Friday, 6 April 2012

Who Killed David Kelly? - Open letter to Professor Robert Flanagan

The bulk of this post consists of the text of an email sent today to Professor Robert Flanagan who advised the Attorney General regarding toxicology matters prior to the Attorney General's statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

The point which I asked Professor Flanagan to consider was whether Dr. Alexander Allan had given untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry when he asserted that the only way that the components of co-proxamol could have entered David Kelly's body was by him ingesting (swallowing) co-proxamol tablets.

The title of the email to Professor Flanagan was:
Untrue evidence by Dr. Alexander Allan at the Hutton Inquiry

Here is the text of the email:

Professor Flanagan,

I write further to our previous correspondence.

I am in the early stages of writing a book provisionally entitled "Who killed David Kelly?". The book will explore two competing hypotheses - (1) that David Kelly killed himself and (2) that another person (or persons) murdered David Kelly and that there has been a concerted criminal conspiracy to conceal that murder.

For the avoidance of doubt, Professor Flanagan, my working hypothesis at present is that you are part of that criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

At a later time I anticipate writing to you again giving you opportunity to review for any factual inaccuracies the evidence that leads me to that conclusion which I presently intend to include in the book "Who Killed David Kelly?".

However, I now write to you to draw to your attention that, in my view, Dr. Allan lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to a material point.

So far as I can ascertain from your witness statement ( ), the Attorney General's Office did not provide you with a copy of the transcript of Dr. Allan's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

It seems to me that Dr. Allan lied in giving an untrue answer to a material question from Lord Hutton.

I quote the relevant question from Lord Hutton and Dr. Allan's answer here:

24 LORD HUTTON: That is the only way that those substances
25 could be found in the blood, by taking tablets

1 containing them?
2 A. Yes, he has to ingest those tablets.

The full transcript of the oral evidence of Dr. Allan is here:

I think we both know that Dr. Allan's assertion that "he has to ingest those tablets" is false.

Two other options exist.

1. Co-proxamol tablets could have been introduced by nasogastric tube, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated.

2. The components of co-proxamol could have been injected and the injection site concealed by the wounds at the left wrist. Again this assumes that Dr. Kelly was likely incapacitated.

Dr. Allan's absolute statement creates a false impression of certainty with regard to how the components of co-proxamol may have entered Dr. Kelly's body.

If one, for the sake of simplicity, assumes that Lord Hutton was acting honestly then, I suggest, Dr. Allan's absolute statement would create a false certainty in Lord Hutton's mind that Dr. Kelly swallowed the co-proxamol tablets.

Indeed it is clear in paragraph 144 of Lord Hutton's report that he relied in his Report on Dr. Allan's false statement:

144. Dr Allan also said in his evidence that the only way in which paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene could be found in Dr Kelly's blood was by him taking tablets containing them which he would have to ingest.

The quoted paragraph of the Hutton Report may be accessed here:

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing that excludes the possibility of the components of co-proxamol being introduced into Dr. Kelly's body either by nasogastric tube or by injection.

I ask you in your role as expert witness to review the veracity of Dr. Allan's statement.

If you consider that there is evidence to allow the use of injection or a nasogastric tube to be excluded I would be fascinated to know what that evidence might be.

Alternatively, if you agree that those other options exist I consider you have a duty to make that known to the relevant authorities.

My understanding is that, as an expert witness, you have an ongoing duty to draw material changes in your opinion to the attention of the relevant authorities, in this case I would suggest those to be Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police. A propos the latter the relevant reference is URN514 of 28/10/10 in which I reported to Thames Valley Police my belief that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered.

Should you write to the relevant authorities I would appreciate receiving a copy of any such correspondence.

This letter is an open letter and I am placing a copy of it on the "Who Killed David Kelly?" blog here:

Further, this letter, previous correspondence between us and any future replies from you may be used in the proposed book "Who Killed David Kelly?".

I look forward to learning how you plan to proceed in this important matter.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Visible copies of the email were sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty at the Attorney General's Office and to Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.

1 comment:

  1. I think that it's worth recalling Dr Allan's qualifications and experience as recorded by him at the Hutton Inquiry:

    'I am a Bachelor of Science, I am a Doctor of Philosophy, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a Chartered Chemist'.

    'I am a forensic scientist, more specifically I am a forensic toxicologist specialising in the analysis of drugs and poisons in body fluids. I have been a forensic scientist for over 25 years'.

    In 2003 co-proxamol was commonly prescribed by medical practitioners and its two constituents of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene would have been very familiar to someone of Dr Allan's experience. It would not be credible for him to be unaware that the tablets or their constituents could be administered by another party.