David Kelly’s Murder 265


The Iraq Inquiry has taken us back again to that period where the government had engaged in a massive military build up ready to invade Iraq, and was desperately looking for evidence on WMD to trigger the invasion – an invasion on which the Washington neo-cons had pinned their entire hopes for the future of the Bush presidency.

Just at that crucial time, one of the UK’s foremost experts on Iraqi WMD had let slip to the BBC that the government’s claims did not stand up. As a result, he was found dead in a wood, while the BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan, who correctly reported that there were no WMD, was fired for telling the truth.

The punishment of the BBC for failing to unquestioningly echo Blair lies went much further. The Chairman and Director General were forced out. All because the BBC said there may have been no WMD, when there were not.

It is almost incredible even now to state what New Labour have done. God know what future historians will make of it.

The BBC was traumatised, and went through an acceleration of cultural change that prized “managers” over journalists, and stopped criticising government. A foundation stone of democracy had been blasted away by Tony Blair.

Kelly’s death was extremely convenient for Blair, Cheney and a myriad of other ultra ruthless people. It paved the way for war. We should not forget how very crucial the WMD issue was in convincing enough reluctant New Labour MPs to go along. Without the UK there would have been no coalition – most of the other Europeans would have quickly dropped out too. It is by no means clear that, despite Cheney’s bluster, the Americans would have invaded Iraq alone.

So Kelly was the first man killed in the Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq after Kelly. Arms manufacturers, mercenary companies and the security industry made tens of billions in profit. That’s a powerful motive to remove an obstacle. The Western oil companies are getting back into Iraq.

We will never know if Kelly would have gone on to repeat his – perfectly correct – doubts about Iraqi WMD, or if he would have shut up, as ordered by Tony Blair through the MOD. I do know, as many doctors have attested, it is extremely unlikely to bleed to death by cutting a wrist. I do know that the paramedics who attended said there was very little blood at the scene. I do know that the painkillers he took were a tiny proportion of a fatal dose and were not an anticoagulant. I do know that a chemical weapons expert like Dr Kelly would know better ways to kill himself.

And I do know that the government is keeping the evidence hidden for seventy years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html


265 thoughts on “David Kelly’s Murder

1 5 6 7 8 9
  • Chris Dooley

    Eddie,

    Maybe after David Kelly’s article, someone tipped him off that the intelligence he had been building his reports from was a crock of bullshit. Built on hearsay from taxi-drivers, paid informants, torture victims and just general made up garbage.

    Maybe he looked into the background of the intelligence and then came to different conclusion.

    Maybe the book he was writing contained his different conclusion.

    Maybe that is why he was ‘neutralised’.

    I remember myself that UNSCOM stated that all weapons were accounted for EXCEPT for 3 rusty shells from the Iran/Iraq war (which were probably buried under tons of sand and not even worth digging out).

    No doubt Saddam would have tried again to rebuild a WMD program (the biological agents being sold by america for unknown reasons). But if the UN kept pressure on and continued weapons inspections, it could have been contained. But then we would not have the access to Iraq’s oil, would we ?

  • eddie

    Chris

    Or maybe he did none of those things. Maybe he was desperately worried about the disciplinary action that was hanging over him. Maybe he saw his career ending in ignominy. Maybe he was haunted by the suicide of his own mother. Maybe the words of his wife, “I just thought he had a broken heart”, were true. Maybe all the conspiracy theories are a load of tosh. Maybe Blair had nothing to gain from his death and everything to lose.

    Lots of maybes. I know which ones I believe.

  • Chris Dooley

    You bunch of maybes is just as valid as mine. But why would the establishment want to hold back the information which would clear it up for 70 years ?

    Maybe they have something to hide , or maybe they like the speculation and fear the alternative spreads.

  • Jaded.

    As the Establishment is so fond of telling us:

    ‘Nothing to fear, nothing to hide…’

    ;-0

  • Mark

    ‘I asked a simple question. Why would Blair want Kelly dead when his evidence would be useful to him? ‘

    So David Kelly’s death is a case of ‘cui bono’ then, eh, Eddie ?

    But surely, only ‘conspiraloons’ use that type of reasoning ?

  • angrysoba

    Apostate: “Larry the Lamb,angri,technicolor and all the other gamers on this site-take a walk in the woods,swallow the tabs and take your friend Aaronovitch with you.”

    So you admit it would actually be an effective way to commit suicide then?

  • Jaded.

    Ah, the jolly vacationer returns. No angrysoba, we all just admit you are a complete stinky, little, deceptive stoat.

  • technicolour

    I see jaded, whose anti-semitism does indeed appear periodically on this board like a small rash (anyone who cares to look, please do) has another friend. Welcome, sam!

    Eddie, I can’t even answer my own questions on this, never mind anyone else’s. This is rubbish. Poor Kelly aside for a second, what are the government up to?

  • angrysoba

    “Ja Mein Fuhrer” wrote: “Well, it means you are still on vacation obviously. When is your holiday due to end by the way? ;-)”

    Actually I’m back at work now but can’t resist coming in to see you, Apostate and Steelback doing the jackboot stomp with your dozy tinfoily friends.

    Speaking of which,

    Ruth: “It seems more than likely that Kelly was murdered for what he was about to expose.”

    Brilliant! And you are brave aren’t you Ruth. Remember when you saw that guy in your next-door neighbour’s garden and you got a mysterious wrong number call. Someone living on the edge like that has to be pretty courageous to directly finger Lord Hutton in David Kelly’s murder. I mean, think of the power he must weild!!!1!

  • technicolour

    Angrysoba: I reckon you should really start to distinguish between the people who are actively unpleasant and threatening, and the people, like Ruth, whose views you disagree with.

    Did you really establish that the Chavez/earthquake story was an invention? Or was that a joke? Sometimes hard to tell, these days.

  • Jaded.

    Yes, good to see you backing up your accusations with quotes you Nazi BNP scrotes. 😉 Back at work eh? Is that back at work shilling blogs under multiple user id.’s such as technicolour? LMFAO. Everyone knows! Get a life you sad moron! ;-0

  • angrysoba

    “Did you really establish that the Chavez/earthquake story was an invention? Or was that a joke? Sometimes hard to tell, these days.2

    It appears there was no way to establish Chavez had said what Russia Today, Press TV and Venezualan state TV Vive reported Chavez as saying so I gave Chavez the benefit of the doubt and retracted it.

    As you seem to be saying, it is possible that he did say it but in the absence of evidence I don’t think I should make the allegation. I hope this shows I am consistent.

    Ruth’s “opinions” are not just those I disagree with but ones which I think are baseless and I did distinguish her from the jackboot brigade by saying she’s a tinfoiler. I think she’s just a bit naiive like many tinfoilers, which is ironic really when you think about it.

  • Chris Dooley

    Angry,

    for us naive people, could you please explain the thinking behind locking away evidence for 70 years, when it would be just as easy as to show it and remove doubt.

  • technicolour

    I have no evidence that Ruth’s a ‘tinfoiler’. She always responds to genuine responses.

    Re Chavez: I wouldn’t run with it on that, either.

  • angrysoba

    “for us naive people, could you please explain the thinking behind locking away evidence for 70 years, when it would be just as easy as to show it and remove doubt.”

    Yes, it appeared in the very same Mail on Sunday article that served as the basis for this post. I have already quoted it. It was because the family may well have wanted this to be away from the public gaze.

    Two more things:

    a) The world does not revolve around you and your tinfoil universe. If I decided to pry into your personal life and start “investigating” how members of your family died do you think you would like it? Would the state have any obligation to indulge and satisfy each and every one of my “enquiries”? Would you appreciate it if I started making veiled allegations that you acceded to the death of some of your relatives? Do you not think it might be upsetting for you?

    b) Don’t ever underestimate the power of conspiracy theorizing. People will always doubt no matter what happens. No matter what is produced it will be argued that it was forged or altered if it doesn’t fit the conclusion that the conspiracy theorists want. There really is no pleasing some people so there really is no point in trying.

  • angrysoba

    “I have no evidence that Ruth’s a ‘tinfoiler’.”

    Ruth said, “Kelly had been ostracised and therefore would have become isolated and dangerous. He may have published his book without getting it OKd by the government. Being a a biological weapons expert he would have known exactly who behind the front companies supplied Saddam with such weapons. I suspect it was the UK.”

    And…

    “The only logical conclusion is that Hutton is part of the conspiracy to hide the murder of Dr Kelly by the intelligence services.”

    And…

    “Dr Gerald Bull, who was behind the Supergun and other secret projects, was murdered in similar circumstances just before he was about to spill the beans.”

    If that’s not tinfoil then I’m a member of the Illuminati.

    “Angrysoba, I think you owe Ruth an apology.”

    I beg to differ.

  • glenn

    soba: So everyone who disagrees with you is either a Nazi or a “tinfoiler”? Fascinating.

  • glenn

    Jaded quoted that the establishment likes to tell us ‘Nothing to fear, nothing to hide…’

    Indeed they do. As the late great senator Kennedy said, in answer to the same point, “Then why do they hide _everything_ ?”

  • angrysoba

    “soba: So everyone who disagrees with you is either a Nazi or a “tinfoiler”?”

    Not at all. Those who posit who say the Holocaust never happened or put inverted commas around it TEND to be Nazis. Those who imagine that there is a vast Jewish conspiracy to take over the world are anti-semites. Anyway, I don’t think I need to trawl back through the archives to find comments from Apostate and Steelback who have made the most outrageous claims about “World Jewry” and other terms.

    I also have no problem disagreeing with someone having a serious argument. I won’t call them tinfoilers just because I disagree but because they make baseless outlandish claims from invented narratives.

    Just so that we can be clear, do you think there is such thing as a crank or a conspiracy theorist? Or do you think that every view ever made by anyone has just as much right to respect and to not be ridiculed?

    Do you think that David Icke’s belief that those who rule the world are actually reptiles is an “opinion” worthy of as much respect as my belief that they’re not reptiles?

    Do you think that those who believe corn circles were made by aliens have beliefs that are just as respectable as those who believe corn circles were not made by aliens?

    By the way, have you read that Carl Sagan book I mentioned before because he describes an excellent method of how you can distinguish between genuinely interesting disagreements of opinion and those which are just “baloney”.

    “Jaded quoted that the establishment likes to tell us ‘Nothing to fear, nothing to hide…'”

    Again, this is silly because conspiracy theorists usually beat the drum that the establishment are always telling us, “Everything to fear! Only we can protect you!”

  • Chris Dooley

    Angry,

    from the same article …

    ‘The normal rules on post-mortems allow close relatives and ?properly interested persons? to apply to see a copy of the report and to ?inspect? other documents.

    Lord Hutton?s measure has overridden these rules, so the files will not be opened until all such people are likely to be dead.’

    What is different from this death and post mortem which makes it impossible for the relatives or interested persons to see the evidence IF they wish.

    I could understand not wanting the photographs circulating around the media, but the medical reports and other documents ?

  • Chris Dooley

    What harm would the toxicologist report into the dosage levels found be to the family ?

    Would it dispel alot of rumor ?, yes.

  • angrysoba

    Chris Dooley, I am sure the family of David Kelly will have plenty of media outlets available in order to express their disatisfaction at Lord Hutton’s decision. Until they do, on whose behalf are you actually campaigning?

  • glenn

    Hello Soba… you said:

    “Just so that we can be clear, do you think there is such thing as a crank or a conspiracy theorist? Or do you think that every view ever made by anyone has just as much right to respect and to not be ridiculed?”

    I agree, absolutely. There are a number of remarks on your posts lately which I agree on, such as those concerning people who automatically reject any government statement (which would be unwise).

    Likewise, Ice’s arguments are just silly when it comes to the snake-people, perhaps they have a sort-of logic about them which is fun to tangle and argue the toss with, but we all ought to know it’s just crazy stuff at the end of the day. And no, agreed again, one “opinion” is not as valid as another. Personally, I don’t want to believe anything which is factually incorrect. Who would want to believe anything which wasn’t true? Give me the facts, and I’ll try my best to determine the truth – or likelihood thereof – and work off those conclusions.

    Does calling someone a “loon” do anything but put the back up of that person, and go for a cheap appeal to an apparently witless crowd?

    The corn circles are fascinating. A professor at cambridge (I don’t recall who, heard it on Radio-4) was lecturing on how these circles demonstrate aspects of Euclidian geometry, but a 6th feature was lacking out of the five which most people know about – the 6th being a deduction, and not really a new law in itself. Lo and Behold, the sixth feature was demonstrated before the academic term had ended. Maybe we should pride ourselves, in Britain, at being blessed with particularly fancy crop circles, especially those within reach of Cambridge’s maths society.

    I have not read that particular book by Sagan. Since I am a great admirer of Sagan, I shall put it on the shortlist. Thank you for the suggestion.

    The “Nothing to fear, nothing to hide” was more a question about the establishment – why do they want to put a 70-year hide on evidence in the Kelly case?

    I look forward to keeping our discussions civil – we learn more from those with whom we disagree sometimes. On the other hand, if we try to settle our differences with fists and boots, we only learn how to hate that much more effectively.

  • Jaded.

    Angrysoba:

    ‘Again, this is silly because conspiracy theorists usually beat the drum that the establishment are always telling us, “Everything to fear! Only we can protect you!”‘

    It’s certainly silly that you are unable to discern the difference between the said maxim applying to an individual; as opposed to an individual’s perception of others you humongous, Holocaust Denying berk. Don’t fret though. It’s all ok. 😉

1 5 6 7 8 9

Comments are closed.