Subversion of Due Process: The Death of Dr. David Kelly

Yes I am still going on about it...............because he was murdered!

Because the Government at the time lied to us all.

Blair and his side kicks..........all lied.

David Kelly was a liability to the govenment of the day

See Here and Here
Suffice to say the issue wont go away.
However it no longer gets the air time it deserves.

To that end I will post the open letter sent to David Cameron 26/03/2011..........



Dear Prime Minister,


SUBVERSION OF DUE PROCESS AND INSUFFICIENCY OF INQUIRY IN THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF DR DAVID KELLY


When Lord Hutton reported on 28 January 2004, many said "whitewash”. The Hutton Report was indeed a "whitewash", not so much because Lord Hutton wrongly found the BBC and not the Government responsible for Dr Kelly's "suicide" but much more importantly because Lord Hutton failed adequately to address the cause of death itself and the manner of death. The invocation by Lord Falconer, in his role as Lord Chancellor, of Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners Act to replace the statutory inquest by a non-statutory ad hoc judicial inquiry was highly irregular, as was the Coroner’s decision not to re-open the inquest following Hutton’s report. Not only did Lord Falconer, in his role as Minister for Constitutional Affairs, commission the Hutton Inquiry and determine its very narrow remit but he also decided, in his role as Lord Chancellor, that it would be an adequate replacement for a statutory inquest, when it was clearly no such thing. Given all this meddling with due process of the law it is perhaps not surprising that the death itself was not properly investigated.

Thus, not only was the form of inquiry inappropriate but the inquiry itself was clearly insufficient. There can be little doubt now that Lord Hutton presided over a blatant insufficiency of inquiry and the evidence to support that view is overwhelming. Some of that evidence, but for practical reasons not all, has been presented to Dominic Grieve QC, the present Attorney General.

Lord Hutton's finding of suicide is clearly unsafe and may, especially given the extraordinary context of Dr Kelly's death, represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice to occur in this country. Many people in our country have known to a greater or lesser degree that that was the case but it was left to a few doctors, and latterly one journalist, to pick up the pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle and to assemble a picture clear enough to present to the Attorney General. The doctors are requesting that an inquest be ordered through their lawyers, Frances Swaine and Merry Varney of the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. and Dr Michael Powers QC, in the form of a formal application to the Attorney General for his "fiat" to apply to the High Court to order an inquest as allowed under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act.

Under Section 13 there are six reasons why the Attorney General may grant such "fiat". These are:

1) insufficiency of inquiry
2) irregularity of proceedings
3) rejection of evidence
4) new facts or evidence
5) fraud (in this context deception)
6) refusal or neglect to hold an inquest when one ought to be held


The doctors have provided abundant evidence to satisfy all six of these reasons; the Attorney General needs evidence of only one reason to grant his "fiat".

Further, the Attorney General is not required to satisfy himself that the verdict of suicide would change, only that it might change.

Accordingly, in September 2010, Leigh Day & Co. delivered a 34 page legal document called the Memorial to the Attorney General. On 28 February 2011, an Addendum to the Memorial was also provided to and at the request of the Attorney General. Both documents may be viewed in full on the BBC Online website. The doctors and Leigh Day & Co. have had sight of many other submissions to the Attorney General. It seems to the doctors and their lawyers that the case for an inquest is unanswerable.

It is surely in the public interest, and in the interests of justice, that an inquest into this death now takes place. The laws of this country, and indeed of Europe, require that the death of any British citizen dying in the manner in which Dr David Kelly is said to have died is investigated at an inquest, at which the Coroner possesses statutory powers. These include the power to hear evidence under oath, the power to subpoena witnesses, the power to have witnesses aggressively cross-examined and the power to call a jury. Lord Hutton possessed none of these powers, but the public was led to believe that Lord Hutton was better equipped to investigate Dr Kelly's death than was the Coroner. Further, Lord Hutton heard medical evidence for just one half of one day out of twenty four days of evidence, and found that Dr Kelly had committed suicide; no coroner in the land would have reached a suicide verdict on the evidence which Lord Hutton heard. The level of proof required for a coroner to reach a verdict of suicide is very high, since a suicide verdict closes the case for ever and automatically stops any murder investigation, in addition to permanently smearing the deceased (when he can no longer argue back) and his family. The Coroner is required to hear evidence which constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased killed himself and that he intended to kill himself, before he may return a verdict of suicide. Lord Hutton did not hear evidence which came near to satisfying that test.

We write to you asking that you endorse the request that an inquest be ordered. You will be aware that this important death, especially in the context in which it occurred, and the long subsequent fight for an inquest has been observed with mounting interest worldwide. Many will regard the response to the request for an inquest as a litmus test as to the good intentions and credibility of your government.

It is unfortunate that your government inherited this case from the preceding three governments, all of which did all they could to stop thenecessary inquest. But, now surely is the time to begin the attempt to restore the tarnished reputation of our country around the world by holding a full, frank and fearless inquest into Dr David Kelly's death, so that “the truth, pure and simple”, of what happened can finally be established “however complex, painful or unacceptable to whomsoever that truth may be” (Christopher Clarke QC, in his opening statement as Leading Counsel to the Saville “Bloody Sunday” Inquiry).

If an inquest is denied, despite all the evidence carefully provided to the Attorney General, there is a real and grave risk that your government will be seen as continuing, and being complicit in, an enormous conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Further, any “no” decision will be vigorously contested in the courts via judicial review by the doctors’ lawyers.

Finally, while the wishes of the family may be taken into account by the Coroner as to whether or not an inquest should be held, those wishes are not determinative in law. The Coroner's primary duty is to the deceased, not to the family of the deceased. Similarly, the Attorney General's primary duty, under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act, is to the deceased.not to the family of the deceased. The Coroner speaks for the dead to protect the living.


This letter, addressed to you, is an open letter and it will be made available to the Press Association for onward publication.


Yours sincerely,

Dr Christopher Burns-Cox MD FRCP

Dr Stephen Frost BSc MB ChB

Dr Andrew Rouse MB BS MPH FFPHM



The truth will come out on this subject 1 day............however that will be once a certain ex-PM is long gone to his next life..........in fact that certain squeeky clean ex-PM will be taking rather a lot of secrets away with him no doubt.

Do i think Cameron will do anything..............NO. Because he is a spineless twat !!
The family have fromally requested this subject comes to an end........I respect that and as a result this is the last post on the subject. The pain of a loved ones name being harranged about like this is too much I suspect. Despite the fact the questions remain open.
Blair must be breathing easier now!!!!!!!!!

Alastair Campbell in the witness box: this time, the truth........bwahahahahahaha

As I write this piece a certain Malcom Tucker based individual namely Tony Blair’s former press secretary, Alastair Campbell, gives evidence to the Chilcot Whitwash sorry Inquiry today.

High on the agenda, one hopes, will be his involvement in the famous September 2002 weapons of mass destruction dossier. As an aide-memoire to readers and having used info from Andrew Gilligan, I detail below the main, shall we say, inconsistencies about which Mr Campbell should (but probably won’t) be asked.

Mr Campbell’s claims:

1. In evidence (Q1092) to the Commons’ foreign affairs committee (FAC), he claimed: “The entire document was the product of the pen of the Joint Intelligence Committee chairman [John Scarlett].”

2. Campbell also claimed: “The allegation… that I, or anyone in Downing Street, exaggerated and distorted intelligence…is totally untrue.” (para 9 of his memo to the FAC.)

3. Campbell or his deputy, Godric Smith, repeatedly claimed that there had been no political interference whatever in the dossier. For instance, at the Downing Street press briefing of 4 June 2003 (on page 6 of this PDF): “The dossier was entirely the work of the intelligence agencies… Suggestions that any pressure was put on the intelligence services by No 10 or anyone else to change the document were entirely false.”

The reality:

1. The foreword of the dossier was written by Campbell, as this memo of 17 September 2002, a week before publication, makes clear. In his own evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry a few weeks ago, Scarlett himself belatedly admitted this too. The foreword was where the dossier’s most incendiary statements appeared, such as the claim that the intelligence on Saddam’s WMD was “beyond doubt.”

2. The 17 September memo also shows that Campbell suggested 15 changes to the executive summary and main body of the document to Scarlett. Most were accepted and their effect was to harden up the document’s language from possibility to probability, or probability to certainty.

3. Among the most serious: following Campbell’s suggestion in the memo, a false statement, unsupported by intelligence reporting, was inserted in the dossier that Saddam had continued to “make progress” with his illicit weapons programmes.

4. Campbell lied to the FAC about the contents of the September 17 memo, giving them only a bowdlerised version (see here, item eight) which omitted his comments on the famous “45-minute” claim and downplayed his intervention on most of the other issues.

5. Campbell, in his own words, “bombarded” Scarlett, demanding that he make Iraq’s nuclear programme look more threatening. His suggestions were largely included in the published dossier even though they were not supported by intelligence.

In the September17 memo, Campbell told Scarlett that he and Blair were “worried about the way you have expressed the nuclear issue” – namely, that it was not made to seem alarming enough. (This was in fact the truth. As Chilcot has heard, British intelligence was quite clear before the war that Iraq was many years from a nuclear weapon and in no sense a nuclear threat.)

The following day, Campbell emailed Scarlett, saying that he had showed the draft dossier “cold” to a member of his staff who had been left (correctly) thinking “there’s nothing much to worry about” over the nuclear issue. “Sorry to bombard on this point,” Campbell says, “but I do worry that the nuclear section… as currently drafted, is not in great shape.”

The day after that, Campbell emailed Scarlett again, suggesting the insertion of a totally false claim, that the “the timelines [for Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon] are considerably shortened however if Iraq manages to obtain fissile material illegally from overseas. In these circumstances, the JIC assessed in early 2002 that they could produce nuclear weapons in between one and two years.”

After some resistance by Scarlett, this fabrication duly appeared in the dossier as: “We therefore judge that if Iraq obtained fissile material and other essential components from foreign sources the timeline for production of a nuclear weapon would be shortened and Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon in between one and two years.” (Dossier para 23, page 27.)

6. Most meetings on the dossier were attended by spin-doctors and some were actually chaired by Campbell, something which even Lord Hutton criticised.

These are far from the only interventions by Campbell - and he was, of course, far from the only Downing Street political appointee to interfere in the dossier process. Significant interventions were also made by other Downing Street and Foreign Office spin-doctors and by the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. Powell is up next Monday – we might have a look at some of his handiwork then.

Campbell will not be troubled by the inquiry board. He is an accomplished liar and far to intelligent to be outsmarted by that group.
He does not care about the fact both the evidence and the bulk of the public know the doc was sexed up.

However the question is how does he sit knowing that he has blood on his hands. Not just the deaths of British Servicemen and women so that Blair could play patsy to Bush but the fact that a certain Dr David Kelly also paid with his life......See here.



UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE............Gordon Brown was involved in decision-making says Alastair Campbell................Oh bugger me its gonna get even more messy now.....spin machines gone up a gear!!!!!

Was David Kelly murdered on the orders of the British Government?

I wrote this lengthy post here about Dr David Kelly in July.

Dr David Kelly was the scientist who died days after being exposed as the source of a controversial BBC story on the Iraq war.

In my post I made ref to his "suicide", his weapons works , his connection to South Africa, and a potential legal challenge by some other doctors over an inquest into his death.

Well now the 6 senior doctors in question have begun legal action to force a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly

The action is being taken because six doctors are convinced that the original verdict of suicide is unsafe and should be overturned.

Some suspect that Dr Kelly, 59, was murdered shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC story which alleged that evidence against Iraq had been "sexed up" by the Government in order to justify the 2003 invasion.

The body of Dr Kelly, who was a UN weapons inspector, was found more than six years ago in woods near his Oxfordshire home after he went out for a walk. His wrist had been slashed. He also had painkillers in his bloodstream, although not at a lethal level.

At the time of his death, Dr Kelly was under pressure because it had emerged that he had provided confidential information for the BBC story.

However, in a 13-page dossier prepared as the basis for the legal action, the doctors argue that the bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery in his left wrist is "highly unlikely" to have caused his death. They say a number of studies have shown that it is unusual for a patient to die from a single deep cut to the wrist.

The revelation of the move for a new inquest is embarrassing for the Government, particularly as it comes just two weeks into the inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot which is examining Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. However it is reognised INHO that the Chilcott inquiry will be another Hutton style whitwash.

The doctors are applying to the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland for permission to go to the High Court for a new inquest, or the resumption of the previous inquest.

Now excuse me here but Baroness Scotland,............the illegal immigrant employer who is such a puppet of Gordon Brown............that we think she will actually in the best interest and impartiality of the law of the land permit this..........NO NOT ME!

Their case rests on section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act, which allows the High Court to order a new inquest, or to resume a previous inquest, in "special cases", including cases where "it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice".

Unusually, no coroner's inquest was ever held into Dr Kelly's death. Instead, the official verdict of suicide was provided by the Hutton Inquiry, commissioned by Tony Blair, the then-Prime Minister.

Nicholas Gardiner, the Oxfordshire coroner, initially opened the inquest but it was Lord Falconer, then the Lord Chancellor, who ruled that Lord Hutton's inquiry would fulfil "the function of an inquest". It concluded that Dr Kelly died from a loss of blood after cutting his wrist with a blunt gardening knife, having earlier taken a cocktail of painkillers.

Dr Kelly had been one of the few to examine, prior to its publication, the Government dossier that declared that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which could strike Britain in 45 minutes. The claim was used by Mr Blair in 2002 as a central justification for a war against Iraq.

The Government was incensed when Dr Kelly emerged as the source for the BBC's story. He was forced to appear before television cameras giving evidence to a House of Commons committee. Later he was taken away to be interviewed by the British intelligence services in a safe-house. In a telephone call shortly before his death, Dr Kelly said he would not be surprised "if my body was found in the woods".

The doctors say the Hutton inquiry was "totally inadequate" as a means of identifying the cause of Dr Kelly's death and they are seeking to obtain Dr Kelly's autopsy report.

Their main argument is that the bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery in his left wrist is "highly unlikely" to have caused his death. They say a number of studies have shown that it is unusual for a patient to die from a single deep cut to the wrist.

They say the Hutton Inquiry lacked the powers of a full inquest because it did not hear evidence taken under oath, it did not have the power to subpoena witnesses and it did not have the power to summon a jury.

They also say that the proviso which enabled the Hutton Inquiry to replace an inquest has only previously been used for mass deaths, such as the Ladbroke Grove rail crash or the inquiry in the deaths of patients the hands of Dr Harold Shipman.

Many Government critics, including Norman Baker, the campaigning Liberal Democrat MP, have claimed that Dr Kelly was murdered. A film, Anthrax War, alleged that Dr Kelly, who was the head of biological defence at Porton Down, the Government's secret military research establishment in Wiltshire, "knew too much". The film claims he may have been murdered because of his links to the West's secret germ warfare programme.

Dr Stephen Frost, one of the six doctors, who has spend six years studying the case, said: "We are determined to get to the bottom of this death. We will pursue it to the very end."

Dr Michael Powers QC, a medical lawyer and another of the six experts to put their names to the 13-page dossier, has said that the evidence for Dr Kelly's suicide is "very thin". The other four signatories include consultants and experts united by a sense of concern over the lack of a full inquest: Martin Birnstingl, Dr Christopher Burns-Cox, David Halpin, and Dr Andrew Rouse.

At the time Dr Kelly's body was found on July 17 2003, an unopened letter marked "personal" lay on the desk of his study. It threatened him with the sack if he ever repeated his indiscretion and spoke publicly – or briefed journalists – about his work.

Government sources dismiss suggestions that Dr Kelly was murdered and they are convinced the Hutton Inquiry's verdict remains safe.

Source

Andrew MacKinlay.......further info.

I received an anon comment on Saturday afternoon as a result of my Andrew McKinlay post.

You know the getting to stressed MP who is quitting.
Nothing to do with the Dr David Kelly issue and being the MP who along with Tony Blair assisted in destroying the man.

But thats been posted already.

The quality of the info given to me deserves being aired to all. H/T to Anon

I talked in my post about MacKinlays expenses briefly and how it appears on the outside all in order (when compared to others that is)

It appreas my anon friend did better at snooping than me.
I quote below

Thurrock Labour Party rent a property for their HQ for £3,900 from Thurrock Council.

They then charge Andrew Mackinlay £5,500 to use the building.

Andrew Mackinlay claims the £5,500 on expenses.


http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/foi/content.php?page=foi&ID=421

Freedom of Information Act Request asking for details of 10 Commonwealth House, Tilbury. Property rented by Thurrock Council to Trustees of Thurrock Constituency Labour Party.

http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances%2Dby%2Dmp/andrew%2Dmackinlay/

Page 24 and page 32 of Incidental Expenses Provision/Staff Allowance 2007/08.

Invoice for £5,500 to Andrew Mackinlay MP.


So it appears that Mr MacKinlay and Thurrock labour Party are both complicit in a fraud.........perhaps....maybe.

So it only costs 3.9K for the building so why the 5.5K charge to Mr MacKinlay. What is the additional 1600 quid for then??????? What additinal service is there for that charge??? Not a cash generation scheme for the Labour Party in Thurrock is it......nah dont be daft, no one is that thick!

Smells of Willie Rennie and his Lib Dem rented office in Dunfermline.

So I apologise to all for saying MacKinlay was clear of dodgy expenses. I was wrong.

Dr David Kelly

In 2003 Dr David Kelly was found dead in the woods.

The Hutton Inquiry concluded that Dr Kelly took his own life. But did he?

This death is returning to haunt Labour as a group of doctors announced that they are mounting a legal challenge to overturn the finding of suicide.

Dr Kelly's body was found six years ago this week in woods close to his Oxfordshire home, shortly after he was exposed as the source of a BBC news report questioning the grounds for war in Iraq.
Unusually, no coroner's inquest was held into his death.

The only official verdict has come from the Hutton Inquiry, commissioned by Tony Blair, which concluded that Dr Kelly, 59, died from loss of blood after cutting his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

Critics regarded the report as a 'whitewash', and Mr Blair remains acutely sensitive to the accusation that he has 'blood on his hands' over the scientist's death.
But now a team of 13 specialist doctors has compiled a detailed medical dossier that rejects the Hutton conclusion on the grounds that a cut to the ulnar artery, which is small and difficult to access, could not have caused death. A 12-page opinion concludes: "The bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery is highly unlikely to have been so voluminous and rapid that it was the cause of death. We advise the instructing solicitors to obtain the autopsy reports so that the concerns of a group of properly interested medical specialists can be answered."


In The Strange Death of David Kelly, Liberal-Democratic MP Norman Baker builds a strong case that the scientist was murdered. Despite Lord Hutton's dubious findings that Kelly killed himself, several troubling facts intruded to upend the British government's apple cart.

To summarise:

The lack of fingerprints found on the knife allegedly used by the scientist to slit his wrists; the lack of blood found at the scene, despite a verdict that he had sliced open an artery; unexplained contusions on Kelly's scalp; the position of the body discovered by searchers differed markedly from that alleged by detectives; bottled water, knife and wristwatch said to be found by detectives were not observed by the searchers who actually discovered the body; eight computers removed from Kelly's home and office by MI6 agents; missing dental records; the level of painkillers found in Kelly's stomach was "less than a third" of what is considered a fatal overdose by medical experts. On and on it goes...

One source told Baker that Dr. Kelly's death was "a wet operation, a wet disposal," a term used in intelligence circles to denote an assassination.

One motive which may have led to Kelly's murder was that the scientist was writing a book "exposing highly damaging government secrets before his mysterious death.

According to published reports, Kelly intended to reveal that he had warned Prime Minister Tony Blair "there were no weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq weeks before the British and American invasion." Despite warnings that the book would breach Britain's draconian Officials Secrets Act, Kelly sought advice on how he might bring his findings into a publishable form.

These reports also suggest that Kelly threatened to "lift the lid" on a larger scandal, "his own secret dealings in germ warfare with the apartheid regime in South Africa."

Investigative journalists Bob Coen and Eric Nadler in their book Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail and a companion 90-minute documentary, Anthrax War, provide startling evidence that Kelly's death is linked to a secret world of germ warfare research.

Indeed, according to Coen and Nadler, David Kelly's secret dealings included a connection with Dr. Wouter Basson, the cardiologist who was the former head of the South African apartheid regime's clandestine biological and chemical warfare program, Project Coast.

During Basson's 1999 trial and subsequent acquittal, evidence presented by some 150 witnesses, including operatives linked to South African snatch-and-kill squads, tied Basson to chemical and biological research used in extrajudicial executions by the apartheid regime. It was further alleged that Project Coast had conducted active research into the fabrication of "ethnic weapons" that would specifically target South Africa's black population.

In Anthrax War, Basson states that his findings were shared with foreign scientists, including those affiliated with weapons research in Britain and the United States.

Coen and Nadler uncovered evidence that Kelly had discovered a "Porton Down-South Africa connection" linked to a global bioweapons black market. "We have proved there is a black ­market in anthrax. David Kelly was of particular interest to us because he was a world expert on anthrax and he was involved in some degree with assisting the secret germ warfare programme in apartheid South Africa," they are reported to have said.

Andrew Mackinlay, an MP blamed for humiliating Kelly "to the point of suicide" started "asking questions in the House of Lords" after the scientist's death "about Kelly's relationship with these South Africans, even making inquiries about South African links to Pasechnik's Regma firm."

Founded in 2000 by the deceased scientist, Regma Bio Technologies was headquartered on the Porton Down campus and had signed a contract with the U.S. Navy for anti-anthrax research.

What Mackinlay discovered about the entire operation was highly disturbing to say the least. His inquiry sparked "the convening of an extraordinary 'handling strategy meeting' involving thirteen officials from different government agencies. But any and all information about UK-South African germ work was withheld from the MP."

Mackinlay told Coen and Nadler, "This is one of the most closely guarded secrets of the British government."

The question is, did David Kelly threaten to reveal these "closely guarded secrets" in the book he was preparing, and was this a motive for certain "dark actors" to eliminate a person now considered "an enemy of the state"?

These programs are not Cold War relics. Biological weapons research continues today and remains one of the worlds most deadly secrets.
The evidence suggests that Dr. David Kelly, as Norman Baker alludes too "may have signed his own death warrant" by threatening to reveal this secret underworld menacing all humanity with unimaginable horrors.

More on Dr Kelly here