Death of Dr. David Kelly: Disinformation, censorship and coverup by the UK media
Stephen Frost | 15.11.2010 11:34 | Anti-militarism | Iraq | Other Press | Sheffield | World
Dr David Kelly was found dead in the woods in July 2003
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction:The Assessment of the UK Government, Sep 2002
Death of Dr. David Kelly: Disinformation, Censorship and Coverup by the British Media
by Dr. Stephen Frost, 14 November 2010
Global Research Editor's Note:
Global Research is publishing what the "progressive" British press has refused to publish concerning the mysterious death of Dr. David Kelly.
_______________________
DISINFORMATION AND CENSORSHIP AT THE GUARDIAN re DR DAVID KELLY
In August 2010, I sent the letter immediately below in response to a Guardian editorial (see ANNEX 1) and an edited version of my letter was published (see ANNEX 2). In October 2010, I sent a letter (see below the letter immediately below) in response to Vikram Dodd's article (see ANNEX 3) and despite much discussion no response was ever published, even in edited form.
Dear Sir,
In response to today's Guardian editorial:
Why are so many people confused about this? It is not a question of whether there should or should not be a proper inquest into Dr Kelly's death. This is NOT a matter for debate.
The laws of this country state very clearly that there MUST be an inquest into any death occurring in the manner in which Dr David Kelly is said to have died.
Further, before a suicide verdict can be returned, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased not only killed himself but also that he intended to kill himself. In the absence of a suicide note, it is obviously
extremely difficult to achieve this level of proof. Anyone who cares to examine the transcripts of the evidence heard by Lord Hutton (at the Hutton Inquiry website) can see plainly that Hutton could not be satisfied
to the required level of proof, even if he had heard evidence under oath, which he scandalously and crucially did not.
Further, Lord Falconer inappropriately invoked Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners' Act in order to derail the Inquest, "ordering" the Oxfordshire Coroner Nicholas Gardiner to "adjourn indefinitely" his inquest on 13
August 2003. This disgraceful intervention by the then Lord Chancellor, who was unelected and a former flatmate of Tony Blair, constituted a blatant subversion of due process of the law.
In the case of Dr David Kelly, the suicide verdict of Hutton is clearly unsafe and may represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice ever to occur in this country.
A suicide verdict effectively closes the case for ever, and if the deceased was in fact murdered stops the search for the murderer(s). It also smears the victim (who obviously cannot defend his reputation), his family and his friends. A suicide verdict should not be reached lightly, and if there is any doubt the Coroner should return an open verdict.
The fact that no inquest has been held into Dr David Kelly's death is nothing less than a national disgrace, particularly when one recalls the context in which his death took place.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Stephen Frost
_______________________
This letter (see below) was submitted to The Guardian in reply to Vikram Dodd's Guardian article (see ANNEX 3). The Guardian despite repeated prompts and discussions has refused or neglected to publish our letter. Right of reply, enshrined in editorial guidelines, has thereby been denied.
LETTER FOR PUBLICATION
Dear Sir,
Vikram Dodd's Comment is Free article of 24 October 2010 has as its headline "The experts are clear on how David Kelly died" followed by "Not a single forensic pathologist has challenged the conclusions of the Hutton inquiry".
The truth is that the experts are far from clear on how Dr David Kelly died, not least perhaps because no inquest has taken place. The continued refusal or neglect to hold an inquest into this important death, which is required by the laws of this country and of Europe, constitutes a blatant subversion of due process of the law. Further, it should be pointed out that forensic pathologists are employed by the Home Office, directly or indirectly.
In January of this year the well known London lawyers Leigh Day & Co., representing five doctors, formally requested that the Ministry of Justice allow the doctors and lawyers sight of all the medical and scientific documents/evidence relating to Dr David Kelly's death which had been secretly classified (at some time unknown in 2004/2005) for 70 years following the publication of the Hutton Report. Despite repeated questions, both before and after the General Election, the Ministry of Justice has been unable to tell us the exact date on which the documents were classified, nor indeed to enlighten us as to the legal basis for classifying the documents, nor for continuing to keep them secret. It is strongly suspected that no such legal basis exists.
On 22 October 2010, our lawyers finally received a reply from Ken Clarke, Secretary of State for Justice, in which he sought to justify not granting our request for sight of all the medical and scientific documents relating to the death. He also informed us that he intended to publish the post-mortem report and the toxicology report on the Internet that very same day. In a long rambling letter he attempted to justify his failure to comply with our lawyers' request by quoting exemptions to disclosure allowed under the Freedom of Information Act. But, we did not seek disclosure under the terms of that Act and that had been made very clear by our lawyers in January of this year. Further, it seemed extraordinary to us that medical in confidence documents should be published on the Internet for all to see, particularly the post mortem report and the toxicology report, especially in view of the previous government’s and this government's oft claimed
desire to avoid unnecessary upset to the Kelly family.
It seems to us that this Government, by publishing these two highly sensitive reports, hoped to draw a line under the whole affair. However, it will do no such thing. Some weeks ago a 35 page legal document, known as the Memorial, was submitted to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by our lawyers outlining the formal legal reasons why we think an inquest should take place. Under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act the Attorney General can grant us permission to apply to the High Court (or he can apply himself) for an inquest to be ordered. In order to do this he has only to be satisfied that, were an inquest to take place, the verdict MIGHT be different NOT that it WOULD be different. Section 13 requires that any ONE of six reasons be satisfied for the Attorney General to allow a formal application to the High Court for an inquest into a death. The six reasons are:
1) insufficiency of inquiry
2) irregularity of proceedings
3) rejection of evidence
4) new facts or evidence
5) fraud (in this context deception)
6) refusal or neglect by a coroner to hold an inquest which ought to be held
We need to provide evidence to satisfy ONE reason but the Memorial contains convincing evidence for ALL SIX reasons.
Notwithstanding the extremely strong case for an inquest which has been submitted to the Attorney General in the form of the Memorial, we intend as a matter of urgency to set up a fund so that we are in a position to contest vigorously any refusal by the Attorney General for us to proceed to the High Court by judicially reviewing any such decision.
It is essential in any democracy that due process of law is followed with the utmost rigour.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Stephen Frost
_______________________
ANNEX 1
Dr David Kelly's unquiet grave
Editorial
The Guardian
Tuesday 17 August 2010
![](/img/extlink.gif)
"This is the lowest point," Lord Mandelson records Tony Blair as saying after the death of Dr David Kelly. Even those who cannot bring themselves to commend Mr Blair for giving his book income to charity yesterday will find it hard to argue with his grim comment in 2003. Dr Kelly's death, after the weapons expert had been outed and hounded over the "sexing up" allegation against the Iraq dossier, was one of the most abject moments in recent history. The death, the intensely political context, and the much criticised Hutton report into the case together explain why, to this day, so many feel so certain that the truth has not been told. And they explain why, whether the doubters are right or not, it remains so absolutely important that the full facts must be public, which at present they are not, and be above suspicion.
Last week a group of senior doctors called for a full inquest to be held into Dr Kelly's death. They charged that the official verdict – bleeding from self-inflicted incised wounds to his left wrist – recorded by Lord Hutton (whose inquiry in effect replaced the normal inquest procedure) was "extremely unlikely". Most of the doctors' claims have in fact been made before. Most of them have been challenged before too, as they were once again yesterday in a letter to the Times by a pathologist who cast doubt both on the doctors' pathology expertise and their theory that there was not enough loss of blood to support the Hutton verdict.
The difference this time is less in the substance of the campaigners' arguments than in their context. In spite of the continuing outrage over the Kelly case no new evidence has actually been produced to support any alternative to Hutton's verdict. The Kelly family, moreover, have not so far lent their support to the new inquest campaign. But there is a new government now, which might be more inclined to act on the call than Labour was. And the cause is being more ardently promoted than ever by the Daily Mail group, which first asked Mr Blair back in 2003 whether he had blood on his hands.
It is reasonable to ask whether, at a time of huge public spending cuts, a fresh inquest with attendant lawyers' fees would be justifiable. The more so when a significantly different verdict, let alone one which would satisfy those who believe Dr Kelly was murdered, is extremely unlikely. Some people, it is obvious, will never be satisfied. Against that, however, there is the ineradicable importance of these events and the highly unusual denial of a proper inquest in this case. The need remains to get to the bottom of a great public and private agony. A full inquest should be sympathetically considered. But there can be few illusions that it will ever finally lay Dr Kelly's case to rest.
Comments (151)
_______________________
ANNEX 2
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Letters
Lack of Kelly inquest is a national disgrace
The Guardian
Thursday 19 August 2010
It is not a question of whether there should or should not be a proper inquest into Dr David Kelly's death (Editorial, 17 August). This is not a matter for debate. The laws of this country state very clearly that there must be an inquest into any death occurring in the manner in which Dr Kelly is said to have died.
Further, before a suicide verdict can be returned, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased intended to kill himself. In the absence of a suicide note, it is extremely difficult to achieve this level of proof. Anyone who examines the transcripts of the evidence heard by Lord Hutton can see that the required level of proof was not attained, even if Lord Hutton had heard evidence under oath, which he crucially did not.
Further, Lord Falconer inappropriately invoked Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners' Act, "ordering" the coroner Nicholas Gardiner to "adjourn indefinitely" his inquest into Dr Kelly's death on 13 August 2003. This intervention by the then lord chancellor surely constituted a blatant subversion of due process of the law.
In the case of Dr Kelly, the suicide verdict of Lord Hutton is clearly unsafe and may represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice ever to occur in this country. A suicide verdict effectively closes the case for ever, and if the deceased was in fact murdered stops the search for the murderer(s). A suicide verdict should not be reached lightly, and if there is any doubt the coroner should return an open verdict.
The fact that no inquest has been held into Dr David Kelly's death is nothing less than a national disgrace, particularly when one recalls the context in which his death took place.
Dr Stephen Frost
_______________________
ANNEX 3
![](/img/extlink.gif)
The experts are clear on how David Kelly died
Not a single forensic pathologist has challenged the conclusions of the Hutton inquiry
Vikram Dodd
guardian.co.uk
Sunday 24 October 2010
And so it goes on. Despite the release on Friday of the postmortem and toxicology reports into the death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, the claims will continue.
The Hutton inquiry into the factors leading to Kelly's death heard expert evidence and then concluded the weapons inspector had committed suicide.
Not one single party to the inquiry, which was more thorough than any inquest would have been, offered any evidence to the contrary. The inquiry into the death in 2003 was vitriolic at times, and ended up with the BBC and Kelly family joining together in a savage battle against the government.
I sat through Hutton's inquiry, and have sat through many inquests.
Despite Hutton's baffling conclusion that the government bore no blame for pressurising Kelly, his was a more rigorous inquiry into the death than an inquest.
But none of this has satisfied those determined to suggest something more malign was behind Kelly's demise.
Over the years, as new claims have emerged, I have gone back to a group of experts who would be best placed to spot anything untoward, namely forensic pathologists. They are the experts in determining causes of death.
What is striking is their consistency in saying the scientific evidence points to Hutton's inquiry having reached the right conclusion.
The Hutton inquiry found that Kelly, 59, died after cutting an artery in his left wrist, had taken an overdose of Coproxamol painkillers and had heart disease which left his coronary arteries "significantly narrowed".
The doubters, who some call conspiracy theorists, have failed in all the years to produce one single fact to support their claims.
Experts in forensic pathology say that the doubts raised, including those by doctors, were based on partial knowledge or misconceptions.
The critics have claimed that bleeding to death after cutting the ulnar artery was unlikely, and that evidence of large-scale blood loss at the scene was absent.
Dr Andrew Falzon, a consultant forensic pathologist with the Forensic Science Service, said Kelly's heart disease and overdose of Coproxamol meant a smaller loss of blood could kill him than that required to kill a healthy person: "You are going to succumb to a smaller volume of blood loss than if you were a 20-year-old with a healthy heart.
"The heart vessel is already deprived of oxygen because of the blockage of the vessels. With the loss of blood [caused by cutting the ulnar artery], there is less oxygen to the heart. Throw in the toxic level of drug, that makes the heart more sensitive to cardiac arrhythmia [an electrical disturbance] which causes sudden death.
"I'm sure bleeding from the ulnar artery can kill you."
Falzon also said the views of those not trained in forensic pathology, even if they are medically trained, needed to be treated with caution: "People who are not trained to look at causes of death will perceive things differently. It's hard for them to believe certain things can happen."
Professor Peter Vanezis, senior consultant in forensic medicine to the armed forces, said: "These people are more clinicians and are obviously surprised that a person can kill themselves like that." Vanezis said the lack of large amounts of blood in the wood where Kelly was discovered could also be easily explained: "It was outside – it could have gone into the soil."
Dr Andrew Davison, a forensic pathologist at Cardiff University, agreed: "You only have so much blood going around. If you have a heart condition you can't afford to lose as much blood as a healthy person."
Professor Derrick Pounder, head of forensic medicine and forensic pathologist at the University of Dundee, said: "It may be that there are several factors in a death. In this case, we know he had taken more than a therapeutic dose of drugs, and that he had some pre-existing heart disease. We have three factors in the death that are known to the public. The cause of death is likely an interplay between the three."
Professor Chris Milroy, now working in Canada, was a pathology professor at Sheffield University. He said: "I've seen nothing yet that proves anything other than Dr Kelly took his own life in the way the Hutton inquiry concluded, by cutting his wrists and taking an overdose."
Kelly's heart condition made him unable to withstand loss of blood to the extent that a fit person could. The death was "multifactoral": due to the cut to his wrist, a toxic dose of drugs and heart disease. The Dextropropoxyphene he took was itself toxic to the heart.
Milroy added: "It is difficult to estimate blood loss from looking at the scene."
Paramedics have claimed there was a lack of blood at the scene where Kelly's body was discovered. Professor Guy Rutty, of Leicester University, said: "The blood could have gone straight into the ground."
Both said paramedics were trained in saving lives, not in the forensic examination of scenes of death, which required a wholly different set of skills and expertise.
The forensic pathologist who examined Kelly's body, Dr Nicholas Hunt, gave the formal cause of death as: "Haemorrhage due to incised wounds of the left wrist", in conjunction with "Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis".
No expert in the field of forensic pathology has to date come forward to doubt that claim. Not one.
_______________________
Stephen Frost
Homepage:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21918
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Flashback: Imperial disinformation: The Guardian's Iran/Iraq coverage
15.11.2010 12:11
The Guardian, 22 May 2007
from the archives:
Imperial disinformation: The Guardian's Iran/Iraq coverage
Indymedia UK features, 28 May 2007
On 22nd May, 2007, the front page of The Guardian [1] was taken up by pro-war propaganda, designed to prepare public opinion to accept that war with Iran is an inevitable next step in the Anglo-American 'war on terror' [2] . Simon Tisdall's high-profile piece claimed that Iran has secret plans to do nothing less than wage war on, and defeat, American and British forces in Iraq by August.
Last February, Indymedia UK published a feature [3] on MI6 Iran disinformation being run by The Telegraph [4] and the BBC [ 1 | 2 ], "the British mainstream media are now reflexively boosting the US claim that Iran presents a threat to the West". The feature also contains more details about the looming war and what it's really about. [7]
___________________________
Notes:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
____________________________
Guardian Disinfo Newswire Articles:
Guardian promotes Bush administration war propaganda against Iran
Guardian promotes Bush administration war propaganda against Iran
Pentagon Propaganda Occupies the Guardian's Front Page
Guardian at the Gates: Surging Toward War With Iran
The Grauniad: An Unlimited Conduit for US-UK's War Propaganda
CASMII Strongly Criticises the Guardian for Anti-Iranian Article
____________________________
imc-uk-features
Homepage:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/371753.html
Flashback: The Guardian newspaper fronts ‘black propaganda’ against Iran
15.11.2010 13:11
____________________________________________________________________________________
from the archives:
The Guardian newspaper fronts ‘black propaganda’ against Iran
Infowars Ireland, 2 January 2010
On Thursday, 31 December 2009, a video was released through the UK’s Guardian Newspaper, claiming that “after a year-long investigation, GuardianFilms has exclusively uncovered the story of what happened to the five Britons kidnapped in Iraq on 29 May 2007, as the only survivor, Peter Moore, is released”. [1]
Granted, this PR effort on behalf of the British Secret Intelligence Services, using Guardian Newspapers as a front, is a cut-above U.S. IntelCenter’s amateurish video releases of ‘Al-CIA-Duh’ agents, (IntelCenter, a private intelligence group made up of Pentagon affiliated ex-spooks, who doctor and release so-called Al-Qaeda propaganda tapes) see Alex Jones Interviews Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul – Full Transcript
[2] for more details, here is an excerpt from that radio interview:
"So — so I believe you. My whole point here is — is that al-Qaeda — al-CIAda
didn’t carry out the attacks of 9/11 as you yourself have said. His first interview
said that he didn’t do it. Then they produced these computer-morphed videos and
fake audios that have been checked. And the Intel Center, headed up by
Rumsfeld’s former lieutenant, the private group was caught putting the same video
layer in with the original video. So it’s been proven that they’re creating these fake
videos."
also see CIA-Linked Intel Center Releases Highly Suspicious Bin Laden Tape [3] for a prime example.
But wait.. there is also another US angle to this .. An article in the Guardian yesterday (1 Jan 2010), Moore was ‘certainly’ held in Iran, says Petraeus [4] – “American intelligence contradicts foreign office line as Peter Moore arrives in UK”, by Julian Borger, diplomatic editor (SIS asset).
"US intelligence is convinced that Peter Moore spent at least some of his 31
months of captivity in Iran, one of America’s most senior military commanders
said today.
As Moore, a computer consultant from Lincoln, flew back to Britain, General David
Petraeus, the head of US central command, confirmed the American assessment
that Moore – seized with four bodyguards in Baghdad in 2007 – had “certainly”
been taken across the border into Iran. The Iranian role in the abduction, reported
on the Guardian website on Wednesday, suggests Tehran’s influence in Iraqi
politics is even more pervasive than previously thought.
The Foreign Office has repeatedly said that there is no evidence Moore was ever
held inside Iran, dismissing the report as “speculation”. But General Petraeus flatly
contradicted the official British view at a Baghdad press conference."
Are the US and Britain gearing up for an actual attack on Iran? or possibly there is now a change of tactics and the US and Britain have decided to go the road of a more prolonged ‘Dirty War’ with PR stunts such as the video below, they have been using Al-CIA-Duh within Iran to carry-out terrorist atrocities for some time now. Certainly Petraeus is a liar. The one truthful statement in the Guardian article came from the Iranian side:
"Iran has denied involvement in the abduction of the Britons, and state television
in Iran has described the Guardian’s reporting as 'part of a psychological war
against Iran'."
Here is GuardianFilms video, judge for yourselves:
_________________
Notes:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
____________________
Infowars Ireland
Homepage:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/guardian-newspaper-fronts-%E2%80%98black-propaganda%E2%80%99-against-iran.html
The Guardian's disinformation regarding the assassination of Dr. David Kelly
15.11.2010 13:59
from the archives:
Political assassination: Media disinformation regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly
UK Physicians respond to The Guardian
by Drs. C Stephen Frost and David Halpin and Christopher J Burns-Cox, 16 December 2007
Global Research editor's note
The following letter by Drs. C Stephen Frost, David Halpin and Christopher J Burns-Cox was sent to The Guardian in response to a review of Norman Baker's recently published book The Strange Death of David Kelly.
The article by Richard Norton-Taylor suggests in no uncertain terms that the Hon. Norman Baker is a "conspiracy theorist".
The authors of the letter are prominent physicians who have analysed the causes of Dr. Kelly's death in several Global Research Articles.
Dear Sir
Richard Norton-Taylor struggles mightily to discredit Norman Baker and his recently published book The Strange Death of David Kelly, in his review of that book (Guardian, 1 December 2007). The struggle is all the more confusing because Norton-Taylor does concede that "the inquiry [the Hutton Inquiry] into the circumstances surrounding Kelly's death, which also became a quasi-inquest, shed a bright light on the way Downing Street, with the help of intelligence chiefs who should have known better, conspired to draw up the disgraceful Iraqi weapons dossier."
Norton-Taylor entirely misses, and one has to wonder whether he does so deliberately, the central point made by the many reasonable people who are concerned that Dr David Kelly has been denied a proper inquest: that due process of law has not been followed, indeed it has been comprehensively subverted.
These two articles point unerringly to a Government cover-up. The importance of such a cover-up (in the context of the investigation of the suspicious death of the world expert on biological and chemical weapons who, at the time of his death, was perceived to be blowing the whistle on the Government which had taken the country to illegal war on a pack of lies) cannot be over-emphasised. That is the end of the argument. Richard Norton-Taylor (and others in his position) should be pressing for a proper investigation of Kelly's death, ie a proper inquest, rather than wasting his time attempting to rubbish Norman Baker's book, while claiming the moral high ground. Otherwise, there is a risk that he and other apparent apologists for the dreadful Blair and Brown governments are seen in the future as the shameless enablers that perhaps they are.
Yours faithfully
Dr C Stephen Frost BSc MBChB Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology, Stockholm, Sweden
David Halpin FRCS
Dr Christopher J Burns-Cox FRCP MD
_______________________________
Alone in the woods
Richard Norton-Taylor is unconvinced by the conspiracy theories in The Strange Death of David Kelly by Norman Baker
by Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 1 December 2007
The Strange Death of David Kelly
by Norman Baker
399pp, Methuen, £9.99
Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, is one of parliament's most persistent harassers of ministers and officials. Over the past year he has diverted his energy to the many theories, encouraged by some disturbing and unanswered questions, surrounding the death of David Kelly, the government's highly respected weapons expert whose body was found in a wood near his Oxfordshire home on July 18 2003. An unintentional whistleblower, his remarks to the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, about how the Blair government had exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam's weapons programme, provoked an intense and ugly row between Downing Street and the BBC, leading ultimately to Kelly's death.
With terrier-like persistence Baker searches and turns over all the conspiracy theories, which began to hatch even before Lord Hutton's inquiry ended. The inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Kelly's death, which also became a quasi-inquest, shed a bright light on the way Downing Street, with the help of intelligence chiefs who should have known better, conspired to draw up the disgraceful Iraqi weapons dossier. Hutton, as we all know, cleared the government and criticised the BBC. He also concluded that Kelly had indeed committed suicide, but skirted over some of the questions about what exactly caused his death.
When his body was found, his left wrist was cut open and an empty pack of coproxamol painkilling tablets was in his jacket pocket. Baker makes much of apparently conflicting evidence about Kelly's last movements, when precisely he died and when his body was discovered. It is extremely rare, he writes, for a death to follow injury to the ulnar artery. He examines the motives of all those he says had a possible interest in getting rid of Kelly, including US and British agents. In the end, Baker seems to come down in favour of an Iraqi exile group on the grounds that more revelations from Kelly would have further dented its credibility.
This reviewer believes that Kelly was the victim of the escalating fight between Alastair Campbell's Downing Street and the BBC, with the Ministry of Defence - Kelly's employers - outing him, then continuing to hound him on the government's behalf. Baker points to an incident during Kelly's appearance before the Commons foreign affairs committee shortly before he died. Kelly was unsettled, the author agrees, by a detailed question from the Liberal Democrat MP David Chidgey, about a conversation the weapons expert had with the Newsnight science editor, Susan Watts. Kelly evaded the question, thus misleading the committee.
Kelly "would be exposed as less than truthful, something that went strongly against his personal ethic", writes Baker. "He thus took a sudden decision to end it all." This, according to him, is the "most plausible" explanation for Kelly's suicide. Surprisingly, what he does not say is that Kelly was asked about Watts after Chidgey had been briefed by Gilligan. The question, which Kelly was to remark later had "totally thrown him", contained material that Gilligan had supplied in an email to Chidgey. The Hutton inquiry was told that such email priming by Gilligan of Chidgey was unprecedented and "highly inappropriate". Baker passes over this.
There is no evidence supporting the many theories that Kelly was murdered and plenty of evidence supporting the conclusion that he was driven to suicide. Baker may have done a service by reminding us of one of the nastiest episodes arising from the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps he should now concentrate his energy on current iniquities.
____________________________
Drs. C. Stephen Frost and David Halpin and Christopher J Burns-Cox
Homepage:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7620
from 02/2004: Guardian Editorial Dept’s positioning to support official view
17.11.2010 02:07
A letter exchange between some individuals and the Guardian editorial team back in February 2004:
Ref:
The authors of the present document (that Indymedia report) were involved in the following email
exchange with an editorial department of the Guardian newspaper on 1 September 2003:
[Authors:]
According to the Lord Chancellor's Office, which cancelled the original Coroner's Inquest, this Inquiry is also supposed to serve as such an Inquest. Until this really happens, we cannot simply assume
that Dr. Kelly's death was suicide. It seems surprising to some that Dr. Kelly was not under some kind of covert surveillance at the time, while so much effort was being devoted to discovering his
press contacts. Why, already feeling betrayed, and perhaps viewed as a loose cannon, he may even have walked into the woods that day thinking to reveal to another party who knows what further
information challenging the Blair government line. The technicalities of a thorough scientific Inquest must be carefully observed. The unusual death of a scientist of Dr. Kelly's calibre deserves no less.
[Guardian:]
This is not an inquest. The Inquest will resume after the Hutton inquiry has ended.
[Authors:]
...You will have referred at least to the document attached below. While I see that the original adjourned inquest may later be resumed, I nevertheless understand that the adjournment is "in
accordance with Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 which allows a public inquiry chaired or conducted by a judge to fulfil the function of an inquest." I have yet to see clearly whether this
inquiry has been instructed to fulfil that function or not. Neither has one so far been made aware of "any essential further evidence as to the cause of Dr Kelly's death." Your report of August 14th stated that Mr. Gardiner was "handing the main investigation into Dr Kelly's death over to Lord Hutton's
inquiry". In any case, it seems inadmissible at this stage of proceedings for the media to continue to preempt the inquest by insinuating (spinning?) that it has somehow been decided extrajudicially that there could be no explanation for the event on which the Hutton Inquiry has to focus other than suicide. At least stick to the phrase "apparent suicide", please. For a Coroner to later reconvene for another five minutes to declare that "that's all, folks" would appear doubtful, to say the least - unless as I have said, justice can objectively be seen to have been served...
Attach:
330/03 13 August 2003 CORONER'S INQUEST INTO DEATH OF DR KELLY ADJOURNED The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has directed that the coroner's inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly should be adjourned since his death is being investigated by the public inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton. The Oxfordshire coroner's inquest into Dr Kelly's death will now be adjourned in accordance with Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 which allows a public inquiry chaired or conducted by a judge to fulfil the function of an inquest. The adjournment will take place as soon as the coroner has taken any essential further evidence as to the cause of Dr Kelly's death. Lord Hutton's Inquiry has been set up to investigate the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death. The purpose of Section 17A is
to prevent duplication of proceedings which can cause unnecessary distress to the bereaved. Lord Falconer has checked that the Kelly Family would prefer that the Inquest be adjourned. He will
be writing to Mrs Kelly to confirm he has directed that the inquest should be adjourned. Similar adjournments were made in the cases of the judicial Inquiries into the Ladbroke Grove
rail crash and the case of Harold Shipman. Notes for Editors
1. Section 71 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 added a new provision to the Coroners Act 1988 - section 17A - which requires the coroner to adjourn an inquest where a public inquiry can be
expected to fulfil the function of the inquest.
2. Section 17A only applies where: (a) a public inquiry is being conducted or chaired by a judge, and (b) the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the cause of death is likely to be adequately investigated by the public inquiry. The provision came into effect on 1 January 2000. 3. The provision was used in
Lord Cullen's Public Inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove railway disaster and in Dame Janet's Smith's Inquiry into Harold Shipman.
4. When an inquest is adjourned under Section 17A, the coroner may not resume the inquest during the inquiry, but must pass on to the Registrar of Deaths a certificate stating any findings of the inquiry in respect of the death. Department for Constitutional Affairs Selborne House, 54 Victoria Street,
London SW1E 6QW www.dca.gov.uk
[Guardian:]
[No reply. The following day, the 'forensic' evidence was presented to the Hutton inquiry and the Guardian along with most of the mainstream press was at pains to point out that the said inquiry
was to 'fulfil the function of an inquest'.]
Bullshit Detector
Daily Mail reported on how a cop created file on Kelly death 1/2 hr b4 he died!
17.11.2010 02:49
An hour before he died, at 2.30pm, a senior policeman in the Thames valley police HQ in Oxfordshire sat down at his computer and created a "restricted file". Across the top, he typed "Operation Mason".
It's contents have never been made public. it detailed the overnight search for David Kelly. but what was this file created an hour before the scientist even left his home? Why were 3 officers from MI5's Technical Assessment Unit at David Kelly's house 1/2 hour before Dr Kelly's body was first discovered under a tree on Harrowdown Hill.
After Dr Kelly's corpse was found at 8.30am by the volunteer searchers, the senior policeman made his last Operation Mason entry. It simply states: '9.00am. 18.07.03. Body recovered'.
At 8am, half an hour before Dr Kelly's body was discovered under the tree, three officers in dark suits from MI5's Technical Assessment Unit were at his house. Computers and hard disks were carried away containing 40,000 words of Dr Kelly's unpublished book on the illegal underground trade in anthrax condoned by many governments. Dr Kelly kept secret data in his home, including tens of thousands of documents and photos, some showing human victims of anthrax poisoning, animal guinea pigs poisoned with anthrax and other germs.
Source: from newspaper article published in the Daily Mail last year
"Did MI5 kill Dr David Kelly?"
by Sue Reid
Last updated at 2:08 PM on 27th July 2009
Ref:
Original source for some of this information: Inside British Intelligence by Gordon Thomas is published by JR Books at £20.
bd