The Hutton Inquiry

: And there is a difference, I take it, from your answer between "indicates" and "shows"?

LORD HUTTON: This might be a convenient time to rise.

MR DINGEMANS: In fact Dr Jones will not be the next witness at 2 o'clock because we have the video link. I am sorry, you will have to wait to finish off your evidence after lunch.

LORD HUTTON: We are having Mr A now, are we?

MR DINGEMANS: It is someone called Mr A. We are not going to see his face.

MR DINGEMANS: Mr A we cannot see you. Can you see us?

MR DINGEMANS: Can you tell us what your current occupation is?

MR DINGEMANS: Have you ever made Dr Kelly?

MR DINGEMANS: Where did you meet him in 1992?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you get on well with him?

MR DINGEMANS: What were you doing from 1999 onwards?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you have anything to do with the drafting of the September dossier?

MR DINGEMANS: Who invited you to that meeting?

MR DINGEMANS: And where was the meeting held?

MR DINGEMANS: And who else was present at the meeting? I do not need names but were they Foreign and Commonwealth Office personnel?

MR DINGEMANS: And what part of the Ministry of Defence?

MR DINGEMANS: What was discussed at this meeting?

LORD HUTTON: Mr A, we have heard evidence from Dr Brian Jones this morning. Was he at the meeting?

LORD HUTTON: Did he chair the meeting?

LORD HUTTON: Thank you. Yes.

MR DINGEMANS: How many other people, apart from you, Dr Kelly and Dr Jones, were at the meeting?

MR DINGEMANS: Had you seen any earlier drafts of the dossier?

MR DINGEMANS: Do you recall the nature of the discussions?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you make any particular comments on the dossier?

MR DINGEMANS: Can you help us what areas you thought there were errors of detail on?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. Can we look at CAB/3/79? This is a letter dated 19th September from the DIS to the JIO assessment staff. If we scroll down the page. Can you see that now yourself?

MR DINGEMANS: We are looking now, and it begins: "Page 4, paragraph 5, 4th bullet; "Suggest change ..." And the rationale is language. Is that what you are talking about in terms of detail?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. Changes that were accepted in the discussion group that you were having?

MR DINGEMANS: And can you help us with the changes that Dr Kelly suggested?

MR DINGEMANS: Can you very quickly take us through those?

MR DINGEMANS: That is at the bottom of the second page, is it?

MR DINGEMANS: Going to the third page now.

MR DINGEMANS: They were all Dr Kelly's suggestions, were they?

MR DINGEMANS: And there was a letter being drafted or these points were being noted and then put into the letter; is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: And you said that there were points on detail that you commented on. Were there any points on emphasis?

MR DINGEMANS: Can I just pull up another document for us back here because we do not have anything to look at, at the moment. It is DOS/1/75 at paragraph 10.

MR DINGEMANS: Well, this is the dossier itself, as published, and we can see if we scroll down to paragraph 10 -- can I help you by reading out what it says: "Parts of the al-Qa'qa' chemical complex damaged in the Gulf War have also been repaired and are operational. Of particular concern are elements of the phosgene production plant at al-Qa'qa'. These were severely damaged during the Gulf War, and dismantled under UNSCOM supervision, but have since been rebuilt. While phosgene does have industrial uses it can also be used by itself as a chemical agent or as a precursor for nerve agent." Is that the passage you are referring to?

MR DINGEMANS: What were your concerns about that?

MR DINGEMANS: What we are looking at at DOS/1/75 is the final version. That rather suggests that your concerns were not accepted.

MR DINGEMANS: What was Dr Kelly's attitude to the dossier, apart from those specific comments that you have already identified?

MR DINGEMANS: And after the meeting, did you have any further involvement in the drafting of the dossier?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you have any other communications with Dr Kelly about the dossier?

LORD HUTTON: Just before we move there, Mr A, did Dr Kelly, at that meeting, make any reference to the statement in the dossier that chemical and biological weapons could be ready for use within 45 minutes?

LORD HUTTON: Was Dr Kelly critical of that statement or did he raise questions about it? Can you be a little more specific on that point?

LORD HUTTON: Thank you.

MR DINGEMANS: You were about to tell us of the further contact you had had with Dr Kelly about the dossier.

MR DINGEMANS: Did that follow a newspaper report?

MR DINGEMANS: Can I just interrupt you and ask for MED/5/1 to 2? We are going to look at The Guardian, page 2 for 25th September 2002. Is that the newspaper report that you are going to refer to?

MR DINGEMANS: What this says in paragraph 2 is: "Mr Said, director general of the al-Qa'qa' military industrial complex, near Baghdad, said that at least one of the chemical warfare allegations in relation to his plant was easily refutable: 'it is a pretty stupid mistake for the British to make.' "He expected to be bombed anyway..." Then he went on to talk on about various other matters and make specific comments on it. Is that the article you were referring to?

MR DINGEMANS: Can I pull up CAB/29/15? Can you see what we are looking at or not?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. This is an e-mail from someone who is blanked out to David Kelly and it is dated 25th September 2002 timed at 14:58:10 "research department of ..." Is that the e-mail you sent to Dr Kelly?

MR DINGEMANS: Why did you send him this e-mail?

MR DINGEMANS: Well, you say in the second paragraph: "Casting your mind back to Thursday's rushed little meeting..." Is that the meeting that you are telling us about at the moment?

MR DINGEMANS: "... you will recall me pointing out that the phosgene [plant] was too small to be interesting, and regarded by UNSCOM as legit dual use. I was assured that rebuilding had gone on. "I also pointed out that the bulk world usage of phosgene, and the small size of the unit. You will recall [blank] admitted they were grasping at straws." I do not know need to know who "blank" was. Was blank at the meeting?

MR DINGEMANS: Why did this person say they were grasping at straws?

MR DINGEMANS: You then say: "My annotations are on [blank] draft -- you'll remember [blank] was keen to relieve me of possession of the dossier at the end of the meeting!" You have put exclamation marks. Was there any significance behind that?

MR DINGEMANS: You say in the penultimate paragraph: "So all in all -- having read page 2 of The Guardian -- I'm with the manager of al-Qa'qa: 'it is a pretty stupid mistake for the British to make'."

MR DINGEMANS: Then you go on, last paragraph: "Another example supporting our view that you and I should have been more involved in this than the spin merchants of this administration. No doubt you will have to more to tell me as a result of your antics today. Let's hope it turns into tomorrow's chip wrappers ..." Had you and Dr Kelly discussed whether or not you felt you should have been more involved with drafting the dossier?

MR DINGEMANS: You make the comment about the involvement of the spin merchants of this administration. Who were you referring to?

MR DINGEMANS: Sorry to interrupt. What was the perception?

MR DINGEMANS: And was that a view widely shared within the DIS?

MR DINGEMANS: You refer to his "antics today". What was that?

MR DINGEMANS: And you express the hope that it turns into tomorrow's chip wrappers. Can you just explain formally what you mean by that?

MR DINGEMANS: After publication of the dossier, were you ever contacted by anyone in relation to the dossier?

MR DINGEMANS: Were you authorised to speak to journalists?

MR DINGEMANS: When did you last visit Dr Kelly?

MR DINGEMANS: When you visited his home, if it is the week before, it is about 26th June, is that about right?

MR DINGEMANS: Did he speak to you about any letters he was going to write to the Ministry of Defence about press contacts?

MR DINGEMANS: Did he speak to you about whether or not he had spoken to Mr Gilligan?

MR DINGEMANS: Either on 26th or on 10th July?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you see Dr Kelly after 26th June?

MR DINGEMANS: When you saw him at RAF Uxbridge and RAF Honnington, how did he seem?

MR DINGEMANS: 7th July?

MR DINGEMANS: Who is "we"?

MR DINGEMANS: How did Dr Kelly seem when he was called away?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you overhear the conversation?

MR DINGEMANS: When you saw him on 10th July, where were you?

MR DINGEMANS: We do not want to know exactly where your home is. Can you give us a general description of the area, perhaps by county?

MR DINGEMANS: And you saw him on 10th July?

MR DINGEMANS: We have heard that he spent the night of the 9th July at a hotel in Weston-Super-Mare then, I think, travelled down on 10th July to Cornwall. Did he tell you that he was travelling anywhere?

MR DINGEMANS: What medication was this?

MR DINGEMANS: Who had given him that?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. And he rang you to say that he had the medication -- sorry, I interrupted.

MR DINGEMANS: Sorry to press you, whereabouts in Wiltshire? Can you give a town that you are near?

LORD HUTTON: Was Mrs Kelly with Dr Kelly at this time, Mr A?

MR DINGEMANS: Do you have a drive?

MR DINGEMANS: Was 100 yards the closest he could park?

MR DINGEMANS: And how did he seem to you when you saw him on 10th July?

MR DINGEMANS: Was that usual behaviour for him?

MR DINGEMANS: Was that usual?

MR DINGEMANS: Had you by this stage become aware of the Ministry of Defence press release on the evening of 8th July which referred to an unnamed official coming forward?

MR DINGEMANS: And he did not volunteer anything about that to you?

MR DINGEMANS: Had you ever discussed retirement plans or Dr Kelly's retirement plans?

MR DINGEMANS: What was that change?

MR DINGEMANS: Did he tell you what events he was referring to?

MR DINGEMANS: "Dealing with people", what sort of people?

MR DINGEMANS: Did he refer, in this context, to the dossier at all?

MR DINGEMANS: Is there anything else surrounding the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?

MR DINGEMANS: Is there anything else you would like to say?

LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Mr A.

MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, I am afraid we will need a couple of minutes to disconnect.

LORD HUTTON: I will rise.

LORD HUTTON: Sit down again, please, Dr Jones.

MR DINGEMANS: Dr Jones, I am sorry to have interrupted your evidence. You have told us about the three categories of concern you had in relation to the 45 minutes comment. You had also dealt with the other matter highlighted on that. When you were having your meeting on 19th September in DIS, was the person who we have heard of as Mr A present?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): I do not know whether the voice was distorted or whether you might have been able to recognise him?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): He sounded fairly forceful about certain matters. Was that a fair impression?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Right.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): So it was to iron out those differences of perception?

LORD HUTTON: He was the what expert, sorry?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. It seems from what Mr A had said that the invitation was extended by Dr Kelly. Did you invite Mr A or did Dr Kelly?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Mr A referred to the letter at CAB/3/79. He identified a number of comments that Dr Kelly had made and he identified Dr Kelly as being the source of those comments. Did that accord with your recollection?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Yes.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): The letter of 19th September we can see on the screen, was that sent after your meeting with Dr Kelly and Mr A and your other assessment staff?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Person coordinating?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): So this is the letter from your branch, reported up comments?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): And the coordinator, having heard all the comments from DIS, then put this letter together?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Do you remember what dossier you were looking at on 19th September? We have one at CAB/3/22 which, in the top right-hand corner, has some handwriting, 19th September on it.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): That day?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): We are told that the 19th September 2002 has been written on after the event to help us try to follow the progress of the dossier but is taken, as it were, from computer records. So you think it was a dossier that you got in that day?

LORD HUTTON: Do you remember, Dr Jones, the draft of the dossier that you looked at of 19th September, was it in the same form as the dossier that was finally published on 24th September? Do you remember that?

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Might it have been exactly the same or -- I appreciate it is very difficult to remember precisely.

LORD HUTTON: -- is it the position it might have been the identical document or it was certainly close to it?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

MR DINGEMANS: Right. You saw another version, handwriting in the top right-hand corner with the 20th on it?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): No, no, not at the time, but last week?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Of dossiers?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Do you remember -- it is slightly unfair -- how many dossiers there were listed there?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): What was the latest dossier that you recall there?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): After the meeting on 19th September, your CW expert, and I imagine that is a different --

LORD HUTTON: Sorry, may I just ask: you said that the purpose of that meeting was to really resolve an issue which was that some members of your staff had reservations about the dossier, whereas Dr Kelly had told you that he thought it was a good dossier. That was the purpose of the meeting, as I understand it.

LORD HUTTON: How was that matter resolved at that meeting or was it resolved?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: Please correct me if I am in any way wrong in my understanding. Was it the position that Dr Kelly then did not express a view about the 45 minute claim, in that it was based on recent intelligence which he had not seen?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.

MR DINGEMANS: After the meeting, a letter is written, we have seen that letter, which incorporates various comments and --

MR DINGEMANS (continued): We have seen the letter, 19th September letter.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Yes. Do you want to see it again?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): No, sorry. Well, comments are passed up to the coordinator, who then writes the letter.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Were any comments passed up, as a result of the meeting, to the coordinator by your group?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Right. But by then, comments had been passed up by your CW expert that had not been accepted in the subsequent drafts?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Was your CW expert happy or unhappy about this?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): So what do you do in those circumstances?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Can you tell us why?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): The JIC assessment finalised?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): At the Joint Intelligence Committee meeting?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Because the Chief of Defence Intelligence would say, "Look, you are being silly about this; for reasons A, B, C I am not going to represent this argument in the Joint Intelligence Committee" or "You have persuaded me, I will see what I can do".

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Did that happen in this case?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Right.

LORD HUTTON: Carry on please, Dr Jones.

MR DINGEMANS: Mr Scarlett told us that he set up a drafting committee, sub-committee, I hope I represent it fairly, from the Joint Intelligence Committee and his joint intelligence assessment staff which was responsible for drafting the dossier.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): And that is what you refer to as being a slightly unusual process, is it?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): What was abnormal?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Right.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Right.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): So the -- and I think Mr Scarlett has already told us this -- Joint Intelligence Committee committee meetings are the Wednesday. If you work back on the dossier: the dossier is published on 24th September; we know there are some versions, 20th you refer to or late on the 19th, maybe the same one, which are produced after the Joint Intelligence Committee had met.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Right. Do you understand there to have been a full meeting of the Joint Intelligence Committee which considered the final draft of the dossier?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Right. Would you normally know of meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Their usual meetings are the Wednesday. You would have known there was an extraordinary, in the sense of not the usual time, meeting?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Is that why you considered the process -- I used the word "abnormal", you did not like that, you said "unusual". Is that why you considered there was an unusual process?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Was the perception, right or wrong, that the Joint Intelligence Committee had not considered in committee the final draft before it was published something that was commented on by others?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): As a result of this, did you take any action?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Can I call up a minute and you can tell me if it is the right one?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): It is MoD/22/1. If we scroll down.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): You send it to various people; and it said: "... has been involved in the generation of the Iraq dossier which, in the last two weeks has involved a number of iterations which have incorporated new intelligence. It is my understanding that some of the intelligence has not been made available to my branch. Because of this they have had to express their reservations on several aspects of the dossier. Most of these have been resolved. However, a number remain in the document at reference and it is important that I note for you at this stage the remaining areas where we are unable to confirm the statements made on the basis of the information available to my branch." Was that the background against which you wrote the note?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Then you make a number of points: "Although we have no problem with a judgment based on intelligence that Saddam attaches great importance to possessing WMD we have not seen the intelligence that 'shows' this to be the case. Nor have we seen intelligence that 'shows' he does not regard them only as a weapon of last resort, although our judgment is that it would be sensible to assume he might use them in a number of other scenarios. The intelligence we have seen indicates rather than 'shows'..." That I think picks up a point you were making shortly before lunch, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): At 3: "We have a number of questions in our minds relating to the intelligence on the military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, particularly about the times mentioned and the failure to differentiate between the two types of weapon." Is that a reference to the 45 minutes point?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): "4. We have not seen intelligence which we believe 'shows' that Iraq has continued to produce CW agent in 1998-2002, although our judgment is that it has probably done so. Whilst we are even more convinced that Iraq has continued to produce biological weapons agent (on the basis of mobile production intelligence) we would not go so far as to say we 'know' this to be the case." That is on BW, is that?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): That is a thing that Dr Kelly would have known about; is that right?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Over the page: "Finally, I note we are pleased that the claim that Iraq used aflatoxin against the Shi'a uprising in 1991 has been excluded from the dossier but we are concerned that the claim in relation to mustard remains as we consider the evidence to be weak." To a lawyer who reads people moaning about words all the time, it might seem that this is a usual sort of minute to write. Would that be a fair impression?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Did you get a response?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): You got the impression he did not really mean it when he said "thank you".

MR DINGEMANS (continued): At MoD/4/11 we can see a letter that is dated 8th July 2003, which refers to the fact that, halfway down: "Your records will show that as [then there is a title] and probably the most senior and experienced intelligence community official working on 'WMD', I was so concerned about the manner in which intelligence assessments for which I had some responsibility were being presented in the dossier of 24 September 2002, that I was moved to write formally to your predecessor, Tony Cragg, recording and explaining my reservations." Do you know anything about this letter?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): That is from you, is it?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): And I think we have seen the terms of that letter.

LORD HUTTON: Now, was Mr Tony Cragg someone separate and distinct from your director or is he the same?

LORD HUTTON: I see.

LORD HUTTON: He was the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence.

LORD HUTTON: He was your director's boss?

LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see. Thank you.

MR DINGEMANS: Can I take you to a document? It is SJW/1/59 and take you to the bottom of that. Taking it down the page, if that is all right, this is said to be a tape recording of Dr Kelly in conversation with Ms Watts. And if I pick it up just before the bottom of the page you can see: "DK: I wouldn't go as strongly as to say that particular bit, because I was not involved in the assessment of it, no. [He is talking about the 45 minutes] I can't say that it was against MY advice. I was uneasy with it. I mean my problem was I could give other explanations, which I've indicated to you, that it was the time to erect something like a scud missile or it was the time to fill a 40 barrel multi barrel rocket launcher. "45 minutes might well be important and I mean I have no idea who de-briefed this guy, quite often it's someone who has no idea of the topic and the information comes through and people then use it as they see fit." Do you recall Dr Kelly expressing those sort of comments?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): But you recall there was some discussion about the 45 minutes around the table?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): It is just you --

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Ms Watts says: "So it wasn't as if there were lots of people saying don't put it in don't put it in, it's just it was in there and was seized upon, rather than No. 10 specifically going against." Dr Kelly is reported as saying this: "There were lots of people saying that -- I mean it was an interesting week before the dossier was put out because there were so many things in there that people were saying well we're not so sure about that, or in fact they were happy with it being in but not expressed the way that it was, because the wordsmithing is actually quite important and the intelligence community are a pretty cautious lot on the whole but once you get people putting it/presenting it for public consumption of course they use different words. I don't think they're being wilfully dishonest I think they just think that that's the way the public will appreciate it best. I'm sure you have the same problem as a journalist don't you? Sometimes you've got to put things into words that the public will understand." Is that a fair reflection of what was going on in the week before the dossier was published?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): And a few people obviously then around Dr Kelly, because he was around the same sort of people.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Well, generally.

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Over the page, at the top of page 60: "In your heart of hearts [this is Dr Kelly still] you must realise sometimes that's not actually the right thing to say but it's the only way you can put it over if you've got to get it over in two minutes or three minutes. Ms Watts: Did you actually write that section which refers to the 45 minutes or was it somebody else? "Dr Kelly: I didn't write THAT section, no. I mean I reviewed the whole thing. I was involved with the whole process. In the end it was just a flurry of activity and it was very difficult to get comments in because people at the top of the ladder didn't want to hear some of the things." Was that a fair comment?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Now if --

MR DINGEMANS (continued): If members of your staff had given this sort of information to journalists about the discussions that had taken place in your branch relating to concerns about the dossier, what would your reaction have been to that?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Can I take you to one final reference, CAB/29/15? This is the e-mail -- I think you were in while Mr A was on the screen. This was Mr A's e-mail. Just at the bottom of CAB/29/15 Mr A makes the comment: "Another example supporting our view that you and I should have been more involved in this than the spin merchants of this administration." Mr A has explained what he meant by that. Was there a perception, right or wrong, amongst DIS personnel that spin merchants were involved with the dossier?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): And were people in the intelligence community happy with that?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Is there anything else surrounding the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?

MR DINGEMANS (continued): Is there anything else you would like to say?

LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed Dr Jones.

MR DINGEMANS: Mr Green, please.

LORD HUTTON: Just sit down, please, Mr Green.

MR DINGEMANS: Can you tell his Lordship your full name?

MR DINGEMANS: What is your occupation?

MR DINGEMANS: Who do you work for?

MR DINGEMANS: And is that a private company or a publicly owned company?

MR DINGEMANS: What does being a forensic biologist mean that you do?

MR DINGEMANS: Were you involved in the investigation into Dr Kelly's death?

MR DINGEMANS: And when was your first involvement?

MR DINGEMANS: Yes, of course.

MR DINGEMANS: At what time, morning, evening?

MR DINGEMANS: Around about?

MR DINGEMANS: What did you do as a result of that?

MR DINGEMANS: What was the name of your colleague?

MR DINGEMANS: What time did you get to Harrowdown Hill?

MR DINGEMANS: 2 o'clock in the afternoon?

MR DINGEMANS: Who was there?

MR DINGEMANS: What did you see when you arrived?

MR DINGEMANS: What did you see when you arrive?

MR DINGEMANS: Right.

MR DINGEMANS: Yes. Leading up to?

MR DINGEMANS: When you arrived at the body, what did you do?

MR DINGEMANS: How long were you doing that for?

MR DINGEMANS: Yes.

MR DINGEMANS: How long were you on the scene for that day?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you spend your whole time looking at the body and then coming back and making reports?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. What did you do that for?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you find anything on the gate?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you find anything around the body area of interest?

MR DINGEMANS: Where had the blood come from?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. I think we have heard from an extract that Mr Page has read out to us that the ulnar artery was severed. Did you understand that to be the case at the time?

MR DINGEMANS: What do you expect to see in such circumstances?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you find that arterial rain?

MR DINGEMANS: On what?

MR DINGEMANS: And did you look for the distribution of blood?

MR DINGEMANS: We have heard from some ambulance personnel, and they said they were not specifically looking, for obvious reasons, at the distribution of blood but they noted, just on their brief glance, not very much blood. What were your detailed findings?

LORD HUTTON: There was -- I beg your pardon?

MR DINGEMANS: A bit like blotting paper in some respects?

MR DINGEMANS: What else did you see around the body?

MR DINGEMANS: Was the knife bloodstained?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you examine the vegetation around the body?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you form any conclusions from that examination?

MR DINGEMANS: What does that mean?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. When you first saw the body, what position was it in?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you make any other relevant discoveries while you were looking around the area?

MR DINGEMANS: What do you mean by a "contact bloodstain"?

MR DINGEMANS: Which means at some stage his left wrist must have been in contact with his trousers?

MR DINGEMANS: Any other findings?

MR DINGEMANS: And what did that indicate to you?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

MR DINGEMANS: They become?

MR DINGEMANS: You thought he is likely to have had a drink then?

MR DINGEMANS: What else did you find?

MR DINGEMANS: Had crossed?

MR DINGEMANS: We know, in fact, the wrist which was cut was the left wrist, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: And we know that Dr Kelly was right handed.

MR DINGEMANS: Were those all your relevant findings?

MR DINGEMANS: And was that the extent of your investigations that day?

MR DINGEMANS: You mentioned the tablet packets; those were the Coproxamol tablets?

MR DINGEMANS: How many packets were there?

MR DINGEMANS: Yes.

MR DINGEMANS: They were packets of 10 each, were they?

LORD HUTTON: Were the packets actually found -- in what part of the clothing?

LORD HUTTON: I think it suffices to have your evidence, thank you. And it was the pathologist who found them, was it? He took them out, did he; Dr Hunt?

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.

MR DINGEMANS: Were you present while any other relevant discoveries were made?

MR DINGEMANS: That concluded your investigations on the day, did it?

MR DINGEMANS: And what further investigations did you make?

MR DINGEMANS: To analyse?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. And you have carried all that out and reported back to Assistant Chief Constable Page or through his senior investigating officer?

MR DINGEMANS: Right.

MR DINGEMANS: Because you are just finishing off the testing of that material?

MR DINGEMANS: I think when all that is concluded Assistant Chief Constable Page is going to come back and tell us the results. Subject to that, is there anything else that you know of relating to the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?

LORD HUTTON: Very well. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Green.

MR DINGEMANS: Thank you for coming at short notice.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Is that a conclusion of the evidence for today?

MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, no. Mr Lamb is coming, just to be signed off formally.

LORD HUTTON: I see. Yes.

MR DINGEMANS: I am sorry to have brought you back. When you gave your evidence in two parts earlier on I did not ask you, as I had asked everyone else, was there anything else you knew, and at that time that was because you had just reported the contact that David Broucher had made with you; is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: And in fact in the interim we have heard from David Broucher and he has given his evidence.

MR DINGEMANS: And I think you have had a holiday?

MR DINGEMANS: Can I just ask you two quick questions in fact, now that I have got you back? First of all, on 5th June I think we had heard from the Foreign Affairs Committee that there was a meeting between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Do you recall that?

MR DINGEMANS: Yes, 5th June, which is shortly after Mr Gilligan's broadcast, and the Foreign Affairs Committee I think probably announced either that day or the day before they were going to set up an investigation. Do you recall visiting them on some --

MR DINGEMANS: I have not looked, sorry.

MR DINGEMANS: Right.

LORD HUTTON: I think the 5th June was a Thursday actually.

MR DINGEMANS: We have also heard from you last time on 17th June you met Mr Howard at a reception and had mentioned the contact Dr Kelly had reported to you that he had had with Mr Gilligan.

MR DINGEMANS: And Mr Howard had then reported to Mr Tebbit and there was an interview going to be arranged for Dr Kelly to be seen on 24th June. Mr Howard told us that it was you that was to notify Dr Kelly of that interview. Do you recall that?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. Did you in fact tell Dr Kelly of your conversation with Mr Howard?

MR DINGEMANS: I am sorry to have brought you back to answer this final question: is there anything else that you know then of the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?

MR DINGEMANS:

MR DINGEMANS: Thank you very much.

LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much. Mr Lamb, I think it was entirely proper of you to bring to the attention of the Inquiry Mr Broucher's recollection.

MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, that is the end of the evidence for today.

LORD HUTTON: I will sit again at 10.30 tomorrow morning.