It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Two lies were pivotal to the invasion of Iraq: one was that the mobile laboratories found in Iraq were evidence of WMD, and the other was that WMD could be launched from Iraq at British bases in Cyprus within 45 minutes. Kelly demolished them both. It was he who had leaked to the Observer that the mobile laboratories were not for WMD, and it was he who had expressed deep unhappiness with the claim that WMD could be launched from Iraq in 45 minutes. Kelly was one of the most senior and highly-respected weapons inspectors. His return to Iraq on 26 July 2003, a date that was confirmed by the MoD the day before he disappeared, would have risked his being able to demonstrate conclusively that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
In one particular Kelly was definitively at odds with what both George Bush and Blair were claiming about post-war discoveries of Iraqi weapons. Both had insisted that Coalition Forces had found and identified two alleged mobile germ warfare laboratories. But Kelly had a totally different opinion, telling The Observer that he had examined the alleged labs in person and had no doubts about what they were intended for - the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons. 'Exactly as the Iraqis described them,' he would tell this paper
Neither man, however, could foresee the profound implications that meeting would have; how both would be hounded by Ministers and government officials over who said what to whom. In particular, neither could foresee the consequences of allegations - denied by Kelly - that he had told Gilligan how Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, had improperly 'sexed up' the Government's September dossier, which presented the pressing evidence of Iraq's weapons programmes.
One claim in particular infuriated Campbell and the Government when it appeared in an article by Gilligan - that a senior intelligence source had told him the communications chief had insisted on including a contested claim that Iraq could 'deploy' its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.
When he appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15 July 2003, Kelly appeared to be under severe stress, which was probably increased by the televising of the proceedings. He spoke with a voice so soft that the air-conditioning equipment had to be turned off, even though it was one of the hottest days of the year.
His evidence to the committee was that he had not said the things Gilligan had reported his source as saying, and members of the committee came to the conclusion that he had not been the source. Some of the questioning was very precise. The Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay, in particular, used a forceful tone in his cross-examination. For example, when asked to simply list the journalists that he met, Kelly declined to answer and requested that such a list be sought from the MoD, which triggered a response: "...This is the high court of Parliament and I want you to tell the Committee who you met... You are under an obligation to reply". The Chairman of the Committee (Donald Anderson) underscored the validity of MacKinlay's question telling Kelly: "It is a proper question... If you have met journalists there is nothing sinister in itself about meeting journalists, save in an unauthorised way." Mackinlay offered his opinion that Kelly had been used by Gilligan telling Kelly: "I reckon you are chaff; you have been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up, have you not?"
Kelly was deeply upset by his treatment before the Committee and privately described MacKinlay as an 'utter bastard.' During the hearing, he was closely questioned about several quotes given to Susan Watts, another BBC journalist working on Newsnight, who had reported a similar story. It later emerged that Gilligan had himself told members of the committee that Watts' source was also Kelly. Kelly denied any knowledge of the quotes, and must have realised that he would have serious problems if the Ministry of Defence believed he had been the source of them. On the following day, (16 July 2003), Kelly gave evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee. He told them that he liaised with Operation Rockingham within the Defence Intelligence Staff.
MR KNOX: What did you see?
MS HOLMES: I could see a body slumped against the bottom of a tree, so I turned around and shouted to Paul to ring Control and tell them that we had found something and then went closer to just see whether there was any first aid that I needed to administer.
MR KNOX: And how close up to the body did you go?
MS HOLMES: Within sort of a few feet of the body.
MR KNOX: And did you notice anything about the position of the body?
MS HOLMES: He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree.
A little further on is this exchange:
MR KNOX: I take it you did not actually go up to the body itself and feel the pulse?
MS HOLMES: I did not touch it, no.
MR DINGEMANS: Did you see what Brock the dog had found?
MR CHAPMAN: Yes.
MR DINGEMANS: And what was that?
MR CHAPMAN: The body of a gentleman sitting up against a tree.
MR DINGEMANS: And can you recall what he was wearing?
MR CHAPMAN: All I could see from the distance I got was he was wearing a dark jacket and light coloured shirt.
MR DINGEMANS: And how close did you get to the body?
MR CHAPMAN: I probably reached about 15 to 20 metres from it.
MR DINGEMANS: Could you see anything at all?
MR CHAPMAN: He was sitting with his back up against a tree and there was an obvious injury to his left arm.
MR DINGEMANS: An obvious injury to his left arm. What was that injury?
His testimony – the first time he has talked in such detail – is crucial, as the civilian volunteer searchers who first found the body said it was leaning against a tree. He said: ‘If earlier witnesses said that, then the body had obviously been moved’ by the time he got there.
Mr Bartlett backs up claims made by DC Graham Coe – the first policeman on the scene – about how little blood there was around the body. The paramedic said: ‘I’ve seen more blood at a nosebleed than I saw there.’
However, the Hutton Inquiry said that Dr Kelly had bled to death after cutting a small artery in his wrist.
Having pronounced him dead at 10.07am, they made their way back to their ambulance. But in just a few minutes at the scene Mr Bartlett noted many things that have troubled him ever since.
He said: ‘He was lying flat out some distance from the tree. He definitely wasn’t leaning against it. I remember saying to the copper, “Are you sure he hasn’t fallen out of the tree?”
‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there. If the earlier witnesses are saying that, then the body has obviously been moved.’
(Sour ce) (Source)
Amazingly, Chief Inspector (now Superintendent) Alan Young of Thames Valley Police, who headed the investigation into Dr Kelly’s death, did not even give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
Significantly, it emerged via a Freedom of Information request in 2008 that a police helicopter with heat-seeking equipment which searched for Dr Kelly on the night he disappeared did not detect his body.
At 2.50am on July 18, 2003, the helicopter flew over the exact spot where Dr Kelly’s body was found by a search party less than six hours later, at 8.30am.
Yet the pathologist who took Dr Kelly’s body temperature at 7pm on the day his body was found determined that Dr Kelly could still have been alive at 1.15am on July 18 — just 95 minutes before the helicopter flew over the patch of woodland.
If that was the case, the body would have been warm enough to be picked up by the helicopter’s heat sensors. Why didn’t the helicopter pick it up? Was it because Dr Kelly did not die where his body was found?
MR DINGEMANS: And what was his position?
POLICE CONSTABLE DEAN FRANKLIN: He was lying on his back with his right hand to his side and his left hand was sort of inverted with the palm facing down (Indicates), facing up on his back.
MR KNOX: Before the paramedics approached Dr Kelly's body, can you remember what position it was in?
POLICE CONSTABLE SAWYER: Lying on its back with its head at the base of a tree, a large tree. The head was tilted to the left. The right arm was by the side. The left arm was palm down. There was a large amount of blood on the back of the left arm. There was a watch and a curved knife by that wrist.
VANESSA HUNT (Paramedic)
MR DINGEMANS: And when you got into the wooded area, what did you see?
MS HUNT: There was a male on his back, feet towards us.
MR KNOX: What did you then come across?
MR BARTLETT: They led us up to where the body was laid, feet facing us, laid on its back, left arm out to one side (indicates) and the right arm across the chest.
Dr Nicholas Hunt (Forensic pathologist)
Could you describe the position of the body at the scene?
MR HUNT: Yes, certainly. He was laying on his back near a tree. The left arm was extended out from the body slightly, closer to shoulder level, his right arm was laying across his chest area and his legs were extended out straight in front of him.
MR KNOX: I take it from what you just said he was laying on his back?
MR HUNT: He was, yes.
MR KNOX: Was any part of his body actually touching the tree; can you recall?
MR HUNT: I recall that his head was quite close to branches and so forth, but not actually over the tree.
But now a team of 13 specialist doctors has compiled a detailed medical dossier that rejects the Hutton conclusion on the grounds that a cut to the ulnar artery, which is small and difficult to access, could not have caused death.
It will be used by their lawyers to demand a formal inquest and the release of Dr Kelly's autopsy report, which has never been published. It will also be sent to Sir John Chilcot's forthcoming inquiry into the Iraq War.
The development is doubly significant because police have already said the knife which Dr Kelly is said to have used to cut his wrist did not have fingerprints on – nor did an open bottle of water found beside his body.
The lack of fingerprints on these items is particularly difficult to explain given that Dr Kelly was not wearing gloves when his body was recovered on July 18, 2003. No gloves were found at the scene.
Dr Kelly is said to have killed himself after being named as the prime source of a BBC report accusing Tony Blair’s government of lying to take Britain into war.
Uniquely, for an unexpected death such as his, no coroner’s inquest has ever been held.
- Nobody could have anticipated that Dr Kelly would take his life
- There was "no underhand [government] strategy" to name him as the source for the BBC's accusations
- Gilligan's original accusation was "unfounded" and the BBC's editorial and management processes were "defective"
- The dossier had not been "sexed up", but was in line with available intelligence, although the Joint Intelligence Committee, chaired by John Scarlett, may have been "subconsciously influenced" by the government
- The Ministry of Defence (MOD) was at fault for not informing Kelly of its strategy that would involve naming him
- That the wording of the dossier had been altered to present the strongest possible case for war within the bounds of available intelligence
- That some of these changes had been suggested by Alastair Campbell
- That reservations had been expressed by experts within the Intelligence Community about the wording of the dossier
- That David Kelly had direct contact with the dissenters within the Defence Intelligence Staff and had communicated their reservations (and his own) to several journalists.
- That, following Kelly's decision to come forward as one of Gilligan's contacts, Alastair Campbell and Geoff Hoon had wanted his identity made public
- That the Prime Minister himself had chaired a meeting at which it was decided that Dr Kelly's name would be confirmed by the Ministry of Defence if put to them by journalists
- That Kelly's name had been confirmed after journalists had made multiple suggestions to the MOD press office.
Dr Richard Spertzel claimed Dr Kelly was on a 'hitlist' in the final years of his life.
The former head of the UN Biological Section, who worked closely with Dr Kelly in Iraq in the 1990s, has written to Attorney General Dominic Grieve about the 'mysterious circumstances' surrounding the death.
Dr David Kelly was on a hitlist, says UN weapons expert as calls grow for full inquest
Dr Spertzel said: 'I know that David, as well as myself and a couple of others, were on an Iraqi hitlist. In late 1997, we were told by the Russian embassy in Baghdad. I had no idea what it meant but apparently David and I were high on the priority list.'
He said he and Dr Kelly were told that they were 'numbers three and four' on the list during an inspection trip in Iraq. 'When it first happened I felt right away that David just being associated with the work he'd been doing for the UK government would have made him a high target,' Dr Spertzel said.
'The Iraqi intelligence service did not take kindly to such action so my first reaction [to Dr Kelly's death] was "we'd better watch our backs".'
No inquest has ever been held into Dr Kelly's death. Instead, a public inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton was set up to investigate the circumstances surrounding it.
The inquiry ruled that the 59-year-old committed suicide in woodland near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003 by cutting the ulnar artery in his wrist with a blunt pruning knife.
Dr Spertzel, who is based in Washington where he continues to write and lecture on biological weapons, said: 'My concern about David Kelly's death is exactly what the doctors are saying now - that is, it's virtually impossible to commit suicide by slashing your wrist in that way.
'It just doesn't make sense. It seems to me that they [the British authorities] are intentionally ignoring all this. Something's fishy.'
The former Russian spy, who defected from Latvia to Britain in 1998, says the source of his dossier is 'agent' Peter Everett, who lives in Dulwich, South-East London, and until 2006 ran a shadowy firm, Group Global Intelligence Services.
The firm is understood to have employed former MI5 operatives to carry out detective work for corporations.
Mr Karpichkov, who now holds a British passport, claims in his dossier that he worked for Mr Everett too, and that one of their dozens of meetings took place two days after Dr Kelly's body was found.
Mr Everett told him, the former KGB man claims, that Dr Kelly had been ' exterminated' for his ' reckless behaviour'.
Mr Karpichkov says Mr Everett suggested he was himself an 'active field operative' for MI5, and continues: 'He told me that it was extremely uncomfortable, inconsistent and unusual for Dr Kelly to slash his arm in the way he did. He would have lost some blood, but it would not have been fatal.
'He also claimed that it was not a coincidence that Special Branch officers were the ones who first appeared on the scene. They moved Dr Kelly's body to another location, changed the original position of his corpse and took away incriminating evidence.
'He added that the scene where Dr Kelly's body was found was carefully arranged and completely "washed out", including the destruction of all fingerprints.
'When I asked who was behind his death, he [ Mr Everett] answered indirectly, saying the "competing firm", which I took to mean MI6.'
"Heart experts today said it was "unusual" for someone to wear electrode pads while walking following revelations that government scientist David Kelly had four of the special monitors on his chest when his body was found in an Oxfordshire wood.
Dr Kelly - the BBC's source for a report claiming the government altered the contents of a dossier about Iraq - had probably been wearing a 24-hour electro-cardiogram recorder, also known as a Holter monitor, medical experts said.
But it was odd that the pads that are connected to the device had not been removed by doctors and were left attached to his chest, they said.
"If I was in a morgue and his body was presented to me I would have thought it had come out of a coronary care unit or an operating theatre," said Professor Konrad Jamrozik, of Imperial College Hospital London.
"It would be unusual for someone to be walking around wearing these pads," he told the press association.
Another heart specialist, who declined to be named, also said it was "very unusual" for someone to be found wearing the pads."
However, two medics who examined Kelly's body were surprised that the official reportruled his death a suicide. Paramedic Vanessa Hunt and ambulance technician Dave Bartlettsaid they were struck by how little blood was seen on and around the body of David Kelly,which they thought was inconsistent with a fatal cut of an artery. They had raised the sameconcerns before but offered no alternative theory of the cause of death.
He also said the heart monitor pads found on Kelly's chest were "simply there to makesure he was dead." He also said those should have been removed and suspects the agentsinvolved were disturbed by someone in the process of the killing.
Shrimpton told Jones that in his opinion Dr. Kelly was probably murdered by anintravenous injection of Dextropropoxythene and paracetamol, the constituents of Co-Proxamol, and a muscle relaxant called Succinylcholine.
The problem for someone investigating an assassination bySuccinylcholine is that it metabolizes even after death and you only pick up the metabolites.In other words it's one of those drugs that leave's no trace unless you have a very expertpathologist who really knows what he or she is doing. It's fairly clear to me that the slash tothe wrist was done to disguise the puncture wound. "
Originally posted by micpsi
Why was he killed? The most convincing reason I have found was the information revealed by a friend of his, British author Gordon Thomas. He said that Kelly had been working on a book about his work and MI5 was scared stiff about what secrets highly damaging to the British government he had put in it. MI5 removed his computer a few hours after his death.
www.express.co.uk...edit on 3-12-2012 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.