Who Killed David Kelly? - Request to Guardian for disclosure of submission to the Hutton Inquiry

The bulk of this post consists of an email sent earlier today to Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, asking for disclosure of the content of the Guardian's submission to the Hutton Inquiry.

The title of the email was:

Secret Guardian Submission to the Hutton Inquiry

The text of the email was:

Mr Rusbridger,

I am in the early stages of writing a book provisionally entitled "Who Killed David Kelly?".

I note that the Guardian provided a submission to the Hutton Inquiry whose content was at the time hidden and continues to remain secret.

I suggest it is inappropriate that the Guardian's submission remain secret.

I therefore write to ask for a copy of the Guardian's submission to the Hutton Inquiry.

For ease of reference, the existence of the document is referenced on the Hutton Inquiry website here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence.htm

The document is labelled as follows: "Guardian: not for release - personal witness statement". Its content is hidden.

An early reply would be very helpful.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Who Killed David Kelly? - The Two Competing Hypotheses

This post consists largely of a very early draft of what may, in the end, form a brief "chapter" early in the book or may be subsumed into a longer Preface/Foreword.

Despite the preliminary nature of the draft, comments are welcome.

The Two Competing Hypotheses


Anyone wanting fully to understand what happened to David Kelly needs seriously to consider whether the totality of the evidence supports one or other of two mutually inconsistent possibilities:


1. That Dr. David Kelly killed himself
2. That David Kelly was murdered by one or more people who faked a seeming suicide

The evidence supporting or refuting those two basic questions is the principal focus of this book.

If you read this book carefully you should be in a good position to make up your own mind as to whether David Kelly committed suicide or was murdered.

The Official Story – that David Kelly committed suicide

The official story is that David Kelly killed himself at Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire in July 2003.

Lord Hutton tells us that no “third party” was involved.

David Kelly supposedly used a knife to cut his left wrist.

As a result of cutting his own wrist he bled to death. Or at least bleeding (haemorrhage) was the primary cause of death.

And he supposedly swallowed up to 29 co-proxamol tablets.

The Death Certificate, issued in questionable legal circumstances, indicates that “haemorrhage” was the primary cause of death. Secondary causes were co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery disease.

If the Hutton Inquiry was an honest and diligent inquiry then an intelligent citizen, so we are asked to believe, should the situation as being “case closed”. After all, a senior judge, a “Law Lord” no less, applied his considerable investigatory skills to answer the question definitively.

However, all is not as it seems, I suggest.

A variety of concerns has led members of the public, including several individuals who are medically qualified, to have serious doubts about the official story.

The alternative hypothesis – that David Kelly was murdered

The alternative hypothesis suggests that it wasn’t David Kelly who killed himself, Rather it was some other party.

If this second hypothesis is true then it follows that person or persons unknown killed David Kelly, either at Harrowdown Hill or elsewhere, and later arranged the scene at Harrowdown Hill to conceal a murder by creating a false impression of suicide.

Further, it is suggested (although it is not essential for the murder hypothesis) that a concerted cover-up has taken place involving Thames Valley Police, forensic scientists, forensic pathologists and the Attorney General’s Office.

The concept of a “network of corrupt officials” was, perhaps, once unthinkable. In a context where Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers of the Metropolitan Police can use that term in her evidence to the Leveson Inquiry (see, for example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17173438 ) why should anyone discount the possibility of there being another “network of corrupt officials” operating in the context of the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly?

Who Killed David Kelly? - Is it possible for a sucide scene to be manufactured?

The bulk of this post consists of an early draft of a chapter likely to be entitled, "Is it possible for a sucide scene to be manufactured?".

I emphasise that the following is an early draft. Everything in it is subject to revision.

It would be helpful to receive feedback, either via email or the Comment facility on this blog.

Don't spend time thinking about editing minutiae. Look at the big picture.

For example, does the tone work? Or is it too dry? Too forensic?

Are there things that you don't believe are possible?

Do you think the suggested scenario is inconsistent with some aspect of the publicly available evidence?

Or is there some other issue that concerns you about the draft?

Remember this is an early draft. I'm posting it to gauge reaction to the approach I'm proposing to take.

Is it possible for a suicide scene to be manufactured?

It is said that the KGB had a saying, “Anyone can commit a murder. It takes an artist to commit a suicide.”.

The existence of such a quote indicates a belief that it is possible, in principle, to fake a suicide.

If one accepts that, in principle, it is possible to fake a suicide one must ask if it’s possible to fake a suicide in the circumstances which we are asked to believe had applied at Harrowdown Hill?

At the time of writing this book there are still gaps in the evidence in the public domain. So the following account must of necessity be subject to revision. It serves, at this stage in the disclosure of the totality of the evidence, to indicate possible approaches to manufacturing a suicide scene at Harrowdown Hill.

We know that in February 2003 David Kelly told David Broucher that he might be found dead in the woods. Mr. Broucher confirmed the meeting in correspondence with Norman Baker MP and personally with me.

Assuming that Dr. Kelly felt his life was in danger in February 2003 then 5 months is more than enough time carefully to plan a simulated suicide.

What props would be needed?

Essentially, it would be necessary to obtain only two items which weren’t generally available – a knife which belonged to Dr. Kelly (or conld not be distinguished from a knife that did belong to him) and some pills similar to those used by Dr. Kelly’s wife Janice.

To a professional, obtaining those items would not be difficult. Dr. Kelly’s home was empty from the evening of 10th July 2003 until the evening of 16th July 2003. A break-in could have taken place without leaving any significant trace.

If Thames Valley Police were directly involved in the “scene setting” a further opportunity obtain the two required props would have presented itself during the early morning search of the Kelly home on 18th July 2003, when Mrs. Kelly testified that she was made to wait in the garden.

How could Dr. Kelly have been overpowered?

There are a significant number of possibilities.

When last seen on the afternoon of 18th July 2003 by Ruth Absalom, David Kelly was heading east towards Kingston Bagpuize. On that road or on the Draycote Moor Road which headed south from it, he could have been kidnapped.

But we are told by Dr. Nicholas Hunt, forensic pathologist, that there were no signs of a struggle. How could Dr. Kelly have been induced to get into a car?

One possibility is that he was told that he was under arrest.

That trick was said to have been used in the kidnapping in Glasgow of the accountant Andrew Ramsay in 2006. See, for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4743620.stm

Given the background to Dr. Kelly’s appearances before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, someone identifying himself as being from, say, the Ministry of Defence Police or Special Branch and claiming that David Kelly was suspected of offences contrary to the Official Secrets Act would have little difficulty, I suspect, in persuading Dr. Kelly to get into his vehicle.

Another possibility is that some incapacitating substance was injected into Dr. Kelly or applied to his skin.

Yet another possibility, given the finding of semen stains on Dr. Kelly’s underwear, is that he had met someone (presumably a woman) for the purposes of having sex. If that did indeed take place then there must be few times when a man is more vulnerable to attack than just after orgasm.

Could the components of co-proxamol have entered Dr. Kelly’s body other than by him ingesting the tablets in order to kill himself?

I believe there are three other possibilities.

First Dr. Kelly might have been induced to take the tablets in order to protect his family, knowing already that he had no chance of survival.

Second, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated, crushed co-proxamol tablets could have been introduced via a nasogastic tube (a tube passed into the stomach).

Third, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated, the two components of co-proxamol (paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene) could be injected at the left wrist. Given the incisions to be made there subsequently the assailant could be almost 100% sure that an injection site at that location would not be detected.

Could the “arterial rain” have been faked?

The forensic scientist Mr. Roy Green interpreted the “arterial rain” found on nettles at Harrowdown Hill as proving that Dr. Kelly died at the scene.

That is not necessarily true.

It is possible to simulate “arterial rain”. In fact I understand it’s often simulated during the teaching of some forensic science techniques.

The blood appeared to be Dr. Kelly’s. It could readily have been obtained if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated (yet alive) at any time prior to his death. If an anticoagulant were added when the blood was taken it could have been kept fluid and arterial rain could have been faked at Harrowdown Hill.

Did the foregoing happen? We don’t know.

But, given the potential for 5 months preparation time there is ample scope for Dr. Kelly to have been murdered in such a way as to create an appearance of suicide.

Of course, faking a suicide becomes very much easier if the Police and forensic staff are part of conspiracy to rubber stamp the “suicide” story.

Of course, that requires a “network of corrupt officials”.

But if the term “network of corrupt officials” is not the correct one what is one to make of the following?

An Assistant Chief Constable and a Law Lord who agree not to mention evidence or Dr. Kelly’s right elbow fracture and consequent weakness and/or pain. Didn’t they realise the relevance of such information?

A general practitioner who gives evidence to the Hutton Inquiry but omits to mention Dr. Kelly’s right arm injury.

A forensic pathologist who observes the operative scar on Dr. Kelly’s right elbow but then totally ignores its implications.

If there is not a “network of corrupt officials” then the coincidences that pile up are indeed astonishing.

As I indicate in the J’Accuse chapter I believe that the most credible interpretation is that a “network of corrupt officials” greatly aided the concealment of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

Who Killed David Kelly? - April 2012 Open Forum

Each month during the writing of the book I intend to make a post specifically to encourage readers of the blog to comment on questions they would like to see addressed in a book about the death of Dr. Kelly or to draw attention to issues relating to the death of Dr. Kelly which they find particularly confusing.

As time allows, I hope to address such issues on this blog and/or add appropriate content to the developing manuscript of "Who Killed David Kelly?".

This post, which may not attract many comments given how recently the blog was launched, is intended for such general comments and questions in April 2012.

Who Killed David Kelly? - Open letter to Professor Robert Flanagan

The bulk of this post consists of the text of an email sent today to Professor Robert Flanagan who advised the Attorney General regarding toxicology matters prior to the Attorney General's statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

The point which I asked Professor Flanagan to consider was whether Dr. Alexander Allan had given untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry when he asserted that the only way that the components of co-proxamol could have entered David Kelly's body was by him ingesting (swallowing) co-proxamol tablets.

The title of the email to Professor Flanagan was:

Untrue evidence by Dr. Alexander Allan at the Hutton Inquiry

Here is the text of the email:

Professor Flanagan,

I write further to our previous correspondence.

I am in the early stages of writing a book provisionally entitled "Who killed David Kelly?". The book will explore two competing hypotheses - (1) that David Kelly killed himself and (2) that another person (or persons) murdered David Kelly and that there has been a concerted criminal conspiracy to conceal that murder.

For the avoidance of doubt, Professor Flanagan, my working hypothesis at present is that you are part of that criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

At a later time I anticipate writing to you again giving you opportunity to review for any factual inaccuracies the evidence that leads me to that conclusion which I presently intend to include in the book "Who Killed David Kelly?".

However, I now write to you to draw to your attention that, in my view, Dr. Allan lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to a material point.

So far as I can ascertain from your witness statement ( http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Witness%20statement%20by%20Professor%20Flanagan%2012%20March%202011.pdf ), the Attorney General's Office did not provide you with a copy of the transcript of Dr. Allan's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

It seems to me that Dr. Allan lied in giving an untrue answer to a material question from Lord Hutton.

I quote the relevant question from Lord Hutton and Dr. Allan's answer here:

24 LORD HUTTON: That is the only way that those substances
25 could be found in the blood, by taking tablets

17
1 containing them?
2 A. Yes, he has to ingest those tablets.

The full transcript of the oral evidence of Dr. Allan is here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans28.htm.

I think we both know that Dr. Allan's assertion that "he has to ingest those tablets" is false.

Two other options exist.

1. Co-proxamol tablets could have been introduced by nasogastric tube, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated.

2. The components of co-proxamol could have been injected and the injection site concealed by the wounds at the left wrist. Again this assumes that Dr. Kelly was likely incapacitated.

Dr. Allan's absolute statement creates a false impression of certainty with regard to how the components of co-proxamol may have entered Dr. Kelly's body.

If one, for the sake of simplicity, assumes that Lord Hutton was acting honestly then, I suggest, Dr. Allan's absolute statement would create a false certainty in Lord Hutton's mind that Dr. Kelly swallowed the co-proxamol tablets.

Indeed it is clear in paragraph 144 of Lord Hutton's report that he relied in his Report on Dr. Allan's false statement:

144. Dr Allan also said in his evidence that 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.

The quoted paragraph of the Hutton Report may be accessed here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter05.htm#a29.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing that excludes the possibility of the components of co-proxamol being introduced into Dr. Kelly's body either by nasogastric tube or by injection.

I ask you in your role as expert witness to review the veracity of Dr. Allan's statement.

If you consider that there is evidence to allow the use of injection or a nasogastric tube to be excluded I would be fascinated to know what that evidence might be.

Alternatively, if you agree that those other options exist I consider you have a duty to make that known to the relevant authorities.

My understanding is that, as an expert witness, you have an ongoing duty to draw material changes in your opinion to the attention of the relevant authorities, in this case I would suggest those to be Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police. A propos the latter the relevant reference is URN514 of 28/10/10 in which I reported to Thames Valley Police my belief that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered.

Should you write to the relevant authorities I would appreciate receiving a copy of any such correspondence.

This letter is an open letter and I am placing a copy of it on the "Who Killed David Kelly?" blog here:
http://whokilleddavidkelly.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/who-killed-david-kelly-open-letter-to.html

Further, this letter, previous correspondence between us and any future replies from you may be used in the proposed book "Who Killed David Kelly?".

I look forward to learning how you plan to proceed in this important matter.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Visible copies of the email were sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty at the Attorney General's Office and to Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.

Who Killed David Kelly? - The silence about Dr. Kelly’s arm injury : Collective amnesia? Collective stupidity? Or Conspiracy of Silence?

I intend to construct many of the chapters of "Who Killed David Kelly?" as questions.

Hopefully many of these question-posing chapters will be fairly self-contained.

One likely chapter will be entitled something like, "The silence about Dr. Kelly’s arm injury : Collective amnesia? Collective stupidity? Or Conspiracy of Silence?".

The official story is that David Kelly supposedly killed himself by incising his left wrist with a knife.

David Kelly, like most human beings, had two arms.

To incise his left wrist (if, indeed, he did) Dr. Kelly would have to hold the knife in his right hand.

Dr. Kelly, inconveniently for the official story, had fractured his right elbow in a fall from a horse and according to the only witness publicly to comment on the issue couldn't cut a steak with a knife.

Was Dr. Kelly, then, capable of holding a pruning knife in his right hand so as to cut his left wrist?

That seems a crucial question that any competent and honest inquiry would address.

Yet the Hutton Inquiry is totally silent on the existence of the injury or its possible implications for the official "suicide" story.

Lord Hutton doesn't ask about it. Nor do the senior or junior counsel to the Hutton Inquiry.

Why not?

But it is not only the Hutton Inquiry team who are silent on the issue.

Take the witnesses one by one.

Dr. Nicholas Hunt, forensic pathologist, observed an operative scar on the right elbow but fails to consider its significance. Nor does he pause to ask if Dr. Kelly had any functional limitation to the power in his right arm. Very surprising indeed if Dr. Hunt was a forensic pathologist who was supposedly competent and honest.

Janice Kelly, Dr. Kelly's widow, omits mention of the right arm injury at the Hutton Inquiry.

Rachel Kelly, the only one of Dr. Kelly's daughters to give oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry, omits mention of the right arm injury in her evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Dr. Malcolm Warner, Dr. Kelly's General Practitioner, also omits mention of the right elbow injury in his evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

If this is collective amnesia, I find it startling that both relatives of Dr. Kelly and medical professionals are identically afflicted with amnesia.

Neither Janice or Rachel Kelly, nor Sian Kelly nor Ellen Wilson (Dr. Kelly's other two daughters) have ever publicly raised the issue of the injury to Dr. Kelly's right arm.

If you knew that your husband or father had supposedly used an injured arm to kill himself wouldn't you ask public questions? And ask them loudly?

So why didn't the Kelly family tell the Hutton Inquiry about the injury?

And why do they remain publicly silent to this day?

If there isn't collective amnesia, is it fair to label this continuing silence about the right arm injury a "conspiracy of silence"?

If it's a conspiracy what do the putative conspirators have to gain by their initial and continuing silence?

Who killed David Kelly? - March 2012 Open Forum

Each month during the writing of the book I intend to make a post specifically to encourage readers of the blog to comment on questions they would like to see addressed in a book about the death of Dr. Kelly or to draw attention to issues relating to the death of Dr. Kelly which they find particularly confusing.

As time allows, I hope to address such issues on the blog and/or add appropriate content to the developing manuscript of "Who Killed David Kelly?".

This post, which likely won't attract many comments given how recently the blog was launched, is intended for such general comments and questions in March 2012.