The chapter sets out hugely important questions about whether the death of Dr. David Kelly was an attempt at committing the perfect political murder, rather than the supposed "suicide" that Lord Hutton asked us to believe in.
The quoted material is very much a draft. It is subject to change.
But the draft chapter does reflect my current thoughts and opinion about the true interpretation of the death of Dr. Kelly.
Let me know what you think.
If you don't want to post public comments. You can email me at the address noted here: Who Killed David Kelly? - Contacting me.
17th July 2003 – A perfect day for a perfect political murder?
Imagine the scene.
In early 2003 Dr. David Kelly knows that his life is in danger, telling a colleague and an acquaintance that he might “be found dead in the woods”.
Little does he know just how much his life is in danger.
Plans are being laid for the perfect political murder on the politically perfect day in 2003 – 17th July 2003.
The perfect political murder, of course, is a murder that is never recognized for what it is.
How is it to be concealed from public recognition?
How is it to be concealed from Parliamentary scrutiny?
Timing is key.
What is the perfect day to carry it out?
17th July 2003.
The House of Commons heads off for its summer holidays.
The Press is starting to snooze preparing for the traditional summer “silly season”.
The political atmosphere is poisonous – the Government has taken the country into a war that many believe is illegal.
A mechanism to shut off serious examination of the murder is needed.
And this is what a Machiavellian minds comes up with.
Before the body is seen by a pathologist, someone who I’ll call the Spin Master is to start spinning a suicide story using Thames Valley Police as his mouthpiece. Off the record, of course.
Before the body is examined by a pathologist, the Government is to announce an ad hoc judicial inquiry which will shut down all discussion in the media until the judicial inquiry reports.
Identify and appoint a senior judge who doesn’t need to be leaned on; a judge who knows his duty.
And so we reach, 18th July 2003.
The suicide story is being spun before a doctor first officially sees the body.
A senior judge, a Law Lord no less, is appointed to conduct a judicial inquiry before the forensic pathologist starts to examine the body.
The Suicide Spin has already captured the minds of the media so the real reason for such a precipitate judicial inquiry isn’t recognised.
The media on the 18th July 2003 and the ensuing days is full of the sad “suicide” of Dr. David Kelly.
Not one of the mainstream media outlets questions the Suicide Spin. The Spin Master eases back in his seat, very satisfied.
For the plan to work, he knew that he’d need a network of corrupt officials and professionals.
But he knew that people cooperate with a little pressure. Or sometimes a lot.
It’s not hard to find a corrupt Law Lord.
Nor corrupt Policemen.
Ah! Here is one who will examine the body and fail … or choose to fail … to switch his brain on. Ideal.
But what about the family?
No problem. Just watch.
So there you have it.
A perfectly planned, perfect political murder, perfectly executed.
And the judicial inquiry goes smoothly. OK, a lot of questions weren’t asked. A senior Policeman had to tell a lie or two. The odd piece of key evidence had to be suppressed. The grieving widow put on a stormer of a performance telling that story about 10 minutes to evacuate the house before the media pack arrived. Brilliant.
And the report of the judicial inquiry causes a political storm.
But wait! What is this?
A few doctors start questioning the Suicide Spin. That wasn’t supposed to happen.
But a nice, friendly Coroner closes down the possibility of more honest investigation of the death. The Spin Master views Mr. Gardiner in a warm glow.
But the doctors have connected with an instinct of the British public that knows that something about the death of David Kelly stinks, despite the brilliance of the Suicide Spin, despite the cooperative and corrupt Law Lord.
And now an iconoclastic MP gets in on the act. And, worse, writes a book.
And, worse still, the MP puts in a formal application to the Attorney General asking for an inquest.
But a few quiet words and that’s closed down. Phew!
But the irritating public and medical interest in the case goes on.
A second application to the Attorney General is sent in.
How are we going to fix this one? It’s getting dangerous. The Truth could come out.
Never fear, a cooperative Attorney General produces rafts of documents. And a forensic pathologist wanders up prepared not to see glaring flaws with his colleague’s work in 2003. Yes, that’s the key. A reassuring report from a cooperative “independent expert”.
We’re almost there. We’ll make it go away for ever.
Confidence in delivery to the House of Commons by the Attorney General. And a deluge of written responses and other documentation.
Nobody will find their way through that haystack of information to the needle of the murder of David Kelly.
But one stubborn doctor seeks Judicial Review of the Attorney General’s refusal to seek an inquest
And as a bit-part player along comes a High Court Judge who takes a deferential approach to the views of our friendly, corrupt Law Lord and a “never mind the quality feel the width”approach to the evidence that an inquest is needed into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.
Or so it seems.
Is that narrative fact or fantasy?
Was David Kelly murdered for political motives?
Did political, medical, police and judicial personalities act corruptly in the way I’ve suggested?
Did David Kelly’s family betray him by inventing a flight from the media pack on the evening of 9th July 2003? And by concealing evidence of his past right arm injury that made it difficult or impossible for him to cut his own left wrist?
Did the Scene Setter make some vital mistakes at Harrowdown Hill? Requiring some dangerously late tweaks, including a readjustment of the position of Dr. Kelly’s body.
Did the Spin Master leave a few too many clues to his activity on the morning of 18th July 2003?
Answering questions such as those is what the rest of this book is about.
I’ll present the evidence that leads me to lay out a scenario of a perfect political murder.
I’ll present my analysis of the evidence that’s already in the public domain.
And point you to some of the important questions that have yet to be answered.
Am I fantasizing?
Or calling attention to a political scandal that dwarfs Watergate?
A scandal in which the perfect political murder was attempted.
A scandal that involved the UK Government of the time, senior Police officers in 2003 and in 2011, forensic pathologists and forensic scientists. Oh yes, and a nice friendly Law Lord who long, long ago learned how not to see evidence after watching how Lord Widgery put a lid on the murderous events of Bloody Sunday.
Thanks Lord Hutton.
A scandal that raises serious doubts about the foundations of British justice. If you can’t trust a Law Lord, can’t trust senior Police officers and can’t trust forensic pathologists, the credibility of British Justice lies in deserved tatters.
Fact or fantasy?
You can make up your own mind.
Did David Kelly kill himself?
Was David Kelly killed by person or persons unknown as part of the perfect political murder?
Who killed David Kelly?