Mostly the events after 15:00, when David Kelly went for a walk.
But some of events earlier in the day can’t be ignored.
The only accounts of the events of the day came from two of the Kelly family (Mrs Jan Kelly and daughter Rachel) - given at the Hutton Inquiry.
Their accounts beg many questions:
- the manner of their presentations
- the lack of questioning of their accounts
- the content of their accounts
- and - massively significant - the absence from the Inquiry of Sian Andrews (née Kelly), Rachel’s sister and husband Richard.
Account at the Hutton Inquiry
Rachel’s fiancé – David Wilkins, an estate agent – also contributed as part of this ‘family group’, but he had no first-hand knowledge of the events of that day.
None of the accounts given by any of the invitees at this inquiry were under oath.
Semantics – the Hutton Inquiry was not a conventional ‘court of law’, it was a non-statutory inquiry.
According to the invitees that I have talked to, it gave every impression of being a court of law. ‘Calls for the next witnesses’ etc echoing around the rooms and corridors around Court 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice buildings in The Strand.
The ‘witnesses’ were invited to attend – thus I refer to them as invitees. They could not be summoned to attend and people couldn’t demand to attend.
Their accounts were not under oath.
In principle, they could say whatever they wanted. They could not be guilty of perjury.
To make this quite clear I will not describe their contributions as ‘evidence’ or ‘testimony’ but I will use the word account. Thus, the phrase invitee’s account arises.
The Journey - Southmoor, Oxfordshire to The Royal Courts of Justice, London
The Kelly family group – Jan Kelly, Rachel and her fiancé Richard - were driven to the Royal Courts of Justice, London. It was a two hour drive, made in a very basic compact MPV, a two year old Vauxhall Zafira. This vehicle had ordinary windows and gave the family no privacy.
It’s hard to imagine what lesser a vehicle could have been used to transport these most VIP invitees.
They should have been provided with a vehicle that gave the invitees a high degree of privacy. A vehicle with blacked out windows etc. There would have been many in the government car pool.
When they arrived at the High Court all the attending reporters, photographers and TV cameras with their flash and flood lights saw them clearly. It was almost as though they were deliberately put on public show for the occasion.
 |
| The Kelly Family group arriving at Hutton - in the full glare of publicity |
This was a very public arrival.
But within the Court, the opposite was true - they were invisible.
The Accounts of Jan and Rachel
Jan and Rachael gave their accounts in a unique manner.
They sat in a room separate from the Inquiry Room in the Court buildings.
In the Inquiry Room the video monitor used for remote witnesses was switched off and covered with a photograph of Jan or Rachel accordingly. The accounts were given by an audio link only. See court artist Elizabeth Cook’s sketch of this arrangement.
 |
| Court sketch of Rachel’s photograph in place of live monitor |
Thus, their body language, facial expressions, eye movements etc were hidden from the court.
They could just as well have given their accounts from the comfort of their own homes. Mrs Ruth Absalom had done exactly that and Professor Roger Avery gave his account via a video link from the US.
This arrangement was used, ostensibly, to save these invitees the stress of a public appearance.
But, equally it could have been used to conceal the fact that they were reading their replies to the ‘questions’ from an agreed and prepared script. Thus their body language, facial expressions, eye movements etc would be concealed from the view of the court.
Accounts – questioned
I am not alone in raising questions about Jan and Rachel’s accounts.
Why were they not treated like other invitees?
Many have commented upon the lack of cross-questioning about details in their accounts.*
I question their accounts because I don’t think that they are credible.
I cannot believe them to be true.
* A legal opinion
In particular, one lawyer, Nicholas Turner, read the transcript of Mrs Kelly’s account at the Hutton Inquiry. This was in May 2004 a bit over a year after Hutton produced his report. Mr Turner then published a 14 page legal critique of her account.
It was titled –
‘Hutton Inquiry: Anomalies in the Evidence of Mrs Janice Kelly’
His concluding comments were:
So what are we to make of all this?
All I can say is that Janice Kelly, for some reason, seems to have presented evidence which does not quite add up.
Am I alone in being confused?
Here we have an expert legal appraisal of Jan Kelly’s account, and it clearly casts significant doubts on the integrity of her account.
Jan & Rachel’s accounts – a Summary
David Kelly left home at about 15:00 to go for a short (about 20 minutes) walk, and wasn’t seen again; Jan remained at home.
Shortly afterwards Jan answered a call by a visitor or visitors, twice, at her front door.
David Kelly’s mobile phone ceased to work at about 16:00.
Jan claimed David was long overdue from his short walk.
At about 18:00 Rachel made the 10 mile journey from her Oxford home to visit her mother; also to see a nearby new-born foal that her father had told her about.
Rachel is said to have searched local roads and byways looking for her father.
Sometime that evening Rachel’s older sister Sian became concerned at her father’s absence.
She decided to drive, with her husband Richard, to the family home. This was a drive of some 80 miles – about 90 minutes driving – from Fordingbridge near Southampton.
Finally, at 23:45 - almost nine hours after David Kelly left home - the family decided that they should let Thames Valley Police (TVP) know of his absence.
Sian, the older sister and a lawyer, possibly taking the lead, did this.
My doubts
- I have asked many friends and colleagues what they would do in similar circumstances? Like my friends, I find it inconceivable that a wife/daughter would wait almost nine hours before calling TVP, when David Kelly had gone for a 20 minute walk and he had also ceased to answer his mobile telephone.
- The response of Jan and Rachel seems quite contrary to what a reasonable person or family would do in similar circumstances.
- No-one in the family walked across the road to The Wagon & Horses pub to see if he was there.
- No-one telephoned The Hinds Head pub – David Kelly’s regular pub – to see if he was there.
- Amazingly, Jan makes no mention of trying to telephone her husband!
- Rachel does say “But when he then -- I could not reach him on his mobile phone, which did make me worry because I could always reach him”.
- No-one telephoned any of David Kelly’s friends or neighbours to see if they had seen him. Friends such as Nigel Cox and David Heavens amongst many others.
- No family friends were contacted or recruited to help in the search.
- All of the alleged search activity was confined entirely to the Kelly household – and specifically to Rachel only.
One cannot help but think that their account doesn’t ring true. It suggests that David Kelly wasn’t expected back at about 15:20, after a short walk.
Rather it suggests that David Kelly was due back home very much later – for reasons known to the Kelly family.
Late Return Home – An Expected Event
 |
| Why did Sian drive so far to meet her mother and sister - to report her father missing? Was there more to this meeting than met the eye? |
- All of this suggests that David Kelly’s absence that afternoon was not unexpected.
- This is consistent with the fact that they didn’t call TVP until almost midnight.
- I am forced to conclude that David Kelly wasn’t expected back home until late that evening.
- In other words, it was known that he had not gone for ‘just a short walk’.
- I think that Jan, at least, knew he was actually elsewhere.
- But, whatever, he should have made contact or been home by about 21:00 at the very latest.
- Why couldn’t Jan and Rachel decide for themselves what to do?
- The only reasonable action was to report David Kelly as missing.
- Why did Sian have to drive some 80 miles to persuade Jan and Rachel to do the obvious – report him as missing?
- It would look as though that Sian, two years older than her twin sisters, was the senior or ‘alpha’ sister.
- Why did Sian drive 80 miles late at night to resolve a simple matter – or was there more to David Kelly’s absence than it would seem at first sight?
It is possible that the Kelly family did make efforts to contact friends etc. If so, there is simply no mention of these significant actions in their accounts.
I believe that David Kelly was not expected home until late that day – and that he was known to be elsewhere that evening.
David Kelly’s telephone
David Kelly’s telephone ceased to work around about 16:00. The words of John Harrison and John Clark (MOD) document this.
Whilst he might have switched it off, I think the most likely cause is that his battery simply ran out of power.
He had had a very disrupted few days and a lot of telephone calls that morning and simply failed to keep it fully charged
Not the Truth
Jan and Rachel’s accounts were not given under oath. Thus, if they didn’t give a true account of events, they couldn’t be guilty of perjury.
I have no doubt that Jan and Rachel are honest people.
But, under great duress an honest citizen may be prepared to give an alternative account of events.
If this is backed by ‘official’ approval then so much the better.
In English Law acting under duress is a legitimate course of action for the threatened person.
How could duress be applied?
- One possibility is that Jan was told that her husband’s pension was at risk as he may have broken Civil Service rules in his media connections.
There are very onerous conditions attached to Civil Service pensions.
This could have been calamitous for Jan. - Another possibility is that Jan may have been told something very toxic about David.
I mentioned this in Chapter One of this blog.
I don’t think, for example, an illicit sexual relationship would be sufficiently toxic – many marriages encounter such an event.
This must be something in a different league – something having a devastating impact. And I suspect that it was not true, but contrived for this purpose.
So Jan and Rachel agreed, under some form of duress, to give an account of events at Westfield which was ‘doctored’.
I can only suppose that their account was not true.
A ‘Family Account’
On the evening David Kelly went missing, Jan was accompanied by two of her three daughters – Sian and Rachel – and Sian’s husband Richard – four in all. Rachael’s twin sister, Ellen, was at work in Edinburgh.
 |
| Mortuary visit - Jan Kelly with Sian and Richard |
Mortuary visit - Jan Kelly with Sian and Richard
Towards the end of the evening, Sian – the late arrival and the eldest sister - may have ‘taken charge’ of the situation. It was Sian who telephoned TVP. It seemed that no decision could be made without Sian.
I have already suggested that Sian may have been the ‘alpha’ daughter. It was Sian who went with Jan to the mortuary of the John Radcliffe Hospital to formally identify David Kelly’s body.
Sian was also David Kelly’s choice as the executor of his will.
A Family Divided?
Four members of the Kelly family came together at Westfield.
In what seems a bizarre situation, they eventually decided to report David Kelly missing.
It was bizarre because by then David Kelly was said to be overdue from a short – 20 minute walk by over nine hours.
But, whatever, the delay is hard to explain – unless they knew that he hadn’t
“just gone for a short walk”.
It is a fact that at 11:45pm Sian reported David Kelly’s absence to TVP.
There was an enormous degree of indecision by Jan and Rachel. It seems it took Sian’s presence to perform the obvious and phone TVP.
Why couldn’t Jan and Rachel do the obvious thing and phone TVP themselves? Why did Sian have to drive for 90 minutes to meet and discuss matters with them?
The Hutton Inquiry
This was a non-statutory inquiry (but dressed up as a much greater affair) that purported to function as a coroner’s inquest. But it actually ranged far and wide – well beyond a coroner’s area of interest.
This was by virtue of a unique decision by Lord Charlie Falconer. He was then both Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor. This was a unique pairing of duties and put him in an immensely powerful position.
Invitees were allowed to give their account without swearing an oath. Thus they could say whatever they chose to and couldn’t commit perjury.
The Kelly Family Four and Hutton
Although there were four members of the Kelly family at home on the evening David Kelly went missing, only half of the family group appeared at the Hutton Inquiry.
Jan Kelly
To Hutton
Rachel
To Hutton
Sian
No Hutton
Richard
No Hutton
The Absent Daughter - Sian Kelly
Why was Sian, the eldest, lead sister, absent from the events of and around the Hutton Inquiry?
As the eldest child in the family, and a lawyer, it might be expected that she might take the lead. I have already suggested that she may have been an ‘alpha’ daughter – leading her younger twin sisters, and possibly her mother, onward.
But she didn’t maintain her lead role.
Actually, Sian played no part in the Hutton Inquiry or anything related to it; neither did her husband Richard.
Sian – Sian Andrews - is a practising solicitor.
I have said above of Jan and Rachel’s account - “I can not believe it to be true”.
If my view is correct, then Sian couldn’t attend Hutton and give a similar account to that of Jan and Rachel.
If she knowingly gave a false account, albeit not under oath, at the Inquiry and this became known later, she would be in trouble.
She would face prosecution by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. In turn, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal could then strike her from the roll.
This may well explain why Sian ‘disappeared’ from the scene. She couldn’t go along with the ‘official’ concocted account presented by her mother and sister.
Similarly, Sian couldn’t be a party to Richard, her husband, giving a false account of events. She would be complicit in misleading a Non-Statuary Inquiry. That too could end her legal career.
The absence of Sian and Richard adds considerably to the weight of opinion that the account of Jan and Rachel wasn’t true.
An Alternative - My proposed Account of Events
 |
| David Kelly left Westfield (starred) walked towards and over the A420. Then up Harris’s Lane to Appleton Road where he met Ruth Absalom. He then turned to his right, along Appleton Road. |
In particular the absence of Sian and her husband are good grounds for suspecting Jan and Rachel’s accounts at Hutton.
I have put together information, from diverse sources, to describe an alternative account of events. An account that seems to me to be more plausible than that given by Jan and Rachel at the Hutton Inquiry.
I have good reason to believe that David Kelly was about 40 miles away that evening. I have factored this into my account.
My Proposed Account of Events
David Kelly had had a tumultuous week. Ranging from being a refugee in Mevagissey, Cornwall, to a dramatic, televised appearance before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
On Thursday morning, the 17th of July, he was in his study at home. It was not a place of study or rest. He had a domestic phone, a business phone, his mobile phone, a fax machine and email connecting to the outside world. All were busy that morning.
He took a break at about 11:00 for a cup of coffee with his wife.
By midday, he had agreed to go a meeting with some civil service managers that evening. They wanted to talk and review his media contacts and activity.
Also they wanted clarity relating to outstanding Prime Minister Questions that needed urgent responses.
Later he had a simple lunch of sandwiches with Jan. He told her about the evening meeting. He asked her to say sorry to Rachel for not going with her to see the new-born foal.
The meeting was that evening. David Kelly was tired and was going out of his way to go to there. He decided to make use of a government car and driver on this occasion. It would give him a chance to think matters over on the way.
The car was due to collect him from home at 15:45. He had time to get some fresh air and go for a short walk beforehand.
He left Westfield at 15:00 and planned to walk to the end of Harris’s Lane - on the outskirts of Longworth Village. Then he would turn around and walk back home – expecting to be there by 15:30 or so.
He set off as planned – going up the Wagon & Horses Lane, then over the A420 bridge and on to Harris's Lane. Near the end of his walk he got a call on his mobile phone from Jan. His driver had arrived early; he had called twice and wanted to collect his passenger ASAP. This trip had been arranged at the last minute and he was running on a very tight schedule.
David Kelly was not amused at this cock-up to the agreed plans, but it wasn’t that unusual.
He told Jan to send the driver around to Appleton Road in Longworth where they could meet, and Jan did this.
David Kelly arrived at the end of Harris’s Lane on time as he expected. Here he met his neighbour Ruth Absalom. She lived across the road from David Kelly and was taking her dog ‘Buster’ for a walk. They exchanged pleasantries.
 |
| David Kelly met his driver here – in Appleton Road – and was driven to his meeting |
Originally, David Kelly had planned to turn around at this point and walk back over his outbound track. But, after his talk to Jan he arranged to meet his driver in Appleton Road – off to his right. After saying "Cheerio Ruth" he turned to his right and walked east along Appleton Road towards his driver.
Within a minute or two his car arrived – and David Kelly was on board. The driver turned his car around and David Kelly was on his way. He now had time to consider the various questions that were to be discussed.
He realised that he had left his wallet on the dining room table at home. But he could manage without it – he was going to be driven back home and didn’t expect to have to spend any money.
This was a rather routine journey, but David Kelly was being driven to his death.
That evening at Westfield
Rachel, as had been arranged, arrived at Westfield at about 18:00. She was going to see a new foal with her father. But he’d had to go to an urgent meeting that evening. Still, she went for a walk to see the foal.
She got back to Westfield at about 19:00 and decided to stay until David returned – he was expected back at about 20:30. She had a meal with her mother.
By 20:30 there was no sign of David – and what is very worrying is that he didn’t respond to any of her calls to his mobile phone. It seems as though his phone was switched off. This is almost unheard of as he could always be contacted one way or another.
Both then began to worry that something was wrong. Rachel phoned her sisters Sian and Ellen to see if they had heard from David, but they hadn’t. Rachel phoned The Hinds Head pub in case David had called in there but they had no news.
At about 21:45 Rachel phoned Sian again to discuss David’s absence and lack of telephone contact. David had been out of touch for over six hours and Rachel was very worried – especially because he had been under a lot of stress recently.
Sian agreed that this was now worrying and decided to drive over to Westfield – a drive of about 90 minutes.
Why:
- couldn’t Sian resolve matters over the telephone?
- did Sian and Richard have to drive 80 miles to Westfield to see Jan and Rachel face to face?
- did they have to meet to make, what would seem to be, a simple decision?
- did David Kelly’s failure to return home after a ‘short’ walk precipitate such a family summit meeting?
Sian’s Car Journey
Sian & Richard arrived at about 23:15.
Yet again they tried calling David’s phone and yet again got no response. They called Ellen again but she hasn’t heard anything from David. David had been out of touch for eight hours and was three hours overdue.
Jan, Rachel and Sian finally agreed that they had no choice but to report him as missing. Sian, the eldest sister, telephoned TVP at 23:45.
By then David Kelly was close to death.
Please let me know of any facts that you know concerning David Kelly’s death. Send them to me via the Signal App
This App is totally secure – the only one – and is simple to install.
Download it to your mobile phone (Android or iOS). You need to enter your telephone number and a PIN of your choice – and the system is then go. There are the options to add “a name” or photo etc.
My previous gmail address was secure – but it was not secure against government agencies – eg GCHQ / MI5. Google is happy to comply with government “Authorities” and give them access to email traffic.
If you have sent me information previously please consider sending it to me again.
My Contacts:
Signal App - my number - UK 07 788 656 411
- International 447 788 656 411
Signal App - for info - https://mashable.com/article/what-is-signal-app
Or post: Dr John EVANS, 55 Eaton Road, Appleton, Oxon, OX13 5JH
