Dead Scientists
Friday, October 24, 2003
 
DAVID KELLY DISCUSSED BOOK DEAL WITH OXFORD PUBLISHER APRIL 2003

On 11 April 2003 Victoria Roddam of Oneworld Publications in Oxford sent David Kelly an e-mail subsequent to a meeting she had with him on Friday 4th April about possible book projects.

She writes:

"As I said last week, if you can think of any other individuals who it might be useful for us to contact regarding these projects we talked about and the ideas we discussed, I would be very grateful - particularly those who might specialise in the areas where policy and ethics collide.

Also if you could suggest anyone who might be useful in authoring or recommending an author for a book on the arms trade, this would be most useful."


It looks like much of the book-project talk revolved around AREAS WHERE POLICY AND ETHICS COLLIDE.

In a later mail Ms Roddam pushes the idea again:

"In light of recent events, I think the time is ripe now more than ever for a title which addresses the relationship between government, policy and war - I'm sure you would agree."

This shows that discussions revolved heavily around these highly sensitive areas. And not only was Kelly's interest focused in these areas - he was also pointing Victoria Roddam in the direction of others who were willing to write about them. Could this be a key motive for Kelly's assassination?

I wonder, with Kelly out of the way, will the authors Kelly came up with for Ms Roddam be writing on "areas where policy and ethics collide" now?

Or will they have they got the message?

Rowena Thursby

To join Kelly Group & receive regular mailings e-mail me at RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk
Thursday, October 23, 2003
 
DID KELLY PLAY CRIBBAGE ON 9TH JULY? - THE NIGHT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE LEFT FOR CORNWALL?

Steve Ward, pub landlord representing the cribbage team at the Hind's Head, David Kelly's favourite pub in Longworth, states in an e-mail sent to the Hutton Inquiry that David Kelly played cribbage on the evening of Wednesday 9th July. Eight people agreed (see here) that Kelly was not at the league game on the 7th, but was there for the friendly session on the night of the 9th.

This is very curious, given that this was the evening that he was said by Janice Kelly to have been confronted by Nick Rufford of the Sunday Times outside his house around 7.30pm... and then at around 9.00pm had to rush off down the motorway heading for Cornwall in order to escape the press pack Rufford warned him about.

Was the whole cribbage team wrong - all 8 of them? Or was Kelly indeed playing a friendly game with them on the night of 9th July?


WAS JANICE KELLY LYING ABOUT THE DATE OF DEPARTURE FOR CORNWALL?

Tie this in with the discrepancy between Janice Kelly's testimony and that of "Mr A" of the MoD (see below) and what do you get?

A possibility at least that David Kelly was not heading down the motorway on the night of the 9th July, but was playing cribbage in the Hind's Head. That he didn't go to Cornwall that night, but instead went the next morning, dropping off the medicine to Mr A near Swindon on his way down. And then, maybe, Janice Kelly could have been in the car.

At first I thought that would mean that the student working behind the bar in the Wagon & Horses - the one who said Kelly had come in to the pub say the press were going to "pounce" and to let the landlady and landlord know he was off to Cornwall at around 8.30pm on the evening of 9th - was mistaken about that date. But all Kelly said in the message was that he was going away - he didn't say when.

And that would also mean Janice Kelly - for whatever reason - was lying about she and her husband leaving that evening.

So maybe the cribbage team got it wrong - or maybe they didn't. Maybe Janice Kelly has some reason for maintaining a story about leaving on the evening of the 9th. It does seem highly unlikely that a woman with arthritis was able to pack and leave the house, without any prior notice, within 10 minutes.

Rowena

Wednesday, October 22, 2003
 
DID DAVID KELLY EVER GO TO CORNWALL?

According to "Mr A" of the MoD, who testified anonymously on a screen to the Hutton Inquiry on 4th September, David Kelly visited him at his home near Swindon, Wiltshire, on the morning of 10th July - the same morning Janice Kelly said she and her husband were at Weston-Super-Mare, Somerset, half-way to Cornwall.

See Mr A's testimony.

The important point to note is this: it would have been impossible for David Kelly to have both been driving down to Cornwall from Weston-Super-Mare on the morning of 10th July, as well as visiting Mr A near Swindon.

According to Janice Kelly, she and David Kelly left their hotel in Weston-Super-Mare at 8.30-8.45am on 10th July and drove straight to Mevagissey, Cornwall, arriving about noon. See her testimony:

5 Q. You set off down to Cornwall I think?
6 A. We did, yes.
7 Q. What time did you leave the hotel?
8 A. We left the hotel about 8.30, 8.45, that sort of time.
9 Q. What time did you get down to the place you were driving
10 to in Cornwall?
11 A. That was about noon or just after.


But Mr A of the MoD says that David Kelly phoned him on the morning of 10th July and asked if he could drop in a medicine that had been given to him by a doctor at RAF Honnington where they were both on a course earlier that week (Mon/Tues 7th-8th).

It would have perhaps been credible that Kelly, in his stressed-out state, might have forgotten to deliver the medicine on his way down to Cornwall - Swindon is only 15 minutes from his home - and had to go back while Mrs Kelly possibly waited at the hotel. It would have been very inconvenient and involved substantial back-tracking. But this does not then tie up with Mrs Kelly's account which is that on the morning of Thursday 10th July they both continued down to Cornwall, starting off at 8.45am-ish and arriving around noon. There is no way they could have done both.

Also, one has to ask, is it likely, that given they only had 10 minutes to pack on the evening of 9th July, that David Kelly would have managed to remember to pack the medicine for Mr A, and yet have forgotten to deliver it on his way down to Cornwall? And why was it so important that he delivered it by hand anyway? He could surely have simply handed it to Mr A at the ariport as they were setting off for Iraq together.

According to Mr A, Kelly had phoned him on the morning of the 10th July, as Mr A was packing in preparation for the trip to Iraq & virtually insisted that he drop off this anti-malarial prescription drug - paladin. Mr A himself is very confused about the whole WSM/Cornwall chronology:

LORD HUTTON: Was Mrs Kelly with Dr Kelly at this time,
2 Mr A?
3 A. It is possible that she could have been in the car. [No it isn't if Janice Kelly is to be believed - JK says she and her husband were on their way to Cornwall at this time].
4 I myself did not understand how the whole
5 Weston-Super-Mare/Cornwall trip works in the chronology.
6 David had parked some distance from my house and walked
7 100 yards up the road to my house.
8 Q. Do you have a drive?
9 A. I am afraid not.
10 Q. Was 100 yards the closest he could park?
11 A. Yes, that is the problem.
12 Q. And how did he seem to you when you saw him on
13 10th July?
14 A. He was distracted. Our conversation would normally
15 include a significant part relating to work, but he
16 seemed to want nothing more than to have a cup of coffee
17 and walk through my garden talking about the garden, so
18 that is what we did.
19 Q. Was that usual behaviour for him?
20 A. It was not. I would characterise his behaviour as being
21 somewhat distracted at this point; and he clearly did
22 not want to talk much about work.
23 Q. Was that usual?
24 A. It was not. Our friendship was based partly on work
25 but -- mostly on work, and really a large part of our

112
1 meetings would consist of talking of matters of
2 professional mutual concern.


Did David Kelly go to Cornwall at all? Did Janice Kelly go to Cornwall on her own? Or did neither of them go? Or is Mr A lying for some reason about Kelly delivering the medicine on that date? The plot thickens.

Rowena Thursby
RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

To join the "Kelly Group" and receive regular mailings just send me an e-mail with "Kelly Group" in the title.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
 
WHY ARE MICROBIOLOGISTS DYING?

E-mail in response to Jim Rarey's "The Murder of David Kelly" Parts 1 and 2:

Also see Mike Ruppert and Michael Davidson's article on this subject.


This was a very good series, Jim. I also saw it on the From the Wilderness site. Good job.

I remember discussing this with Ruppert way back when (July '02?), when he brought it up at a lecture of his. (Ruppert has been tracking the mysterious deaths of the microbiologists for a while, too.)

My hunch, and perhaps I'm stating the obvious, is that these microbiologists are being killed off -- after creating these gene-specific diseases -- because they are the ones who might come up with a cure. (Or perhaps they're being killed off because they might come up with a cure for a disease that someone else created.)

I've often heard of the "depopulation" agenda (which has probably been in full swing for some time now). Killing off a generation of microbiologists would mean we'd have to wait for the next generation to come up with a cure. That would give enough time to thin out the population through whatever disease(s) they plan to unleash on us. (Scary thought.)

Either way, statistically speaking, being a microbiologists has to be the most hazardous occupation around, eh?

What's your take? Do you think there's something more to it than just "silencing" certain individuals?


Jim Rarey's reply:

There are microbiologists all over the world who are working on breaking down the gene and dna structure of various diseases and strains of diseases. Most of them believe their information will be used to find cures and/or develop vaccines to conquer the disease. Once they have isolated the information, their job is done as far as the eugenics crowd is concerned and they become a liability.

With the breakthrough that Don Wiley made, they can now take that information and create killer viruses and bacteria that attack specific dna characteristics. That's why I said Don Wiley's death is the most troubling of all.

Hopefully some of the microbiologists are beginning to realize that once they are successful in reaching the goal of their research, they are immediate candidates for elimination.

Jim

Sunday, October 19, 2003
 

October 19, 2003


THE MURDER OF DAVID KELLY

by Jim Rarey


Part two of two


(In part one of this report we examined evidence ignored by the national media, both in the U.S. and U.K., that shows fairly conclusively (at least to this writer) that Dr. David Kelly did not commit suicide. * (For an expanded, detailed report of more evidence see the URL in the footnote below.) In this last part, we will look at Kelly’s involvement in and/or knowledge of the secrets of several governments so explosive that once he was adjudged “unreliable” he had to be eliminated.)


In 1984 Dr. Kelly was invited by the Ministry of Defense (MoD) to take the position of chief microbiologist at its secret facility at Porton Down. Kelly had been working in the NERC Institute of Virology in Oxford. He brought a number of scientists with him from there to Porton Down.

At the Hutton inquiry, Brian Jones testified as to Kelly’s involvement, with the highest security clearance, in analyzing top-secret information regarding biological weapons of the U.K. and other governments. Jones was director of a department on the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS). That involvement, beginning in 1987, presumably continued until his death and through his several other jobs as weapons “inspector” in Russia and (for UNSCOM) in Iraq.

It was before and during Kelly’s tenure at Porton Down that it became involved with South Africa’s bioweapon program named Project Coast. A cardiologist named Wouter Basson who was the personal physician of South African Prime Minister Botha headed the project.

After the apartheid government fell, there was a nearly two-year trial of Basson who was charged with numerous crimes including murder and misappropriation of project funds. During the trial several astounding revelations came out. (Basson was acquitted of all charges by a judge who would not let him take the fall for an official government program.)

Basson was said to have had entrée not only to Porton Down but the U.S. Army facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland (the U.S. counterpart of Porton Down). The two main thrusts of Project Coast were developing genetically altered diseases that would affect only groups with similar DNA characteristics, e.g. blacks, and weapons to be used in assassination of individuals. Two (as yet unidentified) scientists working at Porton Down were also paid consultants to Basson’s projects.

The CIA in the U.S. contributed to Basson’s efforts through Dr. Larry Ford. Ford was set up as co-president of a laboratory supposedly developing a feminine birth control device that would also protect against AIDS. The company never had a product or any sales.

According to an undercover FBI informant, Ford did develop an “anti-black” product he delivered to an attaché of the South African government in California. Ford was later killed by a shotgun blast that was ruled a suicide. At the time he was under suspicion of involvement in the attempted assassination of his partner in the CIA front. Ford had made several trips to South Africa in connection with Project Coast.

In 1989, Vladimir Pasechnik, head of the Soviet bioweapons program at its Biopreparat facility, defected to the U.K. His revelations of Soviet activity created a diplomatic uproar over violations of the 1972 treaty banning such activity that had been pushed and signed by the U.K., U.S. and USSR.

Dr. Kelly and Christopher Davis of the U.K and U.S. microbiology experts debriefed Pasechnik. Davis, who comes out of MoD Intelligence, was at the time an employee of Veridian Corp., which has an interesting history.

According to mind control researcher David Hoffman, in 1946 Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory was founded including the “Fund for the Study of Human Ecology.” The “fund” was a CIA financing conduit for mind control experiments by émigré Nazi scientists and others under the direction of CIA doctors Sidney Gotttlieb, Ewen Cameron and Louis Jolyn West. Gottlieb, of course was the director of the CIA’s infamous MK-ULTRA mind control program.

Cornell was later absorbed into Calspan Advanced Technology Center in Buffalo, NY. The company continued experiments in mind control and artificial intelligence. In 1997 Calspan was in turn absorbed by Veridian Corp. Veridian (Calspan) is deeply involved in artificial intelligence. In August of this year giant defense contractor General Dynamics acquired Veridian-Calspan.

Here is a strange “coincidence.” After Timothy McVeigh left the army, he joined the Army National Guard in Buffalo. He landed a job with Burns International Security and was assigned to guard the premises of (you guessed it) Calspan. McVeigh had told friends the army had implanted a microchip in him during the Gulf war. (We now know that a number of soldiers were implanted with microchips explained as an experiment to keep track of their locations during battle.) The CIA doctors at Calspan were experimenting with merging brain cells with microchips.

Pasechnik was put to work at Porton Down where he remained until set up with his own company. Three weeks after the mailed anthrax attacks in the U.S., He died, “apparently” of a stroke. Strangely, the death was announced by Christopher Davis. His death began a string of mysterious deaths and obvious murders of world-class microbiologists, which continues to this day. Dr. Kelly’s death is one of those but not the latest.

One of the most disturbing deaths is that of Harvard scientist Don C. Wiley. Wiley was one of America’s preeminent researchers into infectious diseases and HIV in particular. After years of meticulous research, Wiley had just scored a breakthrough by identifying the properties of the HIV virus that make it infectious and how it avoids destruction by the antigens in the human immune system.

In theory, the discovery has application to other viruses that cause diseases. Viruses, as opposed to bacteria, seem to be immune to treatment by antibiotics.

The dark side of the discovery, as Wiley himself discussed, is that the same information could be used to change relatively benign viruses into killers. **(See footnote on this author’s three-part series on “Anthrax, GOCO’s and Designer Germs.”)

In 1991, a team of U.S. and U.K scientists, including Kelly and Davis, made a trip to the USSR to inspect Biopreparat facilities at four locations. Their host was deputy chief of the program, Kanatjan Alibekov, who would later “defect” to the U.S. and change his name to Ken Alibek. Kelly made several inspection trips to Russia.

Dr. Kelly was described by his contemporaries as an iron-willed individual who did not hesitate to challenge Russian and Iraqi authorities and scientists. However, he may have been a bit naïve concerning three individuals with whom he had extensive communications, all three women.

Judith Miller of the New York Times (NYT) exchanged numerous e-mails with Kelly. The Pulitzer Prize winner is a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and through her articles in the paper the most prominent of those warning of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The second “confidant” of Kelly’s was Olivia Bosch, a senior research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA). The RIIA, also known as Chatham House, is the U.K counterpart of the CFR. Both organizations were set up by the financial elite to work for a one-world government. Both wield inordinate influence on the governments in their respective countries. Kelly had recently joined the RIIA.

The third woman is a real-life Mata Hari. Mai Pederson met Kelly in Iraq where her cover was as a translator. She is a U.S. Army intelligence agent. Mai was instrumental in Kelly’s conversion to the Baha’i faith.

The first inspection trip was dramatized in a Frontline production in 1998 entitled “Plague War” shown on PBS in the U.S. and BBC in the U.K. Its main theme was that only Russia had violated the 1972 treaty but the U.S. and U.K. had abated their programs. Co-author of the script for the program was Tom Mangold, a sometime author and until very recently a BBC employee (propagandist?). Mangold was one of the earliest writers to proclaim Kelly’s death as a suicide and has written articles “explaining” why Kelly killed himself. He bills himself as a “best friend” of Kelly but had to admit to the Hutton inquiry that his contacts with Kelly had been relatively few and mostly by e-mail.

When Alibek defected to the U.S. in 1992 he underwent extensive debriefing by, among others, Davis and William Patrick (“father” of the U.S. bioweapons program and a CIA consultant). He was then rewarded with a job at BMI and became a CIA consultant. He is currently president of a subsidiary of Hadron, the defense contractor that peddled the PROMIS software to various governments (with a backdoor in the software) that resulted in an intelligence bonanza for the U.S.

According to author Gordon Thomas, Kelly maintained close communications with Alibek, Patrick and other scientists in the U.S. Thomas reports that Kelly had contacts only weeks before two of the scientists died violent deaths. One was Dr. Don Wiley.

In the months before his death, Dr. Kelly became embroiled in a shouting match between the British government and BBC. Andrew Gilligan, a reporter for BBC claimed that Kelly had given him and other reporters information that proved the government had exaggerated the Iraqi danger in its “dossier” justifying the war against Iraq and that Kelly had not been completely honest in telling his MoD superiors what he had disclosed to them. Writer Tom Mangold (it’s not clear when he left the employ of BBC) used this to reason that Kelly’s loss of integrity at being exposed as a “liar” was what led him to suicide.

Mangold was not the only one to push the suicide angle. After Kelly’s death, Foreign Office diplomat David Broucher made headlines around the world when he claimed Kelly had said if Iraq was attacked he might be “found dead in the woods.” Broucher testified the remark was made at the end of a meeting he had with Kelly in February of this year in Geneva where they discussed the WMD “dossier.” He said he didn’t think much of it at the time but in retrospect Kelly may have been considering suicide then.

When Kelly’s daughter Rachel testified at the inquiry, she proved through her father’s diaries that the only time he had been in Geneva, and the only time he ever met Broucher, was a year earlier in February of 2002. There was not even a draft of the “dossier” in existence at that time suggesting that Broucher’s story was fiction.

Actually, the opposite of the Mangold thesis appears to be the truth. Kelly was treated badly by MoD over the last three years of his life. He had not had a salary increase in three years as he approached retirement where his pension would be a function of salary. At one time he was told there would be reorganization within the intelligence operation and he would get a sizeable increase in salary. That didn’t happen. Kelly had written several letters about his position and, according to his widow, was quite upset and frustrated about it (not despondent and suicidal).

Kelly had voluntarily disclosed to MoD his contacts with the media. To his dying day, he maintained that he had not provided all the information Gilligan attributed to him. Nevertheless, Kelly was hauled before the Joint Intelligence Committee for a grilling.

The final affront came in a mandated one-on-one session with MoD Personnel Director Richard Hatfield. MoD, with the approval of Tony Blair, had devised an orchestrated charade to “out” Kelly as the source of the “leak. Hatfield, head of the department that had been jerking Kelly around for three years, was supposed to get Kelly’s acquiescence in the plan. Somehow, he never got around to the subject.

Subsequently, at an MoD press conference, through a series of disclosures to the press, the MoD confirmed Kelly as the leak (as previously planned) when a reporter asked if Kelly was the one.

Understandably, this treatment would have made Kelly a resentful employee. In intelligence circles, resentful employees are considered “unstable” and security risks. Kelly had for years maintained his silence about his extensive knowledge of the bio-warfare weapons of at least four countries. Had it become imperative that the silence be made permanent?

Footnotes:

*See Dark Actors at the Scene of David Kelly's Death

**The three-part series can be found at http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/Archives.htm

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its entirety.

The author is a freelance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly, please contact the author at jimrarey@comcast.net.



Friday, October 17, 2003
 
DARK ACTORS AT THE SCENE OF DAVID KELLY'S DEATH

Rowena Thursby

This article also published on these sites:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/161003darkactors.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00151.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1164


Entering the witness box at the Hutton Inquiry on 16th September 2003, one key figure stands out in the events surrounding Dr David Kelly's death. The fact that his testimony contradicts that of five previous witnesses has received no attention in the mainstream press and has failed to be brought out in the Inquiry itself. Moreover, the position of David Kelly's body prior to his arrival is different from its position when he leaves. This man is a British policeman: his name, Detective Constable Coe.

In his testimony before Lord Hutton, DC Coe, the third witness to Kelly's dead body, relates how he is called out at 6.00am on 18th July to Abingdon police station. Here he is instructed (we are not told who by) to make house-to-house enquiries in the village of Longworth, about a mile from Kelly's house. He does not follow these instructions. He heads instead to Southmoor, Kelly's home village. Here he visits Ruth Absalom, one of Kelly's neighbours, who was the last person to speak to the scientist the previous afternoon. From here, rather than make house-to-house enquiries, Coe sets off to the area where Ruth Absalom last sees Kelly to make what he describes to the Inquiry as "a sort of search towards the river".


Did Coe Lie to the Inquiry?

The next section of DC Coe's testimony contains one of the most blatant discrepancies in the whole of the Hutton Inquiry. While it is clear from his own and other testimonies that he is not alone while in the region of Harrowdown Hill, a serious question mark hangs over the number of people who are with him.

In the witness box Coe claims that he is with only one other officer. But five previous witnesses - the dog-handler/searcher, Louise Holmes, the two official search officers, PCs Franklin and Saunders, and the two paramedics, Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett - clearly state he is with two others.

In front of Lord Hutton DC Coe relates how he and "a colleague" go to the area where Ruth Absalom has last seen Kelly. He names this "colleague" as one "DC Shields":

DC Coe: We spoke to a witness who lived more or less opposite,
4 who had seen Dr Kelly on the afternoon, the Thursday
5 afternoon, and myself and a colleague went to the area
6 where she had last seen him and made a sort of search
7 towards the river.

Under further questioning from Knox, one of the Hutton barristers, Coe reiterates that on the morning of 18th July he is with only one other person:

Knox: "Who were you with at this time?"
DC Coe: "Detective Constable Shields".
Knox: "It is just the two of you?"
DC Coe: "Yes."

Nowhere in Coe's testimony is mention made of a third officer. Nor, despite the statements from the five witnesses who state he was with two other officers, is Coe asked about a third officer. Why does Coe not mention his other companion? And why does the barrister, Knox, allow this crucial point to slip by?


DC Coe Unrecognised by Police Search Team

DC Coe arrives on the scene independently of other police officers - indeed they are not notified that he is to be on the scene at all.

PC Franklin, the officer responsible for the police search, is given to understand that on Friday 18th July only he and his search team leader, PC Sawyer and "6 other officers" are to conduct the search, which is (after conferring with Sergeant Woods on Kelly's oft-frequented routes) set to begin at Harrowdown Hill, the site where Kelly's body is ultimately found. "PC Sawyer and I were going to be the first", said Franklin.

Yet on arriving at the scene they meet Paul Chapman, the volunteer searcher, who directs them to "two uniformed police officers and DC Coe".

"Q: You mentioned DC Coe. Was he part of your search team?
A: No.
Q: What was he doing:
A: He was at the scene. I had no idea what he was doing there or why he was there. He was just at the scene when PC Sawyer and I arrived."


Coe at the Death Scene

DC Coe goes on to describe how, on their way to the river, he and DC Shields encounter Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman (the other volunteer searcher). Louise and Paul explain how they have already found the body, and Paul Chapman leads the three (note, three, according to Chapman's testimony) officers to it. According to the testimony of other witnesses, we are given to understand that Coe's two (note, two) companions wait and guard the scene from the path while DC Coe visits the body alone.

When asked about Kelly's body-position Coe twice states that it is laying on its back:

"It was laying on its back - the body was laying on its back by a large tree...".

The way he repeats the phrase it is almost as if he is trying to prompt himself to remember to say, "laying on its back". Yet Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman, the first two body-witnesses, have said the body is slumped AGAINST, i.e. touching, the tree.

Did Louise and Paul get it so wrong? Why would they? The sight of a dead body is not easy to forget. Or did Coe and his accomplices MOVE the body from a sitting to a lying position? And if they did, what might have been the reason?

As to Coe's powers of observation, it is curious that, while none of the other witnesses are able to say much about the jacket, DC Coe manages to name it as a "Barbour jacket". But when asked about the cap, he is unable to say for sure if this cap was on the head or "apart from the body" - despite the fact that, according to his own account, he has been standing "guarding" the body at a distance of only 7-8 feet for "in the region of about 25 or 30 minutes".

Perhaps the Barbour jacket holds some particular significance for Coe. And his confusion over whether the cap is on or off could be because actually he is not standing guarding the scene as he claims, but, during the half an hour he is there, actively re-arranging it.


DC Coe & the "Men in Black

On 23 September 2003 Assistant Chief Constable Page of Abingdon police station tells the Hutton Inquiry that a "gentleman" has contacted both the police and the Inquiry to express his concern over his sighting of "three individuals.... in dark or black clothing" near the scene where Dr David Kelly's body was found early on the morning of 18th July.

Page attempts to explain away the sighting, testifying how,

"...we undertook some fairly extensive work. We got
3 statements from all our officers who were at the scene
4 and that was in excess of 50. We plotted their
5 movements on a map and eventually were able to
6 triangulate where the writer was talking about and
7 identify three of our officers, so I am satisfied that
8 I am aware of the identity of these three individuals..."

But why do the police feel the need to undertake "some fairly extensive work"? Why do they take "in excess of 50" statements"? For extensive work by the police to be deemed necessary, the "gentleman" who witnesses the incident must have described something about these three individuals which did not fit the pattern of mere search officers.

Vanessa Hunt, the paramedic and fourth body-witness, in her testimony to the Hutton Inquiry, describes PCs Franklin and Sawyer as wearing "dark polo shirts" and "combat trousers", so presumably this must be the standard attire for police search officers - pretty much "dark clothing".

So what is it about the man's sighting of these particular three individuals which sets them apart from regular search officers and is unusual enough to prompt such a line of inquiry? If their clothing is similar to that of search officers, then it is possibly their behaviour that is odd in some way. Are they indeed "officers"? Are these three individuals DC Coe and his two"uniformed officers". And are they behaving oddly?

Page claims in his September 23rd testimony that the triangulation shows that the three are police officers and satisfactorily accounted for. Yet this does not add up, because PC Franklin says, when asked how many other people are out searching at this time:

"I believe it was only the 2 volunteers out searching at that time".

And PC Franklin should know, because he is the POLICE SEARCH ADVISOR.

PC Sawyer, the SEARCH TEAM LEADER, explains the search arrangements in his testimony as follows:

11 A. I am a search team leader, which means I have done
12 a further course which enables me to actually run
13 a search. Police Constable Franklin, being the police
14 search adviser, will liaise with the senior
15 investigating officer. They will decide on the
16 parameters of the search, what they want searched. It
17 is then turned over to me to organise the logistics of
18 it, to plan the search, do the cordons, to set the
19 searchers going and supervise them while they are
20 searching.

How is it then, that statements are taken from 50 police officers if there is not a single search officer on the scene between 8.30 and 9.30am on 18th July - the time given for the "men in black" sighting? The timing is crucial. It is true that Page has arranged for a much larger police search contingent, to number in the region of 40 officers. But according to the police search advisor's testimony, this force has not, at this time, been assembled on the ground, and not a single regular police search officer was present on Harrowdown Hill at that time.

So how do we account for the three individuals in dark clothing? If there are no other police searching the area at the time they are sighted, then either these three are DC Coe and his two companions - or three other, entirely unknown, mystery individuals, possibly an SAS-style assassination or clean-up team.

Is there a reason for Coe's "sort of search towards the river"?

As they are searching, Louise and Paul Chapman come across some riverboat people who say they have seen a helicopter up the night before and some police officers "at some point previously". Are these DC Coe and DC Shields? Have they circled round perhaps? It is just conceivable that the riverboat is not innocent, that the people on it are not holiday-makers, and that the boat itself is the designated hide-out & get-away method for an assassination team?


No Cooroboration of Coe's Story

Nowhere in DC Coe's testimony are we given the names of anyone - other than DC Shields - who can corroborate any part of his story. We have no word but Coe's that he appeared at Abingdon police station, that he was assigned to make house-to-house enquiries in Longworth, or that he ever talked to Ruth Absalom about Kelly's route. In contrast, PCs Franklin and Sawyer, cited a "Sergeant Woods" as the person able to verify their attendance at Abingdon. The Thames Valley Police search team leaders, PCs Franklin and Sawyer, said that they had "no idea" what DC Coe and his companions (either one, according to Coe, or two, according to them) were doing there.

The one individual who could have corroborated Coe's testimony - DC Shields - was never called before the Inquiry. Why not?


No Legal Inquisition

One feature of the Hutton Inquiry that is truly stunning is why there has been so little cross-examination of witnesses.

Almost nothing is cross-checked in relation to the discovery of the body - e.g. the Hutton legal counsel, Mr Dingemans, could have said to PC Franklin, the body-witness who followed DC Coe:

"You say that the body was found flat on its back, yet Louise Holmes says it was slumped against a large tree - can you explain that?"

Similarly DC Coe's evidence is neither questioned, nor compared with evidence from previous witnesses.

He should have been asked:

- whom did you see at Abingdon police station?

- who instructed you to make a house to house search?

- who told you about Ruth Absalom?

- why were you making a search towards the river?

- whom were you with at the time?

And finally, to force an explanation it should have been put to him:

"You say you with one other person - DC Shields - yet five previous witnesses have stated you were with two people - how do you account for that?"

As this type of questioning did not take place, one cannot help but gain the impression that DC Coe in particular was let off a very uncomfortable hook.

The fact that witnesses were not cross-examined on the physical circumstances surrounding the search for/discovery of Dr Kelly's body clearly suggests a cover-up.

DC Coe was due to testify on 2nd September but for some reason, did not appear. Counsel to the Inquiry, Mr Dingemans merely states: "we have not been able to get him here this morning." Is that because he was waiting for all other "body-discovery testimonies" to have taken place so that none that followed would contradict what he had said? If DC Coe was not to be cross-examined subsequently, then his testimony would not be analysed under the public glare.

Those watching the hearings would be left a little confused by Coe's contradiction of previous witnesses as to how many officers were with him, but reassured by his being a senior British policeman - a detective constable. A detective constable would surely be accurate about who he was with and what he was doing - senior policemen can always be relied upon - or can they?

Recall that DC Coe departs from the instructions he receives at Abingdon police station. Recall that he almost certainly lied about the number of individuals with him. Recall the body is reported as "sitting up" or "slumped" against a tree before his arrival, and "flat on its back" after he leaves the scene. This being the case, how far can his testimony be trusted?

Jim Rarey, in his recent article, "The Murder of David Kelly" has pointed out that a Thames Valley Police operation, listed on the Hutton Inquiry website as a "TVP Tactical Support Major Incident Policy Book", actually commenced at 2.30pm on 17th July - many hours prior to David Kelly's body being reported missing at 11.40pm on that day - and finished at 9.30am on 18th July, around the time the "three individuals dressed in black or dark clothing" were sighted and DC Coe left the scene. The name of this operation? "Operation Mason". The evidence suggests that DC Coe's testimony - emanating from a figure in authority though it does - cannot, in fact, be trusted. However, it may be unfair to focus on DC Coe alone. He may have been but one link in a chain - a chain that was long, complex, and which involved many "dark actors".


See also:

Kelly: ‘I’ll probably be found Dead in the Woods’
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1023

Thursday, October 16, 2003
 
The Murder Of Dr. David Kelly

Part One of Two

by Jim Rarey

14th October 2003

(This first part lays out the case from the evidence presented in the Hutton inquiry why the death of Dr. David Kelly was not by suicide. Part two will show the reasons, in this writerâs opinion, Dr. Kelly was killed.)

On Thursday, July 17th sometime between 3 and 3:30pm, Dr. David Kelly started out on his usual afternoon walk. About 18 hours later, searchers found his body, left wrist slit, in a secluded lane on Harrowdown Hill. Kelly, the UK's premier microbiologist, was in the center of a political maelstrom having been identified as the 'leak' in information about the 'dossier' Prime Minister Tony Blair had used to justify the war against Iraq.

While the Hutton inquiry appears set to declare Kelly's death a suicide and the national media are already treating it as a given, there are numerous red flags raised in the testimony and evidence at the inquiry itself.

Kelly's body was likely moved from where he died to the site where two search volunteers with a search dog found it. The body was propped up against a tree according to the testimony of both volunteers. The volunteers reported the find to police headquarters, Thames Valley Police (TVP) and then left the scene. On their way back to their car, they met three 'police' officers, one of them named Detective Constable Graham Peter Coe.

Coe and his men were alone at the site for 25-30 minutes before the first police actually assigned to search the area arrived (Police Constables Sawyer and Franklin) and took charge of the scene from Coe. They found the body flat on its back a short distance from the tree, as did all subsequent witnesses.

A logical explanation is that Dr. Kelly died at a different site and the body was transported to the place it was found. This is buttressed by the medical findings of livor mortis (post mortem lividity), which indicates that Kelly died on his back, or at least was moved to that position shortly after his death. Propping the body against the tree was a mistake that had to be rectified.

The search dog and its handler must have interrupted whoever was assigned to go back and move the body to its back before it was done. After the volunteers left the scene the body was moved to its back while DC Coe was at the scene.

Five witnesses said in their testimony that two men accompanied Coe. Yet, in his testimony, Coe maintained there was only one other beside himself. He was not questioned about the discrepancy.

Researchers, including this writer, assume the presence of the 'third man' could not be satisfactorily explained and so was being denied.

Additionally, Coe's explanation of why he was in the area is unsubstantiated. To the contrary, when PC Franklin was asked if Coe was part of the search team he responded, 'No. He was at the scene. I had no idea what he was doing there or why he was there. He was just at the scene when PC Sawyer and I arrived.'

Franklin was responsible for coordinating the search with the chief investigating officer and then turning it over to Sawyer to assemble the search team and take them to the assigned area. They were just starting to leave the station (about 9am on the 18th) to be the first search team on the ground (excepting the volunteers with the search dog) when they got word the body had been found.

A second red flag is the nature of the wounds on Kelly's wrist. Dr. Nicholas Hunt, who performed the autopsy, testified there were several superficial 'scratches' or cuts on the wrist and one deep wound that severed the ulnar artery but not the radial artery.

The fact that the ulnar artery was severed, but not the radial artery, strongly suggests that the knife wound was inflicted drawing the blade from the inside of the wrist (the little finger side closest to the body) to the outside where the radial artery is located much closer to the surface of the skin than is the ulnar artery. For those familiar with first aid, the radial artery is the one used to determine the pulse rate.

Just hold your left arm out with the palm up and see how difficult it would be to slash across the wrist avoiding the radial artery while severing the ulnar artery. However, a second person situated to the left of Kelly who held or picked up the arm and slashed across the wrist would start on the inside of the wrist severing the ulnar artery first.

A reasonably competent medical examiner or forensic pathologist would certainly be able to determine in which direction the knife was drawn across the wrist. That question was never asked nor the answer volunteered. In fact, a complete autopsy report would state in which direction the wounds were inflicted. The coronerâs inquest was never completed as it was preempted by the Hutton inquiry and the autopsy report will not be made public. Neither will the toxicology report.

Two paramedics who arrived by ambulance at the same time as Franklin and Sawyer (some time after 9am) and accompanied them to where the body was located. After checking the eyes and signs of a pulse or breathing, they attached four electro-cardiogram pads to Kelly's chest and hooked them up to a portable electro-cardiograph. When no signs of heart activity were found they unofficially confirmed death. One paramedic (Vanessa Hunt) said the Police asked them to leave the pads on the body. The other paramedic (David Bartlett) said they always left the pads on the body.

Both paramedics testified that DC Coe had two men with him. Curiously, both also volunteered that there was a surprisingly small amount of blood at the scene for an artery having been severed.

When the forensic pathologist (Dr. Nicholas Hunt) who performed the autopsy testified, he described copious amounts of blood at the scene. He also described scratches and bruises that Kelly 'stumbling around' in the heavy underbrush may have caused. He said there was no indication of a struggle or Kelly having been forcibly restrained.

However, the police made an extensive search of the area and found no indication of anyone, including Kelly, having been in the heavy underbrush.

Strangely, none of the witnesses mentioned anything about rigor mortis (stiffening of the body) which is useful in setting the approximate time of death. Even Dr. Hunt, when was asked directly what changes on the body he observed that would have happened after death, failed to mention rigor mortis. He only named livor mortis. Hunt set the time of death within a range of 4:15pm on the 17th to 1:15am the next morning. He based the estimate on body temperature which he did not take until 7:15pm on the 19th, some seven hours after he arrived on the scene.

A forensic biologist (Roy James Green) had been asked to examine the scene. He said the amount of blood he saw was consistent with a severed artery. Green works for the same private company (Forensic Alliance) as Dr. Hunt. A majority of the company's work is done for police organizations.

The afternoon of the 18th DC Coe turned up at the Kelly residence accompanied by a man identified only as 'an attachment,' who acted as an 'exhibits officer' presumably collecting documents in behalf of some other government agency.

Detective Constable Coe and those accompanying him are somewhat of a mystery. There are no corroborating witnesses to any of his actions to which he testified (other than 'just being there' at the scene where the body was found).

However, on a listing of evidence provided to the Hutton inquiry by Thames Valley Police is a reference to a document described thusly, 'TVP Tactical Support Major Incident Policy Book·Between 1430 17.07.03 and 930 18.07.03. DCI Alan Young. It is labeled ãnot for release - Police operational information.' Many of the exhibits are labeled that way or are not to be released as personal information.

The police took over 300 statements from witnesses but less than 70 were forwarded to the Hutton inquiry. Witness statements were not to be released (even to the inquiry) unless the witness signed an authorization permitting it. TVP also withheld witness interviews they did not consider 'relevant' to the inquiry. Witnesses were not put under oath so it is impossible for the public to know if their public statements are at variance with what they told police. The 'tactical support' document must have been considered relevant to the inquiry on Kelly's death or it wouldn't have been forwarded.

So this 'tactical support' began at 2:30pm on the 17th, about one hour before Dr. Kelly left the house on his final walk. It ended at 9:30am the following morning about the time DC Coe and his men left the death scene. The obvious question is, to what was TVP giving tactical support? The name given the effort was 'Operation Mason.'

(In part two of this report, we will lay out some of the reasons (that you won't see in the national media) Dr. Kelly could not be allowed to live.)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its entirety.

The author is a freelance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly, please contact the author at jimrarey@comcast.net


MainPage
http://www.rense.com

Saturday, October 11, 2003
 
MANGOLD'S SUSAN WATTS' TAPE THEORY

Simon Hoggart, chief conspiracy-debunker at the UK's Guardian, (see extract of today's article below) seems impressed by Tom Mangold's theory about the Susan Watts tape:

The theory maintains that conceivably, David Kelly receives a phone call from the MOD in the early afternoon of 17th July in which he is told that his telephone interview with Susan Watts on 30th May 2003 had been taped. Realising his lies to the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) would be exposed, he is tipped over the edge, prompting a decision to walk off and slash his wrists on Harrowdown Hill that same afternoon.

BUT does this theory ring true?

1. David Kelly would have already guessed there must have been a tape or a detailed written record on the day of the FAC when the taped conversation
was quoted by David Chidgey; it would not have come as a shock to him on Thursday 17th July, even if someone had phoned to confirm it on that day.

2. He did not say anything particularly damning in that telephone interview with Susan Watts - in fact he lets No 10 off the hook, saying of the government's giving prominence to the 45-minutes,

Kelly: "I don't think they are being wilfully dishonest. I think they just think that that's the way the public will appreciate it best." 3.

He may have lied to his MoD bosses to some extent, denying that he was Gilligan's sole source - but how big a deal was this, when all he had done was say out loud what many in the MoD lower echelons were already muttering? So he told a fib or two to get himself off the hook - was that really grounds for suicide?

Mangold refers in his Kelly documentary to Kelly's very high ethical standards, saying that he could not have tolerated the "disgrace" of having his lies exposed. But Kelly did not tell a really damning lie - a lie that betrayed his core beliefs. His love of truth would not have been compromised.

This exceptional weapons-inspector, with a brain according to Mangold that would "boil water", was no fool - he was being practical, trying to save a pension essential for securing a future for his family. Mature enough to make allowances, he would have understood that there are times when everyone lies. He would not have deemed this grounds for taking his own life.

ROWENA THURSBY

RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk


(See extracts of Susan Watt's taped conversation with Kelly below Simon Hoggart article).



Simon Hoggart's article:

It's not goodbye to Blackpool, just au revoir

Simon Hoggart
Saturday October 11, 2003
The Guardian

[snip]....... I also wondered if it was wise for IDS to imply that Tony Blair had hounded David Kelly to his death. There was a fascinating programme on Channel 4 (just before Derren Brown's ghastly Russian roulette programme - quelle delicatesse!) It was an investigation by Tom Mangold, one of Dr Kelly's best friends. I thought it was alarmingly candid for a friend. Mangold's theory was - and I paraphrase slightly - that Kelly had greatly underplayed what he had told the BBC's Andrew Gilligan when he was interviewed by his bosses at the MoD, and had followed the same less than frank strategy with the foreign affairs committee - which, we must remember, believed what he told them.
But Gilligan had briefed the Lib Dem MP David Chidgey about what Kelly had said to Susan Watts of Newsnight, and Chidgey was able to produce almost verbatim quotes from that interview. Kelly realised there must be a tape, or at least a detailed shorthand note, of what he had said. The game, in other words, was up, and it was the imminent exposure that may have driven him to suicide. If Lord Hutton comes to anything like the same conclusion, Mr Duncan Smith will look silly and venal.




Ms Watts said that in her conversations with Dr Kelly:

"He didn't say to me that the dossier was transformed in the last week and he certainly didn't say that the 45-minute claim was inserted either by Alastair Campbell or by anyone else in Government In fact, he denied specifically that Alastair Campbell was involved."

Andrew Gilligan sat at the back of the court listening to that carefully phrased distancing from his own report.

And then, for the first time, the tape recording made by Susan Watts was played. Lord Hutton is not releasing the original tape to broadcasters out of respect for Dr Kelly's family. Susan Watts was phoning Dr Kelly just after Andrew Gilligan's original allegations that No.10 had "sexed-up" the dossier, clearly wondering if Dr Kelly was the source.

Susan Watts conversation with David Kelly, 30 May 2003:

Watts: "Are you getting much flak over that?"

Kelly: "Me? no, not yet anyway, I was in New York. "

Watts: "Yes, good timing I suppose."

Kelly: "I mean they wouldn't think it was me, I don't think. Maybe they would, ma be they wouldn't. I don't know."

Ms Watts then pressed Dr Kelly to see if he would repeat the allegations made by Andrew Gilligan, that Alastair Campbell - the Prime Minster's head of communications had transformed the dossier and inserted a reference to Iraq being able to deploy chemical weapons with 45 minutes notice.

Susan Watts conversation with David Kelly, 30 May 2003:

Watts: " ...just back momentarily on the 45 minute issue...So would it be accurate then, as you did in that earlier conversation to say that it was Alastair Campbell himself who....?"

Kelly: "No, I can't. All I can say is the Number 10 press office. I've never met Alastair Campbell but, I think Alastair Campbell is synonymous with that press office because he is responsible for it."

Ms Watts said Dr Kelly was a source she'd got to know quite well and thought that too off the cuff or glib to be the basis for a report. Dr Kelly then talks of No.10's motives in changing the text of the dossier.

Susan Watts conversation with David Kelly, 30 May 2003:

Kelly: "I don't think they are being wilfully dishonest. I think they just think that that's the way the public will appreciate it best."


Dr Kelly expressed his concern that caveats and doubts about Iraq's actual military capabilities had been removed from the final dossier.


Susan Watts conversation with David Kelly, 30 May 2003:

Kelly: " ...it was not so much what they have now but what they would have in the future. But that unfortunately wasn't expressed strongly in the dossier because that takes away the case for war."



 
THE HIGHLY SUSPECT DC COE


WHAT WAS HE DOING?

In his testimony to the Hutton Inquiry DC Coe, the third witness to Kelly's dead body, relates how, on the day David Kelly was found "dead in the woods", he was called out at 6.00 am and instructed to make house to house enquiries in Longworth. In actual fact he directed himself, not to Longworth, but to Southmoor where he visited Ruth Absalom, one of Kelly's neighbours, who had spoken to Kelly on the previous afternoon. From there he decided, off his own bat, to ignore the instructions he received at Abingdon police station to make a house to house search, and instead made "a sort of search towards the river".

PERJURY?

Now for Coe's most BLATANT UNTRUTH:

Coe tells us (below) that he and a colleague went to the area where Ruth Absalom had last seen Kelly. He names this "colleague" (singular) as a DC Shields:

DC Coe: We spoke to a witness who lived more or less opposite,
4 who had seen Dr Kelly on the afternoon, the Thursday
5 afternoon, and myself and a colleague went to the area
6 where she had last seen him and made a sort of search
7 towards the river.

And under further questioning from Knox, one of the Hutton barristers, Coe reiterates that he was with only one other person:

Knox: "Who were you with at this time?"
DC Coe: "Detective Constable Shields".
Knox: "It is just the two of you?"
DC Coe: "Yes."


But no fewer that FIVE witnesses - Louise Holmes, PC Franklin, PC Sawyer, Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett testified that DC Coe was with TWO officers.

No mention is made of a third officer in this testimony. Nor is Coe ASKED about a third officer.

WHY THE RIVER?

Back to the river. Of all the possible routes to take, why pick the one towards the river? Coe does not explain why he chose this route.

We are told in Louise Holmes' and Paul Chapman's testimonies that they met some people on a riverboat. No one is asked about these people. We are not even told how many there were on this boat. All we know is that they saw a helicopter the previous night and some police officers "at some point previously". Is it conceivable that the riverboat was in fact the ideal hidey-hole for an assassination squad, and "riverboat people" the ideal cover for a group of MI5 look-outs? Maybe (just maybe) DC Coe and DC Shields were heading for that riverboat to check if everything was going to plan.

Instead they bumped into the SEBV volunteers, Louise and Paul. DC Coe says "on the route to Harrowdown Hill I met the two people from the volunteer search team". A moment ago Coe said he had been heading for the river. Now he says he was on the route to Harrowdown Hill. Is it possible to be on the route both to the river and to Harrowdown Hill? I am not sure of the terrain, but I would suggest his testimony does not add up.

COE CAME FROM NOWHERE

PC Franklin was given to understand that on Friday 18th July only he and his search team leader, PC Sawyer and "6 other officers" would be making the search, which was, after conferring with Sergeant Woods on Kelly's oft-frequented routes, set to begin at Harrowdown Hill. "PC Sawyer and I were going to be the first", said Franklin. Yet upon arriving at the scene they met Paul Chapman, the volunteer searcher, who directed them "two uniformed police officers and DC Coe".

"Q: You mentioned DC Coe. Was he part of your search team?
A: No.
Q: What was he doing?
A: He was at the scene. I had no idea what he was doing there or why he was there. He was just at the scene when PC Sawyer and I arrived.


COE'S TIME BY THE BODY

It is interesting that DC Coe was apparently standing by the body, on his own, for around half an hour. This was ample time for other things to have occurred. He, an accomplice or two, or group of accomplices - the "men in black" perhaps - would have had plenty of time to re-arrange the body from a sitting-up (Louise Holmes/Paul Chapman) to a lying-on-its-back position - which was the position it was reported in by all subsequent witnesses.


WERE DC COE & CO THE "MEN IN BLACK"?

We may recall that Asst Chief Constable Page, had been told by a "gentleman" of 3 men in dark clothing at the scene about the same time as DC Coe and his 2 (?) companions were there. It is possible that the 3 men in black or dark clothing were the very same DC Coe and co - and if it were them, what were they doing - or wearing - that warranted this "gentleman" taking the trouble to inform both the police and the Hutton Inquiry? Their actions and/or appearance must have indicated they were more than mere search officers for Page to deem it necessary to take 50 police statements and triangulate their position.

Page later claimed in his September 23rd testimony that the triangulation showed that the 3 were police officers and were satisfactorily accounted for. Yet this is very strange, because PC Franklin said, when asked how many other people were out searching at this time:

"I believe it was only the 2 volunteers out searching at that time".

And PC Franklin should know, because he was the POLICE SEARCH ADVISOR.

PC Sawyer, the SEARCH TEAM LEADER, explained the search arrangments in his testimony as follows:

44
1 A. I am a qualified EOD searcher, which is explosive
2 ordnance searcher. We have to be licensed by the Home
3 Office and we retrain on a periodic basis. We also
4 train to search major crime scenes, murder scenes and
5 any major event. We search events like Royal Ascot,
6 which we call a defensive search, to make sure there are
7 no explosive devices left. We also do offensive
8 searches or crime scene searches, as the Dr David Kelly
9 search.
10 Q. I understand you are a search team leader?
11 A. I am a search team leader, which means I have done
12 a further course which enables me to actually run
13 a search. Police Constable Franklin, being the police
14 search adviser, will liaise with the senior
15 investigating officer. They will decide on the
16 parameters of the search, what they want searched. It
17 is then turned over to me to organise the logistics of
18 it, to plan the search, do the cordons, to set the
19 searchers going and supervise them while they are
20 searching.


How is it then, that statements were taken from 50 police officers if there was not a single officer on the scene between 8.30 and 9.30am on 18th July - the time given for the "men in black" sighting?

And how do we account for the 3 individuals in dark clothing? If there were no other police searching the area, then either these 3 were DC Coe and his 2 companions - or 3 other individuals, and definitely not police officers.


COE'S OBSERVATIONS

When asked about Kelly's body position Coe twice states that it was laying on its back. "It was laying on its back - the body was laying on its back by a large tree...", almost as if he was trying to prompt himself to remember to say, "laying on its back". Yet Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman had said the body was slumped AGAINST, i.e. touching, the tree.

As to Coe's powers of observation, it is curious that, while none of the others had been able to say much about the jacket, DC Coe actually manages to name it as a "Barbour jacket". Yet when asked about the cap, he is unable to say for sure if this cap was on the head or "apart from the body" - despite the fact that, according to his own account, he had been standing "guarding" the body at a distance of only 7-8 feet for "in the region of about 25 or 30 minutes".


COE DEFENSIVE

Towards the end of his testimony, Coe sounds stiff and defensive, three times stressing how he "left" the scene, rather like someone saying "Not me guv, I had nothing to do with it":

15 Q. It is they who pronounced death; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. After the ambulance crew arrived, did you do anything on
18 the scene?
19 A. No, I left and left the other officers there, and I left 20 the actual area of the scene.
21 Q. Did you have any further involvement in the search of
22 the scene that day?
23 A. I did not.
24 Q. What about on the following day? We know the following
25 morning there was a search made of Dr Kelly's premises.

5
1 Were you at all involved in that?
2 A. Yes, I was. I went to the premises and at that time
3 I had an attachment with me who acted as an exhibits
4 officer at the house and I oversaw what he did. I made
5 no search whatsoever of the premise.
6 Q. And is there anything else you would like to say about
7 the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly?
8 A. Nothing whatsoever.
9 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much, Mr Coe.
10 A. Thank you, my Lord.


What is it about these negative "whatsoevers" that doesn't gel? Sometimes one has to go on hunches, and if I had to do that judging from these soundbytes, I'd say this man has something to hide.

NO VERIFICATION OF COE'S TESTIMONY

Nowhere in Coe's testimony are we given the names of anyone who can verify any part of his story - other than DC Shields who was not called to testify. We have no word but Coe's that he appeared at Abingdon police station, that he was assigned to make house to house enquiries in Longworth, or that he ever talked to Ruth Absalom about Kelly's route. This is in contrast to PCs Franklin and Sawyer, who cited Sergeant Woods as the person who could verify their attendance at Abingdon.

PC Franklin was given to understand that on Friday 18th July only he and his search team leader, PC Sawyer and "6 other officers" would be making the search, which was, after conferring with Sergeant Woods on Kelly's most-frequented routes, set to begin at Harrowdown Hill. "PC Sawyer and I were going to be the first", said Franklin. Yet upon arriving at the scene they met Paul Chapman, the volunteer searcher, who directed them to DC Coe.

"Dingemans: You mentioned DC Coe. Was he part of your search team?
PC Franklin: No.
Dingemans: What was he doing:
PC Franklin: He was at the scene. I had no idea what he was doing there or why he was there. He was just at the scene when PC Sawyer and I arrived."

So the Thames Valley Police search team had "no idea" what DC Coe and co were doing there. Yet DC Coe was said to be "in charge" of the scene. Odd isn't it?

NO LEGAL INQUISITION

One feature of the Hutton Inquiry that is truly stunning is why there has been no cross-examination of witnesses. Nothing is cross-checked - e.g. Mr Dingemans could have said to PC Franklin: you say that the body was found flat on its back, yet Louise Holmes says it was slumped against a large tree - can you explain that? Similarly with DC Coe, his evidence was not questioned, or compared with that given by previous witnesses. He should have been asked:

- whom did you see at Abingdon police station?

- who instructed you to make a house to house search?

- who told you about Ruth Absalom?

- why were you making a search towards the river?

- you say you with one one other person - DC Shields - yet 5 previous witnesses have stated you were with 2 people - how do you account for that?

- you say you "made a thing"....

(Q: "How close an examination [of the body] did you make? A: Just standing upright, I did not go over the body. I made a thing.... I observed the scene.")

.... what were you about to say after "made a thing" DC Coe?

- what was the name of the "attachment" acting as "exhibits officer" you had with you on the 19th July, when you were at the Kellys' house?

Does the fact that witnesses were not cross-examined on the physical circumstances surrounding the search for and discovery of Dr Kelly's body indicate a degree of collusion between the certain members of the police and the judiciary? One cannot help but gain the impression that DC Coe in particular was let off a very uncomfortable hook.


ROWENA THURSBY

RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk


Thursday, October 02, 2003
 



WHO WERE THE MEN IN BLACK ON HARROWDOWN HILL?


Today, in the United Kingdom, there exists a paramilitary unit called Group 13. The sole purpose of this ultra secretive unit is deniable assassination and it operates in the world of shadows....
....Gary Murray, author of “Enemies of the State” had decided to research Group 13 to write a book on them. He soon changed his mind. One day during his research phase he was forcibly dragged in to the back of a Transit van and had a gun stuck to his head. A voice told him it would be unwise to continue his project. Sensibly, he decided to abandon the project....

DAVID GUYATT, "Group 13"
http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/group_13_pr.htm


15 Q. In the course of your inquiries were you contacted by
16 a person who suggested there had been three men dressed
17 in black wandering around at the time that Dr Kelly's
18 body was found?
19 A. Yes, I think both we and the Inquiry received
20 a communication from a gentleman who expressed concern
21 that he had noticed three individuals dressed in dark or
22 black clothing near the scene where Dr Kelly's body was
23 found. I am speaking from memory, but I think the
24 sighting was at somewhere between 8.30 and 9.30 in the
25 morning, something like that.

ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE MICHAEL PAGE'S TESTIMONY TO THE HUTTON INQUIRY


On 23 September 2003 Assistant Chief Constable Page told the Hutton Inquiry that a "gentleman" had contacted both the police and the Inquiry to express his concern over his sighting of 3 individuals in dark or black clothing near the scene where Dr David Kelly's body was found.

What are we to make of this?

Page quickly dismisses the sighting, testifying how,

we undertook some fairly extensive work. We got
3 statements from all our officers who were at the scene
4 and that was in excess of 50. We plotted their
5 movements on a map and eventually were able to
6 triangulate where the writer was talking about and
7 identify three of our officers, so I am satisfied that
8 I am aware of the identity of these three individuals

But why should the police undertake "some fairly extensive work"? Why was it that they felt the need to take "in excess of 50" statements?

For extensive work to be deemed necessary, the "gentleman" who witnessed the incident must have described some activity by these 3 individuals in dark clothing which did not fit the pattern of mere search officers.

Vanessa Hunt, in her testimony to the Hutton Inquiry, described PCs Franklin and Sawyer as wearing "dark polo shirts" and "combat trousers", so presumably this must have been the standard attire for searching officers to be wearing. This is pretty much "dark clothing". So what was it about this man's sighting of these particular 3 individuals which was unusual enough to prompt such a line of inquiry?

A couple of days ago, with this in the back of my mind, I was watching a TV programme on Channel 4 (UK) about SAS officers and how they operate. It was stated that an SAS squad was sent in by the UK government to deal with a prison riot in Scotland. The prison officers at the time described these SAS as "men in black", noting with some bemusement, that they all looked the same - all were clothed in black and wearing black balaclavas. Were the individuals on Harrowdown Hill possibly also wearing balaclavas? Is that why the gentleman thought it worthy of reporting?

SAS practice is to hide out for hours, days and sometimes weeks at observation posts. These can be holes in the ground specially dug out for the purpose and then covered back over with turf, derelict buildings, or any other place that is likely to remain undisturbed. Had these 3 individuals been hiding out in observation sites in the Harrowdown area and suddenly been "activated" for a purpose? Or had they been dropped from helicopters - ostensibly "search" helicopters from RAF Benson - during the previous night?

Another possibility is that they were indeed "officers" - DC Coe and his 2 "uniformed officers". But here again, there is something mysterious about DC Coe. PC Franklin bumped into PC Coe on his way back from the body but had "no idea why he and his officers were there". DC Coe testified that he had been called to Abingdon police station and told to do a house-to-house search of the area. Ruth Absalom, Kelly's neighbour, had pointed him in the direction Kelly took. DC Coe then told the inquiry that he and a "DC Shields" headed towards the River Thames, thinking that Kelly had possibly ended up there. On the way to the river Coe met Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman, the volunteer SEBV search team, and Paul Chapman led him to the body. What is interesting is that the body witnesses - Holmes, Chapman, PCs Franklin and Sawyer - all report Coe as having 2 officers with him, yet according to Coe at the inquiry he had only one - Shields.

If it was Coe and his one or two companions that the gentleman saw - which seems somewhat unlikely, as Coe, being a detective, was in plain clothes, then what was it about their activities that the man thought worthy of reporting - not only to the police, but to the Hutton Inquiry itself? It is noteworthy that Coe was by his own admission a full 25 - 30 minutes at the scene, observing the body from a distance, he claims, of 7 - 8 feet. This is ample time for the scene to have been changed

Could it be, that while Coe's 2 companions waited at a short distance away on the path guarding the scene against intruders, Coe himself linked up with the 3 individuals in dark clothing and arranged a scene which had all the hallmarks of a "suicide", pulling the body down from the original position of leaning against the tree, to the "flat on its back" position later reported by other witnesses?

On the Channel 4 TV programme, the SAS confessed their worst fear was being discovered, either by their own carelessness - inadvertently making some kind of noise - or by animals. Cows, apparently, are the worst, for being curious and standing, staring at what they come across, refusing to leave it alone. Brock, the sheepdog who first found the body, returned to Louise his owner, and lay down, refusing to go back. Had something or somebody scared him, such that he behaved contrary to his training? One of the individuals in dark clothing perhaps?

All this is admittedly speculation.

David Guyatt, however, in the article on state-organised assassination quoted at the beginning of this piece, reports that Group 13 evolved from former SAS soldiers and Security and Intelligence operatives who were once active in Northern Ireland during the mid to late 1970s. Fred Holroyd, a Captain in British Army Intelligence at this time, reported a "vicious turf battle between MI5 and MI6 for control of the Northern Ireland patch, where "assets" for each of the two contending groups being set up and thrown to the wolves - bombs were placed by either MI5 or MI6 agents and then blamed on the IRA. Do "assets being thrown to the wolves" ring any bells for you? They do me. Had David Kelly, once regarded as an asset, reached the point of being regarded as expendable?

Guyatt relates, later in his article, how there may in fact be a connection between Group 13 in the UK, and another unit, emanating from the US's highly secretive NSA (National Security Agency) known as 1-3:

There may also be other connections between Group Thirteen and the United States intelligence community. J. Orlin Grabbe, an American Professor who runs his own financial advisory service, has in recent years earned a reputation within internet “conspiracy” circles as being well informed about a number of illegal intelligence operations. One of these focus on the alleged assassination of Vincent Foster, a close associate and legal adviser to President Clinton.

Grabbe, a former professor at Wharton Business School, in one of his internet posts alluded to the existence of a highly secret US assassination team that operates out of the National Security Agency (NSA). The unit, Grabbe claims, is called “I-3.” In a recent communication he added that the information on this unit was provided by a “former CIA agent with the CIA’s highest security clearance.” It may just be a coincidence that this NSA unit shares a common name with “Group 13” and just happens to also be in the same line of business. However, in the closed world of the intelligence community such “coincidences” should be viewed carefully.

We have just had the Hutton Inquiry. But recall for a moment the Scott Inquiry, into UK arms trading with Iraq. Guyatt again:

Despite the stiff secrecy and widespread smoke and mirrors that surround the activities of Group 13, some significant additional information came to light following the Scott Enquiry into the arms to Iraq affair. Gerald James, the former Chairman of Astra Holdings Plc - a leading British munitions manufacturer - has written of his knowledge surrounding group 13 in his explosive book In the Public Interest, which blows the lid on British government involvement in arming Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

During a lengthy interview, James outlined how he had been ousted from the Board of Astra. He believes his removal was orchestrated by non-executive director Stephan Kock, a self acknowledged former Security and Intelligence officer in the employ of Midland Bank Plc. James, thereafter, undertook to learn more about the mysterious Kock In written evidence presented to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee looking into exports to Iraq, on 5 February 1992, James stated that he was told, in an unguarded moment, that Kock was “… a former head of ‘Group 13.’ This curious organisation is apparently a hit or contract squad for the Foreign Office and Security Services.” James adds “The Foreign Office is said to draw Group 13 operatives from the SAS as well as from private security firms,” and that “It’s duties involve ‘service to the nation.’” James also makes clear that Kock had exceptional high level contacts inside the intelligence community, and that boasted of his ready access to the highest levels of the British government, including 10 Downing Street.

This gives us some indication that an assassination squad is alive and active in the UK. While the SAS consider themselves tough men, willing to "serve the nation" with what are euphemistically known as "wet jobs", these operations were once confined to renegade foreigners who did not play ball with the US and British establishments. Now it seems their remit has been extended. Gerald Bull, designer of the "Supergun", which led to the Scott Inquiry, was shot from behind, outside his Brussels appartment in early 1990. Bull, writing to a colleague, had stated he was "advised in a letter of an imminent accident". This particular assassination was laid at the feet of Mossad. But did Dr David Kelly, whose actions instigated the Hutton Inquiry, meet a similar fate at the hands of a crack UK assassination squad?

ROWENA THURSBY


































Powered by Blogger