• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Death Of Dr David Kelly

rynner2 said:
I don't think it computes to claim there's no motive for a murder. As I said earlier, we should get the facts first, and they may lead to a motive. (If the police find a suspicious death, they don't ask for a motive before they begin investigating the crime.)

Yes, that's what always strikes me. Such a request to know the motive before violates all rules of criminology. Why do officialists apply a different standard in such cases ?

stuneville said:
Agreed - also, if the state were to want rid, for whatever reason, surely the best way would be straightforward disappearance or as you say at least a convincingly accidental death or apparently unequivocal suicide.

Again, this will be doubtless held up as more "it's clearly a double bluff" evidence by some quarters, but Occam holds - any actual conspiracy becomes more and more unstable by orders of magnitude with each added level of complication. It'd be kept simple.

I had written a post on the absence of convincingly accidental deaths and apparently unequivocal suicides on 29.8.2010 :
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... &start=570

Cock-ups simply happen (and if the pseudo-accident or suicide looks convincing and unequivocal, we'll never hear of it, no ?).
 
Ken Clarke considers releasing Kelly post-mortem file

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is considering releasing medical documents on the death of Dr David Kelly to a group of doctors demanding an inquest, the BBC understands.

The doctors have questioned Lord Hutton's 2004 verdict of suicide on the government weapons scientist.

They have been calling for material from the post-mortem to be released.

Lord Hutton requested a 70-year gagging order on it but has said he does not object to the doctors seeing it.

He said in January that the purpose of the secrecy order, made at the conclusion of his inquiry, had been to avoid causing distress to Dr Kelly's family.

He wrote to ministers in the previous Labour government to say that the report may be seen by the doctors.

Now Ken Clarke is considering whether to release the material.

In a statement, the Ministry of Justice said: "The Secretary of State will consider the full facts surrounding this issue."

Mr Clarke could decide to launch a public inquiry into Dr Kelly's death and it is understood conversations have taken place between ministers in the new coalition government, including Attorney General Dominic Grieve, about such a possibility.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, Mr Grieve backed calls for the investigation into Dr Kelly's death to be re-opened as the public "have not been reassured" by the official verdict that he killed himself.

He also praised the campaigning doctors who questioned Hutton's verdict for making a "cogent" case.

As the most senior law officer in England and Wales, he could now ask the High Court to reopen the inquest into the scientist's death.

Mr Grieve is not actively pursuing this course of action at the moment but it is thought he would do so if he was persuaded there was fresh evidence.

...

Lord Hutton's report in 2004 concluded that Dr Kelly had killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist.

But the campaigning doctors claim there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed himself.

The experts include trauma surgeon David Halpin, epidemiologist Andrew Rouse, surgeon Martin Birnstingl, former assistant coroner Dr Michael Powers QC, radiologist Stephen Frost, and Chris Burns-Cox who specialises in internal general medicine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10294009

Meanwhile...

Pathologist says David Kelly's death 'textbook suicide'
(Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? ;) )

The death of Iraq weapons expert David Kelly was a "textbook case" of suicide according to the pathologist who performed the post-mortem examination.

A group of doctors has questioned the suicide verdict by the Hutton Inquiry in 2004 and called for a full inquest.

But Nicholas Hunt said the scientist's death, after he was exposed as the source for a BBC story, was a "classic case of self-inflicted injury".

He told the Sunday Times he would, however, welcome a full inquest.

etc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11050587

This affair seems to be moving up the news and political agendas. Perhaps we will finally get an inquest.
 
So now, after all this time and all the fuss, Nicholas Hunt comes out and says nothing to see here, move along.
So the blood clotted on Dr Kelly's sleeve yet managed to soak into the ground? Did he dig the soil up to estimate how much there was?
Well that just leaves everything else about the case to be cleared up.
 
Here's the full Nicholas Hunt story: -

David Kelly's death was textbook suicide, pathologist says

Pathologist found no evidence government scientist was murdered in eight-hour post-mortem


Haroon Siddique

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 22 August 2010 13.12 BST

The pathologist who performed the autopsy on the government scientist David Kelly said today his death was a textbook case of suicide but he would have "dearly loved" to have found evidence of murder.

Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office pathologist, told the Sunday Times he had been horrified at the treatment of Kelly by the Labour government.

He spent eight hours examining the 59-year-old's body for evidence of murder but found nothing to support that theory.

Hunt said he would back an inquest into the circumstances of Kelly's death.

Prominent legal and medical experts have called for a new inquest to be opened into the weapons inspector's death. The coalition is considering the possibility.

"I felt very, very sorry for David Kelly and was horrified by the way he had been treated by the government ... I had every reason to look for something untoward and would dearly love to have found something," Hunt said.

"It was an absolute classic case of self-inflicted injury. You could illustrate a textbook with it. If it were anyone else and you were to suggest there's something foul about it, you would be referred for additional training. I would welcome an inquest – I've nothing to hide."

Hunt also disclosed details from his post-mortem report, which the Hutton inquiry ordered should be kept secret for 70 years.

He found "big clots" of blood on the inside of Kelly's jacket, contrary to reports that there had been little blood at the scene. There were about a dozen cuts on his left wrist, including shallower cuts made before the main incisions.

Kelly's heart disease was so advanced that he could have died at any moment, according to the post-mortem.

His body was found in woods near his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after it was revealed that he had been the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be fired within 45 minutes.

An inquest was suspended by Lord Falconer, the then lord chancellor, before the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances of Kelly's death.

The inquest was not resumed after Hutton's report, in 2004, concluded that Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist.

In a letter to the Times earlier this month, nine experts said the official cause of death was "extremely unlikely" and called for a full inquest.

The former Conservative leader, Michael Howard, joined the call for a full inquest last week.

The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is considering the possibility of an inquest.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
 
Ministers try to avert Kelly inquest and end speculation by calling for post mortem details to be published on the internet
By Tim Shipman
Last updated at 7:37 AM on 24th August 2010

Ministers want to publish details of Dr David Kelly's post-mortem examination online to end speculation about the weapons inspector's death.
Downing Street yesterday welcomed the disclosure that Attorney General Dominic Grieve is to review calls for a full inquest.

But the Mail has learned ministers would prefer to release the papers without an inquest, out of concern for the scientist's family.
Officials say Mr Grieve is determined to find a way to 'draw a line' under the affair that avoids upsetting Dr Kelly's widow Janice.

Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist who examined Dr Kelly's body, said at the weekend that the death was a 'textbook case' of suicide and demanded an inquest.
A Government source said Dr Hunt's intervention could give ministers 'a dignified way out' of the controversy over the findings of the Hutton Report.

Dr Kelly, 59, was found dead in July 2003, a week after he was identified as the source of a BBC story claiming the Government 'sexed up' its dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Hutton's inquiry placed a 70-year ban on the publication of files relating to Dr Kelly's death.

But a senior source said: 'It is clear from what Nicholas Hunt has said that there is nothing to hide and it may be that it is better to publish the papers.'
The power to release the papers resides with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, though Mr Grieve has the legal right to demand access.
A decision is likely to be made after MPs return from summer recess next month. David Cameron's spokesman said: 'It's a matter for the Attorney General.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0xbXGrM9f
 
Another look at the Kelly affair and the Hutton enquiry

A textbook suicide? The intriguing file on Dr Kelly that tells a different story

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0xtTaP1IA

It covers much familiar ground, but this was new to me:
Was he really suicidal?
Those closest to Kelly in his final days believe he was not suicidal.

In evidence, his wife Janice, his daughter Rachel and his sister Sarah Pape (a consultant plastic surgeon) each stated that he was not depressed.

His wife said: 'He was tired, subdued, but not depressed . . . he had never seemed depressed in all of this.'
His sister added: 'In my line of work, I do deal with people who may have suicidal thoughts and I ought to be able to spot those, even on a telephone conversation.
'But I have gone over and over in my mind our conversations . . . he certainly did not convey to me that he was feeling depressed; and absolutely nothing that would have alerted me to the fact that he might have been considering suicide.'

In an email to a colleague, sent just before he disappeared, Kelly explained: 'It has been difficult. Hopefully will all blow over by the end of the week and I can travel to Baghdad and get on with the real work.'
Indeed, so keen was Kelly to get back to Iraq that he spoke to Wing Commander John Clark at the Ministry of Defence about when he could return.

A trip was booked for him the following Friday and his diary, recovered by the police, confirmed this date. People about to kill themselves do not generally book an airline ticket for a flight they have no intention of taking.

In addition, Kelly was a follower of the Baha'i Faith which abhors suicide. Indeed, this particular tenet of its beliefs was thought to be one of the reasons he joined the organisation in the late 1990s. For, just a day before his 20th birthday in May 1964, his own mother had killed herself with an overdose.

His friend Mia Pederson has since recalled a conversation they once had in which she asked him: 'Would you ever contemplate suicide?' He replied: 'Good God, no, I couldn't ever imagine doing such a thing.'

Yet these were issues never addressed by Hutton. And, of course, Ms Pederson was not there to give testimony.
 
Lots of people whom you'd never expect to kill themselves do it.

Many suicidal people don't appear depressed. This may be partly because very depressed people feel apathetic: when they start to feel more lively, they can see suicide as a way of taking control at last. Those around them may see them perk up and appear better, when it's really a very dangerous time.

Having a death by suicide in one's own family is significant too. It sets a sort of example. The fact that Kelly took an interest in a religious sect because it rejects suicide suggests to me that it was on his mind.

The fact is that you only have to be actually suicidal for the time it takes to kill yourself. Some people plan elaborately, while others do it on impulse. Guns, high buildings and ropes are variously available.

Suicidal people are psychotic. They are not thinking logically. It's no use analysing their actions as if they were in their right minds because they are not.
 
rynner2 said:
Those closest to Kelly in his final days believe he was not suicidal.

These will be the same people that were so close to him, they didn't even know he had taken up the Baha'i faith some ten years earlier.

And ditto to everything Escargot said.
 
Also, this notion that Kelly joined the Baha'i faith specifically because it was opposed to suicide does seem to be something of a specualtive over-reach on the part of the journalist. Suicide's not exactly approved of by Christianity, after all, so why choose a relatively obscure faith when there's another one with branches on every high street in the country.
 
why choose a relatively obscure faith when there's another one with branches on every high street in the country.

This puzzles me. Plenty of European and American people dabble in exotic religions, most of which impose some form of restriction on behaviour. To me, they'd be just well off if they tried being a bit more Christian.

I mean, if they want to be forbidden life's earthly pleasures, they can always join the Wee Frees! :lol:

Perhaps this cynical view of religion has something to do with my half-arsed Methodist upbringing.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
Also, this notion that Kelly joined the Baha'i faith specifically because it was opposed to suicide does seem to be something of a specualtive over-reach on the part of the journalist. Suicide's not exactly approved of by Christianity, after all, so why choose a relatively obscure faith when there's another one with branches on every high street in the country.

And wait nearly 40 years after the event that supposedly lead to his alleged hatred of suicide. I think "speculative over-reach" is a little generous.
 
I Think people are forgetting the actual facts that were discussed some pages back, The hutton Enquiry is well documented with the transcripts it is those transcripts that raise questions,

And if we are to believe he had numerous cuts on his left wrist and not just one or two to his ulnar artery, which is now being mentioned !

why was there no fingerprints on his ? pocket knife ?

Did he actually die of blood loss
heart failure
or poisoning ?

this grey area needs addressing.

there are lots of conflicting information in the hutton report, most of which have been questioned and none of which have been answered.

A certain witness did not give evidence DC Sheilds ?
why didnt he give evidence why the secrecy ?
Body postition changes ? were 4 people mistaken and only DC Coe right

He took his watch off his left wrist
placed it to the left of his body
then cut his left ulnar artery right handed and placed the bloody knife on top of his wrist watch, lay down on his back, and vomited.

I am assuming he took the pain killers before cutting his wrist BTW

wy did he not cut a larger artery ? the Ulnar is awkward to cut away from the body?

If he was being tidy as some suicides do, why place a bloody knife on top of his watch?


OOps I assumed he took the pain killers first, if that is the case why was there blood all over the bottle placed some distance away from his body, did he take the pain killers after he cut his wrists ?
ah wait, if that was the case why was thye pain killer box in his pocket ? with no blood on it ?

"14 A. He was wearing a green Barbour type wax jacket and the
15 zip and the buttons at the front had been undone.
16 Within the bellows pocket on the lower part of the
17 jacket there was a mobile telephone and a pair of
18 bi-focal spectacles. There was a key fob and, perhaps
19 more significantly, a total of three blister packs of
20 a drug called Coproxamol. Each of those packs would
21 originally have contained 10 tablets, a total of 30
22 potentially available.
23 Q. And how many tablets were left in those packs?
24 A. There was one left.
25 LORD HUTTON: Did you actually take those blister packs out?

10
1 Did you discover them in the pocket yourself?
2 A. Yes, as part of the search, my Lord.
3 LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see.
"

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/co ... rans33.htm

There was only trace amounts of the pain killers in his system ?

work your way through the steps, they don't add up.
 
14 MR KNOX: Were there any other injuries or bruises?
15 A. Yes. Those were only revealed during the dissection
16 part of the examination. There was a bruise below the
17 left knee. There were two bruises below the right knee
18 over the shin and there were two bruises over the left
19 side of his chest. All of these were small and affected
20 the skin but not the deeper tissues.
21 Q. Would you be able to say how those bruises or injuries
22 could have occurred?
23 A. They would have occurred following a blunt impact
24 against any firm object and it would not have to be
25 a particularly heavy impact. They may be caused -- some

19
1 of them may have been caused as Dr Kelly was stumbling,
2 if you like, at the scene.

seem weird ????? to you ???????? there is no mention of him stumbling around bumping into a heavy impact ? or two ????
 
1 was evidence that at the time of his death Dr Kelly had
2 a significant amount of narrowing of the arteries to his
3 heart, his coronary arteries by a process called
4 atherosclerosis or, colloquially, hardening of the
5 arteries.
6 That was the only positive evidence of natural
7 disease, but I could not find evidence that he had had
8 a heart attack as a consequence of that
.


didnt die of a heart attack then !!!!!!!!
 
18 Q. What about the stomach contents? Did you notice or not
19 notice anything about them?
20 A. When I examine the stomach contents my examination is
21 relatively cursory compared to the detailed examination
22 that the toxicologist would undertake. But I could see
23 no obvious signs of tablet residue. So in other words,
24 there was not a great volume of tablet material in the
25 stomach.

so wheres the 29 tablets he supposedly swallowed ?

Poisoned ?????
 
*tugs on Jon's trouser leg*

When you've got a moment......
 
23 Q. Moving on from that, you mentioned the abrasions to the
24 head. Would you like to resume your summary at that
25 point?

26
1 A. Yes. The minor injuries or abrasions over the head are
2 entirely consistent with scraping against rough
3 undergrowth such as small twigs, branches and stones
4 which were present at the scene.

abrasions on head from leaning against a tree and then lying down ?????
hmmm

howdy

He was killed becouse he knew something that could tople the then Labour Government.
 
Where did the notion that the bruises were caused by him stumbling around in the woods come from? They could just as easily have been caused by someone kneeling on him or otherwise restraining him.
So he took all the tablets except one and then put the pack back in his pocket? Really?
I don't think it was anything to do with Blair, rather someone in the security apparatus. Blair just wanted it brushed under the carpet because he didn't want it becoming obvious he didn't have a clue what was going on in the government he was supposedly in charge of.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
So he took all the tablets except one and then put the pack back in his pocket? Really?

So the killer got rid of all the tablets except one and then put the pack in Kelly's pocket? Really?

Why would this seem more plausible?
 
Is it any less plausible than him walking along swallowing 29 tablets and carefully putting each empty blister pack back in the box,and leaving one when he is supposed to be overdosing himself?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Is it any less plausible than him walking along swallowing 29 tablets and carefully putting each empty blister pack back in the box,and leaving one when he is supposed to be overdosing himself?

Yes.

Any act that you find unrealistic in this instance would surely strike an assassin as unrealistic too (unless you would consider yourself to be more conscientious and competent when committing murder and disguising it as suicide). What's more plausible - that a suicidal individual would act unpredictably and erratically or that a trained killer tasked with a specific instruction to kill and make it look like suicide would act equally as unpredictably and erratically?
 
There's cctv footage on the internet of a guy shooting himself in a police interrogation room. He's left alone for a second, takes a sip of water from a plastic bottle, screws the lid back on, then immedietly pulls out a concealed weapon and kills himself.

Logical? Not really...
 
Bigfoot73 said:
So he took all the tablets except one and then put the pack back in his pocket? Really?

Just to throw a spanner in the works, I have a typical bag, filled with all kinds of useful stuff like anti histamines, pain killers, hair brush, kitchen sink, and I noticed the other day, the blister pack on my pain killers has only one tablet left - dun dun duuun.

Isn't it feasible, that like me, Kelly had the pack of pills over a period of time, using one or two at a time when needed? Seems more likely than the idea that there was an overdose or deliberate action by an unnamed party?
 
Fair enough,plausibility is hard to gauge in most circumstances,even more so in possible suicide cases.
Perhaps it is possible that he had been so fastidious as to take off the watch and place it on top of the knife after he had cut his wrist at the sixth attempt, and then placed the water bottle against some branches while apparently so impaired by the coproxamol that he was stumbling around and bumping into things.
I also find it odd that just after questioning the coroner about the precise levels of paracetamol in Dr Kelly's blood Lord Hutton then didn't want to trouble him about what the toxicology report said about the levels of coproxamol, which according to some commentators was only a third of the lethal level.
 
Isn't it feasible, that like me, Kelly had the pack of pills over a period of time, using one or two at a time when needed? Seems more likely than the idea that there was an overdose or deliberate action by an unnamed party?
Good point, perhaps the tablets were nothing at all to do with it.
 
your trying to make the facts I wrote fit into some list of events that fit your ideas.

Facts
He had apparently taken 29 tablets with water, there was blood on the bottle but not on the blister pack in his pocket ? if he took them before he arrived at the tree, how come there was no evidence of toxicology to show he had taken 29 ? it only showed a small amount, He also had a bad thing about swallowing tablets we know that, he didnt take headache tablets, they were his wifes.

If he was stumbling around banging his head confused etc, blood would have been every where ? or did he stumble about and then regain composure to go through the watch removal etc and have a drink of water afterwards.

He was first seen propped up against the tree then, suddenly 10 minutes later lying flat down ?

Facts are
He didnt have enough tablets in his system to kill him (hutton report)
He didnt die from bleeding to death from a cut to his Ulnar artery ( plenty of proffesionals say this )
He didnt have any evidence of a heart attack ( Hutton report )

once again
why were his fingerprints not on the pruning knife ?

No fingerprints were found on the knife Dr Kelly is alleged to have used, it later emerged, and he was not wearing gloves when his body was discovered

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/poli ... -1.1048237

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... e-knife.do

how did the knife end up with no fingerprints ?
if the contents of his stomach didnt contain enough pain killers ? where did they go ?
Why was his dentist broken into and his dental records removed ? why no fingerprints on the file when it appeared back ?
who was the mysterious third policemand with Coe and Sheilds who was seen by 4 people.


2 A. He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and
3 his shoulders just slumped back against the tree.
4 Q. And what about his legs and arms? Where were they?
5 A. His legs were straight in front of him. His right arm
6 was to the side of him. His left arm had a lot of blood
7 on it and was bent back in a funny position.

9 A. We walked back towards the car. On the way to the car
10 we met three police officers and Paul took them back to
11 show them where the body was, and I went back to the
12 car.
13 Q. Did you meet the police officers in the woods or after
14 you got out of the woods?
15 A. No, on the track, just between the woods and the car.


Yes. As we were going down the path we met three police
20 officers coming the other way that were from CID. We
21 identified ourselves to them. They were not actually
22 aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out
23 searching this area. They I think had just come out on
24 their own initiative to look at the area.
I informed
25 them we had found the body and they asked me to take



13 Q. Were the paramedics with you at the time?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The other three officers?
16 A. They remained down on the path.
17 Q. So it is you, PC Franklin and two paramedics, then the
18 other three officers you have met; is that right?
19 A. Yes.


Thre detectives

only one named sheilds
only one questioned Coe
who was the other detective ? detectives searching ? in a pack

A. His jeans -- he was wearing jeans, they were pulled up
8 slightly, exposing the lower half of his leg or his
9 ankle. It looked as if he had slid down and his
10 trousers had ridden up

dragged down a little into a lying position ? head and shoulders no longer propped up why ?

10 Q. I should have asked you this a moment ago, but while you
11 were searching in the woods did you find anything at all
12 which indicated that any other people had been there?
13 A. No, nothing. Normally when we search wooded areas there
14 is a fair amount of detritus, crisp packets, bottles,
15 cans, cigarette ends. This area itself was remarkable
16 for its complete lack of human interference
.

had it cleaned ?
[/quote]
 
your trying to make the facts I wrote fit into some list of events that fit your ideas.

I clicked the link and read the report for myself actually.

If he was stumbling around banging his head confused etc, blood would have been every where ? or did he stumble about and then regain composure to go through the watch removal etc and have a drink of water afterwards.

And this is more or less the same thing as I just mused on - anyway, doesn't seem very likely.
 
why were his fingerprints not on the pruning knife

What I'm unclear on is whether the knife had been wiped clean, or whether there were simply no usable prints. The former suggests a third party was involved, the latter is rather less dramatic.

He was first seen propped up against the tree then, suddenly 10 minutes later lying flat down ?


I don't see much of a mystery there, Kelly could easily have lain down as he weakened or the body could just have slid down from the position it was in.

He didnt die from bleeding to death from a cut to his Ulnar artery ( plenty of proffesionals say this )

Plenty of professionals, including the doctor who carried out the post-mortem, say that he did. At least one of those who signed the letter querying this is a 9/11 truther, which raises questions as to his motivations...

The conspiracies over Kelly's death don't make a great deal of sense. The two alternative theories seem to be:

(1) British intelligence agents killed him.

(2) Iraqi intelligence agents killed him.

If (1), why bother killng Kelly *after* he had leaked to the BBC and given evidence to the Iraq inquiry? And why do so in such an inept fashion?

If (2), why make it look like a suicide at all? Surely they would make it appear as a professional hit to show they still mean business.

Kelly was in poor health. He had been betrayed by the BBC and ridiculed at the inquiry. He was close to retirement and now his job and pension were on the line. Is it hugely surprising that someone in that position might take his own life?
 
Back
Top