The Death of Dr. David Kelly

[Evan Burton]

There must be a way to settle it. I can understand - and support - keeping records confidential from every Tom, Dick or Harry.

On the other hand, a suspicious death followed by a verdict of suicide, and then they say no-one can see anything for 70 years? It hardly inspires confidence that everything is above board.

Is it possible for an exemption to be granted for an independent researcher?

[Terry Mauro]

- A CRUCIAL SLANT ON THE DAVID KELLY CASE -

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Jan. 28 (EIRNS)--So far, the British parties involved in the

somewhat celebrated affair of suspected links between both the

deaths of Dr. David Kelly and what has been fraudulently

represented as the alleged non-suicide of Jeremiah Duggan, have

failed to disclose crucially relevant facts respecting the

subject's, Jeremiah Duggan's, relevant mental health history

since childhood until his suicide in the vicinity of Wiesbaden,

Germany.

The British circles have curiously failed to take into

account statements reportedly made by Jeremiah himself shortly

before his suicide, to the effect that he was having difficulty

in securing some medication essential to his mental stability.

Even without such information, the facts of the manner of

Duggan's death, strongly indicate a mental health problem. Where

is the relevant British investigation of the matter of the

suicide of Jeremiah Duggan? What of such relevant facts as his

reported statements regarding past emotional disturbances dating

from his childhood, and indicating a role of the London Tavistock

Clinic at some point in this case? Are there not additional

areas of investigation of Jeremiah's mental health status

absolutely required for judgment in a case in which relevant

eyewitnesses have presented reported facts confirming three

separate acts of attempted suicide, in quickly repeated

succession?

Since the core of the utterances from British sources have

stubbornly asserted falsified facts on relevant matters in the

case, facts repeatedly shown to have been false to established

facts, is there not a clear and strong suggestion that there is a

connection between the dubious finding of suicide in the case of

Dr. David Kelly, and the fraudulent denial of well-documented

eyewitness evidence of the actual suicide of Jeremiah? Is not

my appearance twice on the BBC broadcasts in the matter of Prime

Minister Tony Blair's lying pretext for launching war against

Iraq, as this fact of the matter was emphasized by Dr. Kelly, the

primary area of fact bearing on Erica Duggan's launching what has

been a largely fraudulent campaign against me, launched by

important associates of Blair in the setting of the death of Dr.

Kelly, and of the highest relevance in the behavior of certain

British circles in the strange role of Erica Duggan?

If that evidence respecting such highly relevant matters as

the strongly implied mental health problems of Jeremiah Duggan,

is not supplied by the relevant British sources, then, in light

of already clearly established facts, is it not clear that the

political motives of those British interests pushing the denial

of Jeremiah's suicide, must be called into question in this

matter, especially in any case, such as the case of the Duggan

suicide, in which the issue of the lying by former Prime Minister

Tony Blair, on the subject of launching a war against Iraq, is

the crucial setting of the crafting of what has already been

shown to have been a politically motivated, fraudulent

allegation?

[John Simkin]

There must be a way to settle it. I can understand - and support - keeping records confidential from every Tom, Dick or Harry.

On the other hand, a suspicious death followed by a verdict of suicide, and then they say no-one can see anything for 70 years? It hardly inspires confidence that everything is above board.

This is why conspiracy theories develop. If it had been a genuine case of suicide, the authorities would have been keen to publish all the details. When they have something to hide they always resort to either the “national security” argument or that disclosure will cause pain for the relatives (the reason given for keeping the details of the JFK autopsy secret).

[John Simkin]

A group of nine prominent experts, including Michael Powers, a QC and former coroner, and Julian Bion, a professor of intensive care medicine, wrote to The Times last week, calling for a full inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly. Strangely, the government decided that the inquest should be carried out by Lord Hutton, during his inquiry into the death of David Kelly. Hutton, who since his days in Northern Ireland, was under the control of MI5, spent less than a couple of hours on the death and few relevant witnesses were called. The Hutton report cleared the government of wrongdoing, while the BBC was strongly criticised, leading to the resignation of the BBC's chairman and director-general.

The experts in the letter to The Times, described Lord Hutton’s official explanation for the death of the government’s weapons expert seven years ago as “extremely unlikely”. Tom Mangold, the MI5 friendly investigative journalist, was one of the leading proponents of the suicide theory. However, he appeared on BBC 4’s “Today” programme to say that after reading what the experts had to say about the death, he no longer believes in the suicide theory and is also calling for a full inquest. (Mangold now argues that he died of a heart attack while trying to cut his wrist.)

The former Tory leader, Michael Howard, is also calling for a full inquest (Why did he not do so at the time?) It has also emerged on Friday that the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is seriously thinking of ordering a new inquest. As he happens, one of his ministerial colleagues, Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, wrote a book on why he thinks Dr. Kelly was murdered. The Tories clearly see that reopening this case will cause embarrassment to the previous Labour government. However, I fear that they are willing to go along with the cover-up. It reminds me of the House Senate Committee on Assassinations that looked into the assassination of JFK in the late 1970s. It was no longer possible to defend the case that Oswald was the lone gunman. So instead, they brought in G. Robert Blakey to claim that JFK was a victim of the Mafia.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKassassinationsC.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm

I suspect we will get a new inquest and that they will confirm that the ruling elite have decided that it can no longer support the idea of suicide and that Dr. David Kelly died the way Tom Mangold said he did, of a heart attack.

[John Simkin]

Letter in the Guardian:

It is not a question of whether there should or should not be a proper inquest into Dr David Kelly's death (Editorial, 17 August). This is not a matter for debate. The laws of this country state very clearly that there must be an inquest into any death occurring in the manner in which Dr Kelly is said to have died.

Further, before a suicide verdict can be returned, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased intended to kill himself. In the absence of a suicide note, it is extremely difficult to achieve this level of proof. Anyone who examines the transcripts of the evidence heard by Lord Hutton can see that the required level of proof was not attained, even if Lord Hutton had heard evidence under oath, which he crucially did not.

Further, Lord Falconer inappropriately invoked Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners' Act, "ordering" the coroner Nicholas Gardiner to "adjourn indefinitely" his inquest into Dr Kelly's death on 13 August 2003. This intervention by the then lord chancellor surely constituted a blatant subversion of due process of the law.

In the case of Dr Kelly, the suicide verdict of Lord Hutton is clearly unsafe and may represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice ever to occur in this country. A suicide verdict effectively closes the case for ever, and if the deceased was in fact murdered stops the search for the murderer(s). A suicide verdict should not be reached lightly, and if there is any doubt the coroner should return an open verdict.

The fact that no inquest has been held into Dr David Kelly's death is nothing less than a national disgrace, particularly when one recalls the context in which his death took place.

Dr Stephen Frost

Colwyn Bay, Clwyd

[John Simkin]

Dr. Nicholas Hunt, the doctor who carried out the post-mortem on Dr. David Kelly, faces a formal investigation after making 14 mistakes in his report on the death of an airman in Afghanistan, including wrongly recording his height, weight, hair and eye colour. It seems that the man is completely incompetent. Maybe that is why he was chosen to carry out the post-mortem of Kelly.