Despite the preliminary nature of the draft, comments are welcome.
The Two Competing Hypotheses
Anyone wanting fully to understand what happened to David Kelly needs seriously to consider whether the totality of the evidence supports one or other of two mutually inconsistent possibilities:
1. That Dr. David Kelly killed himself
2. That David Kelly was murdered by one or more people who faked a seeming suicide
The evidence supporting or refuting those two basic questions is the principal focus of this book.
If you read this book carefully you should be in a good position to make up your own mind as to whether David Kelly committed suicide or was murdered.
The Official Story – that David Kelly committed suicide
The official story is that David Kelly killed himself at Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire in July 2003.
Lord Hutton tells us that no “third party” was involved.
David Kelly supposedly used a knife to cut his left wrist.
As a result of cutting his own wrist he bled to death. Or at least bleeding (haemorrhage) was the primary cause of death.
And he supposedly swallowed up to 29 co-proxamol tablets.
The Death Certificate, issued in questionable legal circumstances, indicates that “haemorrhage” was the primary cause of death. Secondary causes were co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery disease.
If the Hutton Inquiry was an honest and diligent inquiry then an intelligent citizen, so we are asked to believe, should the situation as being “case closed”. After all, a senior judge, a “Law Lord” no less, applied his considerable investigatory skills to answer the question definitively.
However, all is not as it seems, I suggest.
A variety of concerns has led members of the public, including several individuals who are medically qualified, to have serious doubts about the official story.
The alternative hypothesis – that David Kelly was murdered
The alternative hypothesis suggests that it wasn’t David Kelly who killed himself, Rather it was some other party.
If this second hypothesis is true then it follows that person or persons unknown killed David Kelly, either at Harrowdown Hill or elsewhere, and later arranged the scene at Harrowdown Hill to conceal a murder by creating a false impression of suicide.
Further, it is suggested (although it is not essential for the murder hypothesis) that a concerted cover-up has taken place involving Thames Valley Police, forensic scientists, forensic pathologists and the Attorney General’s Office.
The concept of a “network of corrupt officials” was, perhaps, once unthinkable. In a context where Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers of the Metropolitan Police can use that term in her evidence to the Leveson Inquiry (see, for example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17173438 ) why should anyone discount the possibility of there being another “network of corrupt officials” operating in the context of the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly?