FOI Internal Review Request to Thames Valley Police re communication of fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry

This post consists primarily of the text of a Freedom of Information Internal Review Request sent earlier today to Thames Valley Police regarding the communication of (or failure to communicate) fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Thames Valley Police Reference No: RFI2011000175

The issue is important since it helps to clarify where the "concealment of evidence" in relation to fingerprint evidence arises.

If Thames Valley Police communicated the fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry then the ultimate responsibility for the concealment of that evidence lies with Lord Hutton and counsel to the Inquiry.

If Thames Valley Police withheld the fingerprint evidence then that organisation's culpability regarding "concealment of evidence" is evident.

The text of the Internal Review Request is here:

Mr. Hopgood,

I write to request an internal review of your initial decision.

I do not accept that my request was "vexatious".

My request asks for information that, so far as I'm aware, neither myself nor anybody else has previously requested.

Additionally, you seem to have failed appropriately to have taken into account the time span since any previous FOI requests by myself which have been answered. In doing that it appears to me that your decision is wrong in terms of the Act.

Further, the seeming declaration in the email of 1st April 2011 and previous correspondence that any question from me about the "subject" of Dr. David Kelly's death is "vexatious" seems to me to be a transparent attempt at obstructing the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act by yourself and Thames Valley Police.

To the best of my understanding there is no power given in the Act to declare a "subject" off limits. It seems to me that this is what you are seeking to do.

Additionally, as I have expressed in previous correspondence, I consider that some members of staff in Thames Valley Police in 2003 and in 2010-11 may have "perverted the course of justice" with respect to the concealment of what I believe to be the murder of Dr. David Kelly. I view your obstructiveness with respect to Freedom of Information requests in that context.

You are, I believe, aware that I have formally written to the Chief Officers of Thames Valley Police regarding the matter of the perceived perverting the course of justice both in 2003 and 2010-11.

In that context I believe that I have a "proper or justified cause" as expressed on page 2 of the ICO guidance to which you refer. ( http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_22_vexatious_and_repeated_requests_final.pdf )

Since, in my opinion, the evidence indicates that Thames Valley Police is engaging in the process of perverting the course of justice in relation to a murder, it seems to me that a powerful case can be made on appeal to the Information Commissioner that I have a "proper or justified cause".

In the interests of transparency and public accountability, I anticipate that the text of this email will be posted on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/ or my "Come Clean on Kelly" blog, http://comecleanonkelly.blogspot.com/ .

I look forward to your reply.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Refusal by Thames Valley Police re communication of fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry

This post consists largely of a Freedom of Information Refusal by Thames Valley Police dated 1st April 2011 in relation to a request relating to whether or not Thames Valley Police withheld fingerprint evidence from the Hutton Inquiry.

The text of the Refusal by Thames Valley Police follows:

Dear Dr Watt

Reference No: RFI2011000175

I write in connection to your request for information dated 06/03/2011 which for clarity I repeat below.

For each of the listed items was the absence of fingerprints on the item concerned communicated to the Hutton Inquiry and, where such evidence was communicated, on what date it was communicated to the Hutton Inquiry together with the Hutton Inquiry reference number for the document in which such information was communicated?

1. The knife found at Harrowdown Hill

2. The water bottle found at Harrowdown Hill

3. The blister packs for co-proxamol found at Harrowdown Hill

4. The mobile phone found at Harrowdown Hill

5. The watch found at Harrowdown Hill

As Thames Valley Police is aware it is my view that a number of individuals including Thames Valley Police officers may have perverted the course of justice with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly. Such considerations apply, in my view, in 2003 and in 2010/11.

We regard your request for information as vexatious and by virtue of section 14(1) of the Act we are therefore not obliged to comply with it.

In reaching this decision, we have taken into account guidance on “Vexatious or repeated requests” issued by the Information Commissioner on 3 December 2008. We have also considered your request in the context of numerous previous requests on this subject made by you (19 including this one since 27 October 2010). In that context, we take the view that your current request can fairly be seen as obsessive, that complying with it would impose a significant burden on police officers and staff and that it lacks serious purpose or value. In our refusal notice dated 6 January 2011 in respect of other requests, we asked you to note that further requests by you on this subject may be treated as vexatious.

This letter represents a refusal notice under section 17 of the Act.

I have attached our Complaints Procedure to this email as the first stage of appealing this decision is by writing to me and requesting an Internal Review, detailing why you believe our decision is not in accordance with the FOIA.

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re the "communications blackout" at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003

This post puts on record a Freedom of Information request made to Thames Valley Police on 21st May 2011.

Thames Valley Police did not disclose to the Hutton Inquiry that any type of "communications blackout" was imposed.

Further, the "communications blackout", if it occurred, took place during the period when the "secret helicopter flight" took place at Harrowdown Hill, including the intriguing "secret helicopter landing".

This post, The Death of David Kelly - The Secret Helicopter Landing of 18th July 2003, contains the text of my communication of 3rd April 2011 to the Attorney General on the matter.

Here is the text of the Freedom of Information request.

This is a Freedom of Information request.

Press reports indicate that a "communications blackout" was imposed at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003. This information (if accurate) was not, so far as I'm aware, disclosed to the Hutton Inquiry.

By "communications blackout" I mean any request or requirement by Thames Valley Police (or other agency) that radio or other communications equipment of any type, e.g. that in the ambulance of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett, should not be used.

1. On 18th July 2003 which individuals, after logging out of the outer cordon were asked not to leave the area or otherwise prevented by Thames Valley Police (or other agency) from leaving the area of Harrowdown Hill and/or Longworth Village?

2. Was a "communications blackout" imposed at or close to Harrowdown Hill at any time on 18th July 2003?

3. If so, at what time did the "communications blackout" start? (If there was more than one "communications blackout", I ask for such information for each blackout period.)

4. At what time did the "communications blackout" finish? (If there was more than one "communications blackout", I ask for such information for each blackout period.)

5. Was the imposition of the "communications blackout" related to the presence in the vicinity of Harrowdown Hill related to the secret helicopter flight from around 10.25 to 11.00?

6. What was the purpose of each period of "communications blackout"?

7. On whose authority was the "communications blackout" imposed?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re the start and end times of Operation Mason

In this post I record a Freedom of Information Request made to Thames Valley Police on 22nd May 2011.

If, as some hypothesise, the start time of Operation Mason was 14.30 on 17th July 2003 then Thames Valley Police has some serious explaining to do.

If the start time was, say, 23.40 on 17th July 2003 the interpretation of the nature of Operation Mason would be significantly different.

The text of the FOI request is as follows:

This is a Freedom of Information request.

1. On what date and at what time did Operation Mason start?

2. On what date and at what time did Operation Mason end?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Internal Review Request to Thames Valley Police re Documents recovered from David Kelly's home

In this post I record a Freedom of Information Internal Review Request sent to Thames Valley Police earlier today.

The FOI Request to which the request for internal review relates is here: FOI Refusal by Thames Valley Police re Documents recovered from David Kelly's home .

The text of the Internal Review Request follows:

Mr. Hopgood,

I write to request an internal review of your initial decision.

I do not accept that my request was "vexatious".

My request asks for information that, so far as I'm aware, neither myself nor anybody else has previously requested.

Additionally, you seem to have failed appropriately to have taken into account the time span since any previous FOI requests by myself which have been answered. In doing that it appears to me that your decision is wrong in terms of the Act.

Further, the seeming declaration in the email of 1st April 2011 and previous correspondence that any question from me about the "subject" of Dr. David Kelly's death is "vexatious" seems to me to be a transparent attempt at obstructing the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act by yourself and Thames Valley Police.

To the best of my understanding there is no power given in the Act to declare a "subject" off limits. It seems to me that this is what you are seeking to do.

Additionally, as I have expressed in previous correspondence, I consider that some members of staff in Thames Valley Police in 2003 and in 2010-11 may have "perverted the course of justice" with respect to the concealment of what I believe to be the murder of Dr. David Kelly. I view your obstructiveness with respect to Freedom of Information requests in that context.

You are, I believe, aware that I have formally written to the Chief Officers of Thames Valley Police regarding the matter of the perceived perverting the course of justice both in 2003 and 2010-11.

In that context I believe that I have a "proper or justified cause" as expressed on page 2 of the ICO guidance to which you refer. ( http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_22_vexatious_and_repeated_requests_final.pdf )

Since, in my opinion, the evidence indicates that Thames Valley Police is engaging in the process of perverting the course of justice in relation to a murder, it seems to me that a powerful case can be made on appeal to the Information Commissioner that I have a "proper or justified cause".

In the interests of transparency and public accountability, I anticipate that the text of this email will be posted on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/ or my "Come Clean on Kelly" blog, http://comecleanonkelly.blogspot.com/ .

I look forward to your reply.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Refusal by Thames Valley Police re Documents recovered from David Kelly's home

In thiis post I record a Freedom of Information Refusal by Thames Valley Police, sent by them on 12th May 2011.

Dear Dr Watt

Reference No: RFI2011000327

I write in connection to your request for information dated 23rd April 2011 which for clarity I repeat below.

1. How many documents were removed from David Kelly's home on 18th July 2003?

2. Was the search authorised? If so, by whom?

3. How many documents were removed from David Kelly's home on 19th July 2003?

4. Of the documents removed on 18th July 2003 how many were classified?

5. Of the documents removed on 19th July 2003 how many were classified?

6. Did the inventory of documents removed include a restricted document which referred to a possible honour for David Kelly?

7. Did any public sector organisation (other than Thames Valley Police) have staff present at the Kelly home during the searches referred to above? If so, which organisation(s) had staff present?

For the reasons given in our e-mail of 1 April in respect of a previous request made by you, we regard your request for information as vexatious and by virtue of section 14(1) of the Act we are therefore not obliged to comply with it.

This letter represents a refusal notice under section 17 of the Act.

I have attached our Complaints Procedure to this email as the first stage of appealing this decision is by writing to me and requesting an Internal Review, detailing why you believe our decision is not in accordance with the FOIA.

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police - The "secret helicopter landing" etc on 18th July 2003

The following Freedom of Information Request was sent to Thames Valley Police earlier today:

This is a Freedom of Information request.

The following questions relate to the Thames Valley Police helicopter G-CHSU which landed at or near Harrowdown Hill at 10.55 on 18th July 2003.

1. Was any article or articles transferred from the helicopter to those on the ground? If so, what was the nature of the article(s)?

2. Was any article or articles transferred to the helicopter from those on the ground? If so, what was the nature of the article(s)?

3. Did any person disembark from the helicopter when it was on the ground?

4. Did any person leave the scene in the helicopter, other than those who had arrived by that same helicopter?

5. After it took off at approximately 11.00 did the helicopter fly to the area of Thames Valley Police headquarters at Kidlington?

6. Did the helicopter pass any article(s) to personnel on the ground in the area of Thames Valley Police headquarters or the nearby airfield? If so, what was the nature of those articles?

7. Did anyone disembark from the helicopter in the area of Thames Valley Police headquarters or at the nearby airfield?

8. On 18th July 2003 did anyone who was not a member of Thames Valley Police view photographs or other visual images of the body of Dr. David Kelly?

9. Was Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page present when images were shown to a party (or parties) other than members of Thames Valley Police?

10. Was Chief Constable Peter Neyroud present when images were shown to a party (or parties) other than members of Thames Valley Police?

11. Was information from such an "unofficial identification" passed on 18th July 2003 to parties outside Thames Valley Police?

12. Was information derived from a viewing (or viewings) of scene photographs or other images passed to any UK politician or anyone acting on behalf of such a politician?

In the interests of transparency I am copying this email to Dr. Malcolm Warner.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Request to the Ministry of Justice re communication relating to Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988

This post records a Freedom of Information request sent earlier today to the Ministry of Justice.

This is a Freedom of Information request.

On 4th August 2003 a letter was sent on behalf of Lord Falconer, as Lord Chancellor, informing the Oxfordshire Coroner that Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 was in effect with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly.

1. Did Lord Falconer inform Lord Hutton that Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 had been invoked with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly?

2. If the answer to question 1. is in the affirmative, on what date did Lord Falconer write to Lord Hutton or otherwise inform him that Section 17A applied?

3. I ask for a copy of the letter(s) referred to in Question 2.

4. Did Lord Falconer communicate to Lord Hutton the implications in Law of the invoking of Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Response from Thames Valley Police re fingerprints on David Kelly's dental records

There is an article in today's Daily Mail by Miles Goslett. See Dr Kelly police probe thrown into doubt over riddle of prints on 'missing' dental records.

Below I post the Freedom of Information request and response which gave rise to the concerns:

Reference No: RFI2011000301


I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th April 2011 which I have repeated below with our response to each point.

1. Were Dr David Kelly's dental records ever reported to Thames Valley Police as being missing and, if so, on what date?

Our records show that at 22.21hrs on Sunday 20th July 2003 the dental surgery reported that they had been unable to locate the notes on Friday (18/07/03) but that they were present that day (Sunday). The notes were therefore in the possession of the dentist before the Police were made aware.

2. On what date was it officially established by Thames Valley Police that Dr. David Kelly's dental records had been found?

As above

3. Were the folder containing Dr Kelly's records, and the records themselves, ever checked by Thames Valley Police (or, to your knowledge, any other organisation) for fingerprints and/or DNA?

The dental records of Dr Kelly were examined for fingerprints as were the covers for the records either side of his. DNA was an inappropriate method for this type of item.

4. If so, on what date did this happen, and were any fingerprints and/or DNA found on the folder or on the records?

This is a staged process spanning from 15th – 18th August 2003. A total of 15 marks were revealed for photography. Two marks were revealed on the outside cover of an adjacent set of patient records, neither of these marks was of a usable quality. No marks were revealed on the adjacent cover. The remaining thirteen marks all came from Dr Kelly’s record’s folder and contents. Five of these were unusable and two were eliminated to a member of staff.

The remaining six marks were of sufficient quality to be checked against elimination prints. These were all negative. None of the six marks were of sufficient quality to be permanently loaded on to the national database. All six marks were filed.

5. Was it possible positively to identify any of the fingerprints or DNA?

As above

6. If so, whose fingerprints or DNA was found?

As above

Please contact me quoting the above reference number if you would like to discuss this matter further.

The Freedom of Information request was made by another party, not by me.

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re start and end times of Operation Mason

I sent the following Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police earlier today:

This is a Freedom of Information request.

1. On what date and at what time did Operation Mason start?

2. On what date and at what time did Operation Mason end?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re "communications blackout(s)" on 18th July 2003

Below I paste a Freedom of Information request sent to Thames Valley Police earlier today.

This is a Freedom of Information request.

Press reports indicate that a "communications blackout" was imposed at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003. This information (if accurate) was not, so far as I'm aware, disclosed to the Hutton Inquiry.

By "communications blackout" I mean any request or requirement by Thames Valley Police (or other agency) that radio or other communications equipment of any type, e.g. that in the ambulance of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett, should not be used.

1. On 18th July 2003 which individuals, after logging out of the outer cordon were asked not to leave the area or otherwise prevented by Thames Valley Police (or other agency) from leaving the area of Harrowdown Hill and/or Longworth Village?

2. Was a "communications blackout" imposed at or close to Harrowdown Hill at any time on 18th July 2003?

3. If so, at what time did the "communications blackout" start? (If there was more than one "communications blackout", I ask for such information for each blackout period.)

4. At what time did the "communications blackout" finish? (If there was more than one "communications blackout", I ask for such information for each blackout period.)

5. Was the imposition of the "communications blackout" related to the presence in the vicinity of Harrowdown Hill related to the secret helicopter flight from around 10.25 to 11.00?

6. What was the purpose of each period of "communications blackout"?

7. On whose authority was the "communications blackout" imposed?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re exhibits taken by SOCOs on 18th July 2003

Below I paste the text of a Freedom of Information request sent earlier today to Thames Valley Police.

This is a Freedom of Information request.

1. How many exhibits were taken by Scenes of Crimes Officers at the scene at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003? To assist in defining the scope of this question I do not seek information in this FOI request regarding the exhibits taken by Dr. Nicholas Hunt which were assigned an "NCH" prefix and which were listed in the postmortem report produced on 25th July 2003 by Dr. Hunt.

2. For each exhibit in the scope of question 1., other than those assigned an "NCH" prefix, I ask for the exhibit number, the nature of the exhibit, the date on which it was examined (if relevant), the results of forensic and/or other examination.

3. Was the information requested in question 2. made available to the Hutton Inquiry in written evidence? If so, on what date was it made available to the Hutton Inquiry?

4. At what time on 18th July 2003 was the scene video taken?

5. At what time on 18th July 2003 was the blue scene tent erected within the woodland at Harrowdown Hill?

6. On whose authority was the blue scene tent erected prior to the arrival of the forensic biologist(s)?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re Judith Miller and the "dark actors"

Earlier today I sent the following Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police:

This is a Freedom of Information request.

1. Did Thames Valley Police interview Judith Miller in connection with the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly?

2. Did Thames Valley Police ask Ms. Miller if she knew who the "dark actors" were?

3. If Question 2 was asked, what information did Judith Miller provide in response to that question?

4. Did Thames Valley Police ask Judith Miller to provide a witness statement for the Hutton Inquiry? If so, what was her response?

5. Did David Kelly telephone Judith Miller on Thursday 17th July 2003?

6. Did telephone records show any calls from Dr. David Kelly to Judith Miller in the period 22nd May 2003 to 17th July 2003?

7. Did email records show any emails from Dr. David Kelly to Judith Miller (or from Judith Miller to Dr. Kelly) in the period 22nd May 2003 to 17th July 2003 (other than those placed in evidence at the Hutton Inquiry)?

8. Did Thames Valley Police take any steps to establish the accuracy or otherwise of reports in the Sunday Mail of 20th July 2003 that the "dark actors" were "UK intelligence agencies"? If so, what steps did Thames Valley Police take?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI request to Thames Valley Police re the knife found at Harrowdown Hill

Earlier today I asked the following questions of Thames Valley Police in a Freedom of Information request:

This is a Freedom of Information request.

1. Was the knife found at Harrowdown Hill shown to any member of the Kelly family? (I am aware that a photograph or photocopy was shown. I wish to know if any family member was shown the knife itself.)

2. Were there any features of the knife which allowed its positive identification as having belonged to Dr. David Kelly? If any such features were present, please list them.

3. What forensic tests were carried out to determine whether or not the knife was capable of producing the wounds in Dr. Kelly's left wrist?

4. Did the knife show evidence of having been sharpened?

5. Was the sharpness of the straight part of the edge sufficient to incise human skin?

6. Was the sharpness of the curved part of the edge sufficient to incise human skin?

7. Was a forensic expert consulted regarding whether the knife could have caused the wounds in Dr. Kelly's left wrist?

8. If so, who was the forensic expert?

9. Did the forensic expert provide a written report to Thames Valley Police? Or to the Hutton Inquiry?

10. What was the make and model of the knife found? Was the handle made of wood or metal?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

How to make Freedom of Information requests relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly

I thought it might be helpful for readers of this blog if I were to post information about how requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 can be made to various bodies in connection with the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Here I list contact information for some relevant bodies:

• Thames Valley Police - by email. This is probably the most appropriate organisation to which to address questions about the Police investigation into the death of David Kelly. Further information is located at Freedom of Information requests.


• Cabinet office - by email. This is probably the most appropriate organisation to which to address questions about any actions across the UK Government at or subsequent to the death of David Kelly. Further information is available at Freedom of information (FOI).


• Ministry of Justice - by email. This is probably to the most appropriate organisation to which to address questions about the actions of the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer.


• National Archives - by email. This is probably the most appropriate organisation to which to address questions about the documents from the Hutton Inquiry, which now (largely or entirely) are stored by the National Archives.

Hutton Inquiry - The witness statement of Dr. Brian Jones

In this post I'm posting a link to the witness statement to the Hutton Inquiry of Dr. Brian Jones, formerly of the Defence Intelligence Staff.

It is online here.

I think it is currently the only Hutton Inquiry witness statement in the public domain.

I hope, in time, to encourage other witnesses to the Hutton Inquiry to put their witness statements in the public domain as Dr. Jones has done.

Openness about the evidence is the way to establish the truth about what happened to David Kelly.