Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
Seven years ago, David Kelly was ‘outed’ as a media source by the British government. He had apparently disagreed with the gist of a report that could bring the country to war.
He was a well respected and honoured scientist, who was a UN weapons and chemical expert. He had gone to Iraq many times and had inspected, with his team, many facilities in that country. He argued that he had not seen any evidence to confirm that there were “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD).
Despite this, he was vilified as “chaff” and a disgruntled ‘non-entity’ when he said that, what amounted to the ‘war’ file or ‘dossier’ had been “sexed-up”.
I remember that I wanted to go and see Dr Kelly give evidence at parliament, because I felt that there was something not-quite-right about the speed at which he had been summoned to give evidence.
The atmosphere seemed febrile and tense. I was curious why there appeared to be an attack on this publically unknown UN weapons expert. For basic reasons, (money), I was unable to personally attend David Kelly’s evidential session in Parliament, but I was able to watch the filmed session, very soon afterwards.
I was both shocked and horrified at the rough treatment he received at the hands of the Committee members (i.e. the MP’s). In particular, the MP who verbally laid into Dr Kelly, by calling him “chaff” was especially appalling. If I did not know better, I would have assumed that the whole committee had been primed to attack Dr Kelly. I also watched intently because I had been approached to give evidence on the controversial subject of racial discrimination against Black people in the UK, and had started to ‘feel’ the cold wind of an invisible ‘attack’ on my credibility. I was informed that all potential witnesses once identified were under the “protection of parliament”. I saw no evidence of “parliamentary protection” of witnesses.
As I watched Dr Kelly’s treatment, I thought to myself, “so this is how it works...if they don’t like being told ‘the facts’, they go into attack modality”.
Soon after this, we heard that Dr Kelly was dead. The public later had it explained to them that he had “been found in the woods” and had “committed suicide”. Oddly, Tony Blair had been telephoned, mid-flight, with the news.
I asked myself the question, what did David Kelly’s death have to do with the then prime minister, Tony Blair? What was his involvement? What was so urgent in this case, that there was a need to call the prime minister and tell him that a man publically described as “chaff” had killed himself. Who or more accurately, what government department had taken it upon themselves to deal with David Kelly? The public were and are still disturbed by this case.
Yesterday (Saturday 26 June 2010) two reporters claimed that there is new evidence had appeared that would warrant the reopening of the Kelly case. I am not surprised to hear this, since I attended a large part of the Hutton Inquiry, which was supposed to operate as a de facto inquest. During the Hutton process, we noted several ‘odd’ things about some of those that gave evidence. For example, the doctor who was sent to Kelly’s body seemed nonchalant about the apparent death scene and the tiny knife used.
I discussed the blood around Kelly, and on his clothing to some colleagues, and one amazingly suggested that “they wanted to look as if he were praying in the Muslim way...blood on the knees”.
The regulars at the Hutton Inquiry, were not odd-balls with some strange obsession with death, but sensible people, who, generally wanted answers to this strange death.
We saw many many unredacted documents that were incredibly detailed and caused many more questions to be asked. There was one occasion where it was suggested that the civil service had a sinister ‘arm’, where smearing was regularly used as a tool to discredit individuals.
I heard how “people could be described as mad or Walter Mitty characters”, if they had ‘challenged’ received policy in the civil service. I also heard that civil servant’s homes could be ‘visited’ by “unknown superiors” at ‘any time’. These “unknown” persons came bearing gifts. Apparently, the favourite ‘gift’ was a bunch of ‘yellow freesias’. Some former civil servants said they feared ‘the visit’. The implication being that there was MI5 or MI6 involvement.
Other ‘odd’ days, were when Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair gave evidence. I was able to get in to see Campbell, who seemed strangely distant, but arrogantly confident.
However, I was blocked from entry, when Tony Blair came to give evidence. I joined the public cue. In a sinister move, I was left out of the court despite everybody else being let in. I was left standing outside the court, in the yard, outside the court entrance. There was an elderly couple behind me, who were so quietly incensed at my clearly being ‘targeted’, that they commented on the fact that suddenly, when I was at the head of the cue, the “court was full”. They asked me what kind of journalism did I do? I replied ‘investigative’. They nodded their heads to each other in acknowledgement. They then encouraged by by saying, “you must be doing something right...they’ve locked you out...keep the good work going”.
It was only when we saw a helicopter above our heads, and cars steaming away from the court, that I was tersely informed by a court official “you can go in the court now”. The elderly couple and I were forced to stand quietly outside the High Court for the full session of Tony Blair’s evidence. I noted my treatment. As people started to pour out of the court-house, we heard people generally describe Tony Blair, as “sweating” and “not genuine and evasive”. Some also saliently expressed the view that “he did it!”
Now we discover that Lord Hutton has thrown a heavy veil a secrecy over some pertinent documents, using a section of the data protection act. Lord Hutton, (who was personally appointed by Tony Blair) has ordered an extraordinary secrecy order which means that medical records, post-mortem reports and pictures of doctor Kelly’s injuries cannot be seen for 70 years.
This has been objected to by a group which includes MPs, and top medical and forensic specialists. They want this information opened up for public scrutiny. They suggest, that in their expert opinion, David Kelly could not have died from the injuries claimed in the conclusions of Hutton Report. They successfully accessed Kelly’s death certificate.
Meanwhile, the journalists who have turned up new evidence, also concur with this view, and tell us that the wording of Dr Kelly’s death certificate indicate that he did not die where he was found. There is also the presence of an anonymous letter which threatened Dr Kelly’s colleagues, warning them not to attend his funeral. Also contained within the letter is the claim that police and others, visited/’raided’ Dr Kelly’s home before he was found dead, and ripped the wallpaper from the walls of several rooms.
Had Dr Kelly’s, and his home been under surveillance, and had his home been loaded with bugs, that, now he was dead, had to be ‘swept’ out of his house?
There was also the claim that a van was driven to the Kelly home, with a “large long aerial sticking from the top”. Mrs Kelly and her family had been told to leave their home, and stand in the garden. Was this the communications vehicle used to communicate and update Tony Blair with development of events?
Was this the van used to speak to Tony Blair whilst he was flying to a meeting in Japan?
The death certificate says that Dr Kelly was ‘found dead at Harrowdown Hill, Longworth, Oxon’ on the 18 July 2003. The place of death is not exactly identified. The question is why not?
This question only adds to the public’s view that there is some secret ‘hit-squad’ out there, that ‘takes out’ and ‘eliminates’ perceived ‘enemies of the state’. They are even more worried, that if there is a secret ‘hit-squad’, who controls and commands them? The public cannot ignore the fact that Tony Blair was personally telephoned, whilst on a plane, possibly by this frighteningly sinister and secret element of the state.
The question of exactly where David Kelly died, is very important, because, there is an automatic legal requirement for an inquest, where there is a death that involves violence, is unexpected or is unusual. There was no inquest here.
The “hit-squad” theory begins to hold more power in the public mind, when also takes into consideration, the fact that despite a heat-seeking helicopter flying over David Kelly’s home, and the woods in which he was eventually found, it did not pick up on the presence of his body, which must have still been warm. How could that have happened?
It is argued that Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, was the “Commander” who, at arms-length, in effect ordered a “hit” on David Kelly. The argument continues that since the influential Dr Kelly could have stymied and eventually frustrated Tony Blair’s call for war against Iraq, he was then considered Tony Blair’s personal enemy, and therefore, fortuitously and by extension, became “an enemy of the state”.
Just briefly, going back to a secret “hit Squad”. There must have been secret files of dossiers written about Dr Kelly. If they intelligence within those files, were wrong or outright lies.
Let us hypothesise that said dossier held mis-information (or smears) within it. Smears, (defamations) that was so damning against Dr Kelly, that this secret “hit squad” were automatically ‘activated’ and motivated to kill him on “grounds national security”.
This hypothesis, emits strong element of truth, when we remember that Alistair Campbell chaired a meeting with Department of Defence Chiefs of Staff, and senior Security & Intelligence personnel, where he commanded them to “beef-up” the ‘war dossier’, for “presentational purposes”. It should be noted that the Intelligence side, included, Sir John Scarlett, who Campbell, some years later, described as “a good mate”.
Did these arrangements mean that if and when questions were asked, he (Campbell) and Tony Blair could point to the final ‘war dossier’ and look the public square in the eye and claim that the war was “Justified”?
The public want to know, what was Sir John Scarlett’s personal input throughout the whole process? Was he personally in charge of this secret “hit squad”, if it exists? Who was involved in ordering the escalation of the campaign of ill-treatment against David Kelly at his Whitehall workspace – his desk was cleared of all his belongings, his computer was removed and he was left with only a telephone on his desk, until, even that was taken away.
And what about the then Met Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair (now Lord Blair)? He and Chief Inspector (now Superintendent) Alan Young, of the Thames Valley police were never questioned by the Hutton Inquiry. Why not? One would have assumed that they were crucial to events at Dr Kelly’s home, and to finding out where exactly he died.
So, let us examine Sir Ian Blair for a moment. He once headed something called the CIB, (Complaints Investigations Bureau), and CIBIC (Complaints Investigations Bureau Intelligence Cell). During his time there, the ‘Untouchable’ Ian Blair, as assistant chief constable, at Thames Valley police, had had many serious complaints of corruption against him and his team. It was claimed among other things, that he corruptly “leant on witnesses”causing them to perjure themselves in court. Although the complaints were “corroborated”, the complaints were not ‘upheld’. The complainants complained of a “cover-up”, but nothing was ever done by Scotland Yard to follow up verifications that complaints of corruption had been “corroborated”. In plain language, nothing was done to stop the now highly rewarded ‘Lord’ Blair.
On the matter of why a statutory inquest was not held, an Inquest was indeed opened by Oxfordshire Coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, on 21 July 2003. However it was adjourned and closed indefinitely, by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer (him of the dodgy ‘dome’). This had never been done before in English Legal history for a single individual. No public explanation was ever given as to why an ‘Inquiry’ was set up for this single case.
Charles Falconer, had been personally appointed by Tony Blair, and was his former ‘flatmate’ (the suggestion in the press generally being that he was one of Tony Blair’s homosexual lovers alongside former Prime Minister Gordon Brown).
Despite public outcry, Falconer decided to usurp a legally-binding public inquest, and insert the Hutton ‘Inquiry’. Attempts were made to reassure the public that the Irish Lord Hutton’s non-legally-binding ‘Inquiry’ would be just as good as a rigourous coroner’s Inquest. This assertion turned out not to be true.
Things took an even stranger twist, when it was discovered, that a completed death certificate had been produced on 14th August 2003 saying that Dr Kelly’s cause of death was a “Haemorrhage” and that an inquest had taken place on the 14th August 2003.
Since the Hutton Inquiry did not start until the 1 August and did not end until 24th September 2003. This was a highly irregular and astounding move. No death certificate had ever been issued in this way, in the middle of what should have been a coroner’s inquest, in the whole of English legal history. Not only that, but clearly an inquest had never taken place. So the death certificate was doubly misleading. So on what evidence was the death certificate registered and which named medical practitioners certified it?
One also has to ask other additional questions. Was Lord Hutton notified that the death certificate was registered, and if so, when?
Why and when was the death certificate allowed to be registered before the conclusion of the inquiry? Where was David Kelly’s death certificate registered? And was his wife and family informed?
Was the Hutton Inquiry a fait accompli, a foregone conclusion, a display put on simply for public consumption and deception?
To compound the horrific effects of this sick farce, Hutton did not have the same legal powers as a coroner.
In any event, it turned out that Judge Lord Hutton, could not call a jury; summons witnesses; hear evidence under oath or interrogate witnesses in the same way as a coroner. Therefore, if witnesses attended his ‘Inquiry’, it was only as a favour and out of the ‘goodness of their hearts’, not as a legal duty and obligation.
The public and the press felt cheated, and described his ‘Inquiry’ as a “cover-up” and “a whitewash”.
Therefore, key witnesses could reassure themselves that in giving ‘evidence’, even if they were lying, or found to be lying, they could not legally ‘perjure’ themselves, and therefore could not be prosecuted, or otherwise legally punished in retrospect.
In Tony Blair’s case, he walked away from being the responsible Prime Minister, to being a multi-millionaire pound ‘international’ adviser and public speaker. He even attempted to become the first President of Europe (he was unsuccessful).
However, when he stepped down as Prime Minister on the 27th June 2007, he ironically confirmed as the Envoy for “the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers” – comprised of the UN, EU, Russia and the US.
Included in his duties, within his ‘mandate’, he was to “focus on building Palestinian institutions, promoting the rule of law, mobilising international support for the peace process and encouraging economic growth”. Interestingly enough, his remit includes “liaising with other countries, donors and agencies...”
It seems that Mr Blair has taken his remit very personally, and used his role to enrich himself, through his secret business arrangements, which include the Windrush Development Partnership.
He has also financially benefitted from various ‘wars’ (including ‘war on drugs’) in which he was directly involved. Countries such as Sierre Leone, Liberia, Rwanda, Israel, Iraq, a few of the Afghanistan have seen Tony Blair being paid vast sums for his disputed ‘advisory’ skills. He has also been financially rewarded by questionable and even tyrannical leaders, who are not averse to practicing torture on their citizens, political dissidents or political rivals.
Meanwhile, in the period between his resignation in 2007 and now, the Ministry of Justice, has sat tight on documents which would throw light on the case. An MP has applied for the information under the Freedom of Information Act. However, the request was refused under section 41, of the act. This section of the Freedom of Information Act, is known as an ‘absolute exemption’, where there is no chance of challenging the decision.
The Ministry of Justice is therefore under no obligation to reveal the information, and has indicated that it will not do so.
In regards to the activities of cabinet ministers, who were close to the ‘Iraq War’ scene at the time, former Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, should bear some scrutiny.
Geoff Hoon, who later became the Leader of the House of Commons, was apparently red-hot with anger, when Tony Blair sacked him from that job. It is said he wrote a resignation letter, and intended to make a speech about “the Kelly affair”. He was said to have told his friends that the combination of the letter and the speech “could trigger the instant downfall of the Prime Minister” (Tony Blair).
As Geoff Hoon gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry, this throws up a myiad of questions. What did Geoff Hoon know and not say that could have explained what happened to David Kelly?
There must have been an element of guilt on Hoon’s part, because he visited Dr Kelly’s widow, soon after his death to ‘apologise’ personally. Hoon, when asked, has never denied he has more to say on the matter. If this is the case, then it is an absolute imperative to reopen the Coroner’s inquest.
At this stage, with the new coalition government, the only people with the power to order the reopening of the coroner’s inquest, and overturning the 70-year gagging order laid down by Lord Hutton, is the new Attorney General, Dominic Grieve and the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke.
Dr Kelly was recognised as one of the world’s most eminent experts in WMD and biological and chemical weapons, and yet he was disparagingly called a “Walter Mitty character” by several government ministers, (including Margaret Hodge) at the time. He was also called a “middle-ranking” official of no consequence. How wrong they were.
Baring in mind that Kelly turned out to be right in his assessment that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, it is in all our interests, for those who can, to order the reopening of his coroner’s inquest.
Not just for him, but for all those without a voice who may have been subjected to the same processes as Dr Kelly.
He so happened to be a decorated official, who had the highest security clearance. But what about those (extra) ‘ordinary’ folk, who were subjected to the same processes as Kelly? Should the public be fearful that if they unwittingly ‘cross’ the government, they too will be eliminated?
As a final thought, Dr Kelly was aware of Project Coast - a South African post-apartheid, research project aimed at producing biological and chemical weapons aimed at destroying the Black community and leaving the whites intact. Was there any possibility that, however vicariously, Dr Kelly could have exposed UK and US involvement in such illegal and heinous human experiments?
Were these experiments being ‘played out’ on British streets, in British hospitals, police stations and prison, in the same way that they were in America? Would Britain have it first American style “Angola prison” peopled with over 95% Black prisoners?
The British state, through their police military forces, now have the vast majority of Black individual DNA on their national databases. Did Kelly’s death have anything to do with him being aware of how the “Black Final solution” would be played out?
Dr Kelly’s connection in the shadowy world of doctors who willingly participated in ‘race-hate’ genetic/genome research had a far and wide reach. Would it have been the case, that in explaining to the public why there was no possibility that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, he would have let slip, this even more sinister crime of aggression plotted to go global by a grand ‘Masons’ plan?
Who knows, but I feel these are pertinent questions which need to be asked. I suspect that ‘Operation’ Free ‘Mason’, has a far-wider range and scope than we all expected. Who knows where this could lead? A coroner’s inquest today, A Truth Commission tomorrow?
