Q. Yes.
A. When considering something like this, one obviously has to think about whether there could have been some other person or persons involved in the act, and the circumstances suggest that this was not the case.
Q. What, whether some third parties were involved in Dr Kelly’s death?
A. Yes.
Q. And what circumstances do you consider show that there were not?
A. Well, there were no signs of violence on his body other than the obvious injury to his wrist that would be in keeping with his having been involved in some sort of struggle or a violent act. There was no sign I understand of trampling down of vegetation and undergrowth in the area around his body. So that makes it highly unlikely that others could have been or were involved.
Q. We are going to hear from a toxicologist. Have you had a chance to read that report?
A. I have.
Q. Does that assist you in your determinations?
A. Well, we know that evidence was found in Dr Kelly’s body and also on his person of him having consumed some particular medication.
Q. Right. And what medication was that?
A. That is Coproxamol.
Q. And why does that assist in your determination?
A. Well, it in itself is quite a dangerous medication taken in overdose because it can have particular effects on both breathing and also on the heart rhythm.
LORDHUTTON: Just going back to the knife, Professor Hawton, you said it was very similar to one in his drawer. Now, we have been told, for very understandable reasons, that Mrs Kelly was not shown the knife. But when you say “very similar”, are you drawing the inference that in fact it was probably a knife that had been in his drawer, is that why you say “very similar”?
A. Yes, I am my Lord.
LORD HUTTON: Yes, quite. Thank you very much. Yes.
MR DINGEMANS: We were dealing with the toxicologist’s report. What do you understand the position to be in relation to that Coproxamol?
A. Well, I understand that the evidence found from blood levels and from the contents of Dr Kelly’s—in Dr Kelly’s stomach suggests that he had absorbed—he had taken approximately 30 tablets—I am sorry, the number of tablets is based on the number that were missing from the sheets he had with him.
Q. Right.
A. But that he had consumed well in excess of a therapeutic dose of Coproxamol and given the blood levels and the relatively small amounts in his stomach, although he had vomited, I believe you have heard evidence he has vomited, but this would suggest he had consumed Coproxamol some time before death.
Q. Does that assist you in determining whether or not any third party was involved?
A. Well, for a third party to have been involved in the taking of the Coproxamol would, I imagine, have involved a struggle. I mean if somebody was forced to take a substantial number of tablets, it is difficult to believe there would not have been signs of a struggle.
Q. That is a factor you have borne in mind?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you come, then, to any overall conclusion about whether or not Dr Kelly had committed suicide?
A. I think that taking all the evidence together, it is well nigh certain that he committed suicide.
150. In his evidence Assistant Chief Constable Page stated:
Q. Can you just briefly outline to his Lordship the lines of inquiry that you set out when confronted with the discovery of Dr Kelly’s body?
A. Yes, certainly. Very early on in the inquiry one sets up a series of hypotheses which one tries then to knock down. For the sake of completeness the first of these would be: was the death natural or accidental? In this case it is fairly obvious that was not the case. The next question is: was it murder? I think as I pointed out in my last evidence, the examination of the scene and the supporting forensic evidence made me confident that actually there was no third party involved at the scene of the crime and therefore, to all intents and purposes, murder can be ruled out. One is then left with the option that Dr Kelly killed himself.
LORD HUTTON: Sorry, may I just ask you, Mr Page, you say no third party was involved at the scene of the crime. Did you consider the possibility that Dr Kelly might have been overpowered and killed elsewhere and his body then taken to the wooded area where it was found?
A. Yes, my Lord; and I think, again, upon examination of the pathologist’s evidence and of the biologist’s evidence, it is pretty clear to me that Dr Kelly died at the scene.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.
MR DINGEMANS: You were going on to say having ruled out natural causes, having ruled out murder.
A. One is left with the fact that Dr Kelly killed himself. My duty in that respect is to establish to the best of my satisfaction that there was no criminal dimension to Dr Kelly’s death.
Q. Have you found any evidence suggesting that there was a criminal element?
A. Based on the extensive inquiries that we have undertaken thus far, I can find no evidence to suggest any criminal dimension to Dr Kelly’s death.
Q. Can you give his Lordship, and everyone else, some idea of how many people you have interviewed in the course of your inquiries?
A. Yes, certainly. We have made contact with somewhere in the region of 500 individuals during the course of our inquiry.
Q. How many statements have you taken?
A. We have taken 300 statements and we have seized in excess of 700 documents in addition to the computer files I referred to when I gave evidence last time.
LORD HUTTON: Mr Page, could you just elaborate just a little on what you mean by no criminal dimension?
A. Well, again, my Lord, I would—I suppose being a police officer and I am inherently suspicious and I would look at the circumstances and ask myself a range of questions as to why Dr Kelly would have taken his own life.
LORD HUTTON: Yes.
A. And very early on in the inquiry, based on early discussions with the inquiry it seemed entirely out of character for Dr Kelly to take that move. Therefore, my view of whether there was a criminal dimension to this would centre around: was he being blackmailed? Was he being put under some other criminal behaviour that would have prompted him to take this action?
LORD HUTTON: Thank you for that, I just wanted you to elaborate that. And you have excluded that in your inquiries?
A. We have carried out extensive inquiries and based on those inquiries, I can find no evidence that he was being blackmailed or indeed any other evidence of any other criminal dimension.
151. Those who try cases relating to a death or injury (whether caused by crime or accident) know that entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details. In the evidence which I heard from those who saw Dr Kelly’s body in the wood there were differences as to points of detail, such as the number of police officers at the scene and whether they were all in uniform, the amount of blood at the scene, and whether the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly’s body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree—therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree. These differences do not cause me to doubt that no third party was involved in Dr Kelly’s death.
152. Mr David Broucher, a member of the Diplomatic Service, gave evidence that in February 2003 he was the United Kingdom’s Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. He said that he had met Dr Kelly once in connection with his duties. He had not made a minute of the meeting or recorded it in his diary and doing the best that he could he thought that the meeting was in February 2003 in Geneva. He said that he
