Friday 13 August 2010

The patient lived, but the Doctor died. Dr Kelly's death

".....Lord Hutton? Lord Hutton, sir? Just one more thing.."

A group of medical experts has demanded a full inquest into the death of government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly saying it unlikely he could have bled to death in the way the authorities claim.
This story is rearing up again. Dr Kelly did not kill himself, so it seems from a group of doctors who study the medical evidence. Actually, thats not what they say. They say that

Insufficient blood would have been lost to threaten life from the wound to his severed ulnar artery"

So the story can rumble on. Cutting his wrists didn't kill him. The doctors don't say what did, as they did not perform the autopsy. They just conclude that the wrist injury would not of itself been fatal, which contradicts the Hutton report.

Conspiracy theories can make normal people irrational and irrational people unstable. These theories rely heavily on concentrating on inconsistencies or minutiae of evidence, but usually ignore a massive great piece of incontrovertible evidence. Like , the Twin Towers were dynamited. The video clearly shows puffs of detonation like clouds of smoke blasting from the sides of the Towers. The argument then moves to disproving that these are explosions at all but just the pressure caused by the floors collapsing. Experts are bought in on both sides to discuss complex demolition techniques. Scientists build models to prove/disprove the video images. And all this obscures what should be the fundamental question. The Colombo question. Means, opportunity and MOTIVE. The WHY? question.

The government has the means to blow up its own buildings. It might have had the opportunity but thats' pretty unlikely considering the buildings were occupied by 10,000 people all the time, and the government has trouble keeping even a data disk secure, but, OK.
But motive? why? Why use Saudis to attack USA from bases in Afghanistan to provide a 'causus belli' to attack Iraq? There were plenty of existing resolutions, plenty of weapons inspectors. No need to destroy your domestic airline industry and severely damage your nations financial centre, so mush so it caused a recession, just to declare war on the stone age Taliban.

Human rights abuses would have done. And how does Iraq and oil get involved? That was separate to 9/11 ... And look how far off the point we are of Dr Kelly. That's the beauty of conspiracy theories. Any argument reinforces the theory.

The Kelly story was about leaks. Kelly had claimed that the 45 minute insertion was nonsense, added to sex up the dossier. Pretty serious stuff. i heard the Today program at the time and thought .."BBC just openly called Blair a! They better have some evidence because he cannot allow that to stand." Dr Kelly leaked very sensitive data to the BBC, who did not protect his identity sufficiently well. The Labour government immediately went off on one of its well rehearsed smear campaigns. Dr 'Walter Mitty'. 'Not taken seriously' etc. And to smear Gilligan too. The government wanted the story to go away. They wanted a war. The very last thing a government wants is a death. Even worse, a suicide, by someone THEY are hounding. How big did the story suddenly become? What was Alistair Campbell's nightmare? A story being fuelled. Especially a story in which he himself and PM Blair featured so prominently. Surely if MI5 was going to incompetently kill the doctor they should have done it before he talked, not after.

So to the weekend Colombo question.

If doctor Kelly was murdered, WHY was he murdered? If anyone can provide a convincing explanation as to WHY, then I would appreciate it. Don't care how, or who or where. Just WHY?

Because in the 2 billion odd Google hits there does not appear to be a single credible explanation


Electro-Kevin said...

He probably did kill himself and then the Govt panicked. Blair didn't go ashen in front of journalists on the plane because Kelly was dead, but because he'd been told of the massive cock-up which had happened after the body had been found.

I think the security services had him on watch and he topped himself while someone in Dirty Tricks had gone for a kebab and the one left behind had gone for a piss. They fucked up the aftermath. Trying to keep the flack off of Campbell and Blair by first trying hide the body and then realising it wasn't such a good idea ... which begs the real question we should all be asking...

...why were the security services so in thrall to - and intimidated by - the Blair administration.

That's my conspiracy theory anyway ...

And you're bang on the money. 9/11 was exactly what it was and caused the Credit Crunch. The bust and the problems with black-men-in-vests were controllable until the Fed was forced to keep interest rates down to mitigate the 9/11 atrocities.

Nick Drew said...

one day i shall reveal all about the genesis of the Dodgy Dossier ...

(and you will find me behind a tree)

Bill Quango MP said...

That is the most credible I've heard. But..Mr EK..And my wife, she loves your work, but just one more thing...

Why move the body? If the doc is dead, and killed himself, why get involved? And so badly too...ok they panicked, but why not just run away..No sir. It doesn't add up..

Det Inspector Quango said...

Now Mr Drew, you may not want to come forward, but my Captain, he wants your involvemnet wrapped up before the commercials. So, unless you want to go downtown ... you'd better come clean.

Anonymous said...

Det Inspector Quango said...

I see anon.. but Why? Why blow up a building IF you have planned to fly aeroplanes into other nearby buildings. It makes no sense. Just send three planes instead of two.

The motive is still missing too.

Marchamont Needham said...

I don't care if he was killed or not. But I do care that he didn't get an inquest.

The law allowing the government to dispense with inconvenient inquests should be the first to be repealed.

Steven_L said...

The theory about rich Iraqis that stood to gain from Saddam's removal doing it is the best one.

Anonymous said...

I just tried to give an answer

This blog limits to 4096 characters.

Up yours too

Bill Quango MP said...

Marchamont Needham: They do seem to allow cover ups. Cover ups of bungling mostly, but cover ups none the less.

Steven L. Killed by our intelligence agencies, Killed by US intelligence agencies, killed by Iraqis because he assured them there would be no invasion, killed by persons unknown for unknown reasons.

Anon: You don't surely need 4096 words to say WHY.
Just bullet points would do. Don't care about the technical. Just the reason. Credible motive is lacking in both 9/11 and Kelly.

Anonymous said...

If that's your opinion, after all that's happened, you've got to be part of the problem, Quango

Actually, it was bullet points.

Obviously too complex for you to put together, or your reading is inadequate, or, as I say, you are part of the problem.

Which is it?

Anonymous said...

Look it's real simple...

If David Kelly stands up and says the dossier is full of shit, the government is lying to the poeple.. then the brits can't join the yanks war and the whole legitamacy goes up in smoke...

The yanks wanted a war, he was in the way, they smoked him...

Blair proabnly went pale because he was probably asked to arrange it and said no, so the yanks did it anyway.

Why are you so intent on finding a complex answer when a simple one remains...

Bill Quango MP said...

Ok Anon..I getcha. the Yanks killed Dr Kelly to shut him up.. I see..

But just one thing sir..Dr Kelly had already blabbed. He'd already spoken to the BBC, the dossier was being discredited. What more could he have said? Kelly believed there was WMD in Iraq, just that it wouldn't be ready in 45 mins or that it posed a threat to the UK.. Further leaks could be embarrassing for Blair, not fatal.

And when Kelly died the story didn't end. No sir. The story grew. "Have you got blood on your hands Prime minister?"

If the government wanted Kelly gone, why not erase him? He's at the bottom of the North sea while government says "he's run off and gone into hiding. We warned you he was unstable. We are happy to discuss with Dr Kelly this dossier if he just comes forward....anyone?...anyone seen, seems he's fled to North Korea."
The Blair government had the best PR team ever assembled, at the height of their powers, with a fairly tame media and a feeble opposition. They didn't need to kill Kelly. No sir, I don't think the government killed Dr Kelly. Killed him in such a bungled way and then deliberately botched the inquest so that questions would be asked forever...

Electro-Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Odin's Raven said...

Peter Eyre in various articles in the Palestine Telegraph, such as provides a possible motive for the government to wish to see Dr. Kelly dead - he knew too much about lost nuclear weapons and corruption surrounding them, and he was becoming too talkative.

"Security sources say the scientist, who helped expose how Tony Blair's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "sexed up", knew that two 200 kiloton nuclear warheads went missing during the first Gulf War.

Sources familiar with Dr Kelly's work with South Africa's security services say he also knew damaging details of how nuclear weapons decommissioned by South Africa were lost in the Middle East in 1991. It became clear that many knew of their eventual relocation to Iraq."

Electro-Kevin said...

Bill - "Why did they move the body ?"

You obviously haven't worked in the security services. Despite there being very clever people in it there can be some right twats too. Some of the fuck-ups are legend and the public never get to hear about them.

We'll never know what happened but I imagine something like Fawlty Towers, The Kipper and the Corpse episode.

(My regards to wifey)

Another question. Why would Hutton and the coroner bungle their part of the investigation ?

Marchamont Needham said...

Agreed Bill. But no inquest?

I don't think the government killed him, but I do think they drove him to his death.

More than enough to make TB turn ashen and reflect on his part in it.

But no inquest. Why?

There's no smoke without fire and concidences don't exist.

Anonymous said...

Really, you are confusing your own argument.

First you start by wondering why..

"If anyone can provide a convincing explanation as to WHY, then I would appreciate it. Don't care how, or who or where. Just WHY?"

Then you insist on defending the Blair gov't...Who!

"The Blair government had the best PR team ever assembled, at the height of their powers, with a fairly tame media and a feeble opposition. They didn't need to kill Kelly. No sir, I don't think the government killed Dr Kelly. Killed him in such a bungled way and then deliberately botched the inquest so that questions would be asked forever..."

It seems to me your entire thinking is scrambled.

Is it "who", or "Why"?

Why would the police remove all the wallpaper from his abode?


Who would think they knew he had documents?

Security services perhaps. Or weapons inspectorate??

Who would be made to look liars if those documents surfaced?

Would it be gov't that had been examining geological surveys of Iraq oilfields for at least a decade..surveys from satellite, airborne, and on the ground spying, gov't who recruited the retired oil men from the time of oil majors in the area for advice, said oilmen who had been dealing for at least 2 years with Cheney, who was anxious for an excuse to act??

Dr Kelly murder was part of a much larger scheme, he got in the way of that scheme, he was a rare breed who was honest.

The scheme was called the great game, and it is still being played.

I grant the murder was bungled, ham-fisted - so what - they were rookies perhaps. It's who gave the orders, and on whose behalf, that matters. Who benefited? Perhaps it was bungled deliberately to make Blair look an ass hole for allowing Dr Kelly to speak out in the first place. Certainly Colin Powell looked an ass hole after his UN performance...based on UK "intel".

And during the entire invasion, there was only one Iraqi ministry under constant US guard, one that was never hit!

You got to wonder about the gagging order though.

There IS far more under the surface, it is not simple, but I wont waste my time.

In the interests of 4096 I will stop. And given your thinking, you won't ever find out.

chaingangcharlie said...

Most explanatory motive theory I heard (probably in norman baker book ? ) was that Iraqui ex pats/ opposition/ all trying to sex up evidence to promote invasion - & thus get into power - were getting very narked with Kelly for very credibly downplaying their evidential up-playing, & thus possibly screwing up their wonderful future in command of all that oil.

So there's a motive.

Carry on.

Electro-Kevin said...

Chaingangcharlie - if that were the case it wouldn't have ended with a pristine little stiff left in a field, I can assure you.

They'd have probably had some fun with gaffer tape and pliers first.

Anon at 11.59 is interesting.

Bill Quango MP said...

Odin's raven - long time no see! How are you?
Good spot. The story is speculative though. It was 20 years ago and no mention of these weapons since. I think 'discovered' Nuclear airborne bombs, lost in the desert, turn up in Tom Clancy and Frederik Forsyth novels. Quite credibly too if i recall. The downside to the theory is the re is no evidence at all that Kelly was talking about bombs, or that someone else didn't start talking and was killed. the story stops with Kelly, even though the 'bombs' are still out there. it falls into moon landing territory which requires 100's or 1000's of people to be quiet for a very long time.

Marchamont Needham
I don't think the government killed him, but I do think they drove him to his death.
That is by far the most convincing explanation. If Kelly was 'unstable' he gave little sign BEFORE the scandal broke. It was AFTER the media pressure, fueled by the spinners that the pressure became too much

Bill Quango MP said...

Anon: 11.59.
The reason that who or how don't matter is, they are a given.
If its political assassination, then its the UK government, or a foreign government..
The how is irrelevant too.In the UK we would assume the SAS or MI5. They can bump off anyone anyway they want.
Suicide by wrist slitting {although jumping from a tall bridge may have been better to conceal a murder}, poison, car accident .. even an ironic Russian style atomic poisoning with a grain of Cessium 132 in his sugar bowl.

As for oil and the rest, well there is little doubt that the USA wanted a war in Iraq and was determined to have one. Why that is so, regional stability, new democracy,anti-terrorism, to help Israel or just plain oil rich land grabbing is unclear.
Bob Woodward's heavy going,over laboured three volume books on the invasion and the run up, really point to incompetence, willful delusion and wishful thinking.

Bill Quango MP said...

chaingangcharlie, Yes sir, that's the most believable of the explanations, but it falls short.
Where do the hitmen come from so quickly? Do Iraqi's have squads based in the UK, loyal to the exiled politicians of Iraq. And would they kill Kelly? The damage was done. And why not kill Blix? He was the real barrier, saying more time , more time.
Interestingly both Blix and Kelly believed that there were WMD, just that the case for war wasn't proven. To get rid of everyone who was saying that would have required the elimination of most of the UN.

EK. Anon at 11.59 is interesting.
Certainly is interesting.

But falls into a common conspiracy trap of facing both ways.
"The government are all powerful and could orchestrate anything without anyone finding out..even 9/11"


"The government are incompetent. They bothched the suicide, and then they botched the inquest by not destroying enough of the evidence. And they botched the investigation by not paying off the policeman, who was first on the scene and is now blabbing. Or paying off the doctors, or threatening them with terrible disclosures if they don't shut up.. 'Want to join Dr Kelly? Then don't send that letter.'

Cake and eat.

measured said...

The Americans, Bill. Or friends of. It is not enough to be on a hit list. Real motivation has to be there.

BrianSJ said...

I don't accept the argument that Kelly would be less trouble (to Bush-Blair-Gannon) alive than dead. Yes, the story was fuelled, but having him live on CNN during the invasion, and around when the weapons were not found - you are saying that would be less bother? Not credible.

Technical assistance said...

Anon 5.53: For future reference, if you need to make a posting longer than 4096 characters, simply split your contribution into Part 1 and Part 2 etc, and readers will be able to follow your theme(s). Alternatively, give yourself a blog name so we can recognise you and follow along behind.

Hope that helps.

On topic: This is all very interesting but the truth is unlikely to be revealed until official records are released in 100 years' time. Those concerned who ruined the career of an excellent BBC journalist have still not been brought to book either.

Nich Starling said...

If there is nothing to hide, why are the documents sealed for 70 years, not the usual 30 years ?

Electro-Kevin said...

A certain someone doesn't want to face trial in dotage, that's why.

Bill Quango MP said...

BrianSJ: but why let Blix go on CNN saying much the same, but not the unknown Kelly? Remember Kelly was only really in trouble with Alistair Campbell, when Kelly dismissed the 45min inclusion as rubbish. It was Chemical Alki who wanted to step on the scientist.

Technical assistance and Norfolk Blogger.
Who benefits from a 70 years silence.
The MOD, as they have most things to want to remain secret for 70 years. this isn't unusual in defence matters. Some WW2 papers are secret today. Some were only released after 60 years.
The former government wouldn't mind the whole thing being buried in a deep vault either. The entire war does them no credit whatsoever.
Its amazing that they got away with it. Core Labour support, lost in 2005, returned in 2010.
But is there substantial evidence that points to a cover up over the death? Unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. More likely covering the spin machine that was in action before and after his death.

Ek: yes, that as well. In 65 years time Tony Blair will be 122 years old.

Anonymous said...

Clearly some core 'establishment' figures like Grieve and Howard have been told that it's worth digging, even if that puts them temporarily in the conspiracy loon camp.

I doubt UK 'black ops' teams would kill a UK citizen, but Yanks clearly aren't bothered.

The incoming UK administration may be warning Obama that further illegal acts, such as attempts to destroy BP, will result in the assassination of Kelly being put very firmly onto the USA.

Anonymous said...

"I doubt UK 'black ops' teams would kill a UK citizen,"

What are you smoking?

Anonymous said...

note to Bill: 122 is not very old.
Aubrey De Grey says some people alive today could still be alive in 4000 years time.

Regards the Dr Kelly 'conspiracy', the thrust of the arguement of the people who believe he wasn't killed by the UK, US or ...
Seems to be that you believe he had said what he said and had nothing else of value which he might say.
These line of thinkers appear to have swallowed the Labour propaganda that Dr Kelly was nothing more than a Walter Mitty character.

The reality being that Dr Kelly knew a "lot", and no government is going to let someone with the insider knowledge that he had become a loose cannon.