Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Who Killed David Kelly? - Is it possible for a sucide scene to be manufactured?

The bulk of this post consists of an early draft of a chapter likely to be entitled, "Is it possible for a sucide scene to be manufactured?".

I emphasise that the following is an early draft. Everything in it is subject to revision.

It would be helpful to receive feedback, either via email or the Comment facility on this blog.

Don't spend time thinking about editing minutiae. Look at the big picture.

For example, does the tone work? Or is it too dry? Too forensic?

Are there things that you don't believe are possible?

Do you think the suggested scenario is inconsistent with some aspect of the publicly available evidence?

Or is there some other issue that concerns you about the draft?

Remember this is an early draft. I'm posting it to gauge reaction to the approach I'm proposing to take.

Is it possible for a suicide scene to be manufactured?

It is said that the KGB had a saying, “Anyone can commit a murder. It takes an artist to commit a suicide.”.

The existence of such a quote indicates a belief that it is possible, in principle, to fake a suicide.

If one accepts that, in principle, it is possible to fake a suicide one must ask if it’s possible to fake a suicide in the circumstances which we are asked to believe had applied at Harrowdown Hill?

At the time of writing this book there are still gaps in the evidence in the public domain. So the following account must of necessity be subject to revision. It serves, at this stage in the disclosure of the totality of the evidence, to indicate possible approaches to manufacturing a suicide scene at Harrowdown Hill.

We know that in February 2003 David Kelly told David Broucher that he might be found dead in the woods. Mr. Broucher confirmed the meeting in correspondence with Norman Baker MP and personally with me.

Assuming that Dr. Kelly felt his life was in danger in February 2003 then 5 months is more than enough time carefully to plan a simulated suicide.

What props would be needed?

Essentially, it would be necessary to obtain only two items which weren’t generally available – a knife which belonged to Dr. Kelly (or conld not be distinguished from a knife that did belong to him) and some pills similar to those used by Dr. Kelly’s wife Janice.

To a professional, obtaining those items would not be difficult. Dr. Kelly’s home was empty from the evening of 10th July 2003 until the evening of 16th July 2003. A break-in could have taken place without leaving any significant trace.

If Thames Valley Police were directly involved in the “scene setting” a further opportunity obtain the two required props would have presented itself during the early morning search of the Kelly home on 18th July 2003, when Mrs. Kelly testified that she was made to wait in the garden.

How could Dr. Kelly have been overpowered?

There are a significant number of possibilities.

When last seen on the afternoon of 18th July 2003 by Ruth Absalom, David Kelly was heading east towards Kingston Bagpuize. On that road or on the Draycote Moor Road which headed south from it, he could have been kidnapped.

But we are told by Dr. Nicholas Hunt, forensic pathologist, that there were no signs of a struggle. How could Dr. Kelly have been induced to get into a car?

One possibility is that he was told that he was under arrest.

That trick was said to have been used in the kidnapping in Glasgow of the accountant Andrew Ramsay in 2006. See, for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4743620.stm

Given the background to Dr. Kelly’s appearances before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, someone identifying himself as being from, say, the Ministry of Defence Police or Special Branch and claiming that David Kelly was suspected of offences contrary to the Official Secrets Act would have little difficulty, I suspect, in persuading Dr. Kelly to get into his vehicle.

Another possibility is that some incapacitating substance was injected into Dr. Kelly or applied to his skin.

Yet another possibility, given the finding of semen stains on Dr. Kelly’s underwear, is that he had met someone (presumably a woman) for the purposes of having sex. If that did indeed take place then there must be few times when a man is more vulnerable to attack than just after orgasm.

Could the components of co-proxamol have entered Dr. Kelly’s body other than by him ingesting the tablets in order to kill himself?

I believe there are three other possibilities.

First Dr. Kelly might have been induced to take the tablets in order to protect his family, knowing already that he had no chance of survival.

Second, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated, crushed co-proxamol tablets could have been introduced via a nasogastic tube (a tube passed into the stomach).

Third, if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated, the two components of co-proxamol (paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene) could be injected at the left wrist. Given the incisions to be made there subsequently the assailant could be almost 100% sure that an injection site at that location would not be detected.

Could the “arterial rain” have been faked?

The forensic scientist Mr. Roy Green interpreted the “arterial rain” found on nettles at Harrowdown Hill as proving that Dr. Kelly died at the scene.

That is not necessarily true.

It is possible to simulate “arterial rain”. In fact I understand it’s often simulated during the teaching of some forensic science techniques.

The blood appeared to be Dr. Kelly’s. It could readily have been obtained if Dr. Kelly were incapacitated (yet alive) at any time prior to his death. If an anticoagulant were added when the blood was taken it could have been kept fluid and arterial rain could have been faked at Harrowdown Hill.

Did the foregoing happen? We don’t know.

But, given the potential for 5 months preparation time there is ample scope for Dr. Kelly to have been murdered in such a way as to create an appearance of suicide.

Of course, faking a suicide becomes very much easier if the Police and forensic staff are part of conspiracy to rubber stamp the “suicide” story.

Of course, that requires a “network of corrupt officials”.

But if the term “network of corrupt officials” is not the correct one what is one to make of the following?

An Assistant Chief Constable and a Law Lord who agree not to mention evidence or Dr. Kelly’s right elbow fracture and consequent weakness and/or pain. Didn’t they realise the relevance of such information?

A general practitioner who gives evidence to the Hutton Inquiry but omits to mention Dr. Kelly’s right arm injury.

A forensic pathologist who observes the operative scar on Dr. Kelly’s right elbow but then totally ignores its implications.

If there is not a “network of corrupt officials” then the coincidences that pile up are indeed astonishing.

As I indicate in the J’Accuse chapter I believe that the most credible interpretation is that a “network of corrupt officials” greatly aided the concealment of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

No comments:

Post a Comment