Note: The Kelly death has always stunk to high Heaven. My correspondence with the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, who was an early political doubter, is immediately below.
To take a few circumstantial oddities which tend not to be normally remarked upon.:
1. The Kelly family's behaviour was abnormal. The normal response of those suffering a dramatic bereavement which is suspicious is to go hard at the most likely culprits. The Kelly family did the exact opposite. Odds one that they had the official frighteners put on them.
2. The behaviour of mediafolk such as Andrew Gilligan and Tom Mangold in vehemently saying the death was not suspicious is best described as ludicrous. These are people normally
only too willing to rake over juicy political stories. Again, they show all the signs of having the frighteners put on them.
3. The body was cremated very rapidly to remove the possibility of another autopsy., a very strange thing in the light of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death. RH
156 Levita House, Chalton Street London NW1 1HR Tel: 0207 387 5018
To: Norman Baker MP
House of Commons
07 September 2006
Dear Mr Baker,
I have read your Mail on Sunday article and watched your TV interview
on the Sunday Programme (GMTV - 3 7 2006) which also contained
interview with Tom Mangold. I agree that Kelly's death is highly
suspicious and commend you for re-opening debate on the matter.
I see that Rowena Thursby is asking for help in carrying the
investigation forward. I do not have any inside information but I think
I might be able to help you in terms of your general investigative
thrust and strategy for drumming up sustained interest within the
media. You will find comments under the following heading:
General investigative thrust
Points to consider and questions to ask
The murder hypothesis
The behaviour of the Kelly family, the media and politicians since
General investigative thrust
I suggest you concentrate primarily on two things: contradictory
statements made by those whose words have been recorded publicly,
family, workmates, and ascertainable facts such as whether Kelly left
handed (see below).
The problem with using arguments based on such things as medical
judgements is that they are just that, judgements, not fact. Moreover,
in the case here, there is no conclusive physical cause of death, or
at least, not one which can be proved on the available evidence. The
general public (and many MPs) is also unlikely to follow technical
The advantages of concentrating on contradictory statements are:
(1) the general public can readily understand such information,
(2) it is not a matter of opinion but fact whether someone has
contradicted themselves at different times or contradicted another
person and (3) if the people and organisations involved can be
challenged about the discrepancies they have no meaningful wriggle
room, because they are faced with objective facts - any refusal to
answer would be pro-murder thesis circumstantial evidence.
Points to consider and questions to ask
I suggest you raise these matters publicly (you do not appear to have
done so from the publicly available material - my apologies in advance
if you have):
1. Kelly was within months of drawing a civil service pension. He
had a sick wife who needed treatment which was not available under
the NHS and he was thinking of taking up a new job in the US
after he retired from the civil service to make money to pay for
treatment for her. Dr Kelly had a daughter about to be married
in a few weeks.
2. Kelly would surely have known that suicide would mean that his
widow would at best get a widow's pension. He would also know that
any life assurance he had would be invalidated by suicide. By
committing suicide, he would have been leaving his sick
wife with considerably less support than he could have
provided had he remained alive and continued working for
someone other than the British government.
3. Slashing the wrists is a very painful way to die. If you have
ever had blood taken from the wrist for testing you will have some
vague idea of the excruciating pain a deep cut would engender.
Death through cutting a wrist is not an obvious way to commit
suicide if the person wishes to definitely kill himself. Why
not use pills or drive the family car to a quiet spot and run a
tube from the exhaust to the closed car interior? All perfectly
simple and requiring far less nerve than slashing a wrist deeply.
4. Check whether Kelly owned a gun. If he did, the question
would have to be why not use that?
5. Check whether Kelly was right or left handed. If he was
lefthanded it is improbable in the extreme that he would have used
his right hand to cut his left wrist. I suspect he may have been
left handed simply from the way he held himself when he was before
the Commons Select Committee. That is just the sort of detail a
killer might overlook, ie, he or she would assume Kelly was right
handed and cut the left wrist.
6. Check whether Kelly had any medical condition, such
as arthritis or rheumatism, or injury which would have
prevented him either using his right hand or so impaired it
he would not have been able to make the cut in his wrist.
If Kelly was left handed or incapacitated by a medical condition, that
alone would scupper the suicide claim.
The murder hypothesis
You have been very circumspect to date about who might have done it or
why. I realise that such matters are pure speculation but to maintain
media and public interest I think it important for you to lay out
publicly the possible motives for murder and the possible players
in a murder. You would not be accusing anyone of anything merely
putting forward the possibilities.
Why would anyone wish to kill Dr Kelly? The short easy answer is
because he held information which could terminally damage
politicians or members of the security services. The politicians
and security services could be either British or foreign. Suppose,
for example, Kelly could prove that the dossier had been
deliberately enhanced far beyond any intelligence appreciation of the
evidence. Perhaps Kelly had been threatening privately to go public
with something fundamentally damaging or that someone simply feared
might do. It could even be that Kelly did not hold damaging
information but someone feared he did.
A more Machiavellian possibility is that Kelly was killed to
deliberately destabilise Blair and his Government. This could have been
a foreign government, a foreign security service or the British
security services. John Reid claimed not long after the Kelly death
that "rogue elements" within the security services were
attempting to destabilise the government with dirty tricks.
Conceivably Kelly could have been killed by a single individual
in government or working in the security field, who feared
he would reveal something to compromise them.
Kelly was killed by someone with a personal grudge against him
which had nothing to do with his work or the information he gave the
The last would seem to me to be improbable going on absurd.
The others are plausible to a greater or lesser degree.
As you know from our meetings regarding the Data Protection Tribunal
and MI5, I am a retired Inland Revenue officer. Part of my Revenue
career was spent on investigations. When you do that kind of work you
become very sensitive to the signals, verbal and non-verbal, which
people give out, especially people under stress - posture, facial
expression, speech delivery, content of speech etc.
During the GMTV programme to my mind Mangold was giving out
signals that he was frightened and pretty frightened at that, viz: face
lacking variety of expression, tense posture, nervous hand movements,
eyes constantly looking slightly away from the camera - very odd for an
experienced BBC journalist.
As for his language, it is a curious mixture of the sort of over
emphatic speech which one commonly encounters in a saloon bar
into the evening ("Ludicrous", "shadow of doubt" etc) and Mills and
Boon ("This was a man with a very fine mind who thought, 'Oh God I
can't get out of this "....). His statement also had all the hallmarks
of being well-rehearsed rather than spontaneous. It would be
interesting to see Mangold challenged by an interviewer because
with a prepared statement which does not fit reality will struggle for
lying is more demanding than telling the truth.
Here are some Mangold statements from the GMTV interview:
"I think Mr Baker could save his time and energy and should have
stayed on the front bench. An enquiry into the Kelly Affair to find
out if there is the possibility of murder and if so by who is a
complete and utter waste of time. "
"Nothing ever happened by accident with David, you know. What he did
was always calculated..."
"I am sorry to say to my mind there is not a shadow of doubt that he
committed suicide, not a scintilla of doubt..."
"Something awful happened around 11.00 o'clock..."
"This is a man who had a very fine mind... who thought 'Oh God, I
can't get out of this'..."
"I think Janice realised something awful had happened to
David mentally She went upstairs and was sick a couple of times. She
laid down. I think she had already decided that she was beginning to
"The question of the possibility murder is so ludicrous you
only have to think about it for a couple of minutes..."
"This case was investigated by the local police, the county police,
Scotland Yard, Special Branch, MI5, MI6 had a man present and the CIA
had a man present because the Americans were very interested in this.
So, we are taking about seven top flight agencies
investigating this, never mind Hutton, put Lord Hutton to one side.
Are we to believe that all these agencies fooled by the murderers
or that they conspired together to cover up the murder? It is too
silly to contemplate, too silly to contemplate."
I particularly enjoyed the sight of a supposedly sceptical leftist
journalist putting his trust in the likes of M15 and the CIA.
Mangold's performance overall I would describe as blustering. He not
only uses the inflated language quoted above, but his conjectures about
David and Janice Kelly's states of minds are thin at best and bizarre
at worst - his " I think she [Janice Kelly] had already decided that
she was beginning to lose David..." is truly odd.
His claimed necessary scenario for a Kelly murder - abduction from
his home - is all part and parcel of his over-eager desire to rubbish
the idea of murder. Quite clearly Kelly could have been (1) either
abducted by people simply waiting for him to go on what appears to have
been a favourite walk or (2) the phone call he received at 11.00 am may
have resulted in him going out to meet someone, perhaps someone
knew, and then being abducted. The e-mail he sent to Judy Miller, a
New York Times writer who had used Kelly as a source for a book on
biological terrorism, in which Kelly wrote of "many dark actors playing
games" (Daily Telegraph 20 7 2003) may well have been sent after he
received the 11.00 am phone call. Perhaps the phone call prompted the
phrase, perhaps the call came from Mai Pedersen.
So outlandishly out of character is Mangold's behaviour that it could
be interpreted as someone trying to signal that what he was saying he
did not believe by being so over the top as to be absurd.
There is something called microexpressions. These are fleeting
expressions which pass over a person's face so rapidly that they are
either barely discernible at the conscious level or not discerned at
all. I suggest that you have the Mangold interview played in slow
motion, the slower the better, and see what his microexpressions were
during the interview. (I do not have access to such super-slomo
equipment myself. Someone friendly to you in the media would be your
best bet). I would be willing to bet that Mangold's microexpressions
during the interview were of high anxiety verging on panic.
I also suggest you get hold of other Mangold TV performances and
compare the micro-expressions and non-verbal behaviours on those with
Mangold's performance on the GMTV Programme.
Gilligan's article "Those who say David was murdered are so wrong"
(The Evening Standard 24 July 2006) is, if anything, even odder than
Mangold's TV performance. Gilligan begins the article by suggesting why
Kelly was not an obvious suicide candidate, viz:
"As well as being upset, I was very, very surprised. I hadn't known
David all that well - I'd never met his family, for instance - but he
didn't strike me as the suicidal type, if there is such a thing."
"He was quite used to confrontation and pressure: he'd been a weapons
inspector in Iraq, for goodness sake. I thought his famous grilling by
the Foreign Affairs Committee had been distasteful, and symptomatic of
the committee's stupidity, but it hadn't been that bad.
"And anyway, the affair was basically over: Parliament was about to
break for the summer recess, the BBC had refused to confirm or deny
whether David was my source, and the battle between Downing Street
the BBC had reached stalemate. Politics was closing down for a month.
The row between the Government and BBC was essentially a
All those spin-doctors, toady New Labour journalists and compliant MPs
who had helped to keep it bubbling for the previous few weeks were
about to disperse to Tuscan poolsides.
"All David had to do was keep his head down and it would go away. The
Government, I thought, was unlikely to discipline him for the partial
admissions he had made about his contacts with me. They needed him
than he needed them. If anyone was going to find Tony Blair some
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it was David Kelly.
"Such were my thoughts on that morning of 18 July 2003, thoughts that
made me, at first, question whether David did actually kill himself..."
All fine and dandy, but then Gilligan proceeds to give a string of
arguments for why suicide is the best bet to explain Kelly's death.
These always either take the official line or adopts a line which
explains inconsistencies and anomalies away, viz:
"Even if the motives for David to kill himself do not, on the face of
it, seem quite strong enough, the motives for anyone else to kill him
are far, far weaker. In whose interests can it possibly have been to
murder David Kelly? The Government's? But his death plunged the
Government and New Labour into the greatest crisis in its history, a
crisis from which it has still not recovered, a crisis that has some
claim to be the turning point in the Blair premiership.
"The intelligence services? But even if you accept the (wildly false)
premise that MI5 and MI6 are rogue states within a state, popping off
their own citizens whenever they feel like it, why on earth would they
want to kill Kelly? His death didn't do them much good, either.
"The Iraqis? The Saddam regime had dissolved weeks before and its
members were hiding in holes. The Americans? Not without British
permission, surely - and, again, where's the motive?
"Looking at Baker's dossier, I notice that most of the "new questions"
it raises are actually quite old. The most important piece of evidence
questioning the official explanation is a letter written by three
(later five) doctors to The Guardian newspaper as long ago as January
2004, providing statistics which showed that it was unlikely for death
to be caused by slashing a minor artery, as David had done, and
questioning the toxicity of the co-proxamol painkillers in his blood.
"Baker has gone a little further, revealing the important fact that
only one person - David Kelly - died in this way in the UK during the
whole of 2003.
"However, Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the
University of Sheffield, points out that "the problem with the use of
statistics in any single case is that 'unlikely' does not make it
impossible". Furthermore, he said, "the toxicology [on Kelly] showed a
significant overdose of co-proxamol".
"There is also the argument that there was very little blood around
David when he was discovered. Two ambulance workers who attended
Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt, said they would expect to find several
pints of blood around someone who had died through slashing a wrist.
They believe it "incredibly unlikely" that David died from the wound
"David Kelly's place of death was, however, a field. Professor Milroy
and another forensic pathologist, Professor Guy Rutty, suggested that
the blood could easily have seeped into the ground.
"Another explanation, said Professor Milroy, might be that David's
heart condition may have made it difficult for him to sustain any
significant blood loss.
"Baker also says that calls to David's mobile were not checked by the
"If the evidence of the police to Hutton is to be believed, they were
checked. There is also some confusion about the position of the body,
with different accounts from different witnesses. But eyewitnesses, as
we know from the Jean Charles de Menezes case, are seldom
and not always reliable...
"Lord Hutton had many failings. But the verdict of suicide on David
Kelly was almost certainly one of the few things he got right.
Some of these arguments are absurd, for example the claim "...even if
you accept the (wildly false) premise that MI5 and MI6 are rogue states
within a state..." By definition Gilligan cannot know whether they do
or not. Or how about the idea that Kelly could not have killed by the
state because it embarrassed the Blair government? Kelly might well
have been in a position to do far more than embarrass Blair and co.
Ditto the intelligence services British and foreign.
Other arguments, such as those regarding blood soaking into the turf
where Kelly was found, improbable - even if the blood had soaked in it
would still have left a large surface stain. Gilligan always takes an
explanation against suicide whether it is probable or not. One or even
two improbable arguments might be accepted as reasonable as part of
explanation, a string of them cannot be,
As with Mangold's behaviour, Gilligan's article could be interpreted
as someone trying to signal that what he was saying he did not believe
by making it so over the top as to be absurd.
The behaviour of the Kelly family, the media and politicians since
The behaviour of the surviving members of the Kelly family has been of
the same general quality as that of Mangold and Gilligan: ostensibly
they have bought into what might be called the elite version of his
death. This version has two strands: the "suicide" and the
misbehaviour of the Government leading to Kelly taking his life. Mrs
Kelly and her daughter accepted both strands early in the investigation
into his death and by their evidence to the Kelly Enquiry were strident
about the Government driving David Kelly to his death.
I wonder if I am alone in finding this behaviour more than a little
odd. First of all, one might have expected some members of Kelly's
family to have different views. Second, would not any family in the
circumstances have had at least suspicions that his death was not
Soon after Kelly's death his wife Janice the New York Times reported
that: "Mrs Kelly told the paper her husband had been under enormous
stress 'as we all had been', but she had no indication he was
contemplating suicide." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3080795
. stm - 19 7 2003). If she did think that, why on earth would she so
readily accept the suicide story when there were so many features about
it which suggested otherwise?
The same willingness to accept the "suicide version" is found amongst
politicians and the mainstream media.
Why is almost everyone who could be and should be expressing public
doubts so determined not to? It is one of two things: either people
have been directly threatened by the state or agents working covertly
for the state - I suspect this has happened to the Kelly family,
Mangold and Gilligan - or people are being driven to keep quiet
because of the natural fear people feel when faced with the powerful,
ie, they feel instinctively that to question Kelly's death is
During the Hutton Enquiry there were persistent reports that the CIA
operative Mai Pedersen might appear at the hearings. She never did
despite being someone who would in all probability have been a valuable
witness. Here is what the Times reported ("American was Kelly's
spiritual mentor", 1 September 2003) at the time:
"The role of Mai Pederson, a US military linguist, in bringing Dr Kelly
to the Baha'i faith was highlighted by Mrs Marilyn VonBerg, who was
secretary of the local Baha'i assembly in Monterey, California, when Dr
Kelly converted there in 1999.
"Mrs VonBerg said Sgt Pederson was "very close" to Dr Kelly's family
and had visited them some time before his death. "He and Mai were
friends because she had taught him the faith. She is high security so
we never asked them questions. But I am sure she was his translator at
one point." The VonBerg family received a call from Ms Pederson, an
Arabic-speaker who holds the rank of senior staff sergeant, to inform
them of Dr Kelly's apparent suicide on July 17.
"All she said is: 'Don't believe what you read in the newspapers," John
VonBerg said. "I do not know which direction she was coming from. It's
very mysterious to us."
If she did say that, it is not merely intriguing but it shows she is
not exactly the tight-lipped spy. If you could get an interview with
her I suspect you might find her rather indiscreet.
If there is anything else I can do to help your enquiry I shall be more
than happy to do it.
You may reproduce, circulate and make public any information I send
Norman Baker MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A OAA
Mr Robert Henderson
156 Levita House
LONDON NW1 1HR
Dear Mr Henderson,
Thank you very much for you long and helpful email, concerning my
investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly.
I am determined to get to the bottom of this matter, but I am sure
you, more than most, will understand that it would not be prudent for
me to set down my thoughts in too much detail on paper at this point.
To do so I fear might preclude further progress in my enquiries, at
least in so far as certain directions are concerned.
You may be interested to know that I am due to see Tom Mangold
shortly, at my request, and I am sure the meeting will be an
interesting one. You ask if there is anything you can do to help. You
do in fact make some points about the use of microexpressions and it
might be helpful if you were able to carry out the sort of analysis you
refer to in your email. I do not in fact have the equipment and it is
clear that you know more about what ought to be looked for than I do.
If you were able to do this then that would be a helpful contribution
to my enquiries. If however you are not able to then I would quite
In any case, thank you very much for writing.
Norman Baker MP
11 September 2006
Our ref: HR1 109-Kelly Affair\cc
Norman Baker MP
Constituency Office: 23 East Street, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 2LJ Tel:
(01273) 480281 Fax: 480287 Email: normanbaker©cix. co. uk
http://www.normanbaker.org.uk Surgeries held every Saturday morning
Seaford, Lewes, Newhaven arid Polegate
Your MP will treat as confidential any personal information which you
pass on. He will normally allow his staff and volunteers to see this
information, so that they can find help and advice for you. Each has
signed a confidentiality agreement. In some cases your MP may need to
give all or some of this information to outside agencies
156 Levita House, Chalton Street, London NW1 1HR Tel: 0207 387 5018
Norman Baker MP
House of Commons
18 9 2006
Dear Mr Baker,
Thank you for your letter of 11 Sept. I would be more than happy to
give an analysis of Mangold's microexpressions but I regret that I
do not have access to the requisite "slo-mo" equipment. If you can gain
access to such equipment - a contact in broadcasting would be the place
to start - I will give you an analysis. However, for public
credibility you would need to get a professional working in the area (a
psychologist most probably) to give you a "formal" assessment of
Mangold's microexpressions (or anyone else's).
When you meet Mangold I suggest you concentrate on the two startling
discrepancies in his evidence to Hutton compared with his later
statements, most notably on the GMTV programme. First is his
relationship with Kelly. In the GMTV interview Mangold claimed that he
was a close friend of Kelly. In fact, he did not
meet him until 1998 and so knew Kelly for five years at most. Then there
is his testimony to Hutton, viz (he was questioned by Mr Knox):
"11 Q. How frequently would you speak to him over the years?
12 A. It was not that frequent. I spoke to him whenever I had
13 a query about biological warfare or occasionally
14 chemical warfare subjects. But it was not a frequent
16 Q. Would these be unattributable briefings?
17 A. Sometimes they were; but the major interview for the
18 book he came to my home and I spoke to him for about
19 eight hours in one day and that was on the record, that
20 was attributable.
21 Q. And his name is mentioned in the book.
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. You would meet him sometimes. Would you be able to say
24 roughly how often you would meet him?
25 A. I would say, on balance, maybe twice a year.
1 Q. And when you spoke to each other, it was generally just
2 on professional matters --
3 A. Always.
4 Q. -- or other matters as well?
5 A. But I spoke to him on the phone much more than I met
7 Q. In those telephone conversations, what did you talk
9 A. Biological warfare."
Note that not only did Mangold say his relationship with Kelly was
infrequent and professional, he ignores the double invitation from Knox
to expand his answer from his claim that they discussed only
"professional matters", viz: "or other matters as well?" and "In those
telephone conversations, what did you talk about?"
The second contradiction concerns his melodramatic claim during the
GMTV interview that "I think Janice [Kelly] realised something awful
had happened to David mentally. She went upstairs and was sick a
of times. I think she had already decided that she was beginning to
His evidence to Hutton runs:
8 Q. Did you speak to Mrs Kelly on 17th or 18th July?
9 A. Yes, I did, yes. I received a phone call on that day,
10 somewhere around 9 to 9.15, telling me that David Kelly
11 was missing.
12 Q. And you then spoke to Mrs Kelly?
13 A. Yes. I sat down and thought about that quite carefully;
14 and then I spoke to Jan, yes.
15 Q. And what did she tell you?
16 A. Well, I had very mixed emotions on that day. I knew the
17 moment I got the phone call at 9 o'clock in the morning,
18 I knew that he had to be dead because David Kelly did
19 not go missing. If he was missing, he was dead. So
20 I had a slightly difficult phone call with Janice. She
21 was still fairly upbeat and felt that he must have had
22 a heart attack or a stroke and was -- she felt he was
23 lying in a field, you know, waiting to be found.
The phone call was only "slightly difficult" and Janice Kelly was
"still fairly upbeat" and "felt he must have had a heart attack or
stroke...". No suggestion that she had given up hope in some
mysterious way even before he went missing or that she believed him to
It might seem strange to you that an educated intelligent man such as
Mangold would contradict himself in such a fashion. He must, you may
argue to yourself, have known when he gave the GMTV interview that the
contradictions would be obvious because both would be on the public
record, so why put himself in such an awkward position?
Mangold's behaviour is readily understandable. I used to see it
regularly when I worked for the Revenue. People would tell me lies
which they knew I could immediately demonstrate to be lies. For
example, an employer would claim he did not allow overtime. I would
find overtime sheets which did not appear in the wage records. I would
then interview the employer again with the overtime sheets in front of
me and ask whether he paid overtime. More often than not the employer
would deny it again despite the fact that he was staring at the
overtime sheets which he knew would immediately prove him a liar.
The reason that people behave in this seemingly bizarre fashion is
simple: they become psychologically paralysed and are incapable of
behaving rationally, because the acceptance of reality is simply too
painful or frightening. That is what has happened to Mangold. Part of
him knows that his latest story is unsustainable because of his
previous public statements, but whatever is making him do what he is
now doing - almost certainly pure undiluted fear - is simply too
difficult for him to confront.
Because of all this Mangold will be in a delicate mental state when you
meet him. If you keep banging away at these two central contradictions
- his bogus friendship with Kelly and his varying accounts of the wife's
state after the death - over and over again from my experience there is
fair chance that Mangold will lose control. If he does, he will
probably become either violently abusive or break down and tell you at
least some of the truth, even if it is in a disjointed form. Either
behaviour provides you will valuable information about Mangold.
I have also been foraging generally around on the Hutton website. Two
emails from Kelly on the 5th and 8th of July 2003 - urls below -
refer to "training" he was undergoing. It is probably a dead end
but just possibly the "training" might be a pointer to his killer or
add something useful to the circumstantial knowledge surrounding his
death. I suggest you try to find out what the "training" was and who
was involved. The urls are:
The Kelly Family
The behaviour of the Kelly Family suggests they have been frightened
into going along with the suicide line. If so, a carrot or carrots have
probably been introduced to balance the stick of threat (the same
applies to Mangold and Gilligan). I suggest you try to find out what
Mrs Kelly has received by way of Civil Service widow's pension and
gratuity. These are standard figures based on years of service so
cannot be fudged.
If Mrs Kelly has received anything more than her strict entitlement
that would suggest foul play. You should be able to get the data,
directly or indirectly, with a Commons question or use of the FOIA. If
you cannot get details of an individual, put in a request for the
anonymised details of all pensions/gratuities larger than those which
are catered for in the regulations paid out the spouses of those in
Kelly's department who died in 2003.
Following the same track, try to discover what private insurances Kelly
had against his life and whether these were (1) claimed by Mrs Kelly
and (2) paid in full or part. The amounts he was insured for, if any,
would be useful both as evidence of why he would not have committed
suicide (commit suicide and wife loses X) and to compare with what Mrs
Kelly (or any other member of her family) has received from the state
(the state may have compensated Mrs Kelly for any lost private
In an ideal world you would also want access to all of Kelly's bank
accounts and those of his family, especially that of Mrs Kelly, to see
if any unaccountable money has been introduced into them before or
since Kelly's death.
Finally, find out the value of Kelly's estate - this will be public
Note: Strange how the pathologist who did the PM could have missed such an obvious sign of death. Moreoever, if he had the attack when he was in the process of slashing his wrists, the only plausible way he could have slashed hios wrists and had the heart attack, that would have rapidly stopped any bleeding. RH
Kelly had heart attack, says pathologist
New theory questions Hutton finding over death of weapons inspector, but
says he was not murdered
By Andrew Johnson
Sunday, 15 August 2010
A retired pathologist cast further doubt yesterday on the circumstances
surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, the government weapons
inspector said to have committed suicide in 2003. She also criticised
Lord Hutton's handling of the inquiry into his death. Dr Jennifer Dyson
joined other experts questioning the official finding that Kelly bled to
death. She argued it was more likely that the 59-year-old scientist
suffered a heart attack due to the stress he had been placed under.
The intervention came as Michael Howard, the former Conservative Party
leader, became the most prominent politician to call for a full inquest
into the inspector's death. He told The Mail on Sunday that questions
over the death meant that calling a full inquiry would be "entirely
Kelly, Britain's most senior inspector in Iraq, was found dead in woods
near his home in Oxfordshire. He was revealed to be the source behind a
BBC news story which accused Tony Blair's former communications chief
Alastair Campbell of "sexing up" the so-called "dodgy dossier" about
Kelly had taken a non-lethal dose of painkillers and had cut his left
wrist. A small knife was found near his body. Unusually for such a
sudden and high-profile death, Kelly's case has never been the subject
of a full coroner's inquiry. Instead, the case was examined during the
Hutton inquiry. Lord Hutton concluded that Kelly had principally died
from "bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which Dr Kelly had
inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body". He added
that Kelly's death was hastened by the 29 pills he swallowed, and
coronary heart disease.
Many medical experts have asked why there was so little blood, and
assert that severing the ulnar artery would in itself be insufficient to
cause death. Conspiracies surrounding the death were further fuelled by
revelations that Kelly had told friends that if Iraq were invaded, "I'll
probably be found dead in the woods".
Last week a group of nine experts, including former coroners and a
professor of intensive-care medicine, wrote a letter to The Times
questioning Lord Hutton's verdict. "Insufficient blood would have been
lost to threaten life," they wrote. "Absent a quantitative assessment of
the blood lost and of the blood remaining in the great vessels, the
conclusion that death occurred as a consequence of haemorrhage is
Dr Dyson amplified last week's criticism, saying that a coroner would
probably have recorded an open verdict in the absence of absolute proof
that suicide was intended. "I don't believe he died of a loss of blood,"
she told The Independent on Sunday. "I don't know that the presence of
the knife in itself can be taken as evidence of intent to kill himself,
but there seem to have been a lot of pills in his stomach, which makes
me think that he did indeed intend to commit suicide. There appears to
be good reason to think he was in a state of distress, so my suspicion
would be that he had a coronary attack, brought on by the circumstances
he found himself in and the stress that that entailed.
"Very often you cannot say with confidence that a person has had a
coronary," Dr Dyson added. "It is a pity that Hutton usurped the
function of the coroner in this case. It was a silly thing to do. It
should have been an open verdict, as suicides often are, unless there is
pretty incontrovertible evidence. I think a trained coroner would have
brought in an open verdict. Also, I don't understand why Hutton chose to
keep the papers under lock and key for 70 years."
The nine who wrote to The Times have asked Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary
of State for Justice, to make the relevant medical records available to
experts. Yesterday he was reported to have decided that the unanswered
questions about Kelly's death can no longer be ignored.
A spokesman for Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, said he "remains
concerned" and was looking at how to take the matter further.
Evidence: Ten reasons to query the suicide verdict
1. An elbow injury had left David Kelly's right arm too weak to cut his
2. He had "difficulty swallowing pills" so he couldn't have swallowed 29
3. Medical records about the case have been classified for 70 years,
implying there's something to hide.
4. There were no fingerprints on the pruning knife used to cut his
5. He anticipated his own death, predicting he would "probably be found
dead in the woods" if Iraq was invaded.
6. Doctors doubt the severed artery would have caused enough blood loss
for him to have died of a haemorrhage.
7. The detective who found his body, Constable Graham Coe, said there
wasn't much blood, so how could he have died of blood loss after
slitting his wrist?
8. Two paramedics at the scene were sceptical the "wrist wound we saw"
could have caused his death.
9. There was no evidence he was depressed; he was looking forward to his
10. His death certificate was not signed by a doctor or coroner and does
not state a place of death.
David would never have committed suicide in that spot
Conspiracy theory: Nikolai Tolstoy believes Dr Kelly was killed
A distinguished historian and neighbour of Dr David Kelly has added to the growing clamour for an inquest by declaring he does not believe Dr Kelly committed suicide.
Count Nikolai Tolstoy said last night that the scientist's 'considerate' character meant he would never have chosen to die in a place where passers-by were likely to be shocked – particularly when he could easily have deployed more discreet and effective means of killing himself.
Tolstoy, who is an expert on Celtic mythology and the Second World War, lives in the Oxfordshire village of Southmoor where the scientist shared an old farmhouse with his wife, Janice Kelly. Dr Kelly died on nearby Harrowdown Hill, on a walking route that is widely used by locals.
'I remember the night of his death very well' Tolstoy said last night. 'There were helicopters flying overhead for hours after the body was found.
'The general view in the village is that suicide is extremely unlikely. He used to drink in our local pub and he was a very friendly and considerate man.
'I frequently walk past the spot where he died, and he would not have done something like that in a place where an old lady could have found him.
'It just seems wholly implausible that he should have chosen to saw away at his wrist with a blunt knife when there were other means available to him at home, where his wife kept various drugs for her medical conditions.'
Tolstoy, who stood as a UKIP candidate against David Cameron at the last Election, believes that Dr Kelly died because he had annoyed Tony Blair's Government.
The historian, who is a distant cousin of War And Peace author Leo Tolstoy, had his own battle with the Establishment in the Eighties when he was ordered to pay '£1.5 million damages to Lord Aldington, after making claims in a pamphlet accusing the peer of complicity in war crimes.
Tolstoy's defence against the libel action was seriously hampered when the Ministry of Defence removed vital papers from the Public Record Office which Tolstoy needed to fight his case - while Aldington found his access to war records unimpeded.
'I was in a similar position when I was attacked by the Establishment and it didn't make me feel that way [suicidal],' Tolstoy added.
'As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, you are left with what happened.
'Presumably the British Government was behind it all. I don't believe the theory that Iraqi agents murdered him – how would they have the means and the opportunity to come into the country?
'I wouldn't put anything past the Government, as I know from personal experience. When the Establishment is threatened, it closes ranks.'
Ken Clarke under pressure to release Kelly papers as Dominic Grieve waits for evidence
Kenneth Clarke is under fresh pressure to release sealed medical reports surrounding the death of David Kelly after an appeal from the Attorney General for concrete evidence that he did not kill himself.
By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
Published: 5:06PM BST 19 Aug 2010
Link to this video
The Daily Telegraph disclosed how Dominic Grieve, the Government’s senior law officer, was prepared to intervene in the controversy, after admitting that those who doubted Dr Kelly’s suicide “may have a valid point”.
Mr Grieve said he was waiting until Mr Clarke, the Justice Secretary, decided whether to release the medical documents, including the post-mortem report, which were sealed by Lord Hutton, who investigated the death in 2004, for 70 years.
The leader of a group of doctors, who are pushing for Mr Grieve to apply for a full inquest into the death, said it was “strange” that Mr Clarke was sitting on the evidence which Mr Grieve, wished to see.
Dr Michael Powers QC said: “The clamour for a full inquest is based upon the concern that neither the doctors nor the public have been given access to key information.
“It seems strange that the Attorney General too is left waiting for the release of medical evidence held by the Ministry of Justice.
"Secrecy only fuels speculation. It is time now for all the issues and unanswered questions to be explored by a coroner.”
Mr Grieve told The Daily Telegraph in an interview that the Government wanted to resolve the controversy. He said: “We would like to resolve this in a way that can give the public reassurance.
“People who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose end may have a valid point.”
Pressed later on television whether he thought there had been a “cover-up” over Dr Kelly’s death by the last Government, Mr Grieve, told ITV News: “"I have no reason to think... that there has been a cover-up.
“I know that some people have put some theories forward but if you're, going to put a theory forward like that you need some evidence.
“As matters stand at the moment I haven't seen any evidence but if there is any evidence my office is the place to send it to.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The request for the release of papers is currently under consideration”.
Dr Kelly’s body was found in a wood near his home in Oxfordshire in July 2003 shortly after he was exposed as the source of a BBC report which said the Government had exaggerated the grounds for the war in Iraq.
His death led to an inquiry by Lord Hutton which concluded that he had, killed himself, using a knife to cut his wrist and taking an overdose of co-proxamol painkillers.
But conspiracy theorists have suggested there might be more to his death, particularly as Lord Hutton ordered that the post mortem remain ,secret for 70 years ““in view of the distress that could be caused to Dr Kelly’s wife and daughters”.
Attorney General will step in to end speculation over David Kelly death
The Attorney General has signalled that he is prepared to intervene in the controversy over the death of Dr David Kelly, admitting that those who doubted his suicide “may have a valid point”.
By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
Published: 11:14PM BST 18 Aug 2010
Link to this video
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dominic Grieve said he hoped to settle any concerns about the government scientist’s death to “give the public reassurance”.
His remarks raise the prospect that a full inquest, which could see Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and other senior Labour figures questioned in public, could finally be held. But the Attorney General said that before he applied for such a hearing he would need convincing evidence that the weapons expert had not committed suicide.
Dr Kelly’s body was found in a wood near his home in Oxfordshire in July 2003, shortly after he had been exposed as the source of a BBC report which said the government had exaggerated the grounds for the war in Iraq.
Rather than the usual inquest, his death led to an inquiry by Lord Hutton which concluded that he had killed himself, using a knife to cut his wrist and taking an overdose of painkillers.
But conspiracy theorists have suggested there may be more to his death, particularly as Lord Hutton ordered that the results of the post mortem examination remain secret for 70 years.
Senior politicians and doctors have now called for a full inquest to examine in public how the scientist came to die.
Mr Grieve said: “We would like to resolve this in a way that can give the public reassurance.”
He added: “People who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose end may have a valid point.”
Concerns over Dr Kelly’s death intensified last week, when a group of doctors signed a letter stating that the official explanation was “extremely unlikely”.
The principal cause was given as bleeding from a severed ulnar artery, a finding which the group argued was unsafe.
Det Con Graham Coe, who found the body, also said earlier this month that there had not been much blood at the scene. Calls for an inquest have come from the former Labour defence minister Peter Kilfoyle and the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker. At the weekend, Lord Howard of Lympne, the former Conservative leader, added his voice.
Dr Andrew Davison, a Home Office pathologist, responded by saying that the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death were “not a game of Cluedo” and should be left to the experts.
Because a full inquest was never carried out, Mr Grieve is able to apply to the High Court for one as the most senior legal officer in England and Wales, under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners’ Act. Normally, this is done on behalf of the deceased’s family.
However, Mr Grieve said he could not apply on a “hunch” and had to take account of the feelings of Dr Kelly’s close family, who have not called for a fresh investigation.
A High Court judge would only agree to order an inquest if Mr Grieve could prove such a course was in the interests of justice.
“I have been given no evidence to suggest an alternative cause of death,” Mr Grieve said.
“If new evidence is put to me I can consider if an application should be made to the High Court that a fresh inquest goes ahead.” Mr Grieve said he was unable to take any action until Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, decided whether to release a number of key documents from an archive used by Lord Hutton for his report.
Their release was requested by the doctors who raised their concerns last week.
The archive includes Dr Kelly’s post mortem examination report, which Lord Hutton ordered sealed “in view of the distress that could be caused to Dr Kelly’s wife and daughters”.
The request was under consideration, a Ministry of Justice spokesman said