion it's not natural for a police officer to use such phraseology.
Following form Mr Knox fails to ask DC Coe what time he started and what time he finished overseeing the attachment at the Kelly home.
Q. What about on the following day? We know the following morning there was a search made of Dr Kelly's premises. Were you at all involved in that?
A. Yes, I was. I went to the premises and at that time I had an attachment with me who acted as an exhibits officer at the house and I oversaw what he did. I made no search whatsoever of the premise.
Q. And is there anything else you would like to say about the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly?
A. Nothing whatsoever.
The use of the word "whatsoever" - twice - rings alarm bells with me. He is almost challenging Mr Knox not to ask further questions. In my opinion it's not natural for a police officer to use such phraseology.
Following form Mr Knox fails to ask DC Coe what time he started and what time he finished overseeing the attachment at the Kelly home.
DC Coe - at the scene
At the end of my last post Coe had recorded the fact that he (and DC Shields) had met the searchers. This is the next part of his testimony:
Q. What did you then do, once you had met Mr Chapman?
A. I went with Mr Chapman to Harrowdown Hill to the woods where approximately 75 yards into the set of woods he showed me a body.
Q. And how was the body positioned?
A. It was laying on its back -- the body was laying on its back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the tree.
Q. Did you notice anything about the body?
A. I did.
Q. What did you notice?
A. I noticed that there was blood round the left wrist. I saw a knife, like a pruning knife, and a watch.
Q. And was the body lying on its front or on its back?
A. On its back.
Q. Where was the watch?
A. If I remember rightly, just on top of the knife.
Q. What did you then do, once you had met Mr Chapman?
A. I went with Mr Chapman to Harrowdown Hill to the woods where approximately 75 yards into the set of woods he showed me a body.
Q. And how was the body positioned?
A. It was laying on its back -- the body was laying on its back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the tree.
Q. Did you notice anything about the body?
A. I did.
Q. What did you notice?
A. I noticed that there was blood round the left wrist. I saw a knife, like a pruning knife, and a watch.
Q. And was the body lying on its front or on its back?
A. On its back.
Q. Where was the watch?
A. If I remember rightly, just on top of the knife.
Q. And where was the knife?
A. Near to the left wrist, left side of the body.
For my thoughts about the watch being on top of the knife see here: http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/watch-just-on-top-of-knife.html
Q. Did you see a bottle?
A. I did, a water -- a small water bottle. I think that was the left-hand side of the body as well, towards the top left-hand shoulder.
Q. Was there any water in the bottle?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Did this person have any clothes on?
A. He did. He was fully dressed.
Q. Could you be more particular as to what the clothes you saw were?
Q. Was there any water in the bottle?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Did this person have any clothes on?
A. He did. He was fully dressed.
Q. Could you be more particular as to what the clothes you saw were?
A. He was wearing a Barbour jacket. There was a cap, a pair of trousers and think walking boots, but I cannot be certain on that.
Q. Was the cap on the head or was the cap apart from the body?
A. That I cannot remember -- I have a feeling the cap was off, but I cannot be sure.
Q. Did you notice if there were any stains on the clothes?
A. I saw blood around the left wrist area.
The only blood Coe talks of is around the left wrist. He sees the watch 'just on top of the knife' but fails to mention any blood on the watch, blood on the knife or a pool of blood under the knife.
Q. Anywhere else? How close an examination did you yourself make?
A. Just standing upright, I did not go over the body. I made a thing -- I observed the scene.
Q. How far away from the body did you actually go?
A. 7 or 8 feet.
Q. How long did you spend at the scene?
A. Until other officers came to tape off the area. I would think somewhere in the region of about 25 or 30 minutes.
Q. Did anyone then arrive after that time?
A. Yes, two other police officers arrived, I took them to where the body was laying and then they made a taped off area, what we call a common approach path for everybody to attend along this one path.
Q. Did any ambulance people arrive?
A. They did, yes.
Q. Can you remember what time they arrived?
A. I can, if I use my pocket book. Can I?
A. Yes, two other police officers arrived, I took them to where the body was laying and then they made a taped off area, what we call a common approach path for everybody to attend along this one path.
Q. Did any ambulance people arrive?
A. They did, yes.
Q. Can you remember what time they arrived?
A. I can, if I use my pocket book. Can I?
Q. Of course.
A. I have 10.07 here.
Q. 10.07 being the time at which the ambulance arrived?
A. Pronounced death, but they might have arrived just prior to that.
Q. 10.07 being the time at which the ambulance arrived?
A. Pronounced death, but they might have arrived just prior to that.
Yes I believe that logic would suggest that they did arrive just prior to pronouncing death, certainly not after.
Q. It is they who pronounced death; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. After the ambulance crew arrived, did you do anything on the scene?
A. No, I left and left the other officers there, and I left the actual area of the scene.
Q. Did you have any further involvement in the search of the scene that day?
A. Yes.
Q. After the ambulance crew arrived, did you do anything on the scene?
A. No, I left and left the other officers there, and I left the actual area of the scene.
Q. Did you have any further involvement in the search of the scene that day?
A. I did not.
I'll be coming back to the above testimony no doubt in the light of other evidence.
DC Coe - heading for the river
The official narrative describes DC Coe as being the third person to see the body following its finding by the two volunteer searchers and their dog Brock. DC Coe was scheduled to appear at the Inquiry on 2 September, the same day as three other police officers had their say. This is what Mr Dingemans tells Hutton at 12.05 pm:
My Lord, Detective Coe, we have not been able to get him here this morning. That, in fact, would then complete this morning's witnesses. We have finished now, I am sorry it is a wee bit early.
No explanation is offered as to why they weren't 'able to get him'. A time slot became available on the afternoon of the following day and one would have thought that Coe could have attended then. However ACC Page arranged instead for the forensic scientist Roy Green to make his appearance at short notice, even though Mr Green's tests weren't complete and he had yet to submit a report.
We had to wait for another couple of weeks, when Part Two of the Inquiry was underway, to hear what DC Coe had to say:
My Lord, Detective Coe, we have not been able to get him here this morning. That, in fact, would then complete this morning's witnesses. We have finished now, I am sorry it is a wee bit early.
No explanation is offered as to why they weren't 'able to get him'. A time slot became available on the afternoon of the following day and one would have thought that Coe could have attended then. However ACC Page arranged instead for the forensic scientist Roy Green to make his appearance at short notice, even though Mr Green's tests weren't complete and he had yet to submit a report.
We had to wait for another couple of weeks, when Part Two of the Inquiry was underway, to hear what DC Coe had to say:
Tuesday, 16th September 2003
(10.30 am)
LORD HUTTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Yes, Mr Knox.
MR KNOX: My Lord, the next witness is Graham Coe.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Come and take a seat please.
DETECTIVE CONSTABLE GRAHAM PETER COE (called)
Examined by MR KNOX
Mr Coe, could you tell the Inquiry your full name?
(10.30 am)
LORD HUTTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Yes, Mr Knox.
MR KNOX: My Lord, the next witness is Graham Coe.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Come and take a seat please.
DETECTIVE CONSTABLE GRAHAM PETER COE (called)
Examined by MR KNOX
Mr Coe, could you tell the Inquiry your full name?
A. It is Graham Peter Coe.
Q. Your occupation?
A. I am a police officer.
Q. At which station are you stationed?
A. I am stationed at Wantage in Thames Valley.
There has been some speculation about the role of DC Coe at the time, it being suggested that he was a member of "Special Branch". Certainly I'm surprised that Knox tells Hutton that the next witness is Graham Coe rather than Detective Constable Coe. Coe himself merely described himself as a police officer without disclosing his rank, again odd. Knox should have asked him to disclose his position in Thames Valley Police - he didn't even say that he was a member of that force.
Q. On Tuesday 18th July in the early morning were you on duty?
A. I was called out at 6 in the morning.
Q. Where did you go?
A. I went over to Longworth.
Q. Longworth police station?
A. Abingdon police station. I went out to the Longworth area.
Q. When you got to the police station, what were you asked to do?
A. Go and make some house to house inquiries in the area where Dr Kelly lived.
This questioning needed to be far more detailed. For instance we don't know when Coe arrived at Abingdon to be briefed, we don't know who briefed him, we don't know if a number of other officers were similarly carrying out house to house enquiries.
Q. Where did you then go?
A. We spoke to a witness who lived more or less opposite, who had seen Dr Kelly on the afternoon, the Thursday afternoon, and myself and a colleague went to the area where she had last seen him and made a sort of search towards the river.
Q. And could you be more precise as to where this river is?
A. It is the River Thames. We decided -- from what we were told, since the previous afternoon Dr Kelly was missing we decided to try to find the shortest route to the River Thames.
A. We spoke to a witness who lived more or less opposite, who had seen Dr Kelly on the afternoon, the Thursday afternoon, and myself and a colleague went to the area where she had last seen him and made a sort of search towards the river.
Q. And could you be more precise as to where this river is?
A. It is the River Thames. We decided -- from what we were told, since the previous afternoon Dr Kelly was missing we decided to try to find the shortest route to the River Thames.
LORD HUTTON: Do you remember the name of the person who had seen Dr Kelly?
A. Mrs Ruth Absalom, I believe, my Lord.
This is the first of two occasions when DC Coe indicated he had only one companion. He failed to explain why he thought it was a good idea to search towards the river and we don't know whether he spoke to a senior officer at that stage. Whether Mr Knox would have tackled him about his decision isn't known because of the timely interjection by Hutton that revealed that Coe had been informed by Ruth Absalom. If Hutton hadn't asked his question then it might have been difficult for Mr Knox not to enquire about why DC Coe decided to head for the river, the answer to that could have been interesting.
In his book Norman Baker ascertained that the then home of Mrs Absalom was about 100 yards away from that of the Kellys. The loose description 'more or less opposite' doesn't fit the reality at all well.
Q. So did you make a search of the River Thames in that area?
A. We did not get so far as the river.
Q. What happened before you got there?
A. On the route to Harrowdown Hill I met the two people from the volunteer search team, a female and Mr Chapman.
Q. And what did they say to you?
A. Mr Chapman told me that they had found a body in the woods.
Q. Who were you with at this time?
A. Detective Constable Shields.
Q. It is just the two of you?
A. Yes.
A. Detective Constable Shields.
Q. It is just the two of you?
A. Yes.
The second time in his evidence when we are led to believe he had only one other officer with him. This is the only time Detective Constable Shields is mentioned by name at the Inquiry. A later post will have to deal with the presence of a third man with DC Coe and DC Shields.
Update
I was relying on Mr Baker's description about the location of Mrs Absalom's bungalow in relation to that of Dr Kelly's home. From the comments it can be seen that he was in error. Therefore it needs to be made clear that DC Coe's description of where Mrs Absalom lived was accurate.
Update
I was relying on Mr Baker's description about the location of Mrs Absalom's bungalow in relation to that of Dr Kelly's home. From the comments it can be seen that he was in error. Therefore it needs to be made clear that DC Coe's description of where Mrs Absalom lived was accurate.
Links to images of Harrowdown Hill
This is a website that is not only excellent in its own right but some of its photographs illustrate Harrowdown Hill and the surrounding area http://www.geograph.org.uk/
As you can see it's a project to collect geographically representative photographs and information for every square kilometre of Great Britain and Ireland.
(I'm aware of readers of this blog from many countries other than the UK. It's possible that maps of your own nations work on different principles to those used by the Ordnance Survey in this country. Here the maps contain light blue horizontal and vertical lines which are one kilometre apart. Hence the logic of taking photographs in each of these identifiable squares and being able to reference the locations of the resulting images)
Rather than actually displaying the images here I'll provide the relevant links. One of the useful features is that the date of each photograph is given thus allowing some sort of assessment of the amount of vegetation that would be present in July - a time of near maximum growth.
Luckily there are a number of images that give us a good idea of the appearance of the route taken by the volunteer searchers once they had left their car.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1439325
This is part way along the unmade track to Harrowdown Hill that the searchers would have walked up with Brock. The photo was taken in August 2009 with the ground looking fairly hard, I would imagine in winter it could be quite muddy.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/458868
Taken a couple of months after Dr Kelly's death it shows the track still well defined but with somewhat different vegetation either side
Dr Kelly's body was found well into the northern part of the wood on Harrowdown Hill and these next two images appear to be further south although within the wood. I am placing them here because I think that they may be within that part of the wood looked at by the searchers before they went on down to the River Thames.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1439345
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1439340
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1464058
The searchers would have arrived at the river by the path that enters the photograph centre right. Much of that riverbank vegetation is Himalayan Balsam I think and would be at its maximum at the time that the picture was taken. Even in mid July it would be reasonably dense I would have thought.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2425409
This close up of the signpost was taken in May
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1464036
Another August shot, this time of two different sorts of craft on the river.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/910138
The "boat people" were moored close to this spot.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2425422
The wood on Harrowdown Hill is on the skyline. The right of way between the Hill and the Thames is a field path rather than the enclosed lane that was seen in the first two images.
There are more images of the area on the Geograph site if anyone wishes to explore further. hopefully though the links I've given will give a much clearer idea of the locality.
As you can see it's a project to collect geographically representative photographs and information for every square kilometre of Great Britain and Ireland.
(I'm aware of readers of this blog from many countries other than the UK. It's possible that maps of your own nations work on different principles to those used by the Ordnance Survey in this country. Here the maps contain light blue horizontal and vertical lines which are one kilometre apart. Hence the logic of taking photographs in each of these identifiable squares and being able to reference the locations of the resulting images)
Rather than actually displaying the images here I'll provide the relevant links. One of the useful features is that the date of each photograph is given thus allowing some sort of assessment of the amount of vegetation that would be present in July - a time of near maximum growth.
Luckily there are a number of images that give us a good idea of the appearance of the route taken by the volunteer searchers once they had left their car.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1439325
This is part way along the unmade track to Harrowdown Hill that the searchers would have walked up with Brock. The photo was taken in August 2009 with the ground looking fairly hard, I would imagine in winter it could be quite muddy.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/458868
Taken a couple of months after Dr Kelly's death it shows the track still well defined but with somewhat different vegetation either side
Dr Kelly's body was found well into the northern part of the wood on Harrowdown Hill and these next two images appear to be further south although within the wood. I am placing them here because I think that they may be within that part of the wood looked at by the searchers before they went on down to the River Thames.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1439345
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1439340
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1464058
The searchers would have arrived at the river by the path that enters the photograph centre right. Much of that riverbank vegetation is Himalayan Balsam I think and would be at its maximum at the time that the picture was taken. Even in mid July it would be reasonably dense I would have thought.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2425409
This close up of the signpost was taken in May
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1464036
Another August shot, this time of two different sorts of craft on the river.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/910138
The "boat people" were moored close to this spot.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2425422
The wood on Harrowdown Hill is on the skyline. The right of way between the Hill and the Thames is a field path rather than the enclosed lane that was seen in the first two images.
There are more images of the area on the Geograph site if anyone wishes to explore further. hopefully though the links I've given will give a much clearer idea of the locality.
Monday 20 August 2012
The "Boat People" (2)
As the crow flies the "boat people" were some 600 yards from the spot in the wood where David Kelly's body was found. My information is that Thameside Farm to the west wasn't occupied and this would mean that if the boat people had spent the night moored where Brock found them then they would have been the closest known people to the dead body.
Even if the police, who the boat people had seen at some point previously, had failed to spot the boat then the statements from Holmes and Chapman on the 18th would have informed them. Surely then the police would pull out the stops to find the boat people, they couldn't have travelled far. The police provided no evidence whatsoever that they tried to find these potential witnesses.
The very day after Mr Dingemans has heard from Paul Chapman he is examining ACC Page at the latter's first visit to the Inquiry. Now Dingemans is a sharp operator and it seems unthinkable to me that he didn't raise the question of the boat people with Page especially after it was revealed that some police had been seen on the riverbank early that morning. What did Dingemans say on the subject? Nothing whatsoever. Perhaps Hutton intervened. He didn't.
If it wasn't for the testimonies of the two searchers we would be blissfully unaware about the people moored on the Thames. Most people I suppose would assume that the boat people were innocent parties to the drama of Dr Kelly's death. But were they?
One Dr Kelly investigator has pointed out that there is a track running down to a field that is on the north bank of the Thames at this point. It's possible the reasoning goes for Dr Kelly to have been transported down this quite straight track in a four wheel drive vehicle and the boat used to ferry him across and then for him to be carried up from the other side of the river into the wood.
Fantasy? Well I see it at a minimum as a viable scenario. If Dr Kelly was murdered by agents of this or another country then there would be no shortage of resources. Perhaps the key point for me is the seeming lack of interest by Thames Valley Police in the boat people. Moreover we see the Inquiry totally ignoring the subject once the searchers had been examined and made their revelation. I don't believe that this is credible if there is no cover up.
Even if the police, who the boat people had seen at some point previously, had failed to spot the boat then the statements from Holmes and Chapman on the 18th would have informed them. Surely then the police would pull out the stops to find the boat people, they couldn't have travelled far. The police provided no evidence whatsoever that they tried to find these potential witnesses.
The very day after Mr Dingemans has heard from Paul Chapman he is examining ACC Page at the latter's first visit to the Inquiry. Now Dingemans is a sharp operator and it seems unthinkable to me that he didn't raise the question of the boat people with Page especially after it was revealed that some police had been seen on the riverbank early that morning. What did Dingemans say on the subject? Nothing whatsoever. Perhaps Hutton intervened. He didn't.
If it wasn't for the testimonies of the two searchers we would be blissfully unaware about the people moored on the Thames. Most people I suppose would assume that the boat people were innocent parties to the drama of Dr Kelly's death. But were they?
One Dr Kelly investigator has pointed out that there is a track running down to a field that is on the north bank of the Thames at this point. It's possible the reasoning goes for Dr Kelly to have been transported down this quite straight track in a four wheel drive vehicle and the boat used to ferry him across and then for him to be carried up from the other side of the river into the wood.
Fantasy? Well I see it at a minimum as a viable scenario. If Dr Kelly was murdered by agents of this or another country then there would be no shortage of resources. Perhaps the key point for me is the seeming lack of interest by Thames Valley Police in the boat people. Moreover we see the Inquiry totally ignoring the subject once the searchers had been examined and made their revelation. I don't believe that this is credible if there is no cover up.
The "Boat People" (1)
In my posts on the evidence of the two voluntary searchers, Ms Holmes and Mr Chapman, I included the parts that covered their interactions with some people on a boat moored on the River Thames. Before searching the northern sector of the wood they decided to complete that part of the search that took them down the path to the river and it was here that Brock "sniffed out" the occupants of the boat.
This is what each searcher had to say:
Louise Holmes
This is what each searcher had to say:
Louise Holmes
Q. Did you at any point go along the River Thames?
A. We went up to where we -- where our boundary of our search area was on the Thames and spoke to some people there who were just moored on a boat on the Thames.
Q. What did you say to them?
A. Well, Brock had found them because he obviously is just trained to pick up on human scent, so he went off and indicated on them and so I had a game with him as a reward. They just said: what are you doing? We said we were assisting the police in the search for a missing male person and if they saw anything to contact the police.
Q. Did they say they already had seen anything?
A. They said they had seen the helicopter up the previous night but they had not seen anybody or anything other than that.
A. We went up to where we -- where our boundary of our search area was on the Thames and spoke to some people there who were just moored on a boat on the Thames.
Q. What did you say to them?
A. Well, Brock had found them because he obviously is just trained to pick up on human scent, so he went off and indicated on them and so I had a game with him as a reward. They just said: what are you doing? We said we were assisting the police in the search for a missing male person and if they saw anything to contact the police.
Q. Did they say they already had seen anything?
A. They said they had seen the helicopter up the previous night but they had not seen anybody or anything other than that.
Paul Chapman
Q. Having searched the southern area of the wood, what did you do then?
A. We returned to the main path, consulted with each other, looked at the map and decided we would do the rest of the pathway down to the river and get that eliminated, and then come back and do the rest of the wood.
Q. Did you do the rest of the pathway down to the river?
A. Yes, we walked all the way down the pathway, which came out to a gate just by the River Thames.
Q. Did you see anyone on that search?
A. Not until we reached the river and we met the people on the boat.
Q. How many people were on the boat?
A. Either three or four, I cannot remember.
Q. Did you speak to them?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. What did you say to them?
A. They enquired what we were doing. We explained a search team assisting the police, looking for a missing person, and gave them a rough description of his age and said if they saw anything could they contact the police.
Q. Had they seen anything?
A. They had heard the helicopter and seen some police officers at some point previously.
Q. Right. What, police officers on an earlier part of the search?
A. Yes.
Q. But they had not seen Dr Kelly at all?
A. No.
Q. After you had gone down to the river, spoken to them, where do you go next?
A. We retraced our steps back up the pathway until we reached the wood, came off the pathway and did the northern perimeter of the wood until we came to the other side of the barbed wire fence.
The information given by Louise Holmes was innocuous enough. Bearing in mind the close parallel between her written and oral evidence previously highlighted I suspect that what she said to Mr Knox about the "boat people" closely mirrored what was in her police witness statement. Her recollection was that they only mentioned the helicopter.
Now to Paul Chapman. He supplied the additional information that the people on the boat had seen 'some police officers at some point previously'. My approximate estimation of the time of the conversation is 08.45 so that the sighting of the police was prior to that. My hypothesis is that the early presence of police on the riverbank is something that they (the police) didn't want revealed. I can't be sure of course but I suspect that any intended comment by Mr Chapman about this subject in his witness statement was carefully smoothed away ... in the same way that we didn't see him record the fact that DC Coe was with two other officers.
When Mr Dingemans took Paul Chapman through that part of his evidence I don't think he expected any nasty surprises. The sudden mention of police officers seen at some point previously seems to have caught Dingemans momentarily off balance. Recovering quickly he moves away from that subject.
How come Ms Holmes didn't mention the sighting of the police officers? She had displayed a lot of thoroughness. The reason I suspect was simple. Her preoccupation would have been with her dog Brock, she even said that she had a game with him as a reward for finding the boat people. Therefore I don't think we should be surprised if some comment from the boat had passed her by.
A. We returned to the main path, consulted with each other, looked at the map and decided we would do the rest of the pathway down to the river and get that eliminated, and then come back and do the rest of the wood.
Q. Did you do the rest of the pathway down to the river?
A. Yes, we walked all the way down the pathway, which came out to a gate just by the River Thames.
Q. Did you see anyone on that search?
A. Not until we reached the river and we met the people on the boat.
Q. How many people were on the boat?
A. Either three or four, I cannot remember.
Q. Did you speak to them?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. What did you say to them?
A. They enquired what we were doing. We explained a search team assisting the police, looking for a missing person, and gave them a rough description of his age and said if they saw anything could they contact the police.
Q. Had they seen anything?
A. They had heard the helicopter and seen some police officers at some point previously.
Q. Right. What, police officers on an earlier part of the search?
A. Yes.
Q. But they had not seen Dr Kelly at all?
A. No.
Q. After you had gone down to the river, spoken to them, where do you go next?
A. We retraced our steps back up the pathway until we reached the wood, came off the pathway and did the northern perimeter of the wood until we came to the other side of the barbed wire fence.
The information given by Louise Holmes was innocuous enough. Bearing in mind the close parallel between her written and oral evidence previously highlighted I suspect that what she said to Mr Knox about the "boat people" closely mirrored what was in her police witness statement. Her recollection was that they only mentioned the helicopter.
Now to Paul Chapman. He supplied the additional information that the people on the boat had seen 'some police officers at some point previously'. My approximate estimation of the time of the conversation is 08.45 so that the sighting of the police was prior to that. My hypothesis is that the early presence of police on the riverbank is something that they (the police) didn't want revealed. I can't be sure of course but I suspect that any intended comment by Mr Chapman about this subject in his witness statement was carefully smoothed away ... in the same way that we didn't see him record the fact that DC Coe was with two other officers.
When Mr Dingemans took Paul Chapman through that part of his evidence I don't think he expected any nasty surprises. The sudden mention of police officers seen at some point previously seems to have caught Dingemans momentarily off balance. Recovering quickly he moves away from that subject.
How come Ms Holmes didn't mention the sighting of the police officers? She had displayed a lot of thoroughness. The reason I suspect was simple. Her preoccupation would have been with her dog Brock, she even said that she had a game with him as a reward for finding the boat people. Therefore I don't think we should be surprised if some comment from the boat had passed her by.
Sunday 19 August 2012
Paul Chapman - police witness statement
In Annex TVP 1 on the Attorney General's website we have this extract from Paul Chapman's witness statement:
After a couple of minutes the dog indicated a find by returning to the owner/handler. Lou the dog's handler followed the dog. Lou said "Oh he's found something".
I continued to walk up the hill until I saw a body from about 15 metres. It was the body of a male wearing a light coloured shirt and dark jacket. He was lying on his back with his feet towards me with blood covering his left arm. He was flat on the ground.
He was found about 30 meters into the centre of the wood. I did not see any further details as I was to far away.
The time that we found the body was 09.15 hrs. I then tried to contact my manager but his phone was on answer machine so I called the police on 999. Once police arrived they then were shown where the body was and they took overall charge. I wish to further that I showed the body to DC2368 COE at 09.40 hrs.
Thoughts
It needs to be appreciated that in making a police witness statement it is a police officer who is writing down what you are saying. Occasionally they will "assist" by suggesting slightly different phrasing and I think that most people would think "that's fine, he knows what he's doing, no doubt what he has written sounds better". Looking at the last two sentences of the extract from the witness statement I would strongly suggest that these aren't the exact words used by the man from the Pru!
Compare this with the witness statement of Louise Holmes:
We met 3 Police Officers in plain clothes who identified themselves and we showed them our identity cards. We advised them that we had found a body in Harrowdown Hill 'C'. Paul then went with the 3 Police Officers to show them the location of the body and I returned to my vehicle parked in Common Lane at 'A'.
This is precise detail with all activities in chronological order. Why couldn't Mr Chapman do something similar? Any deliberate lies in a witness statement can lead to the person concerned being prosecuted - it's almost like committing perjury after taking the oath. If there is witness information the police really don't want people to know then one answer is to so blur that part of the statement that the critical detail doesn't show.
Paul Chapman goes with DC Coe to show the latter the body. How close to the body does he get on this second visit? Does he see something that the police are desperate to keep hidden? It isn't only the blurring of his witness statement it's the fact that he isn't examined in detail about this matter at the Inquiry.
Are we really expected to believe that he would have noted and quoted the number of a plain clothes detective? Who would particularly know that number? DC Coe might! We now know that Mr Coe stayed at Harrowdown Hill for a lot longer than we were originally led to believe. Did they have to wait for DC Coe to arrive back at Abingdon to get the story right? Did DC Coe take Mr Chapman's statement, or at least sit in on it?
In his interview with Mr Coe for the Mail on Sunday on 8 August 2010 Matt Sandy says of Mr Coe: 'Since retirement, he assists detectives carrying out interviews with suspects at his local station' I wonder how long he has been honing that skill.
The statement about the body being flat on the ground is something to talk about when the whole question of the body being moved is looked at in detail.
Update
I should have made the point in the above argument that one driving reason for the police to ensure that Mr Chapman's statement was lacking in detail is the fact that DC Coe was accompanied by two officers rather than just one. Coe misreports the fact he was with a third man not once but twice when he eventually appeared before the Inquiry. It wasn't until seven years later - in August 2010 - that Mr Coe suddenly remembered that it wasn't just DC Shields who was with him that morning.
Unsurprisingly DC Coe, in his own police witness statement, made no reference at all to the officers who were accompanying him when they met the two volunteer searchers.
After a couple of minutes the dog indicated a find by returning to the owner/handler. Lou the dog's handler followed the dog. Lou said "Oh he's found something".
I continued to walk up the hill until I saw a body from about 15 metres. It was the body of a male wearing a light coloured shirt and dark jacket. He was lying on his back with his feet towards me with blood covering his left arm. He was flat on the ground.
He was found about 30 meters into the centre of the wood. I did not see any further details as I was to far away.
The time that we found the body was 09.15 hrs. I then tried to contact my manager but his phone was on answer machine so I called the police on 999. Once police arrived they then were shown where the body was and they took overall charge. I wish to further that I showed the body to DC2368 COE at 09.40 hrs.
Thoughts
It needs to be appreciated that in making a police witness statement it is a police officer who is writing down what you are saying. Occasionally they will "assist" by suggesting slightly different phrasing and I think that most people would think "that's fine, he knows what he's doing, no doubt what he has written sounds better". Looking at the last two sentences of the extract from the witness statement I would strongly suggest that these aren't the exact words used by the man from the Pru!
Compare this with the witness statement of Louise Holmes:
We met 3 Police Officers in plain clothes who identified themselves and we showed them our identity cards. We advised them that we had found a body in Harrowdown Hill 'C'. Paul then went with the 3 Police Officers to show them the location of the body and I returned to my vehicle parked in Common Lane at 'A'.
This is precise detail with all activities in chronological order. Why couldn't Mr Chapman do something similar? Any deliberate lies in a witness statement can lead to the person concerned being prosecuted - it's almost like committing perjury after taking the oath. If there is witness information the police really don't want people to know then one answer is to so blur that part of the statement that the critical detail doesn't show.
Paul Chapman goes with DC Coe to show the latter the body. How close to the body does he get on this second visit? Does he see something that the police are desperate to keep hidden? It isn't only the blurring of his witness statement it's the fact that he isn't examined in detail about this matter at the Inquiry.
Are we really expected to believe that he would have noted and quoted the number of a plain clothes detective? Who would particularly know that number? DC Coe might! We now know that Mr Coe stayed at Harrowdown Hill for a lot longer than we were originally led to believe. Did they have to wait for DC Coe to arrive back at Abingdon to get the story right? Did DC Coe take Mr Chapman's statement, or at least sit in on it?
In his interview with Mr Coe for the Mail on Sunday on 8 August 2010 Matt Sandy says of Mr Coe: 'Since retirement, he assists detectives carrying out interviews with suspects at his local station' I wonder how long he has been honing that skill.
The statement about the body being flat on the ground is something to talk about when the whole question of the body being moved is looked at in detail.
Update
I should have made the point in the above argument that one driving reason for the police to ensure that Mr Chapman's statement was lacking in detail is the fact that DC Coe was accompanied by two officers rather than just one. Coe misreports the fact he was with a third man not once but twice when he eventually appeared before the Inquiry. It wasn't until seven years later - in August 2010 - that Mr Coe suddenly remembered that it wasn't just DC Shields who was with him that morning.
Unsurprisingly DC Coe, in his own police witness statement, made no reference at all to the officers who were accompanying him when they met the two volunteer searchers.
Paul Chapman - meeting police
This is the last segment of Paul Chapman's testimony at the Inquiry.
Q. Right. After you had seen that, where did you go next?
A. We retraced our steps back down to the main path and then walked back south along the path to where the car was parked.
Q. Did the police attend?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And did you help them when they had arrived?
A. Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police officers coming the other way that were from CID. We identified ourselves to them. They were not actually aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out searching this area. They I think had just come out on their own initiative to look at the area. I informed them we had found the body and they asked me to take them back to indicate where it was.
Q. So these were not the people you had arranged to meet, as it were?
A. No, because this was only 2 or 3 minutes after I had made the phone call.
The location at which the two searchers met the police is open to some interpretation. From Google Earth I reckon that the body would have been half a mile from the car park, a downhill walk of just under ten minutes perhaps. The testimony from Paul Chapman suggests that the searchers had already set out for the walk back before Mr Chapman finished his phone calls with the police. Therefore exactly where in time and space one measures the '2 of 3 minutes' is debatable.
Q. How did you know they were police officers?
A. Because they showed me their Thames Valley Police identification.
Q. Do you recall their names?
A. Only one of them was DC Coe.
DC Coe it seems was the spokesman for the trio. As a guess he let Mr Chapman look at his ID and then the other two might have given him a very quick flash of their ID which would satisfy most people I think.
Q. Right. After you had seen that, where did you go next?
A. We retraced our steps back down to the main path and then walked back south along the path to where the car was parked.
Q. Did the police attend?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And did you help them when they had arrived?
A. Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police officers coming the other way that were from CID. We identified ourselves to them. They were not actually aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out searching this area. They I think had just come out on their own initiative to look at the area. I informed them we had found the body and they asked me to take them back to indicate where it was.
Q. So these were not the people you had arranged to meet, as it were?
A. No, because this was only 2 or 3 minutes after I had made the phone call.
The location at which the two searchers met the police is open to some interpretation. From Google Earth I reckon that the body would have been half a mile from the car park, a downhill walk of just under ten minutes perhaps. The testimony from Paul Chapman suggests that the searchers had already set out for the walk back before Mr Chapman finished his phone calls with the police. Therefore exactly where in time and space one measures the '2 of 3 minutes' is debatable.
Q. How did you know they were police officers?
A. Because they showed me their Thames Valley Police identification.
Q. Do you recall their names?
A. Only one of them was DC Coe.
DC Coe it seems was the spokesman for the trio. As a guess he let Mr Chapman look at his ID and then the other two might have given him a very quick flash of their ID which would satisfy most people I think.
Q. Did you show them the body?
A. Yes. We walked back up the hill with the three of them and then they decided as they got a bit closer to the edge of the wood that I needed only to take one of the officers in, so I took DC Coe in to show him where the body was.
Q. What were you wearing at the time?
A. I was wearing my standard search kit, walking boots, outdoor trousers, our uniform polo shirts.
Q. Did you need to give anything to the police?
A. All they did was take a copy of the soles of my boots.
Q. Right. After that, what happened?
A. Once we had shown them where the body was, we returned to the car. More police officers had arrived there. We waited around a while until we were released from the scene, where we went back with one of the police officers to Abingdon police station where we made our statements.
Q. You made your statement and then go off to work?
A. It was mid afternoon by the time we had finished there. I actually had a day off as I was going away to cub camp for the weekend.
Q. Do you know of anything else surrounding the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?
A. No, I do not.
LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Chapman. Just take your time, please, to leave and do not rush at all. Thank you very much.
A. Yes. We walked back up the hill with the three of them and then they decided as they got a bit closer to the edge of the wood that I needed only to take one of the officers in, so I took DC Coe in to show him where the body was.
Q. What were you wearing at the time?
A. I was wearing my standard search kit, walking boots, outdoor trousers, our uniform polo shirts.
Q. Did you need to give anything to the police?
A. All they did was take a copy of the soles of my boots.
Q. Right. After that, what happened?
A. Once we had shown them where the body was, we returned to the car. More police officers had arrived there. We waited around a while until we were released from the scene, where we went back with one of the police officers to Abingdon police station where we made our statements.
Q. You made your statement and then go off to work?
A. It was mid afternoon by the time we had finished there. I actually had a day off as I was going away to cub camp for the weekend.
Q. Do you know of anything else surrounding the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?
A. No, I do not.
LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Chapman. Just take your time, please, to leave and do not rush at all. Thank you very much.
Mr Chapman uses the word "we" rather than "I" in his evidence about taking the police to see the body. I'll give my thoughts on this one later. Similarly with the fact that he didn't finish at the police station until mid afternoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)