Sunday, February 25, 2007

MP Thinks Kelly Was Murdered

LibDem MP Norman Baker reckons David Kelly did not commit suicide. Click HERE for more. I have to admit, the same thought has occured to me more than once.


Anonymous said...

If he didn't commit suicide, the question becomes; who killed him?

Fulham Reactionary said...

There's a suggestion at the end of the article by one of Kelly's former colleagues that it was the Iraqi Intelligence Services, although that would presuppose that they were still able to function after the fall of Saddam.

Baker's arguments, as summarised by the BBC, do seem somewhat dubious: "the method he had apparently chosen to commit suicide was not a recognised or effective one", for example. Plenty of people attempt suicide using inefficient means. After all, there's hardly an authoritative guide to suicide, is there? Most don't succeed, but some do.

Last week's programme in this series dealt with 9/11 "truthers", and I think that those who deny that Kelly died by suicide can fairly be put in the same category as those.

Anonymous said...

Fulham Reactionary - Many thanks for your moronic post. Iraqis tiptoeing around the woods of Oxfordshire.

Dr Kelly was a medical doctor as well as being one of the world's experts on microbiological weapons. Dr Kelly would have known the incredible pain and distress involved in digging deep through flesh into a vein, and then slashing downwards - rather than simply slashing across the wrist, where the vein is visible, and letting himself drift away.

Read Norman Baker's report. They planted a box of Coproximal with five missing and one left, yet the autopsy showed there was only ONE HALF a Coproximal in his body. Hmmm ...

As a medical doctor, why would Dr Kelly take one-half a Coproximal if he intended to kill himself by the bizarre method of slashing through his flesh to cut his vein vertically? When slashing the vein at the wrist is more effective,less painful and immediate?

When most of us wouldn't take one-half a Coproximal for a headache?

One half a Coproxmil for such a mad, painful method? And Dr Kelly a medical man all his adult life?

And a box lying next to his dead body indicating that the physician had taken five Coproximals in preparation for killing himself in a shreikingly painful way?

Yet the autopsy shows half a Coproximalin his body. Hardly preparation for an unbelievably painful suicide. For a medical doctor ... as well as a world famous biological WMD expert.

Norman Baker is a hero.

Anonymous said...

You mean Iain that you really even once thought that he did commit suicide?

To me it is obvious who killed him. So obvious I am not even going to bother telling you who it was.

I think you should start getting out more in the real world, instead of talking to politicians all day.

The next thing the politicians will be telling us is that the world is doomed by some kind of man made natural desaster. And that the only way to stop it is by paying more tax to politicians.

Anonymous said...

The powers that be dont nead conspiracy just plausable deniability.

He broke the unwritten law, what else would common sense expect would happen to him?

I am lucky I know nothing about anything important that could upset anyone.

But a married chap like him slitting his wrists in a private place without a suicide note is just too silly for words.

There is a chance that it was not MI5. But ones things for compleatly sure we the great unwashed will never know who it was EVER.

Anonymous said...

Gary Powell- he was not only married, but long-married and his daughter was getting married and he was looking forward to seeing her married.

No medical man/woman would choose to kill themselves by digging through the flesh of their own forearm and then cutting a vein vertically when they found it. (Those ignorant of physiology suicides also do not choose this method, preferring the comparatively painless method of slitting their wrist

And Dr Kelly bizarrely leaving A CLUE of a box of Coproximal which apparently had five missing tablets to kill the pain of this bizarre mode of suicide - and then have the autopsy demonstrate that those Coproximal were never ingested.

Just one half. As in a headache, maybe.

Who took the missing four and a half Coproximal that Dr Kelly did not take as they were not in his system at the autopsy? The bunnies? Or a government advisor?

Oh, Gary Powell, we will know.

Norman Baker is a hero to pursue this. Going against Blair is dangerous.

Fulham Reactionary said...


It was not I who suggested that Dr Kelly was killed by Iraqis - it was Richard Spertzel, an American former UN weapons inspector. The suggestion has also been made by David Broucher, a former Foreign Office official. Perhaps you should call them "moronic".

Dr Kelly was not a medical doctor. He had a DPhil in microbiology from Oxford. That would not make him an expert in methods of suicide, their efficiency, and the amount of pain attendent upon them.

I remain deeply sceptical about the possibility that Kelly died otherwise than by suicide, and am unlikely to be persuaded by an argument that amounts to little more than "his method of suicide was unusual". I certainly doubt that he was murdered by MI5. Much as I loathe our government, I believe that their awfulness is, for the most part, due to incompetence, rather than conscious evil.

Furthermore, while our government generally is useless, I think and hope that MI5 are rather better than that. If they were going to kill someone and dress it up as suicide, I'm sure they could do it in a manner that did not leave loopholes such as those apparently found by Baker.

Anonymous said...

Fulham Reactionary - Who said anything about MI5?

Anonymous said...

Anyone knew the history of Croke Park until today? The English are very, very good at burying bodies.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe that that the British would do this. Since Blair and his lawyer friends came to office, the British government and security agencies wouldn't have the stomach to assasinate anyone. They havenn't got hte stomach to punish criminals even. I think these facts rule out our side in any murder theories.

It would appear counter productive for Saddam's lot to murder Kelly, after all what he was saying, backed up their version of events.

Think about who in the world the Kelly affair was most embarrasing for as a nation. Think of a nation that has got the stomach to lock up hundreds of people, on islands around the world, dump on it's most junior soldiers in torture trials, lose sleep at night worrying about oil and get totally sick that Arabs seem to to be blessed with so much of it.

Work out these clues and I think that it becomes more obvious who any likely assasin, is. They may also have the stomach for it.

Anonymous said...

I have always felt that the manner and circumstances of Dr. Kelly's death warranted a better investigation than being bundled up with the Hutton fiasco.
I think that Dr. Kelly's death was more the poodle's Thomas Beckett moment.
"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest(doctor)?"
Than a deliberate assissnation by the security/NuLabor forces. Hence the less than professional cover up.
It is also a shame that it is being taken up by a dumbed down BBC programme. Which appears to be more Page 3 orientated, than the proper investigative journalism that we used to enjoy of the "old" BBC.
But hopefully as NuLabor sinks out of sight under the rushing tide of scandal. The truth will finally be revealed.

dizzy said...

was there a grassy knoll near the body?

Rich Tee said...

It has occurred to me too but I also remember him being described as a sensitive man who was uncomfortable with being in the public eye and so I still believe that it was the stress of being thrown to the wolves that he couldn't take.

Note that drugs dissipate in the body over time so the fact that he had only one pill in his body does not mean he didn't take five.

If he was being led to his death then I would also expect to see signs of a struggle.

Anonymous said...

If the Death of Diana gets not only the Stevens Inquiry plus an Inquest under Butler-Schloss....why is Dr David Kelly denied an Inquest ?

It is strange for an Inquest to be replaced by a Public Inquiry especially one run by a government patsy like Hutton.

The Blair Dossier is going to be the source of political dramas for decades as the full extent of depravity and corruption comes to light

Anonymous said...

Dr Kelly was a medical doctor as well as being one of the world's experts on microbiological weapons.

NO ! He was not Verity. You are way off track

Anonymous said...

I think and hope that MI5 are rather better than that. If they were going to kill someone and dress it up as suicide,

They would use cut-outs anyway

Anonymous said...

Im sure if blair said to bush "who will rid me of this truth telling dr"(sic) the americans might help and be this incompetent.

Anonymous said...


Less than twelve hours in the country and you're in full-on conspiracy mode, Iain. Is it something "they" put in the water, do you think?

Best get back to the airport before the aliens can abduct you...

(But if you want a PROPER conspiracy - here's an MP trying to deflect people from recalling that the sad Dr Kelly had been ritually humiliated in a very public way by erm... a bunch of MPs)

Anonymous said...

Off topic, on a lighter note, Rory Bremner on Broadcasting House has revealed that the Cabinet Minister who fell for his impression of Broon, and gave a host of indiscreet remarks about other ministers at the time of the last general election is [drum roll]...

Margaret Becket !!!

Yes !! Ofcom won't allow it to be broadcast because technically it is 'entrapment'.

But I suspect such niceties wouldn't preclude it being put out on the 'internet'.

Sabretache said...

The wrist wound from which he allegedly bled to death was at the base of his little finger, NOT his outer wrist below the thumb. The artery which was cut runs very deep there, not close to the surface as on the other side where the pulse is normally taken.

I bet everyone who hears of the cut wrist simply assumes it to be the outer, pulse artery because everyone knows about it. I also doubt many (including David Kelly) Know there IS an artery on the other side. Just experiment with how such a wound have to be self-inflicted and draw your own conclusions.

Roger Thornhill said...

Men tend to commit suicide "for keeps", not as a cry for help. They tend to mean it. They tend to use reliable, irreversible methods. Hosepipe from the exhaust, jumping from very tall buildings, trains etc. Pills and a slash of the wrist? Unlikely. I assume Dr Kelly to be well read - if he ever opened a vein I suspect he would do it in a hot bath like an honourable Roman Senator facing a show trial and death by a tyrant, to make the point clear, very clear.

IIRC, neither the drugs nor the (negligible) loss of blood was to blame.

Dr Kelly was being hung out to dry. To me the issue was not so much the public exposure, but the behind the scenes abandonment, especially in regard to him being threatened with the sack and loss of pension (that he was due to get in a year or so). Do you think he would have gone without a note or symbolic statement in such circumstances? Unlikely.

Suicide is possible. Probable? That is a different matter.

Anonymous said...

Fulham Reactionary said...
That would not make him an expert in methods of suicide, their efficiency, and the amount of pain attendent upon them.
I remain deeply sceptical about the possibility that Kelly died otherwise than by suicide, and am unlikely to be persuaded by an argument that amounts to little more than "his method of suicide was unusual". I certainly doubt that he was murdered by MI5. ........, while our government generally is useless, I think and hope that MI5 are rather better than that. 3:49 AM

Google makes us all suicide 'experts' and why would MI5 be anymore competent than the government that controls them? The abilities of the average policeman have certainly gone down, in line with lowered entry requirements, in the 50 years that I have closely observed them. MI5 are only another arm of government.

Anonymous said...

A word of advice Iain, not a good Idea to start a discussion concering the death of David Kelly when half of us think he was killed either by the CIA or Mossad.

There you , right in the heart of the Empire of Evil getting them slagged off on your blog. Careful you don't end up wearing orange Iain.

Condolences regarding the Hammers, as someone who used to live near the ground I still have a soft spot for them and it is sad to see players like Tevez giving it all when those around them don't care anymore.

Anonymous said...

Nobody seems to grasp the real issue here which is that NOTHING coming from government is believed by ANYONE. It is a very worrying development for any future government.

None of the politically engaged trust a word from govt for very good reason, we KNOW most of it is either untrue, misleading or both. This covers everything from Ministers disclosure records, statements to parliamnet etc etc

The public, those not interested in politics, simply ignore the constant barrage of bullshit and carry on with their lives, taking no notice at all.

This has two serious implications for Cameron. Has he done enough to convince the public he is credible and they will listen to him come election campaign and if so what is he going to do that will restore the public confidence in the teh institutions of government once in power?

Isnt this a vote winning topic? I for one am very worried about the post-Bliar era. He has bent, circumvented or neutered almost all of the measures in our framework of government that could stop abuse of power. I think the public realise that it is not a good thing, but they dont know the detail and it is a hard issue to explain.

This goes back to the problem of his decontamination of the party in the eyes of the electorate. They may well accept that the tory's are now 'nice' but if they feel he is simply saying "nice" things to get elected voters will just turn away - they do not want another liar like Bliar or anything that looks like him.

The David Kelly is a good example of this; without doubt the most obvious and likely cause of his death is suicide. It has to be the starting assumption knowing the facts. This is Britain after all, not Russia, but the very fact the idea has credibility with the British public shows the extent of the problem.

The burden of proof has swapped sides in the last 10 years. I am sure that a high profile case like this, with proper official oversight and an inquiry by a Lord would have been enough to convince me in teh past that, on the crucial issue of how he died, the official version is very likely to be true. This hasnt changed.

Whilst that is my view until I see some proper evidence to the contrary. However I have absolutely no doubt that the government intefered with, framed the Inquiry terms of reference to hide information it didnt want to come out. This is not the same as thinking mr kelly was murdered but it is a shameful act that Hhis widow can have no confidence that ALL the facts have been uncovered.

On this point my first reaction is assume the government have up to no good, I have to think this given what i have seen of NuLab behaviour across the board.

Lets us all remember that David Kelly was exactly correct with his information on WMD. The government wante dthe public to believe that he was a nutter and was doing it for personal reasons, he was very plugged into the WMD issue of course as that was his job! When the government of a country tries to discredit a government employee on a subject on which HE is the expert you have to ask why.

Consider this, if david kelly made his allegations today would he still be alive and in his job?

I have a feeling that if the Kelly story broke today Bliar would have publicly agreed with Kelly and spun it differently as he did with Jackson, Dannart etc

brian in the tamar valley said...

Of course David Kelly was murdered! That is not to say that Blair was involved, he was genuinely shocked about the news. Think on this for a moment: the Hutton enquiry was set up to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly. There was no provision for taking evidence under oath nor of forcing attendance by witnesses. Both of these provisions are available to a coroner and surely would have been used if Hutton hadn't taken place. Normal procedure would be for the issue of an interim death certificate confirming death had taken place and permitting burial of the body whilst the public enquiry was in session. But in this case the coroner issued a FULL death certificate before the facts had been disclosed at the enquiry and Hutton wasn't informed about this!

I could write a lot more on this but why not go to I do hope that the BBC do justice to the facts in the programme tonight.

Anonymous said...

My client wishes to publicly deny any responsibility.

He is entitled to a 'private past'.

Anonymous said...

I find the death of Dr Kelly more believable as a murder than a suicide. But still find it impossible to bring my self to the conclusion that anybody would want to protect Blair that much.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you, Iain. Lord Falconer's adjournment of the Kelly Inquest and the setting up of a powerless and perverse Inquiry into the facts surrounding poor Dr Kelly's death will remain a blot on UK justice.

A properly constituted Inquest in the event of equivocal death is the legal right of every citizen of these islands.

Dr Kelly was denied that right.

His death was investigated with all the bogus rigor of an Inquest into the death of a 19th century poacher found dead in possession of a bag of trout by the Lord of the Manor's river.

Body laid out on a bench at the local pub, one of the Lord's cronies acts as Coroner, everyone knows that it was the local Lord of the Manor's mad son what did for him and everyone knows that the Coroner will never find against one of the ruling elite.

Except that Dr Kelly wasn't even allowed an Inquest.

And as we've seen in respect of the Inquest of Lance Corporal Matty Hull who was kia by US airmen in Iraq, modern Coroners in England are a tenacious lot who refuse to be intimidated by local, national or even international ruling elites.

Is that why Dr Kelly wasn't allowed a proper Inquest?

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

I have believed Kelly was murdered from the minute I heard of his death, and everything that has happened since has only reinforced that conviction.

Remember the speed at which the Hutton Inquiry was set up - this from a government that is notorious for dragging its feet and for inaction. Remember the way Campbell and others deserted Blair on his US visit and flew back to London (so unusual that it was commented on by the press at the time) so that they were conveniently already back in the UK when the news broke about Kelly.

Anonymous said...

For many years there were, oddly, apparently NO suicides at all in some Catholic areas of Ireland.

Found gassed, head in the oven? Ah, well, that's because the poor woman tripped and fell as she was about to light it, my Lord...

The statistics were nonsense, of course. Later researchers found that these zero suicide rates were due to the manipulation of the real cause of equivocal deaths by the police and relevant authorities in order to spare the Catholic families involved the shame of being lumbered with a heinous sin.

Lord Falconer said that he adjourned Dr Kelly's Inquest out of the same humanitarian motives as those Catholic authorities.

However this is 21st century England. And, even in suicide averse, early 20th Catholic Ireland, the deceased was given a properly constituted inquest with broad investigatory powers - albeit that the Coroner refused to find in accordance with the facts.

I can see no reason for the adjournment of Dr David Kelly's Inquest which does not invoke far more questions than the Inquiry ever even attempted to answer.

Anonymous said...

Interesting collection of serious articles on Kelly at:

It ain't just the method of suicide that is questionable... there's also the body being moved, paucity of blood spilled, a missing 'policeman' .... all raised in evidence at the inquest and ignored by Hutton.

Raedwald said...

Most conspiracy theories are rot. When one applies Occam's razor to Dallas, 9/11 et al one usually finds the most proximate causes are the true ones.

However, in the case of the death of Dr Kelly I am by no means convinced that suicide was the most proximate cause.

And Hutton bears about as much comparison to the Warren Commission as does John Craven to Jeremy Paxman.

Anonymous said...


Without wishing to upset your whole case. I at the moment am sitting at work, nursing a slight hangover for which I have taken a half of a double strength disperin. In my bag there is a box of the same pills that once contained many but now coontains many minus quite a few.

Were I to drop dead right now an autopsy would reveal that I only had half a disperin in my blood. What conclusion should the coroner draw? That someone had faked my death, or that as someone who finds Bushmills a great way to get over the daily stupidities of the world I frequently arrived at work hung over?

I know Dr Kelly was a religious man so unlikely to be a heavy drinker (although given the pressures he ws under it would be understandable) but there are many other innocent reasons for people to take one tablet (or even half) and yet still have a nearly empty packet of pills about their person.

As someone who dearly wishes to see this administration hung out to dry like the criminal scum I believe them to be I would welcome proof that the government murdered Dr Kelly. However, any proof would have to be able to pass even the basic tests of common sense let alone be acceptable in a court of law.

Tin foil hattery does the case against Tony and his Villainous Chums no good at all.

Anonymous said...

Might be a vote winner for Dc to promise a fully investigation surrounding the late good doctor's demise?

Anonymous said...

Another nail in the coffin of Hutton's credibility.


Anonymous said...

Suicides often function on two different, parallel, levels. It would not be unusual, I believe, for a suicide to take an aspirin for his headache shortly before he killed himself. Weird, but then suicides do behave in weird ways.

Anonymous said...

Dr Kelly had recently joined the B'hai faith. There is no one more passionate than a recent convert. Suicide is a sin the the eyes of the B'hais.

His daughter was getting married shortly and he was looking forward to the wedding.

Yes, he had been publically jeered at by those sleazy Labour MPs, but I think a man of his intellectual abilities and achievements would have been contemptuous rather than be humiliated by a clutch of ignorant yahoos.

There was not one Coproximal in his stomach. It was one half of a Coproximal. The almost empty carton was conveniently lying next to his body.

The reason Tony Blair's reaction to the death when he was told on his flight to Tokyo was so severe that he went instantly grey was, "the deed was done". It had happened. Every journalist on that flight with Blair noted the intensity of this involuntary reaction.

The normal reaction would have been shock followed by questions? "What? What happened? When did it happen? God, this is awful!"

Instead, nothing. He knew what had happened. The deed was done.

And they started backing and filling almost instantly with the lightning fast set up of the Hutton enquiry.

Anonymous said...

If they can poison Milosevic 7 get away with it in what is supposedly a higher court than any in Britain, then they can do it to any of us.

Anonymous said...

Tf they can murder Milosevic in the custody of what is alleged to be a more serious court than any in Britain then they can kill any of us.

Anonymous said...

If they could poison Milosevic in the custody of what was suppoed to be a more serious court than any in Britain, without media objection, they can get anybody.

Anonymous said...

The Remittance Man - Your lecture is patronising and silly and tells me that you have missed the point of the Coproximal.

The point of the nearly empty packet of pills lying conveniently next to his body was to suggest that he was about to kill himself by an almost unimaginably painful method and he had taken some pills in preparation. Someone as intelligent as Dr Kelly, had he intended to kill himself - and he had, as far as we know, no reason to want to kill himself - would assuredly had the intellectual rigour to find an easier exit.

If,indeed, he did kill himself, which I do not believe, he would have been the only person in Great Britain who committed suicide by this method that year. In fact, I have read that this method is so painful that it would be almost impossible to complete the deed. Thus the pretence that he numbed himself with a few pills.

I believe he was murdered by another method and his arm sliced open lengthwise after his death. This would account for the fact that there was so little blood at the scene. If he had sliced open a major artery while his hear was still pumping, there would have been large amounts of blood spurted out all over the place.

There wasn't.

It was murder and it was done by amateurs who didn't know how to fake a suicide with sufficient skill. Who does such ineptitude remind you of?

Anonymous said...

For those who don't know, Dr Kelly did not slash his wrist. It is claimed that he sliced the artery in his inner arm lengthwise. This would have been unbelievably painful - so painful that most people couldn't do it. It is suggested that he had the intestinal fortitude to kill himself by this bizarre, excruciating method, yet was upset by the taunts of a bunch of Labour yahoos. This is ridiculous.

Another thing, why, during the autopsy, did they fail to weigh the blood in his body? Apparently, for someone who presumably died of a wound, this is standard procedure. Yet it wasn't done.

Why? Because the amount of blood in his body would prove that he had not bled to death?

Anonymous said...

This is all very interesting, but is there really sufficient evidence for a formal complaint to be made to the police, together with a request that a new police inquiry be started?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:29 - I suspect Norman Baker is working on something like this. His report is absolutely chilling.

indigo said...

Of course Kelly was murdered. Not by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Not by MI5. If you think back, at the time Kelly was saying things that the US did not want said by anyone, and particularly not by the world expert on such things. (The incompetence of the attempt to make it look like suicide is a hallmark of CIA/FBI activities, isn't it.)

Now Blair wants to make the UK a missile launchpad for the US. The Project for the New American Century marches on, despite the disaster of Iraq.

Anonymous said...

I think I may have missed something. Dr Kelly did not slash his wrists, but let somebody else do it? Were there signs of a struggle?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:16 - Yes, actually, you have missed not just "something" but the entire point of the thread.

One more time: Dr Kelly did not "slash his wrists". He supposedly cut deep into his forearm and sliced his artery lengthwise. The artery in the forearm is buried deep in the flesh, not near the surface, as in the wrists. It is, obviously, excruciatingly, agonisingly painful. If indeed Dr Kelly did kill himself, he would be the only suicide in Britain to use that method that year.

No, he didn't let anyone else slice into his artery. He was already dead by the time someone faked the "suicide" by slashing his artery. As he was already dead, meaning - to make it clear to you - his heart was no longer pumping blood - there wasn't much bleeding at the scene

Now do you get it?

Go and read Mr Baker's report.

trinitylaw said...

I suppose this qualifies at the latest 'conspiracy theory'...?

Anonymous said...

Cato - Why?

You can't understand the nuances of these events?

Why don't you give an opinion about the evidence offered instead of making a naive, adolescent,smarty-pants remark?

Anonymous said...

So if was faked after the event, how precisely was he killed?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:54 - Officially, or really? Officially, he killed himself by slicing into the underside of his own arm to find the artery buried deeply in the flesh, and then sliced the artery open lengthwise.

The autopsy was not complete. If you read the report on Norman Baker's site, you will see that there are some irregularities. For example, Dr Kelly's blood was not weighed. This is remarkable in a case where someone is being presumed as having bled to death ... Yet no attempt to determine how much blood was left in his body.

And given that this was such an important case, the two people who conducted the autopsy were comparatively inexperienced.

indigo said...

From Hansard, written answers for 26 April 2006. The question was from Norman Baker, To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have died as a consequence of their ulnar artery being severed in each year since 1997. [65172]

Letter to the Guardian, 27 January 2004: "Our doubts about Dr Kelly's suicide" - Arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness and severing them does not lead to life-threatening blood loss. Dr Hunt stated that the only artery that had been cut - the ulnar artery - had been completely transected. Complete transection causes the artery to quickly retract and close down, and this promotes clotting of the blood. The ambulance team reported that the quantity of blood at the scene was minimal and surprisingly small. It is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at a pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vasoconstricting.

Anonymous said...

Verity's answer notably falls to deal with the question posed at 6.54. How was he killed?

Anonymous said...


I apologise if you thought my comment patronisng, that wasn't my intention.

I merely wished to illustrate that it is entirely feasible to have a half full packet of painkillers about one's person for entirely innocent reasons.

Sadly, in this world where lying scumbag lawyers seem to rule, those of us who wish to see the buggers strung from lamposts, as they deserve, are going to have to provide more than easily destroyable evidence.

indigo said...

If there are any Labour MPs left who still retain their spine and their moral compass, may I say this to them: I want the UK to uncouple from the train-wreck that is the United States. NOW.

The March issue of the New Yorker should be required reading for all MPs, for the article by Seymour Hirsch. The US is like a gambler who is betting more and higher in the futile attempt to recover his original losses - and now that includes funding (by way of "extra governmental operations") Sunni terrorism linked to Al Qaeda with the lost US$ billions of construction money, in an effort to undermine Iran's influence in Iraq.

As one commentator has observed on another forum, Osama bin Laden appears to be back on the CIA payroll (or perhaps was never off it). This is even more corrupt than the Iran-Contra scandal.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:56 - Verity's answer notably "falls" to answer the question 'How was he killed?"

The answer is: How the hell would I know? The government was in charge of Dr Kelly's body. They performed a strangely inadequate autopsy. The emergency service reported very little blood around Dr Kelly's body. This suggests that he did not slice his own ulnar artery open. It could have been opened after he died and his heart had stopped pumping his blood. We don't know, because the amount of blood left in his body was never measured during the autopsy, which is very, very strange for someone who supposedly bled to death.

Remittance Man - I apologise for jumping on your case, but I think we are all aware that one can have painkillers about one's person for the perfectly innocuous reason that we have a headache or a sore muscle or something. It was the way this was stage-managed that gave rise for concern.

The Coproximal pack was left lying next to his body. It was supposed to look as though Dr Kelly had taken several Coproximals in anticipation of killing himself by a particularly painful method. Yet in the autopsy, all that was in his stomach was one-half of a tablet.

Read Norman Baker's report on his website. It is very thorough.

Anonymous said...

Indigo - The New Yorker! Is that hoary, creaking old leftist puffer still going? Let me guess: Al Gore contributes an occasional article? Hard to believe it was once a humourous magazine.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe he was murdered. He may have committed suicide or may have died in another manner, but there are plenty more "enemies of the state" who are living and breathing as we speak and Dr Kelly had passed on his knowledge in any case. Even the most amateur media-watcher would realise his death would create immense interest in what he knew, counterproductive to any government denials.

It is possible that his body was searched and moved by a surveillance team, leading to forensic anomalies. It is even possible that heart failure arising from an altercation with watchers was hastily covered up. It is most unlikely that he was murdered and the suicide was faked. I doubt it is easy to murder someone, and I suspect it is far harder to murder someone in a way that doesn't look like a murder. There are not likely to be many people on the payroll of HMG who would be willing to be party to such a murder to spare the blushes of government, not even the more deranged spin-doctors and special advisers! How would such an undertaking be kept quiet in any case?

The poor man was under immense pressure and feared for the loss of his pension. Suicides do not always meticulously plan their tragic ends and a spur of the moment attempt may be messy and unpleasant as well as terminal.

I doubt it is a conspiracy but questions do need answering to clear up anomalies and doubts.

Anonymous said...

" ...not even the more deranged spin-doctors and special advisers! How would such an undertaking be kept quiet in any case?"

Alastair Campbell silenced all criticism of Blair in the British media for around seven years. Through bullying and intimidation.

Jess The Dog, I appreciate your reasoning, and, of course, we cannot know what goes on in someone else's mind unless that person tells us, but the circumstances here do not add up.

His wife of many years had no clue that her husband was under enough pressure to commit suicide. He was a recent convert to a religion which strictly forbids suicide, and new converts are always the most meticulous about obeying their new rules. He was looking forward to his daughter's wedding.

It wasn't a spur of the moment suicide. He would have had to take a lethal knife out of the house with him. He supposedly sliced open the length of the ulnar artery in his own arm, a savagely painful way to commit suicide.

Why wasn't the blood remaining in his body weighed at the autopsy? We do not know that he bled to death.

And Tony Blair's reaction on that flight to Japan is very telling. The blood fled instantaneously from his face so notably that every single journalist on that flight with him mentioned it in their story. I think Blair had been expecting the news, yet it was still a shock. But he knew.

Anonymous said...

Well, after a promising start, designed to con us as to the programmes true intentions, it ended up as a typical BBC pro-New Labour smokescreen.

Did we really expect anything more?

Rush-is-Right said...

It's obvious. Blair (or Campbell) had him killed. They are the only ones with a motive, namely that Dr. Kelly was in a position to expose the dodgy dossier as a bag of balls, and had started to leak to the BBC.

The autopsy was messed up. Nobody measured the blood loss. What else was omitted? Did they even test for other toxins beside the pain killers? What a strange concatenation of circumstances.

And then there is the little matter of the Oxford Coroner being leaned-on by Bliar's pal Falkener to adjourn the inquest in favour of the Hutton enquiry. This duly happens despite the fact that a Coroner can compell witnesses to attend and make statements under oath, which Hutton could not.

There is something seriously wrong here. My garbage can smells a good deal less than this on collection day.

Anonymous said...

Rush Is Right - Why was the Hutton Enquiry wheeled in so fast, when a perfectly normal investigation into a "suicide" by a Coroner's office has been our traditional means for getting at the truth of an unexplained death? What was Lord Hutton offering that a Coroner's office could not?

The Hutton Enquiry - an investigation by a lord - and a lord who posted his findings on the internet at the end of each day - was dangled in front of the British public as being somehow more effective than a traditional Coroner's report.

The manipulation and obfuscation at every level is, to my mind, chilling.

Anonymous said...

MI5 and MI6 like the CIA do not operate under direct government controll.

Thats mainly the whole point of them.

This man was a top dog he new everything about everything that lots of guys in MI5 and MI6 are payed to make sure never gets found out by anyone at all.

And he started talking.

However what ever way you look at it. The blame for the whole thing happening in the first place is either with the government on TBs watch, MI5, MI6, a foreign force, The BBC, or any combination of the 5.

The most important thing is that inspite of this none of them are taking responsibilty for any of it.

I think if working for me had directly caused one of my employees to commit suicide the police would have a thing or two to say to me about it.

Anonymous said...

To commit suicide at all takes an incredible amount of stupidity or resentment or hatred or bravery or just plain crazyness.

To do it the way Kelly was supposed to have done it takes a incredibly large amount of all of these things.

The fact that he was a married man with children. And the fact that he did not leave a suicide note to explain his actions to them and his friends.

Makes this supposed suicide just about as unbelieveable as any human action could possibly be.

Nobody will ever be able to now prove that it was murder, or even be sure who was responsible if they did.

So as far as who ever did it is concerned they did a perfectly fine job.

Also making this all look a bit "dodgy" could have been the whole point of doing it this way.

Because it certainly would have acted as a powerfull deterent to any other government scientists thinking of mouthing off to the BBC. A believable suicide would not have had that same result.

Do we know if there were any other employees at the MOD at the time who had been developing loose lips?

Because we certainly have not heard from any of them since.

Anonymous said...

One more point that comes to mind.

Which may explain TBs rather ashened face at the time.

Is that if the CIA with or without the covert knowledge of MI5 or visa-versa, did the gruby deed.

This would implement,Tony Blair in the whole murdurous episode. Whether he knew anything about it or not.

If he had said anything....Who knows a sudden heart attack, car accident, plane crash. Your guess is as good as mine.

Or just the resulting political fallout if he had said anything or it was proved to be murder, would have destroyed his political career, within a week.

So it would not have just keep government scientists on side. It would also bind Tony Blair to the ship for the duration whether the ship sunk or not.

This is not some silly game this is real life and death long term strategic stuff.

Its all to do with the USofAs determination to sort out the middle east once and for all and above even that prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons.

One scientist or Tony Blairs ego do not as they say "count for a hill of beans."

Anonymous said...

I have always thought that Campbell's role in this (and probably the wider aspects of his No.10 activity) has cried out for closer inspection. How someone with his level of psychological and psychiatric defects ever managed to acquire or maintain the level of Security Clearance necessary to work in No.10 beggars belief.

Anonymous said...

What a depressing thread, depressing because so many otherwise sane intelligent people can be seduced by their innate cynicism and hostility to the Blair government into believing the conspiracy theorists rubbish.

Arguing over minor procedural failings in the autopsy or attempting the impossible task of assessing someone’s state of mind based on the testimony of the widow are a complete waste of time. You need to ask yourself what possible gain could anyone have from killing this man? Even the most naïve of people would realise that assassinating a minor player would thrust them into the limelight. Kelly had said his piece and the world had kept turning. Some people may have moved over to the anti-war camp as a result of his intervention but he was out of the media spotlight and rapidly fading into the background. Weighed against the risk of an assassination being botched, as well as the renewed media interest in Kelly there would have been no point in killing him. Everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Another thought for the ‘MI5 licence to kill’ fraternity, for political assassinations to have the desired terrorising deterrent effect the population being targeted must realise that the prospect of political assassination exists. If they don’t believe in the threat they will not modify their behaviour and therefore it can only act as a punishment, shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The only people who believe that MI5 assassinates populate the crazier fringes of British political life. I’ve worked in central government and at no point can I say that I or any of my peers have thought there was any chance of us being bumped off if we broke the rules. Just look at the fate of Shalyer, Tomlinson and Gunn for examples of how the British do not assassinate small time leakers like Kelly. The idea that there is an unwritten code, that breaking it is punishable by death is best left to television shows. Bringing it into the real world is laughably ridiculous.

It’s a sure sign that a conspiracy theory is clutching at straws when they assert that the apparent profound effect of the news of Kelly’s death on Blair must be taken as proof that he already knew. In itself it proves absolutely nothing but in the hands of a skilled conspiracy theorist it can mean anything you want it to mean.

indigo said...

@rk, you are being (deliberately, I guess) disingenuous. You said, You need to ask yourself what possible gain could anyone have from killing this man?

That has already been explained: in brief, everyone who wanted to invade Iraq and therefore needed to make the British people and MPs believe the lies they were being told to justify the invasion.

Even the most naïve of people would realise that assassinating a minor player would thrust them into the limelight.

Kelly was not - and is not - a "minor" player.

Kelly had said his piece and the world had kept turning.

He had hardly begun to say his piece. We would all have benefited from hearing everything that he had to say. The US would have had to invade Iraq on its own. And we would not now be facing the greatest terrorist threat ever.

May the people/agents who killed Kelly slide into a crazed, guilt-raddled old age and rot in hell for eternity.

Anonymous said...

rk I do not think you will find it was the British establishment per se that murdered Dr. Kelly.
As I said before, I believe this was TB's Thomas Beckett moment.
We should look elsewhere for answers to this.
Perhaps across the pond?

Anonymous said...

I don't think David Kelly committed suicide or died of natural causes. However one should not underestimate the pressure he was under. Some time ago I was the "victim" of a set-up which resulted in publicity in the broadcast and paper media. I hold no public position, nor am I in public employment. Further, I don't give a stuff what anyone thinks. Nevertheless, I was diifident when walking round the town where I live and was very glad when it died down. I stood to lose nothing. Think what it must have been like for poor Dr. Kelly.

Anonymous said...

There is no need to look across the Atlantic. In the long run, the American military is huge and well equipped and well trained. They did not "need" our help, although it was certainly most welcome as a sign of solidarity of two powerful countries in the West. By the same token, they did not "need" the Aussies, but were very happy to welcome them on board.

But Mr Bush had no great investment either way. The only individual to benefit from our going along in Iraq was the delusional Tony Blair, who saw himself as a war leader, like Margaret Thatcher. There were no wars available for defending British interests, so he got involved in Iraq. He personally benefitted from this in American approval ratings (future earnings). Sucking up to the American public produced immediate benefits and he - an aspirant actor when younger - gave it the full treatment. Didn't anyone else get the heaves at the David Niven-playing-a-WWII-Wing-Commander act?

Barnacle Bill - agreed. The minute I heard the news, my mind went directly to "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Blair went instantly so ashen that every reporter mentioned it in his dispatch. The deed was done. He had been expecting it ... He knew.

It was nothing to do with the British establishment.

Alastair Campbell is a strong, controlling, bullying personality. He intimidated the British press for seven years. Not one newspaper dared criticise Blair. Open criticism of Blair is comparative recent and coincidentally began to take place when Campbell left.

Dr Kelly was a strong family man. I do not believe he would have done this to his family. His wife of so many years would have been aware of his state of mind.

And we have the scientific evidence that the autopsy was not handled properly. And there was no Coroner's Enquiry.

Anonymous said...

I have heard of a painkiller called coproxamol, but never coproximal. Is it a different drug, Verity?

Anonymous said...

moonbattery! Norman Baker has a high reputation-let's hope he ruins it by ridicule

Anonymous said...

Coproximal - Haven't a clue, sweetie. I'm not a pharmacist. I remembered the word from when Dr Kelly was murdered and spelled it as I thought it sounded.

I've never even seen a packet of this drug. I don't even know if they're over-the-counter or prescription.

But you should be very, very proud of yourself for being so familiar with the spelling! Well done!

Anonymous said...

Verity: you think you know so much about this case, but got it wrong about Dr Kelly being a medical doctor, and know little about the drug you're obsessed with him having (it's presciption only, by the way). I don't think it was a straightforward suicide either, but I think you're clutching at unnecessary straws.

Anonymous said...

And Dr Kelly's reason for taking his knife with him on his walk was what precisely?

Anonymous said...

Your rebuttal to my post could best be described as wishful thinking. The life or death of Dr Kelly in July 03 could have no bearing on the decision on whether to go to war with Iraq because it had already begun. In fact the infamous mission accomplished speech by Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln was a full three weeks before Kelly even met Gilligan and made his injudicious remarks, two months before he took his own life. Dr Kelly even visited Iraq post-invasion for crying out loud. It’s clearly nonsense for you to claim that he was killed by “everyone who wanted to invade Iraq” so that “the British people and MPs believe the lies”.

Kelly, Gilligan and the whole ‘sexed up’ story was a minor British sideshow right up to the point where Kelly took his own life. Thereafter he became the focal point for conspiracy nonsense like this. Had he lived he would remain a minor player. As far as US perceptions of the war go I suspect he is still a minor player. Look up wikipedia entries on the Iraq war , the Iraq intelligence commission and the ISG and you’ll find no mention of Kelly.

I have to repeat my assertion that because Blair “went ashen” does not mean “he knew”. Blair would have known that Kelly was the ‘mole’ and he would have known the man was under tremendous pressure from the MoD and the media. No doubt there was some compassion for the man in his reaction but there would also have been the realisation that his death was a terrible political disaster. To take his strong reaction as an indicator of prior knowledge is absurd. It's constant repetition on this string is indicative of just how weak this particular consipracy theory is.

Anonymous said...

I did read somewhere that he was a medical doctor, but I cannot remember where. And the person who wrote it could have been mistaken. So I'll let that one go.

Why on earth should I know any of the properties of Coproxomal? I know it's a strong painkiller. I am not "obsessed" with it. My point was, half of even a strong painkiller would not dent the pain of slicing into your own arm.

Why are you trying to derail the discussion by this foolish obsession with the spelling of a prescription drug?

Anonymous said...

Why didn't he just take enough coproxamol? It is (or was) a recognised route for suicides.

indigo said...

@rk, you are talking No 10-speak. You describe Dr Kelly as a "minor" player; No 10 described him as a "a lowly official". But he was a world-class expert in biological weapons who had visited Iraq at least 37 times. That means that he was not a minor figure. Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, had a private lunch with the weapons scientist shortly before the Iraq conflict (reported by at least one newspaper); it is unlikely that Hoon does lunch with middle-ranking civil servants with no access to intelligence.

There were no significant holdings of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq before the invasion; and Iraq was no threat to the US or the UK. Kelly knew that and he wanted the public and the media to have a better understanding of problems of weapons proliferation. Having the public and media know that the US (if not the UK) was taking illegal weapons into Iraq didn't suit Blair and Bush at all.

Trubes said...

In the light of the speculation of the real cause of Dr. Kelly`s death there is an ominous silence from his family !Have they been silenced ? I know if my husband or father had met such a dreadful demise I would be shouting from the "roof tops" until the truth was out !

Anonymous said...

Bliar went ashen because he thought for a minute "I am well and truly screwed over this one." He would have known very well the pressure Dr Kelly was being put under.

It is a puzzle how Alastair Campbell gained any clearance and I suspect he was never formally vetted. He would have been classed as a security risk based upon his personality disorder and his dishonesty, referred to memorably in a court case.

Anonymous said...

True Blue - They still may be in shock.

To get over such an abnormal death of a beloved parent may take much longer. Perhaps, when they feel stronger, they will start speaking in public. This must have shattered the confidence of this family very badly. If they think (and I don't know that they do; this is just a thought) that their husband/father was murdered at the hands of an all-powerful person in the prime minister's inner circle, and they had no hope of proving it or ever getting justice for the husband/father, that would make them feel even weaker.

They may also, of course, have been threatened when they were at their most vulnerable. This is all supposition on my part.

Anonymous said...

Jess The Dog - You could be right. He may never have been vetted. I'm sure the good folks who dish out Freedom of Information for the government would be happy to give you the lowdown.

Anonymous said...

Dr Kelly, because he was a well-known expert on WMD, he would be approached journalists wanting information or an informed opinion.
"Among them was Judith Miller of the New York Times, the paper's WMD expert and the recipient of an e-mail on the day Dr Kelly died, in which he spoke of "dark actors playing games".

Read the whole thing here. It is quite illuminating.

Dr Kelly was no naif.

Anonymous said...

If you read what I have said a little more carefully you might notice that I make no direct aligation about anyone. Its all just suposition bases on the very very few facts that are known.

I support the war I just dont think that Britain under a Labour government should have got involved in such high profile. This is because the only way it could have happened was for Tony blair to lie to his own backbenchers and the British people about why we are there. Its just not a good idear to start wars ON LIES in a democracy. Because the loss of trust in our entire democratic process that getting found out results in, is worse then loosing the war. In fact in many ways we have already lost, whatever happens in Iraq and Iran now.

Its a bit like finding out after Hitler had blown his brains out that Germany never did invade Franch and Poland in the first place, and that all the Jews in Europe were never happier.

This is not JFK or Princess die stuff. This could all have been achieved by a very few people and a very few people would have been neaded to cover it up.

I have stated also why there was a very good reason to make it half look like murder anyway. A few years later on and the family have said nothing. No other scientists have come forward. This just does not RING TRUE in my mind.

Some retired chap at MI5 stated on TV that in all his years at MI5 he had never heard of a "liecence to kill, we just dont do those things."

Also that "the most important thing is that there was no motive for his killing." Well he would say that would he not? But motive there certainly was.

However if you believe a former employee of MI5, people payed to lie, you will believe anything.

A bit like that well respected woman excecutive at reuters that said that in her "15 year experience at reuters I have never seen a doctored photograph produced, we just dont do those things." Well fact she had and they do.

However just because every bone in my body says MURDER does not mean it was.

Anonymous said...

Indigo: I don’t mean that he was a lowly official. When I call him a minor player I mean this in an broader perspective. My contention is that when the history books are written about the war then Kelly is likely to be little more than a footnote. Had he not killed himself he would not be mentioned at all. If however this theoretical book was on Blair rather than Iraq then he would merit a longer entry but in the high level politics of the day he is still a minor player. His intervention was too little too late to alter the course of anything other than the political career of Blair. Had he aired his claims months earlier before the war had begun then things might be different but he didn’t. The retired MI5 guy is absolutely right to claim that there was no possible reason to kill him (and lots of reasons NOT to kill him). Your Machiavellian view of the intelligence services is much more in line with ‘spooks’ than real life. Why kill him? The ‘truth’ about what there was and was not in Iraq was going to come out sooner or later. The ISG’s interim report of October (just three months after Kelly’s death) reported the discovery of no weapons. An assassination to provide a temporary block on damaging news could only be considered worthwhile if the timing of release was crucial, in this case before the war had begun. As we were already into the insurgency phase of the conflict it is utterly illogical to claim that an assassination would be launched in July to suppress news that was intentionally released in October. It is absurd precisely because were the assassination to be uncovered the damage would be immeasurably worse than anything Kelly could do while alive.

The only reason he became the centre of the media storm at all was because of a British political dogfight between No10 and the BBC. Either he or Gilligan went from the “intelligence was wrong” and crossed the line to “the PM knew before the war the intelligence was wrong and lied”. This was an accusation too far and the Blair team knew they were on solid ground if they challenged it, as opposed to the considerably shaky ground they would be on if they carried on insisting that WMD would be found. They made an aggressive but sensible tactical decision to go after Gilligan and his claims of lies to both detract from the wider debate and challenge that specific and potentially very damaging claim. The pursuit of this strategy put enormous pressure on Kelly and his public humiliations in front of the parliamentary committees must have been awful. Blair’s shock at the news would have because he must at some level sanctioned the media plan that had led to the suicide.

True Blue: A classic example of conspiracy theory logic. Precisely the opposite has happened from what your theory would predict and so you conclude that another conspiracy must be afoot to allow this to happen. Has the thought never occurred to you that the family believe he killed himself and find this kind of speculation distressing and therefore are not ‘shouting from the rooftops’ but trying to rebuild their lives away from voyeuristic media intrusion that insists on constantly reliving the death of their loved one and casting it as a brutal murder? Can’t you see why they might not want to do that?

As for why have no other scientists come forward, well what could they say? There is no WMD in Iraq. I think we all know that now. How about “Blair lied”, well we get that in editorials every other Tuesday so hardly earth shattering news. Perhaps it would be if they had evidence but that lack of which should be considered in the light of the fact that most of the experts in DIS, SIS etc actually thought Saddam possessed WMD. The intelligence assessments of the day may have been thin on detail, and admit as much, but the thrust was always that Saddam was likely to possess this stuff. Every overt action of his regime reinforced this. There was an intelligence failure over Iraq but it was an “honest” mistake, nobody deliberately lied. No scientists are coming forward with evidence of lying because there is none to produce. There will have been dissenting voices in the construction of a joint collaborative assessment but these were drowned out not by political interference but by other analysts.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here and that most of you will carry on believing your theories regardless of what I or anyone has to say.

Anonymous said...

RK - Well, you are banging your head against a wall because everything you write is fragmented and suppositional.

I believe only one or two people above have brough MI5 into the discussion. Most people seem to think it was Downing Street. The security services had no reason not to want Dr Kelly around. Blair's personal glory, ambition and future earnings and status in America were at stake. He was going to war as a major player on the international stage. End of story.

Blair is a coward and wouldn't have acted alone. Or acted at all. But he had an ambitious, unbalanced, combative henchman.

We cannot speculate about Dr Kelly's family because we know nothing of them. We have no idea how they feel or what they believe.

You refer to: voyeuristic media intrusion that insists on constantly reliving the death- but that is not true. The case has not been mentioned for three years. It is only now being discussed openly, thanks to Mr Norman Baker. You forget how, a mere three or four years ago, people and the media were frightened of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell.

Anonymous said...

The views of the Kelly family are known. His wife believes that he commited suicide.

Anonymous said...

Anonimo 9:10 PM - Do you have any references for that? I don't mean this confrontationally - but,if true, it is important, obviously.

Anonymous said...

I was alluding to the media intrusion that would result from their 'shouting from the rooftops'.

The argument that MI5 had many more reasons not to kill than to kill also holds for Downing Street. Although they had more to lose in the long run if Kelly became a loose cannon (something he showed little sign of becoming) the possible downsides of being found out / suspected would be so much worse as to make the plan illogical.

Verity, yes my ramblings may be fragmented but I'm trying to challenge numerous posters so I guess it’s to be expected. You did make me smile however when you accused me of supposition, it almost became when a laugh when you went on to say that we cannot "speculate about Dr Kelly’s family because we know nothing about them". That hasn’t stopped you before!

Anonymous said...

RK - I have not speculated about Dr Kelly's family because I know absolutely nothing about them, other than that he had a daughter who was about to get married. I dont think we've ever even seen pictures of them.

Norman Baker Watch said...

There's more on Stormin' Norman @ Norman Baker Watch

Anonymous said...

Verity, come now don’t be bashful. You are guiltier than I when it comes to supposition. The majority of my posts have concerned the complete lack of motivation for any party to kill Dr Kelly. This line of argument cannot escape supposition because it is integral to the analysis of motivation. Anyway let's review some of your comments in this area.

“Dr Kelly had recently joined the B'hai faith. There is no one more passionate than a recent convert. Suicide is a sin the the eyes of the B'hais.”

“His daughter was getting married shortly and he was looking forward to the wedding.”

“ a man of his intellectual abilities and achievements would have been contemptuous rather than be humiliated by a clutch of ignorant yahoos.”

“Dr Kelly was a strong family man. I do not believe he would have done this to his family.”

“They still may be in shock. To get over such an abnormal death of a beloved parent may take much longer. Perhaps, when they feel stronger, they will start speaking in public. This must have shattered the confidence of this family very badly. If they think (and I don't know that they do; this is just a thought) that their husband/father was murdered at the hands of an all-powerful person in the prime minister's inner circle, and they had no hope of proving it or ever getting justice for the husband/father, that would make them feel even weaker. They may also, of course, have been threatened when they were at their most vulnerable.”

Which comes with the admission that “This is all supposition on my part”

But my personal favourite for supposition in purist of an argument goes to this quote concerning not the family of Dr Kelly but Blair, so that's ok then.

“The reason Tony Blair's reaction to the death when he was told on his flight to Tokyo was so severe that he went instantly grey was, "the deed was done". It had happened. … He knew what had happened. The deed was done.”

Anonymous said...

RK - Obviously, we are all proposing theories here as the facts have been manipulated and obscured.