The Strange Death of Dr Kelly.....

Do you remember the strange case of Dr Kelly?

He was outed as the whistleblower on WMD, possibly by No 10.

He is the only person to have died in suspicious circumstances for over 100 years who has been denied a coroner’s inquest. Instead, the then Lord Chancellor, Blair’s mate Lord Falconer, invoked an obscure law to appoint an inquiry under Lord Hutton. This found that on 17^th July 2003 Dr Kelly went for a walk in the woods near his home where he overdosed on pain killers and cut an artery in his wrist with a pruning knife.

So what do we know about the case?

For starters, he had just been cleared by a Commons Committee of Inquiry; only that morning he had booked a return flight to Baghdad;  and he had arranged to meet his daughter that evening. He left an answer-phone message for a friend arranging to meet him 6 days later. Hardly the actions of a man intent on taking his own life, you might think.

We know from ‘The Strange Death of Dr Kelly’ by Norman Baker MP that the knife had no fingerprints on it even though Kelly wore no gloves. The items found with his body – his glasses, watch, two packets of pills and a water bottle – were also clean. It is highly doubtful whether the cut could have killed him; to kill yourself this way you must cut lengthways. If you cut across, it is most likely that the artery will self-seal unless you use a very sharp blade (not a pruning knife) and do it in the bath to prevent clotting.  There is also doubt as to whether the overdose was sufficient to cause death.

There some other disturbing features to the case.

There is strong suspicion that the body was moved. The Hutton report says that there was a photograph of the body showing most of it lying on the ground but with his head slumped against a tree. But the pathologist commissioned by the present Attorney General to review the case said that the photographs shown the feet pointing away from the tree and a considerable gap between the head and the tree. There was a third person present with the policeman who stayed with the body but he did not mention this.

This is not the only example of the police witnesses being disingenuous. Dr Kelly’s dental records disappeared mysteriously only to be found again two days after the death. The Assistant Chief Constable stated in his evidence to Hutton that no ‘extraneous’ finger-prints were found on the documents after their alleged theft. We now know there were 6 unidentified prints on the records.

It is alleged that an incident room was set up before the Dr was reported missing.

The Chief Inspector who led the investigation was not even called to give evidence to Hutton, incredible though this may seem.

The place of death, which is always included on death certificates, was not stated. It merely said ‘found dead at Harrowdown Hill’. The certificate was registered 5 weeks before the completion of the Hutton inquiry.

So what difference did it make, having an inquiry instead of an inquest? Surely this would be a more authoritative forum conducted by a distinguished judge than a mere inquest by a local coroner?

Er, no!

None of the witnesses gave evidence on oath. They could mislead the inquiry and get away with it. Two of the police witnesses did, at the least. At inquests evidence is always given on oath – with criminal penalties for lying.

The coroner’s duty is to establish how and where and when a person died. In a case of suicide he must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased intended to kill himself and did so.

All this is in the public domain. But when Hutton published his report he secretly proposed that all the evidence and photographs should be classified for 70 years. Why?

There was so much public disquiet over the inadequacy of the inquiry and the suspicion that it was a whitewash that a group of distinguished medical and forensic experts lobbied for a proper inquest. When Dominic Grieve, who had previously expressed ‘serious misgivings’ about the findings of the inquiry, was made Attorney General there were high hopes that an inquest would be granted.

Not so.

In another decision taken behind closed doors, Grieve upheld Hutton. On the point about evidence on oath he said that it was not logical to quibble over the difference between swearing an oath and not doing so, which does not say much either for his knowledge of the law or for his moral sense. He said in Parliament that there is no possibility that at an inquest a verdict other than suicide would be returned.

How could he know what a coroner might have decided? An open verdict would have been a distinct possibility.

There may now be a judicial review.

So if there was an unlawful killing, whose fingerprints were on it? Mossad? They would have made a proper job of it. CIA? The blunders would suggest so, but for what possible reason? MI6? They don’t do this stuff otherwise Martin McGuiness would not still be walking around.

Cui bono?

We will probably never know!