This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/19/concerns-death-david-kelly

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Concerns remain over the death of Dr David Kelly Concerns remain over the death of Dr David Kelly
(2 months later)
Your letter (15 July) is a sad reminder to how the public trust in the police, justice system and government has dwindled to an extent where only a few expect justice to be done for David Kelly. Lord Hutton who investigated Dr Kelly's death had neither coronial experience nor medical qualification and had no legal power to rule on the cause of death; only a coroner or jury, if one sits, has that power. No coroner has ever ruled on the cause of death, no final death certificate has ever been registered and the inquest was not formally closed as required by law.Your letter (15 July) is a sad reminder to how the public trust in the police, justice system and government has dwindled to an extent where only a few expect justice to be done for David Kelly. Lord Hutton who investigated Dr Kelly's death had neither coronial experience nor medical qualification and had no legal power to rule on the cause of death; only a coroner or jury, if one sits, has that power. No coroner has ever ruled on the cause of death, no final death certificate has ever been registered and the inquest was not formally closed as required by law.
Hutton's proceedings applied no standard of proof. The standard of proof required in English law for a coroner to pass a suicide verdict is the same for a judge who finds a murderer guilty: beyond reasonable doubt. No cross-examination of the pathologist occurred, no second opinion from another pathologist was sought and no evidence was taken under oath. A suicide verdict not only has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but also the intent to commit suicide has to be proved. The deciding factor that brought the pathologist to the conclusion that Dr Kelly intended to take his own life was that he had deliberately removed his glasses and wristwatch. However, the pathologist failed to explain how the evidence pointed at Kelly removing the glasses and wristwatch and not a third party.Hutton's proceedings applied no standard of proof. The standard of proof required in English law for a coroner to pass a suicide verdict is the same for a judge who finds a murderer guilty: beyond reasonable doubt. No cross-examination of the pathologist occurred, no second opinion from another pathologist was sought and no evidence was taken under oath. A suicide verdict not only has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but also the intent to commit suicide has to be proved. The deciding factor that brought the pathologist to the conclusion that Dr Kelly intended to take his own life was that he had deliberately removed his glasses and wristwatch. However, the pathologist failed to explain how the evidence pointed at Kelly removing the glasses and wristwatch and not a third party.
The search party that discovered Dr Kelly's body found it sat/slumped against a tree. The first police officer on the scene also confirmed this position of the body in a 2010 newspaper interview, but he told the Hutton inquiry it was flat on its back. There remains a lack of clarity about who the first police officer attended the scene with, how long he remained at the scene and what happened in the two hours after the ambulance crew departed. In that time, eyewitness evidence suggests the scene was rearranged.The search party that discovered Dr Kelly's body found it sat/slumped against a tree. The first police officer on the scene also confirmed this position of the body in a 2010 newspaper interview, but he told the Hutton inquiry it was flat on its back. There remains a lack of clarity about who the first police officer attended the scene with, how long he remained at the scene and what happened in the two hours after the ambulance crew departed. In that time, eyewitness evidence suggests the scene was rearranged.
There remains much public concern over the death of Dr David Kelly, but far greater concern over the state of the British justice system.
Peter Beswick
Romsey, Hampshire		There remains much public concern over the death of Dr David Kelly, but far greater concern over the state of the British justice system.
Peter Beswick
Romsey, Hampshire
• Your report on the anniversary of the death of David Kelly (16 July) omitted to mention that the ex-UN inspector believed that Iraq did have WMD and that he supported the 2003 invasion as the only way of stopping Saddam's WMD programme. Both these points are clear from the evidence provided by Mr Kelly's family to the Hutton inquiry. That the Guardian omits these salient facts while giving space to various conspiracy theories shows disrespect to its readers and to Mr Kelly's family.
Calum MacDonald
London 		• Your report on the anniversary of the death of David Kelly (16 July) omitted to mention that the ex-UN inspector believed that Iraq did have WMD and that he supported the 2003 invasion as the only way of stopping Saddam's WMD programme. Both these points are clear from the evidence provided by Mr Kelly's family to the Hutton inquiry. That the Guardian omits these salient facts while giving space to various conspiracy theories shows disrespect to its readers and to Mr Kelly's family.
Calum MacDonald
London
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.