Dead Scientists

2004-02-28T05:29:00.000-08:00

THE STRANGE "SUICIDE" OF DAVID KELLY:
Questions for the coroner's inquest

by Renan Talieva

With the release of his report last month, Lord Brian Hutton pronounced the death of scientist David Kelly a suicide. But the evidence given at the inquiry does not substantiate the finding. It is not yet known exactly how he died.

Members of the medical community and the general public are beginning to express growing skepticism about the stated cause of death. In response to their concerns, Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner will hold a hearing in March to determine if 'exceptional reasons' compel him to reopen the original inquest. [1]

There is more than adequate cause to question the current interpretation of the scientist's demise, as set forth by the Hutton report (HR) and the public record of the Hutton inquiry (HI). The official version can be summarized as follows.

Between 3.00 and 3.20 pm on 17 July 2003, Dr Kelly left his Oxfordshire residence after telling his wife he was going for his regular walk. At about 9.20 am on 18 July, his body was found by volunteer searchers in a wooded area on Harrowdown Hill. On the body was a mobile telephone, glasses, key fob, and three 10-tablet blister packs of coproxamol with 1 tablet remaining. Near the body was a Barbour cap, wristwatch, Sandvig knife, and half-litre bottle of water.

From this it was concluded that although he suffered from no significant mental illness, by the afternoon of 17 July Dr Kelly was feeling isolated and hopeless. When he left the house he took with him several packets of his wife's prescription pain medication, a gardening knife from his desk drawer, and a bottle of water.

He proceeded to one of his favorite haunts, a peaceful and secluded spot, where sometime between 4.15 pm and 1.15 am he removed his watch and glasses, swallowed over 20 pills, and repeatedly slashed at his left wrist, leaving the radial artery intact but completely severing the ulnar artery which caused him to bleed to death, most of the blood soaking into the detritus of the woodland floor.

In the process of stumbling or thrashing about in the undergrowth he possibly sustained minor abrasions to the scalp and lower lip, along with bruising to the lower legs and left side of chest. His demise was further hastened by a less than fatal but more than therapeutic blood level of dextropropoxyphene and paracetamol, and by clinically silent coronary artery disease.

It is an odd and illogical tale, notable for its abundance of conjecture and conflicting witness accounts. The ten questions below highlight some disturbing anomalies.

Did Kelly cut his own wrist?

Forensic pathologist Nicholas Hunt gave no evidence specifying the direction in which the wounds were made to support a conclusion of self-infliction. The presumed scenario is that Dr Kelly drew the knife with his right hand across his left wrist (thumb to little finger).

But the location of arteries in the wrist suggests that in so doing he would have more easily damaged the superficial radial artery on the lateral aspect. It is not likely he would have left the radial artery intact while exerting enough pressure to completely sever the deeper, better protected ulnar artery at the medial aspect. [2]

And forensic biologist Roy Green observed that finding a bloodstain on the right sleeve of Dr Kelly's jacket was 'slightly unusual' [HI] in view of the presumed scenario. The pathologist did not mention blood on the right sleeve in his evidence.

Dr Hunt also made the questionable inference that the apparent removal of the watch 'whilst blood was already flowing' [HI], along with the removal of the spectacles, pointed toward an act of self harm. It seems more likely Dr Kelly would have removed the watch before inflicting the wounds and left his glasses on to facilitate the effort.

Then there is the alleged weapon. If Dr Kelly's intention was to efficiently open an artery, his choice of an old, blunt* gardening knife seems highly unlikely. As does the horizontal incision of a single wrist.

*Bluntness is assumed from the pathologist's description of the wound's crushed edges.

Did Kelly bleed to death?

Medical specialists have questioned whether the incised wounds as described by Dr Hunt could have led to fatal haemorrhage. Only the small ulnar artery was cut which, having been completely transected, would have defensively retracted and clotted while blood pressure slowed, thereby greatly inhibiting the flow of blood. [3]

And if one were to accept a verdict of death by exsanguination, why was there not more blood found in the vicinity?

It has been estimated that for a person of Dr Kelly's size to die of haemorrhage, he would need to lose about five pints of blood. But witness accounts did not indicate anything near that amount at the scene.

Paramedic Vanessa Hunt volunteered the observation that there was 'no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing. ... As to on the ground, I do not remember seeing a sort of huge puddle or anything like that.' [HI] This was seconded by ambulance technician David Bartlett, who commented 'we was surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterial bleed.' [HI]

In rebuttal to these comments, the forensic biologist referred to 'a fair bit of blood' [HI] around the body and surmised that much of it had probably been absorbed by leaf litter covering the ground. He does not appear from the evidence to have tested the premise.

The pathologist's conclusion that '[t]he arterial injury had resulted in the loss of a significant volume of blood,' [HI] seemed to derive from the fact that the artery had been cut rather than from specific evidence at the scene or the post mortem examination. He did not offer an assessment of the amount of blood remaining in the heart and large vessels to support a conclusion of haemorrhage.

Did Kelly take an overdose of his wife's medication?

Although the secondary cause of death was determined to be coproxamol ingestion, forensic toxicologist Alexander Allan reported finding merely 67 milligrammes of paracetamol in the stomach contents (equivalent to one-fifth of one tablet of coproxamol), and blood level concentrations per millilitre of 97 microgrammes for paracetamol and 1.0 microgrammes for dextropropoxyphene (equivalent to approximately 20 tablets).

Dr Allan acknowledged this amount to be three to four times lower than the medically accepted level for fatal overdose. Dr Hunt offered no post mortem evidence of respiratory depression or heart failure consistent with dextropropoxyphene overdose, or of liver damage from paracetamol overdose.

Lord Hutton noted that according to Dr Allan, 'the only way in which paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene could be found in Dr Kelly's blood was by him taking tablets containing them which he would have to ingest.' [HR p 95] But acquaintance Mai Pederson reportedly told police that Dr Kelly had difficulty swallowing pills -- a condition which could be confirmed by family, friends or physician. If true, it is doubtful that he would have voluntarily chosen to ingest over 20 of them.

In addition, as a scientist and biowarfare specialist Dr Kelly would presumably have known how much coproxamol was required to induce overdose, and have had knowledge of and access to faster and more lethal substances.

Nor was it adequately demonstrated at the inquiry that the blister packs found in Dr Kelly's jacket were taken from his wife's prescription.

In his report, Lord Hutton deemed it 'probable that the Coproxamol tablets which Dr Kelly took just before his death came from a store of those tablets which Mrs Kelly, who suffered from arthritis, kept in their home.' [HR p 96] This despite evidence from Detective Constable Eldridge that their identical batch numbers were shared with 1.6 million other packets sold throughout the country.

And Mrs Kelly did not confirm that an equivalent number of tablets were missing from her store at the house.

Was Kelly suicidal?

In the expert opinion of psychiatrist Keith Hawton it was 'well nigh certain' [HI] that Dr Kelly had committed suicide, a conclusion based largely on circumstantial evidence: isolated location of the site, wounds to the wrist, apparent use of a familiar object, presence of several empty blister packs. Less attention was given to the numerous contraindicators of suicidal ideation.

Professor Hawton told the inquiry that Dr Kelly was 'an intensely private man' who kept his emotions bottled up and whose self-esteem was tied to his work. [HI] He theorized that in the wake of the parliamentary hearings, Dr Kelly had begun to see himself as publicly disgraced and to fear the loss of his job. Receiving additional parliamentary questions at about 9.28 am on 17 July possibly led to a perception that the problem was escalating and increased his sense of hopelessness.

But these suppositions are not borne out by witness accounts or by Dr Kelly's own behavior.

According to MoD colleague Wing Commander John Clark, Kelly had reporting being in good spirits when they spoke by telephone on 17 July. Clark and Kelly had agreed on 25 July as the date for him to fly to Iraq to work with the survey group, and the evidence indicated he was eager to resume that effort.

At about 11.18 am that morning, Dr Kelly sent several e-mails to friends and colleagues, most anticipating that it would 'all blow over by early next week' [HI] and indicating his expectation of returning to Baghdad the following Friday. The e-mail messages given as evidence are not indicative of depression, despair, or hopelessness.

Nor did Dr Kelly seem uncharacteristically distraught in encounters with two neighbors after leaving the house. Sometime around 3.00 pm he stopped and chatted amiably for a few minutes with neighbor Ruth Absalom, who described him as '[j]ust his normal self, no different to any other time when I have met him.' [HI] Farmer Paul Weaver also saw Kelly walking through farmland that afternoon, as reported by the 20 July Observer. Weaver commented that Kelly 'seemed happy enough' and had smiled at him. [4]

Professor Hawton in his evidence mentioned three possible factors that might have acted as deterrents against Dr Kelly's suicide.

One was faith. Dr Kelly was acknowledged to have been a practicing member of the Baha’i faith, which strongly condemns the act of suicide.

Another was family. He had arranged with his daughter Rachel the night of 16 July to join him at his home the next evening for a walk and to visit a nearby foal. He was also looking forward to his daughter's wedding in October.

A third was the effect of a previous suicide by a family member, which may decrease the likelihood of the survivor choosing a similar course. Dr Kelly has been quoted by Mai Pederson as saying in regard to his mother's suicide, 'Good God no, I couldn’t imagine ever doing that ... I would never do it.' [5]

These mitigating factors, coupled with Professor Hawton's observation that Dr Kelly's 'mood was predominantly reported as being quite upbeat in spite of all his difficulties' with no 'sense of a persistent depressive mood' [HI], and an historical lack of psychiatric problems, contrast sharply with Hawton's depiction of a man suddenly pushed over the edge by additional parliamentary questions and a terminal case of mortification.

Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page confirmed that 'based on early discussions with the inquiry it seemed entirely out of character' for Dr Kelly to have taken his own life. [HI]

Was Kelly's body moved?

Throughout the inquiry it was assumed that the body remained undisturbed until checked for vital signs by the ambulance crew. But there were marked discrepancies in descriptions of body position, particularly whether the body was lying flat or the head and shoulders rested against the tree, and whether the right arm was lying to the side of the body or across the chest.

By all accounts, the first person on the scene was Louise Holmes, a volunteer member of the search team who approached to within a few feet of the body. She stated: 'I could see a body slumped against the bottom of a tree. ... He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree. His legs were straight in front of him. His right arm was to the side of him. His left arm had a lot of blood on it and was bent back in a funny position.' [HI]

The second person to view the body was fellow searcher Paul Chapman. From a distance of 15 to 20 metres he saw: 'The body of a gentleman sitting up against a tree... He was sitting with his back up against a tree...' [HI]

Soon after, Detective Constable Graham Coe arrived at the scene. His description was quite different: 'It was laying on its back -- the body was laying on its back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the tree.' [HI] He also reported seeing a knife, watch, and small water bottle near the body. Holmes and Chapman did not mention seeing other objects, nor were they questioned about them at the inquiry.

Lord Hutton chose not to quote Chapman directly in his report but related that, 'Mr Chapman then took one of the police officers, Detective Constable Coe, to show him where the body was. Mr Chapman showed Detective Constable Coe the body lying on its back...' [HR p 86] Hutton later commented, 'I have seen a photograph of Dr Kelly's body in the wood which shows that most of his body was lying on the ground but that his head was slumped against the base of the tree - therefore a witness could say either that the body was lying on the ground or slumped against the tree.' [HR p 100]

But Chapman twice used the term 'sitting' to denote body position, which is not to be confused with 'lying.' And subsequent witnesses did not use the term 'slumped' at all, nor did they indicate that any part of the body was resting against the tree.

Police Constables Dean Franklin and Martyn Sawyer were next on the scene. PC Franklin described the victim as 'lying on his back with his right hand to his side and his left hand was sort of inverted with the palm facing down (Indicates), facing up on his back.' [HI] PC Sawyer described the body as '[l]ying on its back with its head at the base of a tree, a large tree. The head was tilted to the left. The right arm was by the side. The left arm was palm down.' [HI]

The ambulance crew arrived soon after and waited while police photographs were taken before checking for vital signs. Hunt stated: 'There was a male on his back, feet towards us. On his left arm, which was outstretched to the left of him, there was some dry blood. ... The only part of the body we moved was Dr Kelly's right arm, which was over the chest, to facilitate us to place the fourth lead on to the chest.' [HI] Bartlett stated: 'They led us up to where the body was laid, feet facing us, laid on its back, left arm out to one side (indicates) and the right arm across the chest.' [HI]

It is possible the body was moved for some reason by police. But no one gave evidence to that effect. DC Coe in particular made a point of telling the inquiry he observed the scene but 'did not go over the body.' [HI] As related by Lord Hutton, Coe 'remained about seven or eight feet away from the body and stayed in that position for about 25 or 30 minutes until two other police officers arrived...' [HR p 86]

The position of the head at the time the body was found is significant in relation to what Bartlett described as stains going from the 'corners of the mouth' towards the 'bottom of the ears.' [HI] These were confirmed by pathologist Hunt to be vomit streaks. The direction of the streaks indicate the head would have been lying flat, not slightly raised. If the head was resting against the tree at the time, the streaks would have come forward down the chin. This raises the further possibility that the body was moved after death but prior to discovery by Holmes.

These disparities could possibly be resolved using the digital photographs taken by search team leader PC Sawyer, supposedly before the body and surrounding area were disturbed. It does not appear that searchers Holmes and Chapman or ambulance crew members Hunt and Bartlett were asked to verify whether the photos accurately reflected the position in which they found the body.

Is there reason to suspect foul play?

ACC Page's stated confidence that Dr Kelly 'met his death at his own hand' [HI] derived from the absence of contravening evidence. But as noted by the following items, there were some intimations of outside involvement. It is not apparent that these were seriously explored by the inquiry.

On the morning of the day he went missing, Dr Kelly sent an e-mail message to Judith Miller, a journalist acquaintance with the New York Times, containing the line: 'I will wait until the end of the week before judging - many dark actors playing games.' [HI exhibit COM/1/15]

David Broucher, British ambassador to the disarmament conference, reported to the inquiry a conversation he recalled having with Dr Kelly at a Geneva meeting in February 2003 (the date and location of which are subject to debate). Broucher had asked Kelly what would happen if Iraq were invaded, and Kelly had replied, 'I will probably be found dead in the woods.'[HI] Professor Hawton dismissed this as 'pure coincidence' and without relevance to Dr Kelly's death. [HI] Others have strangely twisted it to represent a premonition of his impending suicide. Taken at face value, it could as readily be interpreted to mean he was aware of some threat to his safety.

The coproxamol and knife found at the scene are ideal choices for lending the appearance of suicide, especially if one starts out with that conclusion. Both items could easily be associated with the victim and shown to be readily available to him at his home. Of interest here is the comment by a Thames Valley Police spokesman reported in the 18 July Guardian, the day the body was found. 'Responding to questions about whether the dead man had died of gunshot wounds, the spokesman said that Dr Kelly was not a licensed firearms holder.' [6]

ACC Page gave evidence that he had been contacted by a witness who reported seeing three men dressed in dark or black clothing between 8.30 and 9.30 am on 18 July near the site where Dr Kelly's body was found. ACC Page said he was able to satisfy himself by plotting the movements of the approximately 50 officers at the scene that he was 'aware of the identity of these three individuals.' [HI] He declined to elaborate on their purported activities.

ACC Page told the inquiry that Dr Kelly's dentist had reported the following incident. Upon hearing on 18 July of Dr Kelly's death, she had attempted to retrieve his dental records from the filing cabinet and found them missing; two days later they had reappeared in their expected place in the filing cabinet. According to ACC Page, the police had investigated and 'found no trace of anything untoward.' [HI] There was no evidence from the dentist that she believed the records to have been misplaced.

Dr Hunt's post mortem examination noted three minor abrasions to the scalp, a small abrasion on the inner lower lip, a bruise below the left knee, two bruises below the right knee, and two bruises over the left side of the chest. His supposition that these injuries may have been sustained through contact with the undergrowth or by stumbling about in the brush merits further critical analysis.

Who is DC Coe?

According to evidence given at the inquiry, Detective Constable Graham Coe enjoyed some prominence in the police investigation. He initially took charge of the death scene, and by his own account supervised an exhibits officer during a search of the Kelly residence on 19 July. But he was not mentioned by ACC Page in connection with the case, nor did the search adviser or search team leader seem to be aware of his activities. There is also some question as to how he came to be the first police officer on the scene and who accompanied him.

Upon locating the body, searchers Holmes and Chapman notified Abingdon police station by mobile phone and were instructed to return to the car and wait for police officers to arrive. Within a few minutes, while walking back to the car, they encountered three men coming up the track, one of whom identified himself as DC Coe.

Chapman told the inquiry, 'As we were going down the path we met three police officers coming the other way that were from CID. We identified ourselves to them. They were not actually aware that (a) the body had been found or we were out searching this area. They I think had just come out on their own initiative to look at the area.' [HI]

DC Coe told the inquiry he had been called out to Abingdon police station at 6.00 am and instructed to 'make some house to house inquiries in the area where Dr Kelly lived.' After speaking to neighbor Ruth Absalom about her encounter with Dr Kelly the previous afternoon, DC Coe and a colleague, whom he identified as Detective Constable Shields, 'went to the area where she had last seen him and made a sort of search towards the river.' [HI]

But search adviser PC Franklin stated he had believed there were only two volunteers out searching at that time, and he had anticipated that after receiving the call he and search team leader PC Sawyer 'were going to be the first team out on the ground.' He evidenced surprise at having found DC Coe and the 'two uniformed police officers' there, commenting '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.' [HI]

PC Sawyer stated: 'We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers. ...The three officers -- DC Coe and the two uniformed officers -- stayed on the path which leads through the woods.' [HI]

DC Coe affirmed he had only one companion. But at least four other witnesses contradicted his account, specifically stating (some more than once) that he had been accompanied by two other men. Lord Hutton dismissed these discrepancies by noting that 'entirely honest witnesses often give evidence as to what they saw at the scene which differs as to details.' [HR p 100]

It does not appear that the inquiry attempted to verify who DC Coe was with, why they were at the scene, and whether or not he and his two companions were the three men in dark clothing witnessed earlier that morning near Harrowdown Hill.

What is Operation 'Mason'?

One piece of evidence listed on the Hutton inquiry website was 'TVP Tactical Support Major Incident Policy Book: Operation 'Mason' Between 1430 17.07.03 and 0930 18.07.03, DCI Alan Young.' [HI exhibit TVP/10/0099-0105]

In the course of the inquiry PC Sawyer identified Detective Chief Inspector Alan Young as senior investigating officer for the case. ACC Page stated that upon being notified that Dr Kelly's body had been found, he had appointed an unnamed senior investigating officer to 'carry out the technical issues around the investigation.' [HI] It is assumed that both statements referred to the same individual. But the above exhibit indicates his participation began on the afternoon of the day before.

It does not appear that DCI Young gave evidence at the inquiry. Nor was anyone questioned about the tactical support operation under his command, which appears to have commenced at least half an hour before Dr Kelly left his home -- a full 10 hours before his family reported him missing -- and to have terminated at about the time the body was found.

Has all of the evidence been considered?

Unlike a coroner's inquest, the inquiry lacked the authority to request new evidence or compel witnesses to appear. Testimony was not given under oath, nor was it subject to aggressive cross-examination. Key pathological evidence, especially, was not introduced or queried.

The pathologist failed to include assessment of rigor mortis or to establish an approximate time of death -- he offered a nine-hour window based on a temperature reading taken seven hours after gaining access to the body. And his medical evidence did not substantiate haemorrhage, self-infliction, or coproxamol overdose.

In view of the nature of Dr Kelly's work, it is not unreasonable to suspect he may have been killed by someone familiar with the use of techniques and substances which are difficult to detect. But it is unclear whether the necessary sophisticated and exhaustive toxicological analysis was performed to address such a possibility.

As reported by ACC Page, about 500 people were contacted and 300 statements taken in the course of the police investigation, of which five individuals refused to permit their statements to be forwarded to Lord Hutton. The inquiry heard from about 70 individuals whose evidence the police deemed relevant to the proceedings. Those not heard from included Paul Weaver, Mai Pederson, and Gabriella Kraz-Wadsak.

Farmer Paul Weaver may have been the last person to see Dr Kelly alive. The 19 July Guardian reported that Weaver had seen Dr Kelly in the fields near his home on the afternoon of 17 July, and later that day he and councillor John Melling had searched for Kelly in the area between Southmoor and Longworth. [7]

Mai Pederson, considered a friend and confidante of Dr Kelly's, was interviewed by detectives after his death but declined to give evidence to the inquiry. In a 25 January interview with the Mail on Sunday she claimed to have told police of his aversion to swallowing pills, his feeling about suicide, and his sense that his life might be in danger. [8] Yet ACC Page stated that his conversation with Pederson 'added nothing that was of relevance to my inquiry at all.' [HI]

Gabriella Kraz-Wadsak was identified at the inquiry as an officer in the German army who had worked with Dr Kelly in Iraq and been in contact with him days before his death. In reference to her interview, ACC Page judged it also to be '[n]othing that furthered my inquiries...' [HI]

Conceivably, the missing witness statements and pathology details could shed additional light on Dr Kelly's state of mind or behavior. The coroner has indicated that his review of the case will include evidence not considered by the inquiry.

What really happened?

Lord Hutton was unequivocal in his finding of suicide. With all due respect for his juridical competence, such conviction is not warranted by the evidence offered. The preponderance of circumstantial evidence and the exaggerated political context makes questionable a definitive ruling.

As the pathologist noted, Dr Kelly's death has the appearance of typical self-inflicted injury 'if one ignores all the other features of the case.' [HI]

Throughout the inquiry, Lord Hutton neglected to challenge contradictory evidence or to pursue testimony suggesting an alternative scenario. The most obvious explanation in support of suicide was consistently seized upon with little regard for Dr Kelly's known character and disposition.

Despite the circumstantial evidence, it is doubtful that this particular individual would have chosen such an awkward, messy, and potentially ineffectual method. And notwithstanding expert opinion, it is unlikely that in this specific situation he would have gone to his death without attempting to vindicate himself or to put his affairs in order.

All that has been shown thus far is the circumstance under which Dr Kelly was found dead in the woods. It has not been shown that he went there to kill himself, or that he bled to death from self-inflicted injuries. The inquiry did not reliably establish when or how he died.

Lord Hutton's official version remains unproven, the facts as documented by the inquiry incomplete. A coroner's inquest is needed to render a plausible explanation of events based on rigorous examination of the toxicological and pathological evidence.

It is left to Mr Gardiner, wielding the instruments of subpoena and sworn testimony, to probe more deeply into these questions and uncover the truth about David Kelly's death.

About the author:

RENAN TALIEVA is a freelance writer living in the western US, trained in
psychological research, with knowledge of suicidal thought and
behaviour. He states: 'I have closely followed the Kelly case from the beginning and
find it absolutely incredible that the public and the media accept
without question the official story.'

Notes

HI The Hutton Inquiry

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

HR Lord Brian Hutton, Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr David Kelly C.M.G., 28 January 2004

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm

1. Danny Kemp, 'Kelly Coroner May Examine Unseen Evidence,' The Scotsman, 29 January 2004

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2468152

2. Jim Rarey, 'The Murder Of David Kelly,' 14 October 2003

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/31.htm

3. 'Our doubts about Dr Kelly's suicide,' The Guardian, 27 January 2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1131833,00.html

4. 'A haunted man,' The Observer, 20 July 2003

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1001786,00.html

5. 'Dr Kelly 'did not kill himself',' femail.uk, 26 January 2004

http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=206680&in_page_id=2

6. Tom Happold, 'Body matches Kelly's description,' The Guardian, 18 July 2003

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1000922,00.html

7. Steven Morris and Hugh Muir, 'Mystery of last, lonely walk,' The Guardian, 19 July 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1001358,00.html

8. Chris Marsden, 'More questions on Dr Kelly’s death as a confidante rejects suicide claim,' World Socialist Web Site, 30 January 2004

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/kell-j30.shtml

TO COMMENT OR TO JOIN KELLY INVESTIGATION GROUP MAILING LIST CONTACT: RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

2003-12-03T12:06:00.000-08:00

DAVID KELLY COULD NOT
HAVE BLED TO DEATH

A retired anaesthetist wrote to me regarding the fact that, if we are to believe the suicide story, Kelly chose not to cut the radial artery (which is the most easily accessible and the one most suicides choose) but rather to cut the ulnar artery which is much deeper inside the wrist. And not only did he cut it, he COMPLETELY SEVERED it (see Nicholas Hunt's testimony). Note what the anaesthetist says about an artery which is completely severed.... RT

Ulnar artery

I agree with you about the cutting of the ulnar artery --- nothing about it makes any sense. In fact, as you mention, a completely transected artery retracts immediately and thus stops bleeding, even at a relatively high blood-pressure, as against a partially severed vessel which cannot retract. In fact, it is the cutting of the ulnar artery as an apparent act of suicide which arouses one's suspicion that the alleged suicide was not suicide at all. As I understand it, there is also "confusion" as regards the actual amount of blood lost. Some say there was a lot, others say a little and some say there was just a bit of dried blood. I would imagine for a man of the size of Dr Kelly to die from haemorrhage he would have to lose at least three litres of blood. At autopsy, it would also be clear that the subject had bled to death because there would be very little blood in the heart and the large vessels.

And I might add to bleed to death from a cut blood vessel is not as simple as it sounds because as the blood is lost the blood pressure falls and this, in turn, slows the blood loss. In fact, it is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at a pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vaso-constricting (contracting the blood vessels) for the blood loss. And, although the subject may lose consciousness at this BP, he may not necessarily die. As you know, in order to successfully commit suicide in this way the subject has to cut both radial arteries and prevent vasoconstriction by lying in a warm bath, a truly messy business but, clearly, a situation where one could have no doubt about what was intended. In fact, I suggest that it would be impossible to lose a "lethal" amount of blood from an ulnar artery which had been cut in the manner described for Dr Kelly.

2003-11-30T09:18:00.000-08:00

THE DAVID KELLY STORY

THE NEW ALCHEMY:
TURNING MURDER INTO SUICIDE

by Rowena Thursby

28 November, 2003 Updated

F O R E W O R D

When the slant put on the reporting of a case almost guarantees a suicide "verdict", it is important to focus on the players who seed this interpretation.

On 18th July 2003 the world was stunned by the news that Dr David Kelly had been found dead on Harrowdown Hill near his home in Oxfordshire. Dr Kelly had been caught in the vortex of a political storm & forced to appear before British government committees - one of them televised - investigating alleged revelations he made to the BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan. Gilligan claimed that Kelly had revealed to him it was Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's chief aide, who inserted the questionable claim that WMDs could be unleashed in Iraq in 45 minutes, to induce the public to support a war with Iraq.

A public inquiry was set up to look into all the circumstances leading to Kelly's death. A key figure in this drama: pathologist, Nicholas Hunt, appears to have forged a new type of alchemy in forensic science - turning murder into suicide.

>>>>>>>>>>

Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist who testified before Lord Hutton in September, is one of only 35 Home Office-accredited pathologists in the UK. We might imagine, being appointed by the British government, Dr Hunt would be of the highest calibre, displaying impeccable professional judgement. Television news and drama, with their frequent references to "DNA evidence", bolster a view of the forensic pathologist as "never wrong".

However, this article highlights a number of recent cases where flawed assessments by Home Office pathologists have given rise to unsafe convictions, and explores how professional fallibility may have led to similarly erroneous interpretations from Dr Hunt regarding the death of Dr David Kelly. It also raises the more sinister possibility that Hunt's interpretations were weighted deliberately with the express purpose of convincing us this was suicide.

ERRORS & OMISSIONS

One case found to be unsafe as a result of another Home Office pathologist's mistake was that of Stuart Lubbock, who died in the swimming-pool of the UK entertainer, Michael Barrymore. A BBC report on the case reads as follows:

"A police investigation into the death of a man in Michael Barrymore's swimming pool
may have been hampered by a Home Office pathologist's failure to spot crucial evidence..... Dr Heath was brought in when Stuart Lubbock was found dead at the entertainer's Essex home in April last year. He concluded the 31-year-old had drowned. But three other pathologists told the inquest into his death this month that marks on his face indicated he died of asphyxia, possibly from having an arm clamped round his throat during a violent sexual assault."

Two further cases showed Dr Heath's findings to be wrong. Steven Taylor, a traveller, spent 10 months on remand facing a murder-charge after Dr Heath said he had strangled his wife. But two other pathologists concluded that marks on Beatrice Taylor's neck were caused by procedures carried out by a mortuary technician. Kenneth Fraser was accused of killing his girlfriend after Dr Heath maintained that she had been hit on the head with a plank of wood. Fraser was released after four other pathologists found she had fallen downstairs. Serious errors like these are not infrequent.

In previous cases Dr Heath was also criticised for omissions A further case where a crucial omission was made was that of Sally Clark, wrongfully accused of murdering her two children and sent to prison for life. Her conviction was overturned on appeal after it was discovered that Alan Williams, another Home Office pathologist, had deliberately withheld cerebral spinal fluid test results from the original trial. These indicated one of Clark's children had had bacterial meningitis. Dr Williams, the holder of a distinction award which boosts his salary by an extra £27,000, is currently under investigation by the General Medical Council.

Astonishingly, it is not a question of just a few bad apples in the barrel - the very system which investigates professional incompetence and malpractise is itself flawed. A Guardian article relates how, after a lengthy investigation, Paula Lannas, a Home Office pathologist, went before a police advisory board in 2001, accused of botching post-mortem examinations.

Paula Lannas's methods of investigation were described as "demonstrating a continuing pattern of inadequate and unsatisfactory examinations and breaches of accepted forensic pathology practice". When the board failed to reach a conclusion due to a "conflict of interest or lack of impartiality" - meaning that members of the board did not feel comfortable passing judgement on a colleague - the case collapsed. Senior Home Office forensic pathologist Nat Cary observed wryly, "It may be a cynical view, but I think they want to keep the lid on things".

Given that at least two of these Home Office pathologists were criticised for some years and yet remained in their jobs, it begs the question: were these government professionals huddling together for protection, or were some of these "mistakes" and "omissions" made deliberately, or allowed to pass, for political reasons?

With fallibility - and corruption - in mind, it may be instructive to review Nicholas Hunt's testimony to the Hutton Inquiry.

BLOOD

What is striking in Nicholas Hunt's account of Dr Kelly's death is the impression he creates of blood everywhere: blood on Kelly's jacket, on his trousers, on his left wrist, on the palm of his right hand, on the right side of his neck, and on the right side of his face. But actually he is not talking of large amounts - only of small patches smeared on the body and clothing.

Contrast this with the paramedics' assertion that, in their professional view, there was very little blood around for an arterial bleed. Normally an artery (which Hunt says was "completely severed") would produce copious amounts of blood spurting from the wound. Yet to quote paramedic Vanessa Hunt:

"....the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss of any obvious loss on the clothing."

PC Franklin, one of the police constables at the scene, reported blood being "puddled around". However, this was not what the paramedics saw contemporaneously. Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett worked much closer to the body than the two police constables; had there been blood puddled around when they unbuttoned Kelly's shirt to put the electrodes on his chest, they would have been practically kneeling in it. Vanessa Hunt also commented "On his left arm...there was some dry blood"....." - only some blood, while Bartlett expressed surprise there was not more blood on the body itself, suggesting that is what he would expect to have found with an arterial bleed.

WRIST INCISIONS

According to Nicholas Hunt, there "was a series of incised wounds, cuts, of varying depth over the front [inside] of the left wrist and they extended.. over about 8 by 5 cm...", some of which he describes as "hesitation marks."

Perhaps we too need to hesitate, and ask: why would this world-class scientist - and according to Keith Hawton the psyciatrist, an "extremely meticulous" man - choose such an astonishingly clumsy and uncertain method of suicide? The following information is from an internet police investigation site:

"Wrist slashing by itself is not a very effective means of committing suicide and few people actually die of it. This is especially true if the victim cuts laterally across the wrist. He or she may do substantial damage to the important tendons which control the fingers. He or she may even cut an important artery or vein but the blood vessels will immediately draw back into the muscles surrounding them, effectively sealing off any major leakage of blood."
Most people attempting suicide in this way slash both wrists with the intention of losing as much blood in as short a time as possible. They also know the importance of immersing the wrists in hot water to help prevent blood coagulation and keep the wound open. Even so, "success" is not guaranteed, and many wake up later in a tub of cold water."

Other internet sources point out that the best way to kill oneself using a knife is to make a longitudinal incision, from the crease of the inside of the wrist up to the elbow. Kelly would surely have been aware of this. It seems surprising that he chose to slash his wrist. As a professional scientist, once Head of Microbiology at Porton Down, one would imagine he might have chosen a much more effective & certain method.

But to follow Nicholas Hunt's version of events, far from acting in the precise and careful manner of a world-class scientist, Kelly apparently kills himself in the most painful manner possible. Hunt tells the inquiry that amongst the multiple incised wounds to the inside of the wrist was one much deeper wound. He says that this represented the severing of the ulnar artery. Why though, would Kelly choose to sever the ulnar artery on the little finger side - one which is deep within the wrist - rather than the radial artery on the thumb side, which is much more accessible. Moreover the ulnar artery was not just cut but COMPLETELY SEVERED. How likely is it that Kelly would cut so deep into his own wrist that he would completely sever one of the trickiest arteries to reach?

In his article: "The Murder of David Kelly" Part 1, Jim Rarey points out that cutting the ulnar artery suggests not so much a right-handed Kelly slashing from left to right, missing the superficial radial and cutting deep into the ulnar, as someone other than Kelly standing in front of the body slashing deep into the inside of the wrist (the ulnar side) across to the outside (the radial side) of the wrist.

Hunt describes "hesitation marks" which "are commonly seen prior to a deep cut being made into somebody's skin." These hesitation marks might seem to indicate that this was indeed a genuine suicide - but how do we know that they were not added after the body had been removed from the scene, as part of a staged, state-sanctioned murder? An assassin might have slashed the wrist once while Kelly was unconscious & left the detail to others. There is sufficient evidence - see article, "Dark Actors at the Scene of Kelly's Death" by Rowena Thursby - to suggest that this may have been a "show" suicide, intended to dupe the layperson into believing this was suicide when it may have been murder made to look like suicide.

ABRASIONS

Nicholas Hunt next mentions abrasions to the left side of Kelly's scalp. But rather than leave the reason for those scalp abrasions open, he jumps in and tries to make them seem perfectly normal:

"... and of course that part of his head was relatively close to the undergrowth."
How many abrasions does one receive on one's head just from walking through a wood? Kelly was a seasoned and vigorous walker, fully capable of ducking under or pushing aside any branches or twigs in his way."

Lord Hutton however, appears to support Hunt's line of reasoning; he asks: "Were those abrasions consistent with having been in contact with the undergrowth?" - as if receiving abrasions from walking through a wood was an everyday occurrence! (One starts to wonder whether there might not be a degree of collusion between the questioner and the witness).

But Hunt does not stop there. His testimony starts to descend into the realms of high farce.

Pleased that Lord Hutton is uncritically followinghis drift he answers:

"They were entirely, my Lord; particularly branches, pebbles and the like."

Pebbles? Is this man serious? He is in a wood, not on a beach! Woods do not contain pebbles. Even allowing for a slip of the tongue - let us say he meant to say "stones" as, indeed he states later - how is Dr Kelly's scalp supposed to have come into contact with stones? He had three fresh scalp abrasions: are we supposed to believe this cool scientist, whose brain, according to Tom Mangold, could "boil water", been hitting his head repeatedly on the ground?

BRUISES

Hunt next attempts to explain away a number of bruises on Kelly's body:

"There was a bruise below the left knee. There were two bruises below the right knee over the shin and there were two bruises over the left side of his chest. All of these were small..."

When asked how they could have occurred Hunt states:

"They would have occurred following a blunt impact against any firm object and it would not have to a particularly heavy impact....some of them may have been caused as Dr Kelly was stumbling, if you like, at the scene."

First we have Kelly banging his head on the odd stone that happened to be lying on the floor of the wood, and now Hunt now tries to seduce us into imagining Kelly "stumbling at the scene". Why should Kelly have been stumbling at the scene? If the official scenario is to be believed, here was a man, calmly looking for a place in the wood where he could end his life. According to Keith Hawton, the psychiatrist, having made the decision to commit suicide, Kelly would have felt a sense of peace and calm. So why now are we being asked to accept as consistent the notion that he was "stumbling" around the wood?

We are reassured by Hunt there were "no signs of defensive injuries.... and by that I mean injuries that occur as a result of somebody tryping to parry blows from a weapon or trying to grasp a weapon."

But what if someone, or a group, assaulted Kelly without a weapon? Perhaps the bruise on the chest for example occurred as a result of a single sharp push. It is possible that the grazes on the head could have occurred if Kelly had been manhandled. A cut on the mouth mentioned by Hunt, again may have been the result an assault.

Much is made of the possiblity of Kelly having been attacked with a knife. Why? Because a knife was found at the scene? Hunt appears to be suggesting that one of the few alternatives to suicide would have been murder at the hands of a random knife-wielder lurking in the wood. The possiblity of a small group of state-sponsored professional assassins setting up a suicide scene appears to be regarded as taboo or too hot to mention. Kelly may have been accosted before he reached the wood, abducted, and drugged - and only later placed in the copse with suicide props around him.

When seeking reasons for the cuts and bruises on the scalp, chest and mouth, why is murder-made-to-look-like-suicide not properly explored? Presumably pathologists employed by the Home Office know better than to mention such a scenario.

PRE-JUDGING THE CASE

Throughout his testimony Hunt starts from a position of assuming Kelly's death was probably straightforward suicide:
"The orientation and arrangement of the wounds over the left wrist are typical of self-inflicted injury. Also typical of this was the presence of small cuts called tentative or hesitation marks. The fact that his watch appeared to have been removed whilst blood was already flowing suggests that it had been removed deliberately in order to facilitate access to the wrist. The removal of the watch in that way and indeed the removal of the spectacles are features pointing towards this being an act of self-harm"
Plus, he adds, the "neat way in which the bottle an its top were placed, the lack of obvious sign of trampling of the undergrouth or damage to the clothing..."and the pleasant and private location of the spot.

But is it right to start with a theory, or should the evidence be examined without pre-judgement? When facts are interpreted - or misinterpreted - through a filter of prejudice which says "this looks like suicide" crucial points may be missed.

For example, how does Hunt know the watch was removed whilst blood was already flowing? We are left to assume it is because he found blood on the watch. But blood on the watch need not mean that the watch was still on the wrist. Blood may have splashed onto the watch after it was removed. Moreover it need not have necessarily have been Kelly who removed the watch. Had he removed his own watch it would have made more sense to do so before he started cutting. Another party - a professional assassin intent on creating a suicide-scene - could have removed the watch. So the interpretation of "watch removed by suicidal man in order to gain better access to wrist" is but one possibility. Hunt alights upon this tortuous explanation either to back his prejudice or to convince his audience that this was straightforward suicide.

Unfortunately the system is set up to regard him as an expert whose interpretation is of great value. But it is still only one interpretation, and can obviously be wrong. The neat placement of the bottle & top need not mean Kelly himself had arranged them. A private spot may be considered by some an ideal location for a suicide - but by others, for a murder.

The possiblity of murder is dismissed point by point, without proper examination. No evidence was found, says Hunt, of:

- restraint-type injury
- sustained violent assault
- strangulation or use of arm hold.

But had Kelly been frogmarched through the wood with a gun to his back, violent assault or restraint would be unnecessary. And had he been overpowered by a chloroform-type substance, prior to the cutting of his wrists, we would be none the wiser. Interestingly, Hunt was questioned on this last point, which suggests that some kind of assassination was being considered, but he merely refers to the toxicologist's report, which to date has not been made available. Is it hoped that such "details" may be forgotten as the media circus transfers its focus from the details of the death itself onto whose political head will fall?

FINAL WORD

Hunt's final assessment, his own personal interpretation - "there was no pathological evidence to indicate the involvement of a third party in Dr Kelly's death.... the features are quite typical, I would say, of self-inflicted injury if one ignores all the other features of the case" - is the version of events the media reports. The pathologist has spoken - the silent inference being that he is best placed to know - so we must bow to his "expertise". But as we have seen in the introduction, such "expertise" is sometimes questionable.

In Hunt's qualifier - "if one ignores all the other features of the case" - lies the rub. Ignore the fact that Kelly had become an embarrassment to the establishment through divulging inconvenient facts & suppositions to the media? Ignore the fact that he was about to return to Iraq, where his by- now public profile would have guaranteed publicity to the dearth of WMDs? The fact that this would highlight the mendacity employed in persuading the British and American public to support a war with Iraq? The fact that here was a man scrupulous about a truth they did not want told? The fact that Kelly had met and was discussing book projects with Victoria Roddam, a publisher in Oxford who in an e-mail to the scientist only a week before his death wrote: "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."?**

Far from ignoring Kelly's pivotal political position at the time of his death, we should surely highlight it: as we explore the physical evidence provided at the death scene, the fact that there were elements in government and intelligence who wanted Kelly silenced has to figure prominently in understanding how he died.

Nicholas Hunt may have been a pathologist doing his job in the way he saw fit, nothing more than that. Perhaps, like other Home Office pathologists, he was displaying a degree of bias in his interpretations. Alternatively, Hunt may have been party to a degree political sorcery requiring solid indications from this key professional figure that on 17th-18th August, Dr Kelly had killed himself on Harrowdown Hill by slashing his own left wrist.

UPDATED: This is an updated version of the
article elsewhere on the Internet dated this date.

URL: http://www.GuluFuture.com/alchemy.htm

** See article: "David Kelly and Victoria's Secret" by Jim Rarey.

See also "The Murder of Dr David Kelly", Parts 1 and 2, by Jim Rarey
& article: "Dark Actors at the Scene of Kelly's Death" by Rowena Thursby

More investigations into the
circumstances of Kelly's death at www.deadscientists.blogspot.com.

Author may be contacted at: RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk.
This investigation continues. Please write if you wish to be put on the Kelly mailing list.

2003-11-18T12:16:00.000-08:00

URGING NICHOLAS GARDINER TO RE-OPEN KELLY INQUEST

A BBC report has suggested that Nicholas Gardiner, the original coroner in the Kelly case may re-open the inquest due to witness statements being withheld from the Hutton Inquiry......

Kelly inquest may be reopened

The coroner will make his decision based on Lord Hutton's report
The inquest into the death Dr David Kelly may have to be reopened because some witnesses have refused to allow their statements to be passed to the Hutton inquiry.
The original inquest was adjourned under a section in the Coroners Act which allows a public inquiry conducted by a judge to fulfil the function of an inquest.

But Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner said he may ask Thames Valley Police to hand over the evidence if he is not satisfied with Lord Hutton's findings.

------------------------------------------------------

A member of the Kelly Group & myself have written the following letter to Nicholas Gardiner, the original coroner in the Kelly case, urging him not only to examine further evidence, but also to review anomalies arising from testimonies already in the public domain, and to consider re-opening the inquest with a full jury present.

You may wish to write your own letter. The more pressure he receives from the public the more inclined he may be to take a maverick stand and press ahead.

Rowena Thursby

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 November 2003

Nicholas Gardiner the Oxfordshire Coroner
(City) Coroner’s Office
New Post Mortem Suite
John Radcliffe Hospital
Headley Way
Oxford
OX3 9DU

Cc. All National Newspapers.

Dear Mr Gardiner,

RE: The Death of Dr David Kelly

I am writing to express my deep concerns over the way the Hutton Inquiry (the Inquiry) into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly has been conducted.

In such a high profile case it is surely questionable that an inquest - where evidence is heard under oath with a jury present - be replaced by an inquiry where evidence is not given under oath and witnesses are not subpoenaed and there is no jury. I understand many witnesses refused to appear at the Inquiry and requested that their statements be withheld. In a straight inquest you, as coroner, would have powers to subpoena witnesses and require them to give evidence under oath. This would both broaden the scope from that of the Inquiry and increase the reliability of testimonies.

In addition, if Lord Hutton's final report reflects the way the Inquiry has been treated in the media, there is a great danger that anomalies regarding the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death may be disregarded or glossed over in favour of political concerns. If I may, I will in this letter outline some of these anomalies which, in my view, throw a suicide verdict into question.

The Body Moved and Items Appeared Beside It

According to testimonies the first people to see the body of Dr Kelly were the SEBEVs (volunteers) Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman. They both described the position of the body as "against" a tree. Neither of the volunteers reported seeing any of the items around the body seen by other witnesses - watch, knife, bottle of water, cap. Nor were they asked by legal counsel whether they had seen them.

Chronologically the next body-witness was DC Coe, who described the body as laying on its back. After him came two police constables PCs Franklin and Sawyer, who also described the body as lying on its back.

In fact all witnesses subsequent to the volunteers, including the pathologist (Dr Nicholas Hunt), described the body as laying on its back and having beside it various items - watch, knife, bottle of water and cap.

The body-witnesses’ testimonies indicate that the body appears to have moved after being seen by the volunteers and before being seen by all subsequent witnesses, and that the items next to the body seem to have appeared after the volunteers had left the death scene (the scene).

It is also noteworthy that PC Sawyer reports that the body’s jeans were "ridden up". This might be expected if the body was hurriedly dragged from a “sitting-up” position to a “laying-on-its-back” position.

DC Coe took charge of the scene immediately after the volunteers reported to him that they had found a body. It seems that either DC Coe moved the body himself, or he was aware of who did move the body. If the first two body-witness testimonies are correct, then the body was moved. DC Coe maintained that he did not touch the body and did not mention others moving the body, but if the body was first sitting-up and then laying down, and DC Coe was in charge of the scene at the time, then it can only be concluded that in some way DC Coe was involved in moving the body.

Assistant Chief Constable Page mentioned that three individuals in dark clothing were seen by a member of the public acting suspiciously near the scene at the time DC Coe was there. Although Assistant Chief Constable Page told the Inquiry that the three had been accounted for as being members of TVP, it is surely worth investigating whether or not this is actually correct. DC Coe himself might have been one of these three individuals, or have been working with them.

The Officers with DC Coe

First there is the question of the number of officers accompanying DC Coe.

Five witnesses - the two volunteers, PCs Franklin and Sawyer, and the paramedic (Vanessa Hunt) - clearly state that DC Coe was with two officers. Yet DC Coe himself, testifying some time later, maintains that he was with only one other officer - DC Shields.

Thus, in the six statements with regard to the number of officers accompanying DC Coe, all but one of them - DC Coe's own - state that there are two officers with Coe.

Second, there is the question of whether these officers were in uniform or in plain clothes.

Paul Chapman, identifying them through their Thames Valley Police ID, said they were from CID, so I infer from this they were in plain clothes. Vanessa Hunt testified that DC Coe was with two plain-clothed officers - one "search & rescue" (her interpretation of a man dressed in black polo shirt and trousers), and "one other gentleman". DC Coe himself said he was with only one other companion – the plain-clothed detective, DC Shields.

However PCs Franklin and Sawyer described DC Coe's companions as "uniformed officers".

What are we to infer from these anomalies? If five witnesses say that DC Coe was with two men and he says he was with only one, then it is necessary to find out who is telling the truth. Similarly, if some witnesses say these officers are in plain clothes and others say they are in uniform then that needs to be clarified also. On the face of it, it looks as though DC Coe is not telling the truth about being accompanied by only one officer and that PCs Franklin and Sawyer could also be mistaken about the two officers being "uniformed".

This is surely a matter for cross-examination or much more rigorous scrutiny.

Paucity of Blood

When asked at the end of their testimonies if they have anything to add, each ambulance crew member, paramedic (Vanessa Hunt) and ambulance technician (David Bartlett), independently emphasizes that in their view, there was surprisingly little blood at the scene for an arterial bleed. These assertions may be the most important of the whole Inquiry. The implication from the ambulance crew surely is that if there was very little visible blood produced at the scene for an arterial bleed, then death may not have taken place at that spot or in that manner. Yet far from being probed or examined in any detail as they should have been, these assertions were alternately denigrated by counsel Mr Dingemans, and ignored by counsel Mr Knox.

Vomit Stains from Mouth to Ear

PC Sawyer reported a dark stain (he thought vomit) from the right corner of the mouth to the right ear. David Bartlett also reported that the body had two stains running from both corners of the mouth to each ear. Such stains are clearly consistent with Dr Kelly having vomited in a "laying-on-his-back" position but not in a "sitting-up-against-a-tree" position.

Ambulance Crew Saw no Wounds

Both ambulance crew witnessed the left hand positioned palm-up, and as Dr Hunt reports, it was the left wrist which was wounded. Thus both ambulance crew must have had a good view of the area of the arm and wrist where the five incisions reported by Dr Hunt were made. Yet neither of the ambulance crew members reports seeing any wounds. The blood may have dried onto the wounds and completely covered them but this question needs further exploration.

Ulnar Artery not Radial

The fact that the ulnar artery was severed, but not the radial artery, where the latter is generally far more accessible (closer to the surface) than the former (which is deeper) strongly suggests that the knife-wound was inflicted by drawing the blade from the inside of the wrist (the little finger side closest to the body) to the outside. This is an action that may well have been performed by another party. Yet Dr Hunt's testimony made no mention of the direction in which any of the cuts had been made. I understand that this should be normal procedure for a pathologist's report.

Conclusions

In summary, the points presented above lead to the following possible conclusions:

1. If an arterial bleed was the major cause of death (as stated by Dr Hunt) then there would have been more blood present at the scene of death than was seen by the ambulance crew. Very little blood at the scene suggests that Dr Kelly did not die where his body was found. While Dr Hunt and the forensic biologist (Roy Green) suggest that blood may have disappeared into leaf litter, no evidence has been publicly presented to demonstrate that this was in fact the case.

2. If the cause of Dr Kelly's death was an arterial bleed and there was very little blood at the place where he was found, this suggests he died elsewhere. As has been shown, testimonies suggest that at one point the body was sitting-up, and then later on, laying on its back. This reinforces the suggestion that Dr Kelly did in fact die in a different place and was moved to the copse on Harrowdown Hill. The body may initially have been positioned incorrectly to be consistent with livor mortis and the vomit stains on his face, and had to be repositioned. It is also possible that those setting up the "suicide-scene" were in fact disturbed in their work by the volunteers and that the reason Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman did not see any items surrounding the body was because they had not yet been placed in position.

3. DC Coe was in charge of the scene during the period when the body was moved. It is reasonable to infer from this that either he moved it himself or was aware of others doing so. Secondly, but equally importantly, DC Coe contradicts no fewer than five other witness testimonies when he claims to have been accompanied by just one (and not two) other officers. His testimony appears to be particularly unreliable.

4. Both PCs Sawyer and Franklin report that DC Coe had two uniformed officers with him - contradicting all other testimony. This suggests that their testimony needs rigorous cross-checking with that of witnesses who assert the officers were in plain-clothes.

5. The fact that the ambulance crew state that they did not see actual wounds could indicate that the five incisions in the body’s left arm (or some of them) may have been inflicted after they (the ambulance crew) left the scene. An independent examination of the body, or the cause of death evidence, by a second pathologist may be required to ascertain if this is the case.

6. It is remarkable that the ulnar artery was severed rather than the radial given that the radial is far easier to cut - and hence less painful - when attempting suicide. This evidence suggests that the wrist may have been cut by another party.

I trust that you find sufficient material evidence in the above to conclude that Dr David Kelly may well not, in fact, have taken his own life and that another party was involved. If Lord Hutton's final report concludes that Dr Kelly did commit suicide, I would like to strongly recommend your original inquest into Dr Kelly’s death be resumed so that testimonies can be made under oath and with a jury present.

Yours sincerely,

2003-11-14T08:04:00.000-08:00

DAVID KELLY AND VICTORIA’S SECRET

by Jim Rarey

No, it’s not the Victoria’s Secret of the soft porn lingerie ads. This is a different Victoria who may have innocently provided the final impetus for the assassination of David Kelly.

In Part I of this writer’s *article, “the Murder of David Kelly” we detailed the numerous red flags in the evidence and testimony submitted at the Hutton inquiry into Kelly’s death that showed conclusively that his death was not a suicide. One of the more important “clues” was evidence that his body had been moved after he died to the scene in which it was found. Other testimony showed it to be very doubtful that Kelly had inflicted the knife wounds on his left wrist that severed an unlikely artery but left the most easily reached artery untouched.

In Part II of the article, we detailed Kelly’s extensive involvement with and/or knowledge of the bio/chemical weapons programs of the U.K., U.S. and Russia. One author reports Kelly also had visited the Israeli bio/chemical weapons facility. Kelly almost certainly would have been aware of the involvement of two U.K. scientists at Porton Down simultaneously as paid consultants to South Africa’s notorious bioweapons program. He had also served as an inspector in Iraq of that country’s WMD programs.

We also recited the deplorable treatment Kelly had been subjected to by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Personnel Department in withholding any pay increase over a three-year period as Kelly approached retirement.

However the public perception of Kelly was as the “single source” of statements made by BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan to the effect that the government had “sexed up” the dossier used to justify the war against Iraq. Kelly had voluntarily disclosed to his MoD superiors he had met with Gilligan but denied he made the statements Gilligan attributed to his source.

In a July 9th press conference, the MoD confirmed that Dr. Kelly was Gilligan’s source. Kelly was hauled before the parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee for a grilling but convinced committee members he had not provided statements ascribed to him by Gilligan. The committee chairman, MP Donald Anderson wrote a letter to Secretary of State Jack Straw confirming the committee’s judgment and adding their view that, “Dr. Kelly had been poorly treated by his government..”

Kelly told his wife he felt he had been betrayed. We did not understand the depth and duplicitous nature of that betrayal until further reviewing testimony at the Hutton inquiry, particularly that of Richard Hatfield, Director of MoD Personnel.

Hatfield had no personnel management experience when he was appointed to that job in June of 2001. He had been Policy Director of MoD and a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee. On July 7th Hatfield met with Kelly to review (and get Kelly’s approval) of a clarification the MoD intended to issue to clarify inaccurate information in Gilligan’s report without naming Kelly. What Hatfield knew, but did not tell Kelly, was that MoD intended to confirm Kelly’s name as the source to the press if any reporter mentioned his name after the charade of a “Q & A” session designed to lead to Kelly.

When Kelly learned of this deception it must have infuriated him. Indeed, if it had been Hatfield’s body that was “found dead in the woods” Dr. Kelly might have been a prime suspect in the death.

Another BBC reporter, Susan Watts, claimed on the evening program Newsnight, that Kelly made statements to her indicating he had lied to the MoD about statements he made to reporters. Later, after Kelly’s death, Watts had to back off from that allegation when the inquiry reviewed transcripts of a taped conversation Watts had with Kelly (without Kelly knowing it was being taped) and hearing an enhanced version of the tape recording.

However, in the interim the media, led by Tom Mangold who claimed to be “Kelly’s best friend” and until very recently was himself a BBC reporter, claimed Kelly was so shamed by being branded a liar that he killed himself.

However, that was belied by Kelly’s actions and communications right up to the morning of the day he disappeared (July 17th). He did not at all appear to be depressed and was looking forward to returning to Iraq to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

However, he did communicate in an e-mail the day before his death that there were “many dark actors playing games.” Ironically, that e-mail was to Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter and CFR stalwart who probably was one of those dark actors. Miller, along with two other women was a close confidante of Kelly’s. The second was Olivia Bosch, a long-time functionary of the CFR’s sister organization in the U.K. the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA). The third was a U.S. Army intelligence agent named Mai Pederson.

In part two of the article, we suggested that Kelly’s mistreatment by MoD had made him a resentful employee and, with all his dangerous knowledge, a prime candidate for elimination.

However, information new to this writer since that article provides a much stronger motive for the assassination of Dr. Kelly.

For several months, Kelly had been communicating with Victoria Roddam, a commissioning editor for Oneworld Publications based in Oxford. One week before Kelly’s death, she had sent him an e-mail that said in part, “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.” They had been discussing Kelly authoring a book to be published by Victoria’s company.

Another document found among Kelly’s effects at his home and removed by police was an undated hand-written note from Roddam with a list of suggested topics to be included in the book, any one of which would have sent the elite in several countries into a containment mode.

One such topic was the ethics of biological warfare, a sticking point that could be responsible for a string of deaths of world-class microbiologists in various countries.

A second one was the involvement of corporations in biological warfare.

A third was the role of the pharmaceutical and biotech industries in biowarfare as well as prevention and containment.

Yet another was the connection between Russia and Iraq with WMD.

Victoria had also listed a look at the proliferation in the arms trade as well a look into the Royal United Services Institute-Whitehall.

Finally, in the document there was a cryptic one-line reference to the rules of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).

Recall Kelly was a neophyte member of the RIIA and likely would not have known what rules, if any, the organization had on members authoring books on sensitive subjects. He probably would have inquired disclosing his intentions. He also may have discussed it with his fellow member and confidante, Olivia Bosch.

t would have been in character for him to discuss the project with Judith Miller and perhaps seek her advice as she had authored several books on topic. He may even have discussed it with his spiritual advisor Mai Pederson.

At any rate, Kelly’s and Victoria’s project was no longer a secret (if it ever was). And now David Kelly has joined the growing list of world-class microbiologists who have met mysterious deaths and/or been murdered.

*The Murder of David Kelly (Parts I & II) can be found at:

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/Archives.htm

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.

2003-11-06T15:28:00.000-08:00

WAS DC COE'S THIRD MAN ONE OF
THE "MEN IN BLACK"?

Reviewing some of the Hutton testimonies, I focused on the variations in the descriptions of the one or two people accompanying DC Coe*:

- DC Coe says there was one other person with him - DC Shields
- Louise Holmes says there were three "police officers"
- Paul Chapman says "three police officers" but then elaborates "they were from CID"
- PCs Franklin & Sawyer both say "two uniformed officers" were with DC Coe
- Vanessa Hunt says one DC, one search & rescue, and "one other gentleman"
- David Bartlett does not give a coherent enough description

How do we account for the differences? If my understanding is correct, detective constables are always in plain clothes, not in uniform. Both Chapman and Vanessa Hunt say that at least one is a detective. Chapman thinks they are all from CID, which would mean that they were all in plain clothes. PCs Franklin & Sawyer however, both use the same phrase: "two uniformed officers" which suggests that they have agreed beforehand this is what they would both say at the inquiry. Vanessa Hunt, along with Chapman, contradicts this & says there was one Detective Constable - Coe - but then "one search & rescue" and "one other gentleman" - which indicates that she regards them as being all in plain clothes, not in uniform.

Let's say then they were NOT in uniform and that PCs Franklin and Sawyer were covering up the fact that the three were all in plain clothes. It was important to hide the identity of at least one of them, which is why DC Coe fails to mention him in his evidence at the inquiry. So who is this mystery third man & why was it so important to hide his identity?

Maybe there is a clue in Vanessa Hunt's assertion that there was "one search & rescue":

VANESSA HUNT: "There was an officer in regulation clothing who directed us to two or three other officers in combat trousers and black polo shirts and we followed them along the track."

Vanessa Hunt had noted that Franklin & Sawyer and other search and rescuers were wearing black polo shirts. Had Coe's two companions been ordinary "uniformed officers" as Franklin & Sawyer maintain, she would have said so. Note in the quote above she talks of "regulation clothing" - so this is a phrase she could have used.

I suggest that the "third man" may actually been one of the "men in black" spotted earlier that morning - around 8.30 - 9.30am - by a member of the public - see Asst Chief Constable Page's second testimony - and had taken off his black balaclava (say) in order to blend in with the search & rescue team. Otherwise why would Coe not admit to the Hutton Inquiry that one of his companions was a search & rescue officer & offer us his name? So worried is he about revealing the identity of this man he denies that he even exists! It's possibly because he was NOT a search & rescue officer, but someone much more sinister, that he could not be identified.

Rowena Thursby

Join Kelly Group and receive regular mailings: write to me at RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
Q. Who were you with at this time?

DC COE: Detective Constable Shields.

Q. It is just the two of you?

DC COE: Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOUISE HOLMES: We walked back towards the car. On the way to the car we met three police officers and Paul took them back to show them where the body was, and I went back to the car.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAUL CHAPMAN: As we were going down the path we met three police officers coming the other way that were from CID.....
...they showed me their Thames Valley Police identification.

Q. Do you recall their names?

A. Only one of them was DC Coe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POLICE CONSTABLE DEAN FRANKLIN: two uniformed police officers and DC Coe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PC SAWYER: We continued walking up the hill, where I saw DC Coe and two uniformed officers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MS HUNT: Initially there were three people on the track, what I now know to be detective constable, one was the search and rescue and there was another gentleman there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAVID BARTLETT: We got to the end of the lane, there were some more police officers there. I think it was two or three, I cannot remember, I think it was two, took us up into the woods which was like right angles to the track. As we walked up they were in front of us putting the marker posts in and told us to stay between the two posts.

2003-10-24T17:27:00.000-07:00

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

2003-10-23T07:44:00.000-07:00

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

2003-10-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-10-21T11:24:00.000-07:00

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

2003-10-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-10-17T10:22:00.000-07:00

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

2003-10-16T11:32:00.000-07:00

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

2003-10-11T17:15:00.000-07:00

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."

2003-10-11T10:48:00.000-07:00

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

2003-10-02T06:56:00.000-07:00

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

2003-09-30T09:53:00.000-07:00

WHEN IS AN INQUEST NOT AN INQUEST?

Did I miss something? Was that an "inquest" we heard at the Hutton Inquiry? Not one of the discrepancies mentioned by this group was mentioned, let alone explored. Are we to assume that these high-flying barristers will sew it all together behind the scenes, present it to Lord Hutton, who will offer the final analysis? With so many voices saying that all the evidence is "consistent" with suicide (Page, Hunt, Green) is there any real hope of this?

However, there is a chink of light. Now that Nicholas Gardiner, the coroner, has changed his tune from:

'...because of the ongoing independent judicial review being conducted by Lord Hutton, it was “highly unlikely” that any more evidence would need to be heard by him [Gardiner] ....

to

"maybe I will demand the inquest be re-opened, given that 230 out of 300 witness statements have not been put forward" (my words)

we have at least a chance of securing a more forensic inquiry into HOW Kelly died. The fact that a coroner's court is a court of law, that the coroner may summon witnesses, and that people found to be lying are guilty of perjury, will certainly help matters.

Will Lord Falconer, Tony Blair's old buddy, put his oar in once again? It will be entertaining to see what methods are used to try and prevent a separate inquest from being held. But, in the happy event, that the brave or foolish Mr Gardiner has his way, perhaps now is the time to be deluging him with demands - to fill the gouda cheese left by Huttton.

Rowena Thursby

PLEASE CLICK ON WORDS UNDERLINED IN ABOVE TEXT FOR WIKIPEDIA DEFINITIONS

[snip]

The Hutton Inquiry, though ostensibly set up to investigate Kelly’s death, has done no such thing. It has discussed the events leading up to Kelly being found dead, but not how he died.

Yet on August 14 the Coroners Inquest into Kelly’s death, which had met for just a few hours on July 19, was closed down after the most superficial investigation imaginable. It consisted almost exclusively of hearing evidence from an amended medical report by Home Office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt.

This is all that is known of Kelly’s death from that inquest:

Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner said that the report showed the main cause of death was the number of incisions into Kelly’s left wrist.

Hunt had concluded the main cause of death was haemorrhage and there were two wounds which would have been fatal. The secondary cause of death was ingestion of the prescription painkiller Co-Proxamol, though toxicology reports showed the amount present in Kelly’s blood would not alone have been enough to kill him.

Gardiner said that the four cardio-electrode pads found on Kelly’s chest at the time of his death were placed there by paramedics on the scene to detect heart action.

He then explained that because of the ongoing independent judicial review being conducted by Lord Hutton, it was “highly unlikely” that any more evidence would need to be heard by him and he was handing the main investigation into Kelly’s death over to Lord Hutton’s inquiry.

He did so because the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, had ordered him to under Section 17a of the Coroner’s Act of 1988 allowing a public inquiry chaired or conducted by a judge to “fulfil the function of an inquest”.

The Hutton Inquiry has now been ongoing for three weeks and it must be clear to all that it cannot be trusted to make a serious investigation of how Kelly died. It has certainly shown no inclination in this direction. If it had, then someone reporting that Kelly believed he would be found dead in the woods would not have been passed over in such a cavalier fashion. It would have spurred on those concerned to intensify their efforts to get at the truth and demand answers to questions that are being raised by many ordinary members of the public who do not accept the official version that Kelly committed suicide.

* Kelly had been at home for just one day after his testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Yet there were apparently no police guards, MI5-MI6 spies or even any media outside his house. Why?

* His behaviour on the morning of July 17 is hard to reconcile with that of a man who later supposedly committed suicide. He had worked on a report which he said he owed the Foreign Office and sent emails, including one to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in which he famously spoke of “many dark actors playing games” with him and another stating that he was determined to overcome the scandal surrounding him and was enthusiastic about the possibility of returning to Iraq as a weapons inspector. No suicide note was left by Kelly.

* Why did a scientist choose such a difficult means of killing himself as slashing his wrist and not even take enough painkillers to do the job more effectively and less painfully?

* Special Branch officers from Scotland Yard sealed off Kelly’s offices in Whitehall and seized his computer, but we do not know what they found.

On July 3, the New Scientist wrote an editorial anticipating the Hutton Inquiry and what questions it expected to be answered. It provides an indication of how many people will feel cheated by what has happened subsequently.

The editorial asks, “First, why does Kelly’s testimony to the select committee differ from accounts given by BBC reporters of their discussions with him? By the time Kelly gave evidence, he had reportedly been questioned for five days by his employer (the Ministry of Defence), named in public by the MOD against his wishes, and kept in an MOD safe house. During all this time, had the MOD forced him into some kind of deal?

“Could it be that BBC reporters manipulated Kelly’s views for their own ends? For one journalist to do this is plausible. But it seems Kelly spoke to three and gave a similar account to all of them.

“Finally, in two of the BBC reports there is a sense that Kelly speaks not only for himself but for ‘people in intelligence’. This raises the question of whether he acted alone or with the approval of others.

“Answering these questions may go some way to explaining why a man who survived confrontations with the vicious, secretive regime in Baghdad was finally destroyed by a supposedly free and open society.”

THE ABOVE IS AN EXCERPT FROM AN ARTICLE BY CHRIS MARSDEN TO BE FOUND HERE

2003-09-30T09:51:00.000-07:00

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS....

Some excellent questions here found on a forum. Judging from question 16, this person has significant medical knowledge. RT

1) Were the duties of the Coroner legally transferred to Lord Hutton?

2) If those duties were legally transferred, was it in the public interest
(and/or that of Kelly's family) that they should be?

3) Why was there no discussion as to the legality or desirability of that
transfer?

4) Why did the Police pronounce on the cause of death soon after the body
was found? Is not determination of the cause of death the task of the
pathologist(s)?

5) Why did the Coroner say it was suicide before he had held his own inquest
and again after he had been ordered by Lord Falconer to adjourn the inquest
indefinitely but before Lord Hutton had reported his findings? Did not the
Coroner know that he should not have expressed an opinion at such times? If
he did know, why did he do it?

6) Why were these apparent transgressions ie 4) and 5) not discussed in the
press?

7) Why did Lord Hutton say in his opening address to his inquiry that Kelly
had removed his watch and spectacles "indicating self-harm"?

8) Why did only one pathologist examine Dr Kelly post-mortem?

9) Why was that one pathologist so inexperienced? - he said that he had been
on the Home Office List since 2001 - when in 2001?

10) How can it be acceptable, in such a high-profile inquiry, that none of
the witnesses is required to give evidence under oath?

11) Why was Dr Hunt, scheduled to give evidence in the first part of the
inquiry, the only witness not to give evidence until the second part of the
inquiry - because he was "on holiday" - was he really on holiday? and was
that an adequate reason to excuse such an important witness? Why was there
no discussion about this? - it was barely reported, never mind discussed. In
determining the manner of death (ie whether suicide, murder, death by
misadventure, accidental death etc.) the evidence of the pathologist(s) is
crucial.

12) Was it decided (and if so, by whom?) that Dr Hunt should not give
evidence in the first part of the inquiry to avoid the possibility of calls
for him to being subjected to cross-examination in the second part of the
inquiry?

13) Why was the pathologist so ready to say that this or that "is consistent
with ..." when every medical student is taught (or should be) that this or
that "could be consistent with ..." is less likely to be challenged by a
lawyer? I believe Dr Hunt said that the injuries observed (other than those
to the wrist) were consistent with Dr Kelly "stumbling around in the woods".
Who said Dr Kelly was "stumbling around in the woods"?

14) Why was the expert on suicide (name forgotten) not asked whether cutting
one's wrists is a common method of suicide (it is not) amongst highly
intelligent males in this culture? Why was the pathologist not asked the
same question? Dr Kelly was not only highly intelligent but was one of the
world's experts (if not the pre-eminent expert) on biological and chemical
weapons - one would have thought that he could have come up with a more
sophisticated method of committing suicide than cutting his wrist.

15) Why was the forensic biologist, having admitted that it was not his job
to opine on suicide, allowed to do just that? - his opinion supported a
suicide verdict.

16) Why did Dr Kelly allegedly sever the ulnar artery when he would surely
have known that the radial artery is far more accessible at the wrist? - the
radial artery is superficial, the ulnar artery is deep. There is another
reason why the radial artery is more accessible to one intent on self-harm,
too difficult to describe here. In addition, the ulnar arterty is deep to
the volar carpal ligament at the wrist, which is why the "pulse" is always
felt by a doctor at the radial artery.

17) Why was Tony Blair not called for cross-examination when his evidence at
the inquiry, that he was responsible for the naming of Kelly, so completely
contradicted his strong denial to reporters when questioned on his trip
around the world?

18) Why was Dr Kelly's female friend in the US not called by Lord Hutton to
give evidence? What happened to the statement promised by her lawyers?

19) Are the Police continuing to countenance the possibility of foul play?
Are they still treating the death as suspicious and continuing
investigations?

20) Why has Blair not been asked about his contacts with Bush et al during
the period leading up to (and after) Kelly's death?

21) Was Kelly perceived as a threat not only to Blair's government but also
to Bush et al? - was he that important? Was that the real reason for the
argument with the BBC? - was that just a smokescreen? - how much did they
fear Kelly?

22) Was he, or was he not, interrogated in a safe house for 4 days? If so,
by whom?

23) Was he threatened with his life? Did they suggest to him that harm would
come to his family? Did he refuse to play ball?

24) Are the CIA empowered to act as they see fit, anywhere in the world,
without Presidential authority? - was there not a change to the US law
regarding just this soon after Bush came to power? - the significance of
such a change is not obvious but it dispenses with the necessity for
potentially incriminating orders emanating from the top.

25) Was Kelly murdered?

26) Why was the pathologist not asked whether he had looked for tiny needle
marks or for that matter one tiny needle mark on the body?

27) Why was the toxicologist not asked whether there are substances, which
cannot be detected post mortem

a) which, in sufficient dose, would cause rapid loss of consciousness or
death without
an injection being necessary?

b) which when injected in sufficient dose into an unconscious subject would
cause
death?

28) Has this inquiry really ruled out foul play? - the principal requirement
of an inquest is to rule out foul play and this inquiry has replaced the
inquest.

29) Given the importance of Dr Kelly and the potential threat he posed to
both Blair and Bush, is a D-notice in force? - is that why the press are so
docile, when many are so suspicious?

30) Has the Kelly family, or perhaps just Mrs Kelly, been reminded of the
long-term interests of the United Kingdom? - has an appeal been made at the
highest level to their/her patriotism?

31) Why did Geoff Hoon and Lord Hutton visit Mrs Kelly at her home?

32) Why did the paramedic and his assistant both remark independently on the
paucity of the blood at the scene and why were those observations not
followed up with further questions, despite the fact that both only stated
it when asked if there was anthing further they would like to say ie at the
end of their evidence?

33) Why did the pathologist at the end of his summary of his evidence say
that it was self-harm and then add the rider "disregarding other aspects of
the case" (or similar)? Also, when asked have you anything further to say he
said "not as a pathologist" or similar. Was he trying ever so subtly to let
someone know that he was suspicious but could not find the evidence (or had
he found something but been required, in the interests of national
security?, to edit his findings)?

34) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

35) Was Dr Kelly under surveillance during the days leading up to his death?
Was he under intense surveillance? Was, his alleged suicide observed?

In my view, he was murdered and the Hutton Inquiry is the cover-up, the
smoke-screen.

Further thoughts:

1. Why was (possibly) the last person to see Dr Kelly alive Paul Weaver not
called to give testimony?
2. The initial reports in the press - clearly quoting a police briefing -
describe Dr Kelly as wearing shirt sleeves. Clearly he was wearing a coat
and had a hat when discovered.
3. The body was moved after discovery by the volunteers but prior to the
arrival of PCs Sawyer and Franklin. The testimony of the volunteers, PCs, DC
Coe and the paramedics confirms this. Note that Dr Hunt described the body
as not even touching a tree whereas both volunteers describe him in some way
as being supported by a tree. A clear difference.
4. The volunteers noted the right arm to the side of the body whereas
subsequently it was over his chest - and had to be moved by the paramedics.
5. Both paramedics reported a paucity of blood at the scene. In both cases
this testimony was given after being asked if they had anything else to say.
In both cases (in my view) their statements did not meet with the important
consideration that their observations deserved. They are medical
professionals.
6. The disparity in the number of officers met by the volunteers after
discovering the body. They saw three whereas DC Coe admitted he had one
officer with him. I am sure that the volunteers can count to three as well
as being able to tell if a body is lying on its back or being supported
(even partially) by a tree.
7. There are those vomit stains going from mouth to ear. Clearly not a
problem for a body lying on its back but as we know the body was not lying
on its back when discovered.
8. The abrasions on Dr Kelly's head don't really have an explanation with
the suicide hypothesis. Our volunteers and police found access to the copse
and to the body without too much trouble and Dr Kelly, by all accounts, knew
the terrain well. I cannot accept that he made himself so intoxicated with
the co-proxamol that he stumbled about. He may then have risked passing out
before completing his intention.
9. There is the disparity between Mr Green and Dr Hunt. Mr Green said there
were bloodstains on the right sleeve for which he proposed an explanation.
Dr Hunt reported no blood stains on the right sleeve.
10. What the Inquiry has not done to my knowledge is:
a. established that the co-proxamol was from Mrs Kelly's prescription;
b. established if the water bottle came from the Kelly's house or had to be
bought by Dr Kelly en route (someone would of course then be a witness to
this purchase);
c. asked who the 'third officer' was;
d. confirmed objectively that the co-proxamol and/or products thereof was
not only present in excessive quantities in the blood but in other body
fluids in addition;
e. questioned why Dr Hunt took a rectal temperature just before he left the
scene i.e. gave the greatest margin for error for time of death;
f. questioned Dr Hunt and/or Mr Green to establish if the right sleeve of
the jacket had a blood stain on it or not.

And the above points leave aside the more subjective questions as to Dr
Kelly's state of mind being not indicative of suicide, and him selecting
such a risky, messy and painful way to possibly kill himself.

Remember these points and when the Hutton Enquiry finally delivers the
official line on this tragic affair be open minded about the "verdict"

2003-09-28T08:55:00.000-07:00

WHAT A TANGLED WEB THEY WEAVE...

There is some marked AMBIGUITY in the BBC article below -
"Kelly inquest may be reopened" - as to whether we are to understand that,

(a) witnesses refused to allow their testimony to go forward to the Hutton Inquiry......

Coroner, NICHOLAS GARDINER:

"I may ask the police to see the reports if necessary and then I will decide whether to reopen the inquest.
"That's what it boils down to. Why these witnesses did not want their evidence to go forward to the inquiry I do not know."

or

(b) police deemed their statements to be irrelevant

The police interviewed some 500 people and took 300 witness statements during the investigation, but fewer than 70 were handed over to Lord Hutton.....
Most of the others were not deemed relevant by officers.

Thames Valley Police confirmed that a number of witnesses did not allow their statements to go to the inquiry, but insisted there was nothing "pertinent" in them.

Could it be that people like Mai Pederson and "Gabriele", crucial witnesses who were never called, did not want their testimonies revealed, not because they were "irrelevant" but for the opposite reason - they were very relevant indeed?

I doubt that ordinary people with nothing to hide would have withheld their testimonies. Unless they were intimidated?

And meanwhile we have "officers" deciding what is relevant and what isn't.... in an inquiry of this magnitude, shouldn't that be left to the lawyers? Or, on second thoughts... hmmm, in whom can we place our TRUST?

Rowena

RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

Kelly inquest may be reopened

The coroner will make his decision based on Lord Hutton's report
The inquest into the death Dr David Kelly may have to be reopened because some witnesses have refused to allow their statements to be passed to the Hutton inquiry.
The original inquest was adjourned under a section in the Coroners Act which allows a public inquiry conducted by a judge to fulfil the function of an inquest.

But Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner said he may ask Thames Valley Police to hand over the evidence if he is not satisfied with Lord Hutton's findings.

Dr Kelly apparently killed himself after being named as the suspected source of a BBC report claiming the government "sexed up" a dossier on the threat from Iraq.

Mr Gardiner said: "I shall in due course have to decide if grounds exist to resume the inquest, but I can't do anything until I see Hutton's report.

Nothing pertinent

"I may ask the police to see the reports if necessary and then I will decide whether to reopen the inquest.

"That's what it boils down to. Why these witnesses did not want their evidence to go forward to the inquiry I do not know."

Thames Valley Police confirmed that a number of witnesses did not allow their statements to go to the inquiry, but insisted there was nothing "pertinent" in them.

A spokesman refused to confirm reports that one of the individuals was Mai Pederson, the American linguist who introduced Dr Kelly to the Baha'i faith.

The coroner will read it and can make a decision about whether he wishes to reopen the inquest or whether he is satisfied with the findings

Spokesman for Hutton Inquiry

Earlier this week the force's assistant chief constable, Michael Page, told the Hutton Inquiry that Ms Pederson had given a statement to police but that it contained nothing of relevance.

It is understood there was a clause on the statement form asking if witnesses agreed to their statements going forward to the inquiry.

Unlike a coroner's inquest, the Hutton Inquiry did not have the power to compel people to appear or hand over evidence.

The police interviewed some 500 people and took 300 witness statements during the investigation, but fewer than 70 were handed over to Lord Hutton.

Avoiding trauma

Most of the others were not deemed relevant by officers.

A spokesman for the Hutton inquiry said the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would provide Mr Gardiner with a copy of Lord Hutton's report after receiving it himself.

"The coroner will read it and can make a decision about whether he wishes to reopen the inquest or whether he is satisfied with the findings," he said.

"Lord Falconer directed that the inquest should not go ahead at the same time as the inquiry to avoid causing more trauma for the Kelly family. After the inquiry it will be up to the coroner."

The spokesman added: "The Hutton inquiry does not have any statutory powers and so witnesses were perfectly entitled to withhold their statements."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3145120.stm

2003-09-25T17:42:00.000-07:00

VOMIT DIRECTION
(AS INDICATOR OF KELLY'S BODY POSITION)

If you've just had your tea or your breakfast I apologise. What I'm addressing here is the DIRECTION of Kelly's vomit for what it tells us about the position of the body.

In his testimony to the Hutton Inquiry PC Sawyer tells us Kelly's body was,

"Lying on its back with its head at the base of a tree... The head was tilted to the left.**"

Further on Sawyer says,

".... from the mouth, the corner of.. the right-hand corner of the mouth to the ear there was a dark stain where I took it that Dr Kelly had vomited and it had run down the side of his face...."

According to David Bartlett, the ambulance technician,

"...going from the corners of the mouth were two stains, one slightly longer than the other.
Q: Where did the stains go to from the mouth?
A: Towards the bottom of the ears."

I am sure, from the red highlighting that you've worked out that:
Kelly had to have been unconscious, and LYING DOWN when he vomited, otherwise the stains would not run from the corners of the mouth to the ears.

Yet, according to Louise Holmes the first person to witness Kelly's body, Kelly was "at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree" or, as Paul Chapman, the second witness says, "sitting up against a tree".

While Louise and Paul do not mention the vomit, neither are they asked about it. If their testimony is reliable, and the body was sitting up, then the dark stains on Kelly's face would not have travelled, against gravity, from the corners of the mouth to the ears, but instead would have run down his chin and neck.

If Louise and Paul both made a mistake in saying the body was in contact with the tree, (either head & shoulders, slumped or sitting) then there is no problem with the vomit stains, and their direction - from corners of mouth to ears - indicates that Kelly was at least unconscious, possibly already dead and lying down when he vomited.

If, however, Louise and Paul correctly described finding the body sitting up, then, prior to their arrival, someone must have propped up Kelly's dead or unconscious body against the tree. Later it must have been pulled down again to lie flat, as witnessed by PCs Franklin & Sawyer, Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett - and others.

Given that the body was apparently sitting against the tree for the first 2 witnesses and lying down at the base of the tree for the rest, it is reasonable to suspect that DC Coe*** -the only attendee of the body between the first and second batch of witnesses - quickly took hold of Kelly's feet and pulled him down to a lying position, as it had been realised that in the sitting position the vomit stains would look wrong. So by putting the body back in the lying position the direction of the vomit stains again made sense. By his own admission DC Coe had about 25-30 minutes alone with the body before PCs Franklin and Sawyer arrived with the paramedics, all of whom said the body was lying flat.

As to the location of the death prior to the body being propped up, this could have been either (a) at the scene or (b) elsewhere. If the former then this would be consistent with Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist when he says that vomit was found on the ground next to Kelly's left shoulder. (See below). However it is also possible that Kelly's body was brought to the scene and Dr Hunt lied about the vomit being found on the ground, in order to make it appear that Kelly had always been lying flat on its back on that spot & had also vomited there. Also, it could be that Hunt deliberately neglected to mention the direction of the vomit in order to avoid attention being drawn any further to it.

Nicholas Hunt, forensic pathologist....

"Q: Did you notice anything about the face?
A: .... there was...what looked like vomit running from the right corner of the mouth and also from the left corner of the mouth and streaking the face. [Note he fails to give us any information about HOW it streaks the face, whether it runs down the chin or to the ears; neither is he asked.]
Q: What would that appear to indicate?
A: It suggested that he had tried to vomit whilst he was lying on his back and it had trickled down.
Q: Was there any vomit found on the scene itself?
A: Yes, there was some vomit. There was some vomit staining over the left shoulder of the jacket and also on the ground in the region of his left shoulder."

In summary, if Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman are correct, and they found the body sitting up, this suggests that Dr Kelly vomited (while unconscious) some time beforehand, possibly but not necessarily in a different place, where his body would have been not sitting, but lying down. It was then moved to the location in which it was found on Harrowdown Hill, placed in a sitting position & the "suicide scene" neatly arranged, with watch, knife, bottle of water, & cap all carefully positioned. UNTIL, someone realised that the vomit direction would give the game away, and sent DC Coe in to re-arrange the scene so that Kelly was put back in a lying position, where the vomit direction would make sense.

Rowena Thursby

RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

** N.B. Also curious is the fact that the vomit direction was from BOTH corners of the mouth towards the ears when several witnesses have consistently said that his head was tilted to the LEFT - but it is conceivable that Kelly vomited on his back while unconscious, then his head fell naturally to one side.

***Given that 5 people testified to there being 2 officers with Coe, whereas in Coe's testimony he says there was only one, how much credence are we to give to the rest of his testimony

2003-09-24T13:05:00.000-07:00

THE BIGGEST DISCREPANCY OF ALL:
The Third Man

'The only reason I can think of that Coe would contradict four witnesses about who was with him is that the third man's presence could not be satisfactorily explained.'
Jim Rarey

You would think that DC Coe would name this man if it was a constable, just as DC Shields was named - in order for people not to smell a BIG RAT. After all, DC Shields was not called, to the witness stand at the Hutton Inquiry so this other guy needn't have been called either. There must be a BIG reason why (apparently) his companions dwindled from 3 to 2. Remember no fewer than 5 people testified that Coe was with 2 officers.

The other thing is - yes it does look like the 3 men in black were, in fact, DC Coe and 2 "uniformed officers" (1+2 = 3) - so the reason Page could not say WHO the 3 were, is because of the fact that there WERE INDEED 3, and not 2, as DC Coe maintained later.

This is the BIGGEST and MOST GLARING discrepancy of all and probably the most important to follow up on.

Rowena Thursby

2003-09-24T13:03:00.000-07:00

THE 3 MEN IN BLACK

This is from Asst Chief Constable Page's testimony yesterday, 23 September 2003:

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.

202
1 Q. Did you follow up that sighting?
2 A. Yes, 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.

That's it? He's satisfied, what about telling who they were?

Sounds pretty much like DC Coe and his two "PC's" and the time fits. It could also be the same police the men on the boat in the Thames told Louise and Paul they saw.

Louise did not mention it but Paul did.

Paul

Q. Did you see anyone on that search?
12 A. Not until we reached the river and we met the people on
13 the boat.
14 Q. How many people were on the boat?
15 A. Either three or four, I cannot remember.
16 Q. Did you speak to them?
17 A. Yes, we did.
18 Q. What did you say to them?
19 A. They enquired what we were doing. We explained a search
20 team assisting the police, looking for a missing person,
21 and gave them a rough description of his age and said if
22 they saw anything could they contact the police.
23 Q. Had they seen anything?
24 A. They had heard the helicopter and seen some police
25 officers at some point previously.

23
1 Q. Right. What, police officers on an earlier part of the
2 search?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But they had not seen Dr Kelly at all?
5 A. No.

Louise

Did you at any point go along the River Thames?
3 A. We went up to where we -- where our boundary of our
4 search area was on the Thames and spoke to some people
5 there who were just moored on a boat on the Thames.
6 Q. What did you say to them?
7 A. Well, Brock had found them because he obviously is just
8 trained to pick up on human scent, so he went off and
9 indicated on them and so I had a game with him as
10 a reward. They just said: what are you doing? We said
11 we were assisting the police in the search for a missing
12 male person and if they saw anything to contact the
13 police.
14 Q. Did they say they already had seen anything?
15 A. They said they had seen the helicopter up the previous
16 night but they had not seen anybody or anything other
17 than that.

Is Louise just a scatterbrain or is it something more sinister? Paul had a lot more experience in search and rescue than Louise but evidently the one with the dog is in charge of the team.

I am assuming now that it is a given that DC Coe had two other men with him. Five persons testified on the issue. The two volunteers (Paul and Louise) and the two PC's (Franklin and Sawyer) all said there were two "uniformed police" with Coe. Only Coe himself said there was only one.

If Coe and/or whoever was interrupted by Brock, they had plenty of time to circle around and pretend to be approaching the site for the first time. They had 25-35 minutes after Paul and Louise left to "clean up" the site including moving the body and planting some blood.

The only reason I can think of that Coe would contradict four witnesses about who was with him is that the third man's presence could not be satisfactorily explained. (That would make a good title for a movie "The Third Man" wouldn't it?)

Thanks to Jim Rarey for this information & commentary.

2003-09-23T17:35:00.000-07:00

BROUCHER MAKES "MISTAKE" WITH HIS DATES

I was reading the transcript of Rachel Kelly's testimony to the Hutton Inquiry (see (A) below) when I came across this interesting item, which appears to have gone unmentioned in the mainstream media. It turns out the conversation Broucher reported had taken place between him and Dr David Kelly in Geneva did not actually occur in February 2003, as Broucher claimed, but on 18th February 2002 - a whole year earlier!
While it may be understandable for someone to miss a date by a week or two, a whole YEAR is a tad more difficult to swallow. And if Mr Broucher lied about the DATE of his meeting with Kelly, what else did he lie about?

How convenient that Mr Broucher came forward at this point. The conversation (see article below - (B) - from the Independent ) gave us a graphic portrayal of Kelly's tortured conscience: he had repeatedly promised the Iraqis they would be safe if they complied with weapon's inspections. In other words this gave us an bigger EXPLANATION for suicide other than that he had been under great stress from the MoD and a televised Foreign Affairs Committee.

Even better, it showed Kelly to have an awareness of the danger he was in - not from a highly-embarrassed western establishment on both sides of the Atlantic - but from THE IRAQIS. Finally, the tour de force, that phrase: "dead in the woods" - Kelly almost forecasting the circumstances of his own death. If Broucher was a year-out with the date of this conversation, might have he been "out" with other elements of it?

Shall we call it a lapse in memory? By a whole year? At such a vitally important time politically? Or did Broucher fib about the date in order to make the whole sense of this conversation more immediate, more urgent and thus offer a better explanation for David Kelly's "suicide"?

Rowena Thursby

RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

(A) TRANSCRIPT OF RACHEL KELLY'S TESTIMONY TO THE HUTTON INQUIRY
Can I ask you to look
8 at a diary entry for 2002? Before I ask you to look at
9 that, can you just tell me where you found the diary?
10 A. Yes. The diary was in my father's study --
11 Q. It is FAM/1/1. If we look at the entry for February,
12 what does it tell us?
13 A. It mentions specifically a meeting with David Broucher
14 on 18th February 2002, and the interesting thing with my
15 father's diaries is he tended to write entries in them
16 after the event and this would have been a meeting that
17 he actually had because it is in his diary.
18 Q. It does not look like we have been able to get the diary
19 on the screen, but if I look at the diary that I have in
20 front of me, it says:
21 "Monday 18th February 2002, 9.30, David Broucher,
22 US mis."
23 A. Yes, US mission.
24 Q. It gives details of his flights into Geneva the day
25 before.

98
1 A. Yes, the day before.
2 Q. And out of Geneva on 20th February; is that right?
3 A. Yes, that is correct, on the 20th.
4 Q. And that is February 2002?
5 A. It is a year earlier than the date that David Broucher
6 gave as being this year, the conversation he had with my
7 father.
8 Q. And I think Mr Broucher told us he had only had one
9 meeting with your father.
10 A. Yes, that is what made me look at it. I actually
11 thought that was the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Q. Finally just to show the diary entry for February 2003.
5 You will remember Mr Broucher thought the meeting was in
6 February 2003. That is 133. Does the 2003 diary show
7 any entry for Mr Broucher in 2003?
8 A. No, and in fact it does not record any trip to Geneva
9 either. The only trip I have noticed is the February
10 trip the previous year.
11 Q. The only time that you have noticed from these diaries
12 that he had been to Geneva?
13 A. Yes, I think (inaudible).

(B)
Kelly: 'I'll probably be found dead in the woods'
PA News Reporters -- The Independent 21 August 2003

David Kelly, the government weapons expert, predicted that he would be "found dead in the woods" if Iraq was invaded, months before his apparent suicide, the Hutton Inquiry heard today.

The weapons inspector slashed his wrist in Oxfordshire woodlands after being revealed as the source for BBC claims that the Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been "sexed up" in the run-up to war.

Foreign Office official David Broucher said Dr Kelly had made what he thought to be the "throwaway" remark in February, when they met in Geneva.

Dr Kelly had expected to remain anonymous after meeting BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan, the inquiry had heard earlier.

He had publicly maintained that the Ministry of Defence had been "quite good" when he revealed he had briefed Mr Gilligan. But privately the weapons expert told a trusted contact: "I have been through the wringer."

Dr Kelly told Sunday Times journalist Nick Rufford, shortly after hearing from the MoD that he would be named in the next day's papers: "I am a bit shocked, I was told it would all be confidential."

Mr Broucher told the inquiry Dr Kelly had told him that continued inspections "properly carried out would give a degree of certainty about compliance" with UN disarmament demands.

"He said he had tried to reassure them that if they cooperated with the weapons inspections, they had nothing to fear," Mr Broucher said.

"My impression was that he felt he was in some personal difficulty or embarrassment about this because he felt the invasion might go ahead anyway and somehow it was putting him in a morally ambiguous situation."

Mr Broucher, the Foreign Office's ambassador-ranking permanent representative at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, said: "As David Kelly was leaving, I said to him 'what do you think will happen if Iraq is invaded?'.

"His reply was, which at the time I took to be a throwaway remark, he said 'I will probably be found dead in the woods'."

Mr Broucher said he had discussed the dossier with Dr Kelly and told the inquiry that it was part of his job to "sell" the dossier to senior officials at the UN, many of whom found it "unconvincing".

Dr Kelly had defended the dossier, saying there had been a lot of pressure to make it "as robust as possible".

Mr Broucher said he asked Dr Kelly what would happen if the coalition went to war with Iraq. He told the inquiry: "His reply was, which I took at the time to be a throwaway remark, he said 'I will probably be found dead in the woods'."

Mr Broucher added: "I didn't report it at the time to anyone because I didn't attribute any particular significance to it.

"I thought he might have meant that he was at risk of being attacked by the Iraqis in some way."

He heard of the weapons expert's death while he was on leave in Geneva but said he had not immediately realised the circumstances.

The inquiry saw an e-mail sent by Mr Broucher to Patrick Lamb, deputy head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office.

"In a conversation in Geneva which took place in late February, he explained to me that he thought that the weapons inspectors could have a good idea what the Iraqis had built and destroyed," it read.

The e-mail said Dr Kelly feared that in the event of an invasion it would have appeared that he had "betrayed his contacts, some of whom might be killed as a direct result of his actions."

The e-mail repeated Dr Kelly's statement that following on from this "he would probably be found dead in the woods.

Last updated 24/08/2003

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=1023

2003-09-23T09:32:00.000-07:00

SLOPPY REPORTING OF THE KELLY STORY

The inaccuracy of Matthew Tempest's reporting of the scene of Dr Kelly's death is breathtaking. I could understand it better if this was a straightforward suicide, but given that it was possibly a murder made to look like suicide, accurate reporting of every detail is a prerequisite in helping us fathom what actually happened here. See comments in red below. RT

Kelly's family 'held onto hope he was safe'

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday September 2, 2003

David Kelly's wife and family held out hope to the last minute that the missing government scientist had merely been taken ill, the Hutton inquiry heard today.
At 7.15am on the morning of Friday July 18, Dr Kelly's relatives told police who had been investigating his disappearance for more than 17 hours that they "genuinely believed" he had been taken ill while out walking.

Their hope that Dr Kelly might be still be found alive came despite him being missing overnight.

Three police officers, two search volunteers and a neighbour of the dead Ministry of Defence scientist today gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry as it heard the circumstances of the discovery of Dr Kelly's body that Friday morning.

It emerged that Dr Kelly's likely last words were: "Cheerio, see you again then, Ruth" - spoken to a neighbour, Ruth Absalom, who was walking her dog near the woods where Dr Kelly's body was later found.

Both Thames Valley police officers who carried out the initial scene of crime search around Dr Kelly's body said there was "no sign of a struggle", and surrounding undergrowth was "still standing upright".

Dr Kelly's body was found by the search dog of a community volunteer, Louise Holmes, at just after 7.30 am on Friday 18th.

The four accounts of Dr Kelly's position, given by two volunteers and two police officers, broadly matched each other. [No they didn't - the two volunteers said the body was slumped or sitting against a tree, the 2 policemen said it was flat on its back]. Dr Kelly was found on his back [No he wasn't - the first 2 say that he was sitting up] slumped against [well slumped against suggests that he was not entirely on his back but partially with his head and back touching the tree] the trunk of a large tree , his right arm outstretched [no, most of the witnesses say it was by his side], his left hand "inverted" and in a large pool of blood [who said there was a large pool of blood around the wrist? - certainly not the first 2 and the paramedics who came later said they were surprised at how little blood there was at the scene considering it was an arterial bleed - only PC Franklin talks of not a large pool, but "a fair amount of blood sort of puddled around"]

Beside his left hand was a wristwatch, a three-inch curved knife. An open bottle of Evian water was next to his head. [Well, at least he got that right.]

One witness, PC Jonathan Sawyer, told how he also saw an "dark stain" running from the right corner of Dr Kelly's mouth to his ear. He told Lord Hutton he took it to be that Dr Kelly had vomited, and it had run down the side of his face. He also said there was a stain [what kind of stain? vomit? nope, actually, he means blood] on Dr Kelly's right knee.

[THE GUARDIAN IS A MEMBER OF THE RIIA.]

http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1034133,00.html

Contact: RowenaThursby@onetel.net.uk

2003-09-23T09:08:00.000-07:00

ROY GREEN, FORENSIC BIOLOGIST REPORTS A "FAIR BIT OF BLOOD"....

But oddly enough, Mr Green can't seem to say where this "fair bit of blood" actually went.

In their testimonies to the Hutton Inquiry, Vanessa Hunt and David Bartlett, the paramedics, had both volunteered the fact that in their opinion, there was very little blood around for an arterial bleed.

Vanessa Hunt: "the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing"

Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist confirmed that this WAS an arterial bleed, so there would have been substantial blood loss. Yet Roy Green, the forensic biologist, offers a bit of spraying on the nettles, some on the sleeve, some on the jeans, and some smearing on the bottle. And while Green says the leaf litter would absorb the blood, he did not say it DID absorb the blood. He spent from 2pm till 7pm (5 hours) examining the area, yet he did not say categorically, that the ground HAD absorbed the blood.

Rowena Thursby

This is from xymphora's blogspot:

From the testimony of Roy James Green, a forensic biologist, who examined the scene where Dr. Kelly's body was found (here, at section 143):
"Q. We have heard from some ambulance personnel, and they said they were not specifically looking, for obvious reasons, at the distribution of blood but they noted, just on their brief glance, not very much blood. What were your detailed findings?

A. Well, there was a fair bit of blood.

LORD HUTTON: There was - I beg your pardon?

A. A fair bit of blood, my Lord. The body was on leaf litter, the sort of detritus you might find on the floor of a wood, which is - and that is very absorbent, so although it may not have appeared to them there was that much blood, it would obviously soak in.

MR DINGEMANS: A bit like blotting paper in some respects?

A. Yes."

Note that he says that it would obviously soak in - he gives no indication that he checked to see if it did soak in. The same witness later said (sections 146 to 147; my emphasis):
"The jeans, as I have talked about, with this large contact stain, did not appear to have any larger downward drops on them. There were a few stains and so forth but it did not have any staining that would suggest to me that his injuries, or his major injuries if you like, were caused while he was standing up, and there was not any - there did not appear to be any blood underneath where he was found, and the body was later moved which all suggested those injuries were caused while he was sat or lying down."

So it is clear he relied on superficial appearances to judge that there was no blood under the body, thus putting into question his confidence about the blood soaking into the leaf litter (and what does he mean by major injuries?). Given that the police and the paramedics differed on the amount of blood at the scene, and it was the paramedics with the better view who noted the surprising lack of blood (presumably they would have had experience at attending scenes of suicides by slit wrists, and would have an appreciation for the amount of blood involved), this is an important issue that has not been properly resolved. If there is not enough blood, the body was moved to where it was found, and foul play would have been involved.

[Or else Kelly was already dead when he arrived at the scene of death, and only then was the left wrist slit - if indeed there were slashes in the wrist, for as far as I can remember, only Nicholas Hunt appears to have actually seen the wound or wounds, despite an upturned wrist. If he was already dead that could explain the absence of blood].

NOTE: Both Nicolas Hunt and Roy Green work for the same company: Forensic Alliance.
Nicholas Hunt is a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist and has been on the
Home Office list since 2001.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_xymphora_archive.html