‘There wasn’t much blood about’: Detective who found weapons expert David Kelly’s body raises questions over his death
By Rebecca Camber Last updated at 9:11 PM on 8th August 2010
The mystery surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly deepened yesterday after the detective who found his body claimed he didn’t see ‘much blood’. The revelation by Detective Constable Graham Coe casts further doubt on the Hutton Report’s verdict that the Ministry of Defence scientist died of blood loss after slitting his wrist. In his first interview, Mr Coe, now retired, also said that police searched Dr Kelly’s home the day after his death for papers ‘of a sensitive nature’ about Iraq.
Dr Kelly, an expert on biological and chemical weapons, was found dead in woodland near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003. A week earlier he had been exposed by the Labour government as the source of a BBC report claiming No 10 ‘sexed up’ reports of Iraq’s ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction. Lord Hutton’s inquiry found in 2004 that the 59-year-old killed himself by slashing his wrist with a blunt pruning knife. Mr Coe, now 63, was the first to find the body and stood guard for 25 minutes before back-up arrived. DC Graham Coe’s evidence makes callls for an inquest into David Kelly’s death even more compelling DC Graham Coe’s evidence makes callls for inquest into Dr David Kelly’s death even more compellHe told the Mail on Sunday: ‘I certainly didn’t see a lot of blood anywhere. There was some on his left wrist but it wasn’t on his clothes. ‘On the ground there wasn’t much blood about, if any.’ The Hutton Report said there were bloodstains on a water bottle next to the corpse. Mr Coe said: ‘I didn’t see any bloodstains on the bottle and I didn’t check the knife.’ His account matches that of two experienced paramedics at the scene, who said the lack of blood was puzzling. They have previously said: ‘It is incredibly unlikely he [Dr Kelly] died from the wrist wound we saw.’ They have been backed by Dr Neville Davis MBE, a former president of clinical forensic medicine at the Royal Society of Medicine, who said there would have been a ‘hell of a lot of blood’ on the scientists clothes and the ground if he had died from a cut to the artery.
Mr Coe also confirmed the disputed existence of a ‘third man’ with him and his partner DC Colin Shields that day. Critics who believe Dr Kelly was murdered have claimed that the suited figure mentioned in the accounts of volunteer searchers could have been from the security services. At the Hutton inquiry Mr Coe denied anyone else had been present, but the former Thames Valley Police detective now says there had been a trainee police officer, whom he refused to name and said had left the force. Mr Coe also acted as ‘exhibits officer’ in a search of Dr Kelly’s home the day after his death. He recalled: ‘We were looking for documents relating to Iraq. No one knew whether he kept any papers of a sensitive nature at home. ‘We had to search. If someone writes a suicide note, you’ll find it. We were looking for politically sensitive documents.’
Attorney General Dominic Grieve has already said he is ‘ concerned’ by allegations around the Kelly case and has called for a fresh investigation. Yesterday Transport Minister Norman Baker, who has campaigned for a full independent inquest, said: ‘This is important new evidence, which I am sure the Attorney General will want to investigate. It raises serious questions about the conclusions reached by Lord Hutton.’ However, Mr Coe does not suspect foul play. He said: ‘In my view he [Dr Kelly] took his own life. Only he will know why he did that.’
Share this article:
Here’s what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below, or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have been moderated in advance.
If he remains convinced Kelly killed himself, what is the point of this article?
Everyone with a brain knows he did not kill himself.
What has the value of this former officer’s house got to do with it?
– mike lewis, clitheroe, 08/8/2010 09:57
Coe spoke to Ruth Absolom who told him of there meeting the previous day, she told him which direction Dr Kelly went in when they parted. Coe decided to conduct his search in entirely the opposite direction! Why?
Coe and different times in his retelling of events is; on his own, with one colleague, with two colleagues. Why?
The vastly important issue of if Dr Kelly’s body has been moved after it was found by the search team has not been resolved! Why?
Why was Coe searching for secret documents when the security services are paid to do that?
Why was Coe’s presence at the Hutton inquiry delayed?
There are many other questions Mr Coe could be asked, including why he thinks there were no fingerprints on the knife and if there was not too much blood around does that not indicate Dr Kelly did not kill himself/
These questions could be asked at an inquest. Clearly Cameron and Clegg like Blair and Brown don’t want the truth to come out.
– Peter B, Hants, 08/8/2010 09:46
How much longer are the ‘authorities’ going to perpetuate the obvious fiction that Dr Kelly committed suicide, HE WAS MURDERED to shut him up.
The Hutton fiasco was typical Labour cover up and whitewash job, and must be exposed as such by a proper Coroner’s Inquest where witnesses are under oath,
and could face prison for perjury if they lie.
The people are sick and tired of being lied to and misled by those who are elected, or appointed, to look after our interests. This country belongs to us, and we, THE PEOPLE, demand the truth.
The years of Communist style Labour mis-rule are over, and must never be allowed to return.
On that note a piece of advice for that mega hypocrite The Right Honourable Anthony Wedgewood – Benn, get a life and keep your stupid, out dated, lefty ideas to your self.
– phil, southampton uk, 08/8/2010 09:35
Is there any point in noting anything more about this case than that the files are to be kept secret for decades? Suicides surely don’t require any secrecy regarding their actions but murderers clearly do.
Dr Kelly was murdered by a state, either this one or more likely another one that had a lot to gain from America and the UK attacking Iraq.
– John, Dundee, UK, 08/8/2010 09:28
Why is DC Coe not being prosecuted for perjury with regards to denial of the third person present there .If it was all above board he would have readily admitted it at the Hutton enquiry and provided the person name.
– Bignigefromfrance, Poitiers, 08/8/2010 09:19
It must be easy to prove the blood stain on the ground as there must have been extensive photographs taken. Did Hutton look at the photos? If not why not? An enquiry is most certainly needed along with the rescinding of the seventy year rule on viewing the evidence. We have been repeatedly told if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide.
– Peter whale, Montpon france, 08/8/2010 09:07
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.