Norman Baker on David Kelly 16


Below is an article from The Argus on Norman Baker MPs campaign over the death of David Kelly.

I was convinced that Kelly was murdered from the moment I heard of his death. Since then we learn that so much that was put out was simply untrue, particularly about having ingested a lot of painkillers. It is very difficult indeed to die of slashed wrists in the open air and, as Baker notes, the paramedics at the scene were adamant there was not enough blood. The points Baker makes are all good. But for me, it has always been highly improbable that a chemical weapons specialist could not have killed himself with less pain, had he wanted to.

There remains no evidence at all that Kelly did want to die.

The Argus – 2007-04-13

The greatest British conspiracy theory of the modern age was unveiled this week. Lewes MP Norman Baker set out in detail for the first time why he believes the secret service murdered the Government scientist Dr David Kelly.

MILES GODFREY and KATYA MIRA report on a one-man crusade for the truth which has catapulted an unassuming Parliamentarian into the international spotlight.

It was the start of 2006 and the time was right to bring down the British Government. In March last year Norman Baker, serial thorn in the side of the establishment and by his own admission “not the Prime Minister’s favourite person”, resigned his role as a frontbench MP for the Liberal Democrats.

It was a typically low-key announcement, timed to coincide with the anointment of the party’s new leader Sir Menzies Campbell.

The time had come, the MP said, for a new man to take over. But to those who knew Norman Baker, the decision to resign was made for another reason.

It would allow him more time to do what he does best: investigate, challenge, push, probe – specifically into the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly. He was about to embark on an amazing investigation into the murky world of secret service agents, national security and the death of the man who very nearly halted the start of the war in Iraq.

If he could prove conclusively that members of the Government had conspired to get rid of Dr Kelly, it would have been – and still could be – the biggest single scandal this country has ever known.

The official report into the death of Dr David Kelly concluded he committed suicide after a row between the BBC and the Government over the “sexed up” dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction thrust the normally private scientist into the glare of the limelight.

But Mr Baker didn’t believe a word of it. He said at the time: “The public out there can smell a rat and they don’t think it’s finished business either.”

The scientist’s death was, the MP said, just too convenient, too riddled with inconsistencies and so unlike a man like Dr Kelly.

His year-long investigation culminated on Wednesday night at a meeting at which he proclaimed Dr Kelly had been murdered and set out his evidence. Mr Baker told a packed community hall in Lewes: “I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this could not be suicide. The medical evidence does not support it and David Kelly’s state of mind and personality suggests otherwise. It was not an accident so I am left with the conclusion that it is murder.”

He told of how the world’s leading WMD expert had spent the morning before his death sending “upbeat emails” and even booking himself a flight to Iraq from his rural home in Southmoor, near Oxford.

Mr Baker questioned the cause of death – a haemorrhage caused by cuts to the ulnar artery in the wrist.

He said such wounds were “matchstick thick” and hidden, difficult to get to, as well as rarely leading to death.

The knife said to have been used was a gardening pruner Dr Kelly had kept since childhood – an unlikely and blunt choice.

Paramedics have said he had lost little blood and was “incredibly unlikely” to have died from the wound they saw.

Police said 29 tablets of the painkiller Coproxamol were missing from his home but all that was found in Dr Kelly’s stomach was the equivalent of one fifth of a tablet.

The MP told The Argus: “It has taken more than a year to investigate and it has been an incredible and fascinating journey which has taken a large number of twists and turns.

“I have met experts on weapons of mass destruction in Brussels and uncovered more evidence about the lies the Government told about weapons of mass destruction before the war.”

Along the way Mr Baker has had personal run-ins with high-profile Government figures, not least Tony Blair.

He said: “I wouldn’t say it has been easy, certainly the Foreign Office has done a lot to put obstacles in my way and other people have too. It has been hard work but at the same time it has been extremely worthwhile.”

He has also been hugely encouraged by the public, who he claims can see Dr Kelly’s death for what he says it was. Mr Baker said: “There is a world in Westminster and the rest of the world and I think most people in the public world can see that Dr Kelly was murdered.

“He was the world’s foremost expert on weapons of mass destruction who could single-handedly destroy the Government’s case for war so it was no wonder he was killed. “It may have also been intended as a message to other people out there who speak to the press when the Government doesn’t want you to. “I was appalled at his death and at the Hutton Inquiry into it. It was a procedural disaster from start to finish and I felt compelled to look into it.”

Mr Baker has signed a book deal to explain in greater detail his findings on Dr Kelly’s death and he expects to publish it later this year.

But the MP insists he will continue to investigate.

He has nagging doubts about the official line taken over the recent Navy hostages taken in Iran and over the death of Robin Cook, the MP who resigned in protest at the Iraq war.

He said: “Robin Cook was on Ministry of Defence land, I believe, when he died and certainly I have doubts over what happened.”

There are those, of course, who doubt Norman Baker’s theories.

But for every person out there who does there are an equal number for whom the MP has become a beacon of truth in an increasingly murky world.


16 thoughts on “Norman Baker on David Kelly

  • montazels

    I have always felt that Dr. Kelly's death was Tony Blair's "Thomas Becket" incident.

    A "Who wll rid me of this man?" spur of the moment comment. That snowballed out of control eventually ending with Dr. Kelly's murder.

    The clumsy way in which is was carried out also leads me to believe that neither MI5, nor MI6, were involved.

    But until a full and open inquest is carried out we will all have to speculate as to the true events of this tragic death.

    Hats off to Mr. Baker though for seeing this thru. It is just a pity more MPs were not more questioning of this government's actions.

  • Craig

    Montazels,

    I think it most likely this was private by one of the US companies that were pushing the war on Iraq. I know some senior MI6 people privately think this, too.

    Having said that, I believe that the events at Chapter 18 of Murder in Samarkand were probably an attempt to kill me by the US government itself, as my efforts to prevent CIA involvement with torture in Uzbekistan were threatening the whole extraordinary rendition programme. So I don't rule out the CIA killing Kelly.

  • montazels

    Craig,

    I quite agree with your conclusion that part of the answer to this mystery lies over the pond.

    Having seen how some of the members of USIC work. I think the actual deed was farmed out to sub-contractors in this country. With the cut-out of Middle Eastern involvement should this be exposed.

  • ChoamNomsky

    I don't believe that the government would murder Dr Kelly. The gains are far too small when compared to the risks. It's very difficult to keep secrets like that. Things will inevitably leak.

    This is one reason why 911 conspiracies have little credibility. To organise such a terrorist event would be a huge undertaking, and there would inevitably be a large number of leaks. No western government would take such a risk.

    There are so many things our governments do that can be considered to be conspiracies, yet are true (e.g. Overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran) there is no need to waste time on those with so little credibility.

    If you want to know whether a conspiracy is credible, a good starting point is to look at the history of government actions. Can you find a case of an important person (like Dr Kelly) being murdered by the government in the UK to silence them?

    In contrast, look at the case of suggesting that the Iraq war is a conspiracy to control the oil (or some other asset). If you look at the history of British government action, we have certainly been involved in many conspiracies to control either oil or land. e.g. The coup in Iran, the Suez crisis etc. We did these things and the important point is that we now know about them. These things inevitably come out.

    My point is that you need to look at the Modus Operandi of a particular government when judging the credibility of any accusations against them. Murdering top advisers may have been ok for Stalin and Hitler, but it would not work here. It would inevitably come out, and anyone ordering the murder would know that.

  • Craig

    ChoamNomsky,

    You are making less sense than usual. The government was not well-motivated, going to war with Iraw because of a genuine mistake over whether it possessed WMD. The Iraq war was a manufactured war, from which massive fortunes have been made,and not just by the oil industry. The US has already spent over $400 billion on the war. Less than 2% of that has gone on soldiers' pay. Where has the rest gone? Follow the money.

    Corporations have assassinated very many people who threatened major profits.

  • Boss

    Interesting consensus emerging here, trouble is;

    1- Why, MIx were all too ready to expose their assets, trying to explain away the death as a suicide?

    2- Kelly, was not the only one whom wound up dead, during the build up to and initial stages of war on Iraq. There are others whom have had a simmilar fate, ranging from friendly fire incidents, to falling off the roof in Irbil.

    3- If you have only a hammer in your toolbox, after a while everything will look like a nail.

    4- All of the contributions, apparently have overlooked the most volatile factor, the nemesis of any political leadership; the unpredictable masses.

    In conclusion, Craig writes about his own experience, indicating the danger that he faced exposing the Uzbek's plight, he rightly concludes which factions could have been plotting his accelerated pushing up daisies mission.

    UK government were only embarrassed by Craig's expose, which of course they responded to by releasing the footage of him and his girlfriend (incidentally on the channel four news, emphasising the age of the girlfriend, and showing her affections and flirtatious behaviour), coupled with the usual whispering campaign and back-room debriefings.

    Craig at no time presented a threat to UK government, in fact he was perceived as a good news item to bury the bad news items. On the other hand Craig was perceived as a threat to the US government's ambitions in trying to maintain their ties with the Uzbek dictator, with a view to use his airfields, and getting toehold in the Putin's backyard by sporting yet another US military base. (Craig can clarify these points, seeing as this is his blog)

    In case of Dr. Kelly, casting your minds back, and sifting through the various newscast, while the narrative was taking shape, you will find his last phone call was made from a public telephone booth, to US, and an alleged reporter. This could indicate the real source of anxiety for this poor man lay in our own shores, hence his efforts to find an impartial, and reliable source outside UK to tell his story, in a forlorn hope to ensure his longevity and survival.

    Finally, the best method of discounting any credible line of enquiry, evidently is to classify these as conspiracies, conflating selective bits and pieces together, and coming up with a rebuttal, reliant on the lack of sense by those at the receiving end of it all, which some would say is akin to a pipe dream.

    PS. Added after seeing Craig's last post.

    Very true Craig, in fact not many are left unaware of plans for going to war with Iraq, that were in the making since 1998, and well before the current US administration coming into power, on the back of the hanging chads, and Diebold miracles.

    In fact one could speculate Operation Iraqi Freedom was under way with special interest groups taking up positions in the Hill, before getting down to the dirty. Conspiracy of course, specially when an ex insider writes about it, while others are all talking about it, and the contemporaneous data point to it, which of course some of which now are classified, despite these being in the public domain in the past.

  • MilkMonitor

    ChoamNomsky: "I don't believe that the government would murder Dr Kelly. The gains are far too small when compared to the risks."

    Which gains would those be that are far too small?

    Obviously not the trillions of dollars in armaments and reconstruction, control of oil and disruption of the ME.

  • Strategist

    Craig said: "I think it most likely this was private by one of the US companies that were pushing the war on Iraq. I know some senior MI6 people privately think this, too."

    This is an important post. I very much doubt that Blair ordered the murder (even in a "who will rid me of this turbulent weapons inspector" moment), and Choam Nomsky is half-right – Blair & Campbell's No.10, constantly obsessed by how it was being reported, would have thought killing him in the midst of a total media furore way too risky to contemplate.

    With the information I have seen to date I have for some time thought that the most plausible explanation of what the British security services were doing at the crime scene (standing down the local constabulary for however many hours and so on) was hurriedly finding out what had happened and removing evidence.

    Can you imagine the scene in No 10 as the report came in that yes he was dead and that MI5 suspected an American agency had done it? They would be bricking it. A cover up would be of paramount importance. The idea of an inquiry announced quickly was a clever one – the govt that always resists inquiries into itself suddenly looked good at the time by announcing an inquiry quickly and appearing to come clean by releasing emails, for example – but all the time they knew that the inquiry would find nothing incriminating in No 10's email accounts about murdering Kelly, just lots of stuff about doing battle with the BBC that would grab all the attention. Appointing Hutton – a man who could be relied on to give the right verdict at the end of the process without needing to be leaned on by the government – was clever, but the masterstroke was to say that the Inquiry superseded any need for a local coroner's inquest – a local level process that would correspondingly be far more difficult to control. So, one way of understanding the Hutton Inquiry is to think of it as a means of distracting attention from the really damaging evidence (from the local medics etc) that this was no suicide.

    I await "Stormin' Norman" Baker's book with great interest. I hope he has considered the possibility that it was neither suicide nor a British Govt-sponsored murder, but a third party sponsored murder obligingly covered up by the British secret services. The BBC's Conspiracy Files programme on 26 Feb, whilst airing ridiculous ideas, eg the Iraqi secret services did it (!), noticeably failed to give any time whatsoever to the possibility that the Americans had done it.

    Finally, on a theme we must often return to, isn't it funny that Norman Baker's pronouncements last week, which one might have thought just slightly newsworthy, have been utterly blanked by the London media and are going totally unreported outside Sussex? Clearly the carrier pigeon hasn't quite made it across the North Downs to Fleet Street yet!

  • ChoamNomsky

    Craig: "You are making less sense than usual."

    Well I'm usually agreeing with you, so this is understandable. I agree with the point you have made, i.e. that the Iraqi war was a manufactured war. However, this does not address the point I was making. i.e. That the UK government does not have a history of murdering inconvenient citizens like Dr Kelly. If the government did indeed have a history of bumping off whistle-blowers and troublesome civil servants, then I would certainly take the Dr Kelly suggestions seriously. As I have said, governments have a great deal of trouble keeping things secret for long, and if we did have a history of killing people like Dr Kelly, it would have come out, just as many other revelations have.

    What western governments tend to do with troublesome people is rubbish them in the media and attack their credibility in various ways. Both the UK and US governments have a long history of that practise.

    Craig: "Corporations have assassinated very many people who threatened major profits."

    True. In fact they have had coups organised to take over entire countries (e.g. United Fruits and Guatemala). What they don't generally do though is murder prominent people in western countries, the countries they tend to be based in.

    Strangely you can get away with wrecking a whole third world country, but if you murder a UK citizen, you are in real trouble. Anyway, I thought the suggestion was that the government might have murdered Dr Kelly, not some corporation.

    Craig: "Karen Silkwood is a good example."

    She died in a car crash and there is no real evidence to suggest it was foul play. As for the Plutonium in her body, it is not at all clear how it got there. The family sued the company for inadequate safety practises. Whereas people might like to imagine that the company tried to kill her with Plutonium, then organised a car accident, you have to have evidence, and there is none. You can get away with wrecking third world countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people, just to increase your share value, but murdering western civilians is a no no.

    Some people think that she stole plutonium and contaminated herself to discredit the company. This seems just as silly as the murder suggestion. I certainly wouldn't contaminate myself with Plutonium just to get back at my employer.

    MilkMonitor: "Which gains would those be that are far too small?"

    "Obviously not the trillions of dollars in armaments and reconstruction, control of oil and disruption of the ME."

    What damaging things could he say? That they sexed the dossier up? You have to balance that against the risk of killing him. Do remember that his death caused a lot of bad media attention for the government.

    Everyone knows the whole war was not about WMD anyway. That much is hardly a conspiracy. They fact that we all know it has not stopped them from staying there for several years, transferring billions from US taxpayers to US corporations in the process.

    I have found a nice Youtube video where Noam Chomsky addresses the issue of 911 conspiracies. His points apply quite well to the Dr Kelly conspiracy and it covers some of the points I have tried to make. It's well worth watching (part 2 is the main point)

    Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4

    Part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&mode=r

  • MilkMonitor

    ChoamNomsky: "As I have said, governments have a great deal of trouble keeping things secret for long, and if we did have a history of killing people like Dr Kelly, it would have come out, just as many other revelations have."

    Well, there are ways of stopping these things coming out. This is the proposition here, of course, as regards Dr Kelly. But that other aspect of Norman Baker's work, in which he shows what happened afterwards to the people involved in the Kelly affair, reflects an alternative way of stopping these things coming out – reward for silence:

    "Promotions, pay rises honours – how the key players in the Kelly scandal were rewarded"
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/ne

    Thanks for those links to Chomsky. I was very interested to see them, having heard of his stance a while back.

    I have to say that I am stunned to hear a renowned intellectual talking like this.

    He takes the same position as you in saying "Secrets are very hard to keep. Something would have leaked out."

    Chomsky's basic defence of his position is: "because lots of things are unexplained in complicated events" and "the belief that it could have been done has such low credibilty".

    But he really hits bottom when he says:

    "Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance." and "It's just diverting energy from serious issues onto one's that don't matter."

    What the hell does he mean: who cares? I care. I care particularly for my kids and grandkids and what quality of world they'll be living in. I also care about what my predecessors fought for.

    Consider, if 9/11 was a false flag operation, then the consequences are horrendous. They only start with aggressive wars; expansion of the military, intelligence and security services; Patriot Acts; Bush's signing statements*; acceptance of torture; suspension of habeus corpus: who cares?

    *signing statements:
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/0

    I disagree with Chomsky. I think this is a very serious issue that deserves better than a whitewash from him. The "diverting energy from serious issues" line is the clarion cry of the truth-hiders. Blair used it when denouncing a public inquiry into the London bombings as a "ludicrous diversion". The 911 Commission budget, timing, conduct and final report hardly signify that it was treated as a serious issue: as made clear to the families of victims, when they asked for truth and justice –
    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3979568

  • Craig

    mmm, Karen Silkwood decided to poison herself with pltonium, then had a car accident?

  • MilkMonitor

    Craig,

    I submitted this comment a couple of days ago. It seems that it didn't pass monitoring.

    I do not believe the content is offensive or erroneous (I certainly hope it isn't). It may have appeared that I had strayed from the topic. I have added a final paragragh which corrects this, and hope that this submission will now be acceptable.

    ————————————-

    ChoamNomsky: "As I have said, governments have a great deal of trouble keeping things secret for long, and if we did have a history of killing people like Dr Kelly, it would have come out, just as many other revelations have."

    Well, there are ways of stopping these things coming out. This is the proposition here, of course, as regards Dr Kelly. But that other aspect of Norman Baker's work, in which he shows what happened afterwards to the people involved in the Kelly affair, reflects an alternative way of stopping these things coming out – reward for silence:

    "Promotions, pay rises honours – how the key players in the Kelly scandal were rewarded"
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/ne

    Thanks for those links to Chomsky. I was very interested to see them, having heard of his stance a while back.

    I have to say that I am stunned to hear a renowned intellectual talking like this.

    He takes the same position as you in saying "Secrets are very hard to keep. Something would have leaked out."

    Chomsky's basic defence of his position is: "because lots of things are unexplained in complicated events" and "the belief that it could have been done has such low credibilty".

    But he really hits bottom when he says:

    "Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance." and "It's just diverting energy from serious issues onto one's that don't matter."

    What the hell does he mean? Who cares? I care. I care particularly for my kids and grandkids and what quality of world they'll be living in. I also care about what my predecessors fought for.

    Consider, if 9/11 was a false flag operation, then the consequences are horrendous. They only start with aggressive wars; expansion of the military, intelligence and security services; Patriot Acts; Bush's signing statements*; acceptance of torture; suspension of habeus corpus: who cares?

    *signing statements:
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/0

    I disagree with Chomsky. I think this is a very serious issue that deserves better than a whitewash from him. The "diverting energy from serious issues" line is the clarion cry of the truth-hiders. Blair used it when denouncing a public inquiry into the London bombings as a "ludicrous diversion". The 911 Commission budget, timing, conduct and final report hardly signify that it was treated as a serious issue: as made clear to the families of victims, when they asked for truth and justice –
    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3979568

    I don't see the comparison as a similarity between the Kelly case and 9/11 conspiracy theories. I see them as similar in that in both cases the truth was prevented from coming out.

  • MilkMonitor

    Craig,

    I submitted this comment at the time of the debate, but thought it hadn't passed monitoring. However, I read your post about problems with Tiscali, so I figure it possibly didn't get through. I send it again but, having also read your post on your letter from Chomsky, I wonder whether this comment will yet pass monitoring (just joking).

    ————————————-

    ChoamNomsky: "As I have said, governments have a great deal of trouble keeping things secret for long, and if we did have a history of killing people like Dr Kelly, it would have come out, just as many other revelations have."

    Well, there are ways of stopping these things coming out. This is the proposition here, of course, as regards Dr Kelly. But that other aspect of Norman Baker's work, in which he shows what happened afterwards to the people involved in the Kelly affair, reflects an alternative way of stopping these things coming out – reward for silence:

    "Promotions, pay rises honours – how the key players in the Kelly scandal were rewarded"
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/ne

    Thanks for those links to Chomsky. I was very interested to see them, having heard of his stance a while back.

    I have to say that I am stunned to hear a renowned intellectual talking like this.

    He takes the same position as you in saying "Secrets are very hard to keep. Something would have leaked out."

    Chomsky's basic defence of his position is: "because lots of things are unexplained in complicated events" and "the belief that it could have been done has such low credibilty".

    But he really hits bottom when he says:

    "Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance." and "It's just diverting energy from serious issues onto one's that don't matter."

    What can he mean? Who cares? I care. I care particularly for my kids and grandkids and what quality of world they'll be living in. I also care about what my predecessors fought for.

    Consider, if 9/11 was a false flag operation, then the consequences are horrendous. They only start with aggressive wars; expansion of the military, intelligence and security services; Patriot Acts; Bush's signing statements*; acceptance of torture; suspension of habeus corpus…

    *signing statements:
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/0

    I disagree with Chomsky. I think this is a very serious issue that deserves better than a whitewash from him. The "diverting energy from serious issues" line is the clarion cry of the truth-hiders. Blair used it when denouncing a public inquiry into the London bombings as a "ludicrous diversion". The 911 Commission budget, timing, conduct and final report hardly signify that it was treated as a serious issue: as made clear to the families of victims, when they asked for truth and justice –
    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3979568

    I don't see the comparison as a similarity between the Kelly case and 9/11 conspiracy theories. I see them as similar in that in both cases the truth was prevented from coming out.

Comments are closed.