The investigations into the death
of Dr Kelly
132. Assistant Chief Constable Page was
informed at 9.20am that the body had been found. In his evidence
he described the actions which he took and which were taken by
others on his instructions as follows:
[3 September, page 26, line 8]
Q. What happened after that information had come
to your attention?
A. Well, from my perspective I appointed a senior
investigating officer, a man who would, if you like, carry out
the technical issues around the investigation. I met fairly quickly
with my Chief Constable and we decided what levels of resourcing
and what levels of investigation we should apply to these circumstances.
Q. The fact that a body had been discovered,
what sort of inquiry did you launch at the start?
A. We determined from the outset because of the
attendant circumstances that we would apply the highest standards
of investigation to this particular set of circumstances as was
possible. I would not say I launched a murder investigation but
the investigation was of that standard.
Q. We have heard how a common access path was
Q. And the fingertip searching was carried out.
Did forensic pathologists become involved?
A. Yes. We were very anxious, from the outset,
to ensure the most thorough possible examination of the scene.
I spoke to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Gardiner, and we agreed
between us that we would use a Home Office pathologist, which
is a very highly trained pathologist. It was also agreed with
the senior investigating officer that we would use forensic biologists
who are able to look at the scene and, in particular, blood splashes
and make certain determinations from those in relation to what
may have happened. As you say, a common approach path had been
established; and it was determined that for that common approach
path and for a distance of 10 metres either side and for a radius
of 10 metres around Dr Kelly's body that we would carry out a
fingertip search. It was also agreed that Dr Kelly's body would
be left in situ so that the pathologist and the biologists could
visit the scene with the body in situ to make their own assessment
of the scene, which is not always the case but in this case we
decided it would be wise to do so.
Q. Why was that, just to ensure -
A. Just to ensure that they could look at the
environment and the surroundings and take in the full picture.
133. The detailed examinations which were
carried out on the body at the place where it was found and of
the area surrounding the body in the wood were as follows. Police
search teams led by Police Constable Franklin and Police Constable
Sawyer conducted a thorough fingertip search of the common approach
path of the area surrounding the body and of the area on either
side of the approach path. After the body had been moved they
also conducted a fingertip search of the ground on which the body
had been lying. This search lasted from 12.50pm to 4.45pm and
the search of the ground on which the body had lain lasted from
7.24pm to 7.45pm. Nothing of significance was found in the searches
and Constable Sawyer said:
[2 September, page 56, line 25]
When I first saw Dr Kelly I was very aware of
the serious nature of the search and I was looking for signs of
perhaps a struggle; but all the vegetation that was surrounding
Dr Kelly's body was standing upright and there were no signs of
any form of struggle at all.
134. Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited
forensic pathologist arrived at the place where the body was lying
at 12.10 pm and at 12.35pm he confirmed that the body was dead.
He then waited whilst the police carried out a fingertip search
of the common approach path and he then began a thorough investigation
of the body at 2.10pm. After this examination of the body at the
scene and after a post mortem examination Dr Hunt furnished a
detailed post mortem report dated 25 July 2003 to the Oxfordshire
coroner and at the Inquiry he gave evidence in accordance with
his findings set out in that report.
135. Dr Kelly was right handed. In a statement
furnished to the Inquiry Police Constable Roberts stated:
On Saturday 19th July 2003, I was on duty performing
the role of Family Liaison Officer for Thames Valley Police.
On this date I spoke to Sian KELLY, the daughter
of Dr David KELLY who confirmed that her father was right handed.
136. In the course of his evidence Dr Hunt
gave (inter alia) the following evidence:
[16 September, page 9, line 14]
A. He was wearing a green Barbour type wax jacket
and the zip and the buttons at the front had been undone. Within
the bellows pocket on the lower part of the jacket there was a
mobile telephone and a pair of bi-focal spectacles. There was
a key fob and, perhaps more significantly, a total of three blister
packs of a drug called Coproxamol. Each of those packs would originally
have contained 10 tablets, a total of 30 potentially available.
Q. And how many tablets were left in those packs?
A. There was one left.
LORD HUTTON: Did you actually take those blister
packs out? Did you discover them in the pocket yourself?
A. Yes, as part of the search, my Lord.
[16 September, page 12, line 5]
Q. Did you notice anything about the face?
A. His face appeared, firstly, rather pale but
there was also what looked like vomit running from the right corner
of the mouth and also from the left corner of the mouth and streaking
Q. What would that appear to indicate?
A. It suggested that he had tried to vomit whilst
he was lying on his back and it had trickled down.
[16 September, page 12, line 22]
Q. Did you investigate the scene next to the
Q. And what did that show?
A. There was a Barbour flat-type cap with some
blood on the lining and the peak near his left shoulder and upper
arm. In the region of his left hand lying on the grass there was
a black resin strapped wristwatch, a digital watch, which was
Q. Was the watch face up or face down?
A. It was face down.
Q. What about next to the watch?
A. Lying next to that was a pruning knife or
A. Can you describe what type of pruning knife
A. The make was a Sandvig knife. It was one with
a little hook or lip towards the tip of the blade. It is a fairly
standard gardeners' type knife.
Q. Were there any bloodstains on that knife?
A. Yes, over both the handle and the blade.
Q. Was there any blood beneath the knife?
A. Yes, there was. There was blood around the
area of the knife.
Q. How close to the knife was the blood?
A. It was around the knife and underneath it.
Q. Did you notice a bottle of water?
A. Yes, there was a bottle of Evian water, half
Q. Was there any water in that bottle?
A. Yes, there was some remaining water. I do
not recall what volume exactly.
Q. Can you remember precisely where the bottle
was in relation to the bottle? (sic)
A. Yes, it was lying propped against some broken
branches to the left and about a foot away from his left elbow.
Q. And did you notice anything in particular
about the bottle?
A. Yes, there was some smeared blood over both
the bottle itself and the bottle top.
Q. Did that indicate anything to you?
A. It indicated that he had been bleeding whilst
at least placing the bottle in its final position. He may already
have been bleeding whilst he was drinking from it, but that is
Q. Was there any other bloodstaining that you
noticed in the area?
A. There was. There was an area of bloodstaining
to his left side running across the undergrowth and the soil and
I estimated it was over an area of 2 to 3 feet in maximum length."