Im sure all of the british members are aware of the case of Dr.David Kelly who was the source of a BBC story which shows that documents with relation to Iraqs WMD were 'sexed up'. There was a lot of controversy surrounding his death which culminated in the Hutton inquiry to see if there was any govt. involvement in his death.

The ambulance driver and paramedics who arrived at the scene of Dr.Kellys death stated that there was not enough blood present for him to have died by slashing his wrists.

Any other evidence or speculation on this topic. Our American and European friends , well everybody indeed should google this topic as it this report was the reason Britain went into Iraq.

John
One of the State Department intelligence estimates officials who was on the wrong side of the analysis on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction conclusions (he could find none) died mysteriously.

I don't have his name but he perished by hurtling down the side of the State Department building, or Foggy Bottom. Suicide of course. Would have been a bit awkward to say "we pitched him out on his head" ....

Landed in a basement window well.

High Fall.

Of course his little analysis group was the only one vindicated when the WMD hunt came up empty.

It is true that Kelly died in suspicious circumstances. This is partly due to the examination of the body. The motivation for the suicide is also unclear. Kelly was a devoted husband and father. Close friends claim that he would never have committed suicide because it would have caused so much distress to the ones he loved.

However, it is difficult to work out who had the motivation to kill Kelly. His death only drew attention to his role in the UK decision to join Bush in the illegal invasion of Iraq. Blair had no option to set up a public inquiry. Although this had no more validity than the Warren Commission it did reveal a great deal of underhand behaviour by the government.

I suspect if Kelly was murdered the people who were responsible were those who wanted to expose Blair’s deception. Like with the JFK assassination, this could have involved rogue members of the intelligence services. However, this was not done to keep him quiet. It was done so his story could be told.

Is this the handgun in the park case? I saw similarities in the Modus Operandi to Vince Foster's "suicide" in Washington...

You can find a series of articles on this case at:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?id=40

Not just Kelly, there are MANY mysterious deaths of scientists. Just google "dead scientists" and read, you will be mindblown.

WHAT is going on??? Last time I checked it was up to 64!!

Dawn

This story appears to be hotting up...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...amp;in_a_source

I believe both Hutton and Blair should be in court over the Kelly case for perverting the course of justice.

Of course, Hutton and Blair are not the only ones - but Hutton's inquiry was an obvious whitewash that blatantly and willfully overlooked evidence that the death was not suicide. Someone must have given the nod to this - and repsonsibility presumably goes to the top.

I posted a comment along these lines to the Daly Mail article yesterday, but the Mail was apparently not game to publish it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be churlish. Rather like Dr Johnson's dogs walking on hind legs, the surprising thing is that the Mail covers this explosive story at all.

I feel more more angry abou the role of 'public' broadcasters such as the BBC and in Australia, the ABC.

I was in Britain during part of the Hutton Inquiry in 2003. I listened to various BBC radio channels over several weeks. Not once did I hear questions raised on air about the underlying premise of suicide. I mentioned this to an old friend. He told me that he had a job finding anyone who believed the official story.

When our public broadcasters prove to be little more than another arm of the cryptocracy, we should question whether there are worth having any more. They give the impression of 'balance', but it's no more than that on hot issues such as this. They consequently help legitimize the mass media in the eyes of left wingers who are apt to distrust the coverage of privately-owned media. We might be better off if they were abolished - leaving people with no illusions about what interests control the news flow.

A question for British participants. Was any protest allowed in BBC coverage when Blair refused to even hold a public inquiry over the 7/7 bombings in London? Or has this once-proud broadcasting institution become a total waste of space, or worse?

Sid,

IMHO the BBC is now a total waste of time. Even the BEEB's hard-hitting documentary series 'Panorama' is bland and limits itself quite substantially in it's choice of subject. Occasionally, BBC2's Newsnight will kick in with something of note, but I have been particularly distrurbed recently by their reliance on a questionable pundit rolled out under different job titles for different purposes to prop up the government line. At best it's lazy, at worst it's implies a lack of impartiality which casts doubt on their effectiveness.

The only place in the UK where you will find controversial news and opinion is Channel 4.

That's interesting Steve.

Channel 4 relies on advertising, as I recall. This gives the lie to the claim that media is primarily influenced by commerical interests.

Not, as I trust you understand, that I'm opposed in principle to public broadcasting. I love the idea of genuine public domain media. But when it's a fake, it's particularly dangerous.

That's my beef with the current Beeb and the ABC in Oz.

In my book, fake 'balance' that has broad credibility = very big problem.

Thanks for the informative and compelling post!

Oh yes the famous mysterious deaths of scientists’ nonsense. Some lists list “scientists” who were killed in Iraq or were in there 70’s or 80’s with lung or heart problems others died in passenger jet crashes. Although some died due to murder or suicide many died in what presumably were accidents or of natural causes. The lists normally don’t provide links so that the information can be easily checked. Some weren’t scientists but people who worked for science and technology companies, others had science or engineering degrees but worked in other fields, some were doctors or veterinarians, some were lab techs others computer programmers other were retired.

http://www.stevequayle.com/dead_scientists...Scientists.html

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/microb...master_list.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/microbiologists.htm



I wrote the following (with some minor changes) for another forum:







¨64 mysterious deaths? Yawn!



Len

As far as I am aware the BBC has not provided information on Norman Baker's investigation. Baker is a well-respected local MP and is the ideal person to present this information (as the article points out, he has exposed other scandals).






The way the system has been established, the advertisers with C4 cannot influence the content. That is why they are more likely to show anti-establishment material.

Since the David Kelly affair the BBC has been very keen not to upset the Blair government. This is because of threats made to it by the government. The problem for the BBC is that the Tories are likely to be even worse (they are threatening to privatize it).

A search of Google news shows that not one newspaper in the UK has picked up this story. That is amazing.

It has just been announced that Norman Baker is to talk about his investigation on the BBC's Jeremy Vine show this afternoon. If that is the case, it might be picked up by BBC news later today.

It's true, as John pointed out, that motive for the Kelly murder is not clear; likewise the identity of his murderers.

What CAN be shown, however, is that the Hutton Inquiry iniquitously failed to consider alternatives to suicide. The mass media went along with this charade. The Blair Government failed to step in and ensure that an honest and thorough inquiry was conducted.

In each of these three cases I don't believe "incompetence theory" is plausible. Those at the top must have decided to confine the investigation to its narrow, largely pre-determined track - just like the Warren Commission was set up assuming what happened (a lone nut assassin dunnit) and left only with the task of explaining how it happened.

Anyone followng the case closely in 2003, with access to the internet, could see huge problems with the official story. The improbability of suicide was widely knwn at that time. Yet it was deliberately overlooked by the British establishment.

As the Hutton Inquiry rolled on, aided and abetted by the media, it focused more and more on the role of the BBC in creating conditions conducive to Kelly's "suicide". The public take home message was something like this: "we need a free mass media - and clearly have a free media in Britain - but sometimes it can go to far and cause terrible personal tragedies in its fearless pursuit of the truth".

Not a bad outcome for the cryptocracy with its stranglehold over western mass media.

Anyhow, as I said before I do think what we know already about this sordid case should be sufficient basis for charges to be brought against Hutton and Blair for perverting the course of justice.

The other case that needs cracking is the 7/7 bombings. I am appalled that the British public meekly accepted Blair's refusal to hold an Inquiry of any sort into this atrocity. There must now be a growing chorus of demands for a full, fair and open inquiry. Of course, we shaln't get that with the criminals currently in power. Nevertheless, it provides more documentation about the official lies and further opportunities for exposure.

Imagine if, after the slaying of JFK, there had been no public inquiry of any kind. The task of independent researchers would now be so much more difficult.

I think 40 years ago standards in western democracies were rather higher. At that time, an attempt to hold no inquiry would have been viewed as outrageous. Two decades before that, Roosevelt had held an inquiry into the circumstances of Pearl Harbor, even during wartime. It was fraudulent, but at least it took place.

As far as I can tell, the trend towards not holding inquiries at all really got underway in the 1990s. In Australia, we had an unprecedented slaying of civilians at Port Arthur, Tasmania in the first year of the Howard Government. There was no Inquest or Inquiry. Howard personally intervened to argue the no Inquest case (to spare the grieving relatives unnecessary pain). The 'lone nut' (alleged) assassin, kept away from his mother and any other honest third party for months, finally changed his plea to guilty, so the veracity of the official story was never tested in court.

At the time, I was busy with other matters and paid little attention to events that were portrayed as humane decent and reasonable by the Aussie mass media. I assumed the alleged lone nut assassin was guilty. As in the Kelly case in Britain, any suggestion to the contrary was rare (an immediately dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory' in mainstream discourse).

I disliked Howard and his politics, but remember gaining respect for his determination, after Port Arthur, to secure more stringent gun control . Australia’s gun lobby was furious. I had no time for them at all. I've always disliked guns and weapons of all kind. Some members of the gun lobby doubted the official version of events and cried foul. I considered them right-wing whackoes, with few redeeming features, overly prone to 'conspiracy theories'.

Now I can see how Australian public opinion was grossly manipulated over Port Arthur - and how investigative and judicial due process simply went out the window.

I'm also aware that I was unable, in the 1990s, to pay attention to people who were speaking truth about the mass murder at Port Arthur, the subsequent cover-up and miscarriage of justice, because I was blinded by prejudice against them.

Had even a few “opinion leaders” in Australian society outside the sector branded as “ultra rightist” blown the whistle, my opinion at the time might have been very different. But, as I recall, no-one did. Whoever slayed the hapless victims at Port Arthur got away, literally, with murder. Mainstream Australian society was complicit in that it allowed this to happen by being fooled into abandoning long-established good practice. Howard and Groom in Australia, whatever they knew or didn’t know about the actual killings, were very active in securing the cover-up. Last but not least, an innocent man rots in jail without prospect of release, Australia’s Sirhan Sirhan.

Britain needs a broad coalition of the fair-minded, to demand justice over the Kelly death and the 7/7 bombings. Calling for completed inquests would be a good start.

I have just heard the Jeremy Vine interview with Norman Baker. The evidence he presented made it clear that David Kelly had not committed suicide. Vine asked him who had a motive to kill Kelly. Baker replied that he suspected that Kelly was murdered because he had more information to reveal concerning the cover-up. The three possible organizations behind the murder were listed in the following order:

1. US intelligence agencies.

2. The UK government.

3. The UK intelligence agencies.

Will we ever be told the truth about the death of Dr David Kelly?
by MELANIE PHILLIPS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...ticle_id=397340

24th July 2006


Everyone knows, don't they, that most untoward events generally have banal explanations such as muddle, incompetence or sheer blind chance.

To believe otherwise is to run the risk of being branded a 'conspiracy theorist', a small step away from being lumped together with the kind of people who think that crop circles are designed by visitors from Mars or that Princess Diana was murdered by MI6.

The death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly in 2003 triggered a political firestorm of the highest order. His apparent suicide put the Government under enormous pressure following his unmasking as the source of the BBC's claim that the Government had 'sexed up' the case for war in Iraq.

All attention focused on the epic battle between Alastair Campbell and the BBC over this claim, and the treatment the Government meted out to Dr Kelly.

Even though the inquiry into the affair by Lord Hutton exonerated ministers and officials of virtually all charges, merely rebuking them for not having warned Dr Kelly that his name was about to be made public, the Government was still widely blamed for driving him to his death.

Right from the start, however, there were many who were not convinced Dr Kelly had taken his own life at all. Many aspects of the story just didn't seem to add up. First was the character of the man and his demeanour on the day he died.

Although he was under intense pressure, he was known to be a strong character and belonged to the Baha'i faith, which prohibits suicide.

Those closest to him (such as his sister), and even neighbours he met on his last walk, said that on the day he died he had shown no signs of depression.

The Hutton inquiry, and the experts it called, dismissed out of hand any idea that Dr Kelly had not killed himself. But the suspicions wouldn't go away, and developed a life of their own on the internet.

Claims were made that Dr Kelly's body had been moved from its original prone position on the ground, and propped up against a tree. Items said to have been found near his body had not been seen by the paramedics who first found him. And so on.

Such claims were given considerably more authority in 2004 when three medical specialists wrote in a letter to the Press that they did not believe the official finding that Dr Kelly died either from haemorrhaging from a severed ulnar artery in his wrist, or from an overdose of coproxamol tablets, or a combination of the two.

Such an artery, they said, was of matchstick thickness and severing it would not lead to the kind of blood loss that would kill someone. They also pointed out that, according to the ambulance team at the scene, the quantity of blood around the body was minimal — hardly what one would expect if someone has just haemorrhaged to death.

Even stranger, although Dr Kelly was said to have swallowed 29 coproxamol tablets, only one-fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach, and the level found in his blood was far less than a fatal dose.

Despite the expertise of these sceptics, their claims went largely unnoticed. The implications seemed too far-fetched to be taken seriously. After all, if Dr Kelly did not commit suicide, and clearly didn't just drop dead of natural causes, he must have been killed.

Who could have done such a deed? The Iraqi secret service? Our own? Shadowy terrorists lying in wait in the Oxfordshire woods armed with undetectable poisons and an array of evidence to lay a false trail and bamboozle everyone?

No, this kind of thinking properly belonged in the pages of John Le Carre's fiction.

But now, it has not only been taken up within Parliament, but the original charges of inconsistency have been embellished with much more evidence which can no longer be ignored.

The tenacious Lib Dem MP Norman Baker gave up his front-bench job to investigate these claims. What he has uncovered is remarkable and poses questions which demand to be answered.

Mr Baker has not only found experts who confirm the analysis of the three doctors about the discrepancies and scientific improbabilities in the official account.

He has also discovered that only one person in the UK was said to have killed himself by slitting his ulnar artery that year — and that was Dr Kelly.

This is hardly surprising since this is just about the most improbable way to commit suicide, made even more difficult by the inappropriate knife that Dr Kelly is said to have used.

More explosively still, however, are Mr Baker's discoveries (published in yesterday's Mail on Sunday) about the behaviour of the police and the coroner.

The normal practice in such circumstances would be for the coroner to issue a temporary death certificate pending the official inquiry into such a death.

But in this case, the coroner issued an unprecedented full death certificate, just one week after the inquiry started into the circumstances of Dr Kelly's demise — and after the coroner had held a meeting with Home Office officials.

What on earth could have been the point of such a meeting at such a sensitive time, except for the Government to direct the coroner in some unspecified and possibly improper way?

As for the police, their behaviour appears to have been even more bizarre.

According to Mr Baker, their operation to investigate Dr Kelly's death started around nine hours before the weapons expert was reported missing. What astounding prescience! With such psychic powers among the police, one wonders there is any crime at all.

Many of these curiosities surfaced in evidence to the Hutton inquiry, only to be batted away. Lord Hutton's brief was simply to inquire into 'the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly'. Clearly, he could have investigated the manner of his death, but he chose not to do so.

Instead, he took it as a given that Dr Kelly had taken his own life — and stated that he was satisfied by claims which we are now told were scientifically impossible, that Dr Kelly killed himself by slitting his left wrist and that his death was hastened by the number of coproxamol tablets he had taken.

Mr Baker claims that Lord Hutton was chosen at speed by a cabal around the Prime Minister because he was inexperienced and could be relied upon to toe the line.

When his report exonerated the Government, he was rounded upon as a patsy by those who were certain that it had Dr Kelly's blood on its hands. But maybe, just like Lord Hutton himself, such critics missed the fact that he had asked the wrong questions altogether.

Now, it has taken just one terrier-like MP to unearth all this information.

Why has no official body asked the same questions about all these obvious peculiarities? Why has no one given a straight answer to those who have raised them?

What is the point of going to the expense and public performance of a high-profile official inquiry, only to find that the most basic of questions about evidence that is either contradictory or doesn't stand up to scrutiny haven't even been asked?

In the light of all this, the coroner's decision not to resume the inquest into Dr Kelly's death because there were 'no exceptional circumstances' appears totally unsustainable. A full inquest is now imperative to get to the bottom of this disturbing mystery once and for all.

Rixon Stewart has argued that this article is an example of a "limited hangout". The term was first explained by CIA agent, Victor Marchetti in an article he wrote in 1978:

A few months ago, in March, there was a meeting at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., the plush home of America's super spooks overlooking the Potomac River. It was attended by several high-level clandestine officers and some former top officials of the agency.

The topic of discussion was: What to do about recent revelations associating President Kennedy's accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, with the spy game played between the U.S. and the USSR? (Spotlight, May 8, 1978.) A decision was made, and a course of action determined. They were calculated to both fascinate and confuse the public by staging a clever "limited hangout" when the House Special Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) holds its open hearings, beginning later this month.

A "limited hangout" is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.

Rixon Stewart argues that "Melanie Phillips quickly reveals herself to be the sort of journalist regularly used by Britain’s security establishment to do their dirty work." Stewart claims that the purpose of Phillips' article is to the “Iraqi secret service” for the murder. As everyone knows, in the past, Phillips has been a strong supporter of the crimes committed by the Israeli government.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4860

The Murder Of Dr. David Kelly
Medium Rare
By Jim Rarey
10-14-3

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 writer's 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.

http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm

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.

I would hope that this is hotting up a bit. I didn't see anything on the BBC website following the BBC program.

I think it was channel 4, who made a programme in which they reconstructed Kellys life from the scandals until his death. They took no real stance on whether he committed suicide or was murdered.

I think a lot of us thought that something was wrong when Kelly died.

I wonder what kind of support norman baker can drum up to re-open the investigation.
http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/ Mr.Bakers email address.
I will give the office an email to see what the next step is.
John

An email from someone who has taken an interest in this case:

A contact of mine, a former MI6 spook, was speaking about the circumstances of Kelly's death. He said he's been taught how to "make anything look like anything" and said that there must have been some kind of struggle at the scene of Kelly's death. He said it was sloppy work that Kelly's body was found with enough pills for an overdose but hadn't ingested them, he said that should have been removed from the scene under normal procedure. He added "You can slit someone's wrists and make it look like suicide easily but it's a lot harder to make someone swallow tablets." He also said the heart monitor pads found on Kelly's chest were "simply there to make sure he was dead." He also said those should have been removed and suspects the agents involved were disturbed by someone in the process of the killing.

You can see a video of Norman Baker discussing the death of Dr. David Kelly here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4780290451650428491

Also see Tom Mangold's interview afterwards.

Norman Baker's Mail on Sunday's article can be read here:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4852

Here are some passages from Norman Baker's article that I want to discuss:

(1) The weeks leading up to Dr Kelly's death in 2003 had been charged and eventful. In mid-March, British and American forces had invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein was deposed and on May 1, US President George Bush declared 'mission accomplished', a claim that rings rather hollow now. Then, on May29, came the allegations, broadcast by the BBC, that the intelligence information about Iraq, which in an unprecedented move the Government had decided to release, had been 'sexed up' to make the case for war stronger, particularly with the assertion that Saddam could have chemical or biological ready to fire within 45 minutes.

No 10's director of communications, Alastair Campbell, went ballistic and launched a blistering attack on the BBC, determined in particular to wreck the career of Today programme reporter Andrew Gilligan. David Kelly had provided Mr Gilligan and others in the BBC with much of the ammunition for the claim that the dossier released by the Government to justify war had been presented in a way that stretched the available intelligence to breaking point. He, along with others in the know, was deeply unhappy about the added spin.

In the end, to further the Government's vendetta with the BBC, the Ministry of Defence and No 10 acted to ensure Dr Kelly's name became public. He was thrust into the unwelcome glare of publicity and made to appear in a Soviet-style televised appearance before the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.

(2) The standard explanation then was that Dr Kelly, a very private man, felt humiliated by this process and let down by the MoD, and he recognised that his actions in speaking to journalists would bring his career to an effective end. They would certainly prevent him from returning to Iraq to do what he did best and enjoyed most uncovering hidden weapons and weapons programmes, so making the world a safer place. And so, according to this view, he left his cottage in Southmoor, walked into the woods and took his own life through a combination of wrist injuries and an overdose of the painkiller co-proxamol. A personal tragedy but nothing more. Case closed.

Except I never subscribed to this conclusion. There were too many unanswered questions, none of which was resolved by the Hutton Inquiry As time has gone by, those questions have gnawed away at me. And I am not alone. In January 2004, three doctors - David Halpin, a specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery, Stephen Frost, a specialist in diagnostic radiology, and Searle Sennett, a specialist in anaesthesiology - voiced their doubts about the suicide verdict in a letter to The Guardian. They said Dr Kelly could not have killed himself in the way described to the Hutton Inquiry. Now, having resigned my frontbench role for the Lib Dems earlier this year, I have found the time to conduct my own investigation.

The first problematic area concerns the severed artery in Dr Kelly's wrist. Those who are familiar with the human body will, if they choose to die this way, make an incision the length of the inside forearm because this leads to a very large loss of blood. Those unfamiliar with the body may cut across the wrist, thereby severing the radial artery. Instead, we are asked to believe that Dr Kelly managed to completely sever the ulnar artery, a minor artery of matchstick thickness to be found deep in the wrist on the little finger side of the hand, and protected by nerves and tendons.

It is difficult to believe Dr Kelly would have made this cut. It would have required unusual force to cut through the nerves and tendons, particularly with the gardening knife he had, and the process would have been painful. Even if he did somehow cut this artery himself; it is quite clear that this would not have killed him. I spoke to David Halpin, the former senior orthopaedic and trauma surgeon at Torbay Hospital and The Princess Elizabeth, Exeter. He told me that even the deepest cut here would not have caused death. He also told me that 'a completely transected [severed] artery retracts immediately I and thus stops bleeding, even at a relatively high blood pressure'.

Then there is the evidence of the ambulance team who attended the scene where Dr Kelly was found. They told the Hutton Inquiry that the amount of blood found at the site and on Dr Kelly's clothing was minimal and surprisingly small.

I contacted Dave Bartlett, the ambulance technician who, with paramedic Vanessa Hunt, formed the team that attended the scene. He told me last month that the two of them 'stand by what we have already said 100 per cent'. Vanessa Hunt has said that, in her view 'it is incredibly unlikely that he died from the wrist wound we saw'.

Could Dr Kelly nevertheless have died from the blood he lost? I tracked down Dr Sennett and his response was clear:

'For a man the size of Dr Keily to die from haemorrhage, he would have to lose at least three litres of blood. 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.'

(3) There is also the knife allegedly used for the purpose. This was a blunt gardening knife with a concave blade, a singularly inappropriate weapon to use. To cut through nerves and tendons with such a knife must have been difficult. Dr Kelly, with his scientific background and knowledge of the human body, could without doubt have found an easier way to commit suicide had he wished to do so.

It might be argued that this was a spontaneous suicide and that all he had with him was this particular knife, which he often carried. But that is contradicted by the presence of the coproxamol tablets, which, according to the official explanation, demonstrate premeditation. This circle simply cannot be squared.

Evidence presented at the Hutton Inquiry invites us to conclude that Dr Kelly removed three blister packs of these tablets, each containing ten tablets, from his house. The police say that they found 29 out of 30 tablets gone, implying therefore that Dr Kelly had consumed these. It strikes me as odd that Dr Kelly should apparently leave one of the 30 tablets in its place. Surely someone set on suicide will take the maximum dose available, not leave one? Of course this remaining tablet did present the police with a rather obvious clue.

Furthermore, Alexander Allan, the forensic toxicologist at the inquiry, considered that the amount of each drug component found in the blood was only a third of that which would normally be considered fatal. All that was found in Dr Kelly's stomach was the equivalent of the fifth of one tablet. His stomach was virtually empty, which suggests that even if he did swallow 29 tablets, much would have been regurgitated, making it even less likely that these contributed in any significant way to his death.

(4) Of course, these were difficult times for Dr Kelly. He was under enormous pressure, had been thrust into the glare of the public spotlight, and had had a torrid time in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee on July 15, just two days before he went for his last walk. That much is known. Less well known is that his good humour and confidence had at least partly returned on July 16, when he gave evidence in private to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I have read the transcript of that meeting and it shows Dr Kelly laughing and even making jokes.

Then there are the e-malls he sent on the morning of July 17, the day' of his disappearance. These were generally upbeat and talked enthusiastically about returning to Iraq.

So apparently were his phone calls, for after one to the Ministry of Defence, a flight to lraq was booked for him for the following week. One e-mail, however, did refer to 'dark actors playing games'. Who they were, and what games they were playing, has yet to be established. Another factor that mitigates against the suicide theory is that one of Dr Kelly's daughters was due to be married shortly and he was obviously looking forward to that.

Lastly, it should not be forgotten that Dr Kelly was a practicing member of the Baha'i faith, which strongly condemns the act of suicide.

Yet within 24 hours of the e-mails being sent, David Kelly was dead. We had lost the man who had probably done more than anyone else to reduce the threat to the world from biological and chemical weapons.

Presumably committing suicide also had financial implications for his family in the form of his life insurance being null and void. People like Dr Kelly have thought things through their entire lives. They don't do anything without applying the calculated methods they have learned as scientists. This was not reflected in either his supposed preferred method of death or the consequential impact on his family.

I have a scientist friend who used to work as an industrial chemist for a 'big 2' multinational and helped to invent the underlying base chemisty for many of the domestic household and personal hygiene products we use today. He won't even install software on his PC without setting aside 1/2 a day and writing an action plan, doing a full backup and occasionally making a couple of phone calls to me - just to double-check. He has had a new dvd burner for 6 months now and won't install it until he can find the appropriate amount of time to dedicate to the project...

None of the events surrounding the death of Dr Kelly suggest the involvement of scientific reasoning and the expertize of a man eminently capable of causing his own death if he chose to do so.

I think this is unlikely. If they wanted David Kelly to appear like he had died of natural causes he would have been found dead of a heart attack. The murder was botched but that was done for a purpose. For example, On 8th November, 1965, Dorothy Kilgallen, a journalist working on the assassination of JFK case, was found dead in her bed. The police reported that she had died from taking a cocktail of alcohol and barbiturates. The manuscript she was working on was never found.

Most of her friends believed Kilgallen had been murdered. Marc Sinclaire was Kilgallen's personal hairdresser. He often woke Kilgallen in the morning. Kilgallen was usually out to the early hours of the morning and like her husband always slept late. When he found her body he immediately concluded she had been murdered.

(1) Kilgallen was not sleeping in her normal bedroom. Instead she was in the master bedroom, a room she had not occupied for several years.

(2) Kilgallen was wearing false eyelashes. According to Sinclaire she always took her eyelashes off before she went to bed.

(3) She was found sitting up with the book, The Honey Badger, by Robert Ruark, on her lap. Sinclaire claims that she had finished reading the book several weeks earlier (she had discussed the book with Sinclaire at the time).

(4) Kilgallen had poor eyesight and could only read with the aid of glasses. Her glasses were not found in the bedroom where she died.

(5) Kilgallen was found wearing a bolero-type blouse over a nightgown. Sinclaire claimed that this was the kind of thing "she would never wear to go to bed".

Earlier that night she had been drinking with Ron Pataky. He was a fellow journalist who had been supposedly helping her with the book on Kennedy. We now know that Pataky was a CIA asset.

The reason why they botch up these murders is they use them as warnings to others. They are letting people how powerful they are. Not only can they kill you, they also have the power to cover it up as well.

Norman Baker responded to my email, he says that he will be publishing more in the days and weeks to come and will be seeking to re-open the inquiry.
John

This seems to me the most plausible analysis of the rationale for the Kelly death.

I call it 'narrowcasting'.

The broad masses follow the media circus of the time with little awareness that it is a contrivance. The minority who take a real interest in the case see that justice is obviously not being done and take note that could be their fate too.

I believe that some, seemingy anomalous so-called media 'exposes' fall into a similar category - and I argued elsewhere in this forum, for example, that the December 2001 Fox News series about Israeli spying on the USA and the Israeli backdoor into US relecommunications surveillance can be explained in similar fashion.

In that case, the broad masses simply overlooked the story, because there was no systematic media follow-up. Those 'in the know' took note that Israel probably has tabs on their private communications and could blackmail them at will.

In both cases, the key take home message, narrowcasted to those paying attention, is to follow the 'official' code of silence.

I remember seeing Tony Blair's face on TV at the time the Kelly death first hit the headlines. It was the face of a man way out of his death. He looked frightened and cowed - someone who saw little alternative than to enter deeper into the quagmire of lies, cover-up and complicity in murder set out for him by his masters.

David Shayler claims that Blair was an MI5 stooge since the 1980s, if not before. It probably began with a quite innocent commitment by Blair to "do something good for the country". In return for a political leg up the young Labour MP may have had to provide a few details to the spooks about some of his CND buddies. Nothing too excacting. But over the years, the price extracted for smoothing Blair's path to the top has become higher.

Blair has probably rationalised to himself all the good he can do from a position of power, such as modernising Britain's social services, speaking out about global warming and 'saving starving Africa'..

But every now and again he is reminded who is really in control - and of the price he must pay for their continung support so he can stay in power (and out of jail). The Kelly death - and Blair's task to order a cover up - was one such case. Blair was offered full mass media support if he played his appointed role in the cover-up. The alternative was to face the abyss of exposure. He chose the path of deeper and deeper complicity in the crimes of his murdering Zionist controllers.



This seems to me the most plausible analysis of the rationale for the Kelly death.

I call it 'narrowcasting'.

The broad masses follow the media circus of the time with little awareness that it is a contrivance. The minority who take a real interest in the case see that justice is obviously not being done and take note that could be their fate too.

I believe that some, seemingy anomalous so-called media 'exposes' fall into a similar category - and I argued elsewhere in this forum, for example, that the December 2001 Fox News series about Israeli spying on the USA and the Israeli backdoor into US relecommunications surveillance can be explained in similar fashion.

In that case, the broad masses simply overlooked the story, because there was no systematic media follow-up. Those 'in the know' took note that Israel probably has tabs on their private communications and could blackmail them at will.

In both cases, the key take home message, narrowcasted to those paying attention, is to follow the 'official' code of silence.

I remember seeing Tony Blair's face on TV at the time the Kelly death first hit the headlines. It was the face of a man way out of his death. He looked frightened and cowed - someone who saw little alternative than to enter deeper into the quagmire of lies, cover-up and complicity in murder set out for him by his masters.

David Shayler claims that Blair was an MI5 stooge since the 1980s, if not before. It probably began with a quite innocent commitment by Blair to "do something good for the country". In return for a political leg up the young Labour MP may have had to provide a few details to the spooks about some of his CND buddies. Nothing too excacting. But over the years, the price extracted for smoothing Blair's path to the top has become higher.

Blair has probably rationalised thiw to himself by considering all the good he can do from a position of power, such as modernising Britain's social services, speaking out about global warming and 'saving starving Africa'..

But every now and again he is reminded who is really in control - and of the price he must pay for their continung support so he can stay in power (and out of jail). The Kelly death - and Blair's task to order a cover up - was one such case. Blair was offered full mass media support if he played his appointed role in the cover-up. The alternative was to face the abyss of exposure. He chose the path of deeper and deeper complicity in the crimes of his murdering Zionist controllers.

I suspect that the CIA has something on Blair. This is why he has been so willing to follow Bush’s foreign policy. I expect the CIA murdered Kelly to apply pressure on Blair. They will leak information linking the murder with the Blair administration if he refuses to slavishly follow Bush’s foreign policy.

There is another link with the JFK assassination. We know from the released LBK phone tapes that he covered up the assassination of JFK. He told friends that he had to convince the US public to believe it was a lone gunman because if it got out it was Castro who ordered the killing, he would have to invade Cuba and this could led to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. A lot of nonsense of course but he had to explain why he had to accept Oswald’s guilt.

The real reason was that the fingerprints of a man called Malcolm Wallace was found in the Texas School Book Depository. Wallace had worked for LBJ for many years. In 1951 Wallace was having an affair with LBJ's sister, Josefa Johnson. Josefa was also having a relationship with John Kinser, the owner of a golf course in Austin. Kinser asked Josefa to approach her brother for financial help.

According to Barr McClellan, the author of Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK, Kinser asked Josefa if she could arrange for her brother to loan him some money. Johnson interpreted this as a blackmail threat (Josefa had told Kinser about some of her brother's corrupt activities).

On 22nd October, 1951, Mac Wallace went to Kinser's miniature golf course. After finding Kinser in his golf shop, he shot him several times before escaping in his station wagon. A customer at the golf course had heard the shooting and managed to make a note of Wallace's license plate. The local police force was able to use this information to arrest Wallace.

Wallace was charged with murder but was released on bail after Edward Clark arranged for two of Johnson's financial supporters, M. E. Ruby and Bill Carroll, to post bonds on behalf of the defendant. Johnson's attorney, John Cofer, also agreed to represent Wallace.

On 1st February, 1952, Wallace resigned from his government job in order to distance himself from Lyndon B. Johnson (he had got him the job in 1950). His trial began seventeen days later. Wallace did not testify. Cofer admitted his client's guilt but claimed it was an act of revenge as Kinser had been sleeping with Wallace's wife.

The jury found Wallace guilty of "murder with malice afore-thought". Eleven of the jurors were for the death penalty. The twelfth argued for life imprisonment. Judge Charles O. Betts overruled the jury and announced a sentence of five years imprisonment. He suspended the sentence and Wallace was immediately freed. Betts was clearly under the control of LBJ.

This does not of course mean that LBJ arranged for Wallace to murder JFK. As a result of his record, Wallace would have been the last man LBJ would have recruited for this job. However, it is unlikely the rest of the world would have seen it that way. Therefore, LBJ had no option but to cover up the assassination. He was virtually blackmailed by the real murderers to do that.

I expect the same thing has happened to Tony Blair over the Kelly case.

I found the Tom Mangold piece interesting. I was recently given a copy of a CIA document Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature. It was written by retired top CIA official, Cleveland Cram, for the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI). Written in 1993 it was declassified in 2003.
Cram had been asked to investigate the leaks that were coming out of the CIA during the 1970s. He discovered that several journalists, including Tom Mangold, were receiving information from senior officers in the CIA. Some of this information was accurate but some was disinformation. In other words, journalists like Mangold were being used as CIA assets. These journalists are given exclusives but are also expected to write stories that help the CIA when they are in trouble. For example, Hal Hendrix won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism as a result of his reports on Cuba in 1962. However, it was later discovered that he was working for the CIA and ITT in the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973.

It is therefore understandable that Mangold should be used to rubbish your investigation. Interestingly, Mangold admits that the CIA was involved in the investigation of Kelly’s death. I expect he was not supposed to say that.

It has always been CIA policy to pick out young prospective leaders of left-wing political parties or trade unions. This started in the late 1940s when they gave help to Hugh Gaitskell and Dennis Healey. The CIA actually believed that the KGB had identified this policy and were responsible for the death of Gaitskell in 1963. James Angleton was convinced that the new leader, Harold Wilson, was a KGB agent.

This created a crisis in the CIA. Wilson was indeed elected and despite the efforts of the CIA to undermine his government, he refused to support US foreign policy by sending troops to Vietnam. He also did what he could to bring down racist but anti-communist governments in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). His domestic policy was also much too left-wing for the CIA (increased taxes on the rich, more spending on the welfare state, legislation to create more sexual and racial equality).

The constant attempts to undermine Wilson by the intelligence agencies (see Peter Wright’s Spycatcher) turned him paranoid and he eventually resigned in in 1976 to be replaced by James Callaghan who along with Dennis Healey quickly moved the party to the right (it was actually these two politicians who introduced monetarism, not Thatcher who was elected to power in 1979).

The same problem existed in the 1990s. It was clear that the British people had turned against its right-wing government. CIA loyalists like Healey had lost his position in the party. They needed someone else to help get to the top. The man they chose was Tony Blair. At the time he was advocating left-wing policies. For example, he was a member of CND.

In March, 1994, Blair was introduced to Michael Levy at a dinner party at the Israeli embassy in London. Levy was a retired businessman who now spent his time raising money for Jewish pressure-groups. After this meeting, Levy acquired a new job, raising money for Tony Blair. According to Robin Ramsay (The Rise of New Labour, page 64), Levy raised over £7 million for Blair).

In an article by John Lloyd published in the New Statesman on 27th February, 1998, the main suppliers of this money included Sir Emmanuel Kaye (Kaye Enterprises), Sir Trevor Chin (Lex Garages), Maurice Hatter (IMO Precision Group) and Maurice Hatter (Sage Software).

In April, 1994, John Smith died and Blair won the leadership contest. With Levy’s money, Blair appointed Jonathan Powell as his Chief of Staff. Powell had been recruited into the CIA while studying for his Masters degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A retired diplomat, Powell was not a member of the Labour Party. In fact, his brother, Charles Powell, was Margaret Thatcher's right hand man.

For the next three years Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made regular visits to the US. These visits were funded by CIA fronted organizations such as BAP and TUCETU (see below).

Powell was also a member of the CIA-fronted organization the British-American Project for a Successor Generation (BAP). Other members that became senior figures in Blair’s government were Peter Mandelson, Mo Mowlam, George Robertson, Chris Smith and Lady Elizabeth Symons.

Another CIA-front organization was the Trade Union Committee for European and Transatlantic Unity (TUCETU). The entire defence team in Blair’s first government were members or closely associated with the TUCETU.

It has always been CIA policy to pick out young prospective leaders of left-wing political parties or trade unions. This started in the late 1940s when they gave help to Hugh Gaitskell and Dennis Healey. The CIA actually believed that the KGB had identified this policy and were responsible for the death of Gaitskell in 1963. James Angleton was convinced that the new leader, Harold Wilson, was a KGB agent.

This created a crisis in the CIA. Wilson was indeed elected and despite the efforts of the CIA to undermine his government, he refused to support US foreign policy by sending troops to Vietnam. He also did what he could to bring down racist but anti-communist governments in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). His domestic policy was also much too left-wing for the CIA (increased taxes on the rich, more spending on the welfare state, legislation to create more sexual and racial equality).

The constant attempts to undermine Wilson by the intelligence agencies (see Peter Wright’s Spycatcher) turned him paranoid and he eventually resigned in in 1976 to be replaced by James Callaghan who along with Dennis Healey quickly moved the party to the right (it was actually these two politicians who introduced monetarism, not Thatcher who was elected to power in 1979).

The same problem existed in the 1990s. It was clear that the British people had turned against its right-wing government. CIA loyalists like Healey had lost his position in the party. They needed someone else to help get to the top. The man they chose was Tony Blair. At the time he was advocating left-wing policies. For example, he was a member of CND.

In March, 1994, Blair was introduced to Michael Levy at a dinner party at the Israeli embassy in London. Levy was a retired businessman who now spent his time raising money for Jewish pressure-groups. After this meeting, Levy acquired a new job, raising money for Tony Blair. According to Robin Ramsay (The Rise of New Labour, page 64), Levy raised over £7 million for Blair).

In an article by John Lloyd published in the New Statesman on 27th February, 1998, the main suppliers of this money included Sir Emmanuel Kaye (Kaye Enterprises), Sir Trevor Chin (Lex Garages), Maurice Hatter (IMO Precision Group) and Maurice Hatter (Sage Software).

In April, 1994, John Smith died and Blair won the leadership contest. With Levy’s money, Blair appointed Jonathan Powell as his Chief of Staff. Powell had been recruited into the CIA while studying for his Masters degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A retired diplomat, Powell was not a member of the Labour Party. In fact, his brother, Charles Powell, was Margaret Thatcher's right hand man.

For the next three years Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made regular visits to the US. These visits were funded by CIA fronted organizations such as BAP and TUCETU (see below).

Powell was also a member of the CIA-fronted organization the British-American Project for a Successor Generation (BAP). Other members that became senior figures in Blair’s government were Peter Mandelson, Mo Mowlam, George Robertson, Chris Smith and Lady Elizabeth Symons.

Another CIA-front organization was the Trade Union Committee for European and Transatlantic Unity (TUCETU). The entire defence team in Blair’s first government were members or closely associated with the TUCETU.

I would be interested to hear Lance Prices input on this matter, as he has worked with Alistair Campbell.
John, would you ask him to join us?
John

Interesting article...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=3249

This link does not seem to work. Do you mean this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=3249

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=2993

Sorry John,

The link works for me - if a little slow...

For some reason it won't leave it alone...it insists on turning it into a hyperlink.

Here it is on tinyurl (still slow):

http://tinyurl.com/m75mf

It has been announced that the BBC is working on a documentary on the death of David Kelly. However, don't expect the documentary to suggest a conspiracy. The BBC has requested an inflation-beaten licence fee rise. The decision will be made at around the time the documentary is due to be broadcast.

Here is a promo for the BBC documentary that John remarked upon, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6213898.stm
it is part of a series which deals with 9/11 and the death of Princess Diana.
There seems to be a reasonable amount of talk about it, a BBC blog linked to it mentions the amount of chit chat following Shane O'Sullivans piece and goes on to describe general attitudes towards conspiracies.

John

According to leaks, the idea of the programme is to undermine the current police investigation into the death of Diana. The leading item on BBC news yesterday was that Diane had not been killed as part of a conspiracy. The evidence for this is that the car driver, Henri Paul, was drunk at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162041.stm

I expect the same will happen in the David Kelly programme. As I said earlier, the BBC is very keen not to upset the government at the moment. The BBC has requested an inflation-beaten licence fee rise. The decision will be made at around the time the Kelly documentary is due to be broadcast.

There have been a number of "assisted suicides" in which the wrists were slashed, but with little blood in evidence. Which means the heart was no longer beating when the wrists were slashed. Aside from Dr. David Kelly, one of the most famous cases (in America) was the death of investigative reporter Danny Casolaro, who was investigating the "Octopus" or "The Enterprise" -- the privatized CIA that consists of "rogue elements", CIA agents who have lost their jobs for various reasons, former Special Forces or SEALs, and a variety of private mercenary organizations including one belonging to Halliburton. Danny Casolaro drove from Washington, DC, to West Virginia to meet members of "The Enterprise", checked into a hotel room, and was later found dead in the bath tub, wrists slashed. I've discussed his death and autopsy with Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green, who at the time was the chief forensic pathologist at the CIA. Green participated in the Casolaro autopsy, and closely examined his hotel room. Green told me that the room showed obvious signs of a violent struggle, and that there was negligible blood in the bath tub or around the tub. Therefore, Casolaro was already dead when he was placed naked in the tub and his wrists slashed. This Green told me was precisely the case with Dr. Kelly. So, in both instances, they were clearly murdered. As to who did it, there are so many possibilities that it could be more sensible to ask who ordered it. As Kelly was a particular irritant and embarrassment to Downing Street, and to the Defense Ministry, it seems likely that his murder was not carried out by some "rogue element" but was sanctioned explicitly or implicitly at the highest level. Why his murder was deemed necessary when Dr. Kelly had already had his career and reputation destroyed, and had been subjected to extreme public humiliation, suggests that the decision to kill him was pathological. Given the behavior of Bush and of Blair the last several years, one cannot entirely rule out insanity.

Sterling Seagrave

I remember gathering up a number of articles about the Casolaro death after reading one of those SPY magazine pieces on it. Just based on the surface info it looked like murder - Casolaro was squeamish, hated pain and didn't like getting a cut, so it's unlikely he'd choose lengthy arm slices to kill himself - and I remember there were a lot of articles around online at one point, including a sardonic piece listing the number of journalists who had died, suicided or fallen out of high buildings while investigating it, seemingly par for the course with this sort of stuff. Peter Dale Scott noted in a poem/article a year or two ago how Casolaro had made a note to go meet him in the days before his death. That's interesting, but perhaps it's a good thing that Scott wasn't dragged into it.

I have started a thread on the Danny Casolaro case.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9343

I am especially interested in the connections between Casolaro's death and Ted Shackley/October Surprise.

Over the last few months I have been helping a British MP in his investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly. Some of this research will appear in a BBC 2 documentary on Sunday (the same series as the 9/11 programme – see the Conspiracy to Conspiracy thread).

The evidence suggests that Kelly was murdered by American operatives. We are very interested if any member in the United States has heard any stories about this. Please feel free to PM any information that you are unwilling to post on the forum.

You can read about the Dr. David Kelly case here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly

The BBC broadcast what I considered to be a balanced account of the death of David Kelly last night.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/cons...les/6213898.stm

Unlike last week’s programme on 9/11 those who argued for a political conspiracy came across as intelligent and rational. Norman Baker, the MP who is leading the investigation, was especially impressive.

Some of those interviewed included:

Rowena Thursby

http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/

Michael Shrimpton

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers...elShrimpton.php

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022504shrimptontranscript.html

Warren Reed

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/politi...le_1830.asp?s=1

John,

Besides Judith Miller's book and email, what's the American connection again?

Where does the CIA come it?

There's been nothing in the media in USA that I've seen regarding this.

Thanks,
BK

Michael Shrimpton is a national security lawyer who has close connections to intelligence services. He tells the following story:

"Now on Saturday 19th July, David was murdered on the 17th, on Saturday the 19th, within 48 hours of the murder, I was contacted by a British intelligence officer who told me he’d been murdered. That didn’t take me by surprise, I was suspicious of the suicide theory from the word go. Now that source told me he’d done some digging and discovered that, he didn’t name names but he discovered that it had been known about in Whitehall prior to the 17th July that David Kelly was going to be taken down. Now normally with a suicide, Alex, you appreciate that we don’t like people knowing in advance. If people know in advance of the death, that normally points away from suicide."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022504shrimptontranscript.html

However, another informant has claimed that the assassination was carried out by CIA contract agents. I cannot say anymore than that but I have been given the name of the person who organized the assassination.

In this article the author shows the links between the death of David Kelly, Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson and Haliburton:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-plamegate.html

1. Plame worked for a CIA unit tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction and the A.Q. Khan network, which sold nuclear secrets and materials to "rogue" nations.

2. Cheney knew all about Khan in 1989 and did nothing to stop him.

3. Cheney's company, Haliburton, received a hefty fine in 1995 for selling dual-use nuclear equipment to Libya, then considered the most roguish of rogue nations. This scam would have brought Haliburton into close contact with the Khan network.

4. A Khan associate named B.S.A. Tahir, based in Dubai, was helping to supply centrifuge equipment to Libya. (Dubai front companies are used to ship American goods to "forbidden" countries.) Tahir works for a business concern called the Scomi Group. Scomi links up with Haliburton via a German concern called Cognis. The exact nature of these linkages are complex. (If you really must know all the details, go here and re-read the middle section until your eyes explode.)

5. David Kelly, the British scientist who acted as a weapons inspector in Iraq, warned of "dark actors" and predicted that he would 'probably be found dead in the woods.' On July 17, 2003, that is precisely what happened. Many people believe that he was murdered.

6. Valerie Plame was outed just a few days before Kelly died or (more likely) was killed.

7. Journalist Judith Miller of the New York Times was used by the OVP to spread disinformation. Judith Miller was also close to Kelly; she had used him as a source for an earlier book on germ warfare.

8. When the A.Q. Khan nuclear network was revealed to the public, Khan received no punishment from the Pakistani government -- and the White House did not protest.

I'd be inclined to say 'links' - not the links.

As it's my day to obsess about the BBC and its appalling betrayal of public trust to investigate the events of the day without fear or favour, a brief word about the BBCs treatment of the Hutton Inquiry.

I happened to be in Britain at the time.

Not ONCE did I hear or see ANY questioning of the official story of the Kelly death.

By that time, several respected medics had written to the Guardian openly questioning the 'suicide' theory of Kelly's dath. Yet the BBC was silent, as far as I could tell, on anything that might steer debate awayy from the rather silly officially-sanctioned 'corridor' ('debate', as I recall, was almost entirely about whether the BBC had gone too far in its pusuit of Dr Kelly!)

The BBC itself was a key 'victim' of this narrowing of public debate. Yet it chose to participate, cop a (virtual) caning, and actually lead the farce. The take-home messages of Hutton, for the credulous, were (i) the BBC is a fearless truth-seeking organization (ii) it sometimes goes too far in its pursuit of truth and (iii) Britain has a great political system with checks and balances.

I wish.

Like the 'security services', the BBC has clearly strayed so far from public accountability that it needs root and brqnch referom, if not abolition.

I watch its appallingly biased 24x7 global 'service' by satellite here in Australia; ads for Fox are embedded in its programming (they'd never get a licence fee out of us lot!).

I describe the BBC as 'Zionist-lite', to distinguish it from Fox and other 'full strength' distortions of reality.

That's not to say it hasn't sported some very fine reporters. But the best don't seem to work there anymore.

Retracted due to change of heart.
John

Until the last 3 sentences, I think Sid has pretty much nailed the contemporaneous views held by many.

Is the BBC part of Operation Mockingbird, or did it influence it?

Norman Baker's book, "The Strange Death of David Kelly" has recently been published. Several members of the forum, including myself, helped him with his research. This includes this quotation on page 301; "John Simkin also makes the Machiavellian suggestion that the pressure could have been maintained by a threat to Blair from the Americans to leak death information about the death in a way that would have implicated the British government if Blair failed to follow the Bush line on the so-called "war on terror".

Norman has agreed to join the forum in order to answer questions on his book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Strange-Death-Davi...1376&sr=1-1