I mentioned on August 25 that there were three pages missing from one of the drafts of the September dossier.
During the evidence of John Scarlett on Tuesday (which I'm currently ploughing through), Lord Hutton pulls him up on the missing pages (68:10), the foreword to the dossier. Dingemans then says that the missing pages are with the batch of documentation supplied to the Inquiry earlier that morning. And Scarlett says the foreword was identical to that of the previous draft. Nothing more is made of the missing pages at that point.
In fact, there was apparently a large quantity of documentation supplied by HMG to the Inquiry over the weekend (Monday was a public holiday in England). Several times, Hutton or Dingemans make some sort of reference to the fact to Scarlett, and it would not, I think, be too radical a reading of the text to infer that they were somewhat pissed off. Why, if everyone else (Gilligan excepted, natch!) had furnished their documentary evidence in good time should HMG be feeding stuff in so late?
(Nothing, in what I've read so far, has Scarlett being asked outright for an explanation.)
From a piece in the Guardian, I learn of the Dracos site which presents the material from the official Hutton site stripped of frames.
Dracos has also provided links which convert the documentary evidence from PDF (which is the format used on the official site) to HTML (using a link on the Adobe site). The HTML product is hideous to look at, but has the advantage of being searchable - the PDF files have simply been copied, and even the Acrobat Find feature does not work on them.
It is possible, using the technique I mention in my August 24 piece, to acquire with minimal effort the documentary evidence in both formats. The PDF/HTML conversion is not instantaneous; quite how long it would take to download the lot on a 56k modem, I wouldn't like to speculate!